Jenksismyhero

Richardson with the head fake AGAIN. It'd be nice if everyone learns that move. Illinois has played like crap, lucky to get this to overtime.

they did not get that shot off before the buzzer went off

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 10:52 PM) WTF? Has Illini Board taken over Soxtalk???? Hey, at least i'm calling it for both sides. the refs have taken over this game.

Every trip is a foul. Both teams are playing bad D, but come on

here comes the trademark patented Illinois whine: the refs are bailing out Texas. Every f***ing trip. Drive into your defender, get a foul no matter what

more fouls. foul, foul, foul, f***ing foul

a LOT of crazy luck shots from Texas, but Illinois' D so far has been terrible, especially in transition. Horrible first 5 minutes of the 2nd half. Hopefully they can turn it around.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 04:14 PM) I would bet on Wisconsin against ANY team in the country if they played in Madison. And I would bet large. except Illinois right

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 02:26 PM) I went and looked at Final Four appearances over the last ten years and the big ten finishes third among conferences. I'll admit they have done better than I thought but the ACC has by far been the best conference. Every year I do hear people claiming it is the year the Big 10 will win the ACC/Big 10 challenge and they have only won it once. It is not you guys either, usually on here everyone is very knowledgeable outside of a few Illinois fans that just feel Kev and I are out to bring them down for whatever reason. I certainly don't cheer for Illinois and granted I enjoy seeing them lose, but I really don't care what they do. I'm much more concerned with MVC teams. No, you just distort the truth to feed your clear bias towards the school.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 11:27 AM) I get what you're saying, and I've never been one to just throw down a line in here and not be open to discussing it. Also I have to admit, I can't watch videos at work really, so I don't know the content of most of the videos posted here. Where is that video? I can watch it later. People have posted here, for example, cartoons making fun of Islam. I think its in poor taste and not helpful, but I never said anything about not being able to post it. I've also seen cartoons about Catholic Priests and the usual child molestation theme. Same thing, seems counterproductive to me, but we allow it. Now here, what was done was labeling an entire religion as members of a cult on par with the Westboro psychos. That, IMO, is a few steps beyond the examples I just gave. That's why I said something. it's in the dem thread. basically a video of a comedian making fun of the origin of the contents of the Bible (in that it was an oral history taken down years later and then edited/translated multiple times at the whim of various authorities).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 11:34 AM) Oh hell, by those defintions (all but #3 which is entirely vague and subjective), every religion on earth is a cult. To me, the line between cult and religion is found in two parts. One, followers of a cult actively avoid any discussion of the values of the belief - they literally give over thought control to the cult. Two, and this is the difficult and subjective part, the belief is founded on articles or stories so far outside the logical realm of the society around them, that no reasonable person outside said cult can believe it. Islam, to me, is no more and no less cult-ish than any of the other major religions. Lol, I know what you're saying, but I think "magical man in the sky" religion kinda fits into this.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) Sure he's exaggerating but for the most part everything he said is true. Well, "cult" is exaggerating, but what he said is true Definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult (at least definitions 1, 2 and 5)

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 18, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) I'll bet you $10M that nowhere in the clip does the comedian call the Bible stupid. he's making fun of it, same thing.

Ya know, i'm not gonna defend the "cult" comment, but there's a bit of a double standard here. Someone calls a religion a "cult" and gets this random warning that it won't be tolerated. Someone else posts a video clip about how stupid the Bible is and there's not a peep.

