Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 8, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) Rumor has it Olbermann will be heading to CurrentTV. Well, he had a good career while it lasted.

I'll give the Chicago Code a solid B+ for the pilot. Enough to get me to watch it again and see where they go with the story. I like the subtle shoutouts to random Chicago stuff ("what time does the game start? 1:20?" A Cubs fan! I knew it!") and I love that they use actual Chicago locations. Agree that it would be 100% better on HBO or Showtime, but i'll take what I can get.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) Without the worker to testify that he was on the job at the time the injury occurred, there's no case, that seems plain to me. Yeah wrongful death cases are a real b**** to work because of this

Sepinwall's preview said one character is a sox fan with a backstory of beating up a cubs fan with a Carlton Fisk bat. The prospects of the show went up ten fold after reading that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) Visits per day mean nothing. Their dwindling profits and money losing ventures are why they're done. Moviephone? Seriously, they were big in 1997, they're nothing now. Do they even make money with this? Mapquest? Nobody uses mapquest. Again, wheres the money from these millions of hits per day? Huffington Post is good, but they paid hundreds of millions of dollars for something that cost 1 million to start...again, they overpaid...I haven't looked at Huffposts books, so I don't know how profitable this company is, and I don't know if they're growing in profits, etc... Profits mean everything. Site visits, which you quote, mean s***. AOL's current earnings per share for end 2010: NEGATIVE $7.43. Yea, your right, they're not done...they're doing swimmingly well! I use moviephone all the time for my movie time searching. Mapquest I don't use, but it's like a yahoo/google thing. People have their preference and they stick with it. I think those are two valuable assets they have, and they just added a third. Financially they're paying for prior bad decisions, but they're improving that situation now I think. And who knows if 350 million is overpaying. How could you know? Do you know what the ad revenue she was generating? Clearly enough to sell her one-time small blog for that much.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 7, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) AOL is done, and has been for a while. They own mapquest, moviephone and now the huffington post. That's how many hundreds of millions of site visits a day? They're far from "done."

Anyone else planning to watch The Chicago Code? If it was called The [insert any other city in the nation] Code, I would not be interested at all. But since it was filmed here and I actually had a small chat with the guy that plays the alderman when they were filming in front of my building, I'm gonna give it a go. Reviews have been guardedly optimistic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2011 -> 08:21 PM) Anyone want to disagree with the idea that Chrysler just won the night? I agree that was a good one. This has been the worst sb for commercials maybe ever. Doritos/pepsi/bud just need to go away.

Ugh, what a bulls*** call to end the half. These refs are pathetic. Also nice of mccamey to show up during the big ten season. Hope someone is telling him he's losing millions every week.

government saves!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 4, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) I have At&t dont love it but most of the time its good enough. Certain areas in the city have less reception, but overall I generally have as good of reception as most people. There are just some bad areas for cell reception in cities. Same here. Unless you're in a weird area, AT&T is just as good as the rest.

What I find funny is that a lot of the protestors are pleading with the US to help them. So, they're getting rid of the pro-US regime, but want our intervention? How does that work?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2011 -> 07:37 AM) This link will be caught by the swear filter, but I think it's an on-topic point. Yeah, because the media was all roses and sunshine during the Bush years.... GMAB.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2011 -> 12:44 PM) So, so, SO glad we decided to buy a snowblower back in December. I resisted at first, but this would have been horrendous without it. Long corner lot, and we have to do our sidewalks ourselves. Plus the driveway. I had the flu the last couple of days but still managed to help my wife shovel our driveway, which was covered in about 2-3 feet of snow. We spent 3 hours digging out a quarter of the driveway, just big enough to get our car out. 5 minutes after we finished my neighbor came over with his big snowblower and finished the rest of our driveway in 10 minutes. I was both happy that he did that, and pissed that we wasted so much time and energy. I'm definitely buying one at the end of this season.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 3, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) Like I've said, repeatedly, from the very beginning, there are some parts of this law (it's not a bill anymore), that ARE and will continue to be good. Things like pre-existing conditions not affecting your ability to get insurance, lifetime maximums, etc. These are the same bullet points everyone talks about when discussing this law. These are good things. What I can say, with certainty, is that the bills we receive from doctors, hospitals, and drug companies have gone up (not down), and continue to do so. Therefore, it's of my opinion that the bill failed, in every way/shape/form, to lower costs, which was the bulk of the entire point in doing this. It did nothing but implement some admittedly necessary reforms on health insurance, but that's all it did. The followup did nothing to curtail the increasing costs of care. Among the key GOOD points: Insurance companies can no longer kick you off their insurance or say no to pre-existing conditions. Meanwhile, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies can CONTINUE to charge whatever they please...and increase what they charge, because they feel like it...therefore the costs of care continue to rise, and the insurance companies have the right to raise premiums to match, which is what they've been doing. The only thing that law prevents them from doing is unjustly raising premiums for no reason...but they have a reason...because the costs keep rising in every other facet of the game. If you can't understand this, stop asking me. I've BEEN telling all of you this from the START, before the bill was even written...and I continue to be right about everything that's happening, whether you like it or not. Agreed. Also, I still want to know why/how Obama can just exempt certain companies from complying with this law. What's the point if he can do that?

