illinilaw08

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:36 PM) I find it funny they always complain that the studies aren't 'complete' because the Feds won't pony up more money. The antis have billionaires on their side who coudl fund this with pocket change. But they don't because then the methods will get more scrutiny and people will wonder why suicides are counted, and when they talk about school shootings, why do they include things that happen 2 blocks away, or people who were on the street outside the school at night just because they randomly happened to be there. Number will change. Suicides absolutely SHOULD be counted. As someone who lost someone important to a suicide by gun, I can tell you all about the studies that people are more likely to successfully take their own life by firearm than by any other method.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 02:50 PM) If you do a search online and try to find evidence of innocent bystanders being killed by some hero vigilante, you'd be hard pressed to find many stories. If you do a search on-line, you can find many instances of friendly fire killing troops - those with the most training with firearms. In a mass shooter situation, I have a hard time believing that the guy who shoots once a weekend, or once a month can properly assess the situation and not ultimately make the situation worse. But then I also think part of the problem with this argument is that both sides argue in absolutes. Could someone armed make an accurate shot and save lives? Sure. Could they make the situation worse? Absolutely. I tend to argue that the odds are higher that they make the situation worse and are, therefore, a net negative in a crisis situation.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 14, 2015 -> 03:21 PM) Interesting post. I have no knowledge so I can't comment. Your comment intrigues me. Are young people really majoring in art and Poly Sci? I mean cmon. Badger might tell us ... are there tons of jobs for young lawyers? What about nurses and doctors? Anybody know? What about architecture and engineering and geology? The article I read said 22-29 year old grads couldn't find work and the over 50s, forgetaboutit. Companies want to keep salaries down, hence are undervaluing the 30-49 crowd. Student loan debt is a huge problem for lawyers and doctors. There are jobs out there, but the top maybe 5% of law school graduates get the big firm jobs that pay a lot (and have plenty of other downsides). I make a solid wage, but the effective rate of the income is significantly reduced because of the law school debt I'm carrying. As to the other stuff, entry level jobs that used to require a high school diploma now require a college degree. And that includes jobs like "administrative assistant." So while there are jobs out there, it's tough to repay student loans on an entry level salary of below $30k annually. If you don't standout in college, or you aren't majoring in a specialized field (many examples already in this thread), you are getting entry level work at low pay.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 11, 2015 -> 07:36 PM) You guys slay me. So you wouldn't listen to Cain's interview? Is he not successful? The things coming out of his mouth seem OK to me. Greg, if you are electing a President because he's a great businessman, doesn't the fact that multiple of his companies have gone through bankruptcy make you question whether he's actually a great businessman?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 1, 2015 -> 03:15 PM) Doing something for the sake of doing something is stupid. So in other words, you have no suggestions other than 'guns, bad'. Alpha, do you think mass shootings are a problem? Or are they an unintended consequence of a free society? If they are a problem, what, if anything, would you do to try to reduce the frequency with which they occur? I've stated my opinion on firearms many times on this site. I don't begrudge people owning guns. I may question their utility in certain circumstances (home defense and protection from the government are two such examples), but Pandora's box is open and we can't put all the guns back. My problem is that the only solutions to gun issues - issues largely unique to the United States in the Western World - is greater access to guns (guns in the classroom! Guns in the Courthouse! Guns on the streets! Guns everywhere!). And that argument makes my head hurt. Simple, reasonable gun discussion (registering weapons to make it more difficult to transfer on the black market, greater training before you can own a gun) are met with incredible amounts of resistance.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 1, 2015 -> 03:24 PM) Then just put a damn location in everyone's garage so they won't be inconvenienced. because if even one person has to make an actual effort, DISENFRANCHISEMENT! I don't have time to loo, but I bet there are ways to get a FREE picture ID. From first google hit Alpha, why do we need voter ID laws in the first place when there is no evidence of voter fraud? More to the point, if voting is a fundamental right, shouldn't access to the polls (and the IDs that are required for that) be as accessible as possible? Parroting NSS, but do you not see how (1) creating a voter ID law; and (2) closing a significant number of DMVs that serve largely poor and minority populations is a problem? Look at the map in the link from NSS. Alabama is a pretty big state. How far is too far to make someone travel to obtain the ID they need to vote? EDIT: Judge Posner (Reagan appointed, Conservative justice), on voter ID fraud in 2014... http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la...013-column.html

