Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) It matters because this was a political event where the politician was the first person shot at by the terrorist. This terrorist also met with this politician at a previous political event. Palin had a sniper's target on her website with the victim's name on it and she used rhetoric with violent undertones. I'm not saying Palin is responsible for this but she certainly needs to be brought up in the discussion of the events that transpired. I blame Thomas Jefferson. That f***ing asshole. He had the gall to say "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." It's his fault!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 08:33 PM) Who exactly is better off if this person is dead? Everyone?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 07:44 PM) let me put this simply so you understand. Insane people also have reasons for taking action. Whether those reasons make sense to us is irrelevant. You're suggesting we shouldn't look for the reasons, simply because he's insane. You do realize how idiotic that is, correct? What are you babbling about here exactly? When did I say we shouldn't find out what this guys motivation was? My point is that we shouldn't (1) use this tragedy to further s*** on someone you don't like, and (2) jump to insane conclusions ("it's the political rhetoric in this country, spearheaded by the GOP!") without knowing any of the facts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 06:34 PM) Taking revenge on the mentally ill makes you feel good? Since you said "on the first page" and I'm the one that pointed it out...I'm going to assume the quote there is a shot at me. I explicitly avoided saying she's the cause of him snapping. Instead, I said she's the person who made an off-color joke about to you right after your family member was in a car accident. There's a reason why you don't say things like that publicly; even if you're not encouraging it, if you make the joke and then it happens...you look like a jackass. So mentally ill he committed pre-meditated murder of multiple people in public. Yep, sure sounds like someone who should be locked up in a cell for the rest of his life and saved of his illness. GMAFB. It was directed at your comments, as well as others. You used it as an opportunity to s*** on her, and you know it. "I'm not saying, i'm just saying."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 06:23 PM) General question...how is an attempted assassination of a political figure somehow an apolitical event? If it was based on some credible evidence sure. Simply making up s*** like "oh, well Palin is a polarizing figure so she's the cause of him snapping" shortly after the tragedy occurred is ridiculous. And yes, "more" killing. Provide me with one reason why this guy should live. He's the perfect example of why the death penalty should still be around.

man, reading this thread from page 1 made me almost as sick as hearing the news of this tragedy. Agree with those who say we should be concerned for the victims and their families. f*** the people who brought politics into this. Dude was insane. Period. Barney the dinosaur could have set him off, doesn't mean anyone else is responsible. I hope he has his public trial and is put to death immediately.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) Poor teaching isn't a reason to censor a book so as to remove its meaning. If teachers can't properly put the book into context and ensure that the students understand Twain, then they shouldn't be teaching the book at all. Neutering it so that you can have kids read a "classic" just makes the situation worse. FWIW, Twain's probably my favorite writer and I think he should be taught more than he is. Did you grab his autobiography? I haven't yet, but I hear it's like 600 pages in 8 pt font. And that's only the first part of it.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) They could substitute the pc words, footnote the change with an explanation, and his intention is known and open for discussion. Repetition of the words adds no value. And, even then, the impact of the words won't be quite understood by the kids reading them. My kids don't know the word "n*****" because I don't use it. What's the value of them learning it in 6th grade when they're at their most immature? Again, a teaching point. Instead of telling a kid "hey, this word is bad" you provide context. You make its use more real.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) Ack, you beat me to it! If we poke fun at the stupid Republicans that means we win the argument! Does this circle jerk ever get tiring for you guys?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:12 PM) This sentence is a classic. yeah, i figured some of you would jump on that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) I'll start off with the publisher's perspective on it. Schools at this point are flat-out not including the book in their curricula now because of the 200+ uses of the N-word. You can complain about political correctness here and you probably will, but like it or not...there is every reason to believe that having a mandatory assignment forcing people to read that book will provoke problems. And frankly, I'm not sure that the people complaining wouldn't have a point. The issue in many cases now is "do we read the book at all". This edit gives schools a chance to at least consider keeping it as part of their curricula. Then fix the retarded politically correct school thinking. This book is a classic. It should be used as a teaching point. Kids should read the book and ask why that word is used. This country is sometimes so backasswards about this stuff. You can't learn from your mistakes by erasing them from your memory as if they never happened.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) Trust me...you're better off in the long run if a politician lies to get elected and then makes painful decisions to deal with issues rather than keeping his mouth shut to get elected and then pretends that there are no long-term issues to deal with. Wow. Just...wow.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:30 PM) Which is sad because of how much talent is on that team. It could even be argued that they have more than MSU and OSU. I'm starting to believe Purdue fans when they said Bruce Weber can thank Matt Painter for landing him the Illinois job, he made that SIU team go. Ugh, now you're just being an annoying Hoosier fan. Give it up.

