And that’s without even getting into fringe contenders. Blake Griffin, DeAndre Jordan, and Mike Conley are hanging around. Then you’ve got young guys that might make a leap like Rudy Gobert, Devin Booker, Nikola Jokic, or Andrew Wiggins. Hell, maybe someone like Dirk has a crazy throwback year and gets his name in the…

I still wonder if that lineup has enough floor spacing. Lot of ok to pretty good 3 point shooting, no knockdown guy though.

Zion was amazing, Bryce Canyon was great, I actually found Arches a bit underwhelming after seeing those two.

Probably not. As mentioned in the article, there isn’t really a team with cap room for a max contract and a need at PG. I’m not even sure that Lowry will get a max deal if he leaves Toronto.

That quote always came across to me as the spoiled kid trying to justify his position in the family business.

I get what you’re trying to say here, but 50 games is a good year. The Cavs won 51 games this season.

I care enough about this to click the link and enough to read a summary of the findings, but 359 pages? I’ll wait for the Cliff’s notes, thanks. Not reading a novel on soccer politics.

If I ever lose my mind and decide to have kids they are never getting on an ATV. I have seen too much at the hospital I work at.

This is a legitimately insane take. The #3 pick is too much for a 27 year old top 10 player? That is the worst basketball take I’ve heard this week, and one of my friends was trying to tell me the other day that DeAndre Jordan was better than Demarcus Cousins.

Yeah yeah, Danny Ainge and his precious, Bahston Bahston blah de blah.

Did not actually realize that golf cleats were a thing.

I don’t give half a shit about golf, can someone tell me how out of line this is? Is this the equivalent of tripping someone in pickup basketball or dragging your ass along the court like a dog with an itchy butthole in pickup basketball?

Seriously, I posted several months ago in an article about Grayson Allen that I didn’t think there was a “Grayson” in existence that wasn’t a shithead.

There are things that you do not think reasonable people are for. Things that you would not take the time to have a civil debate about. Supporting the AHCA is on that list for me. Specifically that, nothing else you’ve tried to make this about. You set your line differently for yourself than I do for me, good for you.…

And I’m sorry, but I can’t divorce the obvious results of their effort from their motives for carrying out that effort. If, on occasion, our opponents have transparently evil (or at least what the person making the statement considers evil) motives, then we are being naive and complacent to not point that out. If…

Is it possible at no point have I said that people with conservative opinions on health care, or people who want to repeal the ACA do not deserve civility? That I was clearly talking about a very specific thing and you’ve done nothing but attempt to muddy the waters to avoid talking about that actual thing?

Yeah, it’s so crazy that I would volunteer information indicating I am familiar with a source when that source was quoted. Clearly I’m really trying hard to impress randos on the internet.

I subscribe to and read the Economist. I do not think it’s much of a stretch to say that the arguments contained there are not the arguments that Republicans use to achieve broad appeal. They don’t use technocratic language to appeal to the base, which is exactly what I’m advocating for.

I’m pretty sure that I’m the best person to qualify what the substance of my point was, given that it was my point and all.

“Or is it for 100% of Americans to be insured regardless of cost (not only to mid-upper class but those themselves that could not previously afford insurance who are forced to pay)?”