aeu

Members
  • Content count

    4,907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aeu

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington DC

Recent Profile Visitors

4,427 profile views
  1. NBA 2017: Playoffs? Playoffs?!

    Exactly this. At some point, these MVP arguments need to take into account the fact that a few years ago, NBA refs collectively agreed to call a foul every single time Harden travels, throws himself to the poor defender and throw his arms in the air. And repeat this 8-10 times every single game... It is hard to distinguish Harden and Westbrook based on the stats. I like to think "What would have happened to the two teams if you switched the two?" I think Houston will be the same or better, and Westbrook will easily have more assists (though potentially less points). I think OKC will easily be worse and Harden will definitely have less assists, probably significantly so. (No easy assists from outside shooters, no super-athletic bigs for easy rolls to the rim). Actually, I think if Harden was saddled with this OKC team, he would have demoralized very early on in the season and would have checked out like he did in the past (though obviously we have no way of knowing that for sure).
  2. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    No kidding. The level of illusion, narcissism, just overall inability to form a coherent thought with any semblance of logic.. I should be used to it by now, but for some reason, I was still surprised when I read this. And also very depressed. http://time.com/4710456/donald-trump-time-interview-truth-falsehood/
  3. NBA 2017: The Kings of Comedy

    Honestly, I don't think Wiggins is the type of player you want playing alongside Kat and Lavine. (But, then again, I'm a UCLA homer ) Wiggins is maddening. He ends up with a decent amount of points most of the time, but whenever I watch him, I can't help but think something is wrong with him. He seems to be sleepwalking out there most of the time (and i'm not even talking about the defense. He is basically non-existent on that end). Then once or twice very game he does something so athletic, quick, I am blown away. If he can do that one a consistent basis, he will be unbelievable. But don't know if that will ever happen. Seems like he has some kind of medical problem, this level of lethargy is just not normal. Lavine is not the most intense guy either but at least e seems to be genuinely enjoying basketball. If this injury does not mess him up, I think he will easily have a better career than Wiggins.
  4. U.S. Politics: Russian Around

    The guy who put the table together knows this full well. He is not completely stupid like some of the hacks repeating numbers without understanding what they mean. He actually talks about it somewhere in the wall of text to handwave and dismiss it. Honestly, I prefer the idiots to these detestable fucks who actually know better and lie and / or mislead; and also attempt to sell those half-truths as serious analysis.
  5. NBA 2017: The Kings of Comedy

    This was one weird trade deadline. Seems like no one wants to give up anything. Relatively decent players were traded for almost nothing. Obviously there are other factors (Noel is a RFA, etc.) but still...Every single trade is like "That's all they got??"
  6. NBA 2017: The Kings of Comedy

    Dunno. Mitch used to be decent before Jimmy took over. Still, I can see why it makes sense to get rid of both of them and make a clean start. But for Magic??? Having been exposed to Magic in bits and pieces over the years, I am shocked that anyone would consider him a good choice to rebuild a franchise.
  7. US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

    Didn't Trump just prove that this strategy works? Yes, he had some enthusiastic supporters but how many republications were whatever the exact opposite o enthusiastic is and voted for him solely because he would have been better than Hillary on a few select areas (like abortion). The exact opposite should have been true for those on the left side of the spectrum, but some of those people just enjoy being contrarians and cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces. Republicans are much more rational about these things. They may bitch and moan but eventually get in line.
  8. US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

    WinterFox has a point. I'm sure Warren is a lovely person and her heart is in the right place but she is not the kind to win "no-rules, winner takes all" fights against the likes of Bannon and McConnell (or Karl Roves of yesteryear). Neither is Sanders. Though I don't know if there is any obvious solution. This seems to be in Dems DNA for a while now. Also, they lost so much ground over the years, I don't think the representatives matter at this point. They simply can't do much, if anything meaningful.
  9. US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

    I was curious about this comment. Are you serious about this?
  10. US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

    Heh, yeah, those are the uncomfortable implications I listened to the recording now, the judges kept asking that question and the poor DOJ lawyer kept dancing..."That is not what this order does." "Yes, we know that" "But, your honor, that is not this order does" "Yes, I know!" Overall, I can't say who is right. Unlimited power to make a decision unilaterally seems absurd, but who knows. Yet, I still like that as an argument (coming from the other side) because at least, it is an honest argument. I disagree with it, but it does not seem to be disingenuous effort to willfully mislead people. I
  11. US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