QUOTE (He_Gawn @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 10:10 AM) Really? Purdue does not rely on Johnson 99% of the time? He's the only big they that is able to even figure out where the offensive end of the court is. He is consistently double and triple teamed and still puts up huge numbers. What him and Moore are doing by themselves is incredible, this coming from an IU fan. Sullinger is very very good for a freshman, but he has help around him, just like McCamey. McCamey is a great player, but he's still a headcase at times and has been known to disappear in big games. Does Illinois have another Wooden Midseason top 30 guy on their roster? Do they have any other PG on their roster? OSU can handle an off night from Sullinger. Purdue can handle an off night from Johnson. Illinois is dead in the water if you can neutralize McCamey. No one is arguing that he's the only talent Illinois has, that's clearly not true. But you're talking about a PG who runs everything and is the key to the team. I don't think you can say the same about those other guys.

Dunno if this is the place to start this discussion, but it's financial "news." Top Illinois Democrats (Madigan and Quinn included) seem to agree on a plan to increase the state income tax by 75% and add an extra dollar on cigarette sales. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/06/tax...-than-expected/ Ignoring the SHOCKING news that Quinn is agreeing to a deal that he said he'd veto during the election season (any increase over 1%), what do people think? I think we all know taxes are going to go up some time, but I dunno if this is the time to do it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) Shook hands with Rahm this morning at the California Blue Line stop. Were you able to wash off the slime?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 7, 2011 -> 12:37 AM) One could argue Sullinger and Johnson as the best players in the conference at the moment. Sullinger is 6th in scoring, #2 in rebounds and leading the conference in fg%. One of two players avg's a double double. Johnson is 3rd in scoring and 4th in rebounds and also shooting over 50% from the floor. But their teams don't rely on them 99% of the time like McCamey. That's what sets him apart. Obviously there's a small number of elite guys, and at this point it's dumb to argue who's better. We'll see by the end of the year because that guy is probably going to lead his team to the conference title.

Wow. Illinois putting on a shooting clinic so far in this game.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 6, 2011 -> 04:26 PM) He doesn't need more practice time. What is that going to get him? The #1 pick in the draft? Nothing to gain, lockout or not. And I doubt he's staying in because of the threat of a lockout. You can get that degree later. Logically, this whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense. Does he not want to play in the NFL? He's already rich. He doesn't need money. He's one of the best (if not the best) player in the country. He's a hero at his school, growing his legacy each game that he play (can you imagine the tail this guy gets?) He's the front runner for the Heisman next year. His team has an outside shot of winning a national title. Oh, and he enjoys school and is excited about obtaining his degree from a prestigious university. On the other hand, he can go to the NFL and earn his millions but play for a terrible team for years and years and have to deal with constant negative media scrutiny and 1000 times the pressure. Pretty easy decision for me. Take out an insurance policy. Dude's gonna make tons of money no matter what he decides.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 09:17 PM) You realize that the whole reason why I brought that up is that Scalia, along with the other 4 Conservatives on the court, use the fact that Court has decided that corporations have more rights than people (or, in Scalia's case, women), and they used that decision to overturn a century of actions of Congress and decisions by previous Courts? Actually, the answer is pretty simple, and he's being consistent. From his "I hate women and they should all become my slaves" answer: The key is what the Court was asked to decide. Does the 1st Amendment limit free speech protections to people only, and does the 14th Amendment prohibit discrimination against women specifically. His answer is the same to both - the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other, so judges shouldn't just make something up to say that it does. If that's what our society wants, pass a law that provides for that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 5, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) You know what's really amazing? Almost all of that spending you're railing against has been 2 things: 1. Tax cuts 