illinilaw08

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 9, 2016 -> 08:27 AM) Would Rickon kill Shaggydog or allow him to be killed, just for the sake of a ploy? I did notice that the wolves head we saw looked small for a direwolf. IF this is a ploy, it's a particularly stupid one. Everyone knows Ramsay's reputation. Everyone knows that Rickon (and really any living, male, Stark) is a threat to Ramsay's power at Winterfell. There's really no logical reason for Ramsay to hold Rickon hostage as opposed to killing him. And there's even less of a reason for him to hold Asha. If the Umbers are still loyal to the Starks, they would be handing over the one asset they have that could rally the North to a known sadist because... reasons? Furthermore, I'm not really clear as to why any of the Northern lords would rally to help Ramsay out? I get the Karstarks, and I get the idea that Jon let the wildlings south of the Wall (though that has zero to do with Rickon but whatever). But neither of those should counteract the fact that Roose Bolton - the guy that was a planner - is now dead. And in his place is the guy that flays and tortures everyone, who now has no allies outside of the North (losing the Lannisters because of Sansa).

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 7, 2016 -> 01:48 PM) Agreed. It is weird that when I think of Bill I think happy thoughts. WHenI think of Hillary ... I don't need to go there. But it's weird I love one of the two so much and don't like the other. Yes. It is weird. But you don't like the way Hillary speaks. And you think she's "mean" (without, of course, the same scrutiny for the way Trump treats others). So I have a feeling that your position on the Clintons has zero to do with substance and everything to do with "judging a book by its cover."

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 6, 2016 -> 11:03 AM) Soxtalk is a very liberal forum. There are a lot of people who probably agree with me, that the sight of a guy in drag as you say wouldn't be somewhat concerting/alarming/distasteful. A lot of guys aren't into that. http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/11...target-bathroom I can't believe in the 2016, in the age of protective parents, agreeing to let guys with male body parts in the same restroom with females. But I'm bad for saying that. Right now, your posts are bad because you are saying that the mere sight of a man in drag, let alone a transgendered person, so offended you that you wouldn't stand in line near that person to get a sandwich. The implication of that post is that you do not respect that person's right to be out in public, period, because their very existence is offensive to you. That is objectively a bad thing. Also, second the post from SS re: what you think that link says.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 5, 2016 -> 07:33 AM) They also have a VAT of about 20% on most things other than prescription drugs and food. They get a lot more than just a few percent more than here. As for your rail comment, easy to put that in a country smaller than Texas. Not so easy in a country the size of the U.S. And maybe if our European allies paid for more of their own defense, we wouldn't have to spend as much there. Not to hijack this thread, but aren't most current high speed rail proposal regional? High speed rail makes a lot of sense in the northeast, and in the Midwest (linking Minneapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Columbus, etc.). The infrastructure would be really expensive, but that's how high speed rail reasonably makes sense in the US.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 3, 2016 -> 12:32 PM) Yea they will, although im not sure when Walder will find out what happened. Probably could ally with the Lannisters since Roose f***ed over the Lannisters with Sansa Well, last season Littlefinger got authority from Cersei to march on Winterfell with the Knights of the Vale. In theory, the Freys could ally with Littlefinger. With that being said, the idea that Littlefinger has enough authority to get the Knights of the Vale to get involved now seems... speculative at best (the Vale is safe and out of the war, why march of Winterfell in Winter?). So hopefully that doesn't actually happen.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2016 -> 07:28 AM) When are you going to be in Bend, and what are you planning on checking out in the area? We've got a tentatively planned trip to Oregon for late July, and I think our route took us through Bend for a night. We were flying into Portland and basically doing a big loop of the state, hitting the coast first before dropping down to Crater Lake. Then we wind our way east to the Wallowas before heading back down the Columbia River Gorge to the Mt. Hood area and eventually back to Portland for a night or two. edit other than that, we're going to Maine/Acadia for a long weekend in a month and to Breckenridge for a friend's wedding over Labor Day weekend. If you are lucky, the aspens will be changing in Breck over Labor Day. If you have time for a hike while you are there, Mohawk Lakes is a good one.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 2, 2016 -> 10:07 AM) absolutely. The filming of that scene was awesome, because it definitely could have gone either way. Roose could have been done with Ramsay, since he has they Frey heir. Poor Ramsay, just removed the brains of the operation. He is gonna do something really stupid and get caught out for it So, I'm curious if that "something stupid" already happened in this episode. Ramsay can easily play off Roose's death as poison. But I'm not entirely sure he can do that with Walda and the baby. He can't say they died in childbirth (Walda was obviously walking around with the kid), and he can't really say she was poisoned (since I doubt there's any body to be found). Maybe I'm overthinking this. Ramsay has control of Winterfell and everyone there is terrified of him, so he might be able to control the information. But that seems like a bad dangling thread from Ramsay. To sum up his situation: (1) Roose destroyed the alliance with the Lannisters by taking in Sansa (and Cersei authorized Littlefinger to march on Winterfell with the Knights of the Vale last season); (2) Ramsay lost support in the North by treating Sansa like crap and then losing Sansa; and (3) Presumably, Ramsay just lost the support of the Freys by killing Walda and her child. When Sansa reappears, it's going to be Karstarks + Boltons vs. everyone else...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 2, 2016 -> 07:33 AM) That episode was fantastic, if they keep that pace and story building ability it'll be a fantastic season. And cannot wait for TOJ. I love this show. Agreed. Really good episode this week.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 29, 2016 -> 04:06 PM) ESPN just kicked off 5 pm Sportscenter with the Tunsil story, calling it the biggest story of the draft and it has "shown no signs of slowing down". They have 5 reporters on location, at 5 different locations. If they don't want it to die, it won't die. Oh my stars! Has the Dolphins organization imploded upon itself yet?!

