Soxbadger

There better be a report that Taj has been hurt since game 3 and his minutes are limited by Dr's orders.

Thank you, push the damn ball, Taj is athletic and theyll all suck to him in the paint.

Bulls still trying to compete, Taj finally in the game as Deng can possibly cut it to 6. as long as Thibs sticks with the Bulls best line up they got a chance.

Well theres 7 lost minutes, 2 time outs, exact same line up. This is a joke.

Calls timeout, stays with exact same line up. Are you kidding me?

The Bulls dont have offense when Rip/Boozer/Asik/Watson are on the floor at the same time. Thibs just doesnt recognize it, and doesnt seem to care that they are going to lose.

Its painful to watch the bulls coached this way, the season is on the line and your best active player is on the bench when your down 8. Nonsense.

If Thibs leaves this line up out there to long I fear the bulls will have no chance.

Jenks, Philly is a bad match up for the the Roseless Bulls. They are built on defense, which negates the Bulls defensive strength. Id agree if they can somehow manage to get through this series, that they actually may do better next series. It also kills me that they could easily be up 3-2 right now. Steve, I just hope Taj starts tonight. The guy brings energy and enthusiasm to the team. I dont want to have to wait a quarter before the Bulls get in gear. They need to come out and get ahead, put the pressure on Philly.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:52 PM) MOST of you are sheeple because you are praising a man who whored out one of your hard fought beliefs after in no uncertain words saying he didn't believe in it, all for the same political gain. He's a whorebag, and you all love him for his "evolution"... he doesn't even know what he thinks, because he's told what to think and goes on camera to tell you what you believe. I think you mistyped what you meant. I am praising a man who whored himself out to my belief, to try and get my vote. He used to disagree with me, but in an attempt to placate me has decided to change his opinion to ensure I vote for him. I dont love him for his evolution, I dont love him for changing his mind, I like his position because he changed to mine. Call me a sheep all day long, it just shows ignorance on your part. Because you clearly are using the term, to try and make people go the opposite way to prove that they arent sheep, which is nothing more than a trick tactic. I dont fall for tricks I used in 5th grade arguments, thats for the birds. Call me a sheep, call me a goat, call me a slug, it doesnt change the fact that this sheep was able to get the most powerful man in the world to change his opinion for my vote and money. Sheep power! You really seem to think I care why I made some one change their mind. I dont care if the reason is that they just dont ever want to speak with me again. Winning is winning and that is Machiavellian, which quite frankly, would be far more Ubermensch than Sheep, but Im sure you are just referring to internet memes and havent actually read the books.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) First, this is why I respect Dennis Kucinich. The man's a rock in his beliefs. I don't care for his beliefs but I would trust this guy before the hack that's in office now. Next, by this same logic, you all should love you some Dick Cheney. But you hate him. He supports you on this issue, so why isn't he the saint of all saints? Oh, because he doesn't have a (d) behind his name. Sheeple. I assume you actually havent read Nietzsche because you are using "sheep" the exact opposite way. As for Dick Cheney, I like him about issues he agrees with me on. I dislike him for issues he disagrees with me on. The same way I treat Obama. In fact, Ive said both Bush's have done good things, Ive said Clinton did good things, Ive said Reagan did good things. We all know your position, you dislike Obama. You will do anything you can to detract from Obama. Its like a broken record, Obama is the worst, Obama is untrustworthy, I would never do this that or the other. Guess what, I dont care whether you would vote for Obama or not. Im not going to fall into your oxymoron argument that somehow you are doing more for equality by not voting, than by voting to support the only President who has ever come out in support of gay marriage.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Opinions about what you personally believe is right or wrong, unless you're young, don't get swayed by arguments. It takes a personal experience IMO to change that view. Especially for a guy who is what, 50? and makes his living telling other people what he believes and why on a daily basis. I dont think Obama has ever said "gay marriage is wrong", I think that he supported a position similar to "separate but equal" and finally realized that he was no better than the people who thought "separate but equal" was equality. I dont know, Im just speculating, but I can speculate he did it for altruistic reasons if I want. I am fully willing to cede he did them for political gain, I just dont care and no one has convinced me why I should care. The best argument has been that you cant trust Obama, but I never trusted him to begin with, so that really isnt relevant. The only relevant thing would be if Romney came out in full support of equality and argued that he was more for equality than Obama. Then it would be relevant who actually believed. But as of now, Obama's lie is better than Romney's truth.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) So fine, he didn't believe what he said before, which just means he was, again, selling out on his beliefs to get votes. Still reflects poorly on him and it's ridiculous that people are applauding what he's just done (even while agreeing that the end result is what they want). I just dont care about motivation. Everyone is motivated by selfish reasons. Obama is a person. Therefore his motivation is selfish. It doesnt matter the motivation, what matters is the result. I dont care what Obama believes, I want him to do what will make me happy, even if it goes against what he thinks. Because I am selfish, and I care more about my beliefs than his beliefs.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) If you firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you have some personal experience, why would that view change? He could be (and appears to be) pro civil unions, but not marriage. I don't see a logical reason for that opinion to change except to get some votes, especially in the time frame we're talking about here. Why cant it just be some one articulated his position in a way that was a "eureka" moment and thus he realized that by being against equality for gays, he was no better than "separate but equal." For better or worse, I have changed peoples opinion with argument. On the internet its hard, but in person, when you know someone, they dont want to be the only guy in the room with a terrible ideology.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) The problem in this case is nothing has changed but Obama's need to fill his war chest. Different story if one of his daughters turned out to be gay and he decided it was acceptable (hey, like Cheney in 2009!). But this is just "oh, yeah I should probably make that statement to help my campaign." And as I said, it may matter what his motivation was if Romney came out and said "I support equality too", then maybe I would actually care which one of them was doing it for the right reasons. But when you have person A saying "If I am President I will deny you rights" and person B saying "If I am President I will give you rights", you just cant care about the reasoning. No one cares that Lincoln freeing the slaves was partially a political stunt. Why? Because something good came from it. Ends justify the means, this sheep is Machiavellian. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) This is a preplanned, studied, calculated move by Obama, unveiled at a very specific political moment. This wasn't some revelation he had. For God's sake immediately after this news came out there was tweets about this being added to the Dem's platform. Good, he would be stupid to not make the announcement at a time that would help him. This reminds me of Philosophy 101, you can argue any good deed is done for selfish reasons.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) Out of that list, the abortion one is the biggest red flag. I don't know that the rest fall under core beliefs. I changed my opinion on abortion (was pro-life when I was young), I know another poster on this board changed his opinion the opposite way. People change their minds, and you cant define what another persons "core" beliefs are. My"core belief" is utility, sometimes I change my opinion on something because after reexamining the issue I believe that the utility has changed. That does not mean I changed my core belief, it means my core belief caused me to change a less important belief. I wouldnt call abortion a core belief of mine, its actually pretty irrelevant. My core belief on the issue is limiting govt power/intrusion, so I would be as against a rule that forced people to get abortions as a rule that restricted abortions. Its hypocritical if you look at it as abortion versus abortion, its perfectly acceptable when you look at it as a "anti big govt" position.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) You hate religion. If you were to come back tomorrow and say you loved Jesus, I wouldn't believe you,a nd I would wonder why you changed. I don't think that is absurdity, I think it is common sense. I dont trust Obama and I think he changed because he wanted money and because hes been taking heat for not really doing much in terms of social equality. That being said, I dont trust any politicians (on the national level). They wouldnt be politicians who got that far, if they werent lying, making deals, etc. I wish the system was different, but unfortunately I have to play by the constructs of the game. I dont like it, I wish there was a candidate who agreed with me, but exactly where are you going to find the following: Extremely pro- social rights and extremely anti- big govt. I admittedly have to put 1 above the other, so I vote with my heart (social rights), because that is what burns brighter inside of me.

