Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) You mean like the Vikings who dumped him for the s*** QB's they have? I'd take a veteran QB with an uncomplicated playbook of 15-20 plays over an overly complicated playbook in the hands of a QB that shouldn't be playing on an NFL team.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) There was no Homeland talk until you mentioned it, I believe And agreed on the cliffhanger stuff. Many shows seem to think that a cliffhanger is great writing, but it's incredibly lame and unoriginal. Since I haven't watched the show yet (I plan to do so right before the second season starts, ditto for Hell On Wheels), I have to wonder what type of role he has. Would it be for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, or Guest Appearance on a Drama? I'd assume best actor, but he might argue he's supporting Danes to get away from Cranston/Hamm. Of course then he has to go up against Aaron Paul, which wouldn't be easy either. Winters...er...Lewis was amazing though, especially in the finale. I've been less than impressed with Hell on Wheels. I'm watching it because there's not much else out there, but I can't say it's very good. Just not enough interesting characters or plot to maintain any momentum from week to week.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) Homeland - I'm not sure how I feel about it. Obviously, we're going to have some sort of cliffhanger/way to make a season 2 make sense without having to bring in a whole new cast. I feel like nothing happened, though. Honestly, I was hoping Brody would blow everyone up, because that's what 24 would do, haha. However, it was brilliantly acted (Damien Lewis had better win an Emmy, but then again, so should Claire Danes). I enjoyed the moment right before the episode ended with her realizing Brody new the child, and thus further confirming her suspicion. Her character is so painful to watch, as she's right about everything yet no one believes her (classic conspiracy theory storyline played perfectly). In the end, I feel like there was a ton of buildup for an episode in which not really that much happened. I'm intrigued to see Brody burrow his way deeper into American politics, but also find it comically unbelievable that he'd be on a cell phone talking to a guy who managed to avoid any tips about him coming out for 7 years at one point. I enjoyed it, though; I thought the season the whole was exceptional, yet I feel the finale left me wondering what I'd just spent an hour and a half watching. I'm sorta feeling the same. It didn't do much for me, but it didn't bother/frustrate/anger me either.

Whelp, this Illini game is over. Glad they showed up to play in Chicago for the 4th year in a row.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) The problem is that that end result is trite and insulting and belittles the struggles millions of Americans face every day through no fault of their own. Laziness and bad morals are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for poverty. Hard work and good morals are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for not being in poverty. Come on. You're a smart guy, I don't understand how you continue to ignore basic common sense. If you (1) work your ass of and (2) make proper life choices you will more than likely not be poor. Is it a guarantee? No. If you do neither and win life lottery will you be poor? No. By the very definition of establishing different classes that accept different type of government benefits, then yes, they are a seperatly identifiable group. I don't participate in food stamps, unemployment benefits, medicaid, etc etc. Nor do other Americans. And I forgot how this argument always ends - anyone who is not rich has made every proper decision in life, only they've been screwed in one or way or another, and they are entirely innocent of any blame whatsoever. Also, every poor person in this country is a single mother with three children. I forgot there are 30-50 million of them around. It's a shame that just by existing they always are, and always will be poor. Nevermind that people on a daily basis buy homes they can't afford, decide to have children they can't afford, purchase goods on credit when they have no money to pay, etc etc. Everyone that has ever been poor in this country is that way only because of the pre-birth societal hurdles placed upon them by the ruling class. I like how you completely ignored the qualifier. Apparently living in a society that provides with you a home, food, education and healthcare when you can't afford it (with little to no expectations for that aid), all while allowing you to have other material goods (cheap or not) is not pretty good compared to the other poor people in the world. How dare I contend otherwise.

