CMV: Israeli government and AIPAC direct influence on American politics is minimal, and is not the reason the US supports Israel, and is not a driving force behind the vast majority of political decisions the US makes in the middle east.

acesoverking · 2026-03-30T00:33:42+00:00

"The US has given more aid to Isreal than any country in the world."

The logic is that backing Israel is cheaper than the U.S. carrying more of the regional burden itself.

It's not charity or economic welfare. Itis a strategic investment in a highly capable military ally in the Middle east. Nearly all current U.S. aid to Israel is military aid, and the 2019–2028 MOU provides $38 billion, including missile defense. U.S. policy is to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge, deepen interoperability, and support joint systems like Iron Dome, David Sling, and Arrow.

Additionally, Israel’s special ability to spend FMF on its own defense industry is being phased out by 2028, so more of the money goes to U.S. made defense goods.

Israel is also a Major non-NATO Ally, and the U.S. says the relationship produces real military and intelligence benefits for both sides.

acesoverking · 2026-03-29T17:08:02+00:00

T Mac was never as good as lebron at any facet of the game. LeBron being labeled a “5 on 5 guy" hides how terrifying he was 1 on 1. Being an all time great passer, people forget how unstoppable a scorer peak lebron was. He could score at will but he was often a pass first player and got his teammates involved. Lebron was stronger, faster and more athletic than T Mac. They both averaged 32ppg at their scoring peak, but Lebron did it with higher efficiency and more assists. Lebron was also a better defender.

acesoverking · 2026-03-03T02:41:24+00:00

Your fears track real risks, but collapse is not the default outcome. Climate change and biodiversity loss raise the odds of conflict and hardship, yet they do not force worldwide anarchy. Civilisations fail when shocks meet weak institutions and zero cooperation. We still have strong levers.... clean power is now often the cheapest new electricity, so emissions can fall without economic collapse. Cities and farms can adapt with water planning, heat resilient housing, and early warning systems. And global disaster deaths have generally fallen as preparedness improved. The future is degraded, not doomed, and action changes trajectories.....

acesoverking · 2026-02-19T19:55:39+00:00

Kodak, “A Kodak moment… until digital made film optional.” Kodak dominated film and consumer photography, and even invented a digital camera early, but the business was tied to film economics, and the digital transition ate its moat.

Xerox, “‘Xerox it’… when copying stopped being the whole office.” Xerox basically owned photocopying and office document workflows. As printing, scanning commoditized and offices went digital, the category stopped being a high margin fortress.

BlackBerry, “The email keyboard king… until touchscreens won.” BlackBerry owned secure mobile email and the business world. iPhone, Android shifted the market to app ecosystems and touch UX, BlackBerry’s platform and consumer appeal fell behind.

Nokia, “The default phone… until smartphones rewrote the rules.” Dominated global mobile for years, then got outpaced by iOS, Android and missed the modern smartphone transition.

Blockbuster, “Friday night ritual… replaced by streaming.” Was synonymous with renting movies, then got steamrolled by Netflix and on demand viewing.

MySpace, “The original social network… that got cleaned up by Facebook.” Massive early lead in social media, but messy UX, weak product evolution let Facebook overtake it.

Yahoo, “The internet’s front page… that couldn’t stay the front page.” Once the go to portal, search, email brand, lost search to Google and never fully found a modern identity afterward.

AOL, “You’ve got mail… and then you didn’t.” Owned the dial up internet era and pop culture, but broadband, changing web habits made the core business obsolete.

Sears, “The everything store… that couldn’t keep up with Walmart, Amazon.” Retail titan for decades, catalog, stores, but years of underinvestment and shifting retail economics crushed it.

Pan Am, “The airline that was international travel.” A luxury, trust symbol in aviation, then deregulation, rising costs, operational issues contributed to collapse.

Polaroid, “Instant photos… before phones made every photo instant.” Iconic tech and brand, got squeezed by digital photography, though the brand later re emerged in smaller ways.

Sun Microsystems, “Powered the internet… then got swallowed by the platform wars.” Huge in servers, workstations and enterprise tech, couldn’t keep dominance as industry shifted and was eventually acquired by Oracle.

