Jenksismyhero

Ahhhhhh snap! The photos prove it's real! http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_...celebrity/65258 Lol, seriously though, nice "spy" photos. I love how they get the one without the baby nice and clear, but the one with the baby not so much. What's that all about?

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 02:03 PM)

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 08:22 AM) Drunks cause accidents, stoners just miss their exits. ok Arj Barker

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) bs line of logic? We would be taking an illegal substance and legalizing it. You are describing legal things and then making them illegal. The bs logic would be since A is bad we should allow all bad things as well. Would legalizing cause usage to increase or decrease? I believe it would increase. So why would it be a bs line of reasoning to actually look at the risks and health costs before taking that step? It would seem that a prudent thing to do is analyze all factors before acting. It's arbitrarily illegal. But that point aside, I'm simply saying that just because there are health care costs associated with something doesn't mean that's a good reason to not make it available. There are plenty of things that contribute to the costs of health care in this country, yet they're part of everyones daily lives. Sure it can be a factor to consider, but since it's forgotten or overlooked in so many other similar issues, to me it's not a very important one.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was. Well, you'd have to admit that the tar in your lungs wouldn't be good. But that's such a bs line of logic. Let's refuse people the right to use cars or to eat fast food. God knows how many trillions of dollars governments spend on those health care related costs (yet another reason why a government funded health care is a terrible idea).

I knew much more about this back in my college days but... Basically there's not an easy test to tell if you're driving high, but it's the same as someone who is expected of driving drunk - you have the obvious physical signs, and also the ability to smell it. There's nothing like a breathalyzer, but that's really not needed. Basically the system is in place currently, it's just a driving while impaired charge. And the laws generally are pretty relaxed, especially in big cities. I know the city council here in Chicago considered making it just a parking ticket type fine because even when you were caught the police wouldn't attend any court date so you'd get off anyway. I have friends in Denver and that's essentially what they do - they'll throw a ticket at you and fine you unless you have over X amount (a quarter I think). I watched Super High Me the other day (Greg Benson spoofing Morgan Spurlock) and they focused a lot on the California situation. Basically it's legal there if you have a doctors note, but the federal government still arrests people. California has created an entire system for opening up "pharmacies," including having to be licensed, getting permits, having testing/inspections, the whole nine yards, but the DEA still makes random raids, takes everything and then charges the proprieters as huge drug dealers. It's such a s***ty system. They also had a graphic that if it was legalized and taxed California would have an extra 2-3 billion dollars to play with. Here's a report about the "savings" for the country if it were legalized- 10-14 billion a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/fra...uana/index.html Agree 100%. I give this about a 2% chance of becoming law, but one of these days reality will come in to play and voters will realize what a waste of money it is going after pot smokers. I love the idea of making it the same as alcohol - don't punish the use of it, punish the abuse of it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 28, 2008 -> 09:32 AM) I find it more akin to blaming a girl for how she dressed or how much she had to drink after she is raped. I don't care if Obama had any motivations or not, this was a disgusting invasion of privacy. No one should have touched his note, let alone published it. That is between him and God. Except that he's not doing it in a private manner. It'd be different if he gave confession and his confessions were made public. The him and his God point doesn't make any sense when (1) the place is in public and (2) there's 10,000 media people present. Again, I'm not saying its right, but it should have been expected.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 26, 2008 -> 09:35 AM) I didn't say that. However, knowing that what you are supposed to write in private would become public, is it really then sincere? Only he will ever know. To me it's sorta like an attractive woman wearing next to nothing outside and then getting mad when guys take a look. Did you see the media circus surrounding his arrival there? Not saying it's right, but at the same time he opened himself up to that.

I've been pretty happy with the BTN. It gives you more in-depth coverage of the Big Ten than anywhere else (duh), and I think the production values have gotten about 10 times better from when they first started. Though I thought it has always been acceptable (just as good or better than the old ESPN+). Heck, I prefer the BTN broadcast better than most ESPN2 broadcasts, especially for football.

Heard a funny joke today: "So did you hear about Obama's trip to the Middle East? Apparently he visited the manger where he was born." In all seriousness though, it's pretty obvious that McCain is being "outclassed." But how much that has to do with the "skill" of his campaign, and how much that has to do with peoples excitement of anyone who's not an old white man, coupled with the fact that he's a very charasmatic and well spoken guy, is a tougher call. Kudos to them though for putting together the tour. So far it's gone off without issue.

Why would Edwards take a chance of being caught? Doesn't he have friends? Everyone knows you meet your mistress at a trusted friends house, not a hotel. Also, I'm more inclined to believe this story, as the Enquirer "broke" it months and months ago. This is the follow-up that "proves" it.

looking more closely at the scoring, I have to laugh that an NIT Title gets you 2 pts, but NCAA Berth gets you 1.

