Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) No, it's not the detector itself. In fact, when the detector itself is completely removed, the beeping still comes from the same spot. There is something in the ceiling that is generating the beeping noise. Something i can't get to. When the smoke detector is removed, above it is a metal cylinder that is nailed into a ceiling joyce and only has a hole big enough for the wires to hang down through it, so I can't see anything up there. Is this on the top floor? Is there anything in the attic?

I guess i'm in the minority here. If Jimmy's an asshole, so be it. He's the best player they have and he's one of the best players in the league. He's not a #1, but there are only a handful of those guys.

Cop out.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 03:05 PM) The question was what would you do as President to make college campuses safer from sexual assault (paraphrasing). Kasich starts his response by talking about confidential reporting, access to rape kits, and access to justice. Those are all fine policy positions, and if Kasich had ended there, the answer would have been fine. Note, however, that none of those answers have anything to do with preventing sexual assault. The only thing that Kasich says about sexual assault prevention in the answer is the "don't go to alcohol parties" quote. In response to a policy question about sexual assault prevention, that's the only he says that is directly on point to sexual assault prevention. It would be akin to a young man asking Kasich "what policies would you implement to reduce crime in my neighborhood" and, after saying a bunch of stuff about incarceration and reducing recidivism, he said "and avoid dark alleys late at night." Because the only prevention part of the response is what that specific person can do to reduce their risk... Again, to the extent Kasich clarified, I'm glad he did and I'll happily look at his policy position. But as a policy answer, the debated quote was a bad answer. How would you prevent sexual assault?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) Except there's a huge difference between a father telling his daughter to make good choices and it being a politicians' sexual assault prevention position (particularly in light of the historic treatment of victims of sexual assault). Why? It's still simple, basic guidance that has nothing to do with condoning/supporting rape. I'm in agreement with others that this is akin to telling people not to walk home alone in s***ty neighborhoods, don't drive on expressways at 3am, don't leave your drink unattended at a bar, etc. Do you have the right to do those things? Sure. Are you opening yourself up to more risk by doing so, yes? Is it good, practical advice to NOT do those things? Yes.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 02:26 PM) The problem is the context though. Kasich was asked about sexual assault. He said a lot of stuff about policies he enacted in Ohio that helped provide access to rape kits and counseling after the fact. Which was all really good stuff. The problem with the answer is that the only thing he said about rape prevention, in a policy answer, was avoid parties with lots of alcohol. Take the crappy neighborhood example. If Kasich was asked about reducing crime and he responded with a bunch of solid ideas when it comes to incarceration rates, community cooperation, and ways to prevent recidivism, and then followed that up by saying "and oh yeah, avoid bad neighborhoods after dark," that answer would be panned (rightfully). I don't think Kasich intended his response to be anything other than advice to a student who seemed particularly concerned about sexual assault on campus, but when compared to the fact that he answered a policy question with policy answers, to me, the avoid parties with alcohol quote came across poorly. What an asshole! He's basically saying "get back in the kitchen where you belong!" Right? Ugh. Disgusting. Women have a right to go to school just like us, am I right? Seriously though, I hope if/when you guys have daughters you never tell them to "be careful" or "be smart" or "make good choices." That's obviously just blatant victim-shaming and rapist-supporting talk.

Why do you guys hate women so much?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 10:46 AM) Do building codes require gendered bathrooms though? I don't see why you couldn't have every bathroom be non-gendered. I bet they do, but I don't know for sure. And wouldn't you need to have differences between bathrooms because of the urinal issue?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 18, 2016 -> 10:00 AM) Not really increasing the cost. If your new building is going to have 6 restrooms, they just have to be 2 men, 2 women, 2 neutral instead of 3 men and 3 women. If your existing building has 3 men and 3 women, just take one of each and slap a neutral sign over the men/women sign. I don't think engineers/planners would agree with you. They calculate the number of bathrooms that are necessary for the anticipated capacity of the building/floor/unit. Getting rid of 2 bathrooms for "other" messes with those plans. You're basically making a multi-use bathroom a single use bathroom. In some instances it would be an easy fix, but not in all cases. But again, why are we making these changes in all buildings for very, very, very few people? Either tell them to go to the bathroom based on their genitalia, or make everyone else deal with it. I'd vote for the former, but really don't have strong objections to the latter. If you're a creep-o, you're going to be a creep-o whether you're allowed to be in the bathroom or not.

It amazes me that this country spends so much time/energy/money on problems that affect so few people. Either enforce bathroom use based on genitalia or don't. Pick one. Increasing the cost of business/government is not the solution here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 13, 2016 -> 01:25 PM) So, in 10 minutes I get to walk to class past an this giant external death penis makes up for the one in my pants open carry rally in the middle of the protests that greet a standard donald trump rally. Happening right across the street. Legitimately hoping students don't get hurt today. I walked downtown this morning. Legitimately concerned a piano was going to fall on my head. Luckily I made it out alive.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2016 -> 01:11 PM) Reading between the lines of what was said last night, I think they know that one of Butler or Rose is going. Butler is the only one with any value at all in my eyes, which means it is going to be him. Why saddle yourself to a guy that hasn't played a full season or looked All-Star caliber in about 4 years? Butler is a keeper. He's on a long term team friendly contract. He's an all-star quality player. What you get back has no guarantee of being on that level. And the Bulls don't need more "ok" players. They need all-star guys. Giving up on the only one you have would be dumb. I think Rose has some value, particularly to teams that need a marketable star. I wonder if you could "give" him away to the Lakers.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 14, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) so how many more years will be the bulls be hot garbage? 5 minimum? Realistically I think that's the window, maybe 3 years if they can get lucky. Next year they're still stuck with Rose and there are very few FA's out there that would significantly improve the team. I think the rebuild begins when/if Rose is traded or is allowed to walk. Problem is, after that, who's the big marquee FA? Westbrook maybe? But he could go anywhere, and there's the possibility he stays in OKC with Durant. Anyone else is just a slight upgrade, not a championship contender move.

