Jenksismyhero

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 21, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Here is the danger as I see it when attorneys are the first line of defense. If the case isn't profitable, it will probably have a lower chance of making it to court than an equally uphill battle without money. I prefer a system where attorneys and clients have a clear path to a judge, and that judge has an easy and cheap way to dismiss it. "Mr. Brown, I just don't see that you could win this case against the Topeka School Board". But that's how the system works now. You come to me with a problem, I decide if I want to take the case on or not based on a number of factors: how much work, how serious is the case, how much profit will I get, what do I already have on my docket, etc etc. Lawyers make the value judgement of whether a case is good or not as soon as we hear the facts. And to me that's good because we can weed out the crap cases that a lot of people want to bring.

QUOTE(Balance @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) You forgot about filing a negligent hiring and/or negligent supervision action against DD. That would have a better chance of success than a straight respondeat superior case. That would hinge on whether he had a prior criminal record. But even then there would have to be proof that he had a sever anger problem and took physical action before. Not just any record will do, it's got to be something related to the stabbing.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) On the DD one, they can sue DD and prolly win correct?? I mean I can see it being a BS lawsuit if they tried suing DD over a random stabbing in their store, but if it was their employee, I would think they have a case. There's an argument to be made I suppose, but it's highly unlikely. Stabbing someone isn't exactly a normal day to day activity of an employee. Unless Dunkin Donuts knew of some severe stabbing problem with this guy I don't see how they could be held liable. But hey, I guarantee some lawyer somewhere in this city is going to try. And reading over the thread I think I took my original post in the wrong direction. I think TexSox you were asking about non-judges giving opinions like judges in what should/should not make it to court, specifically lawyers. I would still argue yes. It doesn't take someone with an IQ of 150 to be a lawyer, but to practice law you do need to learn certain skills and learn precedent. From this a lawyer has a higher knowledge of the law than everyone else. If I work on 200 slip and fall cases in Illinois, I can probably give you a guess of what a judge or jury in Illinois might rule in any particular case, with a high rate of success. I haven't worked on a lot of discrimination/free speech cases, but from what I know of the law, the Rutgers bball player has no case. Sure the lawyer can argue until he/she is blue in the face, but she suffered neither damages nor any loss of reputation over it. I'm not belittling someone who was "singled out" (even though in this case she wasn't alone). I puked in my mouth because it was a perfect example of why this country sucks sometimes. Instead of going after Imus in productive ways, she decides to "collect" on her "misfortune" by suing. What’s worse is that a lawyer actually picked up the case. What's even more worse is that Imus and his lawyers will probably settle just to get her to go away.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 19, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) I was thinking about b****'s comments about the lawyer that made him puke in his mouth by filing a lawsuit. Just wondering, but is our system really better off if the lawyers become the judges too? Shouldn't everyone have access to our legal system? We should have a way for a Judge to quickly and cheaply dismiss a case, but I would be uncomfortable if we created a system where it was up to the attorneys to determine if someone has an easy to win case or not. This is the ultimate divide in the legal profession: how much 'justice' do we sacrifice for the sake of efficiency. Personally I'm more on the efficiency side of the argument. I've spent the last few months working as a Law Clerk for an attorney who owns his own firm and has a good steady amount of general practice cases coming in. You'd be amazed at the amount of calls I get (i'm his first line of defense for client intakes) where people think they can sue for anything and everything and are completely shocked and baffled when I tell them thanks for the call but we're not interested. A few goods ones: A guy calls in and said he was fired without cause. He said he urinated in a bottle in front of co-workers but didn't see what the big deal was. He wanted to sue his employer. Another guy called in complaining about being fired without cause. He was "only" late "ten or fifteen minutes at the most" at least "three to four days a week." And my favorite part: "Come on man! Traffic can be a b****!" A woman calls in on behalf of her brother, who had just been stabbed at a Dunkin Donuts. Apparently her brother received his coffee but it was too cold so he asked for another one. A DD employee decided that instead of giving him a coffee he'd give him a good stab in the stomach. Of course their first thought was, gee, can we sue DD for this? It's a tough call but I'd like to see judges use a little more common sense and throw cases out before proceedings get underway. In reality 95% of all cases either get dismissed or settled, but that's still a ton of taxpayer money going to judges, clerks, staff, etc. to deal with cases before there's a resolution.

