Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 10:31 PM) The screens they are being allowed to set this series! That's just the NBA. It's awful. Every screen is a moving screen.

These officials have been awful. If the warriors win the NBA will have to explain the 2nd tech on Green

This would be really satisfying if the warriors come back.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 08:45 PM) The nba clearly doesn't want a sweep. Jesus Christ Lol, came to post the same thing. Shumpert is a worse flopper than Lebron.

Why would he move west where it's more difficult to get to the Finals? Maybe to the Spurs, if that can even happen. Lebron + Kahwi on Durant and Curry may work... If anything they need to trade Love or Kyrie for some serious, young talent. His dumbest move as a GM was giving Thompson so much money. They're stuck with him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 08:46 PM) Reason #6000 why I'll never console a down on OSU happenings from Rock, they are about to hire Chris Holtmann from Butler who is both very good and seem d unlikely to ever leave that incredibly close knit family culture there. Holtmann or Mack from Xavier always made the most sense.

QUOTE (The Gooch @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 11:48 AM) People need to stop acting like Lebron has no help like his last run in Cleveland. I know they are nothing compared to GS but it's absolutely great to watch him lose to an arranged "Super Team." You made your bed now lie in it Lebron. Greatest player of this generation, definitely. GOAT - not a chance, ever.... He's got talent, but the problem is the talent needs the ball to be of use. Irving may be the best PG ever in terms of his dribbling and ability to finish around the rim, but that's basically all he is good at. He's not good on defense (or doesn't care) and he's not a good off the ball shooter. Love is pretty good at everything but not great at anything. And everyone else, well, there's not a lot there. A lot of aging vets that can't hang with the under-30 Warriors. The Warriors are the opposite. Not only do they have more talent, but the talent fits together. No one needs to be ball-dominant. They can fly around and be apart of the offense. Yes, Durant's been taking the big shots, but that's mainly because of what the defense is giving him.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 11:59 AM) I don't think that's right on Underwood. They tried to get Monty Williams in place early, but he said no. My understanding is that Whitman had done enough behind the scenes diligence that he knew who the reasonable floor was on the search, but they weren't aware Underwood was available when Groce was fired. We'll never know obviously, but reading through the lines at Groce's press conference IMO Whitman had clearly already reached out to Underwood's people and had already gauged interest. Had he confirmed it yet? No, but it was well on it's way. The fact that he wasn't using a search firm is a good indication that he already had a target that was interested. My understanding on Monty was that it was basically a phone call to gauge interest and Whitman let the contact know that Illinois was willing to pay top dollar. I'm not sure if there was any serious back and forth.

Woj said Mike Brown may be a candidate. Not sure that's much better either.

This is why Whitman knocked it out of the park on his two hires for basketball and football. He had his guy in place BEFORE firing the current coach. They may not pan out on the field/court, but I like that he was quiet about it and got it done before having to go through the public denials.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 11:03 PM) Kyrie was exhausted. Kyrie got them the lead in the third while LeBron treated water. The 4th quarter was LeBron's, and he refused to take it. I don't get it. He drives on Curry 2 or 3 possessions In a row with success and then stops. He's done that his whole career. He's unstoppable when he wants to be but he just doesnt.

Eek, McDermott?? I would have kept Matta.

Let the record reflect that Reddy thinks a rich white male (gasp!) is the "perfect" candidate because of his marketability.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:07 PM) There was a WaPo story yesterday reporting that Dan Coats, DNI, was asked by Trump to intervene with Comey on the Russia probe. He had been overheard saying something similar several weeks back after the last time he was up on the hill, but it wasn't really reported then. This is a little odd: Isn't Coats testifying this week?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) We know reality is broken because Bill Kristol makes interesting, informed statements these days. He's been a very outspoken anti-Trump, this is a circus admn, critic.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:59 PM) Yes, especially in light of the fact that the rationale for Comey kept changing and didn't make much sense. I'm not sold on Donald Trump himself being in collusion with Russia. I think it's more likely that some of his associates (guys like Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Page) were, and Donald Trump is a gullible vehicle for them to get things done. Trump's obstruction of justice comes across - to me - less like he's hiding personal guilt and more like he's just unbelievably ignorant of ethical/legal norms. The investigations into Flynn and his campaign were problems. He wanted them to go away. Exactly, and what Comey's statement shows, to me, is that Trump was more pissed that Comey wasn't putting it out there publicly that he, Trump, was not being investigated.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:50 PM) I'm referring to the part where Trump cleared the room to talk about Flynn and ask that he let this thing go. Yes, he had been fired, but he was still under investigation for lying on his classification, for one thing, and his communication with Russia more broadly. "The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, “He is a good guy and has been through a lot.” He repeated that Flynn hadn’t done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”" I don't understand what this means then to you. To be clear: i'm not saying Trump shouldn't be impeached. I would be all for getting rid of him. However, I think that's such a huge step in our democracy that it shouldn't be based on "ifs" or "maybes" or "this is what he meant..." It should be pretty concrete, otherwise we open the door to impeachment proceedings for every little thing. To me, his statements about Flynn are Blago-like act with the horse trading. Is it wrong? Yes. Are these sorts of things (protect your friends and put in good words for them) done all the time in politics? Perhaps i'm wrong, but I assume this is rather common practice. His more egregious act, IMO, was firing Comey, not asking Comey to be nice to his friend.

