Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) Idk, I'm the same age as you, and I guess I'll agree that by the time I was old enough to really start paying attention to music in the late 80s and early 90s he'd already done his best stuff, and his later career was weak in comparison. But throughout the 80s and up to about '94 or so he wasn't just leading the game, he WAS the game, he completely owned it. As far as all the other stuff goes... yeah, MJ was a f***ed up individual. Like WSF101 was saying it just seems that sometimes it's a consequence of being a genius. Yeah, I mean I get the popularity and what he did for music (if "pop" is a good thing...i'm still debating that) and all. I guess I'm just amazed that we can look past the diddling and "honor" the guy as if he's a saint, which is what most of the media did last night.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) He's still Michael Jackson. You expected anything else? I mean, you can't deny his iconic status or his impact on the entertainment biz, he had no equal and still had a massive loyal following even in spite of all the s*** he had gotten himself into. When I was in Iraq I'd see little kids trying to moonwalk in the dirt. Maybe i'm just to young to understand. In my lifetime (born in '82) Jackson was nothing but a weird child diddler. So I don't get the love, even if he did have the best selling album of all time.

Am I the only one who found/finds it absolutely repulsive the amount of coverage he's getting? He's a freakin' peder-ass. He was pyschotic. Yeah he was a gifted musician (25 years ago) with a difficult past, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he molested little boys and became a pain killer addict. I swear, flipping through the TV last night I was surprised it was Michael Jackson that died and not Jesus. And how about those awesome celeb statements? Madonna's says she can't stop crying. Quincy Jones said he lost a part of his soul. GMAFB.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) Yeah, except until they bombed pearl harbor... however, when you look back at it, Japan had a legit reason to consider us an enemy. It is no secret that FDR wanted to enter the war and he was providing a ton of help to Britian. Japan figured we'd join sooner or later, so they decided to strike first. Eh. I don't really think that's how it happened. FDR did everything he could to keep us out of the war. Yes we supplied the Allies with money, food, weapons and supplies, but I don't think he was itching for a fight. It did, however, seem inevitable that we'd be in the war at some point. Japan's tactic was to hit us hard while we were getting ready. They just got lucky that our entire Pacific fleet was unmanned and in one small location. Edit: lol, oops, said Atlantic.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) So what, don't you think the leadership in Japan was getting intel about how the whole city got obliterated? I'm sorry, but if they didn't know the power of the A-Bomb after Hiroshima, they're retards. You don't need film, internet, and e-mail to get reports of a huge bomb that destroyed a whole city. It is idiotic to think Japan was going to surrender anytime soon. They have had soldiers who are still in jungles waiting to fight. It is Japanese code to never surrender. To think that they were on the verge of surrendering is lunacy. They didn't surrender until after Nagasaki, and I guarantee you they didn't want to but they had to. Yeah, it sucks innocent people had to die, but there is no question it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, if not more. (1) I don't think it's idiotic to think Japan would have surrendered. By the time the bombs were dropped the only pro-war voice was the military, who actually tried to take over power but failed. (2) No question lives were saved, but we'll never know if it was really worth the cost. That's where the real issue is. I don't think you can blame Truman either way on this. From what he knew before that decision, without the benefit of hindsight, I'm not going to judge what he decided to do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) The 2nd bomb was being dropped before the Japanese had anything but the most basic of an understanding of what had happened in Hiroshima. Civilians yes, but not the military leaders and political leaders. They knew. Of course they also knew they had no chance of winning the war, but they kept going. The Emperor was the only one that saved Japan from total annihilation.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) True, but the reasoning behind it is very sketchy and it is poorly written. I don't think that's true.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 10:26 AM) I know this would be nearly impossible to prove, but if there was some evidence, could O'Reilly be brought up on charges for murder? For instance, if there was proven contact between the murderer and O'Reilly? Also, could Tiller's family bring up a civil suit against O'Reilly? Just curious from one of the 7 people left on the planet that's not a lawyer. No. An accomplice maybe, but he didn't do the killing.

