Jenksismyhero

Annnnnnnnddd the riots begin. Morons all dressed in black (cowards) picking up rocks/cement chunks and throwing them at cops.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:47 PM) No they don't. Um, yes they do. Perhaps not directly, but their aides/communications people do it routinely, especially when it comes to the economy they inherit.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) Anyone know what the pile of executive orders are that the President is signing? I wondered that too. I'm watching the CNN feed and they had to cut away from Obama's final farewell speech to show that. I bet that producer was freaking out having to make that decision. I also enjoyed the 100% fake laughing between Trump, Ryan, Pelosi, et al. in that room.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:35 PM) No climate change page anywhere on the whitehouse.gov website. Just checked. That's not surprising. The Dept of Labor one was and appears to be fake/inaccurate. Are the other white house pages working? I suspect most of that information will change because, you know, new administration and all.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:34 PM) Unlike the morons who shout fake news at anything they disagree with, it took 2 seconds to check the site I was referencing But people still freaked out about it?

That would be funny if the web pages being down is fake news and you guys bought it. edit: this link works: https://www.dol.gov/asp/policy-development/lgbt-workers.htm

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 11:21 AM) Trump already will have his excuse ready, It's Obama's fault. Every President blames the prior administration. That's nothing new.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 11:23 AM) "It started to rain when you got to the podium, Mr. President." Somehow this was meant as a positive comment. Normally sun shining = good, rain = bad. For weddings isn't rain a sign of good luck? Of course that probably came about just to make a tearful bride feel better.

Not a very hopeful speech...."this is what's wrong with the country, #1....."

