Karc

As if things weren't confusing enough with Shannon "Don't Call Me Chris" Brown, Andrew Bynum is rumored to be dating Rihanna. http://thebiglead.com/?p=13489 Jokes to follow, I'm sure.

Tony vs Jack, Round 2 goes to Tony. Can't wait for the rubber match.

Foley can put someone over without winning the title (Edge, Orton...)

I was making a point, you are the one who is pushing this argument. And again, with the personal insults... 1. All of the stuff I got from his blog was in one half hour of viewing. I'm sure there are many more examples, but I won't continue to go to the blog. It's a total waste of time. 2. His orientation is EXACTLY why he asked the question. Not once did I say it was illegitimate, but there was a clear reason why he asked the question. If someone else had asked the question, I would still defend her as at least saying something. The fact that he asked it and he looked shocked at the response made it more satisfying. What did he think a twenty-something blond was going to say? Good for her for not giving in. 3. Watch the clip, as soon as his name was mentioned for a question, the presenter said "uh oh," to which Hilton replied, "You should be afraid." He was a shark swimming for blood. He was looking to stir something up. And he's been doing this for years. He asked the question because he knew that something would come out of it. 4. Why shouldn't she be credited for "voicing her opinion?" There are a lot of people in this country that AGREE with her, which is why only FOUR states allow gay marriage. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but if anything, she went for the popular opinion (one that people VOTED for), and was still burned. At least she stood her ground. 5. You are right, Hilton is not a good person. Which is why I'm glad she said what she did and threw right back in his face. Yes, I would have been much more happy if she just brushed him off. The fault actually goes to NBC for letting this clown judge a beauty contest. 6. As I said in the first post, my problem is Hilton. I don't really care about gay marriage, or the beauty contest. But Hilton went looking for an agenda, and got burned as a result when he didn't get what wanted. It's the total lack of accountability checks that allows this retard to continue being a blight on society.

Ben Gordon had 42 points, but no assists. And where was the Celtics bench (9 points?!) Chicago should keep playing this style, well, and have Ben Gordon distribute the ball more, and they can win this series.

But you also said that Perez Hilton was picked on the panel because "he's popular with little girls." Check out his blog. How is his commentary and behavior any different? At least she didn't swear at anybody, or openly mock fat people. The title of a Jennifer Hudson post reads "How Pregnant does she look?" Seriously. That's what little girls aspire too? The only positive thing he mentions in that post is her handing the microphone to a gay kid. Which comes back to his sexual orientation, and that it is relevant. It's why he asked the question, it's why he outs people who otherwise did not want to be outed. I'm not saying his agenda is right or wrong, but there is a very clear reason why he asked the question. It's a hot topic and it mattered to him, so he brought it up, didn't get the response he wanted, and went berserk about it on his website. I'm just saying that since everyone is going to bury this girl for being put on the spot and flubbing up an unpopular answer, at least she stood up and said something, which is more than can be said for Hilton, who would rather embarrass people to make a point. He went on MSNBC and buried her again. The girl was raised a certain way, and that's her fault, I guess. Again, he was looking for too much and had to have known that. People don't just learn tolerance out of nowhere nervous as hell on the stage of a beauty contest in front a few million people. Old white people have had years to get it, they just outright refused. If Hilton was the better of the two, he would not have called someone in her early twenties a "dumb bitch." He just showed that he likes to overreact to a mess that he started. And that's his place.

He was put in his place, the look of contempt in his face indicated that he did not get the answer he was looking for, and expressed it on his blog afterwards when he called her "a dumb bitch." He even said it on his blog... "There is no right answer, but there could have been a much better answer!" I mean, he knew the question would get heat, one way or the other. He set her up from the get-go, and she took the bait and stuck with an answer. Did he really think that she was going to give an eloquent answer that would please everyone? He did it so people like you and me, who would not have cared about this otherwise, have wasted all day talking about it. And yes, I can completely understand why little girls find him so popular. With his horrible language and constant marking up of celebrities in funny, albeit slightly offensive ways. I'm actually curious to read what you think of his blog. I just started checking it out recently. I haven't bookmarked it or anything, but it's interesting.

Perez Hilton is a gay gossip blogger whose reputation is to out gay celebrities and ask about gay issues. Again, I'm not saying the question was wrong, given the situation, I think it was more a deliberate attempt by NBC to generate interest. I'm just saying at least she said something. May or may not have been the right thing to say, may or not matter in the end, but considering who asked the question, he was pushing HIS agenda. Just thought it was interesting. No need to make it bigger than it was. I mean Willie Geist could have asked about the economy, and it would mean the same thing since he works for NBC News. Oh, and my mistake, the thing was Miss USA, not Miss America.

