Spurs' Gregg Popovich responds to March For Our Lives, criticizes President Trump

[mingus]

Funny how literally every other coach in the league can do their jobs just fine without going on weekly rants about politics/Trump. And nobody's complaining that other coaches aren't promoting left-wing politics enough. Pop is the only one doing this schtick. I agree that it's at least partially motivated by his image and legacy - as well as diverting attention away from the Spurs' underachievement and drama this season - but I'm not seeing all this media pressure. Pop's choosing to do this.

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.

[Pavlov]

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.

lol the Kawhi conspiracy

[tholdren]

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.

Well no kidding. Its like you guys dont even understand that without the makeup and photoshopping models are like 7s

[mingus]

lol the Kawhi conspiracy

There’s no conspiracy.

What we’re seeing is Pop’s craftsmanship when it comes to protecting his image. At this point, all he can do is try to salvage what he can as the Spurs have no fully entered the post-Duncan glory days. The residuals of that age are now no longer here anymore. Duncan’s ghost isn’t looming over the team, management & even ownership (you don’t think Holt okayed the release of the now very public beef b/w Kawhi & the rest of the team—but mainly Pop)?

The true teacher, the key cog in everything (Duncan), didn’t just miss class due to the flu for a few days. He’s retired, gone forever. And what you’re seeing now is everything beginning to crumble. Principles once in place being tossed out.

Pop’s doing everything he can to protect his image amidst all of this. We’re seeing him go more & more public w/ his political ideology. Why? As a red herring, a distraction. Then, he throws Kawhi under the bus. Why? Because he’s in full image protection mode.

The Spurs’ way is no longer the one we saw in the Duncan era. The Spurs way is now anarchy. The true ruler left everything to his secretary & is going downhill fast.

[Pavlov]

There’s no conspiracy.

What we’re seeing is Pop’s craftsmanship when it comes to protecting his image. At this point, all he can do is try to salvage what he can as the Spurs have no fully entered the post-Duncan glory days. The residuals of that age are now no longer here anymore. Duncan’s ghost isn’t looming over the team, management & even ownership (you don’t think Holt okayed the release of the now very public beef b/w Kawhi & the rest of the team—but mainly Pop)?

The true teacher, the key cog in everything (Duncan), didn’t just miss class due to the flu for a few days. He’s retired, gone forever. And what you’re seeing now is everything beginning to crumble. Principles once in place being tossed out.

Pop’s doing everything he can to protect his image amidst all of this. We’re seeing him go more & more public w/ his political ideology. Why? As a red herring, a distraction. Then, he throws Kawhi under the bus. Why? Because he’s in full image protection mode.

The Spurs’ way is no longer the one we saw in the Duncan era. The Spurs way is now anarchy. The true ruler left everything to his secretary & is going downhill fast.

Do you realize how stupid this is?

Take a step back and read it out loud.

[Clipper Nation]

I don’t know who or why it started. I’m assuming he was at one time asked to comment on something, he did & then he became the NBA’s go-to political pundit after he coughed up some generic formulaic anti-Trump or anti-conservative view for them.

Pop won’t admit to it publicly but he glorifies the praise the league & people heap on him. Right now, we’re seeing him do some really shady stuff with Kawhi because he wants to deflect any criticism. He’s abandoning the principles he set down for the team (which historically has been to keep in-house) to protect that image.

All I’m saying is that there’s a lot more care (planned & even manipulated/deceitful care—as is the case with Kawhi) that goes into protecting his image than he lets on.

Whether he’s initiating the political talk or not, what he says publicly is based a lot on how people view him.

Reporters only ask him political questions because he's chosen to use the Spurs/NBA as a platform to share his political opinions. Pop is the same guy who smugly dismisses most basketball-related questions, no matter how valid they are, and is known for treating sideline reporters like crap. The media can't even get him to talk about his actual job, let alone completely unrelated subjects. If he didn't want to discuss politics, he'd treat those questions the same way he treats basketball-related questions that he thinks are beneath him. Ultimately, he goes on these self-serving political rants because he wants to, not because he feels obligated to.

[cd98]

Reporters only ask him political questions because he's chosen to use the Spurs/NBA as a platform to share his political opinions. Pop is the same guy who smugly dismisses most basketball-related questions, no matter how valid they are, and is known for treating sideline reporters like crap. The media can't even get him to talk about his actual job, let alone completely unrelated subjects. If he didn't want to discuss politics, he'd treat those questions the same way he treats basketball-related questions that he thinks are beneath him. Ultimately, he goes on these self-serving political rants because he wants to, not because he feels obligated to.