    I can see the theoretical argument. It seems to bring up further interesting and challenging topics but leaving those aside, it is true that the confidential nature of national security creates a difference. However, this seems to be ultimately irrelevant in this case, since as far as I know, the genesis of the order is not some confidential information. Now I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes one of the new talking points for the WH but based on the history / timeline / arguments so far, there is no reason to assume that confidential info play any role in this. (Personally, I think the evidence suggests that it is very unlikely for confidential info to play a role, but that's just me). So, I don't think statements like this do not apply: "But here, unlike in the abortion caselaw, where facts are known to the world, the government (purportedly) has some evidence that is private that justifies their decisions. " Overall, this seems to be an attempt to position the order as something it really is not and defend that position. Personally, I prefer Commodore's arguments (president has absolute authority on this and courts cannot question it). At least, it is intellectually honest. But it has uncomfortable implications, so it appears that people want to dance around it.
  12. A fight to what end, though? They cannot block the nomination. Republicans were able to do what they did to Garland because there was nothing Obama or the Dems could do to counter. This supposed retaliation by the dems will just be a temper tantrum. There is no tangible benefit in sight, maybe other than appeasing certain parts of their "base." Maybe they will think that it is worth it...(Though I find it ironic that, after going through all that, some non-negligible portion of that base will inevitably find something to nitpick about the next democratic candidate and decide that both parties are the same, so why vote? Even more will not turn up for midterms...) Of all the things to get upset about, I cannot get worked up about this SCOTUS nomination. Elections do have consequences. Say whatever you want about Trump, he earned this one. (And by all accounts, did a decent job).
  13. Well, they could have rewatched footage from her confirmation hearings. Or ask Jeff Sessions (of all people...) https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826289013891821568 https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826325066124103680 https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826327824332054529
  14. First off, briantw is right about virtually everything he said and you guys arguing with him are all wrong. It is actually spooky how consistently he has been right. (Well, other than the "beta bitch" comment.) Particularly: - Wiggins is a really bad defender. (From way back, but I always wanted to point this out when people are commenting about the Love trade). - No comparison between Lebron's situation and Durant's. Lebron's move was weak too (and he was killed for it) but this is on another level. I would be shocked if Russ commits to signing long term with Boston (and consequently, shocked if Boston gives up good assets without that commitment). Dude was born in Long Beach, raised in Hawthorne (as in Hawthorne, CA. Beach Boys, baby!), went to high school in LA, went to UCLA. If he is leaving OKC, he is going to Lakers, no? Re: GS bench: They resigned Ian Clarke. I thought he was pretty good in limited time last year and seemed ready for more minutes and responsibility. Add Iggy, Livingston, David West's corpse, they still have a decent bench. The key is: If they have extended injuries to their core guys at the same time, there will be a huge drop off. If they are as healthy as they have been the last two years, they should be fine. They are really running low on big guys though. If they run into injuries there or face foul trouble, they would be forced to go small much longer than ideal. Re: GS's salary cap: Unless the rules change significantly with a new CBA, they can definitely bring everybody back since they have bird rights for everyone except for Durant. I don't think the luxury tax bill be that high even for the first couple of years. It can really go up 3-4 years down the line though.
  15. You don't have to sign players to hit the floor though. You can fall short, you just end up paying the difference to those players on your roster. I think Philly fell short last year (or the year before?) Of course, if you are spending that money one way or the other, you may as well sign someone for a year, but there is no need to give a large 3-4 year deal to a 8-9th guy just to make it to the floor this year. Of course, this being the NBA, when GMs have the opportunity to spend, they go crazy...I think many will regret it down the line, especially the $20+ millions thrown to midlevel guys. It makes sense this year with rookie caps stuck in the past and virtually all the contracts entered in the past are for lower numbers. In 2-3 years, when new extensions for top rookies and new max deals start appearing and clogging up (even the increased cap), these contracts will look too cumbersome. But many teams will probably be fine with whatever they are paying for 2 year contracts (or even for 3 years).