Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
Around the NBA / Re: Rondo at Lakers media day
« Last post by Kuberski33 on Yesterday at 10:29:20 PM »
NO should not have let him go.
32
Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

Interesting take.  So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter?  In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other.  I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence.  Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying.  You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying.  You can't prove she is lying.

I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge.  That actually isn't the case.  It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done.  One accuser and he would have made it through.  Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.

If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can.  The FBI would help.  They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.

That's the thing, one does not have to choose to believe one or the other.  One can learn to accept that sometimes there simply is no answer to be found.  This does not imply that should be a rushed decision, but it ultimately may be the answer when there is not definitive way to prove what the truth is.

As for the multiple accusers angle, again, accusations without proof are still just accusations. A second accusation of a different event doesn't prove the first accusation true.  Each accusation should be able to stand on it's own merits.

I will add, I do not like that the Republicans are, at least on the surface, attempting to quickly push this confirmation through without a proper, fair, thorough vetting of the accusations.  While the manner in which these accusations came to light, in the 11th hour, is questionable at best, it does not change the fact that this is matter which should be taken seriously.
33
Around the NBA / Re: Sacramento Kings 2018-19 Season Watch Thread
« Last post by gouki88 on Yesterday at 10:13:49 PM »
Quote
Dave Joerger, speaking on how Zach Randolph and Kosta Koufos helped the Kings win games last season: "I'm not saying those guys won't play but our bigger priority is to play as many young guys as possible."

https://twitter.com/mr_jasonjones/status/1044376268592967680

Good news for us.
Probably not.  I'd expect Bagley, at a minimum, to far out perform Randolph.  Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Giles and Labissierre also are just better than him.  Randolph has been deteriorating pretty quickly.  I frankly see that quote as Joerger trying to save some face for Randolph.

You might be right. There's definitely potential for the Kings to be better than people expect.

That said, most young guys, especially big men, aren't prepared to help their team win games. They may produce, and they may even show big-time potential, but most of the time, win totals don't go up until closer to their second contract.
Sure, but Randolph didn't actually help them win any games last year.  He had by far the worst on/off differential on the Kings last year at -7.6.  Koufos was also negative at -1.5.  Labissierre for comparison was a +3.9 and WCS was -0.9 (so at least better than Kosta and Zach). 

The simple reality is, Randolph is shot and Koufos just isn't any good.  Bagley, Giles, Labissierre, and of course WCS are going to be the main rotation because quite frankly they are going to be their 4 best big men (I'm counting Bjelica as a wing - see below). 

The Kings problem is going to be the wing.  They have only 2 wings on the roster, Justin Jackson and Jamel Artis.  That is their real problem as they are going to have to play Bjelica on the wing.  They really don't have any choice unless they play an undersized guard like Hield or McLemore their. 

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they kicked the tires on Butler since they don't own their pick anyway.  I don't think they'd give up a premier young player for him, but they could absolutely absorb Dieng as well.  Obviously that depends on what Minnesota's market actually is.  But that would instantly make the Kings interesting (so say they give up salary filler, WCS and Skal for Butler and Dieng).  I don't know if a lineup of Fox, Hield, Butler, Bagley, Dieng with Giles, Ferrell, Bjelica, and Jackson makes the playoffs in the West, but it would at least make for some excitement in Sacramento for the season and if Butler leaves, oh well.
Butler would hate being on the Kings with all those young players.  Why would Minny want WCS and Skal?  They need a PG or wing.
Yeah, really unsure why Sacramento would even try. Unless they offer Fox and maybe Hield, they are definitely not getting Butler
34
Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

Interesting take.  So in the case of a woman who alleges sexual misconduct, if she doesn't have an airtight case, it shouldn't matter?  In judging if I think Kavanaugh is lying in a he said she said situation, I have to pick one or the other.  I choose based on the preponderance of the evidence.  Someone is lying, that we know, but it is impossible to "prove" which one is lying.  You are choosing to believe that Ford is lying.  You can't prove she is lying.

I understand your point that to some extent, I am using my belief that Kavanaugh did something to decide that he should not be a Supreme Court judge.  That actually isn't the case.  It is that he is lying about what he did, not what he may have done.  One accuser and he would have made it through.  Multiple accusers and you have exponentially more preponderance.

