Jenksismyhero

49ers - 4/1 Pats/Packers - 6/1 Broncos - 7/1 Bears - 8/1 Keep in mind of course that this means nothing. The Cowboys are 10/1 and I'd be shocked if they made the playoffs next year.

Vigilante!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/star-p...ard_648688.html You'd think the people that did the commercial would have asked him "so, what do you think about Obama" before airing this thing.

On my way to Union Station last night I was walking over the Adams street bridge as a tour boat was going by. I heard the tour guide say something like "and if you look up, you'll see the tallest building in North America, the Willis Tower, formerly known as the Sears Tower." I small part of me died when I heard that.

Yeah I wasn't sure. I noticed some people in here were only up to season 2/3 so I didn't want to ruin anything.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 16, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) Are you watching the same show everyone else is? Just curious. "I'm not IN danger. I AM THE DANGER." I watched the finale from last season before the premiere. Walt is frazzled, nervous, unsure, etc. etc. when he's trying to rig that bomb on Gus' car. He's not this stone-faced "don't question me" character. Yes, there's a progression from season 1 and he just took down his biggest nemesis so he's very confident. But he's never been so in-your-face about it before. Sorry, but that scene with Saul where it's a close-up and he's breathing like Christan Bale as Batman was a bit much. Clearly this is a new Walt, look at Jessie's reaction when he says "because I said so" or whatever in the back of the car. He turns around like "what the f***? Who are you?"

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 16, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) He's not the same person he was in season one. Odds are that attitude is what ends up being his downfall, however that happens. He's not, but he's always been a nervous wreck about things and never seemed comfortable having to perform X job to get him out of trouble. That was the case even last year in the finale The sudden flip seems just that - sudden.

I enjoyed the episode a lot, but couldn't help but think a few times "wow, this is really over the top." Whereas the "I forgive you line" worked, the "it's not over until I say it's over" in Saul's office and the "because I said so" in the back of the car with Mike and Jessie felt forced and out of character. Yes, Walt is a bad ass. Yes, Walt thinks his s*** doesn't stink. But Walt was good when he was outsmarting/outmaneuvering people in an "innocent" sort of way. He was a bumbling idiot (criminally speaking) with crazy knowledge about science. This episode mad him more Rambo-like which just didn't fit. The "I forgive" line worked so well because that's your typical Walt - totally oblivious to what others are thinking/feeling at the moment. He was only concerned with what he thought Skylar would want to hear. He has no idea that she is truly afraid of him now and that emotional connection is long gone.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/13...-policy-change/ Welfare trending back towards pre-90's status. Great.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 11:57 AM)

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 12:00 AM) I don't even like Dr. Pepper, I was just interested in the idea of it. Here is his video.... I've done slow-cooker pork with dr. pepper before with other spices. There's so much sugar in the drink that it's basically just taking the place of adding some brown sugar in a rub. It's tasty.

Whoa, on the train this morning I hit 3/4 of the way through Book 3 of Game of Thrones (A Storm of Swords)....holy crap.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) I don't think your employer is legally allowed to require you to see another doctor of their choosing. I found this, which seems to be relevant: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-f...ies-may-buy-you edit: I should add that my background knowledge here is essentially zero, so when I said "I don't think" I wasn't making a strong statement at all. That's a slightly different issue. Once you establish that you're in need of medical leave, you're not required to continue proving it to your employer. Most major employers that would be impacted by this sort of thing have occupational health centers with contracted rates. I don't think it's illegal to require that you go to that physician for employment related health issues, at least as a first option.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) Which, in this case, I'm fine with, because it isn't really my business. Maybe it's his constituents' business but that's a much different relationship than between your employer and you. I'm genuinely curious as to how much you have to divulge to your employer. As far as I know they have a right to just about everything, limited to the request for leave. They're funding it, so why not? You're protected by the ADA if they take adverse action against you. I'm sure they'd require you to see their own doctor before approving it anyway, so they'll know about it one way or the other.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) It's a private medical issue. I don't care or need to know the details of Kirk's condition, either. How much information is your employer entitled to if you have to go on long-term leave? Um, all of it. They need to verify your request is legitimate.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) That's a good point. I always figured it was a pipe dream to get him anyway, this way Groce doesn't have to waste his time recruiting someone he can't get. It just shows how far Illinois has fallen though, if the top player in the state doesn't even have them in the top 10. This. I think the writing was on the wall the first time Groce met him the Parkers. They basically told him there's no way we can build a relationship in time. It would have been dumb for Parker to come here for a year on a mediocre team anyway. So whatever, focus on Nunn and then get some of the top guys in 2014 and 2015.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 11:59 PM) Am I the only one to find the ESPN The Mag Body Issue...weird and creepy? Gronkowski with a pinata on his nuts? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting from this. You didn't enjoy the 40 something year old jockey? Yeah the whole thing was/is weird to me. It started more as a look at the body of a professional athlete (toned but beat up with tons of scars). Then other people like the Williams sisters got involved and it became more of a swimsuit issue/sexual thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) I'm pretty sure the moral of that story is that only the wealthy deserve to procreate. eta: the "moral" of the story is simply a profile of the life of American rural poor as experienced by one family. No doubt, and that's a problem I recognize. I just get tired of reading these stories and no one ever talks about the fact that these people shouldn't be having kids in the first place. That's put them in an insurmountable position in life before they even get started. That should be part of the education of the issue but it never is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) I'm pretty sure the moral of that story is that only the wealthy deserve to procreate. Yeah, what a terrible thing to think - when you're a parent you should be able to provide basic things for your kids. The horror! Seriously though, she made minimum wage since she was 15 living in one of the poorest counties in the country. She did nothing in her life to advance herself to be able to have children. It's the epitome of irresponsibility. Why the hell should I feel sorry for her? It's not like it was one mistake, but two! How do you not have a conversation with your husband about this? Wife: "You know husband, I'd really like to have a kid." Husband: "Yeah, but we don't make any money." Wife: "Well, we could hold off until we have some savings, or we could go to college or a technical school to make some decent money......NAH, f*** it, let's just have a kid. Hell let's have two!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) http://prospect.org/article/pressing-upward-way/ (much more at the link) What a decision to have two children while making minimum wage. No mistakes though!