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 28, 2015 -> 02:33 PM) I agree with all of this. Jay isn't Aaron Rodgers, but when you stop and look around, you pretty much had to sign him. Here's the thing I don't get about the Cutler hate. Bears fans, as much as any NFL franchise, know how difficult it is to find even a decent NFL QB. Cutler, for all his flaws, is the best QB the Bears have had in my lifetime (one Erik Kramer season in '94 notwithstanding). The Bears had their chances with Cutler. The NFC Championship game being the obvious example. But when the defense was good enough to win titles, the weapons weren't there and the o-line wasn't there. Flacco, to me anyway, is the best case scenario for Cutler. Flacco caught absolute fire for one postseason and got his Super Bowl. Cutler has the tools to put a stretch like that together, but those opportunities are gone with the current state of the defense. As to the contract stuff, average and better NFL QBs make bank. Period. End of story. Yeah, Cutler's contract is for a lot of money, but so is just about every other QB not on a rookie contract, so it's hard to hold the money against either Cutler or the Bears.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 23, 2015 -> 10:00 AM) I don't think that is analagous at all. VW is a publically traded company. Rules around stock, common or preferred, offer a broad shield to the investors. Basically, unless they had material knowledge of the ongoing fraud, they have no liability. My point - which clearly wasn't articulated well - was "investor relied on prior performance of company" does not, in all cases, shield that investor from liability (see Ponzi schemes). I'm not saying that VW shareholders would or even could have gains clawed back. Poorly worded on my part.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 23, 2015 -> 09:35 AM) The shareholders invested in a company based upon the information they were aware of. They invested based upon historical performance and historical gains and future outlook...having no idea that the company was tainted. Not to get off of a tangent here, but the most analogous investor situation is a Ponzi scheme. When Ponzi schemes ultimately blow up and end up in insolvency proceedings (bankruptcy, receivership, etc.), the innocent investor can still be forced to disgorge their profit. Now, obviously VW is not a Ponzi scheme, but there are real word examples of investors disgorging profit when the company was engaging in illegal activity to earn that profit...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 17, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) Steven Colbert's show? Yawn. We're talking the Tonight Show. Americana. Not some awful wannabee TV host. Stephen Colbert? He lost me the minute it was exposed he's purposely mispronouncing his last name to seem elitist. Jeb is gonna be the candidate though, you are rite about that. Um... Colbert took over for Letterman. You know this isn't his former show on Comedy Central right?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 08:58 AM) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-09-01-08-52-48 Apparently the lawyers don't want her to go to jail. They want her to pay money damages. I wonder why. Also it's weird that she stopped issuing marriage licenses all together. Two straight couples were also denied licenses. Pretty screwed up situation. Monetary sanctions are probably a harsher penalty for her than jail... particularly since no one seems to be in a hurry to start impeachment proceedings.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 24, 2015 -> 01:49 PM) The guest host on Limbaugh today was blasting Hilly for being a boring candidate with no positions, thus nothing to talk about except the email scandal. She's doing exactly what I said she should be doing - nothing. All she has to do is hang out and watch everybody else fall up and down in the polls. If she just exists, she's going to have enough votes to be the next president. She doesn't have to say a damn thing, cause near the end is all that counts and at the end she'll still be standing. The system already has given her enough electoral college votes all she has to do is shut up and not get indicted. I'm not sure why the guest host on Limbaugh's opinion on Hillary Clinton should be given any weight...