illinilaw08

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 05:29 PM) I honestly think it is just an anti-American thing, and not so much a partisan thing. Right. Rabbit keeps trying to show that Wikileaks doesn't have a bias as compared to the traditional American media. But Wikileaks actions historically show an anti-American bias, and over the last several years, Wikileaks has appeared flat out unwilling to go after Russia (Assange went as far as asserting that the Russian press is more open than the US press which is pretty laughable). https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archiv...he-news/512243/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 05:19 PM) If Wikileaks is anti-Democrats and pro-Republicans, I am curious why the leaks of of things like the Iraq War? Six years is a long time. And six years ago, the Republican President didn't have worrying ties to Russia? If I wasn't clear, this isn't a Dem/Rep thing so much as a Russia thing. Over the last year, Wikileaks has released hacked info on the DNC, including social security numbers of donors, and in the immediate aftermath of news re: Russia's involvement in the hacking, released info that, to me anyway, looks intended to draw the inference that the CIA is framing the Russians. Their dumps in the last year seem pretty pro-Russia (which by extension would make them pro-Trump).

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 04:35 PM) If you're implying that numbers increasing means they're going strong, I'd think that's true for most outlets on both ends of the spectrum. Trump's campaign, election process and presidency has sent numbers through the roof. It's gone from general politics to a public interest. As far as going strong in terms of being an objective news source that's debatable at best. They have released a lot of stories based on "unnamed sources" and selectively edited material that have yet to be substantiated. They have yet address these things. The WP writes that Russia coordinated with Trump to leak a bunch of stuff on Russia. That's yet to be substantiated. James Clapper says it's not true. We now know the CIA can manipulate hacks to attribute them to people that didn't do them. When speaking towards whether these reports will be substantiated, they said "time will tell." Time has passed, still haven't had the information come to light. That's a pretty huge insinuation and they don't feel the need to make good on it. But as you said, they're going strong with the numbers push that unsubstantiated story brought them. Rabbit, I'm confused about your morality re: reporting. You are anti-anonymous leaks, but you are pro information being released via illegal means (hacking). Since even before the election, you have attacked the media for inaccurate reporting, but I haven't seen you address the pretty blatant falsehoods from the President (3-5M illegal votes in the election, Obama wiretapped the President, etc.). You jumped on the Wikileaks document dump and jumped to the conclusion that, because the CIA can manipulate hacks, therefore they must have initiated the hack of the DNC. And you haven't at any point asked why Wikileaks is only going after the Democrats and the US. It's not that Wikileaks isn't dropping real information, but it sure looks as though they are selectively deciding who gets hacked and what gets released.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 04:59 PM) Who is they? Are you ignoring the division within the GOP on this issue. There are plenty of Republicans against Trump's Obamacare-light plan. This plan sucks. Plenty of Republicans in congress have spoke out to say this much. Before I get attacked for having different views, I am on record saying that I hated the plan from the go. This is not a fiscally conservative plan and plenty of conservatives are rejecting it as a result. Trump is threatening to support certain Republicans in the elections in 2018 because all Republicans are pushing this so hard? There's 237 Republicans in the house. They need 218 votes to get it through. I think Paul, Cotton and all of the other speaking out can get 19 republicans to vote against it. With everyone freaking out the CBO report, that stuff is such a waste of tax dollars. To act as if they can pinpoint how the plan would work in execution is ridiculous regardless of which party is in charge. There are thousands of variable factors that go into it. For instance, when the CBO put out their report on the ACA it said we would have nearly 10 million more people on Obamacare at this point. That is a pretty significant error in calculation. I am sure they weren't aware that people wouldn't be able to sign up for Obamacare for however long they couldn't get their website going when the CBO did their report. The plan sucks, hopefully the 19 or so needed house republicans come forward and vote against it. The Speaker of the House and the President of the United States are pushing hard on it. So are a lot of other Congress people. As of four days ago, less than 10 Republican Senators, and less than 10 Republican members of the House have spoken out against the plan. Some of the Senators don't like the phasing out of the Medicaid extension. Some of those Republicans want the government out of health care entirely (welcome back pre-existing conditions!). I'm not even going to get into the CBO stuff...

