Pop subtly recruiting LeBron

[TheDoctor]

That's NBA Champion Austin Daye's number. GTFO tbh.

[Chinook]

I would love the Spurs to keep Green, Kyle, Gay, and Leonard to go with Lebron and LMA. Is that possible? If TP takes a very cheap contract? That length is just incredible. Isn't Kyle Anderson cap hold very small as he is 30th pick?

If you have a look at Gay's and Kyle's game, they are just inferior versions of Leonard and Lebron. Essentially, rest, injuries, normal subs utions, you could run the same sets by replacing Lebron with Kyle or Leonard with Gay.

Kyle's cap hold is like $7 Million, so he can't be counted on to save the team money. Whether they could keep those guys and give James somewhere in the $30 Million area would depend on Green taking even less and the team finding a way to get Mills and Gasol off the team with no money coming back very unlikely. In that same vein, Rudy opting out and re-upping for a lot less would also help east some financial pressure, as would Kyle getting a deal starting at less than $6 Million. I don't think it's really realistic, even calibrating for how remote the possibility of James coming over would be in the first place.

[TD 21]

I know your posts are literally always full of cliches and corniness and you can't think outside your little box, but believing Lamarcus Aldridge would accept a 3rd option role is beyond stupid, tbh he JUST asked for a trade less than a year ago because of his role and touches..you think he's going to accept a 3rd option role behind Kawhi and ball-dominant LeBron? omg..

Bosh and Love have both spoken on the difficulties of becoming a 3rd wheel on a superteam after being the main guy and how it's a monumental task, yet you think LaMarcus "I need my touches or I want out" Aldridge aka "Phoenix is my other choice" would accept that role?

It's all about context. If the theoretical third star is James, whether he'd like it or not, he'd have virtually no choice but to fall in line behind 2 of the 3 best players in the league. Not doing so would be damaging to his reputation, which he clearly cares deeply about, especially on the heels of another big contract and a season where he's proved he can still be the 1st option on a winning team. With those two things taken care of, his reputation would be cemented as a player who doesn't care about winning.

[r0drig0lac]

If you have a look at Gay's and Kyle's game, they are just inferior versions of Leonard and Lebron. Essentially, rest, injuries, normal subs utions, you could run the same sets by replacing Lebron with Kyle or Leonard with Gay.

interesting

[BillMc]

That's NBA Champion Austin Daye's number. GTFO tbh.

[Arcadian]

I know your posts are literally always full of cliches and corniness and you can't think outside your little box, but believing Lamarcus Aldridge would accept a 3rd option role is beyond stupid, tbh he JUST asked for a trade less than a year ago because of his role and touches..you think he's going to accept a 3rd option role behind Kawhi and ball-dominant LeBron? omg..

Bosh and Love have both spoken on the difficulties of becoming a 3rd wheel on a superteam after being the main guy and how it's a monumental task, yet you think LaMarcus "I need my touches or I want out" Aldridge aka "Phoenix is my other choice" would accept that role?

I won't pretend to know how he would psychologically react to such a situation, but he is a better player than Bosh ever was. You have to uphold this narrative that he's some kind of cancer to maintain consistency with your previous takes, but that's just speculation. You're basically assuming he would quit the team if the Spurs added another star player. Or maybe he would actually enjoy winning and realize the synergy was benefitting him as well.

You don't ing know. You're not this all-wise basketball sage you want people to perceive you as. You're just another dude on a forum shooting the like the rest of us.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

With Kawhi, Lebron and LMA there would be a line of le chasers willing to join the Spurs on the cheap.



Pipe dream...but dreams are what fandom is all about.

[ducks]

You never cease to impress with your ability to show how stupid you are. Stay off Breitshart and your IQ might just go up a few notches....

Never gone there

[ducks]

You never cease to impress with your ability to show how stupid you are. Stay off Breitshart and your IQ might just go up a few notches....

So you have low iq if you conservative like founding fathers

[monkeypunk]

So you have low iq if you conservative like founding fathers

Not at all but Trump is in no way a conservative. He’s an actual mobster / money launderer who’s only faithful to those who line his own pockets. If you still support him after his stance on immigration, limiting states rights and tax cuts which will massively increase US debt then you’re not a conservative but you are an idiot.

Read a book or something man, damn.

[BackHome]

Lebron he is a that has quit on Miami and now Cleveland.

[tholdren]

Lebron he is a that has quit on clevland then Miami and now Cleveland.

[Arcadian]

Nothing "subtle" about it.

[sasaint]

With Kawhi, Lebron and LMA there would be a line of le chasers willing to join the Spurs on the cheap.



Pipe dream...but dreams are what fandom is all about.

