espn pti: 'if the suns were in the finals like a lot of us think they should be'

[pussyface]

i just heard this statement on that 'pardon the interruption' shit on espn.

the cohost (non colored fellow, a fillin) was all into the statement too after the other idiot said it. he beat his chest and was like 'i'm one of those people.'

this incident was typical of the shamefully sorry state of sports media generally.

the spurs dont get credit for beating media darlings phoenix at full strength in a decisive, do-or-die game 6 (hca=automatic win theory)?

these muhjidan assholes are honestly attributing you guys's 4th in 9 to coincidence and fortune. they were ready to award the series to phoenix on the strength of them having split the first four games with you guys and writing the other two games off as not any indication of superiority.



don't get me wrong im not one of these mindless 'mavs are out, i hope some idiot team from the stayte of teyksas wins' assholes. my only interest in remaining NBA finals games is rooted in anti-spurs sentiment.

...than again, i recognize outrageous media bullshit when i see it.

[Josh810]

Kornheiser has been spouting since after game 5 that Phoenix should truly be in the finals. He was convinced that not only did the suspensions decide the series, but that Phoenix would have won game 1 if Nash didn't hurt his nose. I remember him saying more than once, that "it's interesting that the Spurs will essentially have won a series due to a bloody nose and a hipcheck." It's no secret that both of them respect, but pretty much dislike the Spurs. It's funny watching them being forced to talk about/compliment them when they clearly don't enjoy it.

[Fillmoe]

kornheiser speaks the truth

[Josh810]

kornheiser speaks the truth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3iV4aYvopM

[Strike]

Fuck Kornholer. He's a hack. Plain and simple.

[Obstructed_View]

It was Bob Ryan filling in. He's a Celtics fan. 'nuff said.

[Shred]

*

[my2sons]

*

:donkey
step away from the :drunk
fact is you lost: :depressed
keep your woe ways me attitude: :dramaquee
and here maybe this will make you feel better: :baby
oh and by the way, SPURS RULE: :flag:
enjoy you summer vacation:fishing

[Shred]

:donkey
step away from the :drunk
fact is you lost: :depressed
keep your woe ways me attitude: :dramaquee
and here maybe this will make you feel better: :baby
oh and by the way, SPURS RULE: :flag:
enjoy you summer vacation: fishing

Dance, monkey, dance!

[Obstructed_View]

*
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q228/GeneralPurpose/Spurstalk/WeOwnYou.jpg
We own you.

[Shred]

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q228/GeneralPurpose/Spurstalk/WeOwnYou.jpg
We own you.

Dance, monkey, dance!

[HJNTX]

kornheiser speaks the truth
ummm.. like when he says the KINGS are the team of Cali? :rollin :rollin

Sure he does ..

[HJNTX]

*
:loser go :fishing


Let it go or seek counseling ......

[HJNTX]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3iV4aYvopM
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Johnny RIngo]

Suns wouldn't even make it past the Nuggets and those idiots think they'd reach the Finals? Utah takes em in 6 games with Dwill owning Steve Trash in every way possible.

[Shred]

:loser go :fishing


Let it go or seek counseling ......

So you think you can dance? Dance, monkey, dance!

[Saguaro]

Bob Ryan knows what he is talking about!

[Johnny RIngo]

Anyone wanna take bets on who knocks out Steve Trash and the Suns next year?

I got the Nuggets in 5 games. Nene/Camby/Kmart will own the Suns frontcourt while Iverson runs circles around Nash's sorry ass. Carmelo puts up 35 ppg on that flopper Raja. Marion will disappear like he always does.

Above-average defense>>>>No defense

[HJNTX]

So you think you can dance? Dance, monkey, dance!


Bitter, are ya? :depressed

[Johnny RIngo]

Bitter, are ya? :depressed

Just ignore them. Their gimmick franchise is dying. The salary cap is already killing them. When the Nuggets/Rockets knock em out next year it's going to be the final nail in the coffin. We're probably going to see one hell of a implosion in the locker rom followed by years of lottery. They're basically a new version of the Sacramento Queens team from a few years back.

[HJNTX]

Just ignore them. Their gimmick franchise is dying. The salary cap is already killing them. When the Nuggets/Rockets knock em out next year it's going to be the final nail in the coffin. We're probably going to see one hell of a implosion in the locker rom followed by years of lottery. They're basically a new version of the Sacramento Queens team from a few years back.

:lol

[Shred]

Just ignore them. Their gimmick franchise is dying. The salary cap is already killing them. When the Nuggets/Rockets knock em out next year it's going to be the final nail in the coffin. We're probably going to see one hell of a implosion in the locker rom followed by years of lottery. They're basically a new version of the Sacramento Queens team from a few years back.

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year. The asterisk's hard enough to live with, I couldn't handle losing."

[Johnny RIngo]

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year. The asterisk's hard enough to live with, I couldn't handle losing."

Not really. It's gotten kinda boring watching the Spurs beat the shit out of the Suns after eliminating them 4 or 5 times in the playoffs. It's just like the Cavs series. We all know the Spurs are gonna win...It's just a matter of doing it in 5 games or 6 games. I'd rather SA have a challenge in the later rounds like the Mavs or Nuggets. It's better just to weed out garbage teams like Phoenix in the first round.

[Shred]

Not really. It's gotten kinda boring watching the Spurs beat the shit out of the Suns after eliminating them 4 or 5 times in the playoffs. It's just like the Cavs series. We all know the Spurs are gonna win...It's just a matter of doing it in 5 games or 6 games. I'd rather SA have a challenge in the later rounds like the Mavs or Nuggets. It's better just to weed out garbage teams like Phoenix in the first round.

So do you prefer your asterisk in Size 6

*

or Size 7

*

?

[Johnny RIngo]

So do you prefer your asterisk in Size 6

*

or Size 7

*

?

Dance, monkey, dance!

[td4mvp3]

So do you prefer your asterisk in Size 6

*

or Size 7

*

?
size 4. take a guess why.

[Shred]

size 4. take a guess why.

I don't know from experience, but I hear a lot of women don't really care about that. Good luck to you, though.

[exstatic]

I just think think it's funny that people think PHO automatically wins a hypothetical game 7 at home to advance, or that they would beat Utah, who IS as dirty as they say SA is.

2003 Spurs win games 3 and 6
2005 Spurs win games 1,2, and 5
2007 Spurs win games 1 and 5

We OWN their fucking court.

[Johnny RIngo]

What was the Spurs all-time record against the Steve Trash Suns? I can't remember if it's 14-4 or 16-4? We've owned em so much times I've forgotten.

Anyways, It was either going to be the Spurs or Jazz. The Suns never had an honest shot at the finals with their mediocre defense. Actually, mediocre is being too kind. Piss poor is more like it.

[boutons_]

"2003 Spurs win games 3 and 6
2005 Spurs win games 1,2, and 5
2007 Spurs win games 1 and 5"

Don't leave out the Spurs' 17-pt, 4th qtr comeback/Manu's 48-pt game/OT win @PHX.

And Phx's record @SA since Nov 2002 is ... ?

[NBA Junkie]

If the Suns are so much better than the Spurs, why don't they quit crying about it and prepare for next season already. The incessant whining of the team and their fans just shows what a classless organization they are.

Once upon a time, the Knicks were screwed in a similiar scenario and lost a series to Miami in 1997 that they felt they should have won. Instead of whining all year about it, they eventually got Miami again, and beat them in their subsequent playoff series 3 consecutive years.

The Suns could learn a very valuable lesson here, but it doesn't appear they will.

[Sec24Row7]

We only lost about 50 minutes out of six games... and they should have won the series?

:lol :lol :lol

[ambchang]

Dance, monkey, dance!
:lmao

[mabber]

i just heard this statement on that 'pardon the interruption' shit on espn.

the cohost (non colored fellow, a fillin) was all into the statement too after the other idiot said it. he beat his chest and was like 'i'm one of those people.'

this incident was typical of the shamefully sorry state of sports media generally.

the spurs dont get credit for beating media darlings phoenix at full strength in a decisive, do-or-die game 6 (hca=automatic win theory)?

these muhjidan assholes are honestly attributing you guys's 4th in 9 to coincidence and fortune. they were ready to award the series to phoenix on the strength of them having split the first four games with you guys and writing the other two games off as not any indication of superiority.



don't get me wrong im not one of these mindless 'mavs are out, i hope some idiot team from the stayte of teyksas wins' assholes. my only interest in remaining NBA finals games is rooted in anti-spurs sentiment.

...than again, i recognize outrageous media bullshit when i see it.

He's on a sports talk tv show. He's picking a side that leaves the most room to be argued/talked about. Whether he believes it or not is not important. Do you think he cares that the side he chooses to take on this particular subject pisses off some people? :rolleyes I'm not defending this particular person just defending the nature of the job he has.

It's amazing to me that some people don't realize this about talk radio and talk tv. I'm hoping they do and are just posting to give this board something to talk about.

[BUMP]

Suns in 9?

[BUMP]

I'd rather SA have a challenge in the later rounds like the Mavs or Nuggets.
nuggets are a challenge?

[td4mvp21]

:lol The media loves the Suns, because they are exciting. I'm really not surprised at all that they say this. Unfortunately, only Spurs fans and a few outside fans/analysts watched every full game and saw that the Spurs really outplayed Phoenix the entire series as a whole. I think if Phoenix were better than us, they would have came back and beat us. They didn't, so I personally am assuming that they aren't. Suns fans disagree. That's ok, because my team is in the Finals and theirs isn't.

