Jenksismyhero

if they sign bosh to a max deal, that ends the chances of lebron coming here, unless he's willing to take less (or unless they do a sign and trade with toronto). didn't espn's cap guru confirm that no matter what the bulls do they couldn't sign 2?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 11:12 AM) Am I the only one who sees D-Wade as a VAST downgrade from LeBron? (not that i think anything will happen with Wade, jsut reading a few of the latest posts. I'd be concerned about his health in year 2 or 3 of any contract. He takes a beating every year.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) That's a pretty dumb argument. Look at teams like the early 90's Blazers or the Malone-Stockton Jazz or the early 2000's Kings or the Mavs/Suns of the last 5 years. Regular season success and ultimately winning it all are two entirely different things. Cleveland has been exposed not once but three times (2007 Finals) in the last 4 years. Yeah, they can win 55-60 games in their sleep (the East sucks). But they can't contend with the elite. And there's really no legitimate reason to believe they'll be able to get the cast around Lebron required to get to that next step anytime soon. Edit: nope, nm i was wrong. I was going to say that they've been to the last three conference finals, but it's 2 of the last 4. Still, Clevelands best argument is that they're not that far away, and haven't been the last few years.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 09:34 AM) The argument for why Lebron wouldnt go back is: Cleveland is a much more attractive destination with Lebron. If he wanted to win with Cleveland wouldnt he be pitching Cleveland to players like Wade is Miami? They dont have salary for a big guy but they still could be doing something to improve. He probably tried but the Cavs don't have the free money right now to do anything. I don't think they wanted to unload everyone for the possibility of bringing in another max FA guy unless they were assured that Lebron was coming back. In the end there's two major hurdles for the Bulls or Nets (or any other potential suitor): (1) money and (2) his "hometown" connection. To me it's like growing up near Comiskey, being a huge Sox fan, being drafted and playing for good Sox teams, and then being offered to go to a team like the Yankees that could potentially offer you a better chance at a title (but no guarantee) but also a lot less money. I don't think it's a slam dunk that you leave. Lebron doesn't need to play in New York or for a russion zillionaire to make more money. He can do that in Cleveland because he can rule the league from anywhere. I liked Rich Bucher's point that really the Cavs have a pretty simple argument - we've lead the league in wins for 2 years in a row and you were a game 5 away from beating the Celtics. So we're not THAT far away. Resign and we'll work our asses off to get you some additional help.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 09:01 AM) McDonald's is unfortunately part of the food pyramid in poor neighborhoods. As is every other fast food joint. Generally where there's a McDonald's there's 2-3 other cheap fast food places.

I'm really starting to get worried that the Bulls are going to be left out completely. - Johnson gets a max deal from Atlanta, where he wants to stay and can make more money - Bosh gets a sign and trade to Miami since they have more pieces. Wade/Bosh and whatever role guys they can bring in would be a pretty good team. - I don't want Amare, he's going to break in 6 months and the bulls would be stuck with that contract, crippling them for years to come. - Lebron either stays in Cleveland (75% chance IMO) and signs a small extension (2-3 years) so that if he doesn't win a title he can do this whole process over again, OR he goes to the Nets (5% chance) and gets sold on the idea that the Russian Cuban will make him a multi-billionaire due to his connections. - David Lee follows Lebron to Cleveland or the Nets. Bulls get nothing, lose Hinrich, and have to wait a year and hope Carmelo doesn't sign an extension.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) Ditto. I LOVE Noah, love him... but he is getting very overrated by some Bulls fans out there. I don't think people appreciate his defense and presence in the post, which are key to a championship. See Lakers/Boston 2010 NBA Finals

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) Like the Assault weapons ban? Yeah, that worked out great for everyone. Anyway, ignoring the politics of the matter for a moment, strategically, I actually feel this is one issue that is best controlled locally, because it strikes me that Chicago ought to have different gun laws than western Wyoming, for example. So long as you're beyond the base line of "you can own a gun," I agree.

