@DoubleDD come on man. Please don't load up your comment shotgun with birdshot. Let's take down the topic at hand, not people's tea drinking habits.
approxinfinity
17303 posts
@HighEliteMajor ESPN doesn't care about Colin Caepernick. Whether he is loved or hated matters not to ESPN, only that he is either one or the other by their entire audience. Don't be fooled, ESPN never has a legitimate opinion, they're only in it for their ratings. They sow the seeds of discord to keep their audience in heated debate.
@Texas-Hawk-10 soccer will just ban headers. They've already moved up the age where headers are allowed in youth soccer.
@globaljaybird to me it feels like it's the Astros and the Dodgers and everyone else. But I'd get some sweet satisfaction if my Nats could just advance to the NLCS and if you guys could knock off the Yankees that too would be a pretty awesome takeaway. I know your boys will be playing hard for a ring if given the chance. Maybe they could surprise an Astros squad that hasn't been there before.
@mayjay lolol fantastic :joy:
I've expected the patent of a concussion proof head armour and moreover full body armour for a while. Something that locks like a seatbelt with impact and better distributes shock. If they remove the concussion risk football will resurge.
I also think soccer will be king but basketball has the advantage of being a winter friendly sport. I dont think soccer is boring but they need to get rid of the stupid flops. Watched Barca vs Man U last night and stretches were unwatchable with fools rolling around on the ground after slight contact. I really like watching soccer footwork. It's beautiful and allows for a wider variety than what you can do with a basketball.
Nice I'll check it out.
Nice! Radio it is.
Anyone have a preferred hawk to rock the recruiting sub category icon?
Even knowing that reads Sharon, I see it as Sherron
Bizarre choices of articles.
$57 million could buy you LeVeon Bell, one of the best running backs in the NFL, for 3 seasons. And that would be a ton more money than any other running back is making. Thats insane when you think about the punishment running backs take. George Hill made a sound financial choice of sports.
Venezuela, toilet paper, Bernie Sanders?
Congrats, looks like the Royals are all in this year :)
Royals got Trevor Cahill from the Padres.
Just need to institute the slide tackle to get that crossover market and Grayson is in business!
@JayHawkFanToo thanks.
The Forbes piece is an op-ed piece of well reasoned speculation, and a decent read. The rest of the cited sources I'm not too keen on and don't seem to add much. In the case of who funded the report, my understanding is that it initially was opposition Republicans, then the Democrats. The bank sued BuzzFeed, who leaked the report, not the author as you indicated, which is an important distinction. The author said that parts of the report were unverified and not meant for MSM. Was it leaked intentionally? Probably?
Anyway, I don't see this as debunked, just unverified, and there is certainly cause for doubt. I am assuming that if any of this information has merit to it, it would be vetted fully before brought forth as evidence. I get that it is damaging to the president's image and it is very frustrating for those who believe it's bogus.
@JayHawkFanToo I have not seen anywhere where the dossier has been debunked in it's entirety. Do you have a link? The report was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump as a nominee, and then Clinton. Regardless, yes, it has ties to the election. The only thing I've heard in this regard is that some of the items in the report have been identified as "unverifiable". If you have something that goes further to actively disprove parts of the report please share.
As far as the other thing, Clinton is not the same as Obama in terms of popularity, and Obama did not have the dirt on him that she had on her. I'd agree that maybe there were groups with whom Obama had worn out his welcome, but it seems there are a lot more factors to Clinton's unsuccessful run that invalidate labeling it as a wholesale rejection of Obama.
@DoubleDD I'm sure there's truth to the fact that other billionaires have business with Russia and China, but the document mentions corrupt business with both, and most specifically, I'm thinking that one of smoking guns would be this claim:
In terms of the substance of their discussion, SECHIN’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE/TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted
Focusing on Hillary in response to allegations of corruption on the part of Trump doesn't make sense to me. In no way would her corruption make corruption by Trump okay, right? Are you suggesting that identifying corruption in this presidency is made any less important because a losing candidate in the past election was also corrupt? Or are you suggesting that Trump isn't corrupt? If so, how can you be sure of that?
I don't know what to make of the fact that when Trump met Putin they deliberately had a second private one hour meeting that was only accompanied by Putin's translator, and then he said it was fifteen minutes long when asked about it. That seems pretty sketchy. Not the kind of thing you do when under investigation for collusion with that country.
And I get that you could say that's circumstantial evidence. But that's why an official investigation is important. To examine strictly the facts and not appearances. In May, Trump's team was saying that he welcomes the Russia investigation. What has changed since May that would make the investigation now unwelcome? The truth is the truth, isn't it?