Oh, and we do own their court. It's our home away from home. I hope we play them again in next year's playoffs and beat them again.

[Creation88]

did you honestly use the word 'colored'? are you kidding me?

[The_Worlds_finest]

Its called "providing something to fill the show with"

[BlackFlagg]

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year. The asterisk's hard enough to live with, I couldn't handle losing."

We did, and we won -- even without Big Shot Rob. You need to move on. Really. The whining is beyond sad. :lol :lol

[iflyabeech]

Someone call the waaaaambulance!

[duncanchick21]

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q228/GeneralPurpose/Spurstalk/WeOwnYou.jpg
We own you.

:lol :clap :rollin :owned :owned

[samikeyp]

So if the only reason the Spurs won in 99 was because of the shortened season....what does that say for the other teams who weren't able to do that?

[TampaDude]

He's on a sports talk tv show. He's picking a side that leaves the most room to be argued/talked about. Whether he believes it or not is not important. Do you think he cares that the side he chooses to take on this particular subject pisses off some people? :rolleyes I'm not defending this particular person just defending the nature of the job he has.

It's amazing to me that some people don't realize this about talk radio and talk tv. I'm hoping they do and are just posting to give this board something to talk about.

Yup...sometimes, the talking heads just like to stir the pot...Barkley was a good example...

[td4mvp3]

Yup...sometimes, the talking heads just like to stir the pot...Barkley was a good example...
i doubt it. fans/audience can smell crap and if it seems like they're arguing just to argue, it quickly loses its charm. besides, there are plenty of times the talking heads agree on stuff (duncan being the best pf comes to mind). folks, a lot of folks, just really believed the suns were a better team (even if it was just by a smidge) and got robbed, regardless if their players actually held the door open for the theives.

[baseline bum]

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year. The asterisk's hard enough to live with, I couldn't handle losing."

2003, 2005, 2007... hey, but at least you still have 93 and 2000 to hold on to.

[baseline bum]

size 4. take a guess why.

I'd do a Phoenix asterisk, but who would see it at size 0?

[baseline bum]

Phoenix lost the series because they have a jackass for a coach. D'Antoni's only response to pressure moments in a game is to throw a fit on the sideline. Like timvp said a couple of weeks ago, swap coaches and the Suns probably win the series in 5.

[samikeyp]

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year. The asterisk's hard enough to live with, I couldn't handle losing."

:lmao :lmao

The only asterisk is in your mind, but hey if it works for you. :)

[Extra Stout]

Phoenix lost the series because they have a jackass for a coach. D'Antoni's only response to pressure moments in a game is to throw a fit on the sideline. Like timvp said a couple of weeks ago, swap coaches and the Suns probably win the series in 5.
If the Suns fired Mike D'Antoni and hired Jeff Van Gundy tomorrow, nothing could stand in their path to the 2008 title.

But they'd only average 102 points a game, and we can't have that.

[Saguaro]

If the Suns fired Mike D'Antoni and hired Jeff Van Gundy tomorrow, nothing could stand in their path to the 2008 title.

But they'd only average 102 points a game, and we can't have that.
If the NBA fired David Stern and hired a non-idiot commissioner a month ago, nothing could have stood in the Suns' path to the 2007 title.

[Buddy Holly]

If the NBA fired David Stern and hired a non-idiot commissioner a month ago, nothing could have stood in the Suns' path to the 2007 title.

:lol :lol

We fucking crushed your pussy ass team in game 6 when you had all your players back (and really, you fucks missed Diaw in game 5? Really, the cat average like 4 points a game that series) and they had the "we just had to sit out game 5" anger and motiovation.

They got fucked harder than Paris Hilton at Happy Hour.

[exstatic]

If the NBA fired David Stern and hired a non-idiot commissioner a month ago, nothing could have stood in the Suns' path to the 2007 title.
Except the fact that we beat your ass 7 fucking times on your home court in the last 3 series. Pretty arrogant to think you would have taken a prospective game 7. We own your asses, and will until D'Antoni is dumped, and you get a coach that understands their is a defensive component to the game, and you don't win trophies without it.

[Cleveland Steamer]

Its pretty easy to lie to yourself sometimes

[Buddy Holly]

Its pretty easy to lie to yourself sometimes

You're the fucking king of that shit. Remember your predictions before game 1? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[exstatic]

Its pretty easy to lie to yourself sometimes
Seven games won on PHO's court in three series is NO lie, bitch.

[Cleveland Steamer]

You're the fucking king of that shit. Remember your predictions before game 1? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
That Pavlovic would make you all cry? Well at least he made me cry.
And I never made any excuses

[Cleveland Steamer]

Seven games won on PHO's court in three series is NO lie, bitch.
I was talking about Sun fans, bitch

[dknights411]

To all Suns fans:

It's over!!! You lost. Get over it!!!


Seriously, if I can get over .4, than you guys could get over this.

[Johnny RIngo]

nuggets are a challenge?

More of a challenge than the Suns. Suns can't even take a series 7 games with the Spurs. The 2005 Pistons forced a game 7 with a win on the Spurs homecourt in game 6. If the And1 Suns were as good as their fans say they are they should have been able to do the same. Instead, a rested Amare/Diaw get hammered by an undermanned Spurs squad. Definitely not championship calibre.

[Dingle Barry]

It all makes sense to me now. Sunfan didn't even tune in to GAME 6. They knew it was over.

[judaspriestess]

stupid suns of bitches fans.

Classic denial syndrome they suffer from and major accountability issues.

They will always have to pacify themselves with the coulda, shoulda, woulda theory while they suck their thumbs they just pulled out of their teams asses. Face it, your team FUCKED UP.

Didn't the owners decide NOT to change the rule that your lil players broke just a couple of weeks ago??

[Johnny RIngo]

Seriously, if I can get over .4, than you guys could get over this.

You don't see Knicks fans complaining about Ewing in '97. Goes to show that Suns fans are the biggest bitches on the Interweb.

[ChumpDumper]

Stay near the bench.

[duncan228]

Stay near the bench.

:lmao

And complain about your seat! :lmao

[SRJ]

It was Bob Ryan filling in. He's a Celtics fan. 'nuff said.

I'm sure, back in 1984, Bob Ryan was outraged when Kevin McHale clotheslined Kurt Rambis during a fast break. I'm certain he argued then that the Lakers were cheapshotted out of the series.[/sarcasm]

[Dave McNulla]

*
aka. sour grapes

[Dave McNulla]

let me add that the spurs never complain about cheap shots to them. and they happen a lot. the spurs deal with it and play on.

that's part of having character.

[td4mvp3]

*
it's the pic of an imploding sun!

[HJNTX]

it's the pic of an imploding sun! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :clap

[OldDirtMcGirt]

i just heard this statement on that 'pardon the interruption' shit on espn.

the cohost (non colored fellow, a fillin) was all into the statement too after the other idiot said it. he beat his chest and was like 'i'm one of those people.'

this incident was typical of the shamefully sorry state of sports media generally.

the spurs dont get credit for beating media darlings phoenix at full strength in a decisive, do-or-die game 6 (hca=automatic win theory)?

these muhjidan assholes are honestly attributing you guys's 4th in 9 to coincidence and fortune. they were ready to award the series to phoenix on the strength of them having split the first four games with you guys and writing the other two games off as not any indication of superiority.



don't get me wrong im not one of these mindless 'mavs are out, i hope some idiot team from the stayte of teyksas wins' assholes. my only interest in remaining NBA finals games is rooted in anti-spurs sentiment.

...than again, i recognize outrageous media bullshit when i see it.

Ah, so not only are you illiterate, but you're also a racist piece of shit.

[SpurOutofTownFan]

It is funny, I thought Nash hit Parket not the other way around. Maybe I saw that game in my alt universe.

[tim_duncan_fan]

*


I think you mean
* * *


And how many does your team have?

[Vito Corleone]

I will also take my * is size 4, but next year you can make it a size 5.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I will also take my * is size 4, but next year you can make it a size 5.

Next year is an even year though. Perhaps wait until 2009?

[exstatic]

Next year is an even year though. Perhaps wait until 2009?
:lmao Even year smack from the fan of the ringless team. Priceless.

[Josh810]

Next year is an even year though. Perhaps wait until 2009?
Yeah, the even years belong to Phoenix, right?

[spurtime]

Every 197th year belongs to Phx...

[OldDirtMcGirt]

:lmao Even year smack from the fan of the ringless team. Priceless.

What the hell? Where's the smack talk coming from. The Spurs seem to get hungrier and win championships during odd years. That's a fact.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Okay suns fans. Enlighten me please. Why is it that you believe the suns would win a game seven when they didn't win game six? Didn't they have their main guys in game six? Huh? No excuse for that huh?

An elimination game is an elimination game. The Suns were never going to beat the spurs. They couldn't do it in 05 and they couldn't do it this year. They may as well move to the eastern conference.

Spurs: 3 Asterisks

Suns: 0 asterisks


*= A championship that is not honored by loser fans of losing teams who "should have" or were "destined" to win the championshp but didn't.

