Jenksismyhero

Need a basket desperately

Wtf happened to loul deng?

QUOTE (Jake @ May 4, 2012 -> 09:25 PM) Players not delivering/dying inexplicably performing basketball moves make coaches look bad. Thibs has looked lost the last two games

yep, hopefully he didn't get injured more

s***. This season is so f***ed

Ok good

Oh gawd, there goes Noah

Where the hell did the league leading Bulls team go?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) 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. Well right, but that's the easy scenario. The questions is more about what happens at the 10 week, 15 week, 20 week mark. And then you have people like SS that think it's a crime against humanity that women are asked to wait 24 hours before making a decision (the horror!) or how terrible it is that we make women (and men) responsible for their actions by making THEM pay for the procedure out of their own pocket (again, the horror!)

Although there was this, maybe this was what I was remembering: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/art...10025/index.htm

Hmm, yeah i'm wrong. Sam Smith had a good write-up about the last year. Jackson was offered a 5 year deal in '96-97 but Jackson, basically because of having to deal with Krause, declined, and 97-98 was his last year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 4, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) What??? Jordan only retired because they wouldn't pay him? Did I miss something?? From what I remember, Jordan didn't come back because Jackson wasn't coming back. Jackson wasn't coming back because he felt slighted ($$) and because Krause wanted to break everything up to go younger. I also thought I remember Jordan not being happy with being "low-balled" by Krause. I still think if they had offered Jordan more he would have stayed, even if Phil decided to move on.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2012 -> 04:10 PM) I'll back-track. Obviously the hiring of Phil was great and Jerry clearly did some things right. I'm not wanting to, nor never meant to piss all over the legacy of Jerry Krause. He was extremely over confident and full of himself, but clearly, he did his job pretty well for an extended period, but he did not adjust well to a league that over adjusted around him. I still think it was the biggest sports blunder not to pay Jordan or Phil. Pay them the moon if you have to (so long as you were still making money...which JR was) and you're guaranteed how many more titles? 3? 4? Sigh.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ May 4, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) The more I see of her the less attractive she gets. Did I miss the memo that today is Opposite Day? I think we should create a Kickstarter thing for Upton to do Playboy (or preferably Penthouse...)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) That's exactly the lame false-equivalency crap I'm talking about! "Any corporate white male with money," really? How many trillions have the banks been given under Obama's watch? How have their profits been lately? Can you actually name anything comparable to the numerous anti-gay bills and actions from the GOP? Aside from Bernie Sanders, can you actually name anyone in the US Congress who is actually a socialist? Did you bother to read that editorial? Or the letter from a life-long GOP staffer last year that said pretty much the same thing? Or anything from Frum or Barlett or any of the other apostates who have been cast out of the party by the radicals currently controlling it? I'd LOVE it if the Democrats had been a bunch of leftist radicals at any point in my life, but they haven't come anywhere close. Yeah, i'd say there's a pretty huge subset of the democratic party that hates pretty much anyone with money. See: occupy members. Maybe there aren't 6 candidates spouting ridiculous things about it like we just had with the GOP, but there wasn't a primary to fight over.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) They're not all equally insane, and the false equivalency/appeal-to-centrism is as much a part of the problem. There is not an equivalent in the Democratic Party to the anti-gay bigotry, complete opposition to taxation or the denial of entire fields of science. The GOP is not a 'conservative' party right now as much as it is a reactionary party. I'll link to this editorial in the WaPo again, and I'll note that one of the authors works for AEI, not exactly a pro-Democrat think tank. Yeah because there aren't liberals totally opposed to a specific sub-set of people (any corporate white male with money) or don't view government's role as an extreme (ummm, socialism). And yes, this party is reactionary, just like the democrats from 2000-2008 or *SHOCK* any party not in power trying to get into power during an election cycle. Your short term memory on this stuff just kills me sometimes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) 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. There's a pretty clear difference between the two.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2012 -> 10:13 AM) 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. 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.

3 months late to the party, but I just caught the trailer for Witcher 2. Pretty amazing. http://vimeo.com/35721339 Anyone buy/play this?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2012 -> 07:51 AM) I wasn't confident at all about the Bulls, but now that there's no legit challenger left in the East, the only team left I think has a shot is the Thunder. People are underestimating the Lakers. The Heat have no one that can stop Bynum and Kobe you know will get his. They've looked really good the last month.

Watching the Knicks-Heat game last night, I wondered if Lebron regrets his decision. Not necessarily to go to Miami over New York, but to team up with Wade/Bosh and promise 8 titles. MSG chanting "asshole! asshole!" every time you touch the ball has to feel great. He's gone from one of the most liked players to one that's hated in every single arena.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:21 PM) 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. The whole life stuff is a nonsense argument to me. Again, once you look at a heartbeat of your 10 week old bundle of cells your opinion will most likely change. Mine certainly did.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2012 -> 08:49 PM) We were discussing the impact of supreme court appointments and laws that may be overturned. Talking about how much the public cares isn't relevant to that. No, we were discussing whether this issue is really the single most important issue in America (politically) as Balta claimed. I said it's not because nothing would change in terms of the low number of people that care enough about this issue/would ever be affected by a rule change. So....yeah, it was relevant to what was being discussed.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 07:56 PM) 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? Well, that's part of the problem...WE end up paying for a lot of them in one way or another. All i'm gonna say is that as early as about 7 months ago I was in 100% agreement with you. Then I went through the process and i'm about 7 weeks away from having my son, and it's completely changed my opinion. You spend hours and hours and hours reading up about your kids' development and all the various things that have to happen just right so that on delivery day you get a healthy baby. After a while it really starts to sicken you that people consider that a mistake and flush it away without a second thought.

lol, ok God of All Thought.