Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:20 AM) Well this is just silly. First of all, I've seen polls recently that indicated better than 50% of the country consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party to one degree or another, so that's 5 people right there who wouldn't say that. Then there are people who are actually educated enough to not just put everyone into an extreme category. I'd be shocked if more than 1 or 2 out of 10 said anything like that. You have more faith in the American public than I do apparently. I'm saying if you ask 10 random people to describe a tea party member, you'll get something along the lines of "extreme GOP member" or Palin supporter, etc.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Okay then I suppose (but I edited my first post) I think you'd agree though that if you polled 10 people on the street, the majority would dismiss tea party members as either racist/homophobic/crazy christian/etc. Libertarian or "people just pissed at the size of government and the amount of spending by the government" is not what comes to mind, despite being the key message of the various rallies.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) His post was a response to mine and you piggybacked off what he said. I agreed with him yes, and added my opinion as to the general perception of tea party members.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) This is a pretty dumbass response if it's supposed to be going with what I posted. Did I quote your post?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) What an event is abou might not be what gets the people motivated and out voting. I'll give you a Dem type rally as a counterpoint. The "Rally to restore sanity" may not have been about traditional democratic issues, but I'll bet you the people attending it overwhelmingly agreed on a certain set of issues. Environmental issues, tax issues, health care, etc. If you went and checked the anti-Iraq-War protestors, I'll bet you 99% of them also call themselves environmentalists, and it's just a question of which issue of the day they want to get out and rally about. They're already the activist wing of my party, just because they're not talking about it that day doesn't mean it's not the most important issue to them. What are you talking about? People aren't interested and motivated to the messages of a rally they attend? I forgot most people just happen upon rallies, they don't plan on going...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 23, 2010 -> 08:30 AM) Actually I am speaking for an entire county's movement. Both events I went to, no one talked about race, or religion, or sex. It was all about money. I attended three rallies and had the same experience. But people are going to believe what the media tells them, so ya know, racist, redneck, bush-supporting homophobs = all tea party people.

I practice in the Northern District here and if its the same as the 9th, they can take on the extra case load. The dockets are ridiculously small for the amount of work involved.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 01:47 PM) 5-6 suicide bombers? Now you're talking a very large commitment of resources. 5-6 suicide bombers getting on 5-6 planes and just taking out those planes and you're talking 500-1000 casualties, compared to 50 to a couple hundred people at even the most crowded of event, with a much, much greater likelihood that one of them will be caught and the plot exposed. You really think a 5-6 bombs in a crowd of 100k will only kill 50 to a couple hundred people? And you're still not addressing the fact that even with these new measures there are ways around it. Which again, will just lead to the inevitable cavity search of "suspected persons."

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) Because it's a completely reactive approach on our end. We can only secure things/places that already have been used in an attack. Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center attack involved people walking/driving into buildings with bombs. Our reaction was sensible - metal detectors and more secure parking access. We didn't start strip searching everyone because of that. I get why right after 9/11 we became uber crazy about securing air travel, but there's no need for it anymore. Unless we become some paranoid state where everyone everywhere has to go through major security, we're just kidding ourselves.

This is a silly argument. Change the location to a sporting event, have 3-4 bombers act collectively and you have THOUSANDS of victims, not 100. It's the same idea. There's hardly any security in any other aspect of our daily lives yet getting on an airplane changes the game.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 22, 2010 -> 09:59 AM) QFT Terrorists do not need to hijack a plane, or blow one up in mid-air, to wreak havoc on civilian air travel and the American economy: All a terrorist needs to do to bring the American transportation system to a catastrophic halt is to detonate a bomb while waiting on a TSA line. No need to conceal such a bomb in your rectum, of course -- you could join the pre-screened line with a bomb in your knapsack. Or in a shopping bag. Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas. Yep, exactly. Agree 100%.

I read books 1-3 then lost interest (probably because I busted through them in a month). My favorite movie thus far was number 4 (I think), with that awesome fight scene in the ministry between Potter, Dumbledor and Valdemort all shot in IMAX 3D. Ever since, I've been bored out of my mind with the movies, though this one had its moments. My main complaint was that the last movie and this movie had WAY too much wasted screen time. I get that they're trying to make money, but take out all of those scenes where the characters are staring at each other without saying anything or staring off into space "thinking," and the last two movies could have been 50% shorter. Maybe the relationships between characters matter more in the books, but in the movies it just doesn't come off very well. A lot of the relationships seem forced despite devoting so much time to it. I'm going to try and read the remaining books prior to the next movie coming out so I know what's going on. I think I have missed a lot of the experience by not knowing the little details from the books.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2010 -> 11:07 AM) Using odds is a silly way of judging how we should secure ourselves. What were the odds on September 10, 2001 of someone high-jacking four planes and using them as weapons? Considering it had never happened before, that put the odds at about zero. What are the odds of someone exploding a nuclear device in the US at sometime in the future? Should we not prepare for that because the odds are low? You say this as though we do nothing right now. We've got a number of security procedures and precautions in place to prevent an attack. Nothing is going to guarantee safety, so there's a tipping point somewhere, and I'm arguing we've reached it. A seven year old boy getting strip searched in front of hundreds of people JUST TO GET ON A f***ING PLANE. That's ridiculous. No disrespect to the families of 9/11, but I'll take the one in however many million chance of a plane blowing up because a terrorist gets through with some homemade devise than subject our entire country to an SS-level security process. And I know the response will be "well thanks for choosing that for me." But I just don't get how we've gotten to the point where in air-travel ANY measure of security is ok and necessary, but there's not a demand to protect buildings or whatever to the same degree. There's been one Oklahoma City bombing. There's been one 9/11. One has reasonable security, the other has gotten out of control. “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 20, 2010 -> 03:37 PM) You just contradicted yourself. You just agreed that it does increase safety. There is nothing that guarantees anything. That is an impossible standard. I didn't mean that literally. Look at my previous posts. I'm saying it's not going to decrease your odds significantly.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) What proof do have exactly? Common sense? This new process isn't going to guarantee safety, so while it might decrease the odds slightly there's still an obvious way to get around it. The next logical step is to swallow something and opt for the pat down.

