Soxbadger

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 4, 2012 -> 06:20 PM) Honestly Badger I do not remember any of it being about Pippen. From what I remember, everyone hated Krause, and Krause/Reinsdorf did not want to pay Phil like a Superstar coach. MJ said he wasn't sticking around without Phil, Phil said he was done negotiating with Jerry squared, and Krause thought everyone was too old and that he could rebuild because he was that smart and completely discounted the fact that the players in the NBA saw it as a s***ty move. Besides, if Pippen wanted to be out of MJs shadow, then why did he join the Rockets to play with Barkley, Clyde and Hakeem? Why would he immediately go play second fiddle somewhere else? Well allegedly Resindorf offered Jackson a contract that would have made him the top paid coach, but Jackson rejected it. With regard to Pippen on the Rockets, he was traded there, but from what I recall he made it clear he did not want to back with the Bulls.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 4, 2012 -> 05:12 PM) I don't have the time to get further into it right now, but no, I don't believe the US definitions of those terms are accurate...at all. Anyone that claims the former Republican administration in charge was conservative is crazy. They were quite the liberal spenders. And I agree with this, but we are a very very small minority, so I quit arguing about what the real definitions were about 7 years ago.

Jenks, I dont think anyone is quite sure what happened. In my opinion I always felt that Pippen wanted to get out of Jordan's shadow and show the world how great he was, Jackson wanted more power and wanted to show up Krause. Reinsdorf was put in the position of either defending his friend Krause, or giving into Jackson. If you read between the lines there basically was an ultimatum, get rid of Krause or we wont come back.

Everyone in America is technically a liberal as compared to a classic conservative like Michael Oakeshott. I am absolutely a "liberal" = "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." as opposed to a "conservative"= "Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion." Now if you want to talk about political spectrum we would first need to define the words and then we would need to discuss. There is no correlation between any definition of "liberal" and massive spending. Now maybe you meant "L"iberal and were defining it in a certain way, but it just is impossible to know without actually defining the subset. 2) TRUE fiscal conservative. I may be, although it would depend on what definition of fiscal conservative we are using as there are many different variations of what that term means. 3) Well this just goes back to what did you really mean in your original statement about "liberal". Did you mean "L"iberal or "l"iberal. I was under the assumption that statement was referring to the US definitions. 4) Its not taking out of context, its just using words that have a variety of definitions without actually clarifying what you mean. I assumed you were referring to the US ideas of "liberal=Democrat" and "conservative= Republican", if you meant otherwise I just misunderstood.

Jordan was offered a blank check. His last 2 seasons: 1996-97 Chicago Bulls NBA $30,140,000 1997-98 Chicago Bulls NBA $33,140,000 Then when he came back with Wizards: 2001-02 Washington Wizards NBA $1,000,000 2002-03 Washington Wizards NBA $1,030,000 It wasnt about money at all.

Jenks, Reinsdorf offered to pay (Jordan and Jackson) them anything they wanted. I think Jackson was offered $8mil and I believe Jordan's previous salary was something like $20mil+. The problem was Pippen.

Y2hh, I agree that there are silly people on both sides. But some of your statements are incorrect or just hyperbole. There is no way I can be considered a conservative, so I guess I have to be a liberal. I think that spending should be slashed, first up Department of Defense. The real issue in my opinion is that liberals are fine with slashing some spending and that happens to be the spending conservatives want to increase. Where as conservatives want to slash spending on areas liberals would prefer remain (not sure anyone is saying increase spending, I think most are saying that defense spending should be cut and that other programs should remain the same or slightly reduced.) How is taxing corporations more not a liberal policy? I dont know many liberals who believe that the corporations should pay less taxes than people.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 4, 2012 -> 11:06 AM) Yeah i've said before the morning after pill or whatever is fine. But life, to me, certainly begins much earlier than the current deadline for legal abortions (24 weeks in some states). I think your "it's not alive unless it can live on its own" is a pretty crappy standard to go by. And the 10 weeks is the first time you normally go in to see the doctor. Heartbeats can be heard in 5-6 weeks. And I agree that we can always reevaluate the time line and maybe at 24 weeks we should be protecting the child. I am talking about this situation: Person A and B are having protected sex. The condom breaks. 2 days later the girl takes a pregnancy test and finds out that she is pregnant. She immediately schedules an abortion. In that situation it just does not seem that the govt has a legitimate interest in forcing those 2 people to have a child. I get that if you sit around and wait, that your right to an abortion should expire. But if you take every step to get one as quickly as possible, I think that is taking responsibility. Mistakes happen. Hickory, No, a 2 year old is clearly alive and therefore has its own rights. Once something is "born" it has rights.