And going down that road, arent the biggest hypocrites of all Christians, because didnt they flip flop on Judaism? You cant trust anyone who flips on religion right?

Yeah the devil, hell, etc is where Christianity jumped the shark compared to Judaism. But you had to some how get around the fact that the Messiah was supposed to do certain things according to the Old Testament and since Jesus didnt do them, he cant be the Messiah. The only way to rectify was to change the story 5000 years after it was first written. Which of course is why we have Judaism and Christianity. Jews still waiting for the Messiah, Christians saying that the rules changed, therefore Jesus is the Messiah.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) Global warming isn't religion. What we have here is a hypocrite. At this point we can just say, well economy isnt global warming, well military spending isnt religion. Is that how you rationalize your hypocrisy? Because I think its more principled to admit to being a hypocrite (like I do) than to sit and lie to yourself and make up fake lines in the sand about what is okay to flip on and what isnt. In my view the most okay thing to flip on is religion, because as soon as you take off the blinders, its so easy to see the absurdity.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) Great, you want me to prove the impossible. I will not vote for someone who has changed a core belief. I will not vote for Mitt Romney for example. I voted for Ron Paul in our Primary on Tuesday even though there was no real reason to do so. So you mean Ron Paul never changed his tune on Global Warming? http://newhampshireprimary.blogspot.com/20...-flip-flop.html Gingrich has come under frequent fire from climate change deniers for his obvious flip-flop on global warming. Now it appears as though Ron Paul himself flip-flopped on the issue. The Texas Congressman’s own fan site provides his quotes on the subject from three separate interviews, one from 2008 and two from 2009. In 2008, Ron Paul had this to say about global warming: It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations. By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/ I cant believe you would support someone who would change their core beliefs. For shame, for shame. Do you really believe that any politician doesnt do this? I mean you are seemingly knowledgeable on politics, so I just assume you are playing the game and trying to dissuade people to vote for Obama to ensure that your preferred candidate will win. To find this about Ron Paul took me 5 seconds, I didnt even look hard, I just had to type "Ron Paul flip flop."

I really hope the Bulls can win tonight, would be so great to get a game 7.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) Only because instead they support Obama because they think they have to do so. There are plenty of Democrats out there who actually supported Gay Marriage. If people really cared that much about this, they could have voted for another candidate. Being a slave to the two party system isn't a decent excuse IMO. This is your opinion. I dont think they support Obama because they think they have to, they do it because they choose to, huge difference. Furthermore if you actually read people's posts, you would have noticed many people did say they did not vote for Obama in the primary etc and voted for another candidate who was more in favor. But in the Presidential election, there will not be another Democrat who is stronger in support of gay rights, who has a chance to actually win. Id rather be the winner then the guy with the most pragamatism points. Whats the reward for that? s***ty life being treated unequal, but knowing you stood by your principles. Pass.

No I am asking you to name the party or candidate you have voted for who never was hypocritical in their life. Its so easy to just sit on the sidelines and claim you are the most pragmatic person in the world, I am asking you to prove it. Because from what I have read you have supported or voted for a candidate before, and I would basically bet every penny my entire family has that I can find them being hypocritical at some point. Which in turn means your just lowering your standards and as hypocritical as the rest of us, you just refuse to admit it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 10, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) I don't support hypocrisy. I know that doesn't make sense to you at all, but I think that is pretty silly. So you dont support any party or candidate in the United States. Great, but dont keep preaching at the rest of us who live in reality and understand that not everyone will take such a pragmatic stance, and therefore we have to choose between the options given.