PATFO would never go for an extreme roster overhaul - even if it meant bringing in LeBron. Even in a pipe dream, can anybody see that happening? Or see Pop and LeBron not having a power struggle to match Lenin and Trotsky?

[Phenomanul]

they [the Founding Fathers] were classically liberal

Stating that the founding fathers were classically liberal does not mean that they somehow endorse modern "progressive" liberalism.

That's revisionist BS and a disingenuous attempt to equate the two at best. The position of the founding fathers most closely resembles the views of today's conservatives (generally speaking, ofc). They set up the framework of the U.S. Government to ensure that it would not overly control The People. Over the course of time, however, the size, control, influence, and power of the federal government has grown beyond their wildest expectations (despite their very clear and explicit admonition against such centralization of power).

They understood that the government existed to protect what it could not intrinsically grant. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The government doesn't give us those rights, our Creator does. The government serves the people to protect those rights.

The point is that the purpose of the government for progressive liberals is drastically different compared against the role that the founding fathers envisioned for it. Today's liberals want to empower the government to control all areas of our lives according to their ideologies. People not aligned with their ideology are purged out by attrition until ONLY their ideology is upheld by all. BUT THAT DYNAMIC inherently limits our GOD-given freedoms and personal choices. To them freedom isn't as important as their need for control because they understand that a citizenry empowered with autonomous freedom deflates their ultimate quest for power. Ironically enough liberalism's view of personal accountability is not critically important - though to conservatives personal accountability goes hand-in-hand with the concept of freedom. As John Adams phrased it, "Our Cons ution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Have you even studied U.S. History?

[spurraider21]

Stating that the founding fathers were classically liberal does not mean that they somehow endorse modern "progressive" liberalism.

That's revisionist BS and a disingenuous attempt to equate the two at best. The position of the founding fathers most closely resembles the views of today's conservatives (generally speaking, ofc). They set up the framework of the U.S. Government to ensure that it would not overly control The People. Over the course of time, however, the size, control, influence, and power of the federal government has grown beyond their wildest expectations (despite their very clear and explicit admonition against such centralization of power).

They understood that the government existed to protect what it could not intrinsically grant. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The government doesn't give us those rights, our Creator does. The government serves the people to protect those rights.

The point is that the purpose of the government for progressive liberals is drastically different compared against the role that the founding fathers envisioned for it. Today's liberals want to empower the government to control all areas of our lives according to their ideologies. People not aligned with their ideology are purged out by attrition until ONLY their ideology is upheld by all. BUT THAT DYNAMIC inherently limits our GOD-given freedoms and personal choices. To them freedom isn't as important as their need for control because they understand that a citizenry empowered with autonomous freedom deflates their ultimate quest for power. Ironically enough liberalism's view of personal accountability is not critically important - though to conservatives personal accountability goes hand-in-hand with the concept of freedom. As John Adams phrased it, "Our Cons ution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Have you even studied U.S. History?

its weird we had to step in for god and give those rights to blacks too

[Phenomanul]

its weird we had to step in for god and give those rights to blacks too

The representatives from the southern colonies muddied up the waters and coerced everyone at the Cons utional Convention to compromise the meaning of the phrase "all men created equal" to mean that black people were only 3/5ths of a man so that they would ratify the Cons ution (even though such an action ultimately leveraged control away from them [the slave owning states] and at least ensured that they weren't the ones controlling policy). The minimization of the value of human life caught up to the nation, the "3/5th's Compromise" was a grave evil blemish that President Lincoln severely critiqued, "bitterly cost the nation the blood of its people". In other words IT WAS A MISTAKE that was paid for in blood. No one stepped in for "god"; GOD had it right from the beginning.

Today's agnostics and atheists trying to re-interpret the birth of our nation as an event completely unassociated with the Judeo-Christian principles that the founding fathers understood were needed for a functioning society.

They clamor for the 'separation of Church and State' (which is something most sane people endorse - meaning that the State doesn't control or preside over the Church, and likewise that the Church doesn't control and preside over the State). But they completely trample over the free exercise clause (which was important enough to those that framed up the Cons ution that it is among the first Rights mentioned in the do ent). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances."

[spurraider21]

The representatives from the southern colonies muddied up the waters and coerced everyone at the Cons utional Convention to compromise the meaning of the phrase "all men created equal" to mean that black people were only 3/5ths of a man so that they would ratify the Cons ution (even though such an action ultimately leveraged control away from them [the slave owning states] and at least ensured that they weren't the ones controlling policy). The minimization of the value of human life caught up to the nation, the "3/5th's Compromise" was a grave evil blemish that President Lincoln severely critiqued, "bitterly cost the nation the blood of its people". In other words IT WAS A MISTAKE that was paid for in blood. No one stepped in for "god"; GOD had it right from the beginning.