Then I apologize.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) Another classic Badger statement. ARE YOU SERIOUS STEVE? J4L in the post above said that the Knicks are the best team in the East after the Heat. I called him out on it, because it derives from a previous argument where I said that people were overlooking the Pacers. What is your deal?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 4, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) There are documented cases of survivability as early as 19 weeks, so can I put you on record of being against all abortions at or after 19 weeks? Sure if you can take it out of the mother and have it survive at 19 weeks, go for it. I assume you will be willing to write the check for all of its medical bills? Because I really have no problem with it being removed from the mother, put in an incubator and no one is bothered. I am not a scientist, so I dont know the feasibility of this. Jenks, So what you are saying is that there is a moment in time when it becomes "life", to which I agree. I just do not believe "life" begins at conception, which means that until it is "alive" it can be terminated. It kind of seems like you are agreeing with me, but not wanting to admit it... Youre acting like 10 weeks is some short period of time, thats almost a quarter of the entire gestation period. I am refering to people who find out they are pregnant and immediately want to terminate. I do believe that medically they ask them to wait a certain amount of time because it is safer, but that merely just working out the medical/scientific kinks. Unless you are saying that at the moment of conception, it is alive, and therefore the govt has the right to protect it. Because if that is the case, what is next, arresting mothers who dont eat healthy, arresting mothers who make risky life decisions? Because after all, we have to protect the valuable cells inside of them, even at the expense of the free choice of the host. This is the same arguments to get rid of alcohol, to ban cigarettes, to ban drugs. The govt is protecting you, the govt knows best. We each have our own anecdotal evidence, at 10 weeks you see something living, at 10 weeks I see something that could possibly survive if all of the correct conditions are present, and one of those is the host agreeing to carry it to term.

I think they win more than 1 game.

So what, J4L is trying to insinuate that the Knicks are the toughest test, saying it wont get harder down the road. The Pacers will put up a better fight than the Knicks, they may not win but the Knicks arent Miamis toughest test in the East.

Only girls can get away with shorts or sweatpants.

The Pacers are better than the Knicks.

I wear jeans and a tshirt. Yeah im classy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 3, 2012 -> 08:30 PM) After a while it really starts to sicken you that people consider that a mistake and flush it away without a second thought. What about people who carefully consider all of the options and after thinking about it determine that what is best for all parties is to not have a baby. Everything is a miracle, that doesnt mean that the govt should get to control what people do. I do not believe in protecting non-life, I think that it sets a terrible precedent and gives the govt far to much power. You cant protect something that is not alive and as long as the something is dependent on the host and cant survive even with our current technology, it can not be protected. We have to impose some limits on the govts power. Since the inception of the United States govt has consistently taken away our right to make decisions about what we do with our body, what we consume, what is good for us, etc. This is one of the few cases that puts a limit on the govts interference. We cant let the govt control our choices, at least not in my opinion. Im going to continue to fight for personal freedom, and you may think that I am callous or that I have not put a second of thought into these decisions, but its just not true. Like I said, Im tired of fighting this battle because there is a subset of Americans who are perfectly willing to have govt involved in every aspect of your personal life, I just hope that it doesnt happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 3, 2012 -> 06:35 PM) Except in cases of incest, rape or health to the mother, I see no issue with this. Why is it so difficult to be responsible if you don't want a kid? Why should we be giving the govt the power to regulate what we do with our body? Potential life is not life. /shrugs To each their own, but I think our understanding of responsibility includes paying to fix your mistakes, so if you want to spend $500 on an abortion, why should the govt get to intervene?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 3, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) Lol, you two are becoming Balta - SS2K5 part deux. Nah (imo) this is just 2 people who have to much time on their hands because they cant discuss the Bulls due to an injury. Unfortunately my reaction to such an event is to get annoyed/angry and thus become a b**** when I post, Steve's response was to be melancholy which didnt go well with my mood and so we fight each other instead of accepting the reality.

haha It happens to the best of us. If you go through enough of these threads youll find that Ive probably disagreed and agreed with every poster at some point. I just thought it was funny you picked a time where I agreed with Jenks.

Wait what? Im really confused by the above comment. How is me agreeing with Jenks and disagreeing with StrangeSox about what George Bush said have any relevance to any other argument?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 3, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) Lol, yes because if history has shown us anything, it's that the government/people with authority know best. And how is allowing women to abort babies protecting people? Seems to me it's doing the opposite since X millions of potential lives are not brought into the world because of it. I wasnt referencing abortion with that comment. But the point remains the same, I am just tired of fighting over something that people are always going to disagree on. You want to disallow abortions, great, I disagree. You want to get rid of govt subsidies, great. You want to get rid of govt funding for public works, great. Like I said, I just dont care enough to worry about other people. What is the worst that will happen to me? Republicans get in office and lower taxes for my family? Im fine with state rights, I live in a state with a similar ideology as me. If it ever changed, Id leave.

I care much more about preventing a social conservative than a fiscal conservative. At the end of the day Romney has been successful with budgets, etc, so in reality reasonable people can have reasonable differences. Agreed. What is the worst case scenario? The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade? Im pretty sure if that were to happen every liberal state would immediately pass a law that allowed for abortions, while conservative states would pass laws making it illegal. Im tired of trying to convince people that we are trying to protect them. Im at the point where if some states want to turn themselves into backwards s***holes, why should I care? I mean its just so tiresome to fight with people who dont want your help. And to that end, let them kill the federal govt, Illinois being a donor state will be fine, we actually give more money to the federal govt than we get back. Its all those small conservative states that are going to get railroaded. So if it happens, it happens.

ha I thought this was just going to be a continuation of the NBA thread.

I do get paid to have internet arguments so I guess I cant complain either.