If republicans want to get to the bottom of this, they can.  The FBI would help.  They still might not be able to prove anything regarding criminal activity but lies would get exposed is my guess.
35
There is so much evidence that Brett Kavanagh was a heavy drinker in high school and at least early in his college years. That he associated with people like Mark Judge and other men who drank too much and considered it sport to hurt others. The effort he is going to now to paint himself a choirboy is going to backfire; too many people know the truth.

https://twitter.com/PeterKauffmann/status/1044384650767020033?s=20

36
Quote
Good question. I don't remember, but I believe "yes" to her husband and therapist.

No, she didn't name names to her therapist.  She indicated there were four attackers, all of whom were members of Washington society.
her husband says she said his name in the therapy session. Plenty of reasons a therapist wouldn't put the name in the therapy notes.

Maybe. It’s a bit odd to not get first names.   

What’s more odd is that the four male attackers turned into two male attackers and two male guest (which later turned into two male attackers, one male guest and one very good female friend).

That therapist must suck at notes.  She translated a story about an attempted rapist, a male conspirator and two innocent bystanders — one male, one female — into a story about four male attackers.

Once all comes out, nothing is going to be certain but everyone will have to come to some conclusion based on what is said.  Roy H., are you saying that based what we all know at this point, that you think this woman is making this up or is just altogether mistaken?  To hold this position, means you believe Kavanaugh completely.

This is not a criminal trial (and isn't really a civil trial either) but only in a criminal trial is "beyond a shadow of doubt" a requirement.  If that was the measure, then there probably is a shadow of doubt and Kavanaugh would not go to jail.  But in a civil case, it is a preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing is certain and doesn't need to be, but based on what I have heard, I do not believe Ford is making anything up or mistaken about who tried to get her out of her bathing suite.  She may not remember the address or even the day of the week (if it was the summer for example, it could be any day).

I am really surprised that anyone could listen to these two stories and come to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is the victim.

I'll repeat: this line of thinking is unjust and unethical.  It cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  What you 'believe' is irrelevant.  Only what can be proven should be relevant, in both the court of law and public opinion.

If there is no physical evidence nor witness testimony, passing judgment on someone based on what you believe is the truth is wrong, dangerous, and unacceptable.  Testimony of the accuser is not evidence of anything, period.  This is the exact line of thinking that allowed things like the Salem witch trials, and the Red Scare to happen.
Um witness testimony is absolutely evidence.  In fact in Court that is often the only evidence of events. 

I very clearly said witness testimony can be considered evidence.  Not always, but often times, yes. Ideally, this is backed up by incontrovertible facts (i.e physical evidence).

I realize that many in society have had it in grained in them to believe certain things to be tantamount to evidence, but that is merely a manifestation of genrations of misguided thought.  I've spent years reflecting and considering such matters.  It's really the only logical conclusion when one removes emotion from their thinking. If one does not know something to be true, as proven by incontrovertible facts, passing judgment based on a mere belief is unjust. 

The idea that there must be judgment passed and that it is necessary for healing on the part of the victim is misguided.  Being compassionate to those that have been, or feel, victimized, whether real or imagined, and resisting the urge to pass judgment when there is no irrefutable proof of such accusations are not mutually exclusive.  When people can learn to let go of that which has happened in the past, and can move past it, true healing can occur.  The single largest impediment to this is the idea that someone must pay.

It's imperative for one to free themselves of the desire to punish, or seek retribution, against others.  It's a manifestation of hatred from within one's heart, and is toxic to the soul.  Justice should involve nothing more than protecting society from those that wish to do harm, while allowing those that can be rehabilitated the opportunity to do so.

We should seek the truth. We should be slow to draw conclusions.  We should focus on facts. And we should reserve our judgment for only when there are proven facts and truths.
37
Around the NBA / Re: Rondo at Lakers media day
« Last post by gouki88 on Yesterday at 10:04:02 PM »
If he turns Lonzo into something I will never forgive him ;)
38
Around the NBA / Re: Rondo at Lakers media day
« Last post by GreenFaith1819 on Yesterday at 10:02:42 PM »
Will always love Rondo.

His Lakers team isn't beating ours anytime soon, though.

He is going to help that team.


If he can bring his tenacity/competitive nature and influence lonzo, that would be worth the roster spot and money that the lakers gave him.

From Ball's interview on NBATV, looks like this is already happening.

Lonzo said he is learning a LOT from Rondo so far - even going over game footage.

For all of his complexities Rajon Rondo has a great basketball mind and brought me a lot of joy watching him in Green.
39
Celtics Talk / Re: Theis: “knee feels great. Fully recovered.”
« Last post by GreenFaith1819 on Yesterday at 10:00:08 PM »
This is great.

Yet another solid Big to throw at (and frustrate) Embiid.

I love this.
40
Keep your head down, keep team first, and play hard. Do those things and Little Mountain could very well see #11 in the rafters in a few years.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10