Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING PAID. If you think that is a good interview, there is nothing left to discuss. Ok, being paid versus not wasting our money. Same difference.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) I read that, and my first thought was "he literally thinks NATO countries write the United States a check in exchange for military protection, and he's worried they're in arrears? because no..." I think he's saying those same countries can afford their own military and we don't need to be involved unless we're being compensated for doing so. He's right - we have our own s*** to worry about.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 01:52 PM) Jenks, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/polit...rview.html?_r=0 His actual words are that he would only follow the NATO treaty if "they are paying their bills". Putin politics are showing a remarkable amount of power in the Trump platform. That's a real thing, that's not theoretical. So it's not just watering down platform language conspicuously to be on pro-russian terms, it's openly claiming he will not follow the NATO Treaty. I don't see where he says he won't honor NATO in there. Where does it say that? He explains pretty clearly this is about negotiation tactics: He wants to hold the card that says we'll walk if we can't get paid for being the world's police. Rightly or wrongly, he views everything as a business negotiation. Trump is talking about removing our soldiers from various places around the world. This is precisely what uber-liberals like Maher have been demanding for years and years.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 01:39 PM) The hysterical thing is that you think that undermining one of the most important and globally important treaty that exists, against a country that has already openly taken territory (which doesn't happen in modern global politics) is no big deal. How is it fear mongering? Why on earth did they water down the Ukraine language? It came from Trump's camp. There are like, a few places where we don't want to tamp down our power, and eastern europe is a big one. "There are so many reasons why trump wouldn' tbe a good president" Give me a break. This is the biggest. This is actual policy he is prescribing and he is showing he's an idiot. Acting like hiring Manafort after he was a lobbyist for a Putin puppet PM in Ukraine is nothing. That would be true, some people need work. But when they then start signalling all of this crap about not supporting eastern european countries? That's a big deal. I think it's a HUGE (Trump voice) stretch to say Trump is "undermining" NATO based on one instance of him not wanting to openly declare that we would supply Ukraine with weapons they need to fight Russia. I don't necessarily agree with that stance, but i'm also not going to claim this is all part of a master plan to allow Putin to take over Europe and the Middle East. It's a huge, huge leap and it's just a fear mongering play involving communists. edit: and it's a fear mongering headline. He could have easily made the point that this is worrisome for global stabilization or regional stabilization without calling Trump Putin or indirectly saying Trump wants to help Putin take over Europe and the Middle East. edit 2: those statements also fall in line with his prior comments and his general foreign policy position: it's not our fight, let someone else handle it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-po...-united-states/

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) Maybe Putin isn't quite Satan, buts it's hilarious to mock that ridiculous comparison then literally post an article titled "It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin". I mean come on, lol. But #bothsides and all that. Nah, #itsdifferent

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 21, 2016 -> 11:55 AM) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...in-nato/492332/ Honestly worried about how these signals are going to ripple across before the election even DOOMSDAY! EVERYONE RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE COMMIES ARE COMING! Jesus that article is so bad. Throw out a conspiracy theory (Trumps campaign manager used to work for the President of Ukraine, who was backed by PUTIN. OHHHHHH!!!!! I'm not saying Putin is running Trump's campaign, but i'm not, not saying it either!!!!); claim that Trump would let Russia "advance" its interests into the Middle East and Europe and that Trump would "immediately" trigger instability by dismantling global relations (what power he has!); claim Trump wouldn't defend NATO members and then quote Trump saying he would do exactly that after determining if said country had fulfilled their own obligations to the US (the gall! Making sure other parties to an agreement hold up their end of the deal!) Yep! Cuz Obama's hard, pro-American world police force stance on foreign policy prevented Putin from doing anything close to that! Putin/Russia have been so quiet the last few years! How many liberals have said this exact line? Didn't Obama go on a world wide apology tour saying the exact same thing? That we lack legitimacy after our own mistakes? And now this is a bad thing to say? oh, ok, if you say so! What a drama queen. Seriously, there is SO many reasons why Trump would be an awful President. Why make up some fear mongering commie bulls***?

