Jenksismyhero

Might be the greatest of him I've seen.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) I need to get the DVDs one of these days and sit down and watch it. If you have netflix streaming it's on there. Same with The War.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 7, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) Yes, that's why they're talking about Kentucky, not Kansas. As for next years teams, UNC is going to be absolutely loaded if Barnes comes back, easily the front runner imo. And even after the top 8, I think there should be some decent teams. Love Vandy's talent, despite their 1st round exits in the NCAA's the last couple of years. UCLA is going to be loaded with talent as well. I'm sure the level of play still wont be anything outstanding but you'll have some pretty damn good teams next year imo. Lol, oops. I saw the "K" and thought Kansas. Others have them high on these early top 25's.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:09 AM) Did you watch Rubicon? The Killing has a very similar feel to it...sort of an overcast, hazy feeling to it...and it slowly builds and builds and builds....it took me awhile to get into Rubicon, but the payoff in the end was very good. I got the same feeling almost immediately with The Killing. I'd agree. I enjoyed the pace and style of Rubicon, it just sucked there wasn't much of a story. The Killing has that same tense feel. I enjoyed the first two episodes.l

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 10:28 PM) Ken Burns' series The Civil War has been airing on PBS this week. Probably one of the best documentary series' ever made. Agreed. I'm watching The War right now. Also very good. He's apparently just signed a deal to do a 10-12 hour documentary on Vietnam due to come out in 2016. I'm excited for that because this country has never had a good historical documentary covering wtf actually happened there.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) I think the drop off after UNC and UK will be pretty severe. It will either be UK, UNC or UNC, UK depending on what Barnes, Jones, and Knight do. Didn't I read somewhere that Selby and the Morris twins are leaving?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Here's a version of that article from a business mag. Ah, so basically you're stereotyping his audience as being poor and uneducated based on the fact that they don't buy Mercedes. I get it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) It's not just his ratings. Aside from 3-4 companies, no one, and I mean no one, was dumb enough to buy advertising time with him. That's why 1/2 his ads were for goldline and for survival packs and shelters. No major company wanted to be buying advertising time on his show if one of his fans went on a shooting rampage, or if he said something like "Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white people". On top of that, the demographics were terrible. Almost as old as O'Reilly's, less educated, lower income. link?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) Why? His ratings were falling off a cliff, which is why Fox decided not to renew his contract. If he can tone the conservative angle down he's just another controversial talking head with at least some following. What were his last ratings compared to the 2nd or 3rd option at MSNBC?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 6, 2011 -> 02:15 PM) Fox News cancels Glenn Beck's show I bet he ends up at MSNBC.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) If it was designed for the best teams to get to the Final Four only the top 4 teams would be in the tournament. The entire point of a tournament is to give every seed, 1-16, a chance to win. That does not mean each team has an equal chance to win, but even a 16 seed only has to win as many games as a 1 seed. A chance? Yes. A realistic chance? Eh, not really. I mean there are upsets sure, but usually not that many. This year was obviously a fluke.

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 05:53 PM) What exactly is his talent? Not going to play SG or SF in the NBA with no jump shot and a terrible attitude. I'm with you. Even as an Illini-homer I never got the all-NBA talent that was bestowed upon him. Really, really high basketball IQ, great passer, decent rebounder and decent dribble. Terrible shooter, worse attitude.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) The problem isnt one and done, its the fact that you can get a ton of exposure at Butler as a starter compared to UNC on the bench. If you are hoping for finals where its MJ, Perkins and Worthy versus Ewing and Floyd, it just isnt going to happen every year. Even that UNC team only beat James Madison in the 2nd round by 2 points. Furthermore back then the field was only 48 teams, meaning that the top 4 seeds got byes which gave them a much better chance of moving on. The problem is that you have a tournament that is created to give each team a chance to win. What happens is that some times the best teams dont win. The more chances that are given to lose, the more likely that the best teams wont be in the final game. I don't think this is true when you have a seeded tournament like this. The whole thing is designed to let the best teams get to at least the final four. That's what happens most of the time.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 03:59 PM) Not sure about what his status would be next year, but grades were why he didn't play in the ncaa tournament. I hope no one actually bought the locker room fight but it wasn't the coaches call line. One of the worst coverups ever. If he's going to fail out why not just let him play? At that point what do you lose? He's gone next year anyway. I'm also not sure why he continued to participate in team gatherings last week and why Weber came out and said he expected him back.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) Probably none except maybe Shaw. It will be Maniscalo, Paul, Richardson, Leonard, and probably Griffey. Griffey and Leonard need to take a big leap next year or it's gonna be rough relying on all the freshman frontcourt players. Griffey becoming Cole version 2.0 would be great.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Frankly as much as I made fun of him for going pro, I'm not sure he had any other real option. I think Illinois and the coaches have done everything to accept him. They've basically covered for him being a distraction all season. The rumor mill is saying that he basically stopped going to class and that Weber had to beg the admn to let him travel with the team to the tourney. That makes sense. Sounds like he's in Chicago now and has been for a while.

