Jenksismyhero

Who are the two max guys they are going to get though? The only max-type guys available next year are Paul, Griffin, Westbrook and Antetokounmpo. And it seems odd that Rondo just pursued and recruited Wade only to be replaced a year later by Paul.

So who's #2 now behind the Cavs? 1. Cavs 2. Celtics 3. Raptors 4. Knicks 5. Pistons 6. Bulls 7. Pacers 8. Wizards Everyone else?

Why the f*** are the helping the cavs?

Sigh. I don't get this at all.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 04:43 PM) http://www.blogabull.com/2016/7/6/12105724...hy-not#comments http://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/upda...ht-got-delayed/ twitter.com You know, places that one could easily find if they followed the bulls. LOL. So no one of consequence, just internet trolls. Gotcha. If I were GarPax i'd be worried that people leaving comments on blogs are not pleased.

I still want to know who's laughing.

Good thing they screwed that up by not getting to the meeting today!

You need a hug or something man, Jesus. How do we know that Wade didn't tell the Bulls he had 2 hours to meet in New York before he had to get ready for his show tomorrow AM and the Bulls couldn't make a flight/couldn't make it work so they said nah, we'll see you Thursday if you're serious? Isn't that a plausible scenario that is pretty darn reasonable?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) No, I only blame them for their actions. You have possibly 1, maybe 2 meetings like this a year. Everyone is laughing at them for this. They are either lying and adding to their horrendous reputation with agents or telling the truth and look like imbeciles. This is a competitive free agent market and making your meetings is important. Saying your flight was delayed is hysterical. Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased they were incompetent here, they are better for it. But this probably bumps showing up at the ohare terminal with benny the bull as most LOLworthy moments in Bulls history. J Who? Who is laughing? You don't know any of the actual facts surrounding these negotiations, to the extent any negotiations are actually ongoing. You're getting one side of the story, mostly told from Wade's people in order to get Miami to pony up. Everything i've read from Friedell/K.C. is that the Bulls have been talking to Wade's people but nothing has been offered and it would be highly unlikely that the Bulls"pull the trigger." They have apparently taken a very laid back attitude about it. The fact that they aren't scrambling to New York is a clear sign of that.

Was that on the radio? His twitter doesn't mention anything about that.

I'd like to think he'll be motivated to play really well this year to get another contract. If he has a poor year or has a run in with Hoiberg, is there another team that is going to give him a shot?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:36 AM) No, that's not an analogy. Here's the analogy Rahm Emanuel: This year we have a some turf wars in gangs, this gang comes at this gang, that gang goes back, some innocent people get shot, people say hey that's bad, a gang will win, and it goes back to normal levels. Now put it in context with Trump's speaking style and his general insensitivity towards EVERYTHING and it becomes a much more neutral statement. He's not afraid of pissing people off or offending people. If his aim was to truly applaud Saddam for using chemical weapons he would have said so. The guy has no filter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:32 AM) No, you haven't. You've made some unsupported assertions several times. Don't whine about how we hate Trump and aren't "reasonable." Don't talk about his 10 ft line. Don't talk about regional power balances. Don't talk about "so by your logic." Don't try to say that I think this means he applauds Saddam's use, because I haven't. Address that specific line wherein he explicitly downplays genocide via sarin gas, and explain how "throws some gas" and "goes crazy" are neutral descriptions, or link to the posts where you already explained that. I'm not whining. I'm just saying you take innocuous comments and spin it to fit your narrative. I'm not saying Trump doesn't deserve that, i'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong about assuming what he thinks about chemical weapons. But him, at best, glossing over or pooh poohing Saddam's use of chemical weapons does not mean he applauded the use or that he supports that use. You're assumptions based on the quote you provided goes too far. Believe what you want. I don't care. I'm just pointing out what I see.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:22 AM) Again, actually support your argument that a "reasonable person" would find "throws a little gas" and "everyone goes crazy" to be neutral descriptions of a sarin gas genocide and the international condemnation of it. I've explained it. You have nothing but hate for the guy and everything he says so there's no point arguing with you about it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) He's had more than one speech in his life. Yesterday he praised Saddam for being tough on terror. He constantly says we aren't tough on terrorists. He praises Putin all the time. He praised Tiananmen Square. Those aren't all just isolated things you can't put together. So when in a speech in december he yada yadas the "oh he uses gas, they go crazy", it's not hard to figure out what the "they" is. But yada yada-ing doesn't necessarily mean he's a supporter of it or that he applauds it, which is what you are claiming. The people of the City of Chicago yada yada away the 10 people shot on a nightly basis. That doesn't mean we SUPPORT and APPLAUD it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:19 AM) I remember in English class all the brilliant kids saying we were reading too much into things. Those kids really got it. Mm, k.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:18 AM) His overarching thesis is that the PC WORLD is soft on terrorists and continues to bring up these authoritarian governments that are great at it, so it's your footing to stand on that he is just a scholar telling everyone how the middle east works. If entering an unstable conflict with a side to create stabilization is a shortsighted act, then he supports President Obama's plan on Syria. Which is wird because he's the worst president, just terrible, we're losing in Syria, it's so bad, it's terrible. No, I think his actual point here is, again, look at me! Look at how I was right about it being stupid to be involved over there! I don't think he meant anything positive or negative about the gas comment. I think that's Trump being Trump, glossing over facts to make his "it's about me" point.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:15 AM) Address this actual line Mr. Reasonable person. You keep deliberately avoiding the specific line in question: "Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" And it was the worst case of civilians targeted by a chemical attack ever. It's recognized as a genocide. It's not an example of a tit-for-tat balance of regional powers. In what possible way is "throws a little gas" a neutral description of the worst civilian chemical attack ever? How is describing international condemnation of that attack as "go[ing] crazy" neutral? Again, so he didn't put enough emphasis on how terrible it was, therefore, he's a supporter of chemical weapons. Gotcha.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:11 AM) No, not really. He could have been making the same historically accurate comments regarding the Battle of the Somme in WWI or something, and it wouldn't be downplaying the horrors. eta what you said there doesn't even make sense. "IF =! downplay, he supports" doesn't make sense, if anything the opposite argument would be closer to what was I saying (he downplayed it, so he supports it). He's a-okay with using nuclear weapons, so I imagine he'd be fine with chemical weapons too, but I didn't claim he was supporting the use there. I said he was downplaying Saddam's genocide, which he was. "Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" is not a neutral description of a deliberate genocide of a city. I don't see anything there that indicates he's downplaying anything. That's you reading WAY too much into what he said. If you're going to say that he downplayed the use of chemical weapons, then just make a broader comment that he downplayed the terrible Iraq/Iran conflict. Neither are a fair reading of what he said in that quote given the point he was trying to convey, which is "i told you it was dumb to get involved in the middle east!