[spurtime]

What the hell? Where's the smack talk coming from. The Spurs seem to get hungrier and win championships during odd years. That's a fact.

No, that's an opinion...the hungrier part.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

No, that's an opinion...the hungrier part.

Fair enough, although that's what it seems to me (and it makes sense after you go through a year long drought).

[Don Quixote]

He's on a sports talk tv show. He's picking a side that leaves the most room to be argued/talked about. Whether he believes it or not is not important. Do you think he cares that the side he chooses to take on this particular subject pisses off some people? :rolleyes I'm not defending this particular person just defending the nature of the job he has.

It's amazing to me that some people don't realize this about talk radio and talk tv. I'm hoping they do and are just posting to give this board something to talk about.

Good take. I am agreed in saying that what the sportwriters and talking heads don't amount to much. What do I care about who Skip Bayless picks? Their job is to be provocative and get people to watch.

That said, the Mavs & Suns are losers, and most of their fans are complete girly-men whiners. You want everyone to respect your teams, who can't deliver when it counts?

Then give some respect to the team that can and does deliver in the clutch ... the San Antonio Spurs. Watch the trophy hosting that'll be happening in about 7 days. It'll be good for you. :king

And when, hypothetically speaking because it'll never happen, your team brings home the trophy, we'll say, dang they're good. But until then ... :p: :p:

[Don Quixote]

I wouldn't, in normal circumstances, be going over this again. We've had to deal with whining fans of Phoenix and Dallas for weeks, at least the ones who haven't hung themselves. Asterisk, conspiracy, blah blah blah.

But ... since the NBA is determined to stretch the playoffs into August, that leaves plenty of time, but hardly any basketball (except for stuff that happened weeks ago), for basketball junkies to talk. So why not?

[Strike]

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year. The asterisk's hard enough to live with, I couldn't handle losing."

Hey, assclown, how many games did the Spurs win with Amare playing?
3

Eat it, fuckstick.

[Strike]

Next year is an even year though. Perhaps wait until 2009?

Wait for a year the Suns will win the title.

oh wait.......

[Marcus Bryant]

Why is it that the fans of ringless teams feel compelled to visit and disparage the 3 championships their team doesn't have? I guess it helps them cope.

It must suck being bitter and jealous.

[Avitus1]

I'll admit this. Its cute during the regular season to watch the Suns run all over the court smashing the shit out of teams. Its fun to watch as the Suns destroy a team like the Raptors with some insane score like 130 to 82 or something like that. Its even fun when I hear the Suns have won like 13 games in a row. Its damn entertaining. Whats even more entertaining is when the Suns lose though. Not only do we get to hear more bitching and complaining then on an episode of Dr. Phil but we get the Suns fans thinking they've been robbed.

Here is the shocking thing though.

Phoenix fans have been robbed. They've been robbed of a franchise that doesn't win games by actually playing the game on both ends of the court. They've been robbed of players who accept the fact that they lost and dont make excuses. Most of all they've been robbed of a team who is anything but Entertaining.

Fact of the matter The Suns are a crappy team who cant get out of the playoffs and into the finals. The big moments will keep coming and the Suns will try there little asses off to get "stops" and the only way they can is to foul the player and slowly poison themselves to death, when he hits a ton FTs, all the while D'Antoni will yell and chomp his horse teeth on the sideline, while his team does what it always does in the Post Season.

Go Down in Flames.

[Obstructed_View]

Why is it that the fans of ringless teams feel compelled to visit and disparage the 3 championships their team doesn't have? I guess it helps them cope.

It must suck being bitter and jealous.
Welcome to the internet age. The Pistons won the '89 title in a sweep of the Lakers, who lost Magic before game 1 and Byron Scott at some point early in the series. The Pistons shot almost 50 free throws in game 4 at the Forum to close it out. Fortunately Lakers fans didn't have computers back then.

Another interesting note is that Robert Sarver and Jerry Colangelo didn't actually suggest any changes to the rule that Amare and Diaw violated, yet the Suns trolls are still too stupid to let it go.

[SPURS REP]

uuummmm....Are Dallas Fan so rednecked that they still say....colored fellow?LOL.....I mean "non colored" fellow.....LOLOLOLOLOl!!!!!!!

[Obstructed_View]

Someone should alert the NAACP...

[Corn on the Colb]

Welcome to the internet age. The Pistons won the '89 title in a sweep of the Lakers, who lost Magic before game 1 and Byron Scott at some point early in the series. The Pistons shot almost 50 free throws in game 4 at the Forum to close it out. Fortunately Lakers fans didn't have computers back then.

Another interesting note is that Robert Sarver and Jerry Colangelo didn't actually suggest any changes to the rule that Amare and Diaw violated, yet the Suns trolls are still too stupid to let it go.

Did Dwayne Wade play on that team?

[Obstructed_View]

Did Dwayne Wade play on that team?
Yeah, amazingly it's happened before and, though I'm sure there was a legion of sore losers out there to scream about how fucking unfair it was, they didn't have any means of broadcasting it around the world from their Barcalounger.

[Corn on the Colb]

Yeah, amazingly it's happened before and, though I'm sure there was a legion of sore losers out there to scream about how fucking unfair it was, they didn't have any means of broadcasting it around the world from their Barcalounger.

So they beat the Suns that year?

[Obstructed_View]

So they beat the Suns that year?
You mean the Mavericks?

[Corn on the Colb]

You mean the Mavericks?

The Phoenix Mavericks?

[Obstructed_View]

The Phoenix Mavericks?
With Cuban as the owner and D'Antoni as the coach. The perfect storm of whining.

[LilMissSPURfect]

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q228/GeneralPurpose/Spurstalk/WeOwnYou.jpg
We own you.

:king :toast

[Corn on the Colb]

With Cuban as the owner and D'Antoni as the coach. The perfect storm of whining.

I wonder if they'll trade for Rasheed Wallace this summer...

[thewatcher]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/6451/taintedvo1.jpg

[UV Ray]

The Phoenix Mavericks?

The Phoelas Mavsuns

[Cry Havoc]

That's another good point, Avitus.

Suns fans, what the fuck? You run up scores ALL YEAR LONG against teams, blowing them out by 40, and then whine that we have no class? You're running your starters into the high 30s in minutes when the game is already in hand.

Guess what?


YOUR TEAM SUCKS.


Beating the Raps and Grizz by 55 will only get you tired players for the Spurs to roll over in 6 games every year.

[Displaced Spurs Fan]

So you think you can dance? Dance, monkey, dance!

All the phoenix fans still at SPurstalk are freakin weak. Not all are like this. I work with a diehard Suns fan who has graciously manned up to the situation. I won a lunch and a Suns tee-shirt from him. I use the tee-shirt to polish my boots.

[Shred]

All the phoenix fans still at SPurstalk are freakin weak. Not all are like this. I work with a diehard Suns fan who has graciously manned up to the situation. I won a lunch and a Suns tee-shirt from him. I use the tee-shirt to polish my boots.

*

[HJNTX]

Every 197th year belongs to Phx...
:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

[SpurYank]

Speaking of shining your boots with that Suns t-shirt. I was at mid-court in Salt Lake City with my Spurs t-shirt on for that Saturday fiasco. I, too, was given a t-shirt with my ticket. I wear it proudly, when I work on my car and do the yard.

[pussyface]

uuummmm....Are Dallas Fan so rednecked that they still say....colored fellow?LOL.....I mean "non colored" fellow.....LOLOLOLOLOl!!!!!!!

yes, we are that "rednecked."
either that, or it was a joke.

there are two types of people in this world...colored, and non-colored.



ironically, in the realm of political correctness it is considered shamefull to say the word colored but the height of social responsibility to refer to someone as a "person of color." i find such semantics humorous.

in other news, i am most likely somewhat more intelligent than a person who uses the term "redneck" as a verb.

[pussyface]

did you honestly use the word 'colored'? are you kidding me?

1. yes (well, sort of. actually it was "non-colored")
2. you decide

[pussyface.]

also, siccophants.

[Strike]

*

:dramaquee

[pussyface]

Ah, so not only are you illiterate, but you're also a racist piece of shit.

haha. for a guy with a wutang/odb inspired name, you are about as soft and sensitive as a clitoris.

illiterate? okay. if you say so. my bachelor's degree in journalism not withstanding.

[pussyface]

also, siccophants.

please disregard my imposter here. he obsesses on me a lot.

[pussyface.]

please disregard my imposter here. he obsesses on me a lot.

it's true. the pussyface is obsessed with the pussyface.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

haha. for a guy with a wutang/odb inspired name, you are about as soft and sensitive as a clitoris.

illiterate? okay. if you say so. my bachelor's degree in journalism not withstanding.

Well 400 years of racial injustice has gotten me a bit sensitive, especially when some asshole from Texas decides to demean my ancestors by calling them colored people.

[Obstructed_View]

Well 400 years of racial injustice has gotten me a bit sensitive, especially when some asshole from Texas decides to demean my ancestors by calling them colored people.
Like I said before, take it to the NAACP and shut the fuck up, already.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Like I said before, take it to the NAACP and shut the fuck up, already.

Look up the word context in the dictionary dip shit.

I think that political correctness is fucking ridiculous, and I don't need somebody calling me a "African American" or having employment quotas. That's stupid. But by the same token, if you make light of racism by using racial slurs wantonly to people that you don't know are cool with it then you're an insensitive jackass who has no fucking idea what he's talking about it.