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) Then in that case I think letting him walk > Brook Lopez on a max deal, crippling contract. And I'm sure the Lakers and Rockets have SOME offer that has been on the table. Risking acquiring an injury-risk, poor rebounding, low D presence max contract center in order to gain LATE first round draft picks is pretty dicey. Lakers and Rockets aren't making a deal without Howard promising that he'll resign. He started this crap about only signing an extension with the Nets, which is why half the league needs to be involved to get the numbers to work out. Even if the Lopez contract is an albatross (it will be), if you can get enough pieces to get another lottery pick then you've done pretty well for yourself. They'll suck for a few years, draft well, get the next superstar big man and be in this same position in 10 years.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 11:10 AM) Obviously that is better than letting him walk but it doesn't mean its the best possible deal available. I haven't heard of any better offers.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 10:58 AM) Someone drill their GM over the head and remind him he is trading a HoF center and top 5 NBA player in his prime. You don't get back Brook f***ing Lopez on a max deal, 4 other players ranging from awful to useless and multiple draft picks that will be buried at the end of the first round. The Lopez thing I agree, but getting some scrubs and some 1st round picks that you can trade for lottery picks is better than letting the guy walk and getting zero for it at the end of this year (plus all the drama that he'll bring this entire season).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 06:48 PM) But there's no evidence that they won't agree to it other than in the past they preferred a different cut-off. Not every single democrat needs to agree on policy before starting to negotiate with republicans. The other side won't come to the table, and this is just a weak "both sides do it" deflection. In a series of posts decrying the influence of money on our politics, you've managed to blame prominent democrats, assert that they can't even after with each other let alone anyone else to get things done and haven't mentioned the group who is going to get close to a billion dollars from a handful of plutocrats this year. Comparing two different but similar policy preferences from Pelosi and Obama to an inability to pass compromise legislation with the other party is just silly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 04:33 PM) But the whole way you framed that post still doesn't make any sense. You brought that up as an example of how nobody can compromise and get things done. Obama's reasonable $250k position, as you called it, is further away from a compromise than Pelosi's $1M position. That whole section of the post doesn't make any sense if it's b****ing about pandering to the wealthy. Yeah my post (1) isn't that complicated and (2) isn't about "getting things done." I'm not arguing that our system sucks because no one can agree so everything just gets stuck in the mud. I'm saying Obama's position is pretty reasonable given the circumstances and benefits the most people. Yet our system is f***ed up because politicians on the same side of the aisle (who should be backing him) won't agree to it because they're beholden to the wealthy people that got them in office. You can parse words if you wish and say they haven't yet disagreed, they're just proposing a higher threshold, but to me it's the same thing. And they're acting just like the other side that won't even come to the negotiating table because they too are beholden to their wealthy people (a point I didn't think needed to be spelled out). Ergo, our system sucks because no one is working for what benefits the most people - the middle class. Perhaps you're getting hung up on my use of "compromise." I meant it more like, hey this position is a good middle-of-the-road solution for this issue.