Jenksismyhero

I should have gone over to watch the argument, but Fenwick's attorney is making a ludicrous argument, IMO, that a rulebook is equivalent to a contract and the failure to abide by the rule is a breach of that contract. Talk about opening the flood gates...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 23, 2016 -> 09:55 AM) It was defcon 1 when Obama's reverend had a controversial sermon. Obama had to denounce him and leave his church. With Trump it's just whatever. No big deal when so many white supremacists are either part of the administration or cheering it on. The hypocrisy is astounding. I honestly believe that issue proves his narcissism more than his racism. "Someone said something nice about me? Who cares who it is, RETWEET!!!!!"

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 07:15 PM) Therein lies the problem. If Trump does engage Alec Baldwin, SNL, Hamilton cast, Duterte, the British (because they had the temerity not to allow him to name the Ambassador to the US!!!), Xi Jinping, etc. Then how is that NOT newsworthy? Trump over and over again has made the point that Twitter and social media were key factors in his victory (and saving money on campaign ads)...and then we can just go back to the general point that only 3-5% of election coverage was spent talking about or debating policy or substantive issues. So HOW can that suddenly flip from campaigning to governing and the focus will be 100% on policy when all those Twitter controversies are what creates news coverage and page views?? Obviously, that strategy implemented by the Trump campaign has become something of a double-edged sword. Of course, left unmentioned is the fact that the $25 million Trump University settlement quietly took place without hardly any mention...there's just so many things spinning around in the air at the same time, it's hard to focus on just one thing at a time. I agree, it's a problem. But the media could collectively decide to cover the newsworthy components of what he does/says, not the bulls*** unimportant stuff. The problem is there's no money to be made from doing that. Re: the bolded, I don't think there's a lot, I think the media chooses to cover every small thing he does so it seems like a lot. When the top story of the day is Trump meeting with the New York Times and what happened during that meeting, including what he ate for lunch and when he took a piss, you know the media doesn't care about news, they care about the views they're going to get from the pissed of liberals and the excited conservatives.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) Who, with Hannity? I watch most of the Sunday morning network shows and I feel like he's been on every one of those multiple times in the last couple of months.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 01:44 PM) He hadn't had a press conference since July. Fair, but he's done plenty of interviews. It's not as if the guy is hiding from the public is my point.

Anyone have a Surface Pro? My wife has been hinting that she wants one and i've been looking at possibly getting one during Black Friday. I'm just not sold that it's worth it. I don't think she would use it for anything more than streaming shows/movies, checking email, surfing the web and looking at photos of our kids. She's not going to be drawing portraits like a sketch artist or whatever. Is there a need for this over a tablet? Is it going to last longer? Any reviews?

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 01:35 PM) Trump met with NYTimes, and had this to say: https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/801126093776449537 I'm glad he said that. I wish he would have more press interviews where this can all be discussed instead of Twitter. Don't you think part of that is unreasonable expectations of the guy a week after the election? Everyone i've seen has said he's way ahead of both Bush and Obama on his transition team/appointments and he's been more open and public about it. Yeah, he's made questionable choices for sure, but the constant, hourly criticism is getting silly. And that leads to a problem someone pointed out the other day - if the media continues to focus on nonsense stories like the Hamilton response or the SNL response, they're creating a world in which Trump is criticized for literally everything and people will just tune out the legitimate criticisms like his actual, questionable appointments. Didn't we just learn that lesson through the campaign? Focus on every little thing he does and the big stuff gets lots in the haze.

