Minnesota Sports Forum

kekgeek1 wrote:Announced today played unvaccinated players who miss games due to covid will be unpaid for their games missed.

Warriors could be in big trouble if Wiggins does not play.

Especially because Klay probably isn't going to be available until January.

Manidates are canceled?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QNsNMFH5s

kekgeek1 wrote:Announced today played unvaccinated players who miss games due to covid will be unpaid for their games missed.

Warriors could be in big trouble if Wiggins does not play.

I think Golden State is overrated heading into this season, but potentially missing Andrew Wiggins in half of their games isn't going to be a huge blow. They have decent depth on the wing. They have Andre Iguodala, Otto Porter, Nemanja Bjelica, Jonathan Kuminga, and Juan Toscano-Anderson that can eat up those minutes.

Camden wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:Announced today played unvaccinated players who miss games due to covid will be unpaid for their games missed.

Warriors could be in big trouble if Wiggins does not play.

I think Golden State is overrated heading into this season, but potentially missing Andrew Wiggins in half of their games isn't going to be a huge blow. They have decent depth on the wing. They have Andre Iguodala, Otto Porter, Nemanja Bjelica, Jonathan Kuminga, and Juan Toscano-Anderson that can eat up those minutes.

Andrew Wiggins played the most minutes on the team last season.
Iguodala averaged 4.4 ppg.
Bjelica saw limited action with two different teams, averaging 6.5 ppg. He's bigger and slower than Wiggins and not necessarily a wing guy.
Porter has played 42 games over 2 seasons... and only 98 over the past 3 seasons.
Kuminga is an 18 year old rookie right now.
Juan Toscano Anderson actually has outperformed expectations. I guess you could pin hopes on him making a leap this year?

In any event, I do think that Wiggins was a minutes eater for the Warriors for a reason. He's long and rangy and can do a few things reasonably well. And he answered the bell. I think he'd be missed (although I think he gets the vaccine to make this moot).

I also think it's tough to change on the fly from game to game with/without the leading mpg guy on the team. Roles will be in near-constant flux.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Camden wrote:

kekgeek1 wrote:Announced today played unvaccinated players who miss games due to covid will be unpaid for their games missed.

Warriors could be in big trouble if Wiggins does not play.

I think Golden State is overrated heading into this season, but potentially missing Andrew Wiggins in half of their games isn't going to be a huge blow. They have decent depth on the wing. They have Andre Iguodala, Otto Porter, Nemanja Bjelica, Jonathan Kuminga, and Juan Toscano-Anderson that can eat up those minutes.

Andrew Wiggins played the most minutes on the team last season.
Iguodala averaged 4.4 ppg.
Bjelica saw limited action with two different teams, averaging 6.5 ppg. He's bigger and slower than Wiggins and not necessarily a wing guy.
Porter has played 42 games over 2 seasons... and only 98 over the past 3 seasons.
Kuminga is an 18 year old rookie right now.
Juan Toscano Anderson actually has outperformed expectations. I guess you could pin hopes on him making a leap this year?

In any event, I do think that Wiggins was a minutes eater for the Warriors for a reason. He's long and rangy and can do a few things reasonably well. And he answered the bell. I think he'd be missed (although I think he gets the vaccine to make this moot).

I also think it's tough to change on the fly from game to game with/without the leading mpg guy on the team. Roles will be in near-constant flux.

But if you have Curry/Green/Klay, then the other parts are more easily interchangeable. Of course, Green is on shaky ground as he has been on a steady decline for a few years now.....still the heart and soul of that team though. Also, if Porter can keep himself healthy, he is a better player than Wiggins. Big if though.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?

This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.

And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...

I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?

Thanks.



[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]

The news is simply knowing the news is BS.

So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?

The real news is that the news is mostly fictional. That is the news you need to know. When 24/7 news channels came into existence they struggled to fill airtime and attract viewers. They have found better and better ways by creating content (mostly fictional) to acquire eyeballs. You can only cover the weather and the local car crash or gang shooting in Chicago for so long. That will get stale to the viewers. They needed to create new news that creates excitement, they are in the entertainment industry after all.