I'd imagine they want SOMEONE to play so people will still come to the games and buy beer, merchandise, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 7, 2016 -> 12:37 PM) I am actually considering swimming against the current and looking at a slightly used VW Passat or Jetta to replace my car. I'd go for the gas engine, and not the diesel. They are so stinking cheap right now, and I don't really care about trade in, as I run whatever I drive into the ground. The car I am driving now I bought new in Jan 04. I've considered doing the same thing.

The Masters putting up a live stream beginning at 9am this morning is so awesome. Little work being done the next two days.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Apr 1, 2016 -> 11:16 AM) Jenks I bet you're sending your kid to private school, am I right? Nope, but I picked a good school district that isn't run by a powerful and debilitating union.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 1, 2016 -> 11:05 AM) I teach in the suburbs. I will receive a pension. The problem is that as teachers, we contribute every check. We have held up our end of the deal. Illinois decided to spend their contribution on other things and not pay it back. Teachers also don't receive social security. That's the rub. Everyone can complain about the pension costs being too high but if they take the pension away, they'll have to give teachers social security. And they don't have that money either. But it's my understanding that the state/city aren't asking the teachers to give up their pensions, they're asking teachers to contribute a little more to help cover the costs, like 3-4% more. I agree that it sucks that the state/city is poorly run (insert "it's your fault for continuing to elect the same democratic machine into office for the last 40 years"), but it is what it is. Other people are also losing out on money, are being taxed/fee'd more, and/or have to contribute more of their paycheck for their retirement. Teachers, especially the CPS union, seems to think they're the only ones. Also, this is a few years old, but CPS teachers get paid a lot, even before you take into consideration the benefits. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/how...-teachers-make/ And who cares if they don't get SS? If I even get SS it's going to be way less than the 80% or whatever of your last salary for life.

Am I the only one though? Honestly I never hear of non-CPS employed people that support the union. I don't know why Rahm/Rauner even deal with it. I'm sure they have to legally, but it's not like they'd lose the PR battle if they finally said, enough is enough. It's a s***ty system anyway, starting over isn't going to make it much worse than it is.

Can we just, for once, fire every CPS teacher and start over? I'm so tired of hearing them b**** and whine. They were asked to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance because the state/city can't cover the MASSIVE costs of their already obscene pension plans. Boo f***ing hoo. Grow a pair, take a small hit like the rest of us, and do your f***ing jobs. /rant.

And yet... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chic...0330-story.html

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 11:51 AM) Jimmy Butler is a star player in this league, very clearly. He isn't a superstar player, but he is one of the best two way players in the game today. He's also on a team-friendly contract given the upcoming salary cap increase. I think that makes him pretty close to untouchable to the Bulls.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 11:07 AM) He explicitly said in that interview that he wanted abortions banned. Moreover, in any interview with politicians, you can infer that they're talking about legal changes they desire to make. When Bernie Sanders says he wants the rich to be taxed more, you can infer that he's talking about changing tax laws to increase the tax rates on the rich. You don't assume he's talking about IRS agents illegally mugging rich people and snatching benjamins out of their wallets. The only leap being made here is by you. No, see in that example the Bernie Sanders headline would be "Sanders wants to raise taxes" without qualifying that he only means to the rich. After all, that's his policy that's he stated, so why the need for context?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 10:56 AM) Trump wants abortions to be illegal and is okay with that leading to back-alley abortions, and he'd want women to be punished for obtaining abortions. It's a barbaric position to take, but I think everyone understands pretty clearly and doesn't think Trump wants to start rounding up women today with the laws as they currently are. 1) Abortion is barbaric. Odd how you have that flipped around, but whatever, I respectfully disagree with your position without calling it garbage. 2) Look who is leading the polls. I don't think "everyone" takes those headlines with the appropriate context or understanding that he doesn't mean today, regardless of the law, nor do I think the media wrote them in that way so people would understand the context. They wanted the "Trump wants to punish women! He's anti-female!" reaction, and they got it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2016 -> 09:46 AM) The key point you are missing is that he wants abortions to be illegal, which very directly means that he wants to punish women for having abortions. I appear to have a similar policy position as him. I'd like abortions to be more illegal than they are, and if/when that happens, i'd like women to be punished for obtaining them in most cases. Yet, as we sit here today, it is not true that I want to punish women for having an abortion that is legally allowed. I DO if/when abortions becomes illegal, but I do not at present. You guys are making a leap in his position, which he may ultimately agree with, but he didn't say that in that interview and it wasn't reported accurately.