In fairness to Pop, I would want to talk about anything but what the Spurs are looking like this year.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Crazy people will then just kill people with revolvers and pumps....

Cool story bro

Your types hero fantasies of stopping the lone gunmen are still possible. In the meantime some kid is going to have a much more difficult time killing a dozen or more people.

[Nathan89]

but surely the criminals are still using automatics and wmds because those laws only stop the good guys from getting those weapons right?

yeah... i remember all the recent shootings with automatic weapons and bombings with wmds

And yet without automatics weapons murders continue and people want to ban more guns. Just like it will continue afterwards and people will proceed to want to ban...wait for it... more guns.

And mass murders are also increasing significantly since the ban of automatics. Perhaps we should focus on other factors.

If it's impossible to access something then of course it can't be used to murder people. There is no reason why you'd see murders using devices you can't possible access.

[spurraider21]

If it's impossible to access something then of course it can't be used to murder people. There is no reason why you'd see murders using devices you can't possible access.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All semi autos? So you even want .22 gone. Wouldn't a revolver technically be a semi auto ?

Semiautomatic and automatic guns use the cartridge's blowback to expel the used cartridge, load a new one and reset the firing mechanism. If you want to use a lever action 30/30 or a revolver then it doesn't meet that definition. In those cases its the trigger pull, pumping the shotgun, or pulling the lever that does the work.

So no they are not technically a semiautomatic.

And that is the entire point of that form of restriction. It gets past gun manufacturers obfuscating by changing parameters like barrel length on a carbine to get past restrictions. The US developed the semiauto for war.

[bic50]

Your types hero fantasies of stopping the lone gunmen are still possible. In the meantime some kid is going to have a much more difficult time killing a dozen or more people.

Are we ever going to look into why a "kid" would want to do something like that?

[bic50]

Semiautomatic and automatic guns use the cartridge's blowback to expel the used cartridge, load a new one and reset the firing mechanism. If you want to use a lever action 30/30 or a revolver then it doesn't meet that definition. In those cases its the trigger pull, pumping the shotgun, or pulling the lever that does the work.

So no they are not technically a semiautomatic.

And that is the entire point of that form of restriction. It gets past gun manufacturers obfuscating by changing parameters like barrel length on a carbine to get past restrictions. The US developed the semiauto for war.

So a semi auto shotgun that holds 6 rounds at the most is a weapon of war ?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are we ever going to look into why a "kid" would want to do something like that?

We already do. Some of these shooters have been captured. You think no one is studying them? Now that the ey Amendment was rescinded we might see the feds doing it too.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So a semi auto shotgun that holds 6 rounds at the most is a weapon of war ?

The Browning automatic rifle and the M1 had similar capacities and were very much so weapons of war. Patton was a big fan.

[Nathan89]

So you want to ban all guns. I have repeatedly been told that wasn't the case. Thanks for making yourself clear.

[bic50]

We already do. Some of these shooters have been captured. You think no one is studying them? Now that the ey Amendment was rescinded we might see the feds doing it too.

So in the meantime we should disarm everyone else? Even those who haven't done anything wrong?

[bic50]

The Browning automatic rifle and the M1 had similar capacities and were very much so weapons of war. Patton was a big fan.

How is a pump shotgun not as lethal?

[mingus]

Are we ever going to look into why a "kid" would want to do something like that?

No, we aren’t. Fuzzy is a socialist. Socialists want people to become as dependent upon the state as possible. Therefore, it only makes sense that his first inclination is to point to what govt. is or isn’t doing right. Personally responsibility be damned.

In Chicago, it’s not that people are making unwise “thug” lifestyle choices, it’s the guns.
In [insert massacre], it’s not the lack of mental education for families, schools & people who are mentally ill themselves. It should be stated OVER & OVER & OVER again in news coverage of these events that if you, a family member or anyone else you know has a deep desire to murder someone—anyone—never mind numerous people for WHATEVER reason, then you/they need to check yourself/themselves into a hospital because it’s unequivically, unconditionally immoral —just as someone who breaks a bone goes to a hospital to get checked out—then we might actually see some progress. But no, it’s the guns. That’s what gets repeated OVER & OVER & OVER.

Socialists finger point. It’s everyone else’s responsibility for how we act. It’s this or that or the other. That gives people who carry out these heinous acts something to scapegoat. And THAT is why/how people continue to die in these types of events.