So in the end State sponsored propaganda has exponentially grown out of control, what makes you think that any story on FOX News or CNN is actually real? You're not there to confirm it are you? You are simply buying into the hype of the event. It's a mindfuck. 9/11 was, though people did die and the building actually collapsed. The reason for the collapse was bombs, not some thin aluminum sheet metal plane of course.

Yes the presence of explosives does exist prior to the buildings even collapsing. The firefighters who were on scene will testify to that fact. You can hear them on certain recordings. You can see the windows blown out of 1st story buildings, when the planes struck hundreds of feet away. Logic.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?

This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.

And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...

I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?

Thanks.



[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]

The news is simply knowing the news is BS.

So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?

The real news is that the news is mostly fictional. That is the news you need to know. When 24/7 news channels came into existence they struggled to fill airtime and attract viewers. They have found better and better ways by creating content (mostly fictional) to acquire eyeballs. You can only cover the weather and the local car crash or gang shooting in Chicago for so long. That will get stale to the viewers. They needed to create new news that creates excitement, they are in the entertainment industry after all.

So in the end State sponsored propaganda has exponentially grown out of control, what makes you think that any story on FOX News or CNN is actually real? You're not there to confirm it are you? You are simply buying into the hype of the event. It's a mindfuck. 9/11 was, though people did die and the building actually collapsed. The reason for the collapse was bombs, not some thin aluminum sheet metal plane of course.

Yes the presence of explosives does exist prior to the buildings even collapsing. The firefighters who were on scene will testify to that fact. You can hear them on certain recordings. You can see the windows blown out of 1st story buildings, when the planes struck hundreds of feet away. Logic.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?

This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.

And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...

I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?

Thanks.



[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]

The news is simply knowing the news is BS.

So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?

The real news is that the news is mostly fictional. That is the news you need to know. When 24/7 news channels came into existence they struggled to fill airtime and attract viewers. They have found better and better ways by creating content (mostly fictional) to acquire eyeballs. You can only cover the weather and the local car crash or gang shooting in Chicago for so long. That will get stale to the viewers. They needed to create new news that creates excitement, they are in the entertainment industry after all.

So in the end State sponsored propaganda has exponentially grown out of control, what makes you think that any story on FOX News or CNN is actually real? You're not there to confirm it are you? You are simply buying into the hype of the event. It's a mindfuck. 9/11 was, though people did die and the building actually collapsed. The reason for the collapse was bombs, not some thin aluminum sheet metal plane of course.

Yes the presence of explosives does exist prior to the buildings even collapsing. The firefighters who were on scene will testify to that fact. You can hear them on certain recordings. You can see the windows blown out of 1st story buildings, when the planes struck hundreds of feet away. Logic.

I understand. I can link you to veterans who also are on the same page as me if you want.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?

This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.

And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...

I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?

Thanks.



[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]

The news is simply knowing the news is BS.

So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?

The real news is that the news is mostly fictional. That is the news you need to know. When 24/7 news channels came into existence they struggled to fill airtime and attract viewers. They have found better and better ways by creating content (mostly fictional) to acquire eyeballs. You can only cover the weather and the local car crash or gang shooting in Chicago for so long. That will get stale to the viewers. They needed to create new news that creates excitement, they are in the entertainment industry after all.

So in the end State sponsored propaganda has exponentially grown out of control, what makes you think that any story on FOX News or CNN is actually real? You're not there to confirm it are you? You are simply buying into the hype of the event. It's a mindfuck. 9/11 was, though people did die and the building actually collapsed. The reason for the collapse was bombs, not some thin aluminum sheet metal plane of course.

Yes the presence of explosives does exist prior to the buildings even collapsing. The firefighters who were on scene will testify to that fact. You can hear them on certain recordings. You can see the windows blown out of 1st story buildings, when the planes struck hundreds of feet away. Logic.

I understand. I can link you to veterans who also are on the same page as me if you want.

Are those the sources you're so cryptic about revealing?