The fact that he relies on Tate so much kills me. Why the hell is Tate in control of the offense in crunch time? Why isn't Groce screaming for Hill or Abrams to handle the ball at all times to get a bucket? After the game Groce actually said Tate did a good job on Johnson, the dude that put up 38 on them with a cramped foot. WTF is that? That's how far this program has fallen. Not only do we lose, we lose at home and we lose at home to 100+ ranked teams. Oh, and f*** Groce for saying this is a good thing, they needed it. No, you didn't need a loss or a close win as a reality check. You haven't been to the tournament in 3 years and your team is led by a senior and 2 guys that have been around for 5-6 seasons. That's "reality" enough. If you haven't instilled a desire/effort to win every game and get back to the tournament with this group, the majority of which are 4 star guys with experience, then nothing will. He's a total embarrassment. I loved the hire, I think he's a good guy at heart, but for f***'s sake he's Jay Cutler. Excuse after excuse after excuse is given to him. How many of these losses do we have to take before we just finally admit he's not a good coach? I'll stop paying attention if they miss the dance this year and he's allowed back for yet another season of mediocre basketball. And that really sucks because Illinois bball is the only team I watch 99.9% of games even when they suck. I've had it with the program if this nonsense remains acceptable.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Nov 22, 2016 -> 06:06 AM) As long as that thing/cyborg in Cleveland is alive and kicking it doesn't really matter. True, although hopefully that will tail off in another 2-3 seasons when Jimmy is at his peak.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 09:13 PM) The bigger question is what would Trump have to do or so to actually have a significant number of his supporters finally turn against him? He said that he could shoot someone in broad daylight in NYC and still win. So obviously, there are a majority of Republican voters who weren't comfortable with Trump, but with even less comfortable with four more years of the Clintons. When does country/unity/stability come over the possibility of remaking the political world a way they were never able to during the last 8 years? This "silent majority" is wary of Trump, and many are afraid of serving under him OR being "too" connected to him in the event he drags the whole party down (eventually). What is the responsibility of this "non-deplorable Silent Majority" in your opinion, IF ANY? They should oppose any morally objectionable thing that Trump tries to do, but obviously there's a grey area there. Limiting immigration from Muslim countries isn't per se discrimination. Obviously a program that assumes they're all terrorists and need to be watched is. If Trump's going for the latter I would hope the Republicans join Democrats in denouncing such a program. If it's the former I'm not sure I have a huge problem with it.

John f***ing Groce.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) Forgot about the deplorables thing - got anything else? Throughout the course of the campaign, Trump said racist things about Mexicans and Muslims. Trump mocked a report for having a disability. He was accused of sexual assault by a number of women. People at his rallies were chanting "Lock her Up" with respect to Trump's presidential opponent - and he encouraged that. A large part of his appeal was that he was "not PC." So "deplorables" vs. every insane thing that Trump said and did on the campaign trail... I'm certain that a large number of Trump voters are not racist. Those people may not have voted for Trump because of the racist, sexist, and other terrible things that he said. But those comments were not a deal breaker for Trump's presidency to them. Meaning they didn't think that those comments and actions disqualified him from the office of the Presidency. Objectively, Trump's campaign was embraced by and endorsed by white supremacists. His election seems to have emboldened those same groups. I'm sure there are Democrats that are a-holes and have called all Republicans racist. That doesn't equate to that being the Democrats national policy platform. And that doesn't excuse the election of Donald Trump. ETA: I just want to re-iterate - this discussion began with SS2K stating that the Democrats "holier than thou, anyone who isn't with us is a racist attitude just isn't effective as a political platform." There's no evidence that this is, or has ever been, the Dem's political platform. And even if it was, what does it say about the country that the racist platform beat that platform... I'm not saying it's an official platform of the party, nor am I saying it was an equally offensive campaign. But there was - and is - a sense that if you're not with the progressive agenda it's because you're some ass-backwards white supremacist. I think it's clearly evident in how people reacted to the election. edit: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=3445622 its because they hate brown people. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol.../white_won.html (from a soxtalk post I made) White people won cuz they hate minorities.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 05:31 PM) These are not things that happened, no. You may not say it outright but that's what you're inferring when you place the blame of the result on "tens of millions" that voted for him. GMAB. In your view if you vote for Trump you're supporting racism/bigotry/sexism, true or false?