Someone made a good point on the radio this morning - what needs to happen to clear the confusion is for Congress to enact a Federal law about this. Maybe even tweak the Constitution. But the problem is, something like 48 states already have pro gun rights legislation. Illinois and Wisconsin were the two (or two of the few) states with strong restrictions, so no one else really cares to have to federal government get involved in what their state already legislated. To me the way we look about this issue is entirely backwards, and one reason we have such a huge difference in political philosophies. My view is that the government shouldn't be involved in your life unless there's an absolute need for it. Others think the opposite. To me, the government (in this case the city of Chicago) needs to provide a strong reason why a restriction on an aspect of my life needs to be put in place. Daley claims crime rates will go up and more police/fire/ems personnel will be hurt. There's zero evidence supporting those positions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 03:09 PM) More sloppy legal reasoning from Alito: I feel sorry for the rest of the justices that have to serve with someone who is so clearly their inferior. That includes the rest of the dissenters. Stevens all but calling Alito a moron without a leg to stand on: Lol, I'm done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) The school said "hey, any group whatsoever that meets our administrative guidelines..." Don't leave that out. They did it because the group excluded some classes of people in a manner that violated non-discrimination pretty blatantly (religious and sexual orientation exclusion), not because of their beliefs. And, recognizing the potential problem, the other groups were told to change. If CLA modified their standards, they would likely be admitted. The problem is, as Alito points out, that when the group was denied the benefits the school DID have a policy that was NON-DISCRIMANATORY, yet despite having the same membership requirments, only this group was denied. You're right, they did EVENTUALLY change their policy, and attempted to back track during the case by saying that was the policy all along, but it wasn't. Just because they remedied the wrong and made it more "fair" doesn't mean the wrong didn't occur. That's why Alito attacked that lame ass excuse that during that time the group wasn't discriminated against "all that much." And you still haven't responded. How is this different than an environmental group denying people membership because a potential member doesn't believe what they believe? It's the same thing. They're NOT discriminating on anything but BELIEF, which is entirely different than the discrimination you're trying to bring in here. Well, your position is equally as "stupid" because to you the word "discrimination" apparently is only used for certain purposes, i.e., whatever you choose is worthy of discrimination. Constitution is blind remember? It treats people equally remember? There's a clear difference between this case and a KKK group not allowing blacks in. This is all based on BELIEFS, not physical traits. You're just ignoring the facts here. Again, they had a NON-DISCRIMINATORY policy to begin with, and they denied this group, and ONLY this group, those benefits, and ONLY because of a specific belief that they didn't agree with. Then LATER they re-evaluated their policy and made other groups change (precisely because they knew they f***ed up). They claim diversity of beliefs is a great thing. Then they back tracked on that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 02:23 PM) Because it fits a clear definition of discrimination, it doesn't need to be officially recognized by a state university. They are still free to form their group and even have meetings on campus. but you're ignoring the part where the offered up those benefits to ANYONE. Alito's whole point is that the Court is setting some dangerous precedent, and they are. This is also a different case because no one is actually claiming they were left out of the group. The school just looked at the membership requirements and said it's not ok based on nothing more than the "beliefs" of the group.