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 29, 2016 -> 03:25 PM) Still a gigantic mess to clean up. I'm not suggesting this is a 2 year old story. Some new scandal will come up. It will be forgotten. But it'll be a story this offseason, during training camp and maybe into the year if the NCAA does anything or if there's any news on his step dad. And you never know what he'll do in the future. Again, look how he responded under pressure in an interview. Not good. Why is it a gigantic mess to clean up? What evidence is there to suggest that Tunsil is a loose cannon? On draft day, some a-hole hacked two of his social media accounts and the kid came off badly at an interview afterward. Putting myself in his shoes, I can't be too critical of a really bad interview performance. Was Randy Moss a giant mess to clean up? Sapp? Marino? Dez Bryant (on the impermissible benefits stuff)? If Tunsil plays to his talent level, he's not a distraction going forward.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 29, 2016 -> 03:28 PM) Incognito missed 24 games all because he, even being an offensive lineman, went into the spotlight after the initial headlines, and the media made a complete spectacle of him, dug as deep as possible into him, and got him blackballed from the league. Don't get me wrong, it was well deserved, but he is hardly the example you should bring up here. His case should be way more caution for the Dolphins than not. The point was that Incognito is back in the league and isn't a distraction. So surmise that Tunsil's draft date drama is going to be an issue that follows him is just not supported by the history of offensive linemen in the NFL.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 29, 2016 -> 03:12 PM) This isn't over. It's going to carry on for a while. This is the NFL not the other professional sports. It's 24/7/365 coverage, especially with scandals. He's now a poster child of what's wrong with the NFL drug policy on pot, he's the face of the soon-to-be Ole Miss/NCAA investigation, he's being sued by his step-dad and there's a possible criminal case for the hacking of his phone. Oh, and he was either purposefully kept away from a mic at his introductory press conference because they're terrified of what he'll say next, or even worse, he was out too late partying last night and couldn't make it (no evidence of this, just my own speculation). All told just too much baggage to deal with. Isn't it way more likely that he was kept away from the mic at his introductory press conference because every question was going to be about his multiple hacked social media accounts? He wasn't going to get a single question about football. He's an offensive lineman. They are not generally in the limelight. If Richie Incognito's stuff can go away, I see no reason that Tunsil's draft day drama is going to hound the Dolphins for the next four years.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 01:58 PM) At this point, it seems like they kill marginally to somewhat important characters when they run out of interesting ideas. Off the top of my head, Jojen, Barristan, Hizdar, Myrcella, Stannis and Doran are dead in the show/alive in the books (not counting Shireen because that seems like a major planned plot point). I think the full list is like 20 names. I don't really have an issue with them killing off Stannis generally. He was going to war with the Boltons, and it's reasonable that battle would end with Stannis' death. What I had a problem with was how Stannis went out with a whimper. The "battle" was just a slaughter on an open field. I'm all for them bringing plots together. Martin had to split Books 4 and 5 because he had so many separate threads going. In an hour show, it's tough to do justice to 13 different plots...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 10:54 AM) She's mother to Doran's nieces and we were led to believe she's basically Oberyn's soul mate and wife if he believed in marriage. They're family. Why isn't that enough? I don't see why that would preclude her from having access. I think they did a well enough job setting up that Doran was taking his sweet time reacting to two family tragedies and was the thinker/plotter of the family. Ellaria finally got tired of it and took the reigns. She's much more like Oberyn in that way. She exacted revenge in a non-Game of Thrones (i.e., thought out) kind of way. So it's different, doesn't mean it's bad or that it doesn't make any sense. So she did something spontaneous out of revenge, was caught, and told not to do it again. Fits with Doran's character. And I still don't have a problem with access issue. How is the logical response to: you tried to kill Myrcella Baratheon and start a war with the Lannsiters, but you promised not to do it again, so no punishment, a logical response that makes sense in this show. How does that fit with Doran's character when Doran has had such very limited amounts of screen time. The only thing they really set up about Doran was that he was trying to keep Dorne out of war. So if that's the only motivation we've gotten from Doran, why on Earth would he keep Ellaria and the Sand Snakes in positions where they could try to force Dorne into war? Second, how is the logical response to "we're mad at the Lannisters because they killed and raped Elia Martell many, many years ago, and Oberyn died in combat that he agreed to fight in" to turn around and then kill two more family members? We're mad because our family members died. So we're going to kill more family members so someone will let us get our revenge. Doesn't logically follow. No motivation or character trait has been given to Ellaria or the Sand Snakes other than revenge. I couldn't even tell you which Sand Snake is which in the show because they are so indistinguishable from one another...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 10:21 AM) I was the least interested in Dany's arc in the books at the end because Arya, Bran, and the invasion of Storm's End by Aegon were more interesting to me. No disagreement from me on that one.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 10:18 AM) What's so bad about it? I honestly don't see it. My only criticism is that it seems more like fluff without a connection to the central story, but i'm hoping there's more to come in the future. Everything they've introduced/done with those characters makes sense to me. Ellaria makes no sense. In the show, she is introduced as Oberyn's lover. They are not married. She isn't a Martell. In a show where name and claims matter so much, Ellaria having the access she has to Doran makes no sense. Second, there's no nuance to any of the actions in Dorne. Ellaria and the Sand Snakes have only been given one emotion and that's revenge. They don't have a logical plan other than WAR AND VENGENCE AND POISON!! Third, last season's Jaime and Bronn bromance adventure led to Bronn and Jaime infiltrating Dorne, by themselves, and getting access to Myrcella and Trystane. Finally, Ellaria (again, who has no claim to royalty in Dorne) is not even punished for attempting to kill Myrcella in the first place. Instead, she gets unfettered access to Doran. None of this logically makes sense. I agree that the Dorne plot in the books has way too much fat, but a lot of the above is solved if instead of Ellaria as the agitator, the opposition to Doran comes from his daughter. Or a lot of the above is solved if we find out that Doran is playing a long game against the Lannisters. None of the above makes any sense logistically in this world...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 10:10 AM) Dany was worthless in the last book, shes basically sitting around doing nothing the entire time. Dorne was ok, but they were also just sitting and waiting. The Quentyn plot was ok, but that didnt go very far. Yeah, everything about Mereen is pointless. It existed to get Dany some experience in ruling, but Martin has to figure out how to resolve that plot and then get Dany forward momentum again toward Westeros. My understanding is that Martin initially planned a several year time jump between Books 3 and 4. That would have helped with a couple of the plots that need more time to be done right (Arya's Faceless Man training, Dany ruling and then moving forward, Bran's plot, etc.). In the show, Dany has forward momentum finally, but I'm not sure why Tyrion and Varys in Mereen is going to matter in the least...

