Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 11:02 AM) He's biracial, black and white both. Whitlock is calling him white only and trying to discredit him. I think he was more trying to say he's not the victimized black man that he portrays himself as. He gave an example that King claimed he was beaten up for being black but when Whitlock/ESPN went digging for corroboration of that story they couldn't find any. edit: looking at his wiki page, there is a mention that a reporter found his birth certificate that named two white parents. King claims the father is not his real biological father though.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 10:50 AM) Shaun King is a black man and Whitlock is being racist against one of his own people. Is that possible?

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 10:27 AM) Shaun King? Yep.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) I will say, when I saw the Bulls were talking about moving Taj to Toronto for a worse player to save money, I couldn't help but laugh. It seems like Gar's new plan is to make us the softest team in the league. It started when we pushed Noah to the bench (for a soft Niko) and this would continue to do so (really taking away our two best defensive players, Noah and Gibson). Moving Noah to the bench was needed for the sake of offense. He's beyond terrible. They were playing 4-5 with him in the line-up. And frankly in this league, scoring is more important than defense. You're not stopping a team like golden state, so you better be able to put up some points to have a chance. I agree with this shift in style.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 17, 2016 -> 07:20 AM) I agree that some form of financial planning/responsibility class as well as other real life prep classes should be offered (if not mandatory) in high school. I do disagree with cutting things like language. As someone who's lived and traveled through Europe, it's kind of embarrassing that Americans are so culturally ignorant and inept compared to most Europeans, who often speak 2, 3 or even more languages. As for the JSF program and any other military program, well I don't think people realize how many people these programs keep employed. My company will supply around $20M of product in support of this program this year. But we're not supplying it to Lockheed Martin. We're supplying it to an integrator, who will then go to another subcontractor who then supplies to Lockheed Martin. At the other end, we will need to buy a sizable amount of product to help us from our own contractors this year. The military budget funds so many jobs. I don't think people comprehend that. I know I didn't before I worked in the military aerospace industry. When even one large government contract gets cancelled or program gets de-funded, the result is thousands of lost jobs. And usually good paying jobs at that. Do you mean more than it is currently? College is already offered to veterans for free. I'd support something similar for Americorps type organizations, but I don't know what making these mandatory for any sort of financial at all would accomplish. There are also programs that allow you to do this stuff after college and get your student loans waived/forgiven.

Am I the only one that had this course? We had what amounted to a home economics class without the cooking. We had to open a checking account, carry it around, "buy" things, balance the checkbook, etc. I'm pretty certain we had a credit card too but I can't remember anymore. I think the biggest thing beyond all the debt, is the way it's all presented. I went to a private undergrad school and then law school, so of course i'm a moron that deserves the large monthly student loan payment, but I was legitimately shocked by how much I would owe versus what I was reasonably expected to make. I think schools often tout a glowing career right off the bat, so even if you did the numbers you didn't think the monthly payments were that bad. Then you hit the real world and realized getting a job was tough and the jobs that were open were highly competitive and employers were paying less than they used to. Could be a function of the awful economy I experienced as I was looking for my first job. Still, at the end of the day, i'd be happier if we made a college degree LESS important. I think we can all agree that for the most part college was a joke for learning. It was more about life experiences. Half (or more) of what we were taught we don't remember and/or it's not useful anymore for what we do. Obviously this depends on your job. If you had a specific career choice in mind (chemist, accountant, etc) you obviously had a much more tailored schedule. But the vast majority of people take all sorts of classes that end up being pretty worthless by the end. That's a lot of wasted money if you think about a per hour/credit cost. Wouldn't an associates of something specific be just as useful? Yet a bachelor's is seen by employers as something way more impressive than an associates degree.

