Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 10:18 AM) The wall is part of this anti-Mexican sentiment that is felt very strongly in Mexico. There is some nationalistic pride at work here as well. These people choose to visit the US and spend their money. The wall says we do not want Mexicans, that armed border guards are not enough. So many have said their feelings are, you don't want us, fine, we will spend our money at home or travel elsewhere. Also realize they probably know someone who has emmigrated here, either legally or illegally. They also may have ancestors who became Americans after 1846. Where else are they going to shop? Are they going to travel a thousand miles to the south? They have no other option. They shop here for a reason - they get the best price on the goods the want/need. You think they shop in the US because they like us more? If they can buy what they want in their own country, why do they make a trek across the border?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 19, 2007 -> 09:24 AM) So you're in favor of an policy that will destroy a region's economy here in the US? Come on....how would a fence do that? If you're buying that many goods and going back across the border, you certainly didn't jump a fence to get there. You had to go through some security checkpoint. Obviously armed border guards aren't giving these people much of a "f*** you mexicans" message, otherwise they wouldn't continue to shop. I'm against the fence idea. I think it'd be a gigantic waste of money. But I'm reallly tired of the pass people want to give illegals. I'd be for a guest worker program - if those guest workers prove they've been working and prove they've been paying their share of taxes. Otherwise kick em out and let them go through the process (which should get revamped no doubt).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 10:56 PM) For those with NCAA 08 and who are playing on Heisman, here's a question that may sound stupid but I'm gonna ask anyways -- how do you tackle? It seems like I can't make an open field tackle. Diving at them usually ends miserably, just running into them (not hitting anything other than literally running into them) usually fails or they don't even attempt to make a tackle, and the hit-stick isn't precise -- it seems like you have to 'anticipate' with the hit stick, meaning there's a delayed reaction -- you hit it and then a half a second later it goes for the knees or for the big hit. I'm also having some trouble in my season -- I'm 4-3 with Northwestern and seemingly can't stop anyone. I also have no pass game whatsoever. Any ideas there? The game is a little ridiculous on Heisman, especially if you're a lower level team against a higher rated team. I started up a new dynasty last night with Illinois, with the schedule this year. Wisky and Penn St were top 15 and Michigan was #1. In each game the running backs absolutely destroyed J. Leman, an "impact player." At least three times a game their QB would scramble straight through my line and literally get hit by at least 5 players and still somehow break through and gain 15 yards. I think it just comes down to getting better players. I love the game but I do have a few problems: Why is it that during every replay the play selection screen pops up and blocks 90% of the screen? The fact that a linebacker can always make an interception, even though his back is to the qb. I think this happens at least one time each game. I'll have a running back or TE run straight down the middle of the field. The linebacker gets caught and starts covering him. By the time I throw the ball, the RB or TE is a good 10-15 yards passed the linebacker. The linebacker, who is running with is back to me, always manages to turn around and intercept the ball. The ability of safeties and corners to miraculously, at full speed, jump 5 yards in front of my WR on an out pattern. This one I never understand. I like the play action roll out. I'll have my QB roll out to the side that I have a WR running an out pattern (with no linebacker or CB covering underneath). My WR has a good 5 yards on the covering corner/safety, so I pass the ball. Just about everytime the corner/safety turns on the afterburners (which is amazing because he's already at full speed) and manages to either intercept or knock down my pass on the WR outside shoulder.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Nov 18, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) Observations... 5. While DJ White does a lot of good things, he just has really bad feet and that makes me wonder if he will ever be able to play in the NBA. He doesn't run the floor well and his feet are slow. It's like he is carrying 20 extra pounds from the knees down. Watch his feet compared to DeAndre Thomas to see what I mean. What?! He's already a lock as a lottery pick!

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Nov 15, 2007 -> 07:48 PM) I'm just glad you didn't say "Ghoul!!!!". Anyways, is anyone else continually dissapointed with the college basketball games each year? It seems they constantly lag behind the other sports games around for whatever reasons. They don't even seem to be close to their NBA counterparts like NCAA Football and Madden. I always am, mainly because its so obvious that it's just a "port" of the nba series. Sure they add a "6th man" feature or recruiting or something, but the graphics and gameplay always seem a year or two old. Especially the graphics. My NBA 2k7 for the ps3 looked better than the College 2k8.

His response makes no sense to me - he's essentially saying, don't listen to the WSJ article because even though poorer people are making more 10 years later, the same amount of rich people are making less. So? The point is that there are more people at a higher income level than there was 10 years ago, even if the same number that increased their levels also decreased. How can income equality not go down when you have more people making more money and less people making more money?

lol, and with that said OSU better beat UM because I want ILL in a new years day bowl.

lol, well damn - you just ruined that for me. It's just so odd that it's a love - hate with that game. It's either one of the best games in the last couple of years or a gigantic disappointment.