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 10:04 AM) They watched Jaime's ship sail away from the docks in Dorne. Then they got on a faster ship, caught up right when they got to King's Landing, and secretly boarded Jaime's ship. Then they killed the Lannister guards on board (I'm sure Nymeria was especially helpful because whips are really effective weapons in cramped, indoor spaces) and gleefully killed their cousin. Next episode they'll be back in Dorne. This. Also of note, by my count we had 9 different plots/locations in last night's episode. And we didn't spend any time with Bran, Sam, or the Ironborn. It's really hard to tell a good story when you can only devote 5 minutes an episode to each plot. With that in mind, the fact that they have devoted so much time to a nonsensical and poorly executed Dorne plot is even worse (or to Tyrion and Varys walking around Mereen), and leads to issues like the one that Crimson points out above. There's a lot of really good last night (Brienne and Sansa linking up, Davos' mutton request, Dany and the Dothraki), but their best episodes have a lot more focus on fewer locations and fewer characters.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 09:55 AM) It's been a while since I read it, but how did she go bonkers? I recall her being pretty reasonable while the Sand Snake daughters wanted revenge in various ways. Lilling Myrcella, performing a coup, killing Doran/Trystane, and wanting to lead Dorne to war are completely departures. She didn't. Arianne went bonkers in the books and her and the Sand Snakes end up locked up. Then Arianne finds out about Doran's plan and gets on board. The biggest issue to me is that the events in the show don't make sense. Ellaria's only standing in the show is as Oberyn's lover. I didn't have a problem with them aggregating those characters previously, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that Oberyn's lover would have had such access to Doran Martell. Arienne killing Doran and taking over rule of Dorne makes more sense logistically. Not sure what Dorne looks like re: succession, but I have a really hard time believing Ellaria is anywhere the front of that succession... Plus, the biggest issue with Dorne at the moment is moving forward. Dorne is making a play vs. the Lannisters. But that threatens to spread the Lannister plot very thin. We already have the Lannisters dealing with the Faith... a faction that Dorne certainly doesn't fit into... so how will Dorne organically fit into what's happening in King's Landing at the moment...