I'm not seeing your point here. I just thought it was good for her to actually say something to someone who was trying to push an agenda. He got what he wanted. I don't really care if it was right or wrong, mostly because that's subjective, but also because there was no way to get out of it, so at least she went down swinging. I mean, in the end, the question was about as meaningless as a Wonderlic question during the NFL combine. In the end, it's not really going to affect whatever she does in her life all that much. But it made good TV.

How does Foley winning the belt help TNA in the long-term...? And I can see how they surprised people with the Lashley appearance, TNA is too far under the radar for anyone to care. Highlight of the night, Angelina Love getting KTFO. What better way for a blond to win the title. Part of me was hoping that Kong would just rip her hair out and destroy them both, but oh well.

It's not, I was just saying that she was doomed no matter what she said, as I mentioned later on. She may as well have called herself gay, because any other answer, the homosexuals were out for blood at that point. They were pissed that she even got runner-up. And given Perez's history, he had an agenda and he carried it out to perfection. And outside of Vanessa Williams, when has Miss America actually meant anything in the long-term?

Major thumbs up for Miss California standing up to that retard Perez Hilton asking her stance on gay marriage during the Miss America thing. That whole scene screamed of a set-up, since there are only four states that actually allow gay marriage. Just so happens that the biggest state involved in the whole mess just happened to get asked a question about it from a gay blogger whose rep is to swing the gay tag in front of people's faces until they either come out of the closet, or humiliated out of a beauty contest. I mean, since when did people ever care what Miss America thinks as long as she looks hot in a bikini anyway? Oh, this is what she said... “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country, and my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.” Didn't really matter which stand she took, she was screwed the moment the question was asked. If she came out of the closet right then, well, her long-term future is secure in several high-profile pornos. Of course, her response wasn't exactly endearing towards gays, but the amount of hate mail at least will be lessened, since the state actually voted for a gay-marriage ban in November, so the majority of the state agrees with her. Stood her ground, and got buried anyway. Hilton then called her a dumb bitch on his blog, just to pour salt in the wound that he opened. Seriously, if she killed him tomorrow, I would argue for self-defense. I may be missing something here, but how was she going to get out of that? Not answer and be completely ignorant? Answer the way she did and get hammered by gays (which wouldn't exactly make them gay, but you get the idea)? Completely side with gays and get thrown out altogether?

Jay Glazer scooped ESPN on almost every NFL story for the last two years. So unless you were being sarcastic, I agree with you that people from Fox have at least some idea of what they are talking about. And I do not think Orlando is winning that series. Not after that choke job. They clearly need a closer, and it's not Hedo. The Jazz's ability to get to the line is one of the reasons I think they can win this series. I watched them jack up bad shots and miss easy layups in the first half. That was not happening in the second half. Giving up the 113 is slightly misleading because the Lakers were shooting lights out (55 percent). Jazz made 39 percent from the field and still got 100. They just need to stick to the formula with Williams and getting fouls, get Okur back, and they have a good chance. Even without Okur, they still win their home games. And really, Boston? A rookie coach goes into the Garden for the first time in a playoff game and wins? No wonder ESPN has backed off the Celtics bandwagon. Even if you aren't going back to the finals, at least act like you care. Specifically Paul Pierce, who couldn't hit a free throw to save his life. Certainly not his life in the playoffs. Yeah, and this guy screamed from the rooftops that's he's better than Kobe Bryant last year. Much as I think the Lakers are higly overrated, if Bryant is on the line in the same scenario, he nails both without breaking a sweat. Then, Pierce's bad shooting, the turnovers, and Ray Allen only hitting one shot the whole game. Combined with ESPN's BS at the end of OT, this angered way more than the Lakers-Jazz game. See ya, Boston. And shame on the Hornets for trying bring out the thugs in Denver. With Billups there, it is not going to happen. He has a ring and will actually get those players to show up. Of course, if Iverson was still there, it's a four game sweep for New Orleans.

The Jazz played great in the second half. They figured out how to play the Lakers. This article explains better than I can, since no here takes me seriously at this point anyway. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9474932...stinct?MSNHPHMA

Nice choke job by Orlando.

The Jazz bench outscored the Lakers bench 37-33. Ariza started so that does not count. The Jazz finally started driving to the basket in the second half, getting points in the paint and free throws. They cut a 22 point lead to 9 several times. They managed to foul out Pau Gasol, something that has not been done this season. Not sure why they didn't try to get Bynum out too, since he had five at that point. Deron Willians had 17 assists and only 3 turnovers. Do that instead of jacking up bad shots and he cannot be beat. Jazz did not have Okur who is their second best scorer. Lakers didn't have Mbenga, either, but seriously... The second they get Okur back, they win four straight. And if I'm an LA fan, I'm pissed that the Lakers give up 100. That means no free tacos. Seriously, stay classy, LA fans, booing the team that's about a win a playoff game because you want free food and they could not deliver. No wonder there are so many fat people in this country.

