illinilaw08

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 26, 2016 -> 03:23 PM) Am I the only one who remembers working and going to school with a lot of lazy teenagers and 20somethings when I was growing up? Baby Boomers has the same s*** said about them as Boomers are now saying about Millenials. I know the WWII generation said the same thing about the Boomers to. It is tradition for people to think that somehow this generation is going to be the one that screws up the world, though the funny part is that the same people b****ing about how bad a current generation is are the ones who raised that damned generation in the first place! If they really are that bad, who made them that way? Winner.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 26, 2016 -> 09:06 AM) If my kid graduates and moves back in to try and save money for their own place I'm perfectly fine with that. If they don't graduate, come home and we work out a rent agreement, I'm ok with that too. There will be no freeloading, that is not going to be accepted. Let me preface this by saying I don't have kids, and never lived at home after school - but if I had a hypothetical kid who graduated college and was struggling to find work, I think I'd give them some leash. The amount of leash would depend on the effort and progress I saw on the job front (ie, are they willing to wait tables/bartend while they find something better). I'd also be cool with letting said hypothetical kid live at home to get a jump start on paying down school debt or starting a nice little emergency fund of their own - but that would be a short term (year or two) arrangement. On a different point, my sister lived at home her first year out of school. My Dad took the "rent" money that she paid and put it in an IRA for her. Thought that was a pretty smart way to handle rent while living at home.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ May 23, 2016 -> 05:14 PM) And the crazy part is Southwest checked bags are free. I fly AA and Delta a lot for work and it's almost as bad. For some reason Southwest is the worst. I've had the opposite experience. On Southwest, even on the very rare occasion that I'm in C, I haven't had too much trouble finding overhead space somewhere. Because Southwest lets you check the bags for free, I see a lot fewer people trying to bring on bags that should clearly be checked. It's one of the reasons that I hate flying AA and Delta...

QUOTE (WhiteSoxfan1986 @ May 23, 2016 -> 08:59 PM) http://www.tvguide.com/news/game-of-throne...-meera-r-l-j-m/ Main evidence is Meera's supposed father, Howland Reed, was with Ned Stark at the Tower of Joy, so it'd make sense that if Lyanna gave birth to a baby girl, Howland would raise her. There's also the fact Meera and Jon look similar. I'm not sure if I buy it, but I do think it has some legs. Yeah, that theory is almost exclusively based on the actress who plays Meera. The book descriptions aren't even remotely the same (and if I remember right, Jojen and Meera are described as looking alike in the books), so IMO that theory does not have legs.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 19, 2016 -> 12:58 AM) I'd love for IlliniLaw and all Hillary supporters to read this article and tell me why you support Hillary Clinton. Please use examples in this story and try to refute them. Many say I have no reason to despise Hillary. What about articles like this? http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...0517-story.html Greg - I don't know why you think I'm a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. In this thread, I've discussed how Clinton has a history of changing her stance on issues, she's too hawkish on foreign policy for my tastes, the e-mail think showed, at best, bad judgment, and I don't like the idea that a Clinton presidency would mean for 24 of the last 32 years (at a minimum), a Bush or Clinton would be in the White House. But assuming she is the nominee, she's also the sane choice for this country based on my values. Social issues - acceptance of LGBTQ - have come a long, long way in the last 20 years. Hillary Clinton will appoint a Supreme Court justice who will not seek to overturn Obergefell. Treatment of minorities - Hillary Clinton will not use fear tactics to further marginalize the American Muslim population. Hillary Clinton will not marginalize and condemn Hispanics as Trump has throughout his campaign. Economy - I may not love Hillary Clinton's position on the economy, but Donald Trump has threatened to default on American debt in an effort to get creditors to take a smaller amount in satisfaction of that debt. America defaulting on its obligations means significantly higher borrowing costs in the future AND could lead to a massive global recession. Health Care - Hillary Clinton will continue a health care policy that has, at a minimum, expanded affordable coverage to millions of people. Trump isn't going to continue the ACA. He isn't going to institute single payor. A vote for Trump is a vote for us to regress on health care. Simply put, to me, in a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, not voting for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a step backwards for minority populations. It's a vote to put a man whose policies are dangerous into office. No matter how shrill you find Hillary Clinton, no matter how disingenuous you find her to be, she is still a significantly better policy choice than Donald Trump.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 17, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) He was a pathetic president, but again, I do like him personally. Nothing against him. Sox fans are welcome in the White House. Race: College campuses are a total mess with protests. Rioting does not appear to be far off. Big cities are crime ridden and racial tension is huge. All under Obama who has shown zero leadership. Economy: Middle class has been decimated. All the wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent. Health care: Skyrocketing costs continue. His plan's implementation was a wreck with nothing but chaos. War on terror: Country gripped by fear with school shootings a common occurrence. Need I go on? The big question are we better off now than 8 years ago? LOL to that. Race: College campuses have always been home to protest. But thanks for creating racism Obama! Economy: Stock market at record highs, unemployment down, took actions that mitigated the effects of the recession he inherited. Health Care: Access to healthcare increased significantly. War on Terror: He got Bin Laden. Not sure how "school shootings" = war on terror. But America has been relatively unscathed by terrorism compared to the rest of the world. Most of the stuff you are pinning on Obama (rising health care costs, wealth in the hands of the 1%) was a problem well before Obama became President, that he has taken steps to rectify...