Today's agnostics and atheists trying to re-interpret the birth of our nation as an event completely unassociated with the Judeo-Christian principles that the founding fathers understood were needed for a functioning society.

They clamor for the 'separation of Church and State' (which is something most sane people endorse - meaning that the State doesn't control or preside over the Church, and likewise that the Church doesn't control and preside over the State). But they completely trample over the free exercise clause (which was important enough to those that framed up the Cons ution that it is among the first Rights mentioned in the do ent). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances."

i dont see how free exercise is trampled

a public school teacher is free to pray, go to church, etc. as long as it becomes a part of her work, in the capacity of a public employee, it steps into establishment territory, not free exercise. same with 10 commandments in courts and stuff. nobody says judges cant be christian. the court as an ins ution can't be

[Phenomanul]

i dont see how free exercise is trampled

When the State tells the Church that their views are not aligned with their progressive ideologies.

Ummmm let me see off the top of my head...

Houston Ex-Mayor requesting that pastors and ministers submit their sermons ahead of time to ensure that "the teaching of sexuality as a sin" be removed or otherwise be subjected to punishment by city ordinance.

When the State tells teachers that because they are "federal employees" they cannot observe their religious practices while on school grounds.

When the State tells military chaplains that they cannot observe the religious practices of their own personal faith - so as to not offend those of other faiths.

When the State intrudes upon the curricular preferences of parents with home-schooled children - so long as standardized tests are passed, they should have no other jurisprudence.

When the State tells parents that an unwillingness to accept "transgenderism" is considered "abuse" - and that the State has a right in such cases to take the child away.

When the State forces business owners, artisans or craftsmen, to create products that violate their personal religious views.

Look...

We're ideological opposites. Your worldview is radically different from my own. I'm not here to try and convince you that you should believe as I do. I inherently believe that you have the free will to believe whatever you want. Unfortunately, those with progressive ideologies don't extend that same consideration. There is no mutual reciprocity when it comes to the freedom of worldview belief. They want conservatives and people with religious beliefs to bow at the altar of their ideologies.

I don't have to agree with someone's views to understand that they inherently have a right to believe as they wish. For example, I believe the KKK embodies hateful, ignorant ideology - I DON'T AGREE WITH IT AT ALL. BUT, in this country they have the right to believe as they wish - much to their own detriment (hate breeds anger and discontent - which robs them of peace, and love - so ultimately, they can never truly harbor happiness). I certainly wouldn't want to live a life like theirs... but that is what they've chosen. So be it.

The moment they infringe the rights of others however, (taking a life, robbing from them, etc...) then, and only then the State can step in. Otherwise the State would slip down the slope of "policing thoughts" - which is a very dangerous outlook for personal freedom.

[spurraider21]

When the State tells the Church that their views are not aligned with their progressive ideologies.

Ummmm let me see off the top of my head...

Houston Ex-Mayor requesting that pastors and ministers submit their sermons ahead of time to ensure that "the teaching of sexuality as a sin" be removed or otherwise be subjected to punishment by city ordinance.

yeah, i'd agree that's an overreach. so did the mayor of houston

Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons. The subpoenas were issued by pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the pe ion to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) in January. Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday. Both agree the original do ents were overly broad. The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing. Feldman says the focus should be only on communications related to the HERO pe ion process.

When the State tells teachers that because they are "federal employees" they cannot observe their religious practices while on school grounds.

well, no. they're told they're state employees. and they are state employees. and they aren't forbidden from observing religious practices on school grounds. they just can't do so as part of the classroom curriculum. nothing is stopping them from saying a prayer during recess, at the faculty lounge, etc.

When the State tells military chaplains that they cannot observe the religious practices of their own personal faith - so as to not offend those of other faiths.

nah, US courts have upheld the right of the military to have chaplains. that's distinct from public ceremonies, where you take out the voluntary factor. only in public ceremonies are they restricted to non-sectarian prayer. public ceremony enters establishment land, not free exercise land. nobody is saying the chaplains can't pray on their own time.

When the State intrudes upon the curricular preferences of parents with home-schooled children - so long as standardized tests are passed, they should have no other jurisprudence.

this is not a free exercise issue. nobody is stopping parents and children from engaging in religious activity, believing in myths, etc

When the State tells parents that an unwillingness to accept "transgenderism" is considered "abuse" - and that the State has a right in such cases to take the child away.

yeah when the kid starts having suicidal tendencies as a result, you're protecting the life of the child. again, that has nothing to do with free exercise. the parents are free to believe in any deity and pray all they want.