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Guys the Rockies are not going to trade their entire farm system and a starting outfielder (especially after losing one backup) because Ian Desmond broke his hand. Rockies could be players at the trade deadline if they are in contention. They aren't moving anything for Q until then.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ Mar 9, 2017 -> 01:49 PM) Pretty sure it's not that simple. It's not a verbal commitment. He signed. Can he just go back on a NLOI? When there's a coaching change, the player will almost always get released from the NLOI. I would expect that to happen here.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 9, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) It probably depends on the hire. An exciting one probably helps keep the class intact, a meh hire they probably scatter, and then might be down for years. But 5 years and never better than .500 in the Big Ten at a school that likes to think of its program as top notch, is more than enough reason to be told goodbye. Now this game is over. For the 2nd time in 3 years, Illinois plays Michigan in the B1G tournament with their tournament lives on the line. For the 2nd time in 3 years, they lay an absolute egg. The fact that Illinois still can't defend simple ball screens against Michigan is infuriating...

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 9, 2017 -> 01:16 PM) I think Frazier has publicly stated that they should not fire him, which isn't quite a threat to not come to campus. It would be tough for those guys to sit out a year if they aren't given releases. But yeah, hopefully whoever they hire can convince them to stay. The question that needs to be asked here is whether Tilmon is SUCH a difference making recruit that 1 or 2 years of him will elevate the level of the program. If the answer to that question is no - and I suspect that it is - then you need to try things a different way. Letting Groce go and losing Tilmon (speculation of course) sets the program back next year, but if they make the right hire, the program is in much better shape long term. e: This game isn't over. Michigan looked gassed at the end of the half. If Illinois can get this thing down to around 5 by the 10 minute mark, anything could happen. Also, credit to Tracy Abrams if Illinois comes back and wins this game. His solo 10-0 run kept this game from getting ugly.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 8, 2017 -> 11:35 AM) Other than those top three guys which you may be able to choose from all 3 you are likely not to find anyone who is going to amount to anything in a weaker draft for QB's. You really think the Bears are going to find their Dak Prescott somewhere in there? Historically the best QB in the leagues come out of the first round and even that isnt a great chance but they have to address this QB issue for the long term instead of p**** footing around the issue by signing mediocre stop gaps and drafting guys in the mid rounds. This cycle will never end if they keep going this way. They need to grow some balls and key in on one the top three guys. If he isnt there at 3 then fine. Or if they REALLY believe there is no chance that any of the top three will amount to anything in the NFL then fine. But I just have a hard time believing that out of Kizer, Watson and Trubisky that none of them are going to stick in this league as a good QB. They are paying Glennon starting QB money. Even if it's just a year of guaranteed money, Glennon is going to get the first, and best, chance to succeed this year. That means that you are using the #3 pick on a guy that isn't going to play in Year 1 (or get the practice reps) while immediately creating a QB controversy within the fanbase. The Bears have way too many other positions of need to draft a QB at #3 - in a weak QB class at the top - when they just spent $15M on a QB in FA.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 8, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) I am encouraged by the fact that the Bears have what looks like to be a pretty damn good offensive line that should improve by the start of next season. If they sign Wagner for RT add a couple pieces for depth it can be a real strength (along with our running game) that will help any QB they bring in. I wouldn't be mad if they signed Glennon and then drafted one of the top three QB's with the 3 pick to groom or possibly over take the starting job by the end of the year. I don't think it makes sense to sign Glennon and then draft a QB at 3. Makes way more sense to me to grab the best player available at 3 and then grab a QB you like in the 2nd or the 3rd. But the signing of Glennon really should be paired with drafting a QB.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 04:04 PM) Why the hell do we even have interest in Glennon? Hoyer's a way better stop gap at probably 1/5 of the price. Well, you know Hoyer is a stopgap. If the Bears think that Glennon can be a legit #1 QB, I don't have a problem guaranteeing him anywhere between $25M-$30M over 2 years (but ideally they would pay less than that). If he's bad, it's really only a sunk cost in Year 2, and you free the cap space back up in Year 3. If he's really good, or even average, you have him on a below market deal in the non-guaranteed years. I'm not sure that I'm on board with that deal for Glennon, but I see the logic behind it. Particularly if they pair a deal with Glennon with drafting a QB they think they can develop in the 2nd or 3rd round.