Jenksismyhero

So, are they admitting McBuckets was a mistake? Not sure why they'd bring Dunleavy back if McDermott is the future at the 3.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 02:13 AM) White supremacist terrorist attacks have targeted black churches as long as there have been black churches. At least with the five recent ones, doesn't appear any were hate crimes/due to race: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/no-ev...rches.html?_r=0

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 03:21 PM) Eh, physical requirements for a job have repeatedly been called OK. Well that's awful. I mean don't get me wrong, it's s***ty that people do that over dumb, arbitrary reasons, but when it comes down to it your boss could tell you that you're ugly or you have red hair or you smell funny or you aren't positive enough and demote/fire you for that reason and it's 100% legal. Realistically what's the difference between that and you being a Muslim, or a woman or black or whatever. We can keep coming up with protected classes, but we'll be at it a long time. edit: and obviously at various times in history those protections were necessary because society at large basically agreed and approved of the discrimination against X type. In 2015, that's not really the case.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) Should people be able to be fired for being too fat? I think so. Physical demands of the job would be an issue. Of course I think people should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason. But we've been over that before.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 11:36 AM) We would need to specifically add sexuality to the list of protected classes for that to happen. It is not currently there. Here are the reasons why you cannot fire someone or deny them housing currently: Sexual orientation is not on that list. If you're a landlord in one of the many states that has not filled in the gap, you can deny people housing or force them to move out because they're gay, you could fire someone for being transgendered if you're an employer. This is another which it would be nice to fix, so hopefully you'll be on our side and write your representatives about how unfair that is. Be sure to add in that list obesity. That's the next horizon.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 11:57 AM) Whoa, I hadn't heard that. Now we are talking titles. All a pipe dream unless Rose decides to play for less that what he's making now and/or he is no longer in Chicago, although I do agree they should be shooting for that spending flexibility in case Davis is open to coming here. Random PG Butler McDermott Mirotic Davis I could live with that.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 30, 2015 -> 05:44 AM) Am I alone in not really wanting Dunleavy back? Maybe on a one year to work McD into consistent PT but wouldn't be mad if he went elsewhere. I'm with you. He has good games here and there, but he's not some great piece. I'd rather the Bulls play McDermott and find out if he's a legit NBA player and worthy of the picks.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 29, 2015 -> 10:46 AM) Bottom line, with Butler it doesn't matter now. He has no choice but to sign with the Bulls so its all a moot point. We control where he goes and that is a beautiful thing. He might not be happy with Chicago now, but he wants his money and he's going to put in the work and Hoiberg will have his time to show Jimmy why he should stay in Chicago (as will the rest of the front office and the teams performance). All of this nonsense is just talk and speculation. I'll get worried about stuff like this when he is truly a year away. Reality is, the shortest deal he could get is with the Bulls and IIRC, if he signs an offer sheet from someone else, it basically means we have him at least 3 years (and just match that) cause any other teams offer sheet has to contain at least 3 guaranteed years (presuming the Bulls do all the right things in terms of qualifying offers to make and their is no reason they wouldn't). He's only restricted this year though right? So in reality the Bulls can get him next season for sure, but after that it's a bidding war. We can offer him that extra year, but he doesn't have to take it.

So if Butler is set on becoming a FA and leaving, what if the Bulls do a trade for Melo? Butler for a year, Noah/Taj and some throw ins like Snell or Moore, maybe even a draft pick? NY is giving up a lot, but they're also getting out of that contract.

That was fast http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...po#.VY3IBPlViko

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 02:05 PM) Seems like he recognized how wrong he was and at least attempted to rectify it. He also acknowledged that he made a bad choice and would have to live with it his whole life Yeah I never bought that. It became opportunistic for him to learn that black people like their children just as much as white people (his actual epiphany). How do you come from a place where you truly believe blacks are inferior and unequal and shouldn't be in the same room as you to the complete opposite? He was in his 20 and 30's too. It's not like he was a brain washed 8 year old growing up in a racist house.

Shoot, we still give passes today. Like with this asshole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd Proud KKK member and Obama had to, i'm sure out of professional obligation only, eulogize him. I remember all those long stories and op-eds about him. Oh wait, no he was a democrat.