And that's entirely fair if they are. Some of those cats might know things. Might have even seen things. As long as there are two sources to corroborate... it's probably close enough to journalism to count.

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:For those who don't have any trust in the media, polling and other stuff... I don't think you're blindly winging your takes. So where do you go to for the "best" (as in most reliable or seemingly sincere or most informative or whatever) news online?

This is a 100% non-condescending, nor leading question. Obviously, any of us could point to 2 or 3 or 200 or 300 cases of media bias if we wanted to. So either we aggregate from several sources on both sides of the proverbial aisle and apply a generous amount of salt... or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Obviously some here have taken the latter approach.

And that's ok. I'm not against it. I try to avoid some places already (and entirely ignore the FOX, MSNBC, CNN tv personalities). But then where are we getting our information...

I'm cool with reading and learning new things. Share some of your favorite links?

Thanks.



[Note: For transparency, I'll visit the following sites from time to time depending what I'm searching for... StarTribune, PioneerPress, WaPo, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, Axios, Real Clear Politics, Forbes, NYT, New York Post, FOX News, NPR News, TheHill, Politico and others... along the way I stopped bothering with poorly disguised propaganda machines such as Gateway Pundit, Salon, Vox, Breitbart, et al. And... I'll be honest... style matters. Writing matters. Aesthetics matter.]

The news is simply knowing the news is BS.

So you're just making stuff up on your own as you go? You don't have any sources?

The real news is that the news is mostly fictional. That is the news you need to know. When 24/7 news channels came into existence they struggled to fill airtime and attract viewers. They have found better and better ways by creating content (mostly fictional) to acquire eyeballs. You can only cover the weather and the local car crash or gang shooting in Chicago for so long. That will get stale to the viewers. They needed to create new news that creates excitement, they are in the entertainment industry after all.

So in the end State sponsored propaganda has exponentially grown out of control, what makes you think that any story on FOX News or CNN is actually real? You're not there to confirm it are you? You are simply buying into the hype of the event. It's a mindfuck. 9/11 was, though people did die and the building actually collapsed. The reason for the collapse was bombs, not some thin aluminum sheet metal plane of course.

Yes the presence of explosives does exist prior to the buildings even collapsing. The firefighters who were on scene will testify to that fact. You can hear them on certain recordings. You can see the windows blown out of 1st story buildings, when the planes struck hundreds of feet away. Logic.

WolvesFan, I appreciate your basketball takes, but I have to say, respectfully--this is nuts.

And to the other posters who have espoused similar theories about the media, the pandemic and the government response, the allegedly stolen election, etc., this conspiracy theory--that planes didn't bring down the twin towers--this is the company you keep. None of these claims and theories are supported by evidence, and they all tend to be promoted by the same constellation of fringe sources (that have sadly started taking over the driver's seat in what used to be a noble conservative intellectual tradition in America). Are these unfounded theories from this similar set of isolated sources really more believable than basically every other reputable source of information not just at home, but internationally?

Libertarianism is a fair ideology, but it feels a lot of people have taken detours from it into paranoid conspiracy theories.

Skepticism is healthy and good, and we should all question how we know what we know. But when that skepticism is turned to overdrive and taken to the point where you are rejecting essentially the majority of the legitimate sources of authority in the world--sources based on science and epistemologically-sound information gathering--and embracing YouTube conspiracists as your sources, your skepticism has betrayed you.

The media is polarized as hell, but it's not state-sponsored propaganda, and frankly, we all deserve our share of the blame for our polarized media. The pandemic is a real and serious, the media didn't start it, and steps like masks and vaccines help. You may oppose government mandates on principle, but it's not some nefarious plot to take over your life. And no, the election wasn't stolen.

As an American watching the U.S. from abroad now for the past 7 years, I can say that liberals need to stop mocking people who believe these things. I can guess how you might feel about that. But this conspiracy stuff has gone too far. Skepticism is good. Libertarianism is an important part of the ideological fabric of the country. But you'll uphold those ideals better with real facts than with fringe fantasy masquerading as fact.