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 10:01 AM) Hey Mr. Literacy, analyze the gas part please. Would love the neutral reading of that. You can read it as follows: he's saying both sides killed each other, the world was appalled but the region was stabilized. And no matter which side you tried to get rid of there would have been destabilization in the region. Why else does he include "they go back, forth, it's the same?" He's using the gas as an example of the ways they killed each other (edit: to remain stabilized). I mean Christ, guys, this is Trump. If he wanted to say that chemical weapons were a great thing, he would have said that. It's Trump. He could have said "everyone goes crazy, oh he's using gas. GOOD! It worked!" But he didn't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:56 AM) Saddam being an awful person and invading Iraq being an awful idea are not mutually exclusive. No. So often your arguments boil down to you making "so by your logic" statements that don't actually follow from any real arguments anyone else is making. Trump supporting counterbalancing powers vis a vis Iraq/Iran isn't terrible. Trump downplaying Saddam's ethnic cleansing via chemical weapons, which is absolutely what he did in that December speech, and Trump lauding Saddam for "taking care of terrorists" when he actually funded terrorists are what are terrible. What's more, like so many of Trump's f***-ups, it was completely unprompted. No that is exactly what you're doing. He just said what happened - Saddam dropped chemical weapons, the world reacted and nothing changed and they remained stabilized. That's all he said there. YOU are taking the next step to add that because he didn't downplay the use of chemical weapons or at least comment that they are awful, he's somehow SUPPORTING and APPLAUDING the use of those weapons. The same logic you're using to deduce his meaning there applies to his other statements, including the 10 feet forward/10 feet back comment. Since he didn't downplay how awful it was that tens of thousands of soldiers died for no actual gain, he must therefore be SUPPORTING and APPLAUDING needless death and murder. You're pulling together various pieces of past statements/actions to form a definitive conclusion about one specific statement. He may very well support the use of chemical weapons, I have no idea. But reading the quote you posted does not in anyway support that.

I mean the guy still has some use, but not at the price tag.

I enjoyed Mozart in the Jungle, The Man in the High Castle and Catastrophe

Trump says enough blatantly awful things, you guys really don't have to reach like that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 6, 2016 -> 09:40 AM) "Throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, oh he used gas" is not a 'neutral' way to describe this: Hey, it's good you see what an awful person Saddam was and why it was a good move to get rid of him. Also, by your logic, the comment about moving 10 feet forward and 10 feet back also "applauds" the death of tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides. TRUMP SUPPORTS MURDER!