Soxbadger

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 25, 2017 -> 03:22 PM) I mean, there are cetainly some things people are getting outraged about that are silly. There was plenty of that with Obama too. What makes it extra weird when people get all upset about little stuff is, Trump is doing so many large stupid things, why hyperventilate about the little things? I really don't think this Spicey stuff is worth anyone's energy other than his. If he's upset about that, I don't blame him, but I also don't really care and can think of plenty of reasons why maybe it made sense. It's a non-issue, on that I agree. My personal opinion, the President of the United States is in some ways a representation of all of the US. While we may disagree with Obama, Bush, Reagan, etc at the end of the day I feel that they generally upheld the standards of what represents America. To me (personally) loyalty is important, it shows what type of person you are. When a country/person/whatever is loyal to you, you repay them in kind. It may not be the most pressing new story in the history of the world, it may not be the most important issue today, but sometimes its just flat out boring to say the same damn things about Healthcare, Environment etc over and over again. Over the last year I have simply become bored of those issues. The Spicer incident, while not earth shattering, shows Trump (imo) for who he is. Nothing more than a bad boss, something that almost every American can relate to. Which brings us to the real issue: Is this who we want to represent America? I apologize if its not a "big" enough issue, but most of life is the small stuff. Reasonable people can have reasonable differences on taxes, healthcare, even the environment, but how you hold yourself, especially as the highest representative of my country, means something to me. Not saying that everyone has to agree.

QUOTE (raBBit @ May 25, 2017 -> 03:03 PM) Simply stating differences of input between presidencies doesn't make one worse or better. My point was that there's so much outrage over s*** that was never covered before Trump's presidency. He's a dope and if you give him enough rope he'll hang himself but why is the media creating faux-controversy? Why is there more unnamed sources then ever? Why can't anyone put their name next to the daily Trump pseudo-controversy? How come you guys stopped calling him a rapist? He used to be a rapist? Now he's not? Now you're okay with rape? Where's the disconnect? The media moved onto another story and today's is that Trump's press secretary should make the travel cut over his own family. Really cutting edge stuff. I'm sure the kids will be learning about this in history class in 40 years. Because thats like your opinion man. Some of your statements are seriously mind blowing. Outrage over s*** that was never covered? Are you serious? Obama had to deal with "hes not an American", "hes a Muslim". I mean really, take your blinders off. Not to mention, you dont even seem to grasp the fact that Trump's Presidency is in the digital age and that there is more access to pictures, gifs, media, twitter, facebook, etc than ever before. And some of this, Trump brings on himself because he uses twitter like a 14 year old girl updating her friends on how her parents are being so unfair. The rest of the post, I dont even know how to respond to. Faux- Controversy? Again thats your opinion. I personally believe what he did to Spicer is worse than a lot of his other dumb s***. At least when he called Hillary names or other Republicans, those were his "enemies." But Trump is supposedly a "loyal" guy, and what he did to Spicer (imo) shows what type of a person he is. Rapist? I dont know, never called Trump a rapist, and not sure why its relevant. Not sure how you get to the leap of logic that somehow not repeating rapist every other word means that youre okay with rape. As for what the kids will be learning about in 40 years, I dont know, and Im not sure that is some sort of measuring stick that I actually care about. But this is all a waste of time, no matter how many times you are wrong, you will just change the entire dialogue into something that is at best tangential but most of the time completely irrelevant. Why not stick to the topic? Why are you so obsessed with what happened in the past or fairness or name calling (which is weird because now your saying we should call people names ie rapist), why can it never be an actual response to the issue? We get it, you think that Trump is being treated unfairly because the media is so bad and unfair. It doesnt take a lot of original thought, maybe one day youll find it more interesting to actually discuss the facts.

Aw damn didnt realize other people were going to beat me to the punch, now its just going to reinforce the martyr narrative.

