illinilaw08

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) I am not going to continue to reiterate my distrust of Garpax(as I reiterate my distrust of Garpax lol) Making that trade locks Garpax in for the foreseeable future to see through the rebuild. That, to me, is unconscionable (sp?) I honestly don't disagree with you on GarPax. Best case scenario is that the Bulls sit tight at the deadline. So does Boston. The Bulls are brutal down the stretch. GarPax gets fired. Boston loses in like 6 to Cleveland in the Conference Finals. Boston gives up the Brooklyn pick + Bradley + Brown package for Butler in the offseason under a new front office.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 23, 2017 -> 10:16 AM) You keep acting like Butler is ready to fall off a cliff and the bulls are operating in his walk year. Money talks, if they swirl down the drain this season like they did last season(and the final Thibs season which was engineered by Gar's power play), it will not go unnoticed. Let it happen. The Bulls can still trade Jimmy this year, next year, and the following season, and the season after that, he is signed until 2020. f*** Gar I think that if the Bulls are interested in moving Butler, they will never see a better package than Boston could offer now. Brown + Brooklyn 17 + Bradley (if that was on the table) would give the Bulls a pretty big head start on the rebuild. Most contenders aren't sitting on a surplus of top 3 picks that they can move for your star. The alternative is what is the path to winning with Butler? They will need to either hit on some mid-teens picks or do some exceptional work in FA (either through the big name FA signings or finding value in other team's castoffs). But if the Bulls are not a top 3 seed in the East by 2020, I will be shocked if Butler re-signs. Obviously, if the Celtics don't make a move, this can all be re-visited again in the offseason. And I completely understand the lack of trust and faith in GarPax to take on a rebuild. But if the Bulls spend the next 3+ years as a .500 team in the East squeaking into the playoffs, they will set themselves back another half decade.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 03:29 PM) No we are a patrick beverly away from a title. Beverley kind of fits next to Butler. If the Bulls are going to stay the course, at least Beverley makes sense from a roster construction standpoint. But I don't know what the Bulls have that would provide any value to the Rockets whatsoever.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 03:05 PM) If you are scared of the fringe than you have bigger issues. I'm glad to know that you are against the travel ban then.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 12:24 PM) When the Bulls and Celtics talked Butler last summer, there was organizational disharmony between Chicago’s four primary decision-makers (owner Jerry Reinsdorf, president Michael Reinsdorf, general manager Gar Forman, and vice president of basketball operations John Paxson). Not all of them were committed to rebuilding; according to a league front-office executive, Paxson “sees the writing on the wall,” whereas Forman is comfortable with the status quo, while ownership is not amenable to any potential trades. https://theringer.com/understanding-the-nba...c435#.54mu43ael Here's the deal. Gar has a job for life - just read that Cowley article. Michael Reinsdorf cares more about lining pockets than winning titles, so as long as the UC is selling out and the Bulls are under the cap, he'll be happy. We're f***ed. Ugh. Every draft and every deadline feels like the Sox at the trade deadline last year (ie, Jackie Bradley or Mookie Betts in any Sale deal). Don't have a foot in each world. It's either a rebuild or it's an all out push to contend. Staying the course right now has no real avenue to a title, or even a conference championship game.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 22, 2017 -> 10:18 AM) Crowder has been a stud, but if they got Jimmy it's not like he'd get a ton of minutes. I doubt this report is true. I assume the issue is how many 1st rounders the Bulls get and the inclusion of Brown. Crowder's 27 soon and would never be a reason a Jimmy deal did not go down. Yeah... Crowder seems to be the easy part of any Celtics deal.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 21, 2017 -> 11:24 AM) Yea, I don't see it like the sox at all because I have zero faith that Gar could pull off anything similar to the Sale or Eaton trade. Think about some of the mind boggling stupid decisions that guy has made. He lost Asik for nothing. He traded Korver 4 years ago for nothing, the same Korver that just fetched a first rounder. He traded 2 first rounders for McDermott who it turns out isn't the guy they have been desperately trying to replace, Korver. He signed Dunleavy to a three year deal when Dunleavy wasn't even sure he was going to be able to play again(and really, he hasn't). Teague over the guy his coach wanted. f***ING HOIBERG Then you go into all of the things he may have done, like