EastCoastNiner

As usual, Kobe is a great player, but a whining, oversensitive, little baby.

I'm not even going to try and get into it because I just wanted to kind of bash him a little. The more I read about it, the fishier it sounds, and more likely the the sample was not fully legitimate. Apparently Braun didn't win the appeal on a "technicality", but rather scientific evidence.......

Did he, or did he not fail the second drug test? Oh, alright then.

He's a cheater, plain and simple. He got off on a "technicality". There's a reason he didn't dispute the drug test, but rather the process. You know he's a cheat as does everyone else.

On another note, Lin looks like garbage, as does Wade.

I'm the last person that likes those calls, but his was more blatant than most players He didn't just react, he reacted right in the refs face looking at him, yelling and grabbing his arm. Also, the announcing crew didn't seem to have a problem with the technical foul on Chandler.

I thought at first that it was a foul, but I don't think Chandler was fouled there after the replays they showed. I understand the "T" on Chandler, but they shouldn't have given one to D'Antoni as well. I hate technical foul calls, but Chandler reacted a little too much.

Wade has no finish at all. He's terrible sometimes.

Alright, 15 point win for the Heat instead of 25+...........srs.

Well, he still failed the test and tested positive. He's getting off on a "technicality"......aka he plays for the Brewers. .

I feel bad for him thought as the ball was really dropped in this case. It sucks that most people will still have doubts about him for a long time.

I don't really care too much about this to be honest. I just took the topic and common about Selig from another site. We both know Braun got away with it because he's Jewish........... .

Bud Selig, please go. This must have been for "baseball reasons". http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/7608360/ryan-braun-wins-appeal-50-game-suspension

You're not going to lose. LeBron is going to own Lin like Lin has never been owned before.

http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2011/11/free_agent_to_be_zach_parise_w.html He's mirin' those banners. I'd have to find the other link I'm looking for, but I remember this one too. He'd be a perfect fit on the Bruins as well with Claude Julien at the helm. However, I haven't stated it here before, but I had been against going after Parise in the past. I'm not sure if he's the game-breaker some people think he is. I do think there's a good chance Thomas is gone after this year. There's no way Rask is going to be a back-up for another season, and teams will be offering him lots of money. Factor in the whole political saga with Thomas, and I think it's very possible he is gone. Also, who knows what's going to happen with Horton? I hope he's back, but who knows. Now, here's what the Bruins should do, hoping the cap goes up over the next few years. Ryan Spooner+Jared Knight+2012 1st+2012 2nd For: Jeff Carter Sign Parise in the off-season. Trade Thomas (don't want him traded, but I have to in this scenario) Place Savard on LTIR Three-peat on the way............... :glasses: .

Goodnight sweet Knicks. The Heat take this by 15+.

And, that's exactly what I said. I said "I can't wait for Magic Johnson to get sued" if he went through with what he said. A lot of you are arguing something completely different and irrelevant to what the point of the topic was. Anyways, this has already been beaten to death in this thread, and nothing else needs to really be said.

That's all I was saying. I never said it was wrong to "cater" to a certain group because EVERY television station does that, but to come and and say you're going to hire based upon race is illegal. I can't tell if lkr is just trying to be stupid and intentionally manipulating my words to make it sound like something else, or if he truly is as dumb as he is sounding. I never once said there was a problem "catering" (word you used) to a certain group. I said it's illegal to come out and state that someone will hire based upon race like he stated, and actually follow through with his views.

http://cascadeclimbers.com/plab/data/500/gay_thread.gif

I don't get mad because I know they are handicap and don't have the same abilities as most people, and it would be ineffective to have them in the same lines as people without a disability. They would not be able to stand in line the same amount of time as a fully bodies person without needing some help. Your point?

What does that have to do with anything? That's a ridiculously stupid comparison to race and sex. You couldn't have tried to give a worse example. How much do I care that major businesses have to provide reasonable access for employees with a disability? I have little problem with that because it's the LAW, something you still have no grasp on. I'll help you out. Go read about the Civil Right's act and tell me about it. Once you read it (because you obviously haven't before), you'll realize how dumb you sound. Seriously, comparing handicap people having their own lane or quicker access to a person saying that they're going to be hiring black people to write their scripts and direct their programs is flat out dumb. i don't have to see Magic Johnson say, "I'm only hiring black people" because his quote and the context of it says that already.

Can you find a quote where it states that lifetime is going to hire women to write and produce their shows?

That has nothing to do with anything. His comment had nothing to do with "targeting" an audience. He said he was going to hire black writers and producers, while pretty much saying he was going to do that based upon race, which, in case you didn't know, it not legal. You both know you aren't making sense with your lifetime network comments and crap like that. You're making no sense at all, and both of you sure as hell know that.

Personally, I don't have a problem if a company hires people based on certain factors if they think it will give their company the greatest chance to be successful. However, that's not how it is today because of the Civil Rights Act. You can't just come out and blatantly say that you're hiring black people for your station, while making it sound like you will choose them over white people. This isn't an exact parallel, but it's well known that you have (assuming you still do) a problem/disability with one of your eyes. What would you think if a company came out and said, "We're only hiring people with perfect 20/20 vision, regardless of them having glasses or not"? Or, if you're in a wheelchair, are you going to be content with a company saying they'll be "hiring people that can walk on their own" when it's a cubicle job? As I said, those situations aren't exact parallels, but both race and disabilities are clearly defined in the Civil Rights Act.

He does already have a company, and if he goes through with his statement, then he can have fun being sued up the ass.