Illinois comes in at #23. For some reason ESPN fails to include 2 or 3 conference titles in their calculation.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) It is very rare. You'd have to go all the way back to about 3 or 4 weeks ago when McCain did a South American tour. Well I guess that proves how much more the media follows Obama...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 10:13 AM) Would you put the Dark Knight and Heath Ledger in the same caliber as There will be Blood and DDL? Well that was last year right (last Oscars)? I think DDL was amazing, and better than Ledger, but TDK blew away TWBB. As for No Country, that's a tough one. I guess I don't need to see TDK win the Oscar, but surely it needs to be nominated. I'd give the nod (if i were voting) to TDK though. As good as NC was, TDK has more mass appeal (in a good, non-poppy way).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 11:24 AM) Well, here's an interesting comparison. Got this from a history class, don't have great sources, check yourself if you don't buy it. In 1968, LBJ was readying pretty much the ultimate October surprise. Was ready to announce that a deal had been struck with North Vietnam to end the war. At which point, Henry Kissinger took a flight and spoke to the head of South Vietnam and got him to kill the deal...before the election hit, thus denying Humphrey and Johnson that "We've ended the war" hit that they wanted. (We know this because Johnson bugged Nixon's phone and planes in 1968, Nixon's people tried to use the fact that he'd done so as a way to justify his campaign against the Democrats in 72, and Johnson turned around and said that if you come out and talk about how we bugged your phones, we'll come out and say what we heard on them, that you extended the Vietnam war for 5 years. So you see, domestic warrantless wiretapping rules!) See I guess that's what I'm getting at. There are ways to manipulate the real interests of the US (either for good or for bad) by letting candidates do this. And Tex I get your point, but at the same time, if you need to show the American people you have the experience, maybe you really don't have enough experience to be running...

So, I haven't really seen it discussed here, but what does everyone think about Obama's tour in general? I don't recall a candidate ever taking his campaign abroad. For the older folks, has this happened before? A friend and I have been exchanging lengthy dissertation-type emails about whether it's appropriate for Obama to be meeting with heads of state and giving "political" speeches to Europeans (leaving aside his visit to the troops - that's a separate argument). Obviously this is all being done as a photo op so that people back home can see that Obama can deal with other countries. But does anyone besides me think it's slightly inappropriate? I just feel that a candidate could easily manipulate the situation, undercut any current administration efforts, and essentially, in a self-serving fashion, use such a tour for political gain. Now, I don't believe Obama is that type, but that's not to say that if this becomes a trend, a candidate could cut deals with foreign leaders, "fix" a diplomatic issue with them, and then campaign on that success, all while still being just a candidate. Anyone else? Thoughts? (and please don't turn this into a Obama is God, McCain is the devil or vice versa thread... if necessary, pretend it's 2012)

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) so the media loves Obama, but still is covering things fairly. THEY WHY COMPLAIN? They are being fair. Who cares? I guess I don't see any whining or complaining, I see him stating the obvious. I think you're reading too much into it.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 22, 2008 -> 08:00 PM) So which is it? The MSM is Fair: Asked whether he believes he’d had unfair media coverage, McCain replied: “I don't think so. I think …it is what it is. I'm a big boy. And I'm enjoying every minute of the campaigning. And I'm certainly not complaining. And, in fact, I think it’s fun to watch." The MSM is Fawning over Obama: McCain mocks the media, trying to coax the creaky conservative grievance apparatus back to life, overwhelmed as it is presently by its liberal counterpart. "It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it's a love affair. We want you to be the judge. We've compiled two videos of the more outrageous moments of this not so secret love affair," says the campaign email to supporters. "The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny." Pick a side John!! Dont play good cop / bad cop. What's your point? All he's saying is that 1, he doesn't think he's unfairly treated in the media, and 2, the media loves obama. So?

QUOTE (G&T @ Jul 23, 2008 -> 07:08 AM) Ugh. Everyone who pointed out the holes liked the movie. We accept that it was a comic book movie. The problem is that people were calling it a masterpiece (read Kevin Smith) and Oscar worthy. Can't have it both ways. That is all. Name me 5 other movies so far this year that are more worthy. I can think of one - Wall-E, and that's about it.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jul 21, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) She's supposed to be the love interest of Aaron Eckhart and Christian f***ing Bale (Billionaire, Ballet enthusiast, Batman) she must have one HELL of a personality. Wasn't she supposedly like his only friend through his childhood? I'm sure that'd make you overlook some things. Personally I don't find her to be the hottest thing in the world, but she's certainly not ugly. And I thought she did a pretty good job. So much better than Holmes.

I'm seeing it Sunday at noon at the Imax. It's gonna be sa-weet.

Oh I'm a fan of this one...