Jenksismyhero

psssh. No boston puppy. OUT!

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 12:34 PM) You tell a girl you like her, she doesn't like you - MOVE ON. Don't look back. You're friends with a girl, you decide you want more, she doesn't like you 'that way' - MOVE ON. Friendship is over for a bit. You're dating a girl, she breaks up with you - MOVE ON. Don't look back. Obviously some of this depends on the seriousness and length of relationship, but Don't talk to her, talk about her, or ask to hear about her. If you see her...say Hi...don't be an ass, be civil, but be short and move on. Forget the lets be friends and talk all the time thing. Be friendly when you see each other, but find someone else to hang out with. You really can't get over someone if you're always seeing them. Look gentlemen it isn't that difficult. You shouldn't have to 'convince' a girl to like you. This isn't the movies....where the girl says NO and the guy chases and chases the girl and she finally falls madly in love with him. If she likes you, the interest is there from the beginning. She may be unsure about being in a relationship or afraid of getting hurt or whatever...but as far as 'liking' you....if she has to think about that??? GTFO! Tell her you like her, let her marinate the thought for a few days or a week, if she comes back and isn't interested...then take her at her word and move on. Not to call out iamshack at all, but this "The stories are quite often about a guy who kept pursuing a woman until he ultimately convinced her to marry him. And those are some of the strongest couples around" I just don't see as the case. totally agree

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 01:38 PM) Thinking about it some more I'm starting to warm up to the idea of 96 teams if it's done properly. The top 32 teams would get a "bye". Programs like mine at Texas Tech would have a much better chance of being in the tournament every year. However, I hope they call this first set of games something different from the tourney, maybe the Play In or something similar. This Play In could take place on Tuesday between selection Sunday and the first set of games on Thursday. That way you could still keep the current statistics on teams making the actual Tourney and new skew them. The teams from the power conferences that are just on the border of the tournament would end up with the seeds 9-16 most likely, and the "lesser" teams from small conferences would likely be stuck with the 16-24 seeds. What you would likely see is more middle of the pack power conference teams matching up with the "bye" top 32 teams. In this fashion you would likely starting seeing some #16 vs. #1 seed upsets in the future. You would have teams like Oklahoma State, Virginia etc vs. UNC, UK etc instead of Morehead State vs. UNC to begin the tourney. But that's the problem. The tournament is awesome because of the potential cinderella story. In that scenario you basically have an average major conference team that's beating a top major conference team. That happens every week. It's more rare to have a George Mason beat not just one, but three or four top major conference teams. Not to mention an expanded tournament would completely ruin the importance of the regular season. If their so big on expansion then they should have a mini-tournament (say 8 teams) that would play for something like a 12-13 seed. That way you end the whole bubble talk and you're not diluting the overall field.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 10:07 PM) Apparently. That's why I was surprised. Also, any of you Big 10 guys worried about the fact that the entire conference brought in 1 5-star prospect (Gholston to Michigan St)? I don't see how that can happen. Florida, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, and Tennessee all had at least 1 5-star guy in their classes alone. Really a down year for the Big 10 in recruiting. Perhaps I'm a conspiracy theorist here, but it seems to me a little unbelievable that the one conference which just signed a multi-billion dollar TV contract with a certain "worldwide leader" has gotten more and more pub over this than any other. Is it really because these programs are better (and if so, why?), or because they want to hype up a product? I get that a lot of talent is in the south, where players play basically year round, and it makes more sense for them to stay near home, but the disparity here is a bit alarming.

QUOTE (ChWRoCk2 @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 11:22 AM) Hmmm, in the Weber vs Painter era, here are the results of each matchup, not including Purdue recently beating the Illini. Date Site Winner Score 1/28/06 Champaign Illinois 76-58 1/27/07 West Lafayette Purdue 64-47 1/19/08 West Lafayette Purdue 74-67 2/2/08 Champaign Purdue 83-75 3/14/08 Indianapolis Illinois 74-67 (OT) 12/30/08 West Lafayette Illinois 71-67 (OT) Purdue has the lead 4-3. So, how again is that owning? Hmm. I guess I'll take that back. I figured it was more like 5-3 Illinois, with Illinois winning games it shouldn't (like both wins last year).