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 7, 2017 -> 12:06 PM) I haven't seen much written about it so if it's only for the first year that is slightly better. But the fact still remains that you are paying a private company more money simply because you didn't previously buy their product. I don't see how that helps anyone but the insurance companies to make more money. It's the catch-22 of a healthcare system that relies on private, for-profit, insurance. If you don't penalize people for not buying healthcare, then people won't buy it until they need it. For-profit insurance relies on premiums from those who are healthy (or in the automobile industry don't get into accidents) in order to pay out the claims for the sick. It's the whole reason that the ACA required people to have coverage in the first place.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 12:33 PM) All House Judiciary Republicans say "wait, lets think about this for a while. Was it that bad? maybe. idk" http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/jeff...aul-ryan-235611 Paul Ryan still looking for his spine.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 2, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) I would prefer they move on, but it really has to depend on who else is looking for a coach. If Indiana fires Crean, as much as I hate to say it, we would play second fiddle to them. We have better short term prospects because of incoming recruits, but they have the better tradition/banners. I also would prefer they move on, but I'm fairly certain that if the Illini make the tournament, Groce is safe. The other issue here is that this season is no longer a dumpster fire. So if the Illini barely miss the tournament, what does the job look like to potential hires? If they have a slam dunk lined up, then by all means move on. If we go through the Shaka Smart/Brad Stevens saga that occurred when Webber was fired, well there's a pretty decent argument that the stability of Groce is a better spot than re-setting with your 3rd or 4th choice. Whitman has hopefully done his homework behind the scenes so that he has a sense of the market. Biggest issue I have at the moment with Groce is why in the holy hell did it take so long for him to settle on the 8 man rotation he has playing now? I get that Lucas missed most of the offseason, and Nichols wasn't eligible until the Missouri game, but that really doesn't excuse how long it took Groce to realize that Thorne and Tate shouldn't be in the rotation.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 1, 2017 -> 09:54 AM) I will say, blaming the previous administration is a tradition and all Presidents do it, true or not. What seems different about Trump is that he then also tries to take CREDIT for things he had no control over. That one is a little more novel. Well, but blaming the prior administration is sometimes real. Like, for instance, the economy doesn't restart when a new President is in power. Wars overseas don't magically end when a new administration comes to power. It's one thing to acknowledge economic and foreign policy issues that started on someone else's watch (Trump didn't create the current mess in Syria, obviously). It's another thing entirely to blame the prior administration for a raid that the current administration authorized.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 1, 2017 -> 09:22 AM) 1. Hasn't actually done anything other than say he wants them to pay more, made some vague threats. That's not action, it's a talking point. 2. This is true. 3. Most of the one-sided tariff crap is false to begin with. Rarely does it actually happen, because countries know that trade wars are never won. And again, he's talked a lot about this, but hasn't actually done anything yet (thankfully, since trade wars never end well for either side). 4. The workaholic who got on Obama for playing golf has spent more weekends on vacation in his first month than Obama did in 6 months. OK. 5. His proposed budget does suggest this - true. Though the real work starts when he has to negotiate with Congress. So I'd call this one up in the air. Other than #2, he hasn't actually achieved anything yet. And on #2, most of the work was already planned under Obama, just maybe adding some oomph. He's accomplished remarkably little so far, which mostly is a good thing. General question. Why does anyone think we need greater investment in our military (carve out here - we do need greater investment in the VA and other assistance for veterans, but I don't think that's where Trump is pushing for more money to go)? We already spend more on the military by a massive amount than does the rest of the world. I know that Trump has promised a large influx of cash to the military. But why does anyone think this is necessary?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 28, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) I also dont understand why people blame ACA for rising rates, the healthcare companies are making record profits, why are they not the issue? One of my largest customers is a giant healthcare company, they are f***ing SWIMMING in money. So. Much. This.