[UnWantedTheory]

These rallies are far left stunts like the tea party rallies a few years ago during Obama’s years. Don’t be fooled. They are movements to get Democrats in control of Congress so they can ignore gun control just like they did under Obama with a super majority and the ability to pass whatever they wanted. They only care about this issue as a means of demonizing the other side. It’s like all those tea party candidates that ran on repealing Obamacare, but once given the presidency and both houses of Congress, they had no replacement plan and no repeal. These “movements” mean nothing.

I posted this in another thread when you stated similar. Here it is again.

Obama only had a super majority essentially for four months give or take due to illness, death, contesting seats, etc.

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/whe...ol-of-congress

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenni...b_1929869.html

[Clipper Nation]

In fairness to Pop, I would want to talk about anything but what the Spurs are looking like this year.

Well, Poop certainly doesn't want anyone talking about that, because then people might start to realize that he's just a product of Duncan.

[cd98]

I posted this in another thread when you stated similar. Here it is again.

Obama only had a super majority essentially for four months give or take due to illness, death, contesting seats, etc.

https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/whe...ol-of-congress

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenni...b_1929869.html

So your telling me that he had time to pass a complex bill that redefined healthcare in America, but he couldn’t get a simple bill that only banned AR-15s? Look I get why Obama didn’t push any meaningful gun reform. He was afraid of political consequences. Plus he liked to use it to demonize Republicans as co-conspirators for anyone that was killed by a gun. That’s good politics. But don’t give him a pass unless you give everyone a pass. If you defend Obama on gun reform, but attack Trump, you’re a hypocrite. I say this and I hate Trump. But I think you have to be consistent.

[MannyIsGod]

Tell that to the people of:
Venezuela
Mexico
Brazil
Columbia
China
Ukraine
Honduras
Chile
South Africa
Turkey
etc...

Here on the home front stricter gun control laws have not produced lower homicide rates. See:
Washington D.C.
Chicago
Detroit

I'm not going to stoop to name-calling simply because your POV differs from my own. I simply don't agree with your position on the matter. Government authorities cannot be depended on to respond to all crimes. IF they could the crime rate would be zero. The very fact that crimes exist show that government response is deficient - it's a fact that is proven day-in, day-out.

Under that context, and because I am a law abiding citizen I will protect my family, my home, as best I see fit. You don't have to like it.



Besides...



The only mockery here is how somehow we are supposed to focus all of our collective attention towards fixing a "problem" that statistically cannot be effectively resolved.

It's not about "the children" either... if it were, then you and other liberals would rally around to stop the murder of 900,000 babies per year in our nation. But consequence-free promiscuity is MORE important to you all. You all instead attempt to reclassify that problem, by trying to redefine what human life is and what it isn't.

Hector why don't you list all the countries with gun control laws that don't have the issues we do. Its going to be much much longer than the list you listed. Why did you omit those?

Why do you think that gun control doesn't work in places like Chicago and DC, Hector? Tell me, how hard is it for one to go to West Virginia or Indiana from those two respective cities and then come back with a gun?

Are you really this stupid? Question is rhetorical. No need to answer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, we aren’t. Fuzzy is a socialist. Socialists want people to become as dependent upon the state as possible. Therefore, it only makes sense that his first inclination is to point to what govt. is or isn’t doing right. Personally responsibility be damned.

In Chicago, it’s not that people are making unwise “thug” lifestyle choices, it’s the guns.
In [insert massacre], it’s not the lack of mental education for families, schools & people who are mentally ill themselves. It should be stated OVER & OVER & OVER again in news coverage of these events that if you, a family member or anyone else you know has a deep desire to murder someone—anyone—never mind numerous people for WHATEVER reason, then you/they need to check yourself/themselves into a hospital because it’s unequivically, unconditionally immoral —just as someone who breaks a bone goes to a hospital to get checked out—then we might actually see some progress. But no, it’s the guns. That’s what gets repeated OVER & OVER & OVER.

Socialists finger point. It’s everyone else’s responsibility for how we act. It’s this or that or the other. That gives people who carry out these heinous acts something to scapegoat. And THAT is why/how people continue to die in these types of events.

Yes, we are. Mingus is an idiot. Here are a few studies on mass shooters.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...25.2013.806675
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302242
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...88767912462033

I believe in free market except in the case of broken markets and monopolies. Of course your dumb ass is an ideological puritan.

Thanks for the red scare stupidity though, dim.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So in the meantime we should disarm everyone else? Even those who haven't done anything wrong?

I never said that. I never said confiscate anything. You just cannot buy new semiautos. If you cannot defend yourself with a revolver, bolt action or pump shottie you have no business with a weapon.