[Extra Stout]

Welcome to the internet age. The Pistons won the '89 title in a sweep of the Lakers, who lost Magic before game 1 and Byron Scott at some point early in the series. The Pistons shot almost 50 free throws in game 4 at the Forum to close it out. Fortunately Lakers fans didn't have computers back then.

Another interesting note is that Robert Sarver and Jerry Colangelo didn't actually suggest any changes to the rule that Amare and Diaw violated, yet the Suns trolls are still too stupid to let it go.
Did they have the internets during the 2002 Western Conference Finals?

[Obstructed_View]

Look up the word context in the dictionary dip shit.

I think that political correctness is fucking ridiculous, and I don't need somebody calling me a "African American" or having employment quotas. That's stupid. But by the same token, if you make light of racism by using racial slurs wantonly to people that you don't know are cool with it then you're an insensitive jackass who has no fucking idea what he's talking about it.
If the NAACP hasn't taken the term "colored people" out of their own name, aren't they promoting racism? Look up the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary, moron. If you are actually black, I'm glad that you have no idea what real racism is, as you have clearly demonstrated.

[Obstructed_View]

Did they have the internets during the 2002 Western Conference Finals?
Since the Kings fans are still whining about that one to this day...

[OldDirtMcGirt]

If the NAACP hasn't taken the term "colored people" out of their own name, aren't they promoting racism? Look up the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary, moron. If you are actually black, I'm glad that you have no idea what real racism is, as you have clearly demonstrated.

No, because they have a longstanding tradition of using the name in their title, plus it's not as if they've been promoting a racist agenda for the past hundred years. I just don't like how people throw around the term, especially in the context that the original poster did. I don't go around calling women "cunts" for no particular reason, have some fucking tact. No need to be needlessly provocative and try to offend people for no particular reason just to get attention for being and insensitive dick.

And yes, I do know what "actual racism" is, which is why shit like this pisses me off.

[Obstructed_View]

No, because they have a longstanding tradition of using the name in their title, plus it's not as if they've been promoting a racist agenda for the past hundred years.
Boy are you naive. :lol :lol

Wait, I didn't mean "boy" as in... oh fuck it. Think whatever you want. I hope 'colored fellow' is the worst thing you hear this year. People who look for a reason to be disliked are rarely disappointed.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Boy are you naive. :lol :lol

Wait, I didn't mean "boy" as in... oh fuck it. Think whatever you want. I hope 'colored fellow' is the worst thing you hear this year. People who look for a reason to be disliked are rarely disappointed.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[zrinkill]

I see somebody has pulled the Race card ..... :rolleyes

[conqueso]

What the fuck are you talking about?

NAACP supports systems of racial preference.

Racial preference, by definition, is racist.

Hence, NAACP has a racist agenda.

Man, you people are dumb.

[Obstructed_View]

What the fuck are you talking about?
You actually said that the group that Walter Williams calls "The clan with a tan" doesn't promote a racist agenda, which is laughable. What's even stupider is that you are a Suns fan in a Spurs forum who has absorbed almost constant abuse for weeks and now you are getting pissy about someone's choice of words describing someone whose name they didn't know? I suppose if it had been Bob Ryan that had said it and he'd referred to the "white guy" I'd have lost my mind and been ready to stage a fucking sit in. Please. I'm done talking to you. Bring this shit up to me when you've grown up a little and get the fuck over yourself. Your problem isn't the color of your skin but the thickness, or lack of it.

Congratulations. I don't like you, and it has everything to do with the fact that you're stupid.

[Armando]

Why is anybody still talking about what happen in the semis?

[OldDirtMcGirt]

NAACP supports systems of racial preference.

Racial preference, by definition, is racist.

Hence, NAACP has a racist agenda.

Man, you people are dumb.

I define racism as practices or actions that discriminate against minorities in particular. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's no such thing as reverse racism against white people.

However, such things are pretty recent. The NAACP has now become overrun with dickhead politicians who are to overcome by beaurocratic bullshit to affect any real change. They were most effective opposing real racial injustices like Jim Crow laws, etc.

[hater]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's no such thing as reverse racism against white people.

wtf? you don't think ppl could be racist against white ppl? shit, I'm racist towards whities all the time

[SacheLee]

OldDirtMcGirt and Obstructed View......how old are you guys...seriously... :blah


:lmao ...at people calling the NAACP racist.... What is wrong for a national group for those black minorities....

:wakeup

[OldDirtMcGirt]

You actually said that the group that Walter Williams calls "The clan with a tan" doesn't promote a racist agenda, which is laughable. What's even stupider is that you are a Suns fan in a Spurs forum who has absorbed almost constant abuse for weeks and now you are getting pissy about someone's choice of words describing someone whose name they didn't know? I suppose if it had been Bob Ryan that had said it and he'd referred to the "white guy" I'd have lost my mind and been ready to stage a fucking sit in. Please. I'm done talking to you. Bring this shit up to me when you've grown up a little and get the fuck over yourself. Your problem isn't the color of your skin but the thickness, or lack of it.

Congratulations. I don't like you, and it has everything to do with the fact that you're stupid.

Because Walter Williams is a guy in the Bill Cosby/Larry Elder mold who oppose Affirmative Action, Minimum Wage, etc. His viewpoint is also in the extreme minority amongst most black communities. By no means is he authority on what is and what is not racist.

"White" is not considered an offensive term by many. "Colored people" is. What's the point of being stupid and provocative? I don't go around calling people I don't know "crackers", because I've got some tact.

[Obstructed_View]

I define racism as practices or actions that discriminate against minorities in particular. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's no such thing as reverse racism against white people.
Congratulations, you are a bigot. There's no such thing as reverse racism; it's all racism. No wonder you don't actually know it when you see it; you can't even define it properly. Oh well, you'll always have an excuse to be a victim, and you'll always have someone to blame when you fail. Hey, you should be a Suns fan. Oh wait, you are.

[monosylab1k]

I define racism as practices or actions that discriminate against minorities in particular.

sucks for you that the dictionary doesn't define racism the same way

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

[monosylab1k]

It's not possible for there to be racism against white people? Tell that to Farrakhan...

[Obstructed_View]

I don't go around calling people I don't know "crackers", because I've got some tact.
Not because it's wrong, but because you have tact. Nice moral compass.

BTW, if you did, you'd hardly be distinguishing yourself, and I still wouldn't give a shit.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Congratulations, you are a bigot. There's no such thing as reverse racism; it's all racism. No wonder you don't actually know it when you see it; you can't even define it properly. Oh well, you'll always have an excuse to be a victim, and you'll always have someone to blame when you fail. Hey, you should be a Suns fan. Oh wait, you are.

Reverse racism is a term that alot of conservative pundits use to describe policies like affirmative action whose intent is to help out one minority at the expense of the majority, hence "reverse racism".

And actually I'm doing pretty well for myself, I'm not trying to blame anything on "the man". But to say that racism doesn't exist and isn't a serious problem in this country is ignorant and naive.

[conqueso]

I define racism as practices or actions that discriminate against minorities in particular. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's no such thing as reverse racism against white people.

However, such things are pretty recent. The NAACP has now become overrun with dickhead politicians who are to overcome by beaurocratic bullshit to affect any real change. They were most effective opposing real racial injustices like Jim Crow laws, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism&x=0&y=0

rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ [rey-siz-uhm]
-noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination

dis·crim·i·na·tion /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit

-----------

It's truly ironic that you've constructed a definition of racism that only applies to discrimination of one race and not discrimination of another...you have, in effect, concocted a racist definition of racism. I applaud you.

Your definition is not only internally contradictory, it also is not correct, at least if the dictionary is an authoritative source. You are right about one thing though...discrimination against whites isn't reverse racism. It's racist, plain and simple. If you preach racial justice, you should practice it too, or you risk committing the same crimes that you are fighting against.

And using the word "colored" is not a slur, at least not to the same degree as "######" or "jigaboo" or whatever. I can understand that some blacks may be sensitive about that particular word, but the Association dedicated solely to making you the dominant race uses the word freely, so I think you should probably lighten up a little bit.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

sucks for you that the dictionary doesn't define racism the same way

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

That's fine. I don't consider white people to really be very effected by perceived racism. Usually it's from totally dumbasses like Farrakhan (who pretty much is offensive to the entire human race), who don't directly affect other people's lives with their hateful drivel.

[monosylab1k]

But to say that racism doesn't exist and isn't a serious problem in this country is ignorant and naive.

nobody is saying that. or at least i hope they aren't.

but it's also ignorant and naive to think that racism doesn't occur equally against white people as it does against any other race.

[conqueso]

Reverse racism is a term that alot of conservative pundits use to describe policies like affirmative action whose intent is to help out one minority at the expense of the majority, hence "reverse racism".

And actually I'm doing pretty well for myself, I'm not trying to blame anything on "the man". But to say that racism doesn't exist and isn't a serious problem in this country is ignorant and naive.

No one is saying that. Nice way to derail the conversation by responding to an argument no one has made.

Racism exists. It exists in whites against blacks. And it exists in blacks against whites. Your refusal to accept that fact is depressingly similar to the refusal of white society to accept its own racist tendencies a generation ago.