QUOTE (spiderman @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 10:46 PM) The problem with the assertion in the Cato statement is that it is impossible to make meaningful conclusions about climate trends based on looking at a 10-year window, said Richard Heim, a meteorologist at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate Monitoring Branch. People tend to think of global warming as a steady trend upward, Heim said, but that's not how it works. if you were to look at long-term trends, like a century, it looks more like steps. Temperatures will rise for a few years, then level off or even go down a little bit, then go back up. That's why you've got to look at temperatures over many decades, he said. And if you look at the trends over the last 100 years, Heim said, "the overall linear trend shows clear, unequivocal, unmistakable warming over that period." Take a look for yourself at the NOAA graph of 100 years of global temperatures" Now, over the last dozen years, he said, global temperatures have largely plateaued. That's consistent with the trends. Typically, he said, climates will go up, then plateau until they reach a tipping point, and then rise again. This is a completely unpersuasive argument. The exact same can be said about him. He's using a century or two of data to prove a warming trend. What happens when you look at the last ten thousand? Couldn't we just be in another warming "step?"

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 10, 2009 -> 08:38 AM) We should be more worried that soon even though abortion is legal, it won't be. I would bet my life on this not happening. Roe v Wade will never be overturned.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jun 9, 2009 -> 08:35 PM) Very intelligent men and women study abortion, regardless of term, and arrive a vastly different opinions. Eh. I think there's an argument when "life" begins. Not sure if people disagree as to whether a late-term "thing" is a living being. Interestingly my sister recently became pregnant. She told me that at 5-7 weeks the baby had a heartbeat, which i didn't realize happened so fast. That sorta changed my opinion of the abortion debate a little. I was always on the "it's ok so long as it's the first trimester" side of the argument. I don't buy the "at conception" argument, but certainly there's a point before the end of the first trimester that there is a living being that's allowed to be killed. Regardless, as it pertains to this thread I'm not seeing a problem with what O'Reilly says. He's a talking head with free speech rights like everyone else. Certainly no worse than what guys like Olbermann have said about Bush or the like.

free speech?

yeah i never understood the love for her looks. I think my favorite was when the RedEye (is there a worse paper/paper spin-off in the country?) editorial talked about how she's going to bring the sleeveless look back because she's got such great arms. GMAFB.

good for him.

why I love drudgereport:

I still say The Wind Waker was the best Zelda game, followed closely by the first two. Ocarina of Time is very overrated. I couldn't stand the controls back then, and I really can't stand them now playing with the classic controller on the Wii.

Anyone read The Road? I was...disappointed. It had such promise, but nothing happened. I felt like it was a good first 5 chapters of a 20 chapter book.

my responses: I don't expect there to be a tutorial for the whole game - obviously the big draw to these types of games is the epic scale of it all. But other games (WoW for instance) does a really good job of forcing you to do things in the beginning which will teach you the basic skills needed to play the game. I felt like Fallout gave you absolutely no direction at all. You're thrown into a world, you're asked to pick between different skills sets you know nothing about, and to do things you simply don't know how to do. It was incredibly frustrating. Right, and I would agree to a point. But my issues weren't long distances, but rather short distances. Getting to the Radio headquarters was a trick, but the worst was getting from the Radio headquarters down to the Washington monument. The maps were worthless in helping me get there. I miswrote that - the bug seemed to kill me in less shots than it took me to kill it. So reverse those numbers. In any event I wasn't so upset with the relative weakness of me versus these beasts, but instead of the fact that hitting them does absolutely nothing to stop them. I thought that was the big draw to the automatic aiming system, but it wasn't. I kept damaging super infected humans (or whatever they were called) in the leg, but it just damaged it, despite the fact i was using a high powered rifle which should have taken it clean off. I dunno, i'm sounding like i'm upset about the realism of it all but that's not my main beef. It's with the inability to effectively fight in a "reasonable" and "fair" way. i never found the crouch button, but the raiders were everywhere. going to the radio headquarters i was killed at least 5 times. I think it's fine not being able to finish a quest at the time you pick it up. But on the very first quest of the game that they more or less forced you to take? That's a bit ridiculous.

