Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 12:05 PM) The first two or three seasons of LOST was some of the best TV in history. I mean it completely rewrote how a TV show worked in that there was no week to week ending. The season long mystery story arc, and on top of that the whole idea of the social media complement to the show just exploded it. Everyone needed that place to go talk about theories, ideas, and what had happened. No one had ever done that before. Or since, really. Leftovers tries to do some of that, but I think he learned his lesson so most of the show's mysteries will remain mysteries.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 11:05 AM) Department of Defense looks to rent space in Trump Tower How is this legal? I think this is very common. Ari Fleischer (Press Sec for GWB) said that they did the same thing at Bush's ranch. They rented some land and set up a base of operations.

QUOTE (StrykerSox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 07:51 PM) Bummer, we do NetFlix and an OTA antenna. No HBO. Don't know much about Lost, although I think I saw the set from the air in Hawaii a decade or so ago, before it aired. Watched a couple episodes before losing interest. Oh man, I loved that show. On my top 5 list. My wife and I would have watch parties with friends every Wed night. I couldn't get enough of the TV recaps, theorizing, water-cooler discussions, etc. with that show. Ending was a bit of a let down, but the ride to the end was fantastic.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 12:52 PM) The president has a huge authority to dictate immigration which is why its so amazing they could mess this up so much. Reality is had they not suprise enforced it and left families stuck in airports a lot of this would just be "this is bad!" but less of a backlash. He has this authority. But I have to question the constitutionality of this. Regardless of whether the religious requirements are placed on non-citizens, a law stating religious preference for entrance into US seems to inherently conflict with 1A to me. You can't say that no law can be made infringing upon freedom of religion and then make a law infringing on it. Sure you can, so long as it passes strict scrutiny. Not all constitutional rights/rules are absolute.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) The next season is even worse. Don't bother. I remembering reading that. What about 3 and 4? Does it get any better?

So my wife and I started and finished House of Cards, season 1. I gotta be honest, I don't see what the hype was about. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, and I didn't care for the ending. It needed an "oh s***!" moment or something. Instead it ended how you thought it would.

Some quick googling suggests persons outside of US territory do not have constitutional rights. I suppose that's where the standing argument comes into play.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but do those rights extend to non-citizens? I wouldn't think so, but knowing our SCOTUS decisions on illegal immigrants i'm sure the law is every citizen of the world has constitutional rights. Also, recent history aside, is this a decision we want on our books? That our government can't deny a class of aliens from entering the country? What if we go to war against Iran? Wouldn't we want to be able to bar them?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) The Bill of Rights applies to all levels and branches of the government. If the immigration and travel ban is targeting people on a religious basis (and there's a good argument is does), that seems like a 1A violation. QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:54 AM) Isn't it if the basis for prohibiting aliens is their religion? I don't see how you can make that conclusion on its face when the ban affects some muslim countries but not others and it applies to all citizens of those countries not just muslims.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:10 AM) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; That's Congress, not the Executive. And I don't think prohibiting aliens from entering the country is infringing on the establishment or exercise of religion.