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 07:25 AM) Well at least Illinois has learned how to beat all the other bad teams in the Big Ten, now the real fun starts. 6 of the last 8 against the top four big dogs. I dont expect them to do much with it, but they will have every chance to earn themselves a tourney bid. Saturday would be a nice time to start with College Gameday in town for MSU, and with Lucas possibly slowed down by injury. Northwestern has like the exact opposite schedule, 6 of their last 8 Big Ten games vs. Indiana, Iowa, & PSU. If they can win all these games that they are supposed to win, maybe they can snag that long awaited tourney bid, which would be awesome for them. I really don't know what to expect in these games. So far Illinois has played a good amount of "top" teams, and have played well for 25-30 minutes, but haven't been able to finish. MSU they had the lead at half, but got knocked out pretty early in the 2nd. Against Purdue it was the same story (though they should have won that game). It's not a matter of talent, it's a matter of desire. Here's to hoping the coaches can get it in their heads that this stretch is their season, and if they win 3-4 of those games, they can get where they want to go. My prediction for the remainder of the year: MSU - win (momentum win) @WIS - loss (no chance) OSU - win (desperate, must have win) @PUR - loss (Weber owns Painter, but this'll be a tough game) @MU - loss (or win - this seems like a good trap game that they won't take seriously since Michigan has a bad record) MINN - win (or loss - seems like another trap game...they'll win one of these games and lose the other) @OSU - loss (no chance) WIS - win (another desperate, must have win) I think that gets them in the tourney, even with a loss in the first round of the BTT.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 12:24 PM) So, what other debts should we relieve them of? Mortgages? Car Loans? Credit Card payments? Anything else? After all, they do need money to take out a loan to start a small business. Should we relieve them of that cost too? If you're Obama or a Democrat in office, then yes.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) I personally think we're seeing the result of what group A (2007) is going to do in this season to net the result we are seeing with group B (2004). So, for the final episode, Group A will pull off whatever is needed to sink the island and truly make it as if nothing happened, while the show will wrap up nicely having given us some "post Lost" storyline with Group B. It's all a linear story, just with A and B being shown simultaneously even though A happens before B even though it really happens after it. Haha. I do think I'm right though. I think somehow the two realities are going to collide, with Desmond being the main reason why.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 11:09 AM) It wasn't just that. Why did the Dharma van get transported magically back to 2007? To conveniently help with the wreckage on top of Juliette? Or the 45 foot chain that just happened to be there. I think the van keeps up with the flashes in season 5 though. Whatever they were touching traveled with them. Hurley was leaning against the van with Sayid when they "flashed" to 2007.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/02/02/lost-pre...-damon-carlton/ EW.com has a ton of good reads this morning.

Solid start. A couple of "oh s***!" moments, more "wtf?" moments, some overacting/underacting.....typical Lost for me. Bigswert I think you're just nitpicking if all you can complain about is some random one liner. But I DO agree that the music (that bum....bum da-na-na-naaaa, bum da-na-na-naaaa music) is used too much. It was awesome when played with just strings (season 3 finale) but now he/they tried to keep it with all sorts of different variations. I don't think it works that well. My only complaint was the Juliette/Sawyer/Jack stuff. First, the guy that plays Sawyer isn't a good enough actor to pull off all that emotion. So it became kinda unbelievable for me. But why even bring Juliette back? To give her a send off? Seemed like a bunch of wasted time to me. They kept me going enough to think that maybe they'd also take her to the Temple with Sayid, and maybe save her, but nope, pretty much "buried" that idea (athankyou). I'm sure she'll pop up later as a ghost or whatever, but I thought a lot of that was unnecessary (similarly, I didn't care for them playing the last 2-3 minutes of season 5 about 4 times in 10 minutes - once in the recap show, 2-3 times in the regular show. We know what happened, no need to show it a million times.)

QUOTE (daa84 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 09:35 PM) the weird white dude with teh glasses at the temple i believe is kenny powers brother in eastbound and down haha Sal Star on Deadwood too. About the 4th or 5th Deadwood cast member appearing on Lost.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) I guess you can ignore the fact that this particular circumstance kills the mother in many cases too. key word: choice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 01:31 PM) Spending on Defense doesn't count. Clearly defense spending isn't going anywhere, but there are costs that can be cut within the defense/security budget. You hear stories all the time about the Pentagon ordering up planes/weapons that are never going to be used. Absolute waste.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 05:49 PM) You are going to the absolute extreme other end of the argument. I'm not trying to argue that education should be free, neither am I trying to argue that the taxpayers should bear the brunt of yours and my law degrees. I am saying the system has failed. It cannot possibly cost Depaul university $18k a year to educate a student in the part time legal program. It just cannot possibly cost that much. Probably more like $5k a year. You are taking a free market capitalist approach to education, and I simply think the risks are too great for it to be that way. Now let's get this straight. I went to SIU and pounded out 61 credit hours in a year and a half so I could do it as inexpensively as possible (I had gone to a private school previously, wherein my tuition was free because my father had taught there. I absolutely hated it, and the education sucked. And a clergyman tried to molest me on top of it all). Next, I went to Depaul. And I worked full-time for the last 3 years of the 4 years I was there. I busted my ass, working 8-5 every day then going to class from 5:50 - 8:30 four nights a week. I didn't take private loans so I could sit on my ass and do nothing all day or live in some high rise apartment down in the City. I busted my freaking ass. Now I don't have an issue with paying off my loans, but it's getting to the point where it is simply ridiculous. Your student loan payment should not rival your mortgage payment in size, just because you wanted an advanced degree. I just cannot accept that. Especially since the workplace we busted our ass to step into has completely collapsed. If you think the system is still fair and efficient, than so be it. But I cannot believe a system wherein I am trying to be a productive member by educating myself actually comes back to harm me more than had I never chose to educate myself at all is one that is working. Dude, I did the same thing. What year did you graduate? Dec 2007 here. I'm not for totally forgiving student loans, but I've said repeatedly before one of the better ways to stimulate the economy is to put all student loans into deferment for a certain amount of time. My fiance (masters) and I (juris doctor) pay over 1200 a month on loans. We'd gladly spend that on a house/things to put in the house/other services/goods.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) LINK I'm interested to see how exactly this article is changed and what is wrong. Obama pledges to do certain things, that doesn't mean it's been done yet. As of right now the 4k lifetime education credit or whatever its called WILL end. Just because he's proposed to double that doesn't mean it's going to happen. She admits that pending legislation, these cuts will end. How is that incorrect?