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) I would be pissed too if someone called me a nappy headed ho on one of the biggest radio shows in the country. Please. Didn't we all learn when we were two years old that words can never hurt us? She's an unknown woman’s basketball player. She has no reputation to damage. This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit and I hope the court comes down on this lawyer for filing such garbage.

Wtf is wrong with this country? It's a wonder that everyone hates people in my profession. This ass-bag lawyer should be stripped of his license for this crap. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/bask...t.ap/index.html

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 02:26 PM) You don't know that. I guess I'm in the minority on taking a chance on a kid who is 6'8 and can jump 42 inches. I mean, that's insane. Ditto, I thought Marlyand was in on him as well? As far as the Lewis Jackson stuff, meh. The kid isn't that special and I'd imagine Weber simply said we're not going to recruit you if you have no interest in coming here. Seems to me it was a way for Weber and crew to not waste their time on someone who didn't have a genuine interest.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Aug 15, 2007 -> 12:41 PM) it's probably a combination of all of those things. either way, i'm past the point of caring why it happens. the bottom line is we aren't getting kids we are targeting in many, many instances. ultimately, that can be damaging to a program. I think its a combination. Here's the other thing though. Weber is a new guy. He's never been a slick, crafty recruiting guru ala Gillespie, Self, etc. He was Keady's X and O's guy; the asst coach to get the team ready to win the game. I think it takes a lot to recruit kids, but one thing it takes (and I stated this previously) is time to establish relationships. Whats funny is that people get pissed because they think that because of recent success he should be able to immediately turn that around and bring in highly rated recruits. But it doesn't work that way. If you're a freshman in HS being recruiting by 15 different schools, just because a team who's interested you does well your junior or senior year doesn't mean you're going to just forget about the relationships you've built with other teams. Check Weber's status with 2010-2012 kids. He's already gotten a verbal from the best prospect in Illinois, probably top 10 in the nation, in Richmond (who keeps getting better). And from everything I read at Scout and Rival he's very popular with those kids. Why? Because Illinois in this 4-5 year run just became popular. I think a year or two ago they were the fifth most popular team in college basketball with kids aged 10-15 (something close to that...Weber quoted the study at a function). I think it's unfair to expect him to go out and bring in recruits he's had little time to persuade to come here. Illinois isn't the elite program its fan base thinks it is (me included). They've had good success the last few years, but not great. They've made one final four and a couple of elite eights. Solid, but not elite. To expect kids to drop traditional powerhouses (who also continue to win championships/make final four runs) is kinda ridiculous I think. As for Suggs, it's tough. A highly rated in state recruit who's a legit scorer goes across the country to play for a team that'll never be on TV during primetime for 75% of the country. You scratch your head but then realize his dad is great friends with Romar. It's an understandable decision. Who knows. I'm tired of it too. At this point I no longer expect anything but the worst and choose to be suprised by any good news. But I don't think the program is going to slip much. We'll still compete for Big Ten championships and make a run at the national title every once and a while. We'll still place well in the tournament. And if that's what we get, well hell, that's better than what we've had the last 20 years.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:52 PM) Not sure. Looks like Illinois will get Miller and Suggs and I swear I'm not just blowing smoke here, guys. Obviously things could change but right now it's looking good on those two as far as the Illini are concerned. And Keith, looking good on Shumpert. I no longer trust you. Suggs to Washington per Washington radio sources. Called all the coaches recruiting him and let them know.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 01:42 PM) Is there anyone monitoring it to know if/when it'll blow? No sh*t. Sounds like Al Gore has a new project. Though according to the map in that article, if Yellowstone did blow up we could kill two birds with one stone: no more crazy California liberals and no more crazy Texas conservatives.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:55 PM) I try to get excited for Madden, I just don't. I'd play it for 2 weeks, and be done, its the same every year. Rainbow Six:Vegas still gets my playtime on the 360 Ditto with Madden. I don't understand the fascination anymore. I have owned 10-12 versions of Madden since the beginning, so it's not like I don't have the experience. The last 3-4 versions have added very little IMO. Hit stick, eh, quarterback vision, eh, individual audibles, eh. How about getting back to the basics? How about some new commentary that isn't from 1998? What about some upgraded graphics? Sure they add an animation here or there, but why can't they overhaul the system? For a game that rarely changes year to year, it's amazing they've sold 60 million copies over the last 17 years.

lol, i saw this vide last week. I also thought it was hilarious. Valuable lessons/advice: Brush yo teef, brush yo teef Use deodarant (it's cheap!) We don't like dem spinners