telling Butler he was going to give Snell his deal if he didn't accept an offer, the childish power struggle with Thibs for RECOGNITION. Telling the players not to listen to Thibs in his final year. I'm sure there are many many many more that I'm leaving out. Bottom line, again, is f*** that guy The only real distinction is whether you trust the front office. And I really do agree that there's not a lot of reason to trust this front office. But is there any real indication that the entire GarPax regime is even close to being let go? If doing nothing this year leads to GarPax being going, and the entire front office starting over, then I'm all for sitting out the trade deadline. The Nets' pick in '18 should have tremendous value as well, and the Bulls will still have Butler as an asset to move. But if it's irrelevant? If GarPax is here for another couple years because something something loyalty? Then you have to trust they can get it together. Superstar trades usually suck because the teams who are buying have mediocre assets to spin off. The fact that the Celtics are holding the Nets' pick, and another young, intriguing asset in Brown makes the current situation unique. IF Brown + the Nets' pick in '17 is on the table, I think the Bulls have to really think about grabbing that deal, and give GarPax a very short leash to not screw it up.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 21, 2017 -> 09:44 AM) i understand people wanting to trade Jimmy for picks, but I just dont want that. This front office doesnt deserve it, i dont want to see them f*** all of this up. I would rather they sit on their hands and the team crash spectacularly into the ground and miss the playoffs again, with a 1/4 filled UC with booing fans at the end of the season. I dont want Garpax "fixing" this team. I dont want them settling for a s***ty deal with Boston where they dont get that Nets pick, i dont want them making any high picks in the draft, i dont want them doing anything anymore. f*** them. I guess the question is this. Does trading Jimmy for picks lead to an extended leash for Paxson? Is Gar gone regardless? If Paxson is still here no matter what, then it's either trust Paxson to make good picks, or it's waste the rest of Jimmy's time in Chicago without getting anything back in return. To me, this is similar to the Sox. The Bulls need to do something. Either that's trying to add another star through trade or FA, or it's moving Butler and starting over in what is supposed to be a loaded draft. In either event, you have to hope that the Bulls' FO doesn't screw it up. To me, Jaylen Brown, Crowder and the Nets pick in '17 might be enough to get it done. But there's no deal without Brown + the Nets pick in '17 as two of the pieces.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 17, 2017 -> 12:43 PM) I think there are a huge number of people out there who have tuned out Washington over the years and love that he's not traditional, regardless of whether he lies or does un-Presidential things. It's "different" and that's enough to like it. I also tend to think that older people have been through previous disasters in the Presidency like Nixon and Carter and this isn't really foreign to them. Anyone 40 and younger has had a pretty "normal" presidential experience, so the abrupt change is more jarring. I think the first part is probably accurate. I also think (based on anecdotal discussions of this with retirees) that there a large number of people 50+ for whom jobs specifically means blue collar manufacturing jobs. I can point to massive job growth in Colorado from the legalization of marijuana, or the huge economic impact the outdoor industry makes on the overall US economy, or the potential for blue collar jobs in the solar and wind industries until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, for them it comes back to one very specific set of jobs that Trump is promising to bring back - jobs that, even to the extent they have been outsourced have become significantly more automated than they were previously. So long as Trump is banging the drum to bring back those jobs, a portion of that demographic is going to ignore everything else Trump does and says.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 17, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) So, Fox News is kind of going after Trump now, starting with Shepherd Smith yesterday and now they are posting polls showing people don't approve of Trump I don't know. The top headline on Fox News right now is "WHODUNIT? Trump launches bid to find leakers, as speculation surrounds Obama officials" Slightly below that is: "SEAN HANNITY: Trump takes on press, delivers huge knockout"

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trum...ake-turx-235107 The response to the question on reports of growing anti-Semitic acts nationwide is the classic President Trump response...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...y-lost-election Trump tweets today that Democrats made up the Russian hacking story because they lost the election...

