Soxbadger

I have a strange feeling that the Red Sox make the deal. No inside sources or anything, just feel like Red Sox are more willing to get a deal done.

Cant wait for this board when the Sox rebuild.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2016 -> 08:24 AM) OSU is in regardless, I think Wisconsin and Michigan have real shots. I was referring to a second Big10 team getting in. I think OSU is in already.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 29, 2016 -> 09:52 PM) How is Iowa a bad loss? Last I looked, they lost to a team on the road which is currently ranked in the top 25 (and is coming off crushing a ranked Nebraska team)? I'm not saying Iowa is great, but they certainly aren't a bad team or a bad loss. Wisconsin clearly has better "losses" but by no stretch of the imagine can I cal that Iowa game a bad loss. Its all relative. At the time Michigan lost to Iowa, Iowa was un-ranked. I really think that the only chance the Big10 has is if Washington or Clemson lose. I think that the Big10 teams end up canceling each other out.

Big10 is not likely getting 2 teams. The only way is if Wisconsin destroys PSU. Michigan lost to Iowa. I really have no complaints about Wisconsin being out, they choked against OSU. But Michigan getting in over Wisconsin would be stupid. Michigan lost 2 of its last 3 games, Wisconsin only lost 2 games and both were with their best LB (Biegel) being injured. I just cant see how you can get passed Michigan losing to Iowa, a bad loss should be worse than losing a close game to a top 5 team on the road. If Michigan doesnt lose to Iowa, Big10 probably gets 2 teams. OSU and the winner of Michigan/Wisconsin, but it would just set a terrible precedent if the big 10 gets 2 teams and neither were in the championship.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 28, 2016 -> 02:18 PM) Anyone find it a little weird that williams brother-in-law had an actual photograph of his fiancee? Like, this is way in future and he is carrying around pictures? Hadnt thought about it, but my first response was that there is no way you could sneak in a cell phone/computer/etc., but a picture would be possible.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 26, 2016 -> 11:38 AM) Where's the best place to get Bulls tix? Is stubhub the move? I got my last ones from Craig's list. Was able to negotiate down a bit. Bulls tickets can be transferred via ticketmaster so usually pretty legitimate to buy online. Just look for someone who seems to have season tickets and are listing games they dont want to go to. I didnt get the best deal cause I needed Heat tickets for the lady.

I dont really see the point of the term as there seems to be almost no cohesive ideology. The only real relevance they have is that "true" conservatives are in the process of selling out their ideals to "natural" conservatives.

Rabbit, Despite your posts, I have no ill will nor anger. I never have personally attacked you, your post just happened to be there and it was a good example of why its hard to have a real discussion about current issues. Instead of discussing Trump's cabinet, looking into Bannon, we are now diving down a rabbit (pun intended) hole about what happened with Obama 8 years ago. There is definitely a possibility that a conflict of interest occurred back in 2008, but that was 2008. There is really nothing that can be done. Which was the whole point about why it seems hard, if not impossible, to discuss current issues. Instead of discussing what is going on right now, people spend hours searching for ways to blame someone from the past. The bank bailout is over, those issues are long gone, its the equivalent of arguing about Bush invading Iraq. Good research though, just brings me back to the original issue, if you are so eager to find conflicts of interest, crony capitalism, why do you refuse to look into what is going on today, which will actually impact our future. Maybe thats my biggest issue, that you dont even take the time to actually look into someone else's position. Whether I agree or disagree, when you posted the Obama citibank comment, I looked it up. I found out what you were talking about so I could be informed. That doesnt necessarily mean that I will agree with a conclusion, but how can I even begin to discuss, if I dont take the time to look into what other people are saying. Nothing personal.