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 10:52 PM) Also, RE4 was set in Spain and featured you kicking the crap out of the Spanish. I don't remember any claims of racism there. This would really take a long time to explain, so let me simplify it: If it doesn't involve black people, it's not racist. I kid, I kid. Sorta.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 9, 2007 -> 03:59 PM) Fixed. I still don't know what is so hard to understand about this, but you don't fire a guy over recruiting. Period. Until Weber loses somewhere below 20 games, maybe you can start the question is job. But anything until then is absolutely idiotic. I'd agree with this if we were talking about professional sports because a single free agent pick up could alter the course of a season. But in sports where recruiting is the key to putting good talent on the court/field, there is no mid-season replacement that could save a program. Ron Turner is a perfect example. He has a big year in football, getting the Illini to a BCS bowl. He's the darling of Champaign. Two years later we're back in the basement of the big ten and not just losing games, but recruiting high school junior varsity players to lose those games. Turner f*cked over the Illini program for 6 years because of his lack of recruiting skills. With Weber I'm torn. I like the guy a lot and think he's a great X's and O's coach. You don't take a team, regardless of the level of talent, to a 37-2 run, one of the greatest teams ever, and not be good at what you do. Nor do I fault the guy for a lot of the recruiting woes. The first year or two expectations were too high. You can't sign a player like julian wright or sherron collins when you pick up and dial the phone and talk to the recruits for the first time 3-4 months before the signing period begins. He jumped up to a different level of recruiting from SIU and had to establish relationships. Heck, coaches now are getting verbals from freshman in high school (weber included). That's insane. It shows you how early you have to start on these relationships. Nor can you fault the guy for not bringing in a guy like Scheyer who has been in love and recruited by dook since he was little. And last year he gets arguably the number one player in the nation (and probably the second best in rose) if the unnamed douche hadn't reneged on his verbal COMMITMENT (no hard feelings there right?). Without that guy taking back his word these discussions don't happen. All that said, I am concerned about the 08 class. Bring in Suggs, Miller, etc and I think we're fine, but if he can't close the deal this year and next then I'll be right there with the rest of you waiving my hand as he strolls out of Assembly Hall for the last time.

Senior Seminar - Legal History Corporate Reorgnizations Business Planning Law and Mass Media

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Jul 29, 2007 -> 08:37 PM) It was phenomenal. Best concert I've ever seen. Anyone else attend? I did not and I'm jealous of anyone who did. However because the internet rocks, I was able to watch it: http://music.msn.com/crossroads?silentchk=1& "Sweet Home Chicago" looked ridiculous. (a) who was that guy who could barely stand and (B) how did they get all those guys to play at the same time without it sounding like garbage? I was impressed.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 1, 2007 -> 11:52 PM) could someone who is smart answer my question?... I have a pretty good, somewhat powerful computer right now. How will the pcdvd games on the computer look compared to the xbox360 games on a HDTV? Also, I am thinking about upgrading my graphics card. If I were, what type should I get? IMO a powerful PC is going to look better than either next gen console. Mainly I think this is due to the fact that you're playing on a 17-19-21 inch screen versus 40+. Right there the sharpness of the picture is going to be a whole lot better. I've got the ATI Radeon X1950 pro. It's $200-250. It's not a top of the line, but it's better than 90% of whats out there. ATI and NVidia are the two major players in the graphics card world. I know that Nvidia has a comparable model to the x1950 pro. Things is it's only 256mb's, which is more than adequate for games that are out there now, but probably won't be for coming year. I can play the most demanding games, something like Company of Heroes, at high detail and I don't see any lag or anything. These models (the ati and comparable nvidia) also give you the option of buying two of the same card and throwing them together. ATI calls this 'Crossfire.' I myself am about to look into this to see if it's worth it. In my 'research' there's very few sites out there that can break down which cards are better to a lay person. They get too damn technical for me, so I ended up going on a friends recommendation. I'd suggest you head to best buy or a similiar store, ask someone there what they think about the cards, then take the model information and do some googling at home to find the reviews. You're going to have fanboys that trash ati or trash nvidia, but you should be able to find some good neutral reviews. As with everything, it's all about how much $$ you want to throw down.