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 03:06 PM) People like a circus show. I actually would like to applaud Fox News, btw, and others should too. That was not a bunch of soft ball questions. They were hard on the candidates they were talking to. Trump especially. Questions about gay marriage, expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, Black Lives Matter, etc. and the answers were, from Kasich anyway, not extreme but quite moderate. And I liked how they backed off from the last decade and added "you know, like Reagan did" to appease the crazies. I only watched bits and pieces and read more stuff today, but it seems like Kasich killed it, Trump was entertaining but terrible, Paul warned about Iran, Christie invoked 9/11 to score points, Bush seemed the most polished and everyone else was forgettable. Interested to hear thoughts from the Republicans in here. This debate spent a lot of time on abortion - Walker and Rubio staked out some rather conservative positions there (opposing abortion even when the life of the mother is at risk). Are you concerned for purposes of the general election that two of the GOP frontrunners moved to the right on that issue? Additionally, I know my biggest issue with Hillary Clinton is also an issue with Jeb Bush. Do you have any concerns re: potentially having the last three R presidents come from the same family? I'll hang up and listen.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 09:40 PM) "People like me" is kind of an insult but maybe you didn't mean it that way. I am an educated, moral, law abiding citizen. I've been ticketed for speeding a handful of times in my life but that's it. Plus if I am firing randomly and hit an innocent person, I go to jail forever. Law abiding citizens will be careful as their freedom is at stake. You kill somebody besides the killer u are going to jail forever. I think you are not considering the fact deeply enough that I deserve the right to not die in a movie theatre. In a free country shouldn't I have a fighting chance to live?? Thank u for a more thoughtful response IMO than Baltas. But your first two paragraphs are contradictory. You say I have the right to defend myself in a life or death situation. My point is going to a movie now is a life and death situation in many instances. It's a pretty darn popular way of causing havoc. You say I'm making it more dangerous with my gun. Yes. And I'd hate one innocent person to be killed or harmed by "someone like me ... or Tex." But like I said, I go to jail for life if I make a mistake in protecting me and my family sitting at the movies. I have to be sure or I pay the price. Please respond. Greg - you have a legal right to self-defense. You do not have a legal right (and you shouldn't have a legal right) to carry a gun wherever you want. Those statements are not contradictory. You have ignored stats on this in the past, but society has gotten safer, not more dangerous. Yes, these mass theater shootings are disturbing and terrible, but they are also statistically extremely unlikely to happen when you are in a theater. Let's say 10,000 movies are show in theaters in the US per week. That's 5.2 millions per year. There have been three theater shootings since 2012. Going to the movies is still a significantly safer event than many of the things you do on a day-to-day basis (including driving). There are plenty of examples of guns emboldening people - making them do stupid things. There are certainly more examples of that than theater shootings. Someone could make an argument, then, that the mere act of having a gun in a theater is more likely to be dangerous than the act it seeks to prevent. So breaking down your response, I think it includes two major, incorrect assumptions. First that going to the movies is a dangerous activity. Second that being armed in the theater reduces the risk that something bad will happen to you. It's not a dangerous activity. It doesn't reduce the risk that something bad will happen to you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 7, 2015 -> 08:16 AM) I provided a link a couple of weeks ago with hundreds if not thousands of examples involving people with guns who were able to prevent death or more deaths because of their actions. You, on the other hand, keep with the myth making that people with guns who think they can be heros always, without a doubt, without exception, make situations worse. That's just factually inaccurate. When you can start citing some examples of "heros" accidentally shooting and killing people in their attempts to stop the bad guy, then your point is well taken. Until then, your opinion on this is completely unfounded. Citing to friendly fire incidents with the military in battle is pretty poor. Again, cite some examples when you have soldiers in close quarters with a single gunmen, and the ensuing fire fight involves friendly fire. I bet that's an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. Friendly fire incidents are almost always communication f***-ups, not "oh my god I have a gun and it has a mind of its own and its going to shoot every person in the room because they're so dangerous!" Jenks - how do you imagine this working in a theater shooting (the subject of this post). The shooter is at the back of the theater randomly shooting. It's dark, people are screaming and running to get away. If somebody is armed and the shooter is right next to them, yeah, certainly they could safely eliminate the threat. No argument from me there. But if somebody in the middle of the theater decides to fight back, they are firing over rows and rows of bystanders, in the dark. I'm no expert on marksmanship, but I have to imagine someone would have to be a really good shot or incredibly lucky to safely and effectively take down the shooter in that scenario. I've said this before and I'll say it again here in this thread. I don't have a problem with firearm ownership for sport, hunting, protecting crops/livestock, and even for home safety. But none of those scenarios add firearms to where I am. I'm incredibly against open-carry. I'm fine with conceal and carry if the testing requirements are strict enough (including mental health evaluations). There are middle grounds on firearms... people have a tendency not to look for them.