Reply With Quote
hey, remember after Romney's failure to get elected, the RNC chair Preibus talking about how the Republican Party needs to start appealing to women and minorities if they want to have a chance in future elections. HAH good luck guys
Oh I completely support Bernie 100% - nobody is talking about the issues at such length as he is, and he's been doing it now for 30 years (and without any corporate sponsors). I just found it amusing you called Bernie a shein truth, and I might be criticized, but I find a lot of similarities between the Spurs and socialism - from the egalitarianism in cash, court time, and playing style to their progressive policies for women in the workplace, and their undeniable yet unique approach in roster development based on family, communication and selflessness (as opposed to money and fame for players and treating those players like commodities and trading pieces) that has kept Tim, Manu, and Tony together for fifteen years - an incredible feat on its own if not for five chips and counting... So yeah #feelthebern ...
Last edited by spurslegacy; 09-11-2015 at 11:35 AM.
hey, remember after Romney's failure to get elected, the RNC chair Preibus talking about how the Republican Party needs to start appealing to women and minorities if they want to have a chance in future elections. HAH good luck guys
The "she" was a typo. If a Democrat were to win, I'd much rather have Bernie over any of the other establishment Democrats. If Bernie = the Spurs, then Hillary = the Patriots... lying, cheating, shady, covert, secretive s bags.Oh I completely support Bernie 100% - nobody is talking about the issues at such length as he is, and he's been doing it now for 30 years (and without any corporate sponsors). I just found it amusing you called Bernie a she
The difference, however, between socialism and the Spurs is that guys at the top like Tim give up salary voluntarily to improve the team as a whole. Nobody coerced him into taking less or even staying on the Spurs. The socialists want to mandate that the ultra-rich give up the majority of their wealth to the poor to make everyone "middle class" albeit at a possibly higher financial level than the average middle class person today. The distinction may seem subtle on the surface, while in fact it means all the difference in the world. People as a species are compe ive and individualistically motivated and despise being coerced and told what to do, especially when they are forced to give up property that is rightfully theirs. However, when the act of giving is voluntary, it enriches the soul while appealing to their compe ive and individualistic drive to be a top-tier altruist and humanitarian, by free will. (In basketball, this means being renowned as an elite teammate and all around paragon of the sport.) This is not true with government-mandated redistribution, however. If Adam Silver all of a sudden demands a redistribution of salary so that each member on the team's salary must be roughly equal (say, within 25% of the top earner) people will be less motivated to succeed due to the bleak lack of personal incentive and the loss of the ability to give back to the team and/or society because the "government" (in this case, the commissioner) has forcefully carried this operation out for them.
The party with many minorities running is the racist one as opposed to the democrats who are old and white.
Keep talking out your ass.
Vote for another bush in office or an extremist donald trump.
It's not keep talking about of my ass. It's just unfortunate that a lot of the traditionally Republican-dominated states (the South, etc) have a lot of racist people that largely may be unwilling to vote for a minority, especially considering Obama. If it's Carson/Rubio vs Hillary/Sanders... these folks may just have a few beers after work and go straight to bed on Tuesday, November 1st, 2016.
I'm a right-leaning libertarian and would vote for virtually any of the major candidates for the Republican nomination. Kasich is a liberal and lies about it, so obviously not him. But he's not going to win anyway. I like Trump, Carson, and Rubio. Jeb Bush and Christie are alright. Carly is a failed businesswoman but at least she's not a shady liar like the female on the other side. The rest are too religious for my liking, though I think Cruz is a very good man and would do the country good in a lot of ways.
Trump 2016 book it
How much?
I have a simple solution to this thread. Why not start West alongside Aldridge, bring Diaw off the bench for West, and then Duncan for Aldridge? Duncan and Aldridge can play together at the end of close games when the matchups call for 2 bigs.
"Because West is the consummate pro, his addition was welcomed".
Your statement about West is true. He is the consummate pro. He will adjust his game to what needs to be done. No he won't be the greatest fit day 1, but by the time the season starts, he will be adjusting to what his role will be. West and Diaw will be 12 fouls in addition to the rest times for the LMA and TD.
Richard Jefferson was supposed to be a perfect fit. What's your point?Discuss sons.
I believe this will happen more than most Spurs fans expect - but not against the likes of Howard, Cousins and Jordan. Timmy will start at the 5 against those bigs unless Boban is WAAAAY better than I think - LOL. Timmy was just quoted as saying that he wants to push LMA and ride his coattails, so I expect he will come off the bench some, in addition to getting more DNPs. This season I think starting lineups will be much more dependent on opponents than in the past - even after Pop gets beyond his early season experiment phase. I also expect big man combos will be influenced greatly by the chemistry that develops among the 4 main bigs.
I believe this will happen more than most Spurs fans expect - but not against the likes of Howard, Cousins and Jordan. Timmy will start at the 5 against those bigs unless Boban is WAAAAY better than I think - LOL. Timmy was just quoted as saying that he wants to push LMA and ride his coattails, so I expect he will come off the bench some, in addition to getting more DNPs. This season I think starting lineups will be much more dependent on opponents than in the past - even after Pop gets beyond his early season experiment phase. I also expect big man combos will be influenced greatly by the chemistry that develops among the 4 main bigs.