I bet some of that future beach front land is really cheap now too.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:57 PM) I'd prefer to keep this short and not broaden the topic. You accused me of calling names and arguing just to argue in response to a post where I did neither accusation. So why the need for baseless accusations? Then you went on and ripped me for bringing up President Obama when ChiSoxfn, the poster who I responded to, brought up the President. Why aren't you going at ChiSoxfn for bringing up the President? You went at me for doing when I didn't even do it. ChiSoxfn brought up the process of picking cabinets. ChiSoxfn brought up the precedent for prior selection processes. Which is entirely sensible thing to do on that topic. Just because it bothers your that CitiBank sent Senator Obama the list of his cabinet that President Elect Obama eventually put in action doesn't mean it's partisan. Facts can't be written off because they can be misconstrued as partisan. I know you would take exception to me saying you attacking the selection of Bannon is partisan so what gives? You can't have it both ways. Ill try this one time. Its not about bringing up Obama. You want to discuss how long it took Obama to pick his cabinet, no problem. You want to discuss Obama's policies, go for it. You want to argue why Obamacare is good/bad/indifferent, feel free. The issue, is that you take a headline about the Citibank email, and you misconstrue it. A member of citibank sent Obama a list that was over 6 pages long, it contained 50-100 names. https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190 You keep saying "Citibank" it was someone who worked at Citibank. That person, Mike Froman, was a member of department of treasury and was eventually chief of staff to Robert Rubin. Robert Rubin and Froman then went to Citibank. Also, Froman was a classmate of Obama. If you think there is something bad about Mike Froman a friend of Obama sending Obama ideas for the cabinet, that is fine. But you keep implying that it was "Citibank" and you either are unaware or purposefully not informing people that Mike Froman knew Obama 20 years prior to the election. QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 04:03 PM) 1.) Again, ChiSoxfn brought up Obama, I responded to his post. 2.) I had no idea who Bannon was until the other day. Since the other day, I have done zero research on him. That's why I won't talk about him. So you can keep trying to set up traps for me to walk in but I don't talk on things I don't know about. I am not avoiding questions, you're directing questions at me that have no relevance to me. I know this is how you're trying to "get me" so sorry, I am avoiding your question on a person I haven't even broached the merits of on this board and know next to nothing about in general. Maybe you should take some time to look into the people who you support then.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:40 PM) So far I've been accused of Name calling: didn't happen Arguing with someone for the sake of arguing: The evidence was me agreeing with a post Bringing up President Obama when he was irrelevant to Trump: the post I responded to brought up President Obama Maybe you're the one just arguing for the sake of arguing, after all, you can slum with the best of 'em as you told us! I didnt accuse you of name calling, I said that "people" and I used specific quotes attributed to Shapiro. I used your post to show unnecessary sniping to avoid actual discussion on Trump's cabinet. Instead of discussing Bannon, you turn it back to Obama. And I just want to know your opinion on Bannon. Do you think there is any problem with someone who is affiliated with a newspaper that gives a candidate overwhelming support being on a cabinet? You constantly talk about the media and bias. So here we have a really great example of the media being given a "benefit" for giving "positive" coverage, and I am just wondering if you have any problem with it. Youve avoided the question for so long, I am just trying to see if there is any substance behind your media criticism, or if its merely partisan.

QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:45 PM) How many more threads can Badger and rabbit argue in? I want the confession. Can only avoid the Bannon issue for so long, eventually hell either have to respond, or people will see he just completely avoids any topic.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:38 PM) I responded to a post referring to President Obama's cabinet selection? Are you reading any of the posts you're referring to? I read the posts. The statement was about the expediency of Trump picking his cabinet. What does Obama have to do with how quickly Trump is getting his together? The comment about Citibank was merely a partisan attack to try and paint Obama in a negative light. Not to mention, I have no idea how many other people sent Obama lists of names. The one list I saw was 6 pages long.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:22 PM) Argues that people can't just sit down and have a conversation without arguing or insulting, quotes a post with neither of those things happening as support, proceeds to name calling and weaves in, "I can slum it up in an argument with the best of them, honestly I can probably do it better than most." You're really awesome. Thanks for letting everyone know! Next time save us the self masturbatory post and support your baseless argument instead. You said Obama's cabinet was picked by Citibank. It has absolutely no relevance to any discussion on Trump's cabinet. Its nothing more than sniping/name calling/insulting whatever you want to call it. Or did you forget that part of your post?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) I am not speaking to this board. There's a lot more important and relevant political discourse happening outside of here. I certainly didn't blame you of anything. I am talking about the people in the media and on TV who went on there and defended these heinous and criminal actions because of their allegiance to one side of the aisle. The media does it for both sides, you need to take your blinders off. Go back and read about the Iraq invasion. How many media members were calling bulls*** on Iraq having "WMD". Regardless, people need to stop caring about what is said on tv/internet. Its for money, they do whatever makes them the most money. Its not some sort of secret plan to take over the world, its some not secret plan to make money. If anything the media reported on Hillary as negatively as Trump. I mean by the end of the campaign no one was even mentioning the fact Trump never disclosed his tax returns. If they are so in the bag for the Democrats that and things like the blind trust would have been top headlines. Instead it was things like the Hillary emails. Both sides complain about the media.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) It is interesting but it is worth noting that it's a little different of a situation because it seems Trump is picking members with his team where President Obama had Citibank pick his cabinet. Chisox, The quote above is exactly why this country will be stuck in the mud. Because people just have to take arguments to the lowest level. People just cant sit down and discuss a topic, have a disagreement and move on. It becomes unending name calling "delicate snowflake" or "intolerant left". I admit, I can slum it up in an argument with the best of them, honestly I can probably do it better than most. But to what end? Is anything really going to change if I meme the hell out of my opponent, if I zing them witch catchy one liners that are great sound bytes but have no substance? The answer is no. But this is where we are. I asked Rabbit the other day if he had a problem that a member of the media who strongly supported Trump was being given a high ranking position. He never answered, because substance doesnt matter anymore. All that matters is "lyin" Ted, "crooked" Hillary. I wouldnt let my 3 year old argue like that. You show your opponent respect, you debate on the merits, you win some, you lose some. But you do them with class and dignity.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) I agree with SS2K's point but in lesser words, if you're going to play partisan politics you're just partaking in voluntary hypocrisy. Simple as that. So to everyone who defended Obama's right to spy on the whole country and world, to attack and imprison whistleblowers to an extent that surpassed all previous presidents combined and dronebomb Arabs off the face of the earth - you all defended it or stayed quiet on it. Come two months from now all of those unfettered powers go in the hands of Trump. I don't speak out for a party, I preach less government. All of the powers Obama was afforded because the left and media enabling are now in the hands of a reality show host. All of those people who loved and trusted the government when Obama was in office are now complicit when Trump' takes advantage of those same powers. They won't hold true to their views on the issues when Trump is in office, but it really underlines the problem with bipartisanship. I truly worry about Trump taking advantage of Obama's precedent when it comes to whistleblowers and spying. It could get ugly with the sheer amount of pettiness Trump displays. TLDR, if you rationalize government overreach because your team is in office you shouldn't be able to complain about it when the other team takes office. Who is doing these things? Who defended the government spying? It certainly wasnt me. Attack and imprison whistleblowers? Again who is doing this? Drone bombing terrorists? This one is a little more complicated, but you can check back to around 9/11 when I was adamantly against invading Iraq. I did believe in assisting in Libya. Youve been on this part of the board for maybe 1 year. You have missed a lot of arguments about those things. I just tend to not rehash arguments I made 10 years ago, because those are the past.