Ok so this could have gone in the other sports forum, but since it's about political correctness/the state of our great nation, I thought I'd post it here. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/foot...ex.html?cnn=yes To me this is incredibly sad. The guy is just stating the truth: that some crimes just simply get a slap in the wrist and others don't. Instead of sticking up for himself this guy is forced to apologize for what he said and get kicked off a sports show to boot. So two questions for the board: (a) Is he right? Would it have been better if Vick was charged with raping a woman, in terms of how a professional sports commissioner would respond with punishment? (B) When are we going to get tired of the apologizing, rehab visits, etc and stop forcing jagbags to act a certain way so that the 'public' stops viewing them as jagbags? Seriously, it's getting to the point where someone should copyright a book detailing exactly what to do and what to say after X offense. What? You were caught in an underage orgy with coke? No problem. Just apologize and say you were molested as a child and have been fighting addiction ever sense and will immediately check in to rehab to fix yourself. Done.

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...17/COLUMNISTS41 Deon Sanders pipes in. I think a great line from Billy Madison is a perfect response for this: "Mr. Sanders, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this world is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Hmm. I just read the summary the thread linked and it didn't mention it. I read that on the Comic Con summary at www.thetailsection.com. I think that author said they've been thinking about it, but nothing official.

Agreed. I'm 10 times more interested in Richard Alpert (sp?) than Michael and Walt. But apparently he won't be around much. I found it interesting that they didn't really talk about Walt. This leads me to believe that Michael will be part of the flashfutures. Also, what's with the Friday night switch? Who wants to watch this show on Friday? Wednesday was great because it was something to look forward to during the middle of the week.

So I might be a bit late with this, because the video came out a week ago, but damn. Metal Gear looks so f'n sweet. The graphics look good, but the environment and how it reacts to what Snake does is even better: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22702.html

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 04:17 PM) But in terms of all the issues you could bring up that wind up being important to small states, things like farm subsidies, or immigration regulations, etc., all of that stuff gets hashed out in the budget debates in Congress. Yes, the President has the bully pulpit, and George W. has truly made it a king branch, but his power over the minute details that matter to folks in states like Iowa, Montana, etc. (pick your example) is not nearly as great. Day to day issues, like ethanol subsidies, drilling in one place or another, funds for highways, and on and on, that all gets hashed out by the deal makers in Congress and their lobbyist friends. The President has the ability to set the national priorities. He has the control of foreign policy, defense, and apparently, the ability to break the law at his discretion without any consequences. But he does not control the budget. He can propose legislation, but it's the guys in Congress who hash it out and make it work or not. But that's why it's important. The Prez can set national priorities that effect a minority of people. At this point it doesn't matter who has the actual authority to get something done. The President often has higher powers in the form of national attention. He picks up a hot topic and runs with it, he can force Congress' hands to get something. Even if Congress COULD tell him no and refuse to put X program in the budget, the Reps won't if they know their constituency at home won't reelect them. To me, if the President doesn't have to speak to rural America and could instead worry about only the metro areas, wouldn't our priorities for national policy be skewed towards those metro areas? I'm not denying that small states can still 'get stuff' from their reps in Congress, but I feel they'd be second rate citizens compared to the big boys. And even if this isn't a big deal but 10% of the time, who cares? How many times in the last 200 some odd years have we had elections come down to a small number of votes where the EC is different from the popular? Two times? Three times?

Who has control these days in the Fed Gov? Sure as hell isn't Congress. The Executive is now the king branch mainly because he is a reality star. The majority of the country thinks that he should be the one proposing legislation and that he should be the one getting things done. If you take away the EC there's no reason for this incredibly powerful individual to spend 2 seconds thinking about any rural area of the country. They don't have enough people to make a difference in a popular vote, so why focus on them? Focus on the major metro areas and you're set for election day. Farm subsidizes was just an example of an issue that a small percentage of the country deals with. And I don't concern myself with Montana-ians unless we're talking about the collective whole of the country, i.e. in foreign affairs or national issues. Generally though those issues make up what, 10%, of our daily lives, if that? The vast majority of governmental issues are state/local related. It's unfortunate that we don't focus our attention on that. I'm a strong proponent that the fed gov is wayyyy to large and that the vast majority of power should be held with each State.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Jul 26, 2007 -> 02:14 PM) Popular vote only. We're Americans first, and (state)-ians second. IMO that's the exact opposite direction we should be heading in. Small states become unimportant if you do that. Candidates would simply forget about 10-12 states because the population isn't big enough. Their votes wouldn't matter. Why promise farm subsidies when you can promise New Yorkers energy credits. More people, more votes, more pull. The exact opposite intention of most of the Founding Fathers. And I'm an Illinois citizen first. This is where I live. This is where I work. The US just happens to surround me.