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 03:15 PM) But please respond to my basic premise: Don't I have the right to protect myself and my family from lunatics who come to a darkened theatre to kill me?? I mean is it not my RIGHT? It's unfair to let a madman have such an advantage. Risk of Death is a BIG DEAL IMO. I believe I did respond to your basic premise. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself in a life-or-death situation. Does that right mean you should be able to carry a firearm everywhere you go? No, I don't think that's your right. Let me put my phrase my argument another way - you having a gun in a movie theater actually makes the environment MORE dangerous, even in the event that an active shooter enters the theater. Why? Because the shooter is moving in a dark and chaotic environment - an environment that non-military and non-police (and maybe not even the police or military) are adequately trained to properly, and accurately respond. Now, instead of one shooter, you have two. The likelihood of more innocent bystanders being hit goes up. Every one of your posts assumes that you, because you are armed, are more likely to help the situation rather than hurt. But I am extremely skeptical that is reality.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 6, 2015 -> 02:04 PM) Because there's a realistic possibility that you will also snap and start killing people, and then others with guns will snap and start killing people and before you know it, all of you once sane and law abiding concealed carry moviegoers will be dead! Duh. Because tens of thousands of movies are shown in theaters in the US every week and there have been (to my knowledge) three shootings since Aurora, CO making it such a statistically insignificant thing that it doesn't mean going to a theater is unsafe or requires an armed populace. Because no one has actually been bludgeoned with a hatchet in a theater in the US (that's in response to Greg). Because people who are paranoid about mass shooters in a theater, and arrive armed, might be trigger happy and mistakenly respond with gunfire when there isn't a threat. Because if the military (extremely trained with firearms and high pressure situations) have people killed by friendly fire, we probably shouldn't assume that an armed and less trained populace will necessarily be able to subdue an active shooter in a chaotic and dark theater. Because we don't require specific training in high pressure situations to conceal and carry, so we can't expect any of the armed populace to be able to properly assess the situation and help it rather than hinder it. It's not that the armed populace will snap and go on shooting sprees of their own, it's that I don't buy the argument that an armed populace makes anyone safer in an active shooter situation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 03:20 PM) Continuing to fund reproductive health services like Planned Parenthood (along with solid sex ed) goes a long way towards reducing the number of desired abortions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/06/c..._n_7738724.html Proof of that in practice in Colorado... Edit: The funding for this program was cut... go figure.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 01:04 PM) I can't believe how much I oppose Hillary. When she wins I may have to move to Canada for eight years. Her statements on Planned Parenthood today are insensitive, but nobody cares. I love Trump saying he'd shut down the government before funding them after this scandal. I wish Hillary supporters would tell me what they see in her, besides the fact she's democrat and you hate Republicans. I mean I voted for Obama last time and I'm Republican. You would want the government shut down - leaving millions without paychecks (you know, those that work for the feds) and millions more without access to services over a heavily edited video regarding Planned Parenthood? That's not governing, no matter your stance on Planned Parenthood. As for Hillary Clinton, Greg, what is your biggest concern with a Hillary Clinton presidency that would cause you to move to Canada for 8 years? That she's egotistical (as opposed to both Trump and Cruz whose I don't give a crap attitudes you love)? Her specific policies? If so, which policies do you oppose and why? My biggest issue with Hillary Clinton is that, for 20 of the last 28 years, we've had a President named Clinton or Bush. I don't love the idea of another 4-8 years of a presidency from either of those two families because of dynastic issues. I don't have a problem with Hillary's policies or personality, but I do think familial presidential dynasties are problematic. I will, however, almost definitely vote for Hillary if nominated, largely because the Rs are unlikely to run a candidate who either isn't dangerously far to the right or named Bush (see my earlier complaint about Presidential dynasties and Hillary's policies are much more in line with mine than Bush).