Didn't the military sieze like 20k tons of weapons and ammo just in the last month or so? Aren't they more effective in their pursuit of the cells of insurgents that are still terrorizing parts of the country? My thinking is that the leaders of the insurgency are finally at a point where they understand that if they continue as they were they'd be finished in the short-term. However if they scale back and regroup they'll be more effective in the long term. This means not only entering the political arena, but also restrategizing their hope to take over the country. I was a pro-war guy in the beginning who has watched this admnistration continually f*ck up to the point it's almost laughable how they handled this war. But I'm also convinced that by leaving now we'd lose any long-term benefit of going there in the first place. That being said, I think this reduction in attacks is only temporary. I really see it as the insurgent leadership getting smart and realizing they can do more harm later if the relax their efforts a bit.

No no, I said best team on Saturday - I'd give the edge to OSU in a best of 5 series, but only slightly. They played them well last year too, against a better OSU team. Again, I think you underestimate how good Illinois' defense played. It's not like OSU just made stupid mistakes - they were forced into making mistakes and when they needed to make a stop they couldn't. And Illinois has a top 5 rushing attack in the country. They smacked around the top rushing defense for 4 quarters. I know that most OSU fans think they got screwed and think Illinosi got lucky. I'm just glad the national perception was, yeah, you can consider it an upset because an unranked team beat the #1 team at home. But OSU didn't lose the game, OSU wasn't looking ahead to Michigan - they flat out got beat.

Ok, I'm going to chime in on the OSU-ILL game - To those that think the fumble was an absolute blown call (in that OSU didn't get the ball), please read the rule book: http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/200...tball_rules.pdf Ball Out of Bounds ARTICLE 3a. A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundry line. Look at the replay - there's no doubt it was a fumble (I suppose technically then a "blown call") but it would not have mattered. As Dufrene fell he was cleary out of bounds and he touched the ball at about the 1 yard line. Even if Tressel had reviewed the play it would have been Illinois ball at the 1 instead of the 3. And I think its a joke if anyone thinks that touchdown would have made the difference. Illinois won the game in 3 quarters of play. They moved the ball ALL GAME LONG against OSU's "impenetrable" defense. There's no way to tell what would have happened, but you can't argue that Illinois would have suddenly stopped moving the ball. It's ridiculous to, as someone else pointed out, conjecture about the last 58 minutes of a game. To the dominating comment - I don't think Illinois dominated in the true sense of the word, but Rock you're essentially saying Illinois got lucky which is complete crap. Yes the played a perfect game, and yes OSU played uncharacterisically bad. But why did they play so bad? Maybe because they actually went up against a good defensive line that applied pressure all game long? How many times did the QB scramble? Didn't he have a career long run and a career rushing day? That's indicative of Illinois' ability to penetrate the line of scrimmage. Your UNforced comment is true only in the sense that no one stripped a ball - but they were all caused by playing good defense and applying pressure on the QB. And really, though they didn't dominate the entire game (because they did give up 3 td drives of 76 yards), there's no question they dominated the 4th quarter. They held the ball over 13 minutes in one quarter. That's sick. And it's not like they got lucky - they ran down the throat for 260 something yards on a defense who averaged only 65 yards per game on the ground. The team knew they were going to run it yet Juice still got first downs on a 3rd and 10, 3rd and 7 and I believe a 3rd and 5. Ohio State got outplayed, outcoached and simply lost the game to a better team on Saturday, period.

MGS is probably the new psp game. Assassins Creed is getting some great reviews. I think I'll be picking that up tomorrow.

well we can argue the zook - florida angle all day. I can totally understand a winning program that loses big games will want to get rid of the coach. I just think its unfair to say that zook can't coach. He didn't win a couple of games against FSU and Miami - but he did beat teams like a #1 LSU. So it's not like he always lost the big game. Florida was his first job. Spurrier left little talent on the roster. It's funny how they were an average team for 3 years and then got really good - sorta like how its taken zook three years to turn around the illini program and fill it with recruits. I'm totally fine with how things turned out. I think zook is going to build a powerhouse program at Illinois if he stays long enough. And if he doesnt at least he'll fill the program with top talent for the next guy (though much like Weber, I think he'll be in for the long haul). All I know is that everyone (especially Florida fans) will not want a match-up at Illinois. Not only will that give zook recruiting time with Florida talent for a week or two, but if they win he's got even more ammo - hey come to my program, we're turning it around and will be a big story - oh, and we just beat the best team in the state. Like I said though, regardless of where they end up this year, I'm just happy I was finally able to stomach watching an entire season of Illinois football.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Nov 12, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) But it doesnt change the fact if I was a bowl and had to sell out that I would bet on Wisconsin fans over Illinois fans. That's why I'm arguing against you. I just don't think thats the case this year. And yeah, Illinois didn't sell out their stadium every game - kind of tough to do when you've one like 5 games the last 4 years. But that was 2 months ago. Ever since they've gotten sellouts and big draws (two national TV primetime games no less). And Illinois doesn't travel well? You don't think 50k fans would travel to Florida to watch a team that hasn't been good in years? Come on... This year I think it has less to do with tradition or past years success - its all about this year. And I think national viewers are going to want to watch an unknown underdog versus an underachieving (or overrated) team.