2. Things that automatically kick in during a recession (people going on unemployment and Medicaid after losing jobs). The increase in the yearly deficit has been caused much more by a loss of revenue than it has been caused by any new spending. And you can say it's always different all you want...but deficit spending following a financial crisis is fundamentally different than deficit spending during a period of expansion. They're both expansionary...but when the economy is already expanding, the extra expansion winds up pushing inflation. I was against the tax cuts, so that means nothing. But yeah, this was the post I was waiting for. It's different now, circumstances change, blah blah. If you have a principle, you stick with it unless you absolutely can't.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 03:41 PM) Most of the increase falls onto the laps of the GOP, and they can feel free to use whatever excuses they want to. Most of this debt run-up is the direct results of actions of GOP-led Congresses and a GOP President, and they did it in times that were far better economically than the one we've been in for the last 3 years. That's what many Republicans are failing to acknowledge - that this debt and deficit problem in the federal government (and it is a big one) is in great part their own fault. Obama and the Dem Congress get some too of course. But the idea that its a Dem thing is outright false, when looking at the past decade. Who said anything about it being a Dem only thing? It's hypocritical for him to rant about spending problems and debt problems and the irresponsibility of government, only to then increase the deficit by a trillion dollars in 12 months while President, on top of whatever he added in 09. God knows Reagan and Bush both spent like crazy, but this is a pot meet kettle situation given all the spending Obama has done.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 03:16 PM) They did. Michigan fans are hopelessly annoying. I was just mentioning to a bunch of my friends that I wish we could go back to DEC 2007 to see them rejoicing with the hiring of Rodroguez. Now, they are happy he's gone. I'll give them credit for their loyalty but my goodness... I think the problem was that Michigan in 07 was slow and getting beat on the coaching end. Lloyd failed to adapt to the spread style, dual QB offense that was dominating the conference. Richrod brought that high power offense potential in, so fans were excited. But I'm still shocked Michigan decided to forego 100 years or whatever of traditional Big Ten style of play for that. They let him completely gut the team and effectively screw them for a couple of years going forward. I think they have talent, but now you're talking about starting over again for the 2nd time in 4 years. But who knows, the Big Ten isn't exactly the greatest of conferences these days. When Illinois is the only team with a dominate victory, that's saying something.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 02:41 PM) http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/ Oh the irony. (awaits the liberal explanation that the world is different now and increasing the debt ceiling was absolutely necessary to our survival)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 4, 2011 -> 01:23 PM) But we very quickly moved away from the idea of a "Union of Individual quasi-nation-states," and it was all but killed during Reconstruction. States should not have any control over making discriminatory laws, as was evidenced by all of the blatantly discriminatory poll taxes, segregation laws, etc. Ultimately, I'm a US citizen, not an Illinois citizen, and my basic civil rights, as afforded by the US Constitution, shouldn't be any different than an Indiana resident living 20 miles east of me. How do you handle Brown vs. Board in a manner that is consistent with Scalia's opinion here but that doesn't overturn it? But you realize the statement "discriminatory laws" is bogus right? Discriminatory laws are on the books everywhere. Ever hear of minority contracts? Both sides pull random quotes from various precedents and portions of statutes and constitutions to fit what they want. On one issue discrimination based on race is horrible, in another it's required. Which is why a democratic system where legislators legislate versus 9 people is the best option. I think there's a way to have both. And again, that comes down to the deference you give to states to make laws that comport to their citizens' views. I'd imagine his response would be it's not up to the court to decide what characteristics should be afforded discrimination protection. But you'd have to ask him. If you're interested in how his originalist ideas gel with these types of issues, he has a good back and forth with Richard Posner about it. I'd quote some of it but my book is at home.