Yep, cause only conservatives do that!

If the alternative is raising taxes then I think it's an easier sell. I mean, I forgot the Republican party is just a bunch of hillbillies who act by the word of God and can't think for themselves, but I'd imagine most would be in favor of cutting costs in national programs versus having to pay an extra 5% or more in taxes... I also find it hilarious that you guys don't think there is wasteful spending in government that can be cut, and that all of his spending has been/will be justified. Obama is the messiah though that can do no wrong.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) Short of completely unfunding our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and eliminating all discretionary spending, or ending Medicare, there really isn't much choice. Come on, he has no choice? How about getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan like he promised he would do? How about reforming Medicare/Medicaid entitlements, revamping welfare, etc. There's a ton of spending he could cut, it's just not a popular thing to do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) You can't on one hand complain about the budget deficit and then on the other hand oppose everything that could be done to lower it. What? Why not? We shouldn't be in this position to begin with. IMO he spent a ton of money he didn't need to spend, and now he has to find a way to pay for it. I say CUT wasteful program and don't raise taxes on the majority of the country.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) Drudge uses overly dramatic headlines to draw attention to minor articles. I reference the headline that Obama's people were going door to door in Texas to take guns. The story was about law enforcement looking for Mexican gun runners. The article's title might have been overstating the facts. I recognize that, but he's correct in this case. Taxes are going to rise under Obama's watch. There's not much overstating about that.

It was a Yahoo news story, so I dunno how Drudge is involved. And I'm not a proponent of over taxing the rich. If you have more, you should pay more. End of story. But I'm tired of Democrats getting into office and promising everything under the sun to disadvantaged people (which just doesn't exist, the country has provided ample means of equal opportunity, no matter what your lot in life is), without any sort of requirements. A good chunk of the country is just paid to do nothing. And it's at the expense of the middle class, who are already struggling as it is. Edit: And yes, on the flip side the wealthy have been protected, which is equally ridiculous.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 09:44 AM) You've gained much richer wall street execs, and the Right keeps telling me that'll trickle down. Yeah, and the Left keeps telling me their going to stop doing that. Here's the reality of the situation: if you're in the middle class (which 90% of us are), you get nothing in this country. The Left, for some strange reason, believes that the bottom 5% has to be given EVERYTHING, without anything in return. The Right (and the Left, cuz let's face it, neither exists without the uber-rich funding their campaigns) protects the top 5% so they can continue to hoard their wealth. So where does that leave the people that can pay for some things, but not without struggle? Nothing. Pay more. Pay more to save the rich because they messed up. Pay the poor because they can't do it for themselves. Ridiculous.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 09:39 AM) Has Kap taken over your account? No, but I really don't see what we (the middle class) have gained out of this mess. Yeah, I guess things could be worse for some, but that doesn't mean anyone is better for it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 2, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) Hm. Seems odd, some articles are saying only the top two tiers of income tax (effecting those with income over 250k/family) are reverting (which is just fine as far as I'm concerned), but this one says the middle brackets are as well - not sure where the truth lies. And the cap gains increase is small enough to not have large effect on anyone other than huge investors, and the estate tax isn't something that effects many anyway. The thing that does alarm me in there (other than the middle bracket income tax increases, if that is true), is the massive increase in dividend taxes - from 15% to 39.6%. That is a MASSIVE jump, and will surely have a significant effect on the markets, and thus everyone's investments, including 401k's. That has danger written all over it. It also has a side effect of forcing slides in buy-and-hold stock trading and mutual funds, away from value-based names, to more speculative ones - thus making the markets far riskier and less stable. One thing in the article looks blatantly wrong - the removal of the $4,000 deduction for college tuition, which is being replaced by a much larger one, from the articles I read yesterday. I think they just missed the boat on that one. Anyone have any good confirmation on which income brackets are truly changing? Since there is conflicting information out there? That's assuming this worthless Congress actually passes legislation to include this. I have zero confidence they will.