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 05:21 PM) It's pick and choose depending on the topic. You have to love the "jobs" President attacking a multi billion dollar industry that provides tens of thousands of jobs based on incorrect facts (marijuana use is linked to opioid abuse). If it's not a heavy manufacturing job or a coal mine, this jobs president isn't that worried about it.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 05:30 PM) It's the Bulls man, that's the problem. It absolutely could, and probably, will happen again. If we don't trust the Bulls to draft, why do we trust them to surround Butler with talent?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 05:20 PM) Hey, I totally agree. It's a gamble. But IMO the odds are better building around him. And shoot, give it another season and if you fail getting any decent FA, trade him next year. You'd still get a good haul for him. Jenks, the point is that it's historically difficult to get close to equivalent value for a star in NBA trades. There are no farm systems, so there aren't really prospects to move. And good teams usually don't have a slew of top-5 picks to move. If you trade Butler this offseason, the Nets' picks are still there. But if you wait until the next year, the '17 asset is off the board. There's a huge opportunity cost to waiting beyond the draft next year.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 05:17 PM) It's cool, maybe we can turn back the clock and go this route again! 2001-2005, the golden years! Yep, because it's guaranteed to fail again (leaving aside the difference between drafting kids right out of high school and when they have to spend a year in college). Butler's closest title winning comp in our lifetime is probably Paul Pierce? So first, is Butler as loyal as Pierce was where he will go through years of mediocrity and stay in Chicago? And second, where are the Bulls getting Garnett and Allen (not to mention Rondo) from?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 05:08 PM) You guys are delusional if you think 2 top 5 picks is some kind of guarantee. Next year's draft is supposed to be pretty good, but what about 2018? What if you get stuck choosing between Anthony Bennett and Victor Oladipo? If it's 2 picks plus Brown and some scrap, I would consider that. Just picks? Hellllllllllllll no. First, it can't be just picks because of salaries in the trade. Second, you yourself just said that there's no point in chasing a title while Lebron is around. Third, if the Bulls continue to not lure a superstar FA, fail in the draft (much harder to hit in the mid-teens), and not succeed with other team's castoffs, then what is your path to either (a) contending with Butler or (b) convincing Butler to re-sign when his deal is up? Fourth, if you have no path to winning a title with Butler, then you have to build a core through the draft. Starting with a top 4 pick in '17 and what would probably be two top 5 picks in '18 would really jump start that process. The worst place to be in the NBA is a 6-8 seed with no good young players, and no viable path to a conference championship series, let alone the Finals. No one here has said it's a guarantee - just like no one in PHT is saying Mocada and Kopech are a guarantee - but there's a better shot of contending eventually through a rebuild with a bunch of top 5 picks than there is by building around Butler for the next three years with no other good assets of note.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 04:20 PM) Are you still going to be arguing this same position at this time next year or the year after? Because we're going to be in virtually the same position. You can argue your trade values all you want but holding onto Jimmy just because you have a perceived value on him that nobody can reach is the way to keep the Bulls where they are. Nobody is guaranteeing anything with these picks(though a lot of us certainly love some of these players) but eventually you have to take a chance because I do guarantee you they wont be a championship contender with Jimmy in his 'prime' here. This. Superstar trades don't net two top 5 picks because contenders never have those assets to offer. This is like saying the Sox shouldn't trade Sale for Moncada and Kopech because prospects bust sometimes... The good news is the Celtics didn't make a move. In theory, the two picks could be there this offseason with someone other than GarPax pulling the trigger (crosses fingers and wishes very, very hard).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 02:10 PM) Couldn't make the deal that would have guaranteed the SAC 1st this year (lifted the restrictions) plus given us McLemore. SMH. No kidding. That was the worst of many GarPax decisions. Also awesome that the only chatter re: Bulls moving guys is to OKC who can't trade a 1st until 2022...

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 12:29 PM) George. He's a much better 3-point shooter. More risk with George. Shorter contract, and he's a risk to flee to LA. Even if you prefer PG as a player, the two years of difference and the uncertainty should make the Celtics prefer Butler.