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 17, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) So the solution is to scream and yell and picket and bust up library study halls (violence coming?) and not want to sit down and have a talk to find solutions? The crime as they see it: White have had privelege for 200 years. The solution: Give me that privilege and give it to me NOW. Uh ... how are we going to do that? Good luck to those kids who get arrested EVER finding a good job til it is expunged from their record at least. Greg's solution. Have them do nothing. Have white privilege continue forever. The President's point in the article I linked above is that Black Lives Matter accomplished step 1 - becoming part of the conversation. Step 2 - sitting down and working out solutions - isn't always being handled well.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 17, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) By showing no leadership on the Black Lives Matter issue. By very rarely going out to the sites of violence like St. Louis. Ferguson was HUGE and no leadership from the top. It was like he didn't want to get involved. This declare your white privilege thing is not going away and only going to result in violence when the wrong whites are provoked. No town hall meetings or national conferences on issues/race/economy. He was a do-nothing president, but that's fine. Many do nothing. I said I liked him personally and as a Sox fan and I stand by that. By all accounts, he likes a good smoke and a good game of basktball and seems like a GREAT dad and husband. He rocks, but as President? Big fat D-minus! http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/preside...yelling-n561046 I would say this is a fairly good summary on the President's position on Black Lives Matter - and a pretty solid response overall. Or would you rather the President put together a team of elite operatives to take down any person yelling about white privilege. Also of note, why is Obama's smoking habit a positive for you? That's weird.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 17, 2016 -> 02:56 PM) I'd be interested in how Obama has divided this country on race. By simply being black? Educate me. He apparently divided the country on race by saying that shooting unarmed people - either by vigilantes or by the police - is a problem that African Americans suffer at a rate higher than the rest of the population. What a jerk!

Per Gamecast, the ump is giving Nova some very low strikes. Accurate?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 13, 2016 -> 03:33 PM) First of all, it's not just abuse that I'm worried about. It's her being exposed to naked males and males being able to see her naked, even if there is no contact involved. There doesn't have to be a violation of laws for there to be things that I just don't want happening. Also, schools have a higher level accountability for what their employees do than what other kids do. So Hickory, my understanding of the DOJ's interpretation of the issue is that transgendered students are protected under Title IX. To the extent that a student identifies as transgendered, either the student or the parents must notify the school that the student identifies as the other gender, and the school treats the student consistent with that identity. The guidance further goes on to say that the schools can provide additional privacy accommodations to any student for any reason. And the guidance does not require ANY student to use any shared changing space. Male students are not going to be able to just show up one day and say "hey guys, I'm feeling like a lady today so I can expose myself to the girls in the showers!" And if your daughters are concerned about the situation, they can seek additional protection of their own. The point here is that the DOJ is not pushing for shared shower spaces with males and females all naked and running around. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-departmen...re-civil-rights Does that help at all from your standpoint?

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 13, 2016 -> 03:12 PM) Do you deny this happened when Obama was running for re-election? Suddenly oh boy his approval rating is high. Get him back in that oval office then we can point out some negative things ... til it's election time again. Just as some on this board shoe away Bernie with, "He is a socialist! We cant have a socialist!" and Trump with "He is a war mongering wacko; he is dangerous!" I can come back with "Hillary is a proven liar (we're not rich we just accept 250,000 a speech from Goldman Sachs, lol) and is on the cusp of jail." You said to trust you - that where there's smoke with Hillary there is definitely fire. The only reason that I should trust you on that point is if you have personal knowledge of Hillary Clinton's actions and defenses. I can say "I don't trust Trump with foreign policy because his statements have no basis in reality" (getting Mexico to build and pay for a wall between the countries). I can say that I consider Trump's rhetoric regarding foreigners to be ignorant and inflammatory. In both cases, I have evidence backing me up. In neither case am I saying "Trump is a war criminal! He's going to jail!" IF you were merely saying that you do not trust Hillary Clinton because she has changed policy positions repeatedly over the last 20 years, or that you don't trust her because the e-mail scandal, at best, shows a lack of judgment that raises concerns about her ability to lead, I might disagree, but at least you would have support for your argument. Time and time again, you assert that Hillary Clinton is not a nice person (without considering the fact that someone might consider Trump or Cruz or Kasich's actions that of a not very nice person either). Time and time again, you rail on Hillary Clinton as a liar and someone heading to prison without any support for those arguments. Simply put, you have an ax to grind against Hillary Clinton and your posts contain zero analysis or objectivity on that point.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 13, 2016 -> 02:49 PM) It said: "President Obama's approval rating stands at 49/48, the first time we've had him with a positive approval spread in a considerable amount of time." Well, well, I've pointed out in the past mysteriously Obama is beloved near election time. That's when the media returns to its roots and makes sure everybody loves the Democrats. Now shortly after election they might have some negative crap on Obama, or off an on the first 2-3 years there's some negative stuff, but when it's time to elect another Democratic president, you better believe people start saying how great Obama is and how his approval rating has skyrocketed. Good job cherry picking from that article. It sure is mysterious that the media would so mislead Americans that 32% of voters think the stock market went down while Obama was President. Damn media conspiracy!