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 03:50 PM) I'll take this one for Greg.. i havent heard anything about those topics but aside from what you say it seems like things are OK just wish Ventura would have run. that would have been fun.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 03:24 PM) Did u read that story on yahoo front page reminding us why it's good Hillary isn't president? My head may be in the sand, but ultimately I think history will prove I was right about voting for neither. After watching XFL 30 on 30 ESPN last night I still love Jesse Ventura. There is actually no way for history to prove you right that Hillary Clinton would have been a poor President because, well, she's not the President. If Donald Trump is a disaster for his entire term, there will be no evidence as to whether a Clinton presidency would have been better or worse because she is not the President. As an aside, Greg, I think we all need to have a discussion about the difference between "editorials," and reporting based on facts. Like, that Yahoo article is an editorial - meaning that it's just one man's opinion. Most of the reporting on the Trump administration thus far that has people worried is based on fact (his lies about voter fraud and the murder rate, using the Presidency to urge people to buy his daughter's products, doubling the fee to join Mar-a-Lago, conducting a foreign policy strategy session in the middle of a restaurant for anybody to see, etc.). Finally, why do you think Jesse Ventura would be a good President? I have literally no idea why an XFL documentary would make you want a Ventura presidency...

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 13, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) You failed remedial math, didn't you. Be brave and admit it. With his 53% approval rating, most people are coal miners if I am wrong. Man, you are really good at cherry picking stats. Since last Monday (Feb. 6), Real Clear Politics identified 8 polls on Trump's job approval rating. Those polls ranged from a low of 40% (Gallup from today) to a high of 52% (Rasmussen from today). And Rasmussen was the only poll to find the President's approval rating about 50%. You have to go all the way back to February 1 to find Trump at 53% (also Rasmussen - Gallup was at 43% on that same date). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 10, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) LOL no way. What sunlight has he put between him and Trump? I agree with this. Anybody that primaries Trump will have to run on the differences between them and the administration. Now, it could be that if Congress and the administration can't get anything done, that Ryan begins to distance himself from the President and could conceivably make a run.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:42 PM) Eh. Then again, today you have to have staff and resources to satisfy requests from dozens of agencies, instead of just one. SSK, NSS, and other investment guys, this is on topic with all the discussion about "suitability" and "fiduciary" standards with respect to retirement, as well as the financial system generally. Unless you work for the State in some capacity, companies that offer pensions are very difficult to find. Thus, more people need to rely on the market to save for retirement. Most IRAs are index funds in some capacity. Because of that societal reliance on the market for retirement, and the positive societal benefit to having people retire eventually, should the feds carry a greater burden in regulating investment behavior? Should investment professionals managing money specifically designated for retirement (ie, can't touch it without penalty until 59.5) be subject to stricter scrutiny? Curious to hear your thoughts.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) I never said Biden used it. I use the video as solid proof that the idea originated with him. Easy win in court there. Anything else you need clarified there? What about the origins of the ACA? Nope. The issue is whether or not the Republicans engaged in unprecedented obstructionism in refusing to consider Garland because the nominee was up in an election year. The burden is on you to prove they would have. Biden's speech in 1992 is not anything other than circumstantial evidence that the Dems would have refused to consider a nominee in 1992 because there was no Supreme Court vacancy at the time. Thus, you haven't met your burden, and the Judge finds in my favor. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/p...servatives.html The Republican Congress floated the idea of a coverage mandate in response to Clinton's health care reform proposal. So by the Brett logic of politics, the Republicans should not be opposed to the mandate in the ACA.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) Given your post about your voting style you are at best an INDY. So my liberal comment really wasn't wrong. Ha! So anyone that isn't as Conservative as you are is a liberal. Good stuff.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 9, 2017 -> 11:37 AM) I think this is very common. Ari Fleischer (Press Sec for GWB) said that they did the same thing at Bush's ranch. They rented some land and set up a base of operations. See SS's post earlier. It's not uncommon generally (Bush's rent, Biden's cottage, etc.). What is uncommon is the potential cost associated with the rent at Trump Towers or at Mar-a-Lago.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) I don't see how you can make that conclusion on its face when the ban affects some muslim countries but not others and it applies to all citizens of those countries not just muslims. It gives priority to Christians from those Muslim countries, and all the evidence on the intent on the ban is that it is intended to be a legal ban on Muslims (see Trump and Giuliani comments).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) That's Congress, not the Executive. And I don't think prohibiting aliens from entering the country is infringing on the establishment or exercise of religion. Isn't it if the basis for prohibiting aliens is their religion?

