Jenksismyhero

Yeah I have a feeling regardless of what they do with both Rose and Hamilton one awkward hop step and the season is over for the Bulls.

Mad Men is 0/2 in my book. Another snoozer.

Bulls are up 10 games on the Pacers, so barring an epic collapse they're guaranteed a top 4 seed. Sit Rose until he's absolutely 100%. There's nothing to be gained from him coming back and getting re-injured before the playoffs or in the first or second round of the playoffs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) He didn't admit that he was following a kid around a neighborhood? That's instigating a confrontation? Please.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:04 PM) It rewrote pretty much every campaign finance law on the books. Sigh, it's not the same. And i'm not going to state why for the 30th time. Continue to believe something that's simply not true.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2012 -> 12:45 PM) So there is no state in the country when the fact that he, by his own admission, initiated the conflict and then escalated it would permit a prosecutor to bring charges? If that's the case, then this should be it for concealed carry laws, because that's the other plausible step here. Take away the guy's gun. This is bulls***. Stop spreading lies. He did not "initiate conflict," nor did he admit to doing so.

Good pick up for both parties I think. I'm rooting for Bruce to succeed there, especially against Kansas. Hopefully he can get a few players and make some tourney runs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:46 PM) They literally overturned a century of precedent, something like half a dozen decisions, including the decision on the McCain/Feingold bill only a couple years beforehand. So yeah, they did exactly what you said they did, completely flipped over the constitution and an enormous number of case precedents. Exactly waht you said. In a 5-4 decision, which was only possible because O'Connor was replaced by Alito. No, not the same. They did not look at a bill and literally replace text with their own interpretation of what the bill was intended to be. Not sure how many times this point has to be repeated.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...-abuse-911.html He called about everything. It's pretty dishonest SS to just paint him as a racist guy looking to pick on the black people on his street.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 07:16 PM) they do this all the time. No, they don't. They decide if X fits into the language of law Y. They don't completely ignore what's written based on what they think Congress actually meant. Especially in a situation like this where they're debating Congressional authority.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 07:11 PM) He was calling in young children, as young as 7, playing in the neighborhood.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) So that's wasting lots of taxpayer dollars and resources (the Boy Who Cried Wolf), he should have been taken off the Watch. Has one of his hunches ever turned out to have prevented an actual crime in progress, or has it always been simply suspicion a crime might be committed in the future? I thought I read somewhere that within the last year there was a serious uptick in crime - burglaries, assaults and a shooting. Maybe that was all justified for a guy trying to win back his neighborhood.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You completely ignore the role of the SC. It interprets the constitutionality of law. It doesn't read a statute's text and say "you know, I really think Congress meant this, so, despite the fact it doesn't say this, we'll allow it." That's what you want them to do here. Ignore how the law is written, interpret the whole mandate as a tax and move along.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) This is the short definition of the Citizens United decision. In my best Seth Meyers/Amy Pohler voice: really, Balta, really? Deciding that corporations have 1st Amendment protections is the same as completely ignoring the text of a law and supplanting the Court's own interpretation of what the bill was REALLY meant to be? REALLY? That's the same? Balta, you're a smart guy from what I can tell, but your knowledge of the law and the operation of law is just...terrible.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) The unedited call has been available for quite a while. As far as I know, other networks have not aired similarly edited versions. I've also not seen it edited that way in print, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. I still don't see how one deceptively edited clip on a show weeks after the story become national is "huge" or really changes anything. I was just looking through the google history of this whole story, and if you look back on the 8th/9th when it broke they were all tailored as if there was proof of racial profiling. It's something along the lines of "Zimmerman told the cops he saw someone suspicious." And then the next sentence is "Trayvon was a black teen." The 911 tapes could have helped him, but by then it was too late and the context of the entire story was "disgruntled racist white man kills saintly black teen for no apparent reason other than his hatred for black people....like all white people." So yeah, I guess I take back what I said. It wasn't the edit of the 911 transcript, just the general reporting of the story. The NBC thing surely fueled the fire though, and there is no excuse for that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) So they purposefully didnt draft it properly, and now its the Supreme Court's fault because the Senate didnt draft a good bill. I may dislike certain judges for many reasons, but you cant ask the Supreme Court to make the laws for the Senate. According to Balta and SS, the SC can do whatever the hell it wants. Forget precedent, forget the Constitution - 9 people could address every political issue at stake in the country by simply rewriting the text of statutes. Oh, but when things don't go their way it's, "Gawd, the system is so f***ed when 5 conservative justices don't do their jobs properly. They're all so terrible. They're so conservative."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) Is it between 40 and 60 degrees? Yeah, pretty often. Then I'd be suspicious of you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) I wear one almost any day that the temperature starts or finishes between 40 and 60. I also have some I wear in the winter. Love em. Have a Sox one also. (Not this one) And do you walk around in broad daylight, not raining, with it over your head?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Huge in what way? There's still legitimate injustice to be upset with here, regardless of what NBC did. It doesn't suddenly change the facts of the story in any way since the full 911 tape has been available for a while now. edit: this wasn't what started the whole thing, this edited clip was from this Tuesday: I've seen the same edit in print then. Because again, that was my original reading of the situation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Huge in what way? There's still legitimate injustice to be upset with here, regardless of what NBC did. It doesn't suddenly change the facts of the story in any way since the full 911 tape has been available for a while now. It changes the entire narrative about the story. Are you seriously ignoring that? I know for me that was the first thing I thought - he called the police and basically said "hey some black kid is in my neighborhood and he's up to no good." That's not at all what happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Wearing a hoodie is not suspicious in and of itself, which is the point. There's nothing ironic about some people who commit crimes wearing hoodies while millions who do not commit crimes also wear hoodies. How many people do you see walking around with a hoodie over their head in good weather? GMAB. It's not proof of someone being a criminal or someone about to commit a crime, but its more suspicious than someone who is not wearing one.

That is huge, because that line is what set a lot of people off about this. That really did start the whole racial profiling thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) What is ironic? That he made such a big point about wearing a hoodie in solidarity. I'm not suggesting all people that wear hoodies are thugs. I own many. I DO, however, find it funny that people that completely ignore the fact that criminals often times use hoodies (because they can hide recognizable features).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) Oh come on. Jesus wore a hoodie too, does that mean all people in hoodies are saints? Just pointing out the irony that it happened in Rush's district.