What's unfortunate is that these streaming services are just taking the place of cable. You're saving a little, but not a lot. I looked at Sling yesterday and the packages have changed already from just a few months ago when I was going to subscribe. In order to get the few, more obscure channels, like the Golf Channel, I have to buy into the big package. Instead of $20 for limited cable (appealing) it would be closer to $50 with 30 channels I don't want/need (not appealing). So, exactly what cable forces you to do. In 5 years Sling or Vue will be up to $75 bucks a month with 100 channels, 80% of which you won't watch. They'll also be owned by Comcast, AT&T or another big internet service provider (Google maybe). Cable is dying but will just be absorbed by the ISP's.

Caught the first episode of Vice Principals last night. Has a chance to be really, really funny. I liked it a lot.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 03:17 PM) I have Prime and Netflix but havent used Prime as of yet. Not sure if I will need to add Hulu to that mix. The wife has to watch Walking Dead when that comes back so I am not even sure what offers that. I read about Vue and they say there is 85 channels for that which is more than Sling offers. Vue is 50-60 bucks a month depending on what package you get. My big worry is her Walking Dead show and my sports. I assume I can buy the packages but that might wind up costing me more than paying for cable year round. But I am going to go for it anyway. Tired of giving business to these cable companies that dont give a s*** about their customers. Just keep in mind most of those sports packages are subject to blackout rules. So if you live in the Chicago area, you're not going to get Chicago area teams.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) I finally ordered a PS4. I know, extremely late to the party. Plan is to cut the cord for cable. What is the best and cheapest route to doing this by utilizing what is offered through the ps4? Amazon Video if you have Prime, Hulu Plus (worth it for no commercials), Netflix and then the various premium channels if you're interested. I know PlayStation has a streaming cable service called Vue, but I don't know if it's any good. A similar streaming service is Sling, which gives you some basic cable for $20+ per month. Check both channel listings as they vary.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) Love all the libs getting their panties in a bunch abou this...Butch lies under oath...nothing to see here...God help this country...I want him to win just to watch all you guys piss and moan for 4 years.. Any TV show that talks politics would be unbearable. It already is now and he's just the nominee. edit: they all find the smallest thing to b**** about, just like this speech issue. Yes, it was dumb, yes, it was lazy speech writing. But i'm confident if you go back and reread/watch speeches you'll find Obama and Hillary and everyone else using similar platitudes. This was just slightly more egregious than normal.

QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Jul 19, 2016 -> 09:50 AM) Mosby was elected, not appointed. She was brand new when this happened. I should have put appointed in quotes. Yes, technically it was an election, but at least here in Chicago elections are "appointments" by those in power.

I don't see why. They're still not a great team. They have a bunch of assets, but unless he's willing to commit long term, Boston won't use them. Are they closer than a team like LA? Sure, but they also aren't in LA, which is where Westbrook wants to be.

I thought maybe this was all an inside job planned to give Erdogan more power, but this story makes it seem like it was for real and very close to succeeding: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/...rkish-officials

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 18, 2016 -> 10:04 AM) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...HODfK5lu4PPjnlQ This is what happens when you over charge a case. What a joke she is...... They had lesser counts in there though. I think the issue the judge had was (1) not putting on a seat belt alone isn't a crime or negligent misconduct, and (2) no one could really prove that the ride was "rough." I'm still not sure how there's not SOME criminal element there, but I suppose that decision could start a bad precedent that cops can be criminally charged and convicted if they arrest someone and then negligently handle them. That's what civil penalties are for. It's absolutely wrong, but criminal?