So, I'm a month or two late on this, but I played Fallout 3 for the first time this last week. Prolly put a good 6-7 hours into it. My review: epic fail. I dunno how people give this game a 6 or 7, let alone a 10 score. To spawn a debate, my issues include, but are not limited to: 1) awful set up. no tutorial, no guide, no help in figuring out what's important and whats not. For example, does it really matter if you act like a jerk to people? Will that come back to bite you in the ass? Are you going to drop 60 hours only to find out that you've screwed yourself in the first 10 minutes? Who knows, because the game doesn't tell you. 2) terrible map/travel mechanics. I spent a solid 45 minutes trying to get from point A to point B, only I couldn't because every street is blocked. Luckily I eventually fell into the subway station and found out that was my path. 3) fighting mechanics blow. I knew this going in, since it was my biggest complaint with Oblivion, but it's really frustrating to hit a guy like 5 times in the head, but he still manages (within the time of getting one shot off) to be all over you, smacking the crap out of you. Or for the matter, the fact that a little bug can take about 6 shots but you can only take 4. I ended up using a mini-nuke gun just so i didn't die. 4) f***ing raiders. I couldn't go anywhere without dying since there's no run or crouch or hide option. I basically just zig-zaged my ass from place to place so i wouldn't die. Despite talking with 50 people, not one of them said "hey dont go out at night or the raiders will kill you" 5) the fact that they give you quests you are unable to accomplish. immediately upon exiting the bunker you travel to megaton, where the first guy tells you to deactivate the bomb, only you can't, because you don't have an explosive xp pts yet. what's the point of this? Why force you to accept that first quest without any way to actually complete it? I'm sure I'll think of more. I'm happy I borrowed the game before I bought it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 08:54 AM) Like Bush? Wow. I couldn't think of a worse analogy. Obama still sounds more intelligent and coherent when off the cuff than 95% of America. Sure, if you think stammering, saying "uhh" 50 times, and using about 5 words per minute is "intelligent." I think Obama is incredibly smart, but he's not a smooth public speaker when he has to speak unprepared. I'm not sure how people can deny that. Is he better than the majority of America? Absolutely. But I don't think the point of him being lost without his prompter is such a bad one. Watch the Brian Williams interview for a recent example. Edit: I'd also add that Clinton was one of the best off-the-cuff speakers we've seen in a while. There's a guy that sounded prepared and smooth no matter where he was and what he was speaking about.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 01:33 PM) I love Andy Richter, but he laughs at EVERYTHING. I thought that was on purpose? Especially when some of the jokes bombed. Andy needs to be on the chair though. I stopped watching original Conan after Andy left because the show seemed to be missing a lot of funny in it. It was a good first episode. Certainly better than the train-wreck that took over his old spot. I can't believe Fallon is still on. I literally cringed and felt embarassed after that one. By far the best aspect of Conan is the sketches.

NK with more missile tests today and more planned. Also demands an apology from the UN and threatens to act if sanctions are imposed. Good times.

Yep, i've had my license for about a year. I'm a member of the chicago and illinois state bar associations. Unfortunately this town is not hiring lawyers, even ones with 2 years of experience. If anyone needs a lawyer let me know

Bingo. That's my point. We have this anti-military option, but at the end of the day we're not stopping them. They obviously have the technology, and they may or may not have the ability to load that technology on a warhead and send it across their border. To me it's asinine to continue to say economic aid and diplomacy is the answer. That's like giving a crack addict money to stop buying crack. They're never going to stop and you just wasted a bunch of money. They're a broken and poor country with leadership that's borderline insane, who hate their neighbors and would like to eradicate them. Yeah they've been playing nice for a while, but I see them doing that just so they can destroy the south with minimal losses on their side. And I am glad to see that Russia is taking this seriously.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 26, 2009 -> 05:21 PM) Alternative is to not be hypocrites in the idea that the US and other Western Countries can have nuclear stockpiles that can destroy the world, but NK and other countries cant even have one. Absent actually taking over a country, it will be impossible to prevent that country from obtaining nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are almost "old" technology at this point in that they were invented 50 years ago, to believe that other countries will not independently create nuclear weapons (or worse) is silly. Pandora's box is open, you cant just stuff the nuclear weapons back in. The best thing to do would be to tell countries, they can have nuclear weapons, but by choosing to have them they are going to suffer the following consequences (or reap the following incentives). That way they can make the decision for themselves. Some countries will want the nukes, others will want to avoid the consequences or gain the incentives. Either way it puts an end to the notion that some how the US can stop other countries from technologically advancing. It would have been like the German's trying to prevent other countries from creating rockets. You really believe this? Do you think criminals should be allowed to carry guns just because the police can? How many nukes have been used in war? One right? Out of how many thousands that have been created? Of those countries that hold them, exclusing maybe Pakistan, how many aren't third world countries? The notion that nuclear technology is some right is ludicrous. And the idea that we have to pay countries NOT to develop that technology is equally ridiculous. I'm guessing that if a country like Australia stood up and said, hey we're going to build a nuke, there wouldn't be a world wide reaction of "hell no!" (I have no idea if Australia has a nuke, so that might be a bad example, but I think you get my point).