[Extra Stout]

The word "racism" can have different definitions depending upon the intent of the speaker. I believe OldDirtMcGirt is speaking in the sense of systemic racism, which is different from racial bigotry, and which veritably cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race, by definition.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

It's truly ironic that you've constructed a definition of racism that only applies only to discrimination of one race and not discrimination of another...you have, in effect, concocted a racist definition of racism. I applaud you.

Your definition is not only internally contradictory, it also is not correct, at least if the dictionary is an authoritative source. You are right about one thing though...discrimination against whites isn't reverse racism. It's racist, plain and simple. If you preach racial justice, you should practice it too, or you risk committing the same crimes that you are fighting against.

And using the word "colored" is not a slur, at least not to the same degree as "######" or "jigaboo" or whatever. I can understand that some blacks may be sensitive about that particular word, but the Association dedicated solely to making you the dominant race uses the word freely, so I think you should probably lighten up a little bit.

What are some examples of racist action against white people? As far as I know, very few institutions actually use racial quotas, they're just required to look at just as many minorities as they do any other race. And for the record, I don't support affirmative action or any sort of racial quota anyways.

I consider the term "colored people" to be a racist term.

[zrinkill]

Anyone who uses the Race card on an internet argument ..... is prolly the biggest racist there is.

Unless you are a half breed (like me) you do not understand what real racism is. We get it from both sides and do not have a race to fall back on for support.

Stop crying about race.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

The word "racism" can have different definitions depending upon the intent of the speaker. I believe OldDirtMcGirt is speaking in the sense of systemic racism, which is different from racial bigotry, and which veritably cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race, by definition.

Precisely. That's way more eloquent than whatever I could come up with.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

nobody is saying that. or at least i hope they aren't.

but it's also ignorant and naive to think that racism doesn't occur equally against white people as it does against any other race.

Racism doesn't occur equally against white people. Not by a longshot. I can see how some affirmative action shit seems to be stacking the deck against white people, but the amount of racism exhibited against the majority and dominant race isn't even close. And I'm not even talking about big things like employment or housing. Getting followed around stores, getting arrested for no apparent reason, people avoiding me on the street, locking their doors when I'm around, that's real racism that almost every white person won't experience during their life.

[conqueso]

The word "racism" can have different definitions depending upon the intent of the speaker. I believe OldDirtMcGirt is speaking in the sense of systemic racism, which is different from racial bigotry, and which veritably cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race, by definition.

Systematic racism refers to government policies and actions (hence "system") and doesn't apply to private actors working outside of a system of governance controlled primarily by one race. As such, Dirt could not have meant that pussyface using the term "colored" was systematically racist.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, systematic racism doesn't need to be exercised by the dominant (i.e. majority) race by definition. All that is required is that social institutions favor one race over another. It's possible that those social institutions will favor a minority race. Regardless, it's pretty inane to consider racial animus from-white-to-black as bad but racial animus from-black-to-white as good, which is what you are doing when you define racism as only the majority discriminating against the minority and not vice versa.

[conqueso]

What are some examples of racist action against white people? As far as I know, very few institutions actually use racial quotas, they're just required to look at just as many minorities as they do any other race. And for the record, I don't support affirmative action or any sort of racial quota anyways.

I consider the term "colored people" to be a racist term.

Racial quotas have become race-as-a-plus-factor (and are implemented at Michigan and Texas, two of the top 5 largest universities in the nation), but no matter how you look at it, it's not color blind, and therefore, racist, regardless of whether it's whites or blacks who end up with the racial advantage.

[zrinkill]

Racism doesn't occur equally against white people. Not by a longshot. I can see how some affirmative action shit seems to be stacking the deck against white people, but the amount of racism exhibited against the majority and dominant race isn't even close. And I'm not even talking about big things like employment or housing. Getting followed around stores, getting arrested for no apparent reason, people avoiding me on the street, locking their doors when I'm around, that's real racism that almost every white person won't experience during their life.


Combine that with being ostricized by the black community ....... and then you would understand true racism.

[Extra Stout]

Systematic racism refers to government policies and actions (hence "system") and doesn't apply to private actors working outside of a system of governance controlled primarily by one race. As such, Dirt could not have meant that pussyface using the term "colored" was systematically racist.
You're thinking of institutional racism, not systemic racism.

Institutional racism is state-endorsed. Systemic racism is cultural. It is the most inscrutable kind, because it does not require anybody consciously to hate anybody else, in actions or attitudes, i.e. it doesn't require bigotry to sustain itself.

And the term "colored" can be racist without being bigoted, because of its historical connotations.

The trouble with exploring systemic racism is that term "racist" usually represents a direct attack on somebody's character, but systemic racism isn't like that. It's a general social problem.

[Jamtas#2]

So do you prefer your asterisk in Size 6

*

or Size 7

*

?

Admit it or not, you'd kill to have that *
hanging from your rafters.

[monosylab1k]

Getting followed around stores, getting arrested for no apparent reason, people avoiding me on the street, locking their doors when I'm around, that's real racism that almost every white person won't experience during their life.

How about constantly being picked last in pickup basketball? Happens to me all the time.

[hater]

How about constantly being picked last in pickup basketball? Happens to me all the time.

most likely it's because you suck

[monosylab1k]

most likely it's because you suck

because people i've never played basketball with would know that, right?

[conqueso]

You're thinking of institutional racism, not systemic racism.

Institutional racism is state-endorsed. Systemic racism is cultural. It is the most inscrutable kind, because it does not require anybody consciously to hate anybody else, in actions or attitudes, i.e. it doesn't require bigotry to sustain itself.

And the term "colored" can be racist without being bigoted, because of its historical connotations.

The trouble with exploring systemic racism is that term "racist" usually represents a direct attack on somebody's character, but systemic racism isn't like that. It's a general social problem.

You're right, I confused the two. I don't think systemic racism is by definition majority-against-minority, if for no other reason than that it assumes that the majority race will have the largest cultural impact on the overall social system. Furthermore, minority black culture can be systemically racist as well; think about tight-knit black communities which foster the same animus towards whites as tight-knit white communities foster against blacks. Both are systemic in that both have an grand effect on the system as a whole which become a subconscious pathology.

[WalterBenitez]

hmmmm how many asterisks do Suns have? WTF ... keep fishing your idiots.

[ancestron]

To all Suns fans:

It's over!!! You lost. Get over it!!!


Seriously, if I can get over .4, than you guys could get over this.

Don't forget Manu's foul on Nowitzki in Game 7 of the 06 semis that let the Mavs tie it up after the Spurs had erased a 20 point deficit and took a 3 point lead with 30 seconds left. That's right up there with .4 in my book... :bang

[hater]

because people i've never played basketball with would know that, right?

then you must not look as athletic as the other choices.

IMO in a basketball court there is little racism. when you're good, ppl will give you props no matter what race you are.

[Extra Stout]

You're right, I confused the two. I don't think systemic racism is by definition majority-against-minority, if for no other reason than that it assumes that the majority race will have the largest cultural impact on the overall social system. Furthermore, minority black culture can be systemically racist as well; think about tight-knit black communities which foster the same animus towards whites as tight-knit white communities foster against blacks. Both are systemic in that both have an grand effect on the system as a whole which become a subconscious pathology.
You're right that systemic racism is not necessarily by the majority; that's why I said "dominant" race.

You also are correct about the existence of systemic racism within individual communities that can flip the roles found within the larger society. I don't know that I would characterize the dynamic as "animus," however.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

You're right, I confused the two. I don't think systemic racism is by definition majority-against-minority, if for no other reason than that it assumes that the majority race will have the largest cultural impact on the overall social system. Furthermore, minority black culture can be systemically racist as well; think about tight-knit black communities which foster the same animus towards whites as tight-knit white communities foster against blacks. Both are systemic in that both have an grand effect on the system as a whole which become a subconscious pathology.

Except those black communities are usually doing it in retribution towards the racist policies of whites. It's a vicious cycle. The ones most likely to be bigoted towards others (the young and poor) are the ones who get pulled over, followed in stores, have people cross to the other side of the street, etc. However, these people have much less influence in society than say police officers (not saying that all officers are racist of course), judges, employers, etc. That's where true systemic racism exists, and that's where it hurts the most.

Also, on an earlier point you made about colleges, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to look at an applicant's race during the selection process. The whole point of a university is to foster a broad range of debate and intellectual discussion with people of different backgrounds. Don't forget that colleges also weight the applications of religious minorities and rural students for the very same goal.

[DarrinS]

I don't care what color you are, just learn English, damn it.

[zrinkill]

Except those black communities are usually doing it in retribution towards the racist policies of whites.


:rolleyes This is bull ..... blacks and whites are equally racist.

[monosylab1k]

then you must not look as athletic as the other choices.

IMO in a basketball court there is little racism.

and that's my whole point. sometimes people perceive racism when there isn't any, just because they want that excuse. If the only white guy is picked last, he could perceive that as racist. then again, he might be fat and out of shape, and that's why he's picked last. (and i've seen firsthand some racist bullshit on the basketball court, my brother is 6'2 and an extremely good basketball player, but if he's playing with people who don't know him, he's generally among the last guys picked and they make an effort to never give him the ball until he manages to grab a rebound and take it coast to coast by himself to "prove" himself to them).

if someone sees people locking their door, they might perceive that as racist. then again, maybe the fact that they saw ANYBODY walk by reminded them to simply lock their door, and nothing more. lots of these little "racist" acts against black people are nothing more than perceived injustices that have little to no real foundation to it.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

:rolleyes This is bull ..... blacks and whites are equally racist.