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Apr 22, 2016 -> 02:40 PM) I mean, unless you want the salary cap to stagnate like it has. Profitability of teams have far reaching implications on the league. It has never been more evident than right now, when most of the NHL's profit is in Canadian dollars and the Canadian dollar is weak. It would be far better for the league to be more profitable in both countries. Ok, but that's a league wide argument. That's not a Blackhawks specific argument. Therefore, it's of little relevance to the topic at hand (ie, whether McDonough or the team winning is responsible for profitability)... To your league wide point, it's obviously good as a whole for the league if a big market is your dominant franchise. But don't kid yourself, if this were the pre-Kane and pre-Toews Hawks years, no amount of McDonough could sell out the UC year after year. Winning is far more important than McDonough to the Hawks' profitability.

QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Apr 22, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) Agreed on this. If McDonough can drive this team to profitability, that's arguably 1/1A important as the cups. Wait... what? Profitability of the hockey team is as important as winning Cups? I'm very confused..

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 21, 2016 -> 08:48 AM) I honestly just hope we trade down if we can get more picks in this deep draft. Will be pumped for bosa/jack/ramsey at 11, but would love if we can move down and get someone like Mackenzie Alexander plus picks. Assuming Bosa, Ramsey and Brouner aren't there, what's the consensus on Jack's health? The talent might be too good to pass up at 11, but the red flags are pretty red for a team a couple years (best case) from contending. Hargraves falling to 11 is the most reasonable scenario that would fit a major need. If Lynch is still there, might be able to get somebody to trade up. Maybe somebody who is already a contender would trade up to get Jack if he's still on the board?

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 03:44 PM) Honestly not sure this is a bridge I will cross. I get that there are two parties and you feel you are above them. But registering as a republican or democrat has literally one benefit and it is being a part of the process in nominating them. Fine with standardizing them nationally, but still...if you aren't a democrat, why should you be guaranteed to be able to vote for their party leader? It's not that "you feel you are above them." It's that those are the only two realistic choices for the Presidency. Whether I'm a Democrat, Republican, or something else, I only have two real votes for the next President (leaving aside voting to obtain benchmarks like getting a party on future ballots). Why shouldn't I be able to vote my self interest at the primary without extra hurdles or paperwork involved?

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 03:34 PM) You could switch party affiliations every election. I could! I guess I don't see why that's a problem. ETA: If I'm middle of the road policy wise, and four years ago, I wasn't sure if I preferred Romney to Obama, I might have wanted to pull an R because I'd rather choose between Romney and Obama than Obama and Herman Cain. This year, if I'm middle of the road, I might want to pull an R ballot to vote for Kasich or I might want to pull a D ballot to vote for Hillary, because I'd rather have Hillary than Sanders or Kasich to Trump/Cruz. In either event, I'm identifying with the potential candidates for the highest office in the country. In either event, I'm not voting maliciously. In either event, I'm not legally estopped from pulling the ballot if I jump through the hoops to timely change my affiliation. Why is changing parties each primary season as described above a bad thing?

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 20, 2016 -> 02:24 PM) The logic is that each party is created to further that party and should be allowed to do that as they see fit. Twelve political parties will select a nominee at a convention without primaries because that is the best way they can do it. The Dems and Reps hold caucasus and primaries so their party can select a nominee. They should be allowed to set rules that help assure that the people who are helping in the decision are the best people to make the selection. People who openly and willingly identify with a party are much more likely to donate their time, talent, and treasure to that party and to help elect that candidate. They are the more valuable voice in the decision making. They are also the ones that will vote no matter what. Again, this is a political party decision. What logic is there in allowing non-members to decide who that party nominates? Where is the logic in a party creating rules that encourages non members over regular members? They would be creating rules that could hurt them. Because only two political parties' nominees matter when it comes to deciding the most important office in the country. Restricting access to voting in either of the two primaries because I don't identify as D or R is undemocratic and specifically leads to the fringes of parties nominating candidates. Again, I don't have to pay dues to the Democrats or Republicans to participate. I don't have to pledge fealty to that party, so even if I identify myself as an R in NY 6 months in advance of the election, I can still vote D in the general. There is no logic in saying "independent voter, you don't have a say in either the nominee from the Republican party or the Democratic party because you didn't check a box. I'm not advocating a system where people get to vote in both primaries. But restricting access to either party is a bad system. Give me a system where I show up on primary day and pick D or R for my ballot. Don't give me a system where I'm disenfranchised from the pick.