Jenksismyhero

Damn, it didn't even take a week: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...m_on_trial.html

244k non-farm jobs added in April....62k came from McDonalds alone. Unemployment up to 9%, but according to the government, that's just because more people have decided to look for jobs, proving once again that the unemployment figure is a joke of a stat. http://www.cnbc.com/id/42928731

Another "well, that's not right" news story (didn't know where else to put this without starting a new topic): http://techland.time.com/2011/05/05/father...letter-techland I'd be more than happy to impose the death penalty on this guy. I'd flip the switch myself.

QUOTE (Felix @ May 4, 2011 -> 10:58 PM) Normally it wouldn't be, but when it comes with more shots than points, including another 8 3PA night, and eight turnovers, I'm not going to be convinced that it was a good game. Also, directed at FOP, I think it was already pointed out how flawed a stat +/- is, so citing that as a reason he was good is kind of absurd. This really isn't worth arguing about though, so I'll shut up. You realize every game he throws up like 2 half court shots though right? And here's where I get flamed (despite being a huge Rose/Thibs/Bulls homer): Rose isn't perfect, we all know this. He's got a terrible habit of picking the hard route when there's an easier one available. He's getting caught getting in the air to pass, with no one to pass it to. And he's taking shots that he shouldn't take. If i'm Thibs i'm telling him to take 3-4 three's a game, but otherwise let Deng or Korver take those. Also, I think Boozer is starting to get an unwarranted amount of hate put on him. Booing the guy? Seriously? The guy is soft and screams way too much. I agree with this. He's clearly not the greatest player in the word. But let's be realistic here. He's not utilized properly at all in this offense. He gets the ball 15-18 feet from the basket and is expected to generate his own shot. That's not his game. Nor is it the back to the basket. His game is the pick and pop, something Thibs is just ignoring for some reason. You didn't bring the guy here to be a defensive stopper. They knew he'd be a liability (albeit with good rebounding). But I can't fault the guy for not coming up with 20 pt games when he's just not given the opportunity to do that. I also think Deng can contribute more. Yes, he's having a good playoff run already, but he should be more of a focal point and not the guy that bails everyone out. He's a great shooter and can iso guys, so why not let him try that? Mix the offense up a little to take some pressure off Rose. I'm tired of guys like Barkley saying that Rose is the only one that can create shots. That's just not true. They won 62 games because guys like Deng took over (even over Rose). This team has completely forgotten about that, and I think it all started when everyone claimed Rose had to do it all for the team to win.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ May 5, 2011 -> 11:04 AM) High gas prices are saving lives. praise the messiah! We're in a different economy! People should be driving better cars anyway! You're destroying the Earth! Rabble, rabble, rabble!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 5, 2011 -> 12:29 PM) Here's a birfer-troofer comparison We are so f***ed.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 5, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) But what if they used a completely authentic photo of a dead guy that happened to look eerily similar to OBL? The photo could be authentic but what if the person in it isn't? That's why i'm saying release more than one. Throw in a picture of the burial preparation. I have to imagine they took a gazillion pictures documenting what they did. Plus, he's 6'4". He's not exactly a typical looking Saudi. And i'm not discounting the fact that there will still be doubters no matter what we provide. I just don't see the harm of releasing them, especially since these other pictures have come out. The cats already out of the bag.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 5, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) Why would you believe the pictures? I think the fact that no word has come from OBL since his death is proof enough. I'm not a big tech guy, but I think it'd be incredibly difficult to doctor a fake death picture. The ones that supposedly went around the last couple of days were quickly pegged as obvious fakes. Maybe I couldn't determine if it was a fake, but I would trust that an expert would look at it and try to authenticate it to a reasonable degree.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) The doubters in the Middle East will look just as stupid as the doubters in the U.S. Hell, I haven't even seen a purported "Al Qaeda" statement denying that he was dead, have you? Pandering to the beliefs of idiots is not a very solid reason to release those photos, and it's still a far cry from your statement that it'd somehow be sending a message in a way that the actual killing of UBL did not. Providing photographic evidence is not a stronger message than just relying on US government statements/press conferences? Seriously? From the perspective of people we're talking about here?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 5, 2011 -> 09:09 AM) So you're ok with photos of killed American soldiers and/or generals being waved around and televised by our enemies? As a hypothetical, if Iranian state television claimed that Iranian troops killed President Bush, and I was forced to believe only what I was told by Iranian politicians and offices, with a few pictures of the after math, I don't think I'd have much of a problem with them publishing a picture proving their allegations true. I'd be skeptical of the news. You guys are forgetting that a good chunk of people out there, our supposed enemies, don't trust what we say and are brain-washed into believing that we're a bunch of murdering liars.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2011 -> 09:03 AM) Proving things to crazy american nutjob conspiracy theorists is a far cry from what you said in your previous post to justify Palin saying that Obama was "p****footing" around with the photos and that releasing them would be a warning. Furthermore, I don't care what some conspiracy theorists think. He's dead unless someone releases a photo of him with today's newspaper, and anyone who, 6 months from now is still saying he's alive will look pathetic. You don't need to cater to them. No one, whether they're on fox or not, in their right mind should be thinking he's alive. I'm talking about doubters in the middle east. Apparently we're so worried about offending them with a gruesome picture (or "p****footing" around with the photo issue as Palin called it), but we're not worried that we'll leave open the conspiracy that he was never killed in the first place? Seems pretty dumb to me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 5, 2011 -> 08:55 AM) How does releasing the photos change that? I think there are various types of deniers out there. There's your extreme conspiracy theorists who won't believe anything, even if they see it with their own eyes. But I also think there are skeptics out there who question whether Bin Laden is really dead and a picture of proof (including perhaps pictures of his burial service) would leave no doubt. Look at the birther issue. Nearly 40% of the population kinda bought into it. Obama gave proof, and now you're just left with the nut jobs who think it's all a fake.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 4, 2011 -> 06:10 PM) The best part of that tweet is her saying it's a warning. Yeah, because I'm sure all of those terrorists willing to suicide bomb and die for their cause of killing others will really be scared off by death. Well, it is a warning in the sense that even if it takes us 10 years we're still going to find you. I think Palin is an idiot, but I honestly don't think she said anything wrong there.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 4, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) Waterboard him, just for the fun of it. They could easily photoshop something if they were trying to pretend he's dead. As the days go by and it becomes clear he wasn't armed, I wonder why a bigger effort wasn't made to bring him in alive. My best answer is the government executed him to avoid giving him a huge stage. I'm giving it about a week before we get an op-ed that complains that we went about this the wrong way, that he he should have been kept alive, that we had no right under international law to kill him, etc etc. You know it's coming.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:57 PM) This must be more of that civil discourse we read so much about... we all know that rule only applies to one person