QUOTE (raBBit @ May 25, 2017 -> 02:05 PM) You are all being deliberately obtuse. There was never any coverage of who Obama traveled with. There was never any coverage of whether or not his press team was with him. You'd think with how often Trump puts his foot in his mouth you guyswouldnt have to make stuff up too. When I questioned Michelle Obama's place in the admin and why she should be deciding whether our kids eat tofu I was racist. Now everyone has an issue with nepotism. Except they did: Go to picture 4 at link below (or I may have fixed the link to make it show right when you click) http://www.gettyimages.com/event/the-pope-...ture-id88968511 http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/...1909972,00.html Now maybe this one time you will admit you are wrong, and admit that the reason why there werent stories written about it is because Obama isnt a complete tool like Trump. What Trump did is what millions of people with bad bosses deal with every day. They do petty s*** to their employees because they can. Maybe you are cool with that, maybe that is the type of person you are. But irregardless of what I think about Spicer, I think it was a scummy move by Trump. Spicer was a good soldier, he has taken bullet after bullet for Trump, most of it over things Spicer had no control over, and yet when the time came for Spicer to have his "moment" Trump snubbed him. I wont hold my breath for the retraction. And next time maybe do a little research, because it took me 2 seconds to pull the pictures. Last I checked commenting on "facts" isnt making stuff up. Spicer didnt get to meet the Pope, this isnt some lie, its a fact. As for the Michelle Obama comment, I have no idea about your purported allegations of being called a racist, first lady's have general had some sort of role. Whether its Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama or Melania. But last I checked, I didnt say anything about "Melania" I said Ivanka and Jared. I know I know, its so hard because everyone is mean and calls people names.

QUOTE (raBBit @ May 24, 2017 -> 11:55 PM) I wonder if a scenario ever existed where there would be several news outlets writing the same story about President Obama choosing to travel with Malia Obama over Josh Earnest. QUOTE (raBBit @ May 25, 2017 -> 12:17 AM) Do you have any sources to these stats? Or are you really using your own made up percentages, with no methodology or modeling to note, as the basis of support for an argument expressing that something that didn't happen in the past would have happened in the past? Ironic your response when compared to your question about something that didn't happen in the past. As Obama didn't have his children, their significant others or any of his inmediste family members in high ranking positions l, it'd hard to speculate what the response would have been. That being said, I can say that the response to Obama being elected president included denying he was an American, I believe I can safely speculate that media outlets would have written storied about something that is newsworthy. Interesting response though, I guess even when something isn't political people are going to blame Obama than question their dear leader Trump. Seriously f*** that Obama guy, did you know he used fancy mustard one time, not like common man ketchup eating Trump. (typed this on a phone so fixing a few typos)

Trump didn't let Spicer meet the Pope, such a scummy move. Spicer is a Catholic, but more important to let Jared and Ivanka meet him. Really shows the type of human Trump is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 24, 2017 -> 03:02 PM) How can the Bulls get Deaaron Fox. I would like him on our team. On an unrelated note, what are the odds that Bosh is a Bull? Outside of trading Butler? Theyd have to find a team in the top 5 range who is willing to trade for future picks/junk. I really like Fox, just dont believe the Bulls have anyway of acquiring him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 24, 2017 -> 02:18 PM) Every time I am in a long slow moving line going to an event I have to go through screening, I always wonder, if someone had a bomb, they could easily detonate it right by the gate and scores would be killed. The metal detectors might keep guns out of games and concerts, but if someone really wanted to hurt scores of people, doing it right outside would work almost as well. Security is so tight at Wrgiley, they can't stop Ronnie Woo Woo. We are, I guess protected inside the venues, but in the parking lots, in line at the ticket counter, in line to get in, there really is nothing they can do. Ive been thinking a lot about this because I go to a good number of concerts/festivals and its been on my mind for a while. I think what they would need to do is almost block off an area (that way no car bombs etc) and then stagger security at different points so that the bottlenecks arent as bad. The 2 worst I have seen are 1) GnR concert at Soldier Field and 2) Lollapalooza. For the GnR concert, I kept talking about how the security was almost counter productive, because it created a huge mass of people with no where to go and that a bomb would actually kill more people if it went off there. Lollapalooza there is some security before the huge bottleneck, but again a bomb vest would be hard to find because its not really what they are looking for. Another issue is (and this is my personal opinion) is that they need to stop focusing so much on trying to catch illegal drugs and just worry about safety. They arent going to catch a semi-intelligent person sneaking in drugs, it just wont happen. But by slowing down the line, creating the bottleneck they are making it less safe for everyone. Metal detectors and wands are pretty fast, its when they start digging through hats, etc that the line slows to a crawl.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 23, 2017 -> 03:12 PM) Until the recent spate of car attacks, I had never noticed the multiple concrete posts in front of the UC entrances. But this year I thought about it if someone tried to drive a car through the doors, but then saw how many posts there were in surrounding the entrance. Yeah after 9/11 a lot of those were installed downtown. Many were created to "blend" in.