(Sorry I missed the Quote on my first reply.)
I don't want to see too much mad scientist mode, we can't afford to start 12–9 in the brutal West. We need a top 2 seed and HCA over Cleveland is imperative.
Yes, we need a fast start. But with the combination of new young guys and the two new hungry vets, I expect our guys to play with much greater passion than last season. I think Pop will do his usual experimentation, but even after the All-Star break, I expect multiple, "regular" starting lineups, depending on the opponent.
Hi, earth, have we met?
Spurs start the season with a great schedule and we could easily go 11-0 if we win the opening night. Before the Pelicans game. We have one back to back which is Boston then Knicks, followed by probably our hardest game of the stretch (for exception for opening night) which is the Wizards game on the 4th of Nov. After that we play the Hornets who may or may not be a playoff team in the east, then we just play lottery teams before when the fun begins on the 20th of Nov at Pelicans.
So if we do have a 12-9 start, it will be worst than what it really is
The "she" was a typo. If a Democrat were to win, I'd much rather have Bernie over any of the other establishment Democrats. If Bernie = the Spurs, then Hillary = the Patriots... lying, cheating, shady, covert, secretive s bags.
The difference, however, between socialism and the Spurs is that guys at the top like Tim give up salary voluntarily to improve the team as a whole. Nobody coerced him into taking less or even staying on the Spurs. The socialists want to mandate that the ultra-rich give up the majority of their wealth to the poor to make everyone "middle class" albeit at a possibly higher financial level than the average middle class person today. The distinction may seem subtle on the surface, while in fact it means all the difference in the world. People as a species are compe ive and individualistically motivated and despise being coerced and told what to do, especially when they are forced to give up property that is rightfully theirs. However, when the act of giving is voluntary, it enriches the soul while appealing to their compe ive and individualistic drive to be a top-tier altruist and humanitarian, by free will. (In basketball, this means being renowned as an elite teammate and all around paragon of the sport.) This is not true with government-mandated redistribution, however. If Adam Silver all of a sudden demands a redistribution of salary so that each member on the team's salary must be roughly equal (say, within 25% of the top earner) people will be less motivated to succeed due to the bleak lack of personal incentive and the loss of the ability to give back to the team and/or society because the "government" (in this case, the commissioner) has forcefully carried this operation out for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------
HAH. i've heard that socialism hurts people by limiting individuality bull more than enough times. how badly are the socialist nations of the world really doing? Are France and Germany no longer compe ive? news to me. personally i think the US could do with a little bit more community and a little less individuality. Limiting capitalism's impact on the poor and its reach into our government must be a goal. The inequality gap is greater now than anytime since the Great Depression. Trickle down economics never worked - it's was a bull ploy by conservatives to rape the middle class of even moderate wage increases while fattening the pockets of their friends. Conservatives constantly complain about high taxes and debt, yet do nothing to repair infrastructure or ameliorate education - you can't have it both ways - if you want to reduce debt, you must raise revenue - and personally I'd rather raise that revenue from the asshole CEO's, Wall St brokers, and bankers who've been ripping us off for the last four decades. Do you know what the top tax rate bracket was in the golden era of the booming 1950's? NINETY-ONE PERCENT! Corporations have taken and taken, and grown, consolidated and cut costs (much like Marx predicted), while the average worker's wages have stagnated for the last forty plus years.
and by the way, our country is NOT the NBA and the Spurs are not exactly socialist, but I still feel like there is an analogy to be made - they are more egalitarian minded than any team i have ever witnessed. if any of the big three were as selfish as General Electric (which I hope you realize pays NO federal taxes at all) or Kobe (whose $25 million contract still has his team crippled), i doubt they ever would have won even a single ring. you're right, maybe we should just ask GE nicely to pay its fair share, and if they say no thanks, we'll just leave it at that, right?
when you say those concessions must be voluntary to be successful, did the middle class voluntarily give up its wages when companies downsized? or their houses when the banks foreclosed on them? that is such a ridiculous argument you make. what company voluntarily gives up anything??? they are in business to make money, to grow, to buy other companies, reduce overhead, and every year continue to increase profits no matter the human cost. until the people say NO enough is enough and elect people to governance who represent US and not simply THEM, America will continue to fall. Why did Obama support the TPP deal and open Alaska to offshore drilling? I can only imagine in the last stages of his Presidency he was pushed to fulfill his promises to his corporate overlords...
Last edited by spurslegacy; 09-13-2015 at 03:57 AM.
American poverty is funny to you?
A wall of unreadable text trying to compare millionaires and the Spurs/NBA to government policy is funny to me
you can't read? wow our education system really does suck.
Noam Chomsky on your average American's knowledge of sports as opposed to geopolitcal affairs:
"Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and ac ulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief."
I doubt anyone cares because again this IS 'merica, but you can read the full interview with Chomsky here
Last edited by spurslegacy; 09-13-2015 at 12:42 PM.
It's time to ship "spurslegacy" to Joseph McCarthy's grandson's incinerator, first class.
West will play, what 10 minutes a game at most (assuming no foul trouble by others)?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