No they aren't. Systemic racism has a much greater effect on blacks. While there might be certain people who are racist towards white people, rarely are those in power racist towards whites. This country has definitely made strides in the department of racial equality, but we aren't even close to having everybody be equal.

[zrinkill]

No they aren't. Systemic racism has a much greater effect on blacks. While there might be certain people who are racist towards white people, rarely are those in power racist towards whites. This country has definitely made strides in the department of racial equality, but we aren't even close to having everybody be equal.


I am not talking about government policies Girt ..... I am talking about how black and white people treat each other ...... They are equally racist toward one another. A black man has just as good a chance to not like white people as a white man has of not likeing black people.

I have felt it from both sides .... and until people realize that they are both to blame it will continue.

[Extra Stout]

No they aren't. Systemic racism has a much greater effect on blacks. While there might be certain people who are racist towards white people, rarely are those in power racist towards whites. This country has definitely made strides in the department of racial equality, but we aren't even close to having everybody be equal.
Given my understanding of what systemic racism is, I'm not sure all the effects ever could be fully eradicated.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I am not talking about government policies Girt ..... I am talking about how black and white people treat each other ...... They are equally racist toward one another. A black man has just as good a chance to not like white people as a white man has of not likeing black people.

I have felt it from both sides .... and until people realize that they are both to blame it will continue.

Even if that is true, if a white man hates a black man, and the black man hates the white man, and the white man happens to be a cop/employer/landlord/etc.... that's the problem right there.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

Given my understanding of what systemic racism is, I'm not sure all the effects ever could be fully eradicated.

It can't. However, it has been reduced and more progress can be made in that departement. People will always hate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it.

[monosylab1k]

Even if that is true, if a white man hates a black man, and the black man hates the white man, and the white man happens to be a cop/employer/landlord/etc.... that's the problem right there.

so there's no black cops/employers/landlords/etc? or are you saying that all black cops/employers/landlords/etc could not possibly be racist?

[OldDirtMcGirt]

so there's no black cops/employers/landlords/etc? or are you saying that all black cops/employers/landlords/etc could not possibly be racist?

No, but I'm saying that it's much, much less common than the former.

[DarrinS]

Famous undercover expose of racism in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpO7g9mLzlw

[Extra Stout]

Even if that is true, if a white man hates a black man, and the black man hates the white man, and the white man happens to be a cop/employer/landlord/etc.... that's the problem right there.
The problem isn't when the white man hates the black man... the problem is when the white man acts based upon subconscious preconceived notionsof the black man based upon visual cues, or even more inscrutably, when the white man assumes that the black man has the same cultural frame of reference as the white man, and then reacts negatively when the black man fails to conduct himself in accordance with that frame.

[zrinkill]

Even if that is true, if a white man hates a black man, and the black man hates the white man, and the white man happens to be a cop/employer/landlord/etc.... that's the problem right there.

It could just as easly be the other way around ......

Or what if it was a half black/white baby who has to be renamed because his black grandfather does not want a part white child named after him?

:rolleyes dont talk to me about racism because you get followed around at walmart

[Extra Stout]

It can't. However, it has been reduced and more progress can be made in that departement. People will always hate, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it.
I don't think it's hate; I think it's that the socioeconomic insitutions of the nation were founded by persons of European descent hundreds of years ago, and that the minority culture was forced to develop outside of those, due to institutional racism. Once integration happened, we did it in such a way that damaged the parallel socioeconomic institutions of the oppressed minority race, forcing it then to adapt to those of the dominant race, which to the minority will always be somewhat discordant.

In less pedantic langauge, white people never have to live in a black America unless they choose to do so, but black people have no choice but to live in a white America.

[DarrinS]

I don't think it's hate; I think it's that the socioeconomic insitutions of the nation were founded by persons of European descent hundreds of years ago, and that the minority culture was forced to develop outside of those, due to institutional racism. Once integration happened, we did it in such a way that damaged the parallel socioeconomic institutions of the oppressed minority race, forcing it then to adapt to those of the dominant race, which to the minority will always be somewhat discordant.

In less pedantic langauge, white people never have to live in a black America unless they choose to do so, but black people have no choice but to live in a white America.


What???
http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/caveman_3.jpg

[Extra Stout]

Another tough nut to crack with regard to systemic racism in the internalization thereof into the cultural self-image of the black community.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

I don't think it's hate; I think it's that the socioeconomic insitutions of the nation were founded by persons of European descent hundreds of years ago, and that the minority culture was forced to develop outside of those, due to institutional racism. Once integration happened, we did it in such a way that damaged the parallel socioeconomic institutions of the oppressed minority race, forcing it then to adapt to those of the dominant race, which to the minority will always be somewhat discordant.

In less pedantic langauge, white people never have to live in a black America unless they choose to do so, but black people have no choice but to live in a white America.

Man, I'm just letting Extra Stout carry the torch from here. No way I can surpass using "pendantic". :lol

[conqueso]

Except those black communities are usually doing it in retribution towards the racist policies of whites. It's a vicious cycle. The ones most likely to be bigoted towards others (the young and poor) are the ones who get pulled over, followed in stores, have people cross to the other side of the street, etc. However, these people have much less influence in society than say police officers (not saying that all officers are racist of course), judges, employers, etc. That's where true systemic racism exists, and that's where it hurts the most.

Also, on an earlier point you made about colleges, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to look at an applicant's race during the selection process. The whole point of a university is to foster a broad range of debate and intellectual discussion with people of different backgrounds. Don't forget that colleges also weight the applications of religious minorities and rural students for the very same goal.

Racism:
I agree that racism is a vicious cycle, but I don't think you can excuse black-against-white racism by saying it's just about retribution unless you also say that white-against-black racial profiling by police is retribution for the disproportionate amount of violent crimes perpetrated by minorities. I don't think you can excuse or justify racism by saying "it's okay if we do it to them because they did it to us first" for two reasons: 1) who actually knows who did what first, and 2) racism is not a rational or reasonable self-defense against racism.

Schools:
I think you are assuming that the whole point of a university it to have diversity. There are many recognized benefits which may be derived from a lack of diversity, as with same-gender and same-race schools. And even in those institutions where diversity is a part of their particular mode of education, you cannot say that making decisions based on race is not racist. That's axiomatic. We can debate whether that racism is justified, but it doesn't change its essential nature.


You're right that systemic racism is not necessarily by the majority; that's why I said "dominant" race.

You explained that Dirt's definition of racism, which required discrimination by the majority against the minority, was a notion of systemic racism, which you said by definition cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race. When you used the word "dominant" to support a view of majoritarian racism, you made it synonymous with "majority." I still don't see how Dirt's definition is systemic racism at all.


You also are correct about the existence of systemic racism within individual communities that can flip the roles found within the larger society. I don't know that I would characterize the dynamic as "animus," however.

Discrimination without even a minute amount of animus is the type of discrimination that the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasoning. Without animus, discrimination cannot be said to be "bad" or "wrong," it can only be said to be "natural" or "necessary."

[Extra Stout]

You explained that Dirt's definition of racism, which required discrimination by the majority against the minority, was a notion of systemic racism, which you said by definition cannot be inflicted upon the dominant race. When you used the word "dominant" to support a view of majoritarian racism, you made it synonymous with "majority." I still don't see how Dirt's definition is systemic racism at all.
In the case of systemic racism against blacks in the United States, the majority race is also the dominant race, so that is perfectly germane to McGirt's point.

However, I used the term "dominant" as opposed to "majority," because there are plenty of historical examples of where a minority race or ethnic group has been nevertheless culturally and socioeconomically dominant.

[conqueso]

In less pedantic langauge, white people never have to live in a black America unless they choose to do so, but black people have no choice but to live in a white America.

I'd hardly call Harlem or South Central "white America." But even if you are correct, two question must be asked: Is it possible for a non-dominant culture to ever live in a society where they have no choice but to live within the dominant culture? and, is this type of arrangement even harmful at all?

[conqueso]

In the case of systemic racism against blacks in the United States, the majority race is also the dominant race, so that is perfectly germane to McGirt's point.

However, I used the term "dominant" as opposed to "majority," because there are plenty of historical examples of where a minority race or ethnic group has been nevertheless culturally and socioeconomically dominant.

Right. And in light of your last point, how can a definition of racism which restricts it to majority-against-minority be in accord with a type of racism which allows for minority-against-majority racism?

[Extra Stout]

Discrimination without even a minute amount of animus is the type of discrimination that the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasoning. Without animus, discrimination cannot be said to be "bad" or "wrong," it can only be said to be "natural" or "necessary."
This is an important point in the dialogue about systemic racism: the basic type of discrimination the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasonong, which cannot on an individual basis be castigated as "bad" or "wrong," can nevertheless reinforce existing inequities among racial and ethnic groups.

[gospursgooo]

Just because Kornheiser can speak on the radio doesn't mean that I give a shit about what he says.

Next!

[Extra Stout]

I'd hardly call Harlem or South Central "white America."
Our basic governmental, economic, and social institutions in the United States of America are Eurocentric.