As to the bowl selection - I understand the money aspect, but money and viewership can only take you so far. The bowl process has to have SOME legitimacy to it, otherwise why play the season if it always comes down to the amount of people that watch the game? Might as well pencil PSU, OSU and UM in the top bowls because 100k people watch their games live in person. And Soxbadger, no offense, cuz I know you think Wisky is the best team ever, but their following is just as big as Illinois, probably less. Wisky has had a good run for the last 3-4 years, so they've gotten more pub, but I would be willing to bet that more people would watch a good up and coming Illini team over a pre-season top 5 team that tanked. Ditto with Michigan (though obviously the initial size of the fan base is pretty large in comparison). On a national scene what looks more enticing: overrated teams or an unkown who just knocked off the "best defense ever (stupid ESPN analyst)" on their own turf? I guarantee you the bowl reps are praying that they can align a Florida/Illinois game. That'd get just as much pub as the NC game (as an aside, did you know that Zooks record at Florida is only one game worse than Meyer in the same amount of time? It's like 16-8 to 17-7 - obviously the NC helped, but so did getting a ridiculously talenting roster handed to you....but anyway). As to Illinois next year - say all you want about the schedule, but I'm pretty sure the Illini went into the toughest place in the world to play and simply out played and out coached a superior football team. You know what I've been most happy about following that game: not a single "expert" called it a fluke or said that it was OSU looking ahead to Michigan. Of course OSU will reload nest year and be favored again, but how could you not have Illinois on the short list of conference contenders? Their big three will most likely return (not sure about Mendenhall) and highly ranked recruits are also flooding into Champaign. The difference being that those highly ranked recruits will most likely play whereas at OSU they'll be #2 or #3 on the depth chart. I'd be dumb to say that Illinois is the sure bet when Michigan and OSU are always full of talent, but come on, give Illinois a LITTLE credit.

Anyone catch the 100th episode clip show special? Man the creator/voice of all of those characters is a douchebag. I enjoy the show, but it's really not THAT great anymore.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 12, 2007 -> 07:23 AM) If OSU wins, wouldn't Illinois end up 3rd? Same record as Michigan, but lost head-to-head. Yeah I'm not getting this either - most of the bowl projections have Illinois in the Capital One bowl as Big Ten #2. Maybe because they have a better overall record than Michigan (assuming they lose to OSU and Ill wins against NW). Either way I'm happy. I expected this team to win 5-6 games at most. They beat two top ten teams and a top 20 team. They barely lost a shootout to a top ten Missouri, and really they should have won the Michigan game but beat themselves. All three of our losses were close with a chance to win on the last possession. I'm so pumped for the next couple of years, I really think we'll have a chance to win a conference title or two and contend for a national title. As for Juice, I've been on his case all season for his passing. I still think he could use more touch, but it's clear that when he's got the ball he can do some special things. What excites me most is that he's only a sophmore. We still have two more seasons to watch him grow and develop.

That's just it though, what is "torture?" I consider having to smell a bum on the train for 10 minutes torture. Would forcing detainees to smell piss and crap and b.o. for hours and hours be torture? Or is it just making them uncomfortable?