Very much looking forward to the Illinois-Texas game tonight. Hopefully they come out and make a statement. I'm still not sold that this team is a whole lot better than last year, but I guess we'll see what happens the next 3-4 days.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 04:37 PM) And we'd catch more criminals if we allowed the police to search without warrants, take away attorneys, and stop that whole bail program. Just keep people locked up a couple years before their trial. Military rule would make us more safe, so anything could be justified. As has been said before, we have to give up our rights or the terrorists win. I'm confused. Which side are you landing on here?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:17 PM) This is a good read. Apologize if it has already been posted. Exactly.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:12 PM) I keep seeing you use this phrase. I am just curious, what should be done differently so that we are winning vs. the terrorists? Stop giving in to the paranoia. That doesn't mean we become lazy or stupid. We can still be diligent about protecting ourselves. I just happen to feel that in this case we've gone too far.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 03:06 PM) Demanding security isn't the same as recognizing as common sense that more security makes things safer. Do you really think if there was zero security on planes that people wouldn't smuggle bombs on all of the time? And out of curiousity, how much is a dead relative worth to you, in terms of dollars? First, I never said no security. I said security up to a point. Second, in the name of security is everything ok? Here's a completely reasonable hypothetical: we go through this new measure without much incident. 6 months, a year, 2 years from now, some crazy quack puts something in his ass or stomach, opts out of the body scan and submits to the pat down, and not-surprisingly gets by security. Hopefully with luck, he's caught before he can do anything like the underwear bomber. TSA implements new measures requiring "suspected passengers" (their term, with their definition) undergo strip searches including cavity searches. That gonna be ok with you? It'll increase security after all. And sorry, i'm not swayed by the dead relative argument. A dead relative of mine could be killed tomorrow by a drunk driver. Yet society still doesn't go to the Nth degree to stop it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 02:46 PM) I can't believe that anyone would think that today. When you go to a major sporting or entertainment event, do you feel less secure knowing that at best a couple of dogs are sniffing around and a womans purse is being searched? Do you demand body scanners or pat downs? When you walk into a downtown skyscraper, where the highest level of security is a sign in sheet, do you feel less secure? Do you demand higher levels of security to feel more safe? Someone else said the phrase - security theater. It's an absolute joke. I was ok with it up to a point, but we've gone over the line of common sense IMO, and in doing so we've absolutely let the terrorists win. We continue to be paranoid and severely alter our way of life because of fear. Edit: and for those people concerned with spending, how many hundreds of billions have been spent on this?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 17, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) When dozens of men are stripped down and given cavity searches next to each other simultaneously for boarding a plane, you'll have a point. And you forgot the decimal in your 55.3 million. Oops, you're right. Fixed. I still think it's unreasonable. I'm fine with taking my shoes off, going through a metal detector, having my bags scanned/searched, etc. But I think its unreasonable to have to choose either a naked body scan or being physically groped. All indications are too that these aren't just basic pat downs you might get at a Sox game. Given the goals of this (to find bombs/other dangerous materials) I don't see how it can be. You can hide those materials in body cavities. No pat down is going to find that. So unless we're willing to go that far, this is a pointless and invasive new measure. And really, I find the whole airport security notion pretty stupid. 9/11 will never happen again simply because people are now aware of what's possible. There are other potential targets with hardly any security that could result in far more damage and/or lives. This idea that we're somehow protecting ourselves by being screened like this is ludicrous.

Irony Getting on a plane - deal with it! In jail for an actual crime - 55.3 million! (clearly strip searches are not equal to pat downs, but still)

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 09:49 PM) Honestly, this is one of the arguments I find most hilarious, because you don't know that. You fear that. In fact, if the government knew this was going to be out there in public by some creepy perv, this wouldn't be used. But the truth is that this is probably a boring, boring job to the vast majority of people monitoring these scans. The last thing that they would want to do is take these pictures home and fap to them. And frankly, there is some creepy perv fapping to some other picture of you somewhere else if your picture is public. There are lots of creepy fetishes. Many of them don't involve you being naked at all. This one pic probably won't be saved, and even if it is, it probably won't get into those people's hands. But you can't be sure. Personally, I do think backscatter machines are a step forward in helping security identify potential threats. Of all the security "enhancements" the TSA has done in the last few years, this one has the most potential to actually improve security on airplanes. And the truth is, given the choice between having a slim possibility that a naked xray type picture of me might leak to the press and the slim possibility that this nudie picture machine might prevent me from being blown up on a plane, I'll take the unlikely option that doesn't kill me. You find it hilarious because government employees doing something they're not supposed to do occurs ALL the time? This precise problem has already happened in a similar setting. And people do all sorts of crazy stuff despite being "bored." Great, we're 2% more secure than we were a year ago. So your odds of being killed on a plane due to a terrorist attack went from one in a billion to one in 990 million. Good excuse to force everyone to go through this crap.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 09:20 PM) I'd be curious how many people would still feel the same way if family members died from an event that could have been prevented with more intrusive measures? I know as soon as something does happen, the re-writing of what could have been done will start almost instantly, just like it did with 9-11. If you really do believe that freedoms are being violated by these checks, than you have to accept that people will die because of them. Terrorists could attack a major sporting event with half the security of an airport and inflict 50 times the damage. Unless we all throw up our hands and submit to walking around naked with government employs checking every orifice of our body, we'll ALWAYS be waiting for Captain Hindsight to tell us what we could have done. Are there reasonable measures to be taken? Yes. Is there a line that needs to be drawn? Absolutely. Common sense would be one (like not forcing a three year old to submit to a physical search), but clearly we haven't mastered that one yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 16, 2010 -> 09:13 PM) Well, no there aren't...but even if there were...are YOU going to want your taxes going up to pay for it? if there's no means of testing it, then the only option is to search every square inch of a person. So this bulls*** that's going on now is worthless.