But even if you are correct, two question must be asked: Is it possible for a non-dominant culture to ever live in a society where they have no choice but to live within the dominant culture? and, is this type of arrangement even harmful at all?
No, and yes. Black people will always be at some disadvantage in the United States of America, unless wealthy, powerful, and culturally significant white people assimilate wholesale into black culture, which is never going to happen.

I'm not saying that it is fixable, just acknowledging that the dynamic exists.

[Extra Stout]

Right. And in light of your last point, how can a definition of racism which restricts it to majority-against-minority be in accord with a type of racism which allows for minority-against-majority racism?
Think, for example, of Mexico, where the gallegos make up a small minority of the population, but hold an overwhelming share of economic and political power, and cultural influence.

[sleepybum]

Meh... I've had the living shit kicked out of my by a group of black guys and I certainly felt like it was reverse discrimination. I got severe bruising, a concussion, blacked out for 2 days and could've easily died had I fallen badly on the concrete or my friend not come out of the store to stop the kicking. All because I was standing in the wrong part of the sidewalk on MLK day.

I'm pretty sure it was in retaliation for something that had happened to these guys, but that didn't make me feel much better about it. Raleigh NC seemed pretty racist all around when I was up there.

I'm Italian and my grandfather was an immigrant working in a coal mine. He got all the discrimination and I've received none of the benefits of being a minority. I think I'm actually in one of the smallest minorities in the US. :p:

It really is all bullshit, though. Just realize a large portion of the population are assholes regardless of color. Seems silly to get so offended or over-analyze. Some group of people will not like you without a good reason no matter what you look like.

[ImpartialObserver]

Except the fact that we beat your ass 7 fucking times on your home court in the last 3 series. Pretty arrogant to think you would have taken a prospective game 7. We own your asses, and will until D'Antoni is dumped, and you get a coach that understands their is a defensive component to the game, and you don't win trophies without it.
You are one of the few Spurs fans that has actually repeatedly voiced their confidence in beating a full strength Phoenix in that series, and supported it with analysis.

For a lot of non-Spurs fans, it's telling that so few Spurs fans expressed similar opinions instead choosing to back the enforcement of a rule that really had nothing to do with the actual basketball being played on the court.

[Spurminator]

You are one of the few Spurs fans that has actually repeatedly voiced their confidence in beating a full strength Phoenix in that series, and supported it with analysis.

For a lot of non-Spurs fans, it's telling that so few Spurs fans expressed similar opinions instead choosing to back the enforcement of a rule that really had nothing to do with the actual basketball being played on the court.


:wtf

The vast majority of Spurs fans felt, going in and afterwards, the Spurs were the better team based on matchups and history. If the conversations devolved into an analysis of NBA rules it's because Suns fans couldn't stop bitching about the suspensions.

[conqueso]

Our basic governmental, economic, and social institutions in the United States of America are Eurocentric.

And African Americans are as much a part of this culture as European Americans. If we were talking about displaced tribal Africans here being forced to conform to Western modes of living, then Eurocentrism and its detriments to African culture would be relevant. But when you use the term "white America," you aren't referring to Western governmental, economic, and social institutions, because those same institutions are inclusive of all who are have been a part of the culture for a significant amount of time, regardless of the race of the people that instituted them.


No, and yes. Black people will always be at some disadvantage in the United States of America, unless wealthy, powerful, and culturally significant white people assimilate wholesale into black culture, which is never going to happen.

If whites assimilated "wholesale" into black culture, that black culture would then be the dominate culture and would disadvantage white people in the same way. I'm not sure that it would take a such a large scale assimilation...perhaps just a recognition of the inherent value of black culture. Large segments of white America have done such, with the assimilation of white people into black musical culture, for instance.


This is an important point in the dialogue about systemic racism: the basic type of discrimination the human mind naturally makes and which is required for upper-level cognitive reasonong, which cannot on an individual basis be castigated as "bad" or "wrong," can nevertheless reinforce existing inequities among racial and ethnic groups.

Yeah, I agree, but once you make this recognition, it begs the question of whether those inequities can, or even should, be eliminated. If they are caused (and not just reinforced) by the essential nature of the human mind, how are they supposed to be eradicated? And if inequity is an inevitable fact of life, is it necessarily bad? In other words, are we taking for granted that inequality is more harmful than the alternative, and if so, how do we justify that assumption?

[conqueso]

Think, for example, of Mexico, where the gallegos make up a small minority of the population, but hold an overwhelming share of economic and political power, and cultural influence.

Yes, I agree that systemic racism can emanate from the minority. Which is why I still don't think a definition of racism that restricts the practice to the majority is "systemic" racism. But even beyond all of this, refusing to classify racial discrimination against whites as "racist" because whites are not a part of the minority can't be a notion of systemic racism, since systemic racism can (and does) exist in both white/majority and black/minority cultures. Under Dirt's definition, an entire component of systemic racism is ignored, which is my point.

[Obstructed_View]

You are one of the few Spurs fans that has actually repeatedly voiced their confidence in beating a full strength Phoenix in that series, and supported it with analysis.

For a lot of non-Spurs fans, it's telling that so few Spurs fans expressed similar opinions instead choosing to back the enforcement of a rule that really had nothing to do with the actual basketball being played on the court.
Since that rule was constantly cited by Spur-hating fans from all over the country as some great injustice that was the difference in the series, despite San Antonio winning game one in Phoenix and winning game six short-handed, who gives a shit what those non-Spurs fans think? Any basketball fan that watches the games knows the Spurs were the better team, have Phoenix's number AND that the rule was enforced fairly and correctly.

[Extra Stout]

And African Americans are as much a part of this culture as European Americans. If we were talking about displaced tribal Africans here being forced to conform to Western modes of living, then Eurocentrism and its detriments to African culture would be relevant. But when you use the term "white America," you aren't referring to Western governmental, economic, and social institutions, because those same institutions are inclusive of all who are have been a part of the culture for a significant amount of time, regardless of the race of the people that instituted them.
Black people have been allowed to participate in the mainstream socioeconomic institutions of the United States for less than a half-century.

In the years leading up to that point, institutional racism, specifically segregation, led to cultural divergence between blacks and whites. Integration led to a substantial dismantling of the existing parallel institutions of segregated black culture, because they could not compete with the dominant culture. For example, black businesses, which could not have competed with white businesses on account of inequitable access to capital, could flourish on account of segregation; however, when that barrier was lifted, the residual inequalities contributed to their failure when exposed to direct competition from white businesses for the black dollar.


If whites assimilated "wholesale" into black culture, that black culture would then be the dominate culture and would disadvantage white people in the same way. I'm not sure that it would take a such a large scale assimilation...perhaps just a recognition of the inherent value of black culture. Large segments of white America have done such, with the assimilation of white people into black musical culture, for instance.
It would take an enormous assimilation, because there are substantial differences. I'm not talking about culture in terms of artistic expression; I'm talking about culture in terms of the entire way of thinking that pervades how society is conducted. Black and white America have distinct ideas about that sort of thing, and since we usually don't realize that, we tend to talk past one another.


Yeah, I agree, but once you make this recognition, it begs the question of whether those inequities can, or even should, be eliminated. If they are caused (and not just reinforced) by the essential nature of the human mind, how are they supposed to be eradicated? And if inequity is an inevitable fact of life, is it necessarily bad? In other words, are we taking for granted that inequality is more harmful than the alternative, and if so, how do we justify that assumption?
You can't ever fully eliminate it. You can reconsider some of your assumptions in how you view people, but sometimes in your ongoing cognitive functioning, maintaining "enlightened" views on race is going to take a back seat to some other priority.

[Dilldoe]

if the suns were in the finals i'd be at sunsfans.net trolling. haha

[ImpartialObserver]

The vast majority of Spurs fans felt, going in and afterwards, the Spurs were the better team based on matchups and history.
Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.

[Extra Stout]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.
It is more of an accomplishment to beat a team at full strength than to beat it shorthanded, and that can cause some disappointment when the opponent finds itself shorthanded, even though it might have rendered itself that way though the stupidity and lack of poise of its own players.

[Dilldoe]

haha you needed help to beat the suns...the kings wouldnt need that...ha ha ha

[conqueso]

Black people have been allowed to participate in the mainstream socioeconomic institutions of the United States for less than a half-century.

In the years leading up to that point, institutional racism, specifically segregation, led to cultural divergence between blacks and whites. Integration led to a substantial dismantling of the existing parallel institutions of segregated black culture, because they could not compete with the dominant culture. For example, black businesses, which could not have competed with white businesses on account of inequitable access to capital, could flourish on account of segregation; however, when that barrier was lifted, the residual inequalities contributed to their failure when exposed to direct competition from white businesses for the black dollar.

I don't think this comment is relevant to my point. In response to your comment that black people have no choice but to live in white America, I responded that the notion of "white America" as an exclusive socio-economic institution of white origin that systematically excludes blacks and prohibits them from doing what they want to do is flawed. The reason I tried to give in my last post was, essentially, that what you are calling "white America" is actually an amalgamation of black and white cultures, and not the culture of whites forcibly imposed on blacks. The fact which you point out that the parallel socio-economic institutions were dismantled during desegregation/integration is true, but I don't think that black-only grocery stores (or whatever) owned by blacks being replaced with integrated grocery stores owned by whites forces blacks to live in some other race's culture. They're the same stores, selling the same goods for the same purposes; the culture is the same, and the blacks didn't have to "adapt to [the socio-economic institutions] of the dominant race" because there was nothing new to adapt to. In other words, the culture didn't change, just the race of the owners of some of those institutions. I think we're talking about two different types of culture here, which has led to this confusion, but when you claim that the adaption that occurred was "discordant" to the minority, I don't think that discord had anything to do with systemic (or otherwise) racial discrimination against black culture.