Listening to the radio on the way home, apparently the Turkish constitution has a clause that gives the military the responsibility to ensure that Islam doesn't infect the government and that's the basis of the coup. If true, given how the country is becoming more tyrannical and Islamic, kinda puts the US in a tough spot.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 14, 2016 -> 06:32 PM) You stay away from Scruggs! I want him. Seems more likely that they get the 4 star PG out of Florida. He's high on them and Groce & Co. continue to recruit him hard.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jul 14, 2016 -> 07:23 AM) It's so little *throws money at computer screen* *screams, "Take my money"*

Re: the phone/electronic topic, i'm not opposed to it, and it has nothing to do with me not understanding technology, but i'd rather my son never looked at a phone or tablet except to watching a tv show or movie. My 4 year old becomes a monster when I try to take the thing away. I'd prefer that he go play outside and explore bugs or something than sit and play subway surfer for an hour. I don't necessarily buy the "tv rots your brain" theory my parents used to throw around, but I'm sure there's SOMETHING to that. If anything it just makes kids more anti-social, even if we are becoming a more "internet-social" world. I'd rather my kid be the minority there and actually learn some people skills since most of his peers won't have that in 15-20 years.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:26 PM) Based on polls as it stands today, his chances are 22.5% wtf? I thought he came out last week and said it was 7% edit: alright, sorry, I must have read an article wrong. That was his prediction for the nomination last fall. edit 2: still, IMO if he had just said i'm dropping out, thanks for the support and left it at that it would have been better and it wouldn't have hurt Hillary's chances (or increased Trump's). And it preserves his message.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) If you take an objective look I am not really sure that you can defend this. The problem is that when a political party aligns itself with religious ideology you do not leave much room for compromise. This is especially true for anyone who does not identify with the religious ideology that the party aligns itself with. Name me something that liberals have "compromised" on when it comes to those very same issues. Any attempts at regulating abortions in anyway are met with fervent opposition. Guns should be banned altogether, not regulated reasonably. Don't inhibit voting rights in anyway shape or form, etc. etc. Whether its based on religious ideology or not is irrelevant. I don't think they're much higher. Silver gave him a 7% chance of winning, and that's now before he embarrasses himself even more over the coming months.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) You need to be open to the idea that you are projecting onto sanders that Clinton is the opposite of everything he believes. If a Hillary Clinton was the cause of all of the US's problems, then their solutions would not match up so often. I'm not going THAT far with it, but it was a lot of the anti-corporate american/wall street stuff and she was the target for a lot of that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) Again, this is how political primaries go. Clinton and Obama was a lot worse. The s*** Bush pulled on McCain was ridiculous but he came around. Not getting the full and complete backing of your party is a pretty rare anomaly. Bernie running 3rd party also likely hurts Democrats down ticket, which would hurt Sanders' own power within the Senate. He'd be completely marginalized within the Senate with no voice within the Democratic party. On the other hand, by not sabotaging the party that's actually fairly close to his own ideology (the House Progressive Caucus might even be to Sanders' left), he's been able to have at least some influence as evidenced by Clinton recently adopting his college tuition plan and shifting leftward in general over the course of this campaign. There's a difference between trying to differentiate yourself when you're really just the same candidate pushing the same party ideology (Bush/McCain/Romney, Clinton and Obama) versus being far left socialist v. mildly left centrist. He wasn't just trying to be different, he was running on a different platform practically, which yes, she sort of molded towards as the primary went on, but it was still a different version of liberalism that he wanted. Again, you have an incredibly small chance of that happening. How much does Sanders' support really help Clinton? Any? I don't think so. Anyone moving from Bernie to Hillary is going to do so as an anti-Trump vote, not in a support of Hillary vote. On the same line though, if all we care about is game theory and winning, I should go ahead and support Trump in order to prevent a Hillary presidency. And it's not that I support anything having to do with Trump, it's merely preventing the alternative.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) Yes, and it would also accomplish nothing while destroying any influence Sanders might have within the Democratic Party. What did Nader's 2000 campaign gain for liberals, either short or long term? So fine, don't run. But don't SUPPORT her either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 03:10 PM) But the potential results of him winning are so unbelievably terrible that even that hopefully low chance is something that decent human beings should be terrified of. A decent human being would be doing everything in their power to stamp out this disease before it infects the entire country. So sell your soul and everything you believe in and everything you spent the last year telling the American people in order to prevent the 1% chance that Trump wins the election? How does he have any legitimacy after this? He's now supporting someone that a week ago he was blaming for a lot for the problems we have.