Look, there's no excusing a lot of what he does. I'm not at all trying to defend that. I'm with you all that many of his executive orders fly against what makes our country great and 95% of what his admn says is false and embarrassing and completely un-Presidential. But that doesn't mean we have to go to the extreme and continually remark how he's Hitler 2.0 or that the country is doomed or that we're all f***ed because of what he's doing. Guess what guys, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants (within constitutional restraints). That's how this game is set up. Is jokingly saying you're going to ruin a state lawmaker's career worse than FDR trying to pack the court? Are we pretending like a President has never tried to monopolize power or assert his authority before? Again, not excusing it, just trying to put it into perspective.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:05 AM) He's laying the groundwork to blame the judiciary if/when there's some sort of attack. I'm still not sure how a court can get around this clear law (if we assume the Plaintiffs have standing to begin with): 8 USC §1182 “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” I think this comes down to SHOULD Trump be able to do this, not CAN he.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:25 AM) https://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2016/08/26/are...ed-killer-flip/ Looking pretty doubtful the Trump admin even vetted that list of 78 "terrorist" incidents. Deadspin had a great post yesterday where they put together clips of "the media" covering 75 of the 78. Has anyone asked his admn yet why they chose those 78? I assume the response is going to be that they didn't mean the media didn't cover the stories at all, just that they didn't stress the terrorist angle enough.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:29 AM) Thank you, I had not seen that. Post edited. This is exactly why the minute-by-minute stuff has to stop. Not only do you get yourself all worked up over false news (love by the way how you and others rail against dumb Trump supporters for this and yet you've fallen for this twice, the other being his imminent attack on LGBTs that never happened), but you also give credence to his bulls*** attacks against the media for being wrong/unfair. His dumb supporters watch/listen to you and the media that covers and complains about these false stories and then they justify their belief that ALL media is wrong/bulls***.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:53 PM) Honestly, he comes off as "This isn't going to personally affect me so who cares?" Nah, just growing tired of the minute by minute overreaction circle jerk on this board.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 04:26 PM) People are saying she's going to be really awful for a wide variety of reasons, both based on her stated policy goals and her apparent total ignorance of the actual job she's been chosen to do. It's hard to imagine a less qualified candidate. What do you imagine something you'd call a "doomsday scenario" for SoE would look like if you don't see why DeVos is so bad? She MAY be. We have no idea. She has policy objectives, most of which, like all other political candidates/appointees, never come to fruition. I'm not sure what a doomsday scenario would be. Probably one that significantly restructures the system for everyone in the middle, something I cannot imagine will ever happen given the various interests at play (school administrations, teacher unions, local govt, parents, etc). Being more pro for-profit/pro-charter schools doesn't fit into that. Allowing the minor group of people sending kids to private school may have an effect, but it's not going to kill schools.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:38 PM) And thats another topic all together. The religion-based schooling she wants to push is a joke. Again, i'm not arguing she was a stellar choice. I just don't see the doomsday scenario.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:09 PM) Because of the s*** she implemented in Michigan and her desire to run those policies nationwide. Her methodologies are terrible and are detrimental to the quality of schools that our kids may attend. But other than that... "Our kids." No, this may impact poor kids who already go to s***ty public schools. Now they'll just go to s***ty for-profit charter schools. "Our kids" will stay in good school systems. edit: I'm not saying i'm thrilled about the choice. I just don't see it as some colossal failure either. She's going to fail like every other education secretary when trying to fix poor school systems/districts.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 02:03 PM) The hope is the GOP remembers it wants LESS governmental control. Because an unqualified moron just bought herself a cabinet position. I'm not sure what the freak out is over her. Is she unqualified? Sure. But the system works for the vast majority of Americans and that will not change. If anything she'll fail to help those most in need of it.....so she'll be the same as her predecessors in that regard.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 5, 2017 -> 11:20 AM) I actually really like Google Photos. I have 1 TB worth of data though so that's not a good solution. I can't believe they stopped working with Picassa. It was such a great program.

I feel like a lot of liberals (and conservatives) can benefit from this very reasonable position on Islam and the problems posed by it. (1) Not every concern over Muslims is inherently racist. (2) Not ever Muslim is a terrorist. If we could get the people in this country to agree to those basic principles, we'd go a long, long way to addressing the problem.

Anyone have a good recommendation for photo management software? I was a big Picassa user because I loved that it took all of my photos and video, arranged in a horribly unorganized folder/file system, into a central place where everything was saved chronologically. Now that Google stopped supporting Picassa, it's giving me more and more issues and become nearly unusable. I have tens of thousands of photos, camcorder videos, gopro videos, etc. I just want a central place to look at my photos on a timeline that also doesn't require me to upload 1tb or more of data to the cloud.

QUOTE (joejoedairy @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 01:10 PM) Doing your plan and ending up with 3 lottery picks in this draft would definitely be exciting. IF Boston were willing to give up those 2 Nets picks plus a player or two for Butler I would have to seriously consider it. But, you keep asking everyone what the path to winning a championship is if you keep Butler, which is impossible to answer because we have no idea who will come available or who might develop or if there are injuries to any key players. You would be unable to answer that same championship path question with your plan because we have no idea who they would draft and how they would develop. Firing Gar would certainly be a good start though. Realistically the odds are that the picks just become good role players, not superstars. So you're giving up a proven superstar in the prime of his career on a cheap, team friendly deal, for a couple of unknowns. And I agree with ss2k5, if they're going this route, I don't want Gar involved. I want a new regime in place.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:35 PM) Which star player will leave their current team to come play with Jimmy Butler? Maybe Gordon Hayward. That move the needle for you? I would take a a 21pt, 6rb, 3 asst guy, yeah. Blake Griffin and Chris Paul are two guys I could see leaving. The Clippers keep trotting out the same line-up and it's not working.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:26 PM) That's the point of this entire conversation. The only deal I've signed off on would be the Celtics deal because the Brooklyn picks could very well amount to two superstars. We're not at a point where Jimmy will get us anything, and I'd rather not continue to be stuck in NBA hell. A HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE if that won't come to fruition for another 5 seasons. What's the rush? Butler is still under the Bull's control for 2 seasons. If they strike out in FA this summer, do this next year, or the year after. A 30 year old starting all-star butler is on par with a 28 year old starting all star Butler. He'll return the same value.