It would take an enormous assimilation, because there are substantial differences. I'm not talking about culture in terms of artistic expression; I'm talking about culture in terms of the entire way of thinking that pervades how society is conducted. Black and white America have distinct ideas about that sort of thing, and since we usually don't realize that, we tend to talk past one another.

While I don't think White American culture and Black American culture are very divergent in terms of an "entire way of thinking," even if that were the case, I don't see how this condition "disadvantages" blacks. If blacks are discriminated against simply because they think differently, then I can see your point, but I don't believe that's the type of discrimination you are talking about. I would hardly call the "disadvantage" of being a part of the minority who think a certain way in a country whose government is predicated on majority-rule is a "racist" condition. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.


You can't ever fully eliminate it. You can reconsider some of your assumptions in how you view people, but sometimes in your ongoing cognitive functioning, maintaining "enlightened" views on race is going to take a back seat to some other priority.

Yeah, I agree with this pretty whole-heartedly, since it makes sense to me that the human mind, which functions by means of discrimination, is bound to subconsciously categorize based on such a immediate sensory factor as skin color. I do not question that, when taken too far, this tendency can create patent, harmful racism. What I question is whether an "enlightened" view of race is actually an elimination of all racial distinctions in the mind, or even an assimilation of disparate cultures.

[Extra Stout]

conqueso, the closest thing I think I can relate it to is what you or I would go through if we moved to a foreign country. That's not a totally accurate analogy, but maybe it's close.

In a foreign country, we would be forced on a daily basis to adapt to cultural norms and expectations different from what we are used to. Some things would be the same, be familiar, but a lot of things would be strange. And to some degree, no matter what degree of success we might attain, we would always still be foreigners in that country in some way.

So to a white person, America can be home in a way it can't to a black person. A black person, unless he is going to spend his whole life around other black people, with very limited opportunities for advancement, has to figure out how to deal with white people every day. He has to get used to how white people do things, much as you or I would have to get used to how British people do things if we lived in Britain.

A white person does not have to get used to how black people do things unless he chooses to surround himself with black people.

Now, there are plenty of blacks who can make that adjustment. There are also plenty who can't, just like you might find a white guy who, if you sent him to England, would have an unfortunate episode because "it isn't like America." The difference is that the guy probably can get ahead in the US without those coping skills, because there is a path to success within his comfort zone.

Finding that path within his comfort zone is less likely for a black person.

This is a very different kind of obstacle than racial bigotry is, because what do you do about it?

[JMarkJohns]

*Just passing through*

[exstatic]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.
Why would we think that?
2003 2 games won in PHO
2005 3 games won in PHO
2007 2 games won in PHO

We OWN the hardwood Phoenix plays on.

[Spurminator]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.


That's not how I remember it. I remember most fans wishing they could play the Suns at full strength, but admitting that the NBA had no choice on how to enforce the rule.

[smeagol]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.
Stop kicking you own ass trying to bring the bookie odds as a reason why the Suns woulda/coulda/shoulda beat the Spurs. Since when are the oddsmaker a good barometer of who should win a series? You have been owned by chump on another thread about this same topic and you keep coming back for more?

Reality is they couldn't beat the SPurs. Amare and Boris were suspended one fucking game. You guys had six others to prove your so-called superiority and simply couldn't.

Suns fans have to be the lamest of all NBA fans. By far.

[OldDirtMcGirt]

That's not how I remember it. I remember most fans wishing they could play the Suns at full strength, but admitting that the NBA had no choice on how to enforce the rule.

Actually, I believe that most polls conducted showed about 60-75% of people didn't think that Boris or Amare should've been suspended.

[Spurminator]

Actually, I believe that most polls conducted showed about 60-75% of people didn't think that Boris or Amare should've been suspended.


I was strictly talking about Spurs fans. And there were even a good number of us who wanted to see the league make an exception.

[spurtime]

I was ambivalent about whether they should have been suspended, I also didn't think it really helped us in a one game situation since I saw the rest of the Suns digging deep as a result of their feeling of injustice. I did think the anger of the Suns' fans was entertaining, though.

[BlackFlagg]

*

* Bitter * :lol :lol

[BlackFlagg]

Translation: "Hopefully, the Spurs won't have to face the Suns on even ground next year.

Been there, done that. WON.

[jag]

What are some examples of racist action against white people? As far as I know, very few institutions actually use racial quotas, they're just required to look at just as many minorities as they do any other race. And for the record, I don't support affirmative action or any sort of racial quota anyways.

I consider the term "colored people" to be a racist term.


You make a bad name for black people everyone. Consider yourself an embarrassment. :cry

[OldDirtMcGirt]

You make a bad name for black people everyone. Consider yourself an embarrassment. :cry

Should I turn my black card in?

[conqueso]

Actually, I believe that most polls conducted showed about 60-75% of people didn't think that Boris or Amare should've been suspended.

The majority of American voters also thought G Dubs should be president back in '04. The lesson we should all learn from this is that the American people are stupid, and polls/elections just serve to repeatedly prove that point.

[leemajors]

Should I turn my black card in?
i'm surprised you could understand that. "a bad name for black people everyone"
?

[OldDirtMcGirt]

The majority of American voters also thought G Dubs should be president back in '04. The lesson we should all learn from this is that the American people are stupid, and polls/elections just serve to repeatedly prove that point.

I'm pretty sure that every race can agree on that. :lol

I just misunderstood his point, I thought he said that majority of fans thought that the suspensions were justified.

[Obstructed_View]

Yes, that is true but that wasn't the case imo during the series. After Game 4, most Spurs fans were making posts supporting the enforcement of the rule. There were a very few Spurs fans that stated they wanted to play Phoenix at full strength, and for good reason because deep down they knew like every oddsmaker, most basketball analysts, and most non-Spurs fans that Phoenix would have most likely won a best 2 of 3 series with homecourt advantage.
That's wrong. Immediately after game 4 (go check the game log) most Spurs fans were hoping that the league would just allow everyone to play. The Suns fans then came in stating some combination of Duncan and Bowen should be suspended too with Amare and Diaw should be allowed to play and Horry should be suspended. When Suns fans then began to say that the rule was bullshit because a)Amare was just checking in, b)he just stepped away from the bench (lie), c)he was just checking on his teammate (lie), d)he was going in to be a peacemaker (irrelevant), e)David Stern wants the Spurs to win (haha), f)the Suns already got screwed by the blood rule and should have won game 1, the Spurs fans began to take issue with the willingness by those that want the Spurs to lose, seemingly no matter the reason or the cost to the integrity of the sport. As a result, any sympathy for the Suns fans dried up as they were, almost to a man, unwilling to accept that leaving the bench was the fault of the players that did it and the coaches that allowed them to leave. They weren't looking for fairness, they were looking for any chance to win and an excuse to lose.

In my heart I knew that the Spurs were a vastly better team, as evidenced by the Spurs winning all but one game against the Suns where they showed up ready to play for the entire game since 2005. There's no historical evidence that the Suns can beat the Spurs in a seven game series, and they couldn't even do it in game six. Those of us that wanted the Suns at full strength wanted to make sure the Suns didn't have any excuse for losing, because the Spurs were going to whip them no matter what.

[Obstructed_View]

The majority of American voters also thought G Dubs should be president back in '04. The lesson we should all learn from this is that the American people are stupid, and polls/elections just serve to repeatedly prove that point.
Remember that Kerry was leading in the exit polls by a large margin. It says more about the value of polls than anything else.

[Obstructed_View]

I just misunderstood his point, I thought he said that majority of fans thought that the suspensions were justified.
The majority of Suns fans wanted Bruce Bowen suspended for jab stepping into Nash and/or for stepping on Amare's shoe. The Suns fans showed how they wanted to win the series from the very beginning, and tipped their hand that they believed they couldn't win it fairly. That they went out and enlisted the help of everyone who hates the Spurs in their campaign to circumvent the rules is hardly surprising. It doesn't change the fact that the suspensions were indeed justified.

[samikeyp]

I am still curious as to why Suns fans think the Suns players are above the rules.

[MajorMike]

*

One * next to one, or two, or three, or four Titles is better than no * next to none.

[Oh, Gee!!]

if the Suns had pushed the series to 7 games, maybe I'd understand the attitude displayed by Suns fan.

[td4mvp21]

I am still curious as to why Suns fans think the Suns players are above the rules.

:tu

[Obstructed_View]

if the Suns had pushed the series to 7 games, maybe I'd understand the attitude displayed by Suns fan.
Remember when most of the Suns fans were saying that the series would be "untainted" only if it went seven games? Do you think a seven game series would have shut them up or made them scream even louder?

[Bowenator]

Hey, there's a guy over at http://nohuddleoffensive.blogspot.com that says he's glad that no one cares about the spurs, maybe we should go post over there for a bit and let him know that some people do!

[Obstructed_View]

I'm glad no one cares about the Spurs. Makes it more fun for the rest of us.