What is worrisome is that this marks a continued change in tactics by ISIS that I have feared for a long time. The biggest choke points at a concert/sporting event is before and after the security. There have been so many times where Ive been in a security line for an event where I have thought about how bad a terrorist attack would be there.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 23, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) Civil rights organizations are STILL identifying discrimination against Jews and Jewish groups to this day, as a large problem across the country. We just don't hear nearly as much about it. Its not the same and Jews are somewhat of an outlier because their ethnicity and religion are semi-tied together.

QUOTE (raBBit @ May 23, 2017 -> 12:21 PM) This is a good point. The salient point is to argue for others ever when you have no regard for the facts at hand. This is indeed the crux of white guilt. Heart cooks brain. It is your opinion that there is "no regard for the facts." It is my opinion that you purposefully ignore certain facts and that you try to re-frame arguments so that they fit your personal objective. I really can not comment on the white guilt part, I personally try and look out for anyone who I think is disadvantaged, irrespective of their race. I argue to QUOTE (Reddy @ May 23, 2017 -> 12:28 PM) Appreciate that. Like I said, I'm pretty aware of my weaknesses in terms of my online debate skills, but going through these s*** shows helps me re-evaluate and hone my messaging. I'm not usually speaking with an exclusively white male audience in my day to day life, and I need to learn how to speak with a group like this one (which is nearly exclusively straight, white and male). Our side needs to win back those white votes we lost in November, and the only way we can do that is by learning how to talk about these issues without causing the reaction I caused here today. Reddy, I dont believe that this board is very indicative of speaking to a white male audience, so I wouldnt really take that much from it. There arent a lot of "free agents", there are some posters who many swing back and forth, but those posters you can recognize pretty quickly based on their tone. The real problem isnt about "winning people back to a side", its about trying to explain why certain policies may not be in the best interest of "either" side. Most people arent going to come out as winners due to the current administration's policies, and that is what needs to be focused on. Its not about race, its about economic oppression.

QUOTE (raBBit @ May 23, 2017 -> 12:00 PM) Cut your name calling bulls***. You said whites makes more than blacks and Mexicans so they're privileged. Asians and Jews make more than whites so they must also be privileged Right? Explain why they do better. Explain why the system isn't rigged against them. Well I dont really want to get into this cluster f***, but since the question is about history, Ill go with it. Asians and Jews for the most part immigrated by choice to the United States and were able to better rely on family/social support networks. They were not subjected to a forced system where their families were separated and where steps were taken to ensure that they would be not capable of challenging their master. That being said, there are different factors for each group. Some of the answers dont even really involve the United States, its just the unfortunate (or fortunate) historical progression of mankind. My opinion is that African American's have been the racial group that has been given the short end of the stick the most consistently in the United States. That is not to say that at certain times American Indians, Jews, Asians, etc did not suffer. Reddy, I know that many times we have been on the opposite side of the fence. But I do believe that many times your heart/mind are in the right place. Right or wrong, there is always a place for those who argue on behalf of others.

