Soxbadger

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 2, 2016 -> 02:05 PM) I dont get that generalization at all, and I still find it hypocritical to put everyone in one of two buckets. Dont even bother. I barely (if ever) mention stuff like that in my posts. But because I'm considered a "liberal" by which they meant "Liberal" it must be very important to me.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Nov 1, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) I don't think he did face opposition because he's black. I think he faced opposition because he's a democrat with democratic policies. She will be treated the same way and liberals will of course blame it on sexism vs. disagreement with policy/position, because God knows there's no reasonable position that can be taken that isn't a liberal one. Is not voting on Supreme Court justices reasonable? That is not a liberal or conservative position.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 25, 2016 -> 10:12 PM) Can't wait for Schwarber to hit a 3 run shot to tie this somehow... Eh Miller is wild, not really giving up hard hits. Schwarber bailed pretty hard on that first slider.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 02:20 PM) You should be able to scroll right within that box. There's a slider at the bottom of the panel, and Mouse Wheel Down also works for me. Thanks! It was really late and I already got frustrated cause I got a "move unit" bug when there was no units to move, so I may have just missed it.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 24, 2016 -> 01:34 PM) Civ-to-Civ diplomacy seems jacked up right now, and they're gonna need some patching. China declared war on me 3-4 times and I was sick of it, so I countered and took their capital. The other 4 Civs immediately hated me (even the 2 China was beating up) and declared me a warmonger for the rest of the game. Gimme a break. I finished that first game with a Cultural victory. My cities had become more balanced by the end of the game. Nothing had every district, but none were limited to being The Science City or anything like that. Biggest lesson from game 1: be more aggressive with military and expansion. Anyone having problems seeing all of the policies? For whatever reason there is no filter for the purple policies and they dont seem to fit on my screen when I have "no filter". I have tried a bunch of different things but cant figure out how to scroll right or be able to move the box. I assume that its some sort of user error.

Just bought CIV VI out of impulse. Got the deluxe version on green man gaming (if you log in it discounts down to about $63). I didnt do a ton of research on best price cause again impulse. haha

Yeah I have the option of Jackson or Chris Thompson for my 2nd RB this week. Kind of going back and forth on what to do lol.

Wrong thread

QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 02:55 PM) Wallace was outstanding. The previous moderators should have been taking notes. Hillary revealing our time to react concerning nukes isn't getting serious play. Sad. The one thing Ill give Wallace credit for was that he realized Trump was full of it early on. There was a point in the debate where Wallace made a decision that he wasnt going to crush Trump because that wasnt his job. I think he could have tried to pin Trump down on answering questions ie boots on the ground in Syria, but at that point Wallace realized that there is no point in pinning Trump down, because in a day, week, month he will say that never happened (even if you read a quote verbatim.) The good news is, I think that most of America saw Trump for the fraud he is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 04:01 PM) FWIW, people around here denied that the Saudis donated money to the Clinton Campaign, which they didn't and which would be 100% illegal. Trump's accusation is that they donated money to the Clinton Foundation (don't know but let's assume that's true), and that Clinton should return that money because Saudi Arabia is awful and does terrible things (100% true). I suppose there could be an interesting discussion there surrounding whether international charities should accept donations from "bad" countries like Saudi Arabia or its leaders and, if not, what constitutes a "bad" country, but I don't see how that would be considered the best moment of the debate. Even if SA gave the money to the Clinton foundation, Hillary isnt on the board of directors at this time. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/board-directors Im not sure if you can legally give back a donation, but lets just assume it can be done, it would be up to the board of the Clinton Foundation to make that decision according to the by laws of the Clinton Foundation. It seems that Trump doesnt fundamentally understand how a 501c3 works. Because the board would have a fiduciary duty to the charity, and im not sure how you would argue that it is in the best interest of the charity to give back $25mil for the sake of helping Hilllary become President. In fact the more I think about it, it would actually raise more red flags if a charity (with no connection to Hillary) gave back money, in an attempt to help Hillary. Because how would giving back the money help the 501c3's charitable purpose?

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) At 2:48, HRC is asked about her most recent scandal. She ducks, cites conspiracy theories and tells the reporters to get something to eat and drink before running away. Do you understand that according to federal law Hillary is not allowed to direct these PACS? She said she "knows nothing about this." Believe her or dont believe her, but the federal law does not make an exemption for candidates to be allowed to direct PACS "not to break the law." These are the rules, I didnt make the rules, I have been one of the most vocal opponents of Citizens United on this board. There is a certain irony that now Hillary is allegedly using Citizens United to her advantage, seeing as the lawsuit was brought because Citizens United wanted to air anti-Hillary messages. Unintended consequences for the win.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 09:24 AM) Same. Played a bunch of Civ5 this month to get reacquainted. My only concern is how long each turn will take to laod when you get to the later stages. But Ill get it cause I think Ive owned every CIV since the SNES version.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) No it's not. Trump is an illegitimate candidate. The only way he could become president is if some republican congressman found someone to put HRC away for lying to congress. I don't really care to learn about right wing journalists in his campaign that political lives will last a couple more weeks. HRC's Campaign is full of establishment lifetime politicians and the precedent they set is important. Trump is 1 of 2 candidates who could possibly be the next President. It may be "unlikely", but I am not willing to say that the race is over until the electoral votes are counted.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 01:18 PM) To be fair I'd be judging the republicans a lot if something like this came out against them, I'd hold all GOP leadership and the candidate responsible, just like Hillary and the DNC leadership should be held accountable for having people like Foval in influential roles. No party will ever be perfect but these parties need to be held accountable. I mean its fair to tacitly hold them responsible, but I believe the law currently makes it illegal for either party to directly work with these PACs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-...4b045bf3def0273 So the problem is that if Hillary/Trump tell a Pac to stop something, they could be theoretically in violation of the law. Which is pretty stupid. There needs to be some sort of meaningful campaign finance regulations, but the problem is incumbents dont really want to give up their advantages. This is a problem for both sides.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 01:00 PM) All of these people were fired or had to resign from their position within Trump's campaign? I only pay attention to HRC's campaign just to get insight on the next administration. Not sure I can't name someone in Trump's Campaign other than his sons. Then why should your opinion be taken seriously? Its the equivalent of saying "Sammy Sosa has the most home runs ever" and when someone says "Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron" you respond "Oh I only pay attention to the Cubs."