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 05:04 PM) And finally the Republicans will have to come up with their own policies and pass them...replace Obamacare and Medicare with something better while not blowing up the budget? Infrastructure spending increases of $1 trillion while cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, dumping estate taxes...and that's magically going to provide GDP growth of 4-5%? Conservative predictions say that the deficit will have another $5-10 trillion added doing that. If the GOP goes down thst road adter the Bush years, they can never complain about liberals blowing up the Federal budgets again and we can finally get some realistic conversations on policy choices that are not draconian tax cuts, increases in military spending and more privatized prisons. The only ones doing well so far are the 1%ers. Everyone else is just going to be more screwed in 2-4 years, they just don't know it yet. Agreed, but the caveat is the middle class is always f***ed by both parties. I'd prefer to be f***ed a little less by having the rich pay more, but it's really a wash at the end of the day. Taxes still rise, costs/fees for everything associated with government goes up. The rich avoid those things, the poor can't afford it, so the middle is still stuck with the bill no matter who is in charge.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 04:58 PM) If your thesis is that the divide between rural and urban has never been greater, I can get behind that argument. And it's worth fleshing out why that divide continues to grow. However, you still haven't provided any evidence in support of your argument that Democrats have been calling everyone racists, or that they campaigned on insulting the ordinary people in this country. On this board alone SS calls any Trump voter a racist. Hillary called them deplorables. You really don't think that happened/happens?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 04:57 PM) There are lots of things Democrats can look at as to why they've struggled in elections, but I gotta laugh at the continued attempts to make everything horrible about the modern GOP the fault of Democrats. Clinton may not have turned out the right number of people in the right states, but that doesn't absolve the tens of millions of people who voted for Trump or the tens of millions who didn't vote at all from their responsibility. Simple question: do you think that calling all non-liberal people racists/bigots/homophobs/etc makes those people more or less likely to vote for a Democrat, even if they themselves are not racist/bigoted/homophobic, etc? At some point if you keep pissing the people off that are Republican for those non-social reasons, you're still not picking up their vote, and if anything they will justify voting for someone like Trump because of that anger. That is the mistake that Democrats apparently aren't learning here. While there is a minority of Republicans who are those terrible things, the vast majority are not. But continue painting with that broad brush and you won't make any of the inroads that you need to win.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2016 -> 04:45 PM) They are losing all over the country. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/30673...te-legislatures Clearly they're all just racist.

I used to be one of those people that didn't think JB could be the #1 on a championship team. I'm starting to wonder how true that is. Has he reached his ceiling yet?

Taking away the for-profit aspect of healthcare would seriously impact medical advancements. I'm all for making the cost of medical care open and more reasonable, but you really shouldn't take away that incentive. Now, obviously on the other end, you shouldn't be able to monopolize a drug or device and charge an obscene amount either.

Also Blake traveled about 3 times there.

Terrible call. Home cooking.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) That's fine if that is your expectation. But then you can't be mad when teams who compete for a National Championship every single year out recruit Groce. The fact is, if you really feel like LittleHurt's expectations are fair, you should expect three and four star recruits every year. That NC Runner up had one five star player on it. Um, no one is. No one expects Groce to pull down Kansas/Kentucky/Duke classes and no one is disappointed when it doesn't happen. That's quite different from being upset with a bad couple of beats in recruiting, like when a guy that verballed months before changes his mind on signing day (leaving the team scrambling for a replacement or a guy that picked up an Illinois hat before putting it back down during his announcement (ha ha f*** you Cliff, karma's a b****, how's the D-League?).

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) To not do so would be a disaster for Illinois. We would never land a top recruit again if we fired Groce, leading Tilmon to demand out of his NLI, and then forbid JT from leaving. Frankly, Whitman has given every indication Groce is staying and Illinois cannot afford to pay another coach not to coach. This thread is so stereotypical Illinois fan. The program has won very little, but the fans expect them to land blue blood class recruits. Of course, when they finally do, they're unsatisfied because they don't realize that they're Illinois fans and Illinois is just not a top tier program anymore. I mean, I don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable. From the late 80's to the mid 2000's it was a very good, top 25 nationally, top 5 conference, program. For a stretch it was easily top 10-15 (2000-2005) and the best in the big ten. It all culminated in 2005 when they were legitimately one of the best teams ever and then failed to deliver. Since that point it's been nothing but let downs and disappointment. Weber continually whiffed on recruits, failed to adapt to his roster's strengths and left the program in the bottom third of the conference. Groce hasn't done much to change that. What he did bring was the hope of a resurgence in recruiting and getting so close to so many top guys like Snyder and Alexandar really cemented that belief. They're nowhere close to a top tier program right now. I totally accept that. But it doesn't mean Illinois can't recapture that run that happened 10-15 years ago.

Lol, obligatory Hitler video about the election. "Bills emails to you are safe."

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 18, 2016 -> 12:17 PM) Thibbs! http://deadspin.com/tom-thibodeau-hasnt-changed-1789136736 I would actually side with Thibs on this since they're such a young team and they've had some major problems defensively so far this season. They need to work on that.