Sammy Sofa

Though you'll likely refute it it, you need to see that white racism and black prejudice (I differentiate because I think racism hinges on power. You can still be prejudiced as [expletive], however, without power) come from profoundly different places. The contexts, both today and historically, are completely different, so to compare the two equally is both the height of irony and intellectually dishonest. That's not justifying black prejudice across the board, but to generalize it as being the same as white racism simply isn't realistic.

It's beyond an issue of "racism" and just the inherrent sense of "us" and "them" that we all have to varying degrees.

Why wouldn't Miami want to get something in return for him? I would guess that the chances of him returning to the Heat next year are slim, no? Why would a team give up the haul it would take to get him when he would just be a FA a short time later? It's not like baseball trades where you can give up prospects for a player that's likely to be a rental but can be a difference maker for a few months. With this the team trading for him would likely have to give up key players that they were banking on making/keeping them competitive in the first place.

I guess that just goes to show my foe list isn't always working in my favor. And no, I'm not saying that about you. That's a perception we all have to some degree whether we want it or not.

You know damn well what I mean. Social and economic programs designed to primarily benefit african americans. Affirmative action, educational grants, etc... the system as it's set up now does not give everybody equal opportunities. But feeling guilty about slavery shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not you feel they deserve the assistance provided by those programs. There are much better reasons to help. I don't know what your problem is with me using the word "aid", as most of those programs absolutely fit the definition. But you feel free to go on LULZing. It's exactly the sort of arrogant, dismissive, and ignorant behavior we've all come to expect from you when anything remotely political comes up. Only when something ridiculous that's remotely political comes up. Nobody brought up "feeling guilty over slavery" or "white guilt." And I laugh at "give aid" because whether you meant it or not (and it doesn't seem like you did with your clarification) it's still indicative of the "keep them at arm's length" attitude that's basically built into us. No, it's not attempts to simply make America fair for all Americans after centuries of disparity, something that's going to take a long time to accomplish. No, it's "giving aid," as if they're third world peoples who need our charity and pity. "Giving aid" makes me laugh because it makes it sound like benevolent generosity from on high being deemed to share with those less fortunate as opposed to the basic obligation we should feel as human beings to make sure all of our country is as truly equal as we want to claim. It seems you recognize this at least in part from the post above, but the term "giving aid" made me laugh because it's reflective of how deep the racial divide is in this country even when people aren't being malicious because of it. These aren't and should not be issues of "guilt;" they should just be the result of facing up to the reality of how our society works now and how we want it to function in the future. "Giving aid" denigrates it all to sounding like handouts. And the social and economic programs you generalize are not designed to primarily help African Americans: they're designed to help any of the disenfranchised in our country, or groups that have been deprived their fair slice. Things like affirmative action have been far more beneficial to white women more than any other group. This isn't an issue of only creating avenues to assist the long process of levelling the playing field racially in America, nor are they designed to help African Americans above anyone else.

"Give aid?" LULZ

Trade for DWade around the midseason mark? Can't they just wait to sign him? They could, but give 'em Salmons. If the Bulls think they want to get out of the first round, you gotta get Wade. But you are right, you don't have to do this now. But you could get outbid for him in the offseason. Isn't Salmon's deal only through this season? If so, why would they take him for Wade? A trade for Wade seemingly would require the Bulls to give up players that they need. It doesn't make much sense to do that when they can just wait until the offseason and sign him without giving up anyone.

Trade for DWade around the midseason mark? Can't they just wait to sign him?

Can we chalk that one up as MERELY A REFLECTION OF YOUR ADMITTEDLY SHORT LIFE EXPERIENCE, too?

It's amazing that some of the people expressly marginalized as "surplus people" socially, economically and politically over the entire history of this country wouldn't be too fond of the people that that society was designed to benefit and empower the most.

what's amazing is that the numbers can't touch ratings from the pre-cable era. The 1975 World Series (Reds vs. Red Sox) averaged 76 million viewers What's amazing about that? Most people didn't have cable then. There was far less to watch.

Last year's option was Samardzija, Marshall and Wells. I'm not sure how these options are better. And they are going into it with a lesser staff (injured Lilly and likely no Harden). "The past" extends beyond last year, Literal Lamont. I do not understand why you're responding to me like I'm saying this is a good thing. I never said this wouldn't be a lesser staff: that's obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense. I'm not. All I pointed out is that with the backup options the Cubs have there's a huge middle ground between "OK, this can work" and "holy crap, this team is going down in flames." I simply don't agree with the idea that they're automatically fucked if Lilly starts late.

Shark definitely needs work but Marshall and Gorzelanny getting starts aren't necessarily bad things. Id be fine with either Marshall or Gorz as a 5th starter, but Wells/Marshall/Gorz as 3/4/5 doesnt exactly make for a steller pitching staff. Uh, of course not. When does using backups ever make for a stellar pitching staff? The Cubs are hopefully in the situation where using the backups is tolerable as opposed to "well, now we're [expletive]." Right, but as a team that seemingly can't wait to let Harden go, and who has to hope for everything to go right with an injury to a 30-something pitcher for him to pitch in April, it's not like they are just going to be using these guys as backups. Guys are going to get lots of starts who should otherwise probably be 6th starters. Not even trying to keep Harden was already stupid before Lilly got sliced. It's not like I'm saying it's some great thing these guys are getting more starts: it's, relatively speaking, seemingly better than the options they've often had in similar situations in the past.

Shark definitely needs work but Marshall and Gorzelanny getting starts aren't necessarily bad things. Id be fine with either Marshall or Gorz as a 5th starter, but Wells/Marshall/Gorz as 3/4/5 doesnt exactly make for a steller pitching staff. Uh, of course not. When does using backups ever make for a stellar pitching staff? The Cubs are hopefully in the situation where using the backups is tolerable as opposed to "well, now we're fucked."

Shark definitely needs work but Marshall and Gorzelanny getting starts aren't necessarily bad things.

Awesome move by Rose and Noah.

You seem to have unrealistic expectations.

Sure, but there's only so much he can do if he's basically under pressure almost the entire time without much of a rushing option. The book on the OL simply seems to be "blitz to your heart's content." Fair enough. And I actually thought he played well yesterday although his stats weren't great. However, he did have three straight games with a QB rating over 100, and now three straight games with a rating below 80. It is partially the O-Line's fault, but not entirely, and I think Cutler would be the first to admit that. Agreed. He's pretty far from perfect, but I think even the best QB's out there would be having trouble with the problems the Bears are going through. It's basically a perfect storm of suck out there right now in terms of wanting to be able to capitalize on a QB with Cutler's talent.

Why?

I really don't want to move Marshall if Harden isn't coming back. The Cubs are giving up way too much in that scenario.

Sure, but there's only so much he can do if he's basically under pressure almost the entire time without much of a rushing option. The book on the OL simply seems to be "blitz to your heart's content."

Cutler's the Bears' best RB.

Good challenge.

The OL might as well not be there.

Love the people in this thread arbitrarily demanding/creating timeframes.