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 06:54 AM) Only a few hours left until all hell officially breaks loose. I like to think of the positive. Today is one of the greatest spectacles in human history. The peaceful transfer of power.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 05:16 PM) Which part is subjective? It's objective that African-Americans are still discriminated in hiring. It's objectively true that discriminatory policies against African Americans over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans, as a demographic, to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. It is objectively true that the dictionary definition of discrimination defines discrimination as "unjust." What you or I believe is just or unjust in a given scenario.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 05:06 PM) African Americans are still being discriminated against in hiring. Discriminatory housing (and other) policies over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans as a demographic to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. Society has a moral obligation to level that playing field. Remedying discrimination by providing opportunities to the group that was discriminated against is not discrimination (that sentence made my head hurt). ETA: The point here is that an act needs to be unjust to be discriminatory. Thus, policies that provide greater employment and educational opportunities to minorities are not, in fact, discriminatory. That's pretty subjective.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 05:02 PM) Where are the examples on the macro level that a disproportionate number of powerful white men are not running the US? Well, we could look at the numbers of non white male presidents, and that would be one area. If it weren't for Obama's white maternal grandparents sacrificing financially to send him to Punahou School in Hawaii, nobody would have even heard his name. Now if you want to argue that Occidental, Columbia and HLS gave special treatment to his applications, you're welcome to make that case, but those (if you want to argue he was given preference over more deserving candidates) Affirmative Action policies also just gave us one of the few presidents in modern American history to leave office with a 60% approval rating. Ends justify the means. Still discrimination.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 04:21 PM) But affirmative action doesn't say no whites allowed. It doesn't say only people of X color, or X religion qualify. It says that, hey, some people of X color, or X gender, or X religion who are under represented and have historically been denied access on the basis of prejudice have to be allowed in. That's not discriminating against white people... I'm talking more about the situations where the state only accepts bids if you're a woman or minority (Rauner just did this in the fall and i'm pretty certain the City of Chicago has a similar program: http://www.govtech.com/budget-finance/Illi...usinesses.html). Or where schools create specific gender or race or religious related scholarships or grants. But even with affirmative action it's not as simple as "diversity is great!," it's putting in place application procedures to give preference to minority candidates. O'Connor literally called it a "racial preference" in her opinion. What bothers me is that on a macro level that seems fair and just - whites get the vast majority of the business or spots in school, minorities don't, so why not increase that number? The problem is on the micro level when individual white applicants are screwed based on nothing more than their color, something we're not supposed to be ok with. The argument is basically "get over it, you're privileged" which is bulls*** because that person might not be.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 02:45 PM) But affirmative action isn't discrimination against whites. It's leveling an uneven playing field by providing greater opportunities to minorities who have historically been denied those opportunities. So it is different, because they are two entirely different things... You can argue that the playing field has been leveled and attempts to level the playing field are no longer necessary (stats would not back you up on that, but you could make that argument), but to call it "discrimination" is just flat out wrong. When you create specific policies that mandate that only people of X color or X religion qualify, it is the definition of discrimination. You can justify it all you want, but it's a discriminatory policy that we're ok with.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 12:33 PM) I have no self control and have to respond to all of your mischaracterizing and faulty conclusions here. 1.) That wasn't a matter of a qualification. It's a "LAUNCH" program. An acronym that starts with Latin American and African American. I was not allowed the same head start because of my skin color. Companies give opportunities to certain minority groups at an earlier juncture than age equivalent students of other races. That's discrimination and if the ethnicities were swapped in this scenario you would entirely be up in arms over it. I understand that certain minorities went through a lot of s*** at the behest of fair skin people. That being said, my family hasn't been here long and my family was poor as recent as my parents' generation. I don't believe in reparations being forced on upon people of similarly fair skin when my ancestors were in Italy, Ireland and Poland being poor. 2.) I don't blame the system for a minority getting a scholarship or "my" job I blame the system for not offering me the same opportunity as others. There's no white male scholarship. There's no early start in business for white guys. I blame the system for preferring to hire people other than white males because it's better for the organization's reputation. All I ask for is a meritocratic process but I guess I am racist loon for that. You would think that is in the best interest of all fair-minded individuals. That being said, I accomplished everything I set out to before I went to college. I just wish I didn't have as much debt as I do now and I wished scholarships were offered solely on merit/participation as opposed to being based on things that are outside of an individual's control. 3.) "If I hadn't been born with my privilege there is a chance Id be in jail." What does that even mean? While I wouldn't stoop to the level to misconstrue someone's words into making them seem racist to make my point, I could easily say, "Oh, so all non-whites are criminals?" This is such a silly statement. I am not criminal because my parents are good people. My parents planned to have children they could afford and had the personal attributes to foster and nurture myself and my siblings. If my parents were purple and had the same values and priorities I wouldn't just end up in prison because I am not white. You'll say, "You don't know what it's like, you've never dealt with police as a minority." That's true and I don't deal with them as a majority either. Ever since I graduated to legal drinking age and bought a decent radar detector I have had no relationship with police officers. The extent of our relationship is me nodding at them when I get on/off the train. Discrimination is the classic #itsdifferent from the liberal crowd.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 03:22 PM) Sometimes only certain HMDI ports on the TV are ARC compatible. You should pull up your TV model's manual online or check AVS forums. EDIT: If your TV has Android TV, the recent software upgrade has created your exact issue for some folks who own the TV model I have. I checked and it's on the right ARC port. And no android tv.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 02:52 PM) Is that Onkyo ARC compatible? And my dumb question, are older HDMI cables capable of ARC? Maybe the cables need upgrading? It is, and I thought about the cable but I just recently got a batch of Amazon Basics cables and they all say they're ARC compatible. Maybe I got an old one for some reason, who knows.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 01:53 PM) Everything should go into your receiver and one HDMI to the tv. Your receiver should have the ability to pass through any signal while not on. It should also be able to support 4k. That was how I originally set it up but the ARC channel was not giving me any audio and I could not figure out why. All the settings on the TV and receiver were both on. But even still, the sound on the TV currently is still set to come out of the HDMI port and not the optical port and the TV is still not sending 5.1 sound down to the receiver without me telling it to.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) 1) Come on Jenks, you cant seriously believe what you posted. Liberals arent pro-war or pro-peace, that is not a tenant of liberalism. Plenty of "liberal" Presidents (Lincoln, FDR) were involved in major wars. Again violation of rights? This is the exact opposite, liberals are generally staunch supporters of the 1st amendment, etc. The 2nd amendment is really a question of whether "gun" use is a fundamental right. But when it comes to things like marijuana etc, its usually the Republicans who want to restrict rights. 2) With 9/11 I think that is an extreme example and I think that most reasonable people understand that national defense is an outlier because it would be impossible for states to be responsible for their own national security. As for free market, you are either for it, or you are against it. There is no "Im for it but", that isnt free market. The entire point of free market is that the govt does not intervene because that creates inefficiency. I have no problem with people who are anti-free market, but call it what it is. Eroding free market will eventually hurt the US, when you move from a capitalist economy to a protective socialist economy which is what Trump is suggesting. But if you want a capitalist economy, then you need free market. You are a smart guy, I know that you understand that "free market" isnt coming at the cost of the American people. Free market ensures that the American people get the best products for the cheapest prices. As soon as you allow Trump to institute his protective socialist economy, you will see worse products at higher prices much like the Soviet Union or Russia. Maybe idolizing Russia is the new Republican core belief. I dont know. But I just cant believe that Republicans are actually backing this s***. No fiscal conservative ever touts true free market principles, if that even exists. They're still ok with some regulation, limiting the players involved, etc. when it benefits them/us. I object to your premise that all fiscal conservative policy is being abandoned here and that you can only be for or against the free market. I think it's more of a scale where fiscal conservatives would rather be closer to a true free market than not, but still within certain constraints. Just like we're not a truly capitalistic society. I don't know of many conservatives who want to abandon all social services for a purely capitalist society. Some for sure, but not all.