Why would anyone pay 10 bucks to see a movie about the war when you can turn on any cable tv news station at any time of day and watch it for free?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 06:12 PM) That sounds very reasonable, I and can agree to most of it. However, with regards to the bolded part: It won't stop Muhammed Aekban, who's already a fanatic, but it will tarnish America's image that much more for the millions of other Muhammeds who aren't yet radicalized. It seems like the cost-benefit ratio is way off on techniques like waterboarding, which sound horrible to most people and aren't even very effective at producing reliable intelligence. But we're not taking everyday muslims and fake drowning them to get them to tell us if a cousins friends brothers wife is a terrorist. If we're doing that sort of interrogation we're doing it against people we've caught in the battlefield. I don't think its rational to assume that jo-schmo muslim will think less of America because we are acting aggressively against our enemies. Obviously "acting aggressively" is my view on it, but its at least in the grey area, so it's not some abhorrent immoral practice that everyone knows is wrong and against the Geneva Convention. It's the same argument that by continuing our presence in Iraq we're getting more and more muslims to hate us. If you're arguing that by random bombs we kill innocent civilians and people associated with those innocent civilians now think less of America, ok I'll grant you that. But muslims in egypt or pakistan or wherever understands we aren't attacking them, we're attacking the radicals. And if they don't understand that then already have a poor opinion of us or they just simply don't follow world news.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) So I am curious exactly how far people are willing to sacrfice in order to protect the rights of others? This is obviously a purely hypothetical thing, but I am curious about how other people on here would react to specific situations. If anyone else has some good ones, feel free to add them. I'll take a stab - Would you understand if a loved one died in an incident where the US held someone who had the information that could have stopped the event, but couldn't because their hands were tied on how they could get information out of the suspect? - Depending on the "hands were tied." If water-boarding would have gotten the information out, then yes I would have been pissed. If the interrogation would have required the use of bamboo near the finger nails, than no. I think the whole torture issue is hysterical, only because of the context - a major argument is always that are enemies could use it against us. Well guess what, terrorists don't torture, they just chop off heads. I think its a bit naive to think that torturing Muhammed Ahkbar is really going to deter Muhammed Aekban from doing something bad to one of our troops. Of course torture is bad and should never be done, but no matter what techniques are used there's always going to be a thin line between acceptable and not acceptable. In the same situation as if the suspect were a non-citizen, should a request for legal representation be allowed, even if it potentially allows an attack to occur? - IMO no, unless the legal representation would be to stop an execution or something as serious. If you had the ability, could you represent that person knowing that your actions could allow that same potential attack to happen? - No. There's not way I could be impartial and represent them to the best of my ability. I've heard stories of guys who represent detainees at Guantanamo. They are torn daily helping people who literally pray for the death of all Americans. Would you protest to protect the speech rights of someone who was saying something that absolutely disgusted you to your core? What is the worst speech you could consciously protect? Sex? Religion? Pornography? Child Pornography? Unfortunately yes, though if I would try to create exceptions. For example the recent funeral protests. Some have argued it's their right to say it. I'm on the side that they're infringing on a private moment, even if they are technically on public land. IMO such a situation could create a limited and narrow exception to the general rule of free speech - at a cemetery, during a funeral. There's no long-term detriment to the right to speak freely. And I don't think its the words that are spoken mostly, it's in what context they are spoken. Would you allow your minor children to be exposed to any of the previous things to protect the freedoms of speech of others? Probably not no - I'm only 25 and don't plan on kids for another couple of years, but I'm already terrified of what my kids will be exposed to. I think this question would be answered solely on the factual setting. If the US had intelligence on where someone like an Osama Bin Laden what level certainty would they need before you would be OK with them launching an attack based on that intel? 50%? 75%? 100% What about if there were civilians around him that would probably die in said attack? How about if one of the civilians was a family member? No civilians - 50%, Civilians - 95%, unless we have firm evidence that he's got the only key to a nuke that's pointed towards Chicago (or any other American city). If my family member is present - I'd defer my decision to some other disinterested person, but obviously my answer would be 100% certain and even then there better not be an alternative.

lol, I couldn't tell. Put it in green next time!

Lol, well i'm glad you can predict the future so accurately. I'm heading to Vegas in a month, perhaps you should come with me. Look, again, for 109th time, I'm not saying he's bad, i'm not saying Indiana's bad - I'm saying when did Indiana, a team who, as you just pointed out, was luckily to have been 10-6 last year and who didn't win a meangingful game on the road, suddenly becoming the team to beat? Names on paper, that's how. I'm not even saying that it isn't possible - i picked them to finish 3rd! And the rest of the Big Ten didn't regress - Michigan State is better, Illinois is better, Purdue is better. Ohio State regressed from a team that just went to the NC game. Wisconsin will be solid as always. I don't buy the argument that they are the only team that got better and therefore he'll rule the world. It's freakin DJ White man. He's a good player, but nothing to write home about.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 03:55 PM) You're going to tell me that a guy who averaged 14, 7 and 2 blocks a game after basically not playing at all the previous season, isn't that good? "Good" is relative - he's certainly "good" compared to me. He's not "good" compared to lottery picks. Heck, Shaun Pruitt averages 12 pts and 8 rbs in 4 less minutes a game compared to White. I don't think he'll be drafted at all, let alone the first day.

QUOTE(He_Gawn @ Nov 8, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) I guess I still do not understand how we are going to get "beat up" by the big boys when we return a far superior team to last years squad and last year we MORE than held our own. Maybe I'm just retarded though and can't see through my goggles. It's all about the rebounds. Again, i'm not saying Indiana will be bad, I just don't see a dominating team that's going to rip through the Big Ten.