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Does a threat like that about an ex-president get you a secret service visit? (serious question). I doubt it, but he might have been added to a list.

Lol, this is gonna go over well: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...eorge_bush.html

conspiracy alert!! What if Bin Laden isn't dead? What if they captured him instead to gain more intel? Eh? Eh? Edit: I write this because of the flip in "we'll show you the pics, we won't show you the pics" from the WH

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) I dont see why she wouldnt have a free speech rights in her capacity as a cheerleader? If Im at a sporting event as an athlete can a school order me to say something or else I am expelled from the team? If my coach ordered me to yell racist remarks at the other team, and he kicked me off because I remained silent, would that be okay? Why did she not have the right to stay silent? I understand she may not have had the right to yell rapist, etc., but I cant think of any reason why a student doesnt have the right to remain silent if they disagree. Being a cheerleader is nothing more than being a part of a student activity, and the school is a govt entity so it falls under the scope of 1st Amendment rights. I personally think that she had the right to remain silent. But even on that wasnt what I was getting at. The fact that a Judge went even further: "announced that HS must also reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it." How was that lawsuit frivolous? Reasonable people can have reasonable differences, but I cant see how it was so far out there to sue because a school was making her cheer when she wanted to remain silent. Its easy to blame the judges because they made a ruling that some how excludes cheerleading from the first amendment and then ruled that it was frivolous when other similar action would be considered 1st amendment violation but for the fact she was a cheerleader. Do you really think that there is some supreme court case that suggests cheerleaders arent covered by the first amendment? Because a frivolous lawsuit means that there was no chance they could win, and I actually think the District Court was wrong. That was kinda my thinking. At best there's a case out there about students having/not having free speech rights while in school (the jesus bong tshirt case for example), but I doubt this has been heard before. Classy school district down there though, especially if they record the judgment and try to collect

Only in Texas: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...st-2278522.html I can see why SCOTUS wouldn't want to take the case, but two appellate courts actually upheld the award? Ridiculous.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:28 PM) I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with John Woo. US Civilian courts do not allow evidence obtained thru torture. Have you any evidence torture is effective? no. Have you any evidence Waterboarding is not considered torture? No, except for a few bogus legal documents from john woo. So you are plainly wrong, as you are on most every topic you speak on. You remind me a lot of this guy with your ridiculous way of discussing issues with people:

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Since I'm being the grammar police today, I'll also clarify this He can't infer something by saying it. He can only imply. The person hearing it is the one who would infer. Ha, good catch

QUOTE (bmags @ May 4, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) No, that's not the issue. Waterboarding is torture. When it's used by other regimes we dont' agree with we easily call it torture. And we don't know whether it's effective. That's why we don't allow it in our courts. Because it put thousands of innocent people to die because they false confessed. None of your post is true, none. I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as you make it seem.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) The timeline is the key here. KSM and the other guy were heavily tortured in 2002 as we were trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq. That's when the 180 waterboardings in a month happened. The Torture program was, as far as we know, stopped by early 2003-2004, because it had served its purpose (giving us an excuse to go into Iraq). By all accounts, the name of this courier was not learned until somewhere in the range 2005-2007. If it had been obtained via torture, it would have been learned in 2002 when the intense torture happened. In other words, the torture itself, 180 waterboardings in a month, were totally ineffective at obtaining the name of this courier. The statement that the intel was obtained from people who had been tortured is probably correct, but there are only a couple possibilities. Either the torturers in 2002 were only interested in Iraq and simply never wanted to hear anything about Bin Laden's network, or the detainees being tortured held out and did not give up that name until years after the intense torture had passed. Neither one of them builds a strong case for torture. While this makes sense, it doesn't jive with what Panetta just admitted. So there's a disconnect somewhere. If waterboarding played absolutely no part in this, why didn't he just say so? It's clearly not a politically acceptable method, so there's no reason (but every incentive) to just say that it played no part. He was asked a direct question about it from multiple angles and yet he still didn't close that door. Maybe they got the name of the courier from someone else, but maybe some of the information they got from waterboarding made it credible? Who knows. At this point it's all speculation. But you guys seem to be of the opinion that the door should be closed on the issue even though the Panetta clearly opened it back up.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 4, 2011 -> 11:42 AM) Maybe. But it's a strange way of going about that. But like I said, I'm not sure it matters. The bulk of the reason we got OBL had nothing to do with torture, and I will not be convinced that we needed waterboarding to acquire this info. Is this opinion or fact? Because my entire point is that we don't know what role it played. Waterboarding might have been the spark to start the whole operation. Maybe that's where we first got the nick name of the courier. We'll probably never know though.