@REHawk I went back and read the report on BuzzFeed. I'm sure most have probably already read it, but here's the report. Ex MI-6 operative created the report for Trump's opposition, so take it with whatever grain of salt.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html ↗
If the activity you referred to occurred, admitting it as evidence would require proof beyond doubt, without access to the tape. However, the parts of the document regarding potential financial dealings with Chinese and Russian figures seem much more provable and undoubtedly is the angle that Muller's team is taking.
@REHawk I've heard rumors of that. Who knows. Until it is proven it seems to be speculation and should be withheld from the court of public opinion. It seems it will be investigated and come up if it holds water.
@JayHawkFanToo you don't think Obama would have won a 3rd term? I always assumed he would have beaten either of the two candidates handily. Its hard to imagine he would have fallen in the pitfalls Hillary fell into, or neglected the rust belt like she did during the election. He did fail to bail out the auto industry like he did the banks. It seems like that has come back to haunt the Democrats. Please expound how he might have lost if you have some more thoughts about that you don't mind sharing. It's an interesting topic.
@mayjay I use puns all the time. Lol @ character flaw. You're probably right about that, it's also kind of like verbal scent marking isn't it?
I never really had a feel for the difference between sarcasm and facetiousness. :thumbsup: I have a buddy at work that frequently interjects humor everywhere. While it can derail it can also bring levity. Levity is critical too. Its just that when you've got people with belief sets that have been juxtaposed against one another, the punchlines may sometimes be in two different endzones.
@mayjay ah I see. Right on right on.
I was not sure if he was being facetious. But sarcasm doesn't seem to further solutioneering, it is it's own emotional endpoint, so I'll take his comments at face value; it moves the conversation forward.
@mayjay I meant in no part to be facetious. Just trying to be linear and forthright. Isn't it true that punishing the employers for hiring illegal immigrants would be the most direct approach, if in fact legal Americans would take the same jobs in lieu of the illegal immigrants being hired? Are you suggesting that those employers would not be able to operate if they had to hire American citizens legally? Do you agree that many fewer people would stay in the US illegally if there were no employment opportunities for them?
@DanR oh man! Incredible. I love the swing. Thankful for the fraction of humanity willing to take such chances, and those generous enough to take pictures and share.
@AsadZ it's the responsibility of the Congress to create a bill. Trump isn't involved until they present him with something to sign.
What do you think Trump would accomplish if the Russian election investigation wasn't happening?
Im not really sure of this President's specific agenda once the roadblocks go away.
You mentioned the invisible border wall. I've often wondered if punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants isn't the most direct and immediate approach to hindering illegal immigration. And it has always been my thought that since this has never been the proposed solution, that this issue seems to be more of a political chip than something people want to actually change.
@AsadZ I think the hard part about those goals are that they are very qualitative. How can one identify success re: draining the swamp or making America great? What is the specific criteria for identifying someone as part of the swamp? I believe it's possible to identify a standard criteria for people or policies thst must go, and targeting people or policies who meet those criteria. Making America great seems entirely subjective no matter how you slice it.
Repealing ACA is a tangible goal. But I won't be in favor of that unless something better is put in place. And again I think it would be beneficial if we had a set of benchmarks that we are attempting to achieve with a new plan that are identified as deficiences in the current plan.
yeah it's absolutely terrifying! I get a little disoriented watching it too.
@DoubleDD so I believe @REHawk said "does anyone doubt that Trump knows very little about the health care legislation?" If we are going to be able to talk about Trump, who is possibly the most volatile topic we could address, I don't think it can happen unless people make a concerted effort not to escalate. A response that would not escalate here while still making your point might be "yes, I don't think he's uninformed about the health care legislation, and here's why" or "what proof do you have that he is uninformed about it?". Telling @REHawk he's lame blasting is going the emotional route. I wasnt trying to throw shade earlier. My point earlier was specifically toward @mayjay who seemed to be assuming that you were operating on the same set of facts.
The point here is that this isn't the place to get emotional and berate one another. We shouldn't be talking about each other's behavior ( I fully recognize that I'm talking about behavior here but I'm doing so in an effort to moderate). We should be focusing on theories and facts and identifying corroborating and conflicting evidence.
The videos of their climbs on shorter megatall skyscrapers might be even more spectacular because there is no fog.
I hadn't seen this before. Amazing.
@kjayhawks would love to see / listen to what you come up with. Like others here, I'm a big fan of podcasts and for me that seems to be the thing that adds the most to what is currently available.
@globaljaybird I think things have gone well so far.
We are not these two broken parties.