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 02:09 PM) I guess, but what knowledge does a Minnesota dentist have about lions and property lines in Africa? If it turns out they told the guy what they were doing and he shot anyway, i'm in agreement with you. If he thought, innocently, that he bought and paid for the kill and it was all legal and proper, I don't see how he's at fault. Doesn't this guy have some responsibility to know and understand those laws though? This guy also has a prior for killing a black bear 40 miles outside of permitted hunting grounds in Wisconsin. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cecil-li...-felony-n400226

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 02:01 PM) There's a decent argument, I think made through a 60 minutes special, that these big game hunters are actually a net positive to the animal populations/reserves, because they pay so much. They fund a lot of these places which allow animals to thrive. Not sure if that is the case here with a lion. That argument (and I'm not opining on it generally) does not really work in this specific case - this was an extremely famous lion that brought a lot of $$ into that region. There is no doubt that this killing was a net financial negative (without discussing the other reasons this was tragic).

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 12:52 PM) Achilles I saw. Shut the door on that guys bball career. Feel awful for Tracy. By all reports, an extremely hard worker, high character kid. For me, Groce's job status is impacted by a number of factors - you can't just look at Tournament or No. I will question his long term standing at Illinois if I see Tate and LaTullip sharing ball handling duties for 40 minutes a night. Groce has a lot of talent at the wing, let's see what Jordan, JCL or DJ Williams can do as a primary ball handler. Might take some lumps early on, but it's in the program's best interest to shift somebody over who might excel in the long run rather than chasing wins early on with Tate for 30 and LaTullip for 10.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 07:39 AM) I would imagine it is pretty low, because if it happened, you know that MDA and other gun control idiots would be trumpeting it all over the interwebs as loud as they can shout. Strangely you don't hear that very much. I'm curious as to what makes someone a "gun control idiot." I'm also curious whether you think that any of the gun lobby are likewise "idiots." That snark aside, there aren't really any relevant studies that I'm aware of on either end of the spectrum regarding the value or the cost of firearms.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 27, 2015 -> 10:15 PM) Thing is, folks, we Americans have a right to do what Tex has suggested. I mean, he's not going to shoot in the theatre unless he has a good shot at the son of a b**** killer. The killer happens to be in the row right ahead of Tex, bam, Tex ends the problem and is a hero. I mean don't we Americans have the right to protect ourselves? If Tex starts shooting indescriminately and kills somebody, then Tex goes to jail for involuntary manslaughter as well. Gregg, there are many reports of friendly fire killing troops in recent history (including Pat Tillman). Our military engages in tremendous amounts of training in high pressure and high stress situations, yet they are not infallible in difficult situations. This narrative that the "good guy" with the gun has the training and the ability to properly assess and remove the threat is not supported by any evidence. The point here - it's a very dangerous assumption to say that firearm owner X is "not going to shoot unless he has a good shot." Note, I'm not anti-firearms. I don't begrudge people using firearms for home protection (though I question the utility of this one, I understand why people feel that way), hunting, protection of livestock/crops, and sport. But when people carry a deadly tool like that out into public, that's when I start to question the societal value...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 28, 2015 -> 10:22 AM) Reyes, who is not the picture of health himself, got off to a pretty slow start. He's been pretty solid for the last 3 months or so. Either way, one has to love this deal for the Rockies. Ditching the payroll and getting back a useful piece and a top prospect is pretty good work. Yep. The Rockies are never going to attract FA pitching talent, so they necessarily have to develop guys internally. Gray and Hoffman give them two pretty interesting young arms. Dumping Tulo's money makes it easier for them to pay Arenado down the road as well.