Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 04:24 PM) I'm no Jesse Jackson fan, but I don't think him and Al Sharpton should ever be painted with the same brush. Post 1995 they are one and the same - old, annoying, and irrelevant.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 01:49 PM) Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a lawyer? I'm calling bulls*** if you're equating a three-year, vocational degree with a doctorate simply because it's called "Juris Doctor." While it may be technically true, it's hella tacky. Call bulls*** all you want asshole, it's still a doctorate.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) i didnt see uneducated, white people on that list? I'm white with a doctorate and agree with a lot of their viewpoints.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 7, 2010 -> 12:28 PM) OK, whenever a Republican politician or activist is caught in some kind of sex scandal, or gets divorced, etc., the left and the media (I know, the same thing) make a big deal out of it since part of the republican party wants to be the 'moral' party. Shouldn't the equivilent for the Dems be taxes and related items? It always seems like Dems or their supporters are getting busted for not paying taxes, or following reporting rules, etc., even while they agitate for higher taxes and more rules on everyone else. I found this story funny. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/al_net_...NnBRAZagK0TgvwN Racist!

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Sep 3, 2010 -> 09:01 AM) The last refuge of a liberal agree 100%. Also, it absolutely cracks me up when liberals calls conservatives bigots for their beliefs. Look in the mirror. Definition of "bigot" from Merriam-Webster: Yip, lots of bigots in here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 1, 2010 -> 05:55 PM) I'd never even heard of that person until I saw this. She's been on Bill Mahr's show a few times. Pretty smart, quick witted woman. What's funny is that she's agnostic but still thinks the attack on the religious right exists. I tend to agree.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 09:21 PM) So your saying relying on Soph and Frosh arent young guys? Im perplexed. When your relying on multiple Soph/Frosh to be contributors, I consider that relying on a lot of young guys. If they had 5 starters who were Seniors/Juniors, it wouldnt be relying on young guys. As for which 4 Wisconsin will be better than? Who knows, they could be better than MSU and Illinois, possibly even Purdue. They could be worse than all 3 too, I havent seen a game yet so its hard for me to try and guess at other teams at this point. Im just saying that when you look at the schedule and look at what Wisconsin has done under Bo Ryan, they have never finished worse than 4th. I personally feel they have one of their stronger teams this year, they will have a starting line up with only guys who have been in the program 3+ years. The question is why do people think Purdue, MSU and OSU are so much better than Wisconsin? Wisconsin split with each of them last year. They almost (not that it counts) beat Purdue 2x one of them without Leur. Purdue and MSU did not get significantly better, so is it just name recognition? I'm saying a team lead by 3 seniors (who i think are 4 year starters, maybe 3), 2 sophomores that aren't typical sophomores because of the minutes they played, and a freshman that's a 5 star kind of guy....that's not a team with experience problems. Purdue was a legit final four team last year before hummel went out. They lose kramer, who has a defensive stopper, but an offensive liability. And that one guard that played significant minutes last year (jackson? too lazy to look up his name, i just know he's short) played really well so I don't see that as being a big loss. MSU is the national runner up and lost no one and izzo just reloads every year. IMO those two are givens to be better than Wisconsin. OSU gains the 5 star stud, but have a lot of question marks with the guard spots. Still, lots of talent. Wisconsin has probably the best pure post player in the conference, but otherwise not much. As I said before, I expect them to be good, but I just don't think they'll be as good. They're ceiling isn't as high. They'll play typical Bo Ryan half court, ball possession basketball. I think with the talent those top 4 teams have, it's going to be about which team can run the other out of the gym.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 07:56 PM) If this was rank the teams by who will have the most NBA players, I agree that Wisconsin is not up there. But if the question is where will the teams finish next year, its hard to argue that Wisconsin is not one of the top 4. Since 2001, Wisconsin has never finished worse than tied for 4th. I guess I just dont see why Purdue, MSU or OSU are considerably better than Wisconsin who beat all of those teams last year. I think its a toss up with the top 4, and that its possible Illinois jumps into the mix, but they are going to be relying on a lot of young guys. ? They are relying on 3 seniors, two sophomores (one that started nearly every game of the year, the other played significant minutes) and a blue chip freshman that by all accounts can score at will and actually plays defense. If you're claiming Wisconsin is better than one of these teams, which is it? It's Wisconsin, so of course they'll be good, but I just don't see them being able to beat the other 4. Of course, I haven't looked at the schedule, so it could be that they have the one or two game scheduling gift (not having the home and home with one of the top 4). I should say I also wouldn't be shocked if one of the top 4 doesn't play up to expectations. Ill and OSU seem to be the best bet for that. If I'm betting on the winner today, I'm going with Purdue.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) Even as an Illini fan, I dont see us winning the conference. That said, it wouldnt surprise me, but I see a top 4 finish. Any of the top 4 can win, it's gonna come down to who can win 1 or 2 of those huge road games. And really, even if you finish 4th in the Big Ten this year, that's not bad at all. I'd expect all four to make a 2 weekend trip in the dance.

Gottlieb picking Illinois to win the Big Ten. http://espn.go.com/ncb/notebook/_/page/not...d100830/big-ten

Yep, keep hating and ignore what 99.9% of that rally was about. Pretty impressive that there were 3-4 hours of speeches and not one mention of Obama.