My point is that like being a kid in a house with parents that hate each other, the parties are "keeping the family together" but it's not healthy for anyone. The kids (us) are there watching the madness, and maybe emulating the parents. But it's just going through the motions.
Let's get out of that sad house and try our best to see the world for what it is.
Dave Brat came to my work this week. I thought of you guys when some of co-workers worked from home in response. The fact is he wasn't there to speak to us, just to learn something about the bigger businesses in his district. And representatives should do that.
@wrwlumpy nice work on all the pics as usual. I can't believe it's already basketball time again, if even just a brief stint. We are spoiled. Would love to see Svi stay red hot, see some improved handles from Vick and some alpha dog Optimus Prime time from Devonte.
Actually ESPN is reporting that he has an interest in Spurs, Knicks, Heat and TWolves. Wonder if the Wolves could get him without breaking the bank.
I also wouldn't mind seeing the Cavs try to deal with LeBron and Carmelo and losing Irving :joy:
@Red-Rooster Thanks for keeping us up to date. We'll always be in your corner. You can bet on that!
Also, you can bet on the Jayhawks this year. I'm with you; Udoka is going to dunk all over this country!
This thread is a little out of control. We can do better.
First, an article was presented that could be discussed on the merits, even if you disagree.
Second, while you may be in disbelief that someone can have a totally different set of facts than you, I think maybe it is best to operate from an assumption that they have not been presented with the same information, or that while they may have encountered part of the same information, it is the outlier to their core set of information, so is discarded or devalued to fit into a consistent belief set and narrative. This is a natural human process that we all do, though it is counterintuitive to fact finding missions.
So I suggest we focus as much as we can upon facts and proof, and as little as possible on feelings and how these facts fit into belief or value sets.
Remember, these emotional and side-taking stances are what we have been conditioned to do our whole lives when discussing politics. Let's recognize partisanism as being arbitrary to our collaborative pursuit of the truth.
Partisan politics is like living with parents who hate each other.
That sucks! We need to be battle tested by our conference.
@DoubleDD you're absolutely right, but the answer imo is not to accept the new reality of the media, and justify the blogs as legit news because big media has deteriorated in quality. The answer is to demand fixing the quality of big media or if it's decline is to be inevitable, ensure that it's critical functions have been accounted for elsewhere. It seems difficult to imagine a freelance model of investigative journalism that could work, without very strong bias and factual subversion straight off the tap.
@Crimsonorblue22 but Vick is 6'5. Josh was 6'8.
@BShark Lightfoot is, except if Svi finds his consistent trey gun / mid-range shot and Udoka turns into an overpowering glass monster. In that case I could see Svi working out at the 4.
I wonder if Svi kicking ass this summer has something to do with this. Was Self considering minutes for Svi at the 4? A 6'8 stretch 4 that can get you 25 points on any given night? Sounds pretty great to me.
We no longer have a reliable press corps with pervasive access to sources, as well as access to a broad audience to which they are reporting simply the facts. It seems in talking to the older generations, that we had something that resembled that before the era of Fox and CNN.
- With a pervasive access to sources, a press corps can dig in and do real reporting. No armchair blogger is going to have that.
- With access to a broad audience, sources know they can go to the media to release information. It becomes an outlet for whistleblowing to keep organizations honest.
- By reporting just the facts, the news allows people to have their own bias. That's what news should do. Report the facts and let their audience make sense of it.
If the day of big media is over, we lose another watchdog. Now all you have is spin agents in a line of cascading regurgitation. While on one hand, the price of democracy is eternal vigilance, on the other, it should not require eternal vigilance simply to peel enough of the BS off of your news to be able to approach the facts with an honest and open mind.
@Barney I think it's probably possible to assemble a rough facsimile of the truth by comparing all the various spin engines. But who had the time for that?
It seems an international coach with deep pockets and an eye for talent could clean up watching the unsigned players at NBA summer league. Possibly offer prior to NBA offers and drive up the price / urgency. Anyone know the restrictions on offering an unsigned draft pick? Can any NBA team offer? Does the team with draft rights then have rights on a match ? Does that window on draft rights for non guaranteed contracts expire in a specific amount of time? Can any international team offer? Can the NBA team with draft rights then have rights on a match?
I haven't followed Grimes. I know you guys have talked about him before. Good kid?
@KUSTEVE I agree in half court sets, 2007-08 might be hard to match on the defensive end. In transition D, our guards, specifically Vick, Graham, and possibly Garrett seems like they could be as disruptive as 2008 if we're lucky.
On offense, while I think Udoka might be unstoppable, we had a
pretty healthy playbook in 2008. Not sure our young front court is going to be as flexible in their approach, so I worry about foul trouble and tough d causing the bigs to shut down and not reliably score.