Walking Dead related rant (i'm clearly in the minority here):

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) Right, but it was expanding his 2012 guidance that advised not to deport children, which was challenged by the courts and lost. What other items beside immigration is he refusing to enforce? Drugs, for one. But i'm not saying he's wrong there. My only point was a President can similarly interrupt the democratic process, much in the same way the GOP is threatening to do. Just because a stay was initially ordered and the issue is being litigated doesn't mean it's not happening (i'm not confident at all that we're protecting the border as well as we could)/won't happen. Obama has recourse just like Congress does - they can sue and get the court to determine whether X action is in violation of the constitution.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:34 PM) You are. I don't know what else to say. Your contention that the supreme court cannot reverse the DAPA guidance of the Obama administration is false. It will be on the 2016 docket and a stay was issued last year. That is a specific issue and I was being more general. In US v. Texas Obama didn't just tell Homeland Security to stop arresting illegals, he was trying to include adults in the classification that normally applied to children under a certain program. He was expanding the law, not refusing to enforce it. There was also a notice requirement that they failed to abide by, so they, arguably, violated the law. And you're right, there's a question as to whether the states even have standing to stop him.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:26 PM) Honestly, I see no problem / issues with kids living with there parents after there first professional job. To be frank, it is the financially savy thing to do. I also think having to create something from scratch, builds character and defines you and ensures you appreciate things, but there is a fine line between that and the vast majority starting out in massive debt. Really it's the Baby Boomer generation that started the trend of leaving home early anyway.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:24 PM) Of course they can offer up names. "Scalia Jr is the only person we'll approve. Nominate him or we vote no." They've hijacked how the process is supposed to work, out of pure partisanship. Granted, the Senate being hard-asses about nominees of a President of the opposite party isn't new to Obama's tenure, but this flat out refusal to confirm ANYONE he nominates is ridiculous. Let's see how long this lasts. It's not as if nominees for the SC have never been rejected before, even over a decent length of time (months and months). IIRC Reagan had one rejected after a bunch of hearings and several months. I said in my first post on this it was dumb of McConnell to come out and say he wouldn't confirm anyone. I can't really say that's "unfair" or "unethical" when that's the authority they were granted though.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) You are wrong. Good response.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:01 PM) If Obama said he would veto every single bill passed by Congress regardless of content, and there was nothing they could do about it, that would be bad governance. And unfair. And unethical. The GOP Senate is basically saying that the ability to appoint Justices is theirs, not the President's. No, they can't offer up names to be confirmed. They can't choose anyone unilaterally.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:04 PM) "refusing to enforce" and "choosing not to enforce" are two different things. If a police officer doesnt issue me a speeding ticket, is he refusing to enforce the law, or choosing to not enforce it? Distinction without a difference in this situation. If Congress passes law X and the President either refuses or chooses not to enforce it, the result is the same- the democratic process as dictated by our Constitution is interrupted.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:00 PM) There are actually processes in place to deal with that. There is no overriding the Senate refusing the vote on hundreds of appointees. Notice that Obama's executive action on immigration went up through the courts, as did the EPA changes. So, good luck with #bothsides-ing this. No there's not. He's choosing not to deport scores of illegal immigrants. That's his non-action. The states/congress can't force him to tell his officers to enforce those laws. No court decision is going to change that. His attempt to change rules via executive action have been challenged by the states, that's the only process in place. He can ask the courts to review the power the Senate has in the Appointment Clause if he'd like, but it's pretty cut and dry.