I really want to know who advices that moron in life. How does he stay committed to Illinois for 4 years and then leave after such a crappy season? He's not even projected to get drafted in the first round. He's a 2nd round fringe kind of player right now. I also want to know details about the suspension, and that crap back during the Wisconsin trip. What a waste.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Apr 5, 2011 -> 01:40 AM) Fitting end to this season. Worst college basketball season I've ever seen, worst title game I've ever seen. Quite frankly, both teams played like s*** and should be ashamed of themselves. However, UConn just played like run of the mill, reasonable s***. Butler played like a level of s*** that cannot be described in words. A Horizon League team making two title games in a row, even in this era, is still quite amazing. But for them to be up 6 with 19:30 left in the title game, and then just absolutely die like that.....it's more shocking than any of their 10 wins in the last two tournaments. We either need a two year minimum, back to the days where you can skip college alltogether, or a system like baseball where you have to either go straight out of high school, or wait 3 years. Although, I think there is a JUCO loophole in that system, but you get what I'm trying to say. The system as it is now does no good for the kids, the NBA, or the NCAA, and there is no reason to keep it as is. Agreed. The system needs to be fixed because it's really starting to hurt the quality of the sport. I'm all about having more parity, but let's have 5-6 GREAT teams, not 5-6 good teams.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 12:35 PM) Here, I've highlighted the places where you've stated or implied, over and over and over again, that a majority of poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid and/or criminals, that they've no drive to better themselves and are happier to collect government money than to work hard. I haven't made anything up. These are your abhorrent ideas, in your own words and in context. Own up to them. Yeah, I still stand behind what I'm saying. You're the one trying to peg me into an absolute position. You've ignored my multiple statements that there are still those people that do nothing wrong and that bad luck in life screws them. I've explained what I think government's role in that situation is. If you can't grasp that I've recognized the exception to the rule, then that's on you. Frankly I don't think that my statements are all that "ignorant" or "abhorrent." If you really don't think issues like crime or lack of education are a major factor in economic status, well, again, that's on you. But continue to pretend like your work ethic in life gets you no where. We should tell our kids not to try in school or have goals, cuz at the end of the day it just comes down to inheritance and luck right? So, whatever. I've said my peace.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 09:10 PM) Both the charge calls that went against UConn were incorrect. This game is laughably bad. Except for the fact that both kemba and that other dude lowered their shoulder. That's an easy call every time, even if the defender is moving. I agree this game is pretty brutal though. Historically brutal. I'm not sure that i can remember a worse half of a championship game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) I did not make that claim and made explicit statements to the contrary. The corollary of your argument is that (for the most part) if you aren't 'just fine', you must not have tried hard and stayed out of trouble. This again implies that the poor are mostly lazy, stupid criminals who just want to suck on the government tit. I've provided at least some support for my claims while you're just relying on your own opinion. Stating "that's true" doesn't make it so. And, again, I never said effort amount to nothing. You are stereotyping tens of millions of Americans with your ignorant and insulting perception of why they're poor. Can being lazy lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). Can being a criminal lead to being poor? Sure (but not necessarily). These are very, very far from being the only or leading causes of poverty. Ugh. I'm done. You're making s*** up at this point. If you're going to ignore what I've said then there's no point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) You don't seem to be following the argument at all. This isn't necessarily about "government handouts" but about your ridiculous ideas that poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid criminals who don't want a better life and want to live off of welfare. Also, personal anecdotes don't trump data. That's not my argument. My argument is opposing your idea that unless you're a white male that inherits land you're basically screwed no matter how hard you work. I said that you overplay the "capitalism lottery" point since we're talking about a minority of people and that for the most part if you try in this world and stay out of trouble you'll be just fine. I never claimed you'd be guaranteed to be rich, I never claimed that the system we have is perfect, i'm just saying that if you do those things chances are pretty good that you'll be fine. That's true. So this idea that it all doesn't matter is bulls***. And why is it so ridiculous to claim that poor people are poor for those reasons? That's true is it not? If you have a criminal record it's going to be more difficult to find a job, and therefore you're more likely to be poor. Same with being lazy. Edit: perhaps you should stop reading into my argument that i'm claiming that ALL poor people are that way. I've stated numerous times that i'm not talking about ALL people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:49 AM) "Well, sorry, millions of hard-working poor, law-abiding Americans! You just had the horrible luck of being a minority and/or born into a lower economic class! But we swear, somehow our system rewards merit!" Yeah, this argument does nothing for me. Both of my grandparents were poor farmers who made it on their own. They provided their kids with a better life, and the same for my parents to me. They didn't ask the government for a handout to "make it right" because their life was "unfair."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) LOL, that's the whole point! There isn't equal opportunity and meritocracy is a myth. "working hard" and "pulling yourself up by your boostraps" isn't guaranteed to get a decent living. What you think doesn't really match with reality for many people. It also implicitly states, again, that anyone who isn't successful (eg median wage or better) doesn't work hard, made huge mistakes, isn't law-abiding or doesn't strive for a better life. Well, those are the possibilities yes, and you can add in "horrible luck" too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 4, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) LOL, that's the whole point! There isn't equal opportunity and meritocracy is a myth. "working hard" and "pulling yourself up by your boostraps" isn't guaranteed to get a decent living. What you think doesn't really match with reality for many people. Well, that's just false. You provide equal opportunity with what you can provide. You can't provide 2 loving parents to every kid out there, but what you can provide is a safe environment for him/her to grow up in and the means to attain an education. These are things that the government provides to everyone, regardless of your background. Sounds like you want equal results.