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 12:42 PM) His entire argument is just an attempt to twist a non-discrimination policy back around on itself. He's arguing that they're discriminating against people who discriminate. It's the legal version of the "why do you hate racists?! I thought liberals were supposed to be open-minded!" argument. That is a pretty stupid argument. They are. He's saying it's not constitutional for a school to say "hey, any group whatsoever can be formed and recieve X benefits" and then specifically deny one group those same benefits because of a specific belief. And not only did they do that, but they also ignored the fact that other groups were doing the SAME thing and they only did that because of that one specific belief. That's not constitutional. That's actually a major tenet in freedom of speech/association jurisprudence. You can't, and you shouldn't. That's called the government (school) picking out specific beliefs and saying "that's not right." You're not allowed to do that IF you've set up a non-discriminatory policy which was the case here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 12:01 PM) Outright socialism or communism. Nationalization of industry. Nationalized health care. Strict carbon caps. Abolition of the capitalist system. Promotion of strong feminist ideals. Complete withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. Some stories about Mumia Abu-Jamal. More investigation of what the G20/ G8 protests are actually about; discussions of their positions; condemnation of police tactics used against the protesters. Significantly stronger environmental laws. Actual criticism of the Iraq War during 2002 and 2003 instead of cheer-leading. Pushing for charges to be brought against various Bush administration officials for various reasons. Removal of "Under God" and "In God we Trust" from government documents. And you don't think MSNBC is "pro" those types of messages? I mean come on. You seem to hold one organization to a higher standard than the other. Fox News is awful because it's "pro" certain messages, but MSNBC is fine because it's not advocating the EXTREME views. IMO they both advocate arguments towards those extremes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 05:43 PM) In another big SC decision today, a 5-4 decision came down in favor of UCLA-Hastings School of Law over a Christian Lawyer group. The group lost official school recognition (read: funding) after enacting a policy that required members to sign a pledge swearing that they were Christians, not homosexuals, etc.. The school removed them from official recognition based on their non-discriminatory policy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf I'll give you one guess who the dissenters were. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628 They make some tortured arguments in the dissent. edit: basically, Alito's argument is "you're discriminating against discrimination!" over and over and over again. I just read it. I guess what is your counter to his? I think he makes some good points, and is actually much more "liberal" (pro-free speech) than anyone else. I think Alito is right on - the school doesn't agree with the ideas expressed by the group, so it kept them out. But other groups could have and did the same thing, but because the school agreed with those messages, it didn't act. More specifically, he makes another good point when he says the accept-all-comers policy wouldn't be constitutional in any other situation. A law that requires the State of California to admit members of a Jewish faith to a Christian church would never be tolerated. (not to mention the fact that the majority bases its decision on the schools CURRENT policy, not the one in effect at the time the CLS was denied.) Another excellent point: I dunno, I guess I'll wait to hear your argument. But to me his opinion seems pretty solid. I'd guess that if the tables were turned you'd be pretty upset with this opinion as well. Imagine if you had an anti-religious group, and in its charter it held that only people who were athiests were allowed in. Then the school basically says, no, you're discriminating against people that are believers, you have to include them, or you won't get your funding and use of the school. Would you be ok with that? I doubt it. I bet that based on the non-discrimination policy the school put in place, that held that diverse views and discussion were a GOOD thing, you'd be upset that they pointed out a specific viewpoint of a group and denied its funding based on that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 11:20 AM) No, they don't openly advocate for socialism or communism or a whole range of liberal points. You're still conflating Democrats and left-wingers. There really is no mainstream media voice out there advocating far-left-wing views. What's a "far-left-wing" view in your opinion? What "extreme" view does Fox News advocate?