Ok home theater audiophiles, I need some help here. I've been above average in my home theater knowledge since I was in high school but apparently i'm losing it because I am now stumped. Here's my setup/issue: I just bought a new Samsung 4ktv. I have a 7.2 channel receiver (Onkyo NR-626). I have a ps4 and chromecast running directly into the receiver. I have an HDMI connection between the TV and receiver's audio return channel hdmi slot. For whatever reason I could not get that working (no sound from the TV) so I ended up also using an optical cable to connect the TV to the receiver. My issue is the sound that comes out of the TV via the various streaming apps. I want to stream Amazon Video and Netflix through the TV because that's the only way I can get 4k (I have an older chromecast and ps4 model). However, when the sound comes from the TV it's only coming out at PCM 2.0, basically stereo. I cannot for the life of me figure out why. I can get 5.1 (Dolby or DTS) if I go into my sound settings on the TV and tell it to send the audio format in either dolby or dts, but in playing around with it last night, I basically have to do this each time I open an app (like Netflix) or play a specific video (on Amazon Video and other apps). This is incredibly annoying and cannot possibly be the only solution here. Has anyone had this issue before? Any ideas?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 11:33 AM) You're under the mistaken belief that 1) the ACA didn't impact employer-provided plans , providing consumer protections that didn't exist before and 2) that they won't be impacted again through whatever replacement plan, if any, the GOP comes up with. But it's still a true statement that for the majority of people in the country they were fine with what they had pre-ACA. And it's also true that post-ACA many people lost what they liked in their plans. End of the day, it's not accurate to say every vote for Trump was a vote to repeal ACA and every vote for Clinton was in support of it. People vote for different reasons and for the majority the ACA is not one of them.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) What else is there that is based specifically on his race/religion?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 17, 2017 -> 10:17 AM) You mean 62 million out of the 300 million Americans did. 65 million Americans voted to keep it. Nah, the vast majority voted for other reason because the vast majority don't have health care insurance issues or a need for the ACA.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 16, 2017 -> 05:02 PM) I agree that it should be a fundamental difference. But as we both know, the Republican party really has thrown a lot of its core values out the window (small government, free trade, etc.) The catchphrase seems to be "repeal and replace" which suggests that the Republican party is seeking to create some sort of comprehensive health care law. Impossible to tell what they really mean though, as Obamacare has become more popular now, so I think that many Republican's may get scared when they realize its "their" constituents who are going to get hit the worst. 1) I think both parties do this as it is impossible to be absolute on just about any given policy. Liberals are the anti-war/anti-violation of rights party (ha ha, guns) and yet Obama loves his drone program and would (or did? I can't remember) take out an American citizen without due process. He's still holding detainees in Gitmo who are awaiting trial. 2) I think you can still have those beliefs but recognize they aren't always manageable or practical in a given situation. I'm all about smaller government but understood the need for an increase in national security post-9/11. I'm all about free market but understand it shouldn't come at the cost of the American people (Trump's America-First policy is one of the very few of his that I agree with in principle). As to healthcare, it's a quagmire for sure. I don't believe it's a right, not do I believe it's the governments duty to force people to buy or pay for something they don't want.