When the State forces business owners, artisans or craftsmen, to create products that violate their personal religious views.

i do think this is a much more controversial issue than the other ones. this one is currently under review by the supreme court.

in the meantime, we had a case here in California where the court ruled in favor of a baker, saying that they should not be required to make a specific cake.

i think its pretty clear that you cant refuse service to somebody... but the question of whether you should be forced to make a specific product is very much under reivew

Look...

We're ideological opposites. Your worldview is radically different from my own. I'm not here to try and convince you that you should believe as I do. I inherently believe that you have the free will to believe whatever you want. Unfortunately, those with progressive ideologies don't extend that same consideration. There is no mutual reciprocity when it comes to the freedom of worldview belief. They want conservatives and people with religious beliefs to bow at the altar of their ideologies.

I don't have to agree with someone's views to understand that they inherently have a right to believe as they wish. For example, I believe the KKK embodies hateful, ignorant ideology - I DON'T AGREE WITH IT AT ALL. BUT, in this country they have the right to believe as they wish - much to their own detriment (hate breeds anger and discontent - which robs them of peace, and love - so ultimately, they can never truly harbor happiness).

the thing is, i'm not trying to convince you to adopt my worldview. i'm not trying to convince you to drop any religious beliefs or anything like that. i just think people blur the lines between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. free expression is what an individual does. establishment is what a state en y does in its official capacity. a state official is free to observe their religious beliefs when it is not part of their official capacity (ie kim davis not issuing marriage licenses)

[Seventyniner]

I always thought the founders were much closer to what we now consider libertarian rather than conservative or liberal.

[Proxy]

more talk on Lebr.....

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Can't we just talk basketball...why does everything become a political debate???

That's why we have a political forum...so I can ignore it and concentrate on what's truly important in this world...the state of the San Antonio Spurs.

[Phenomanul]

Can't we just talk basketball...why does everything become a political debate???

That's why we have a political forum...so I can ignore it and concentrate on what's truly important in this world...the state of the San Antonio Spurs.

My apologies Mr. Jones. I stopped posting in the political forum 1 or 2 years ago because peeps there were so hateful and vindictive. Someone there (I have my hunch on who it was based on the fact that I was calling out his fuzzy math), had the audacity to look me up - call my employer and tell them I was posting on a public blog/forum during work hours.

They attempted to get me fired from my day job. Of course my employer blew them off because I manage to produce at a very high level for them regardless of how I decide to spend my time (even giving me the flexibility to work from home if I so desired). The point is that the liberal, atheist peeps in that sub-forum can't stand people with different viewpoints. To go out of their way to do that is rather telling. It crosses a line.

I have to protect my family, my children, my home, my livelihood... and if peeps here can't keep their own anger contained, that they would be willing to mess with someone else like that - it's de able, petty, and shameless.

As an aside, Politics and Spurs is a thing now... Blame Pop for trying to change the focal point of the Spurs Organization away from basketball operations and towards activist endorsement of the Democratic Party.

[Phenomanul]

yeah, i'd agree that's an overreach. so did the mayor of houston

[/FONT][/COLOR]


well, no. they're told they're state employees. and they are state employees. and they aren't forbidden from observing religious practices on school grounds. they just can't do so as part of the classroom curriculum. nothing is stopping them from saying a prayer during recess, at the faculty lounge, etc.


nah, US courts have upheld the right of the military to have chaplains. that's distinct from public ceremonies, where you take out the voluntary factor. only in public ceremonies are they restricted to non-sectarian prayer. public ceremony enters establishment land, not free exercise land. nobody is saying the chaplains can't pray on their own time.


this is not a free exercise issue. nobody is stopping parents and children from engaging in religious activity, believing in myths, etc


yeah when the kid starts having suicidal tendencies as a result, you're protecting the life of the child. again, that has nothing to do with free exercise. the parents are free to believe in any deity and pray all they want.


i do think this is a much more controversial issue than the other ones. this one is currently under review by the supreme court.

in the meantime, we had a case here in California where the court ruled in favor of a baker, saying that they should not be required to make a specific cake.

i think its pretty clear that you cant refuse service to somebody... but the question of whether you should be forced to make a specific product is very much under reivew


the thing is, i'm not trying to convince you to adopt my worldview. i'm not trying to convince you to drop any religious beliefs or anything like that. i just think people blur the lines between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. free expression is what an individual does. establishment is what a state en y does in its official capacity. a state official is free to observe their religious beliefs when it is not part of their official capacity (ie kim davis not issuing marriage licenses)

Even if I disagree somewhat with your perspective on the matter, thank you for taking the time to give the examples thoughtful rebuttals. For example Houston Ex-Mayor Parker's attempt at overreach was nevertheless attempted - because that is what social progressivism requires (and hence the emphasis of their intent). But yeah, we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.