Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 12:48 PM) OK guilty pleasure watch... The Scientology series on A&E is just insane. Is anyone else watching? The wife and I pretty well binged it during break after discovering it. I haven't seen that but the HBO doc was pretty good and also mind blowing.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 5, 2017 -> 01:15 PM) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/higher-incom...-163613852.html The 2% of upper middle class Americans who are going to be paying higher taxes under Trump... 130k/year salary now has to pay a whopping 875 bucks more in taxes. Big deal.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 02:03 PM) I fully believe Hoiberg is one of the worst coaches in the association, if not the worst. He is awful. I think I'd rather have Del Negro and I long thought he was hot garbage too. It's too early to say one way or the other. Look at the roster he has to work with.

Two game recommendations: Inside, from the makers of Limbo, and Firewatch. Got both on sale on Steam for about $12 bucks each.

I'd call the manufacturer and see if they can send someone out before the 15th. That's still under their warranty too. Not sure if you can, but I would just return it. If you're having problems with the unit after 2 weeks, it's probably a lemon. I'd start fresh if you can.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) Let's see how long "indefinitely" is before we start praising the decision. I'll agree with Jay Williams and say 5 games should be the punishment. 5th game is Louisville....so you know it'll be 4.

Jesus, our election system: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/poli...incts/95363314/

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/china-sei...sout-1790187655 China just stole a US Navy vessel. Wonder how Obama will respond.

QUOTE (Brian @ Dec 16, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) I like Last Man on Earth. Even with Forte who has become super annoying every episode. It is what it is. Harmless. Has some fun cliffhangers. This. Kind of a morbid ending to the last episode though.

I really despise the recent trend that when you buy a new ps4 game, you have to wait 1-2 hours for the stupid thing to download an update before it can be played.

They are who we thought they were?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 12, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) This morning, someone started dumping Lockheed Martin stock 6 minutes before Donald Trump tweeted negatively about them. Random people on Twitter are saying that Trump made this statement on TV before he tweeted it. Not sure if that's true or not.

So the wife and I decided to start The 100 last week. It's about a near-future Earth that has been wiped out by nuclear war. Surviving humans live in a large space station. After ~100 years of being in space, they decide to drop 100 twenty-somethings to earth to see if they can survive. Usually my wife is all-in on those CW shows and I think they're teen/early 20's garbage. While it has some of that, it's much closer to Battlestar Galactica meets elements of Lost. I'm really digging it. If anyone needs a simple, but good streaming show, i'd recommend it.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 01:50 PM) Wait, when did Clinton supporters bomb a campaign office? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aft...m=.764172a8259e

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 12:36 PM) Jenks, stop being obtuse. Every time Trump has attacked an individual on Twitter since the campaign began, that person has been subjected to all kinds of threats and harassment on social media by Trump's supporters. Thus, the effect of saying bad things about Trump in a public forum is that he attacks you on social media, and you get threats from his supporters. That's really, really bad! The difference between the Trump stuff and the guy getting a Cowboys Superbowl tattoo is that one of them is caused by the inappropriate actions of the President Elect of the United States, and the other is not. I don't agree. Just like I wouldn't blame Clinton for her supporters bombing a campaign office of Trump. Stupid people do stupid things. Unless he was calling for his supporters to go after her, even indirectly, simply commenting on her doesn't make him responsible for what stupid people decide to do. Is it Presidential? No. Should he be doing it? No.