Go Jerry.

Ah, memories.

I guess all liberals are violent, 1st amendment right disrupters. Death threats Edit: and a shooting

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 08:58 AM) LOL @ coming to a screeching halt. The problem is actually something new and unique - that we are still looking at moderate growth over time. Enough to not be diving into a worse recession, enough to avoid deflation certainly... but not enough to make any real ground on employment numbers. Its frustrating as hell. In most previous recessions, there was a big jump back, typically on a similar scale to the depth of the fall. A steep rebound. In this case, the rebound started sooner, but has been much less steep, than previous ones. You seem to know much more about this than me. Do you think slow, gradual growth is better in the long term than an immediate short term jump?

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) when it comes to economic issues, i think i'll take the words of a chief economist at one of the nation's leading financial houses over a freshman senator running for re-election. Because those guys are ALWAYS right. See: Greenspan, Alan. More bad news: Economy coming to a screeching halt.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 07:02 AM) It wasn't "last minute." It was a key part of their election strategy. That doesn't mean being anti-gay is a requirement of being a Republican. But it does mean that the party had no problems stoking the gay boogeyman fears for political gain, and I can't see how any gay person would want to be part of a party that did that. I've never argued it wasn't a PART of the election strategy. I'm saying that it's not the "core" strategy, or even a main one. Again, is this an issue that's talked about in major debates? No. It's a fringe issue that gets people all emotional, just like religion, abortion, etc.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 27, 2010 -> 12:36 AM) You realize there are republican officials that benefited from the money given to that state right? California is a gigantic state in the nation far bigger than the electoral votes given to it. That you can be so blind to this is astounding especially when they admit to it. What does this even mean? I'm not talking about politicians, i'm talking about people. The majority of the people in that state voted for a ban. Clearly not ALL of those people were Republicans. You guys act like ONLY republicans are anti-gay, when that's not the case.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 06:23 PM) You just made my point for me. The Presidential election in 2004 turned on about 110,000 voters in Ohio. No, I didn't. Your point is that being anti-gay is a "core" of the Republican party. It's not a "core." Did they talk about it during the presidential debates? It's a fringe, last minute "oh my god we need votes we'll try to get the religious sect out to vote" issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 03:46 PM) Because the nation is turning against those people quite rapidly. In 2004, it was a serious matter. ugh. it was not a serious matter. it was a last minute matter. if the nation is turning against those people why did more than 50% of a liberal state just decide to ban gay marriage?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 03:15 PM) Then one worthy question is...what is England doing that is so much better than us? Here's a question (without me looking for the answer myself) - when we talk about the US scoring X and other country scoring Y, is it cumulative? Or is it the best of the best going head to head? If it's cumulative, I bet our bottom students are worse than the rest of the countries we're talking about. There seems to be a pretty sizable chunk of kids that don't go to school, or if they do they don't care to go to school.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) While I don't agree with Rex about it being issue number 1, I also disagree that its only important to a small % of people. I'd bet a solid 50% of those who label themselves Republicans would say its important. If it's that high then why don't people run on that platform alone? It's never a main talking point. It might, on occasion, be thrown in at the last minute for no other reason than to get the religious right out to the voting booth.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 03:10 PM) If you don't think Gay Marriage amendments had anything to do with Bush winning reelection in 2004, you're sadly mistaken. Those amendments rally support from Christianists who may have otherwise stayed home, and frankly - I think the Ohio ballot, alone, question probably brought enough extremist voters out there to give Bush the edge in Ohio, and therefore reelection. These marriage amendments magically made it to the ballot on what was seen as a difficult reelection year in the following states. Michigan Ohio Mississippi Montana Oregon Arkansas Georgia Kentucky Louisiana North Dakota Oklahoma Utah Elections don't happen in a vacuum. This was a concerted effort, IMO. ANYTHING to do with it? OR a CORE of the reason? No, i don't think that. I think it might have moved a single digit percent of the base, max. You're alleging it's basically a core belief of the party, which is just ridiculous. It might be one issue that's important to a small percent of people, but it's not a CORE issue. California just passed a ban on gay marriage. California is heavily liberal. Stop saying it's all republicans when it's clearly not all republicans. It's independents and even some liberals too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 02:43 PM) No, it's still mainly conservatism. Based on? Again, have you actually gone to a rally? Or is this your opinion based on news reports? It's very much libertarian. And yeah, it's anti-liberal because that's who's in the white house and congress. I heard mutiple people speak about getting rid of everyone in washington, not just specific party members.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 26, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) How could you possibly justify saying I'm a member of XYZ Party if one of the central election themes of their party was "the XYZ party doesnt think you should have a right to marry or to be hired purely based on your merits?" This isn't about dogma. This is about belonging to a party that at its core centers a part of its election strategy on demonizing and attacking the rights of a community. There are plenty of people that don't have that problem - but gay people and the GOP do. Much like your view of the tea party, this is all just so wrong. A core of the election strategy? Really? First, it's not a 100% republican only issue. And second, it still only involves a minority of the party, not the majority. It might grab more headlines than others, but that doesn't make it a "core" to the conservative belief.