So when a President refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress, that's....good governance? Unfair/unethical? Setting a precedent that our democracy cannot function under ideological parties?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:40 PM) You know, given my w-2 predicament, I firmly believe I pay more than a f***ing enough in taxes, however, I have gotten to know quite a few business owners and it f***ing blows my mind all the tax advantages that open up to them vs. me. I realize the whole "create" jobs thing, but s***, how come I pay twice that amount in taxes, etc? Seems illogical. I fully believe our tax code needs to be fixed and to me it isn't really taxing the piss out of the wealthy, but it absolutely means people pay there fair share of taxes and maybe if that gets in balance, and general spend gets in balance, why not doing something that ultimately ensures no matter what happens to you, your kids will have healthcare and the opportunity to get a college degree (without being forever in debt). I can whine about how it isn't fair and how I went to college and had to pay, but I can also look at how much college costs have soared and think about how and what people are graduating with and go, wow, they are starting there actual lives worse off than I did roughly 10 years ago (its absurd how much worse to be frank). You can look back on my posts here and i've said numerous times tax the wealthy at 100% if you want. Increase capital gains/investment taxes if you want. Do all of those things to your hearts desire. It'll have an affect on employment, but even if it didn't, it's still not enough to pay for the massive social programs that Bernie and other progressives want. And you pay enough taxes now, Bernie's free college plan is going to make you pay more. Not just the rich, but the middle class too. Might not be directly, but you'll be paying more in fees and costs and everything else. The poor can't pay it, the rich will still avoid it or pass it on down. Who else is left?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:43 PM) It was after those allegations, although he was already famous. Right, so that makes sense. He's already being covered for something far worse and it went one for quite a while. He became a name. Not to mention he was a national champ and heisman finalist at the time those allegations came out.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) It looked to me that it was covered from the perspective that Manning made up a lot of s*** and accused her of stuff that was false, not really the other way around. The university and mannings basically took to the offensive and the essential story was this vulguar person who had it out for Peyton Manning accusing him of something (and I don't even know if it went to the point)...more just ripped her to shreds and ruined her career (unjustifiably). Read the foxsports article I linked. Some additional facts about the whole thing are provided, like the change in her original complaint and the eventual lawsuit allegations.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:23 PM) I think the context is where the distinction needs to be drawn. Doing this in the context of a frat party is one thing...doing this to a professional trainer in this context is quite another. Sure, just keep in mind you're talking about a freshman start football player in a locker room in 1995 or whatever. I'm not saying it was right or that it was acceptable or that it should have been glossed over. I'm just saying in the grand scheme of terrible things football players have done, it's not really high on the list.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:27 PM) Jameis Winston stealing f***ing crab legs was national news. I find it preposterous that this wouldn't have been national news. Preposterous. Peyton Manning had to be one of the most covered college QB's ever (along with Tebow). yeah but wasn't that AFTER he was made famous by rape allegations?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:10 PM) It doesn't matter how he responds to it. He's already been painted as too far left by the far right, and if he is the nominee (which I still think is almost impossible) he is going to have to find somebody farther right (but not insane like Palin) to be on the ticket. Eh, he could hook up with Rubio. I don't think they have to worry about getting the fringe out to vote. Bernie provides the govt take over fear mongering the need. Hillary is....well she's Hillary. Both would be enough to motivate people to vote. Look at Iowa. Big numbers of interested voters.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:54 PM) The state already provides a bunch of services as is. America as it is today, will not survive on the path it's set on. America should invest in America and not on giving out welfare to corporations. I don't disagree. But the flip-side, making even more of the population dependent on the government, is also not sustainable, whether you tax the piss out of the wealthy or not.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:27 PM) Well, given Durant's injury, I'm going to guess whatever he does, he doesn't just sign a 1 year deal. I presume he'd sign a long term deal with a potential opt out after the first year. Westbrook a year from now and no one knows whether he will stay. Real question is, if Durant leaves in FA, does that mean they move Westbrook and rebuild in the same off-season? His injury has had no lingering effect. People thought he'd take some time to get back, if he ever did, and he's clearly back without issues. He doesn't seem very concerned about it, and neither do any of the teams that want to sign him. I mean yeah, a long term deal with an opt out is possible, just in case. But realistically if he hurts his foot again, this season or next, you don't think some team out there wouldn't take a chance on him and sign him to a max deal? I bet every team does. And why would the Thunder rebuild without Westbrook? If they lose Durant, they'd have to do everything possible to keep Westbrook and build around him. He's still a top 3 PG in the league. He's still a superstar or close to it.

Why would Durant go anywhere when he can (1) still play with Westbrook and Ibaka and be a top team in the West...no other roster gives him that kind of talent to start with, and (2) sign a one year deal and cash in the following season with a max contract under the new cap system.