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 13, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) I could say the same about Hillary if and when she gets indicted. I mean trust me, where there's smoke oh there indeed is fire with her. I'm hoping she gets indicted before the election but she could get it after the election too. Greg, I didn't know you had such access to Hillary Clinton! Based on your personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances, I will definitely trust you that where there's smoke, there's fire!

QUOTE (brett05 @ May 13, 2016 -> 10:52 AM) Don't all laws discriminate against someone? No, they don't.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 13, 2016 -> 10:44 AM) Yeah you're right. It's important for the federal government to spend time on something that affects so few people. Great use of resources. We don't have bigger and more important problems in this country. Bathroom rights is clearly the top priority. Yeah! I really hate when the federal government spends money attacking crappy, regressive laws passed by the states that are intended to discriminate against a minority population.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 11, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) Well, in this situation at least there is a scenario in which there could be inappropriate behavior (little girl could see a male body part in the women's room; kind of scary for the little kid). Most of the protection of little Johnny and Jane in society are situations in where there is no situation set up for inappropriate behavior, just the parents coddling their little preciouses. Single dad brings 6 year old daughter into the men's room at a Sox game. Is that a problem?

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 11, 2016 -> 02:08 PM) I thought I was clear on that. Yes he should be next to me in the men's room. No, I wouldn't walk out. I'd even have respect for the guy doing it in what I feel is the right way. I have admitted I didn't go in the Subway to eat when the person dressed in heels and a dress who was obviously a man that I did not find attractive was walking strides ahead of me. Note I did not yell at him or hit him or scream at him, I just chose to not go in the restaurant and eat at that time. Again, if that makes me the worst person ever, sorry to the universe. I must need counseling or something to become a better person. I thought it was clear. I want the person with a male body part using the men's room. If that makes me an ogre, sorry. I am a little surprised the parents in this country who protected little Johnny and Jane from everything imaginable in this day and age aren't on my side in this one. Hold on. You were so disgusted that you wouldn't stand in line for a sandwich, but you would not problem taking a leak next to the guy? Also, Greg, you still haven't described how you would police this. Do you want women with short hair and basketball shorts subjected to what happened in the link below? Do you want someone checking genitalia before people enter restrooms? http://jezebel.com/helpful-man-patrols-tex...your-1773882994

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 11, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) You don't have time for uh, fairness? The man is the first underdog in memory to be scratching, clawing (for votes) and WINNING an awful lot of the time and discarded to the curb (via the media) like he's Howard Stern running for office or something. This is not a joke, folks; Bernie fever should be catching but the Chris Matthews' of the world are shilling so badly for Hillary and getting away with it. Greg - if the Sox were 20 games behind the Royals last year with 18 games to play, and then won 18 straight games against the Royals (because for some reason they were playing each other 18 times in a row), they would still finish behind the Royals right? That's basically what's happening here. Sanders is winning a lot of states, but he's so far behind already that he doesn't have a real chance at the nomination. I'm not sure why you are struggling with this concept...