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:55 AM) Look, there's no excusing a lot of what he does. I'm not at all trying to defend that. I'm with you all that many of his executive orders fly against what makes our country great and 95% of what his admn says is false and embarrassing and completely un-Presidential. But that doesn't mean we have to go to the extreme and continually remark how he's Hitler 2.0 or that the country is doomed or that we're all f***ed because of what he's doing. Guess what guys, he won the election. He gets to do what he wants (within constitutional restraints). That's how this game is set up. Is jokingly saying you're going to ruin a state lawmaker's career worse than FDR trying to pack the court? Are we pretending like a President has never tried to monopolize power or assert his authority before? Again, not excusing it, just trying to put it into perspective. For the record, I'm not on board with comparing Trump to Hitler. And I don't think there has been that much of that in this thread (there has been some). I think it is fair to point out the fact that Trump is sure acting like an authoritarian, particularly in his relationship with the press. And that's a concerning trait that needs to be monitored. The first point here is that if you don't like the direction the government is going in, you organize, and you let your voice be heard. You don't just say, "hey guys, I don't like what he's doing, but he won the election so he gets to do what he wants." The second point - which I think is probably the larger and more important point - is that you continue to call attention to the bad stuff that Trump is doing - particularly with respect to the false and embarrassing stuff that comes from both the President directly, and his advisers. You cannot allow outright lies from the Presidency to become normalized behavior. And the final point here - while we have certainly had Presidents wield the power of the executive to try to assert their authority (at a minimum), we have never (to my knowledge) had a President attack the media like Trump has, or straight out lie to his constituents like Trump has on simple, verifiable facts. This is an anomaly of a Presidency, and we're less than a month in. Silence and apathy allows this behavior to normalize.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 11:54 AM) Bears and White Sox have a path to a title. Draft, trades, free agent signings. The nature of the NBA puts the Bulls in an impossible situation. Barring like 5-6 teams getting in a plane crash, there really is no path to a title for the Bulls. I think it's largely that the Sox and Bears have picked a direction. After Rose's first knee injury, and really for the majority of Rose's remaining tenure, the Bulls best path to a title was to hope Rose came back looking like MVP Rose. And that was fine and sensible. Now, the Bulls paths are either (1) keep things as they are and hope you luck into a free agency coup (pretty unlikely); or (2) trade Butler for picks and hope you hit on enough early picks over the next 3 years that you open a new window of contention. Butler would have to move in the right deal (read the Nets' pick as the centerpiece in a deal with Boston) where you can jump start the rebuild, but where the Bulls are at the moment is both really far from contention, and also really far from getting the influx of talent they need through the draft.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 10:33 AM) This is exactly why the minute-by-minute stuff has to stop. Not only do you get yourself all worked up over false news (love by the way how you and others rail against dumb Trump supporters for this and yet you've fallen for this twice, the other being his imminent attack on LGBTs that never happened), but you also give credence to his bulls*** attacks against the media for being wrong/unfair. His dumb supporters watch/listen to you and the media that covers and complains about these false stories and then they justify their belief that ALL media is wrong/bulls***. Jenks, how do you feel about a President who (whether jokingly or not) offered to destroy a state lawmakers' career for putting pressure on law enforcement regarding asset seizure and forfeiture laws (linked earlier by SS, but here's the link again - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trum...-idUSKBN15M2BU)