Jesus, didn't read this until today: http://gawker.com/graphic-execution-video-..._source=taboola

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 01:26 PM) It is my judgment that literally anyone who flies that flag is accurately described by that phrase. Even the "southern pride" explanation is BS because its deliberately excluding the part of the south that would never fly that flag...who have their own southern heritage that is being excluded. I can similarly look upon Thomas Jefferson and simultaneously believe that he was an important President, that he wrote some of the most powerful words ever penned by a human "All men are created equal", and then recognize that he did not himself live up to those words. If it is the judgment of a future time that his failings become more important to remember than his work...that is one I would disagree with but doing so is a moral, human, emotional decision and those sorts of things can change over time. Ok, so it's cool to honor someone who was an actual slave owning white supremacist that raped his "wife" slave because he also did good things? Just trying to find the line here. What about this guy? http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake...0625-story.html Historian or evil white supremacist supporter?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 12:49 PM) You know the amazing thing? We're human beings, we're allowed to apply judgment to these things. That's of course why the slippery slope argument is silly, but it would still be nice if we could slippery slope our way to generally more equitable treatment of african americans and others generally. Not really, because if you argue against it you're called a supporter of racist white supremacists.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 12:10 PM) I'm fine with some of that, too. Why do you want to continue to honor racist slave owning traitors to the county Because I don't believe in whitewashing our past sins. It's better to leave them and use them as an example of what not to do. When you start erasing history then you just end up forgetting it. edit: not to mention, again, where do you draw the line? When are the means not justified? If you're going to be legit about it, let's rid ourselves of the vast majority of monuments in Washington. Let's get rid of Mount Rushmore. I'm sure you could find a basis for getting rid of just about every monument out there if you really wanted to argue that its offensive to someone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 12:06 PM) Why else would "Google and Amazon are no longer selling confederate flag merchandise this is a slippery slope to something awful!" be used as an argument? The ends are bad therefore the means, getting rid of a racist symbol over a state house, must also be bad, based on your logic right? Depends on how far you want to take the ends. Seems to me you guys would be thrilled at a completely sanitized society where nothing potentially or remotely offensive is allowed to exist. This isn't specific to just racist flags either, but a variety of issues over the years.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 12:04 PM) The means of "asking for state governments to stop flying the flag" seems pretty reasonable. Absolutely. But we all know the next step is removing monuments, renaming streets, etc. And that's part of it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 11:20 AM) Do we get to pick and choose which slippery slope we slide down? Because I want to slide down the one that takes us from fewer racist symbols to fewer racists in general. Ends always justify the means, no matter the collateral damage, amiright? 'Merica.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 10:38 AM) True, Illinois fans always loved Eric Gordon. Also the dick way of doing it, not that he picked another school.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 10:34 AM) Karma for choosing another school of course!!! More for being a dick about it, less about choosing a different school. Trust me, Illinois has lost out on a LOT of guys and there's not the same (or any) animosity towards them.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 10:29 AM) Karma for what? The hat thing? Illini fans are petty. The kid is 19. I can't believe people are really happy to see bad things happen to him. It's kind of sad actually. Oh please, no one is saying he should be killed in an accident or anything.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 26, 2015 -> 10:12 AM) If one were to reinvent the country and its laws from scratch, ideally, marriage should never enter into it. Marriage is a social construct, and government should neither endorse or interfere with any of it. People can then do whatever they'd like in their relationships. But as the country did not start that way, you have to make a decision from where we are. And this was the right, best decision available under the circumstances. I sort of agree. I'm happy that same sex marriages can be recognized, but I'm not a fan of how it was done. It would have been preferable for the states to do it. I'm in total agreement with the dissenters that the SC overstepped its bounds here, created a right out of thin air and basically told the American people what to think/do. It's a Lochner decision and that's some dangerous territory. Great when you agree with the Court on an issue, not so great when you don't.

So if this is the basis for the decision: ""No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."" Basically there should be no rules to marriage between consenting adults, right?

Donuts aren't good for the professional athlete diet! #rookie