Hold up, there are s***ty people on the internet? NO WAY. Just today a dude that got a Cowboys Superbowl Champs tattoo got death threats over the internet. People are awful when given an anonymous platform. We've known this for years.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:51 AM) Is Trump becoming a true authoritarian the most likely course of his presidency? No. Being a bad president is. Being a good president is also a possibility. But just because it's unlikely doesn't mean you open up the putin toolbox for him and say "Hey, be good with these. I trust you". See, right there you're putting these two examples in a Putin category. That's the extreme position i'm calling out as BS. Trump responding to an individual on Twitter is not even remotely in the same realm as what Putin does. Trump getting a royalty check (IF that even happens!) is not the same as him using the government to advance his own business interests, let alone a way in which he can control the media Putin-style.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) See, that's the thing with this bulls*** tactic. I didn't claim either of those things. Those are your inflations, or being charitable, misreadings of what I was saying. Trump having business deals with a media company that will be covering his Presidency is a potential conflict of interest because it can influence their coverage decisions. That's what I said, that's what the article claufield posted said, and that's what you rejected out of hand. Trump targeting individual citizens who dare to point out his lies gets those people and their children harassed and threatened. That sort of behavior will almost definitely make other people less likely to speak up in the future, fearing a similar reprisal. That's a common authoritarian tactic to stifle dissent. Notice that both of those positions fall short of the "freaking out" histrionics you frequently try to ascribe to people you're arguing with rather than addressing what they're actually saying. They aren't the extreme positions you keep mischaracterizing them as. You're saying it COULD happen and then pointing to what history has shown us about authoritarian regimes. You're implicitly saying Trump is following that same path, not that he COULD. If it's not a legitimate fear of yours there's little reason to point it out.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:30 AM) It's just kind of funny though, we just had a whole ass summer where Clinton was being ripped for innuendo about what she might do because of all her connections here and there and then Trump turns around and literally does those exact things he blasted her for, and the collective reaction is basically "yeah, but..." I never made those arguments. I think it's impossible for any President to be totally conflict free. You have to sell your soul for that position, you have to curry favors, you have to do all sorts of shady s*** to get elected. The fact that Clinton was going to close her foundation doesn't mean she doesn't still owe favors to people she took money from.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) This is the same dumb bulls*** tactic, though. Saying "yeah, there actually is a potential conflict of interest for the sitting President to have business ties to a major media corporation" isn't "freaking out." Yeah, but then you go further and claim he will then control NBC and its coverage of him. THAT is the overreach and an extremist "freak out." Just like yesterday when you argued that responding to someone over twitter with his army of supporters means he's going to freeze speech in the future.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:23 AM) This is ridiculous. A sitting president should not be involved with anything that is not the government position. No non-profit boards, no positions in the stock market, nothing. It has served us decently well for years and there is no reason to allow Trump, the least trustworthy of all of them, to be the one to say "well it might not be so bad". Is it going to be widespread corruption? No, but you put enough dents in the glass you end up with a kleptocracy where business may see the benefit of a trump alliance with the business he pushes toward them. It may happen anyway due to policy preferences, but you don't want it to happen because of fear of reprisal or hope of special treatment. You try to NOT make that happen, not just throw it out and say "hey might not be so bad". Trump receiving a royalty check from a reality show is less serious than Clinton and her husband receiving millions of dollars through their foundation from s***ty countries and/or the people in power on Wall Street. In a perfect world should the President have zero conflicts? Absolutely. I don't believe it's realistic in 2016 given what it takes to get elected.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:22 AM) you do this same dumb thing in every argument. stop it. it's not clever, it's not effective, it's just annoying and dumb. Then stop freaking out over every little thing about Trump and making a mountain out of a mole hill as you have done since the election.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:16 AM) What exactly will it take for people to not make excuses for Trump? Like if someone saw a direct deposit receipt from a donor that said "Quid Pro Quo for Political Actions" on it, is that sufficient? No one is making excuses here. He's an awful person and I fully expect him to be an awful President. However I refuse to go down the extreme path that SS and others are going down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:04 AM) Well, they had the grabbing tape and didn't run it for so long that someone leaked it to the post, that one is at least confirmed. There were rumors of other tapes being in the hands of Apprentice producers that would have been equally bad had they leaked, but those are just rumors so I can't hang much on that. Wasn't the delay due to requests to legal about a possible lawsuit? I don't remember hearing anyone say it was because they feared Trump would pull the Apprentice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 9, 2016 -> 09:03 AM) At least the Morning Joe show has been a pretty big cheerleader for him. But it's not about his dumb garbage TV show itself being political, it's about business deal ties and how that could influence decisions. If he's still executive producer and the Celebrity Apprentice is a good profit-maker for NBC, Trump can threaten to pull the program from the network explicitly or implicitly if they don't give him coverage they like. You don't seem to understand how much things changed when he went from an absurd joke of a candidate to President-Elect and soon President of the United States. He's the most powerful person in the country now. So the one ex-republican congressman on MSNBC is pro-republican. What about Matthews? What about Maddow? They're probably the most critical and liberal out there and yet he's kept his show on the network because it makes him money. Just like the argument yesterday, if you strain hard enough you can see the conflict. But I don't think it's a legitimate one. But carry-on your freak out about how Trump is now going to control the media through his executively produced television show ties.