ESPN/ABC's coverage thus far has been terrible. Most notably, the OT game with Bulls/Celtics in a blatant attempt by ESPN to pull viewers away from ABC. Last time I checked, aren't they the same? At the end of the 1st quarter in the Cleveland game, they show a split-screen of the Boston game, with Chicago about to inbound with the game tied in OT and 26 seconds left. Right as Tyrus Thomas puts up the shot, they cut to commercial. Then, instead of updating the game back from break, they cut to a pre-taped interview with the Detroit head coach, then make no mention of the game until Mike Breen casually acknowledges it five minutes later. Then, of course, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy spend half the quarter talking about the game that everyone without cable did not see. I'm pretty sure that CBS (who seamless switched between NCAA tournament games) and NBC (who would have stayed with the OT game, then go to the Cleveland game) would not let this shit take place.

When they get LeBron James in 2010, that very well could happen. Nate Robinson was 17-4-4 this season off the bench this season, which is a vast improvement over last year. Al Harrington just needs to stop picking up technicals when the Knicks have the lead late in the game. And Lee was averaging a double-double in points and rebounds. Curry is expendable, but other than that, they have a decent shot of doing some real damage in a couple of years when they don't have to pay so much.

About as much as watching a 67-15 Dallas team in 2007 get blitzed by Golden State in the first round, mostly because of a coach that knew the blueprint defensively to beat them and followed it to near-perfection. And I am not the one who is being desperate enough to wager name changes and bans without the consent of the opposing party. All you've shown me is the record. I've watched the games. Have you? What did you see to make you think that they are going to go deep in the postseason. Just trying to have a discussion here. That's a miserable example. The Warriors had beaten the Mavs every time they had played. The Jazz lost the season series against the Lakers, including a game that meant something to the Jazz and was meaningless to the Lakers. It's not comparable in the slightest. And I don't think he's desperate, he's just trying to get you to put your money where your mouth is. You've been talking a big game, but not willing to put a fucking user name on the line? Take a look at stipulations and see how they compare to each other. You've done little to nothing to actually justify your position, and you've continually ignored the arguments against it. You seem like the fool, not him. If the Wizards are healthy, and Flip Saunders actually smacked some sense into Arenas so that he actually passes the ball, then I would have the Wizards beating the Cavs in the first round next season, no matter the seed. The problem with that team is they are a bunch of blowhards who only care about beating Cleveland, and no one else. Going 14-68 or whatever is not going to get you into the playoffs. Flip Saunders being able to slap sense into anyone is unrealistic. And you would have the Wizards beating the Cavs in the first round, no matter the seed? They haven't beaten Cleveland teams that were carried by LeBron alone, how do they expect to beat the guy when he has a truly good supporting cast? I missed this earlier. Sorry about that. It would be far more telling if Utah and LA had played four games instead of three, or if one of the teams won on the road with a full roster. All the season series showed is that the home team can win a game with players missing on the other side (Bynum in the Utah game, Okur in the LA game). The game was mostly useless for the Jazz too, since everyone in the West knew that they were going to have to beat the Lakers anyway. Better to get it over with in the first round instead of the second. And a focused Washington team can beat Cleveland. The problem is Arenas. And I don't think Flip Saunders can save him, I just think that if he did, they could pull it off. I've justified my stance with stats from the games. The only thing he's done is flip around a record that does not mean nearly as much as he thinks at this point. The first time a team loses four times in seven games, they are done, regardless if they won 70 games in the regular season. I think the Jazz and the Trail Blazers could do it with healthy rosters, and dominate in the paint if the point guards play well, which Williams has done.

Could you please stop with the personal attacks? This is at least the third time you have done so, and it brings nothing to the thread. Talking basketball in a basketball thread is not trolling.

No, the Lakers would beat those teams, that's what I was saying. Artest cannot stop Bryant, Spurs do not have Ginobli to score, and Fisher is decent enough to neutralize Jason Kidd. I was not double-posting. Those were two seperate points I made. Mike's post appeared while I was typing the response to Battlenuts, so I chose to respond to that seperately. Any sort of betting in sports is stupid. It's how people lose money and a lot worse. I believe what I say. If I end up wrong in the end, whatever, I move on. I do not need to blow a dog or see you blow a dog to validate a point or show my conviction towards something. I've managed to spark up more discussion in this board in two months than I've seen in years, which I'm content with.

