Jenksismyhero

Well doesn't that end the Melo chase?

If I found out my best man did that to me, it'd be very difficult for my fist to not be in his face.

Oops! http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleg...ago_suburb.html

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 02:48 PM) It isn't...but Mike, that is because we empower ourselves and don't think we are "entitled" to things no matter what. We also understand that we, more then anyone else, control our destinies. There is always luck in things (could we die tomorrow or get sick and be unable to work or in an accident, sure) but in general, we have a lot of control. God forbid a place where I had to sit around and rely on a bunch of other people. The response to this is that pulling up your boot straps has proven to not be doable for some people. Which I agree with. But when it's not doable, you don't compound the problem by adding a kid or two or three to the situation. And you don't compound THAT problem by teaching those kids that even if you f*** up and have kids you can't pay for, Big Daddy Government will pay for it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 02:44 PM) For my two cents, I got fixed after two kids. I had a certain standard I wanted to provide for my kids. Until we were able to meet that standard, we didn't have kids. Once we having more kids would hurt the rest, we stopped. Why is that such a horrible or difficult thing? Stop with your completely reasonable position. I want 5 kids and if I can't afford it, f*** you all, you're paying for it. IT'S MY RIGHT.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) Perhaps we should get rid of all welfare because of those who abuse it. No one is really saying this. But there should be an understanding that there is a decent number of people who abuse the system and that instead of saying "whelp, they deserve it!" we should be figuring out ways to stop the abuse. Welfare was meant to be a short-term crutch, not a lifetime entitlement. Not a "well, i'd prefer to do this, not that so gimme gimme gimme."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 02:08 PM) "children should be a privilege only the wealthy can enjoy!" is one of my favorite jenks arguments. If by "wealthy" you mean someone fiscally responsible enough to raise a child, yep! You're ridiculous if you think otherwise.

Let's keep in mind Stein's sources are all Texas based....

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 02:01 PM) Yeah, those piece of s*** military families. We're way too generous to them. My 32 year old cousin doesn't deserve s*** for what my uncle did. HE deserves it.

I think Dolan gets in the way and Phil is gone in 2-3 years.

My cousin decided after one kid she wanted to have another one. So she did what typical parents do. She quit her job and became a stay at home mom receiving government aid. And on top of that, my uncle is a long time national guard/army guy so she also gets some kind of military family aid as well. All so she could have another kid and not work a job. 'merica.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 01:48 PM) Knicks are going to have massive amounts of cap room in 15. The 3M cap hold for Butler will not impede their ability to sign Kevin Love and provides Phil and the Knicks with a young, attractive asset to have on the roster to go with Love and whomever else they plan on signing. Big IF there. Just like all of these other potential signings. If you're Melo, not sure that you want to waste one guaranteed year of sucking, and then maybe multiple years if none of those deals work out. In Chicago, Houston or Dallas you have guaranteed contenders from day one. Sigh, yet logic isn't going to be the deciding factor unfortunately.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) If I was going to read into things, I think it is a good sign that Melo isn't flying back to NY to meet with Knicks and Knicks are meeting here. Again, it could be a total moot point though because Melo has a home in NY so he might have always been planning on staying here over the weekend and this is just Phil coming out to say...see, told you no one was going to totally sell you on taking less when you can make more and win in NY in another year when I get things built. They're still years away. What FA is available next year that would make them instant contenders? Maybe Lebron if he signs a two year deal with one year opt out. Speaking of Lebron, the rumor mill is so quiet right now with him and the Heat guys. Wonder what's going on.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 01:05 PM) Well, who wouldn't want to get wined and dined all day and night in Chicago during the summer? I guess, but he could have done the same thing in Dallas, Houston (they have to have at least one good restaurant right?) and LA.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 01:02 PM) That has always been my angle. If he wants to come here, they can figure the rest out. Which is why, to McGraw's tweets, all of this is kind of a moot point. Bulls probably spent very little time talking money and focused more about how they will win championships together and why Chicago is the place for him to be and where he can take his legacy to the next level. I still think the 12+ hour meeting/get together is pretty telling. Who hangs out with people that long if you're not seriously considering it?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) Yes; As long as the Knicks are willing to make it work. They can offer about $20M without trading Boozer (amnestying him). Knicks still can offer most guaranteed because they can offer an extra year. Right, so Taj, Melo and a max deal is totally doable. Again, the Knicks aren't going to just let Melo walk for nothing, just like Toronto and Cleveland didn't let Lebron and Bosh walk for nothing in 2010.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong but....can't the Bulls "offer" Melo the max via a sign and trade, AND still be able to keep Taj? It would necessitate moving Butler and maybe Niko, but in terms of cap flexibility, doesn't the sign and trade change up the numbers? If true, Melo telling the Knicks he wants to play in Chicago is all the leverage Chicago really needs. If you're the Knicks, you'll do the sign and trade basically for any reasonable offer. Maybe they don't take Boozer, but Butler and a future pick? They're turning that down over just letting Melo walk? No chance.

Damn dude. Sorry to hear that. How did you find out?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) Right but it's stupid. I don't think the guy can be classified as a ring chaser if he's the best player on the team. Basically any team that Lebron goes to becomes a title contender. I think a ring chaser is like what Karl Malone did joining the Lakers or even Ray Allen on the current Heat teams. They didn't do any of that at the peak of their careers though. Same with the Boston 3. I think that's stuff more excusable when you're at the end of your career and you're not the same player but you want that ring. Barkley did that with Houston a long time ago too. I don't really fault Lebron for it, but at some point that does diminish your legacy if you basically become a gun for hire.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:34 AM) jesus christ I guess sorry for reading your post so literally?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:31 AM) lol Reagan was good because he had a good campaign slogan? I'm saying that was one positive. I agree Reagan is overrated for a lot of things, but there's no question one of the best things he did was to restore a sense of nationalism and pride in being an American.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:31 AM) Context: an important thing. I was responding to YOUR post in which you said "any" list. What sense does it make to say "any" list when the topic was supposedly limited to "a" list?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:26 AM) Reagan made Americans feel proud to be Americans? Was that satire and I just totally missed it? I'm being serious. His campaign in '80 was "let's restore America."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 09:20 AM) Check out the thread title! I guess you didn't mean this huh?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 3, 2014 -> 08:58 AM) "Not funding death squads in Central America" and "not starting a disastrous war and ok'ing torture" should immediately put everyone else below Reagan and W on any "worst presidents" list. See, I think rounding up an entire race of people simple because they had slanty eyes and putting them in camps is worse than "torture" of actual enemies who were caught trying to kill Americans. But FDR is a liberal wet dream so... forgotten? Reagan was great because he rallied the country and made Americans proud to be Americans. He came after Carter, so of course he was going to look like a savior, just like Obama did in his first term. On top of not accomplishing much of anything in 6+ years, Obama has made Americans feel terrible about being Americans. It also cracks me up that Obama has continued and expanded about 95% of the policies that Bush implemented and was chastised for during the majority of his terms (basically all of his foreign policy choices, GITMO, drone use, the Patriot Act/NSA scandals, etc.). But let's ignore that. He's a cool dude!