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 02:36 PM) It is amazing how on election day this literally changed in an instant of who talks about taking responsibility and who makes excuses for people. One minute the question is taking the election results no matter what happens, then five million people less vote, and there are protests in the streets over who won. One day the talk is about Obama getting preached to by radicals, people make excuses, then the right wing gets in office, it is all OK again. It is insane. I dont think the election has changed anything. The discussion about the election results focused on Trump saying he would not accept it. Hillary accepted it, Hillary asked people to move on. Now people have the right to protest, they have the right to be heard. I have personally told many people that protesting on Weds after the election is stupid. The time to be heard was Monday, or anytime in the last year prior to the election. The second line is where the problem is. Who on Obama's staff was "radical." I dont recall Obama appointing anyone close to Bannon, I dont recall Obama appointing anyone who ran a newspaper who gave Obama favorable coverage. Or for that matter, I dont remember Obama not putting his assets in a blind trust, I dont remember Obama not providing his tax returns. So for once, can we just have an actual apples to apples comparison? Or are people just so hell bent in supporting "their" guy, that they dont even care about the truth anymore. Because Im fine in either world, I have no problem sinking down and getting dirty. It really isnt that hard to be the Breitbarts of the world.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 11:07 AM) If you want to just go and call half of the country disgusting, go right ahead, but lets see what good that does solving any problems in our country. It makes you no different then the other side. Hillary should have spent more time attacking the issues and talking about how she was going to drive change and make the country better. I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm not going to call everyone who voted for Trump disgusting (misguided, absolutely), but deep down, I hope somehow they weren't so wrong and Trump ends up being a fantastic president. If he doesn't, then people should use their voice and let it be heard so that everyone understands why his policies are wrong and what he is doing is wrong. But for all those people protesting who didn't cast a vote, I hope they all learn a lesson and cast a vote in the future. And when you say they voted for very powerful positions to go to very horrible people, lets not forget that there was a lot of people who didn't think all that highly of Clinton and could even have gone as far as calling her pretty horrible. So in many people's eyes it was picking the less horrible and some people viewed that as being Trump, others saw it as Clinton, others clearly didn't vote. The problem is that no one wants to hold themselves accountable anymore. A lot of the same people have posted on this board for a long time, almost everyone of them I have argued with about something at some point. It didnt matter if they were Republican/Democrat, what mattered is if "I" thought they were right or wrong. If a Democrat says something that is wrong, out of line, not supported by the evidence, I dont just turn a blind eye. But what is the point if no one else is willing to do it? Now I know its not every Republican, but when someone like Bannon is picked, EVERYONE should be shouting it down. I understand that trying to convince people about free trade, restriction of movement of labor is not that easy and I even understand that there can be a difference of opinion on policy. But there are people on this board who dont even acknowledge that there is a problem with Bannon, and at some point each party needs to start self policing. Because at the end of the day, we are all judged by the company that we keep, and right now for the Republican's that company is Bannon. I can only speak for myself, but Bannon is a deal breaker.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) So I could totally write a dissertation pointing out the velocity of money and the lack of true central banking in this era, and how even if you tried it would be nearly impossible to destroy the economy in a matter of under a year, but why bother, we got a meme here. Right which is why I was making a joke. If I wanted to give a history lesson I would have started 8 years earlier with another Republican President Harding. Maybe you missed the inherent joke about Obama being blamed, which Rabbit stepped right into. (edit) And if I was being totally serious, I would say none of it really matters because the Republican Party/ Democratic Party from 1929 is not even comparable. Look at the map, the North was Republican and the South was Democrat. That period is somewhat of a transition for the parties.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 11:36 AM) So Obama was elected in 2008, does anyone have a history book that could tell me what happened in 2009? I'll save you the time, #ItsDifferent. President preceding Obama, Bush x2. President preceding Hoover, Coolidge, Harding. Notice how in each case the previous 8 years were Republican Presidents. #History #Facts

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 10:51 AM) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...n_80_years.html GOP strongest it has been since 1928 according to Real Clear Politics. Hmm so 1928 was the height of Republican power, does anyone have a history book that could tell me what happened in 1929?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Nov 17, 2016 -> 12:59 AM) https://youtu.be/YhSy6z6_qg4 Ben Shapiro unable to speak are DePaul University because he was a "security concern." Depaul is a private university, they can do whatever they want. Im actually not sure why they believe its a security concern. No idea, but it is well within Depaul's rights as a private institution. That being said, I personally dont agree with banning people from speaking. Even if that person makes disingenuous arguments and attempts to insult me and even if that person does not believe in free speech themselves. https://badgerherald.com/news/2016/11/17/co...edom-of-speech/ Certain irony that Shaprio is saying in 1 video "why did you bring so many police" and then at Wisconsin complains that there are "only 3" officers and asks for anyone with a dissenting view to be silenced. I guess Mr. Shaprio was just looking for a "safe space" where he could express his ideas.

Cache problem, solved now.