Impressed by Butler and Taj in this game. Boozer...not so much

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2011 -> 01:54 PM) Why is it that "those people" have to sacrifice everything to a grinding, miserable existence just to get out of that life while being judged and condemned by those in higher social classes if they do anything other than work constantly? Why should they have to live an existence devoid of joy while I can live one of relative luxury with minimal effort simply thanks to my birth? Poverty is a social issue, not an individual issue. The fact that it is not literally impossible to escape poverty, merely exceedingly difficult with little or no margin for error, is not exactly a strong defense of the current system. That not all poor people are literally starving to death is not a reason to put poor into scare quotes or decide that they don't really need medical coverage. The cost of a few of these luxury goods (luxury being defined as anything above subsistence living, in this case) that provide some entertainment at very low costs for an entire family are completely incomparable to healthcare or education costs. The report does not specify premium cable or high-speed internet. It doesn't specify smartphones with expensive data packages. It doesn't specify HDTV's or PS3's or iPods. It gives some catch-all categories for modern cheap consumer electronics and a few services, many of which can be had for very cheap costs and provide high entertainment/$ value for an entire family, and yet a significant number of poor people still cannot afford these things. The Heritage study does not support the idea that many poor people are spending hundreds of dollars a month on cable and internet and phones. What it does support is that electronics are pretty cheap these days, so cheap that many poor people can afford them. That is as far as you can really take these conclusions. Arguments that blame the poor for being poor because of laziness or bad morals are ignorant of the realities of poverty at best. Because they are entirely dependent upon society for what they have. So yeah, I think there should be a slight expectation that they're doing everything they can to not take more social dollars than is absolutely necessary. That means choosing not to have that 3rd kid because you can't afford it. Not having a cell phone because you can't afford it. Not having cable because you can't afford it. No one blames the poor solely because of laziness or bad morals. But that plays a part, despite your refusal to accept it. And I still don't understand how someone can read that report and come to the conclusion that "whelp, that's just a bunch of rich guys trying to show that the poor people aren't poor afterall!" It's putting poverty into a context. It's comparing "poor," as in entirely destitute and homeless, with "poor," as in not middle class or above. The end result being the poor in this country have it pretty good, especially compared to the poor in the past in this country, and the poor that exists currently in other parts of the world.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 16, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) The real blindspot in those surveys is actually that they're somewhat correct in a sense...one can get things like a refrigerator, cell phone, even a fairly high-end TV for fairly cheap these days. Having satellite service doesn't bankrupt low income people any more. The real issue is not the things that have gotten cheap enough to be affordable, the real issue now is the things that have become so expensive as to be unaffordable to people in the lower income levels...things like health care, transportation, food, housing, energy/heat, and education. That's the real scandal in these reports...the niceities actually have become cheap enough that you can have them without having to make very big sacrifices...but the staples, the things you actually need to build a stable life...those are the things out of reach. Giving up your HDTV and your cell phone doesn't pay for a year of health insurance or a year of college for your kid. Giving up your X Box doesn't pay for gasoline or the surgery you need. But this is such bulls***. If you're going to use the argument "well if we don't pass healthcare reform people will be dying on the streets because 30 million are so poor already!" it's entirely reasonable to question how "poor" that 30 million really is. 30 million people in this country are not on the verge of dying on the streets anytime soon. They have a home, have food, and have luxury goods that cut against their claim that they're in such a poor financial position that they can't afford TO AT LEAST CONTRIBUTE to their healthcare, food, education, whatever costs. You say you can get an iphone 3gs for free with a contract. Ok, well you've just signed up for 2 years at a minimum of 50 bucks a month for a cell phone plan and some data. Premium cable costs how much? On top of cable costs? Internet at home? We're not talking about some trivial amounts of money here. We're talking about hundreds of dollars a month towards goods that people don't NEED, regardless if it helps them pass the time in their otherwise difficult and s***ty lives. I just don't understand this passive acceptance of people who are spending YOUR MONEY when they're not 100% working towards getting away from the system that's spending YOUR MONEY. No one wants people to die. No one wants people to go hungry. No one wants people to be homeless. Why is it so bad to EXPECT that those people are doing everything they can to not have to be in that system?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 16, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) Well, since they published the same garbage last year or a few years ago. It's a pretty regular report for them. But this study didn't specify HDTV's or smartphones. Just "television," which could be a $100 set from Walmart, or maybe a $50 Goodwill pickup. A "gaming console" could be a Nintendo 64. It just said "cellphone," which could be a cheap pay-as-you-go thing. The poor have the audacity to own cars (old beaters to get to their jobs that are probably 20+ miles away from their homes and for which there's no public transportation available). The reporting on this study by idiots like Hannity, though, will feature lots of images of fancy 60" LED TV's, PS3's, iPhones, etc. to drive that deceptive slight-of-hand home. Being poor is about a lot more than not having the latest electronics, and having some relatively cheap entertainment devices to distract you from your otherwise grinding existence doesn't make you suddenly not poor. That's where the fundamental problem of these studies lies: focusing on a few material trinkets that do not actually reflect what poverty is or isn't. Here's my problem with your take - it seemed to me by reading the summary of that report, that the point wasn't to say that no one in this country is poor, but instead to point out that what we perceive as "poor" isn't really poor so much as in a really s***ty spot. Is that a big enough difference to make a whole report and cause a cable news cycle to waste time on it? Eh, probably not. But I think when people think "poor" and "destitute" they think of the late 1920's-1930's when people ate a can of beans because that was literally all they could afford to eat (and often times that's how the media reports homelessness and poverty while relating that idea to the 30-40 million supposedly in that dire situation). The "poor" of today's society is a million times better than that kind of poor (or even the poor when compared to other areas of the world today). THAT is the point. Regardless of what kind of TV you have, or what kind of gaming console you have, those ARE luxury goods for the "poor" in the world. Edit: Here's the abstract btw:

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) Sorry, that wasn't a shot at you, but someone else did post Heritage's annual "the 'poor' have cooking appliances, I guess they're not so poor!" earlier this year. It was a shot at that. I thought it was luxury goods like premium cable, multiple HDTV's, xbox's, etc?

QUOTE (juddling @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) Got The Lincoln Lawyer and Horrible Bosses here now from Netflix. Thought or opinions on which i should watch first?????? The Lincoln Lawyer was meh. Decent idea that wasn't fleshed out well enough. Horrible Bosses has it's moments, i'd watch that first.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 15, 2011 -> 08:30 AM) Trouble is...Wade did virtually nothing against the Bulls last year anyway. The problem wasn't the Bulls defense, it was the Bulls inability to score the ball or spread the floor. The Bulls will get Rip open shots. The question is what he'll do with them. Don't forget that was the only series Lebron showed up to play in too. He was hitting shots that weren't going down against Boston and then Dallas.

QUOTE (onedude @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) Could the VP be the bad guy? How was Abu Nazir aware that Brody was going to be asked to run for office by the VP. My theory is that the VP is dirty and wants the PotUS out/killed, and wants Brody with him when he takes over. I stll think Galvez or Estes are with the VP if not both. I though this too. The old politician selling his soul for power angle.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 02:12 PM) I don't think it's awful that Rose can't recruit, but I do think that is preventing us from getting this CURRENT CROP of superstars. Rose isn't a cohort with the players were speaking of now. At some point we may very well get someone that wants to play with Rose b/c they used to ball together. Maybe Evan Turner becomes amazing...I HOPE. He'd come. Wasn't the rumor last year that Rose, Westbrook and Love all wanted to play together?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) Really? Dirk's been at that level for a long period of time, i'll give him that. But Dirk wasn't this good at 22 either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) And when the NBA starts awarding the "Decent Human Being" award at the end of the season, I might care. This is it. This is how the game is played today. If Derrick doesn't want to play the game, the Bulls will never win anything, and there is no real point at having him on this team, no matter how much he wants to be here. And it isn't like we are talking about something like child molesting, point shaving, or something else illegal or immoral. Trying to get someone to work at the same job you are isn't some crime. Sure you don't need to go to LeBron lengths after it is done, but unless you want to get left behind, you have to acknowledge what the playing field is today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the team that won the championship last year had one superstar player right?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Dec 14, 2011 -> 01:57 AM) I think she still looks good, but yea her long hair reminds me of when she was a dime on Firefly. I think Saul has some other story that hasnt been brought out yet, that whole thing with the lie detector is just too much to ignore. I think that whole thing was a red herring. It established that the lie detector test isn't 100% accurate, as other people (Carrie and Brody) have beaten it. If Saul was really a spy or whatever, why wouldn't he have thanked the chick terrorist he spent 15 hours in a car with alone? Wouldn't there be some hint of a "hey i'm on your side, good job?" And why would he be so upset over losing his wife as a result of him spending TOO much time working to defeat terrorists?