First health care exemptions, now emissions exemptions. So basically the law only applies to those who aren't in Obama's pockets. Nice way of governing. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltwa...-exemption-febr

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) You're implication that everyone has figured out what balta hasn't is incorrect. This isn't set in stone, so don't speak for everyone. I think in this situation its highly appropriate. I can make the moon=the earth if i just choose to ignore the meaning of words and fundamental aspects of the two systems we're talking about.

Soxy? Maybe 10-15 was a bit high...I dunno it just seems like every debate ends up being 1-2 conservatives arguing one point and 4-5 liberals arguing the opposite. At some point there's not much of a debate, but a pile on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) I agree with what you and NSS are saying regarding mandate vs. incentive, but I think Balta's got you on the societal benefit point. If you're going to allow things because they benefit society, then clearly universal healthcare, in some fashion or another, would be allowable and desirable. I said that because it sounded like Balta thinks those incentives are BS. But maybe I read it the wrong way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:29 AM) You don't get to argue societal benefit here. You don't see the societal benefit of a functioning insurance market and not having uninsured? If you're giving "Societal benefit" as your standard, then you're giving up on the constitutionality on this case, because tons of things have societal benefit. Yes, there is a fundamental difference in speaking terms between incentive and mandate, but the law itself is not structured that way. The law itself is structured such that the individual mandate is a tax incentive for this purchase. If you choose not to pay it, that's fine, you just have to forego the incentive. The way I read what you're saying, you're arguing that if I give person A a gift but don't give person B a gift, then I've just "taxed" B. I don't get how that's the same. It's an incentive. It's open to everyone. It's not a mandate that forces everyone to do something.

IMO there's 10-15 liberal posters that post regularly and probably 4-5 conservatives, which includes moderates. So nearly ANY discussion in this thread (and others) turns into a liberal circle jerk, especially when the issue is controversial.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 08:20 AM) No, I really do not see the difference. In either case, the person who does not purchase the privately-owned product pays a higher tax rate than the person who does. In both cases, there is a tax advantage for purchasing a certain type of qualifying, privately-owned product. The structure of the law is/should be identical for both of them. You set the general tax rate, you specify the type of purchases that qualify for the tax credit, and if people make those qualifying purchases, they receive a lower tax rate. If I choose not to purchase insurance, the tax penalty is actually smaller than the tax penalty for not having a mortgage at most interest rates. You don't see a societal benefit to people that purchase homes, have kids, get an advanced degree, etc? I agree with NSS here, I dunno how you can equate the two unless you're totally changing the meaning of the words incentive and mandate.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 28, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) I'll have to completely disagree. What are you disagreeing with here? Have you seen pictures/video of Lincoln Park/Wrigleyville from about 1980 to 2000 compared to what it is now? He's absolutely right.

It'd be great if Illinois would throw a ton of money at Brad Stevens. I know he didn't jump at the Oregon job or some of the other openings this summer, but I think Illinois presents him with some good opportunities. He can continue recruiting the same areas but move up in pay, conference and program.

Yeah, you can officially throw me on the ledge of the Weber bandwagon. I don't buy that coaches lose games in the final seconds....the players have to make plays and Weber can't do anything about turning the ball over. BUT, as you say, this team is just not meant for the motion offense. You need guards and wings that constantly MOVE, which generates open looks, both inside and out. Mike Davis is terrible. Unfortunately McCamey has disappeared. Same with Richardson. Paul and Richmond are trying, but can't do it all. I dunno, I'm torn. I don't think you can make a move even if they have a one and down in the tournament this year. I think you have to ride it out a couple more seasons with the talent he's bringing in. Yes, a lot of the talent is because of Howard, but they still have to play for the coach, so you risk losing on some big name guys if they don't like the coach. And Illinois has never been a "top" job. It was a great job, and still is given the facilities, fan base and $$. I don't think anyone bounces from Illinois for a "better" gig unless it's for a specific job, ala Self and Kansas.