A lot of these arguments are in the eyes of the beholder. Whether it accomplished something or didnt, is personal opinion. I dont really know if they accomplished something or didnt, but I dont think that is really relevant either. Historically speaking the Church has taken many problematic stances with respect to science. Many of the most respected scientists in history had issues with the church while they were alive, Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus, etc. Our world would be much different if people had not defied the Church when they believed the Church was incorrect. So there is definitely a historical precedent for challenging the Church in order to help society to progress. Was their graduation the place and time? I dont know. But I think that walking out was perhaps the most non-intrusive way of expressing themselves. As for the whole "we need to listen to our opponents", to an extent that is true. But there comes a time when you have heard everything that they have to say, and what else would listening further do? I have most Nazi arguments, do I need to sit and let a Nazi lecture me? How long do I need to listen? Either way I think that walking out was as respectful as they could be.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 22, 2017 -> 01:26 PM) lol...in what world should InfoWars be accepted into any mainstream press conference? Infowars is fake news, like all news outlets in Trump's world. So to Trump they are the original mainstream media.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 19, 2017 -> 03:32 PM) Trump-Russia probe now includes possible cover-up, Congress is told Haha jokes on you, the cover up is of all the leaks that have been happening. Because that is the real story here, the leaks. Or maybe its the cover up of Benghazi and the emails. Thats what I heard on Fox, so must be true.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 19, 2017 -> 08:13 AM) Was that the one with HH Holmes and Wells as the main characters? Holy crap that was a steaming pile. Timeless (haha typo the first time) is a different show. Timeless involves 2 time machines and a conspiracy to change the present by going back in time.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 18, 2017 -> 10:13 AM) Could have easily been the Browns, but they felt that Garrett was the better prospect. They may have also felt that Trubisky would fall, like many felt he could. I read a lot of things talking about how the Browns were looking to move back into the top 10, probably to take Trubisky. That would be extremely unlikely. Highest QB grade in the last 6 drafts would mean higher than Andrew Luck and not many people would have passed on Luck for Myles Garrett. That being said it is possible they misread the draft and thought they could get Trubisky later, but still not a good move if they really thought he was the best QB in the last 6 drafts. That is basically a generational talent QB.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 18, 2017 -> 11:05 AM) they have very little power. Yeah it seems they work a lot differently than court ordered ones.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ May 18, 2017 -> 10:32 AM) Flynn won't honor subpoena. https://mobile.twitter.com/AP_Politics/stat...225046930989056 Maybe promised a pardon by Trump? I dont know exactly how those subpoena's work, but if they are anything close to a regular subpoena in court a warrant could be issued.

Fox spin on the special prosecutor is its good news because now they can catch the leakers and unmaskers. The one thing im surprised no one is interested in is that it seems okay that Russia taped the meeting with Trump in the white house.

Since I dont have a subscription I cant read the article. How did they obtain these tapes?

Knifes are out. Mueller had to be high up on worst case scenario appointments. Wonder if Rod Rosenstein will make it through the week.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 17, 2017 -> 12:46 PM) I'm not a trial attorney, but I think the memo really would be used to rehabilitate Comey following cross examination. Further bolstered by contemporaneous statements to senior FBI agents that the memo existed immediately after the meeting in question. It makes Comey's testimony unimpeachable. The only person who was present to refute the account is Trump himself who would have the greatest motivation to lie, and his reputation for veracity would be attacked to no end. I think the answer is the following: The memorandum isnt hearsay, but the statements that Trump made are hearsay. They could use the memorandum however they wanted, I would expect in direct something like the following: Q: "What happened after the meeting?" A: "I wrote a memorandum about what happened in the meeting." -Lay foundation Q: "Is this the memorandum" A: Yes -Enter into evidence That being said as Jenks pointed out the statements are exceptions to the hearsay rule and therefore would be admissible.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 16, 2017 -> 03:25 PM) I have been waiting for Quantum Leap to get some kind of reboot or reunion run. Easy to do. Time travel shows havent been doing good. Timless almost was cancelled.