So I just finished Uncharted 3. Gotta say, I was a little disappointed. I'd give it an 8 to 8.5 out of 10. There were way too many frustratingly difficult gun fights. And not because i'm terrible at aiming or anything. Guys flanked your position way too easily while you were under cover and essentially shot you in the back without you ever knowing they were there. That, and sometimes you'd die once (because of your own doing) and then the game would respawn you in the middle of the fight where you had no chance to prepare yourself. I'm all up for a challenge (as the prior two games didn't offer much of any), but it needs to be a fair fight. Too often I felt like it wasn't fair. I nearly broke my controller like 10 times while playing this game. That and the story just wasn't as good. I didn't understand why I was going to all of these different places. I got the general storyline, but I felt like in 2 you had a clear objective. This one was sorta all over the place. Still, it's the best action game around. No other game comes anywhere near as close to the scope and scale of the set pieces. Fantastic game to look at, just needed to be tweaked a little more.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) So is Al Capone Yeah they didn't place him in Al Capone's eventual backyard for no reason. The interviews with Winter made it seem like they have absolutely no idea where they're going in season 3. So really anything is possible. Just sucks that that only real person I was "rooting" for is now gone.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 04:41 AM) Without question. Probably her Emmy episode. The finale looks loaded. I have to get up at 3:30 on Monday mornings but figured I would stay up once for Homeland finale instead of watching it on DVR but saw finale is 90 minutes. Don't think I can make it. Will avoid this thread until I watch it on Monday. Fantastic episode. I was upset with the preview for next week though. They basically gave the entire thing away. Why do that? I had no idea how Brody was going to get into a situation to wear his jacket until I saw the preview.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 09:01 AM) Van Alden does live in Cicero now... I believe they are going to get Capone more involved as time goes on too I'm hoping season 3 and 4 focuses on the rise of Capone and Luciano, with Nucky's Atlantic City still being the focal point. I think they'll also have Harold Remus play a part since he was such a major figure during actual prohibition. If anyone hasn't watched the Ken Burns 3 part series on prohibition, i'd recommend it. It gives a lot of real background information that's interesting, but also relevant to some of the few characters introduced in the show (Remus, Esther Randolph, etc)

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 12, 2011 -> 03:46 PM) Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA 2 mins Reply Retweet Favorite · Open Y! Sources: Hornets GM Dell Demps a "spectator" in basketball decisions. Stern's deputies running Chris Paul talks. This whole situation makes me cringe. I don't understand why people are so up in arms about this. The league (owners) own the team. The league (owners) pay the salaries of the various people associated with the team. The league (owners) have to consider whether it's fair to allow a team like the Lakers to get another superstar to the detriment of the league (owners). The problem was the league pretending that NO was going to be run without some kind of oversight from Stern. It should have made known up front that the guy who works on behalf of the owners is going to control and manage the franchise owned by the owners collectively.

Yeah I read Sepinwall's interview. Sounds like the writer expected everyone to get the hint that Jimmy was telling Richard to move on and try to live a non-violent life away from war/killing. I kinda got that, but not to the point where I thought Richard wouldn't want to enact some sort of vengeance. And really I guess they've established that Richard is deadly assassin. He could conceivably take out everyone involved in Jimmy's death, but 1) they can't because Nucky is never killed in real life, and 2) that would essentially end the show.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Dec 12, 2011 -> 01:52 AM) Ah man, I was bummed. I really enjoyed his character. Anyway, I did not see that coming with all the storylines that were attached to Dormody. And the thought that Nucky chose to believe Eli over Jimmy, even though Eli was lying and Jimmy told the truth really sucks. As for Richard, I don't know what becomes of him. As far as the war flashback goes, were they trying to show that Jimmy actually did fight in the war, because the idea was that he was too scared to fight and ran away? Wow, Boardwalk Empire...so good. Thoughts, with spoilers:

Talent>smarts in college bball. Good win for Hoosiers, though I think if they play ten times Kentucky wins 7-8 of them. Jones must be hurt/sick and Davis didnt play a lot.