stuck at work with the wrong kind of internet to watch it on espn3.com. 4 point lead at the half. Has this been a game? Or is Illinois f***ing around like last night?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 02:03 PM) To be fair, I think your cause and effect are backwards. It is hard to be the victim of a terror attack because the TSA doesn't make it easy. It is an undeniable fact that the less precautions that are taken, the easier it is to commit an act of terror in the skies. You can argue where the line is for constitutional searches, but trying to say the odds are low, so we shouldn't is just backwards Read that post he cited. We stop terrorist attacks because of intelligence, not because of screening. The TSA simply reacts to what the intelligence community tells it to react to. Terrorists bring on weapons and take over plans - metal detectors and locks on the cabin doors. Hiding weapons in shoes - take your shoes off. Potential bomb making materials in liquids - limit the size of them. Hiding a bomb in your underwear - full on cavity searches. Edit: and yeah, I think everyone agrees that the TSA does prevent attacks simply because they make it more difficult. No one is saying send out a memo that airports will have no security anymore. But these extra measures don't decrease your odds of an already unlikely event.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) This description of a pat down made me angry. Ugh. Seriously, f*** the TSA. What a joke.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) A great read on the subject. EDIT: This gem was embedded in the article. Yep. Yep.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) Its not that rare that a wr or cb runs through the back of the endzone. The goal post is inches, this is feet of brick wall. When I saw it I couldnt imagine how they could play in that end zone without significant risk, Im glad they made the change because a college kid shouldnt have to risk injury over design stupidity. Meh, a goal post is a little bigger than that. I'd still contend it's a pretty rare occurrence that someone dives out of the back of the endzone (the middle where the goal post is) to catch a ball, which is the only way anyone gets hurt here. I think most of the time that's off to the sides and corners of the endzone.

I found it interesting that they had safety experts and engineers plot everything out BEFORE they agreed to the game, then back out AFTER agreeing to the game. The conference and team officials all agreed it was ok. But NOW they feel it's in the best interest to not use that end zone. In other words, someone at the NCAA saw pictures of the field and said "umm, no," so the conference/teams capitulated. I don't see much of an increased risk of harm here. How many guys have been hurt from hitting the goal post? It's pretty rare that someone goes out of the back of the endzone like that anyway.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Nov 19, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) Well, Bruce Pearl has been suspended for the 1st 8 SEC games of the season for his violations. Figured I'd go ahead and throw it out since since all you Illinois fans would be all over this soon anyway. Slap on the wrist, though I guess that's only the SEC's punishment. Flat out lying to the NCAA should be an automatic ban of some sort. It's not like he made a few more phone calls or something trivial.

And I think the game also showed what Richmond will become. He's a freshman who doesn't want to take over....yet. But you can tell his basketball IQ is about 10 times anyone else on the team. In overtime Texas goes on a 6-0 run because Illinois rushes down and takes two awful shots. He's the one who grabs the ball, throws up his hand and says "lets slow this s*** down and get a good possession." My hope is this team can gel into something good. I don't think they're anywhere close to their potential.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 11:25 PM) As a self-proclaimed Illini hater, I have to ask the good Illinois fans on this site a question: wouldn't the Illini be better off if Davis wasn't on the team? Seems like he just slows down the offensive flow due to his mechanical nature, and I've always thought Griffey was a better fit for Weber's style. No. He rebounds too well and is a threat to hit the 15 footer. Illinois' problem is still the fact that physical bigs kill them. Tisdale, for as good as he is, can't match up with the true centers. I think Texas got some lucky inside turnaround shots to go tonight, but illinois still got beat up pretty badly on the boards (without looking at the stats, i'd be shocked if they were anywhere close in the rebounding battle). McCamey proved tonight he's going to be an NBA point guard, but he can't do it all by himself. Paul/Richardson do what they do, but when the entire 2nd half came down to foul shots it's tough to get into any kind of rhythm. Seriously the refs killed that game. The last 10 minutes every single trip was to the foul line. Not a bad loss, but this was a big game to prove Illinois was a true contender. They have plenty of games to make this up, but it would have been great to get out of this weekend with a win against Texas and (worst case) a loss to Pitt.

and that's the game. Illinois didn't deserve to win. horrible defense, bad offense at times. still a lot of work left. I wish they'd have the killer mentality, cuz the talent is clearly there.