The Celtics bench embarrassed the Lakers bench, which is why they won the title last year and put up a 39-point beatdown in the clincher. But playoff play is not important, I guess. And Portland's bench is a large reason why they beat the Lakers twice this year (I think they outscored them by 5 or 6 points in each game, would have been more but Ariza took out Fernandez) Giving up more threes than all but two teams in the league is a useless stat, considering that's pretty much how they lost all the games they played, and how most of the games they won ended up being so close. Again, how is comparing me to a female a valid basketball argument? I'm surprised you haven't gotten a warning for this. I'm trying to keep the conversation civil. The best you've done is question my manhood. As for Utah, I think they are more physical than the Lakers. If they pound the ball inside and draw fouls (40+ free throw attempts in the last game), and get the Lakers guessing, it opens up their outside game. And they will have Okur back who can hit threes, like the one he hit to beat the Lakers in Utah earlier in the year. And Deron Williams is a far better point guard than Derek Fisher. The Lakers have not been able to stop him. I have reasons why I think Utah can win every game. The point difference is actually closer to 6 since the All-star break. Which means that opponents are keeping games closer than normal. I'm going with teams that I think can beat the Lakers. If the playoff order was Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio without Manu, I'd say the Lakers get beat by Cleveland in five. But these three teams are healthy now, and can play good defense or tough basketball. I can see them stealing one in LA far more easily than the Lakers winning on the road. And home court does not mean anything to the dead LA crowds. I think the Lakers win there so that they don't get booed when they lose, or because it's so quiet that they play nice and calm.

About as much as watching a 67-15 Dallas team in 2007 get blitzed by Golden State in the first round, mostly because of a coach that knew the blueprint defensively to beat them and followed it to near-perfection. And I am not the one who is being desperate enough to wager name changes and bans without the consent of the opposing party. All you've shown me is the record. I've watched the games. Have you? What did you see to make you think that they are going to go deep in the postseason. Just trying to have a discussion here. If the Wizards are healthy, and Flip Saunders actually smacked some sense into Arenas so that he actually passes the ball, then I would have the Wizards beating the Cavs in the first round next season, no matter the seed. The problem with that team is they are a bunch of blowhards who only care about beating Cleveland, and no one else. Going 14-68 or whatever is not going to get you into the playoffs.

The two things I've mentioned have happened in pretty much EVERY game they've played. They give up an average of 100 points per game, which is bad news against a good defense (like in the playoffs). It's just that bad teams don't take advantage, and good teams have and will. Charlotte is not even in the playoffs, and they beat the Lakers twice. The record doesn't really mean a whole lot in the regular season. But trends in every game do. I've mentioned two. Yes, when they lose, it's usually because of those things. But in games they've won by a few points, it's also because they have blown a lead. In other words, there is a blueprint to beat the Lakers, and a team with a good coach (like Larry Brown) or a good big man that can take away the rebounds for second-chance shots (like Dwight Howard) can take them out on any given night. And I'm not just hating on the Lakers. The Cavs are a worse example to me, because I actually do think that the league is trying to manipulate them into the Finals. Why is Lebron James getting an average of less than 2 fouls per game? I don't even think he's fouled out of a game this season? And he hasn't been called for traveling on his stubid crab dribble since Mike Brown got fined for ripping the refs about it. While I don't think the Lakers can get out of the first round, I will root out loud for someone to eliminate Cleveland.

I've given my reasons as to why I think the Lakers will be eliminated in the first round in previous NBA weekly threads. But I'll recap a few here. One of the big reasons is that they give three-point shooters all day to take shots. When they only hit 15 percent of them (like Houston in their four losses), then the Lakers don't really have to play defense to beat them. But they also allowed Orlando to make 12 a piece in both of their games, which they lost. Then there was the dumb play by Ariza which gave Philly a road win on a buzzer-beater three when the Lakers were up by two. A good three-point shooting team (Boston, Cleveland, and Portland are in the top five) can get hot and smoke them, because the Lakers will not defend the three off dribble penetration. They allowed 1700 three-point attempts during the regular season, which is third-WORST in the league. Lakers blow leads. And huge leads, too. This is largely due to the suckitude of the bench. They can get a twenty-point lead on a team, and the opponent will not be scared at all. Up 24 in Game 4 of the Finals on Boston in a must-win game. How'd did that go? They've done it at least 10 times in the regular season. This is a bad bench combined with no defense. And if they get behind, they are not coming back to win. How are they going to beat the Jazz in Salt Lake City, or the Blazers in Portland, or even Denver on the road? 1-4 against those teams during the regular season, and only the Jazz loss was close. Those are the ones that I distinctly remember off the top of my head, I'll add more later.