QUOTE (kevo880 @ May 10, 2016 -> 11:29 AM) I think that package might work for CarGo and Reyes...not Jon Gray. They see him as their future ace and is a strikeout machine. I have thought the Sox and Rockies match up well for a trade since the beginning of last offseason. They just want a load for CarGo, which I don't think anyone is willing to do. Adding Reyes contract to the mix is interesting, though. This. Gray has 13 major league starts under his belt. Gray + Hoffman is a huge part of the Rockies' rebuild plan - there's no way the Sox would get him as a throw in. If you were looking for a potentially fixable arm in that deal, Eddie Butler might be a fit. Like SS2K5 said though, I don't see the Sox taking on $30M-$40M in payroll for a guy they will immediately DFA and CarGo.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 9, 2016 -> 03:59 PM) It could just be lazy writing to move the story forward quickly, which would be disappointing. I think it's probably lazy writing - like when Littlefinger delivered an unguarded Sansa to the Boltons because the writers (1) wanted to move Sansa's story forward; and (2) needed something for Ramsay to do. They hand waved it away by saying that Littlefinger didn't know Ramsay was a sadist which defies logic. That ultimately moved the story forward quickly and Sansa is in an objectively interesting place right now - much more interesting than hanging out in the Vale forever. I suspect we're looking at the same thing here. The Umbers are done with the Starks because Jon (who isn't a Stark by title and has no claim to Winterfell) let the wildlings south of the Wall. This gets Rickon back into the game and gives Ramsay someone to interact with that we have a vested interest in. But it's lazy storytelling. Either way - stupid ploy to put Rickon in harms way or Umbers being done with the Starks - it's lazy writing. Whatever the logic, if it jumpstarts an interesting arc it might be fine.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 9, 2016 -> 02:15 PM) It also may give Jon Snow a reason to attack Winterfell. Jon has plenty of reason to attack Winterfell though - the Boltons killed Robb, and Ramsay raped and beat Sansa. More than likely, it provides an obstacle for Jon and Sansa to overcome when they inevitably attack Winterfell.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 9, 2016 -> 01:19 PM) Yeah, it's a gamble, but without any army how else can the Starks take back Winterfell? And if death of an heir is a goal, why not show up with Rickon's body? Why present him alive? At the same time keeping a character like Rickon hidden away for 4 seasons only to return him to be killed/tortured seems pretty stupid. No one cares about Rickon because he's been gone so long, so why bring him back now unless there's a reason? If he's killed by the end of this season people would be like, oh ok, that was dumb. So, I don't disagree that there's reason to think that turning over Rickon is part of a ploy. But in the world of GOT - which is supposed to be a world of gritty realism - the Umbers have a much higher success rate if they quietly used Rickon to rally the North to their side before trying to retake Winterfell. I think describing that plan as a gamble is understating the level of risk involved. Everyone knows Ramsay's reputation. Rickon would either killed or flayed in order to preserve Ramsay's place... Finally, I also don't disagree that it would be stupid to keep Rickon hidden away for 4 seasons only to return him to be killed. But in the world of the show, any other result for Rickon strains credibility. My take? With Sansa and Theon gone, and Roose Bolton dead, there's no remaining character inside Winterfell for Ramsay to interact with. Turning Rickon over to Ramsay - as part of a ploy or because the Umbers are really, really pissed at Jon - gives them a reason to give Ramsay screen time and keeps Ramsay as a viable threat.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 9, 2016 -> 11:56 AM) If this isn't a ploy, why is Asha there? Why is she still alive? They would have killed her before bringing her to Ramsay. IF it's a ploy, what is the upside of the ploy for the Umbers? Is Osha supposed to kill Ramsay in the middle of the night thereby retaking Winterfell in a bloodless coup? IF it's a ploy and Rickon is on it, then either (1) Rickon consented to beheading Shaggydog (that makes no sense); (2) they substituted another direwolf head for Shaggydog (also implausible); or (3) they substituted a wolf head and Ramsay is dumb enough to have accepted that (still implausible). IF it's a ploy, and presumably the Umbers are still Stark loyalists, then how are the Umbers accounting for Rickon's safety? Surely their plan is in trouble if Rickon dies, right? Ramsay's hold on Winterfell is threatened by the existence of a male Stark. The Umbers are willingly handing over Rickon for, at best torture and at worst an immediate death. What's the upside of the plan? Simply put, this plan makes as much sense as Littlefinger handing Sansa over to Ramsay, unguarded, who, despite dropping bodies up and down the North, Littlefinger has never heard of... ETA: I'm not saying this isn't a ploy. I'm saying that if it is a ploy, it's stupid within the narrative, and exists only to give Ramsay a reason to be threatening to someone. I almost hope it's not a ploy because the Umbers siding with the Boltons in the show universe makes more coherent sense than the alternative...

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 9, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) Or the Umbers have gotten more information and know that Rickon isn't the only surviving stark and have more information. The umbers were extremely loyal to the starks. I could absolutely (and hope) that this is a long play to get Ramsay to weaken his positions and get himself killed. The only reason for Ramsay to keep Rickon alive is to use him as bait to get Sansa back. But Ramsay is a known sadist who has not shown a propensity for either avoiding cruelty or long term planning. If Ramsay acts in character, the Umbers are giving Rickon over to die (or to be horribly tortured). What better way to show your loyalty to the other remaining Starks then by causing Rickon's death? I stand by my position. If this is a ploy, it's an exceedingly dumb one.