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 19, 2016 -> 11:18 AM) Historically what had this stat looked like? Say without Trump running? This number seems staggering. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19113485/ns/poli...y/#.WAee4fkrKUk This is the best I can find.

You win the game. Dodgers are up 2-1. You worry about your closer's availability when it happens. If they need him tomorrow, that means that they are either tied or leading that game, and already have a 2-1 lead. That is not exactly a "bad" position. If somehow the Dodgers blow this, or even give the Cubs momentum going into tomorrow, who knows what happens.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 05:34 PM) I watched it and I have no idea what Pende has to do with anything. I don't know anything about O'Keefe but there's full clips of multiple officials speaking on their routine practice of criminality and paying for violence. I don't care if Hitler released the video from his grave, the officials are identifiable and on tape/audio. Amazing how anyone who doesn't agree with Clinton isn't reputable. Maybe research your own sources? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_O%27Keefe And we dont know what those officials are talking about, because the author of the video has historically created "shock" videos by taking interviews out of context. I didnt even realize it was O-Keefe, but within the first 3 minutes I knew that it was being spliced. That is why it is unreliable. As for Pence, you said something about Russian implication. I merely pointed out that even Trump's VP thinks that the Russians are implicated in the hacks. So again, when you bring evidence, you should vet it first. Its your credibility on the line.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 05:22 PM) More on this from you when the Russians are implicated! Can't wait. So you didnt watch the video? Got it. And even Pence has implicated the Russians in the hacks. http://www.newsweek.com/pence-contradicts-...nd-hacks-510468 Damn those pesky facts. I would hate to ever get involved in a discussion where someone actually had to use legitimate facts/evidence, that would be so boring and dull.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) Clinton's campaign caught on video/audio talking about purposely inciting violence at Trump rallies. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf***er." The Field Director for Citizens United, Scott Foval said on camera, "If you're here and you're protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies. That's what we want." He kept running his mouth too, "The campaign pays the DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the s*** on the ground." MSM has yet to acknowledge this and Fox News cancelled the scheduled appearance of the writer who heads up the site that put forth this video/audio. No word on whether Putin and the Russians put this together so we're not sure if it's credible yet. Let me guess, you didnt actually watch the videos. Lets start at 2:18, notice that they never show what question is actually asked. There is actually no way to understand what this 15 minutes is, because its multiple different videos spliced together. Find me the raw footage, otherwise I just wasted 15 minutes when I could have been watching "ancient aliens." I mean come on, you saw the helicopter in the hieroglyphics.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 04:49 PM) Early returns on the increased gun control paying off. Amazing that the criminals haven't been stopped by making more laws for them to break. I totally thought the increase in laws would have made them second guess being a criminal. ??? You do realize that the Chicago handgun law was actually overturned in 2010 by the Supreme Court (McDonald v. Chicago) and more recently laws with respect to concealed carry have been struck down (Moore v Madigan). So was your first statement sarcasm? Because prior to 2010 Chicago's gun laws were far more restrictive (complete ban on handguns). It was only recently that the Supreme Court and Appeals court overturned multiple Chicago laws. In fact, Illinois was the last state to allow concealed carry. So shouldnt gun crimes be going down? Now Illinois has CC, people in Chicago can carry hand guns, Color me confused.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 03:05 PM) I think Barack is more worried about his legacy, hence his work already in this campaign season. I don't see him walking away like W. I think he just personally dislikes Trump for obvious reasons.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2016 -> 01:51 PM) While it seems popular now because it always seemed that Hillary had the White House in mind, I see no scenario where Michelle Obama runs for an office. I think she is done with politics. What really interests me is what Barack Obama does after the White House. CEO of a basketball team? I dont know, I kind of see a similar thing to GWB, just does a few speeches for cash each year and then has fun.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) His lawyers want to sue them, but today's act of kindness from the Donald is he is telling them not to sue the dying NYT for ruining his reputation. This is what happens when a bully threatens a bigger kid and the bigger kid says that theyll see them after school.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 14, 2016 -> 12:18 PM) I'm really confused by the people who think Illinois will finish 11th or 12th in the league. Perhaps it's my blind homerism, but I see a team with a conference player of the year, first team all big ten talent, a guy that shoots lights out from 3, two 6th year seniors (one of whom has had some success in the big ten in the past), and then a bunch of good athletes. Assuming they're healthy, I don't see how or why Illinois should finish worse than 7th. Teams that are absolutely better: Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State. Everyone else is a big ?. Michigan lost its best player. Maryland has Trimble and a bunch of new guys. OSU is young. Penn State is young. Iowa will rely on Jok and young guys. I dunno. I see a deeper team with more "proven" talent than a lot of teams. Are people just assuming that last year was indicative of what will happen this year? Seems short sighted given Groce was missing 3/5th's of his starting line up and could barely play 7-8 guys. I really feel like after the alleged "top 5 teams" most media dont even look into the other teams. They just randomly write them based on blurbs they see on the internet.