And yes, firing Comey was the biggest, dumbest move Trump could have made. That is the big move that counters what i'm arguing. Seemingly Trump could have fired Comey simply for not being good at the PR game and pissing everyone in Washington off, but it sure comes off as Comey being fired for not "taking care" of the Russia problem for him.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:41 PM) Perhaps in isolation, I find it hard to see your point with the knowledge that trump eventually fired Comey and told Lester Holt that he was thinking about the Russia investigation. If he was just giving Flynn a recommendation of character by dismissing all from the room and then saying to let the investigation go, I don't find it necessary to then fire the FBI director. And again, Nixon was never found to have ordered the Watergate break-in. But I don't see how you could look at this behavior and not think that Trump is demanding that federal law enforcement will not be allowed to hold his administration to account. The problem is he asked Comey to take it easy on Flynn AFTER Flynn was let go and he never told Comey not to investigate his admn, he just kept complaining about the problem and wanted Comey to make it publicly known that he wasn't going to investigate Trump personally (or wasn't investigating him personally). Unless I glossed over it, I don't see Comey saying that Trump ordered him or inferred to him that he should drop all investigations. I guess if you take "lift the cloud" to mean "stop the investigation" then I see your point, but I don't think I can make that leap in light of the context of the conversation (Trump: "Dude, these people won't shut up about this and they claim I pee'd on hookers! Can't you do something about this?")

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) I am saddened to read that, and feel pretty cynical about it. This was a line I grew up thinking was the one thing that could not be crossed or tolerated. But it will be now. Honestly I took it as, this doesn't really strengthen the Dems' claims and in fact in a lot of ways makes them less serious (e.g., he never told Comey not to investigate him and Trump is actually right in that Comey did confirm to him that he was not being investigated personally), yet on the other hand, it clearly shows Trumps efforts to, at a minimum, push or influence Comey in his duties (with Flynn and with the Russia probe generally). Trump was also not using the appropriate "traditions" of going through third parties to talk with Comey and instead elected to speak to him directly on a number of occasions. I'm not really sure any of this is actionable though. Inappropriate, yes, but impeachable? Ehhhh. I was hoping for something more.

Prayers man!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 5, 2017 -> 05:07 PM) Because it doesn't undermine the democracy itself? You can say it threatens national security maybe, but how do any of the leaks threaten democracy itself in the way that foreign governments tampering with elections would? It's breaking down any sense of trust we have in our government. It's breaking down trust between those in the government itself. How can the CIA or NSA function if a rogue federal contractor can obtain top secret clearance and then print docs off and send them to media outlet? And there's no backlash to it? I suppose it's semantics a bit here, whether it's undermining our democracy or a major security threat, in either case, this is an ongoing problem i'm more concerned about.

Still not buying it. The agencies we entrust to keep our secrets safe can't do so because of politics. We're SUPPORTING the release of that information because it proves something else we don't like. How's that not undermining our democracy? edit: it's one thing to leak classified information to prove potential criminal activity and/or to make public an issue of a high ranking official lying. It's another to leak a report during the midst of an investigation to prove what? Other than clicks?

I find it odd that we're up in arms over this Russia meddling (justifiably so) yet don't seem concerned at all that "top secret" documents and reports continue to be leaked from our intelligence agencies on a routine basis. What's the real threat to our security? The fact that Russia tries to influence our elections, as we do all over the globe, or the fact that our intelligence communities can't keep their own s*** together?

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 5, 2017 -> 03:03 PM) I don't have all the number in front of me, even if they win in 5, it's hard to argue that they aren't the greatest team of all time. How many teams actually went 16-1 or better in the playoffs with a better margin of victory than the Warriors currently have? That plus their regular season record and margin of victory, and credentialized by a 73 win season last year and have a better team on paper this year, it's hard to argue against that. Lakers went 15-1 in 2001. Bulls went 15-2 and 15-3. I think the Sixers or Bucks went 12-1 back in the day.