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 11:17 AM) Let's be honest here: if the Bulls don't get Lebron or Bosh, the summer was a failure and it'll be VERY difficult for the Bulls to win any rings in the next decade even if they get some other pieces, particularly if the superteam scenario in Miami plays out. On a side note, I find it funny how so many people are STILL taking some of these reports seriously. THEY ARE ALL BS! Just wait until somebody makes a verbal commitment or signs a deal, because you aren't going to know what will happen until then. Period. You can't really say it's all BS since the rumors are based on sources. The big three did have a meeting and did express interest in playing together. They talked about the contract situation. So, being worried about this as a possibility is totally justified. It's not like people are making this stuff up. Believing the rumors as fact is another thing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:58 AM) Fox pretty clearly advocates a pro-capitalism, pro-conservative viewpoint. Many of their opinion hosts and guests are right-wing (Hannity, Coulter, Beck) You do not see the equivalent of that for the left-wing. Again, don't confuse Democrat with liberal. How often is Kucinich largely mocked by the media? He's the closest to a hard-core liberal I can think of in the Senate. As for Byrd, every outlet I listened to (NPR, PBS and a couple seconds on CNN) covered that aspect. They reported on his apologies for it, but also pointed out his using "white n*****" a few years ago and his statement that "race problems were largely behind us" or something to that effect. And you know what I saw elsewhere? Liberals glad that this "racist POS" was out of Congress finally. Exactly. Just like MSNBC advocates PRO-socialist and PRO-liberal viewpoints. It's the same f'n thing. Fox just found better (more charasmatic) talking heads. That's the only difference.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) That's my point. I'm not an expert, but he commits glaring logical fallacies, not legal ones. And I'm not a logician, either, so what does that tell you? I said the current court is politicized, and that cuts both ways. I asked, because I honestly don't know, how long it's been that way. Justices need to hold certain ideological view points in order to get nominated, and then they need to say-nothing enough to be confirmed. I think Keagan was right when she said the current process is a joke, but I don't see it changing. It's far too easy to score political points in Congress over the issue. Then again, the current process did keep out Harriet Myers. So there's always that. Examples please (keeping in mind, of course, that ALL justicies do this, including moderate gems like O'Connor). I'm interested in what you can find, how serious it is, and thus, why it's so "bad."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:41 AM) That's why I have more respect for Roberts, even if I disagree with him. People uneducated in the law can often see how bad Alito, Scalia and tag-along Thomas' arguments are. Has the SCOTUS always been this politicized? Come on. "bad," as if you're an expert on constitutional law. I'm not sure about Alito, but at least Scalia is pretty damned consistent in all of his opinions. Read his books and essays going back and forth with Richard Posner about the interpretation of law if you'd like to find out why he rules the way he does. You might disagree, but the guy has like 40 years of constitutional experience behind him. He knows a hell of a lot more about the law than any of us. And it's hilarious to listen to you guys rant about how bad the court is, while ignoring who's currently going through the nomination process. "Politicized." Ha. Edit: might be a back and forth with Ronald Dworkin. I can't remember for sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:25 AM) What is the left-wing equivalent of Fox? Even Maddow doesn't advocate outright socialism. What exactly is Fox advocating? Unbridled capitalism? Both sides need to stop using ridiculous hyperbole. It doesn't come down to which political philosophy either side comes down on, it's how hard do they hit the "other guy" simply because they're the other guy? In that respect, Olbermann and Maddow are equally as extreme as any of the Fox people. BTW, where was the media covering the biggest racist we've ever elected to office in Byrd? The dude was a KKK member and said he'd rather die a thousand times than fight next to a black man. Good God, imagine if Bush had said something like that in his 20's or 30's. Yeah, most news agencies reported this little tidbit about his past, but NONE spent much time on it. Instead, they focused on the last 40 years of his life, where he apparently repented and had a change of heart. Again, just imagine the firestorm if something like that was said by a Republican.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:47 AM) The problem is, for me, is that there is no fair value pricing available. When you go to a car dealership, you see the price of the car. When you get your oil changed, you see the price of the oil change. This applies to ANYTHING but the health care industry. There are no prices, as they're all arbitrary. Need a knee surgery -- tell you what, we'll perform the surgery and THEN we will tell you how much it costs. This way you can't go compare pricing elsewhere. And if we happen to charge 30x times more than a friend of yours paid, we will simply say the surgery took longer for X, Y and Z, three things your friend didn't have to deal with -- and you wouldn't know one way or another, because there were 8 people roaming around the entire time doing god knows what. If they truly wanted to make things cheaper, they'd change this, so instead they "reformed the health INSURANCE industry", which accomplishes almost nothing in regard to the CORE problem, and that is simply -- nobody knows what ANYTHING in the medical services industry costs, and therefore cannot shop around for non ER care where you SHOULD have such a choice. Great point, agree 100%

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:29 AM) LeBron won't go to Miami to play with Wade, how many times do I have to say it? Unless you have some inside information, continuing to say this means nothing. And, really, it's not any more persuasive than the argument that Lebron wouldn't want to play under the shadow of MJ. Miami has to be intriguing to these guys. Wade, Bosh and Lebron playing for Riley is better than anything else in the league. Problem is, they'd have no one else to rely on. If one of those guys gets hurt, they become a good but not great team. Plus as others have said, they'd all have to take a little less money, which may or may not be a concern, no one knows.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 02:37 PM) As do I, but it still takes power away from the states and gives it to the federal government. Even if the "correct' reading of the Constitution is what was just ruled, it still takes away a power that the states and municipalities have enjoyed for many decades. What's the difference between guns and abortion rights or marriage "rights?" I don't think you want states to be in control of that issue do you?

pretty funny column: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont...?urn=nba,251885 And yeah, Stephen A. Smith was claiming that LBJ was going to the Knicks not too long ago, so...