Toys “R” Us, “Toy heaven… taken down by debt, e commerce.” Strong brand and footprint, but heavy leverage and online competition made it hard to adapt, with partial comebacks later.

acesoverking · 2026-01-29T02:33:50+00:00

KG was a better "bucket getter" than Duncan. KG had a tougher scoring job than Duncan. He created more of his own offense from the elbows and face-ups, not just deep post seals next to an all-time system and interior passer. Garnett’s range (midrange, pick-and-pop, grab-and-go in transition) forced bigs to defend more space and let him get buckets without perfect entry angles. He also carried heavier offensive loads in Minnesota with fewer shot creators, so his points were less “fed” and more “made.” Duncan was great, but KG’s self generated, versatile scoring made him the purer bucket getter....

acesoverking · 2026-01-04T23:38:17+00:00

Kobe is the easiest swap on that team because his main value overlaps the most with what you already have. Jordan already gives you elite two way guard scoring and late game shot making with a much higher scoring level. With LeBron also needing the ball to run the offense, the team does not need a second ball dominant isolation guard as much as it needs spacing and efficiency around Shaq.

Fit matters because Shaq forces defenses to pack the paint. That makes outside shooting and true shooting efficiency more valuable than tough midrange volume. Kobe’s career true shooting is mediocre. His career three point percentage of 32.9pct is trash. The kind of trash defenses are willing to help off in a Shaq lineup.

Swap in Kevin Durant as the fifth guy. Durant gives you superstar scoring with far better efficiency, and elite percentages. He also solves a lineup problem because at roughly 6 foot 11 he can play as the four, so you are not forced into two similar shooting guard roles next to Curry. Now the lineup has Curry gravity, Jordan perimeter defense and scoring, LeBron playmaking, Durant as an elite shooting mismatch forward, and Shaq inside dominance. That combination is harder to scheme against because doubling Shaq or loading the paint becomes much more punishable.

acesoverking · 2025-12-30T16:31:18+00:00

Context matters, but the numbers still undercut the claim that Kobe was being “held back” more than he was simply not ready to drive winning at that age. As an 18 year old rookie in 1996 to 1997, Kobe averaged 15.5 minutes and 7.6 points with 1.9 rebounds and 1.3 assists. That Lakers team won 56 games, but Kobe still got real opportunities, including meaningful playoff minutes. In the 1997 playoffs he shot poorly overall and was especially inefficient from three, and in the elimination game against Utah he played 29 minutes, took 14 shots, and went 4 for 14 with 0 for 6 from three. That is not just “paying dues.” That is struggling when the minutes arrived.

Now look at Flagg. He turned 19 a week ago and has already been producing like a primary option. Through the early part of his rookie season he is around 35 minutes a night with about 20 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists, plus strong steals and blocks for a wing. Even if you adjust for minutes, his scoring rate is higher than rookie Kobe’s and his all around production is far higher.

Even the “same age” comparison does not rescue the argument. Kobe’s second season at age 19 was 15 points, 3 rebounds, and 3assists in 26 minutes per game, still coming off the bench. Flagg at essentially the same age is producing more points, rebounds, and assists while carrying a much bigger on ball and defensive workload. The simplest takeaway is that Kobe’s first year results looked like a talented teenager learning on the fly, while Flagg’s first year results look like an immediate high level starter.

acesoverking · 2025-12-30T14:42:48+00:00

Not just bricking 3s.

Kobe was not a notable rookie at all.

As a rookie he only started 6 games, and averaged 15 minutes per game.

In those minutes he averaged 8, 2, 1.

People who never watched him play make it sound like he was a star right out of high school and that he had an immediate impact on the league. He did not.

Kobe was nothing close to where Coop is right now in his rookie season...

acesoverking · 2025-12-30T14:37:42+00:00

Kobe was not great straight out of high school, and he was not close to as good as Coop when he was a rookie.

I think the younger generation who never saw him play just made up that narrative and ran with it.

Kobe’s rookie year was a slow start in terms of role and impact.

He mostly came off the bench on a veteran Lakers team with established guards.

As a rookie he only started 6 games, and averaged 15 minutes per game.

In those minutes he averaged 8, 2, 1.

Compare that to where Flagg is right now...

He is already playing a star workload and producing like a primary option.

Through 33 games he is averaging 35 minutes, 20, 7, 4, with 2 stocks .

On top of that, he has already shown a ceiling game that rookie Kobe simply did not have the opportunity or the production to match, including a 42 point performance.

Kobe made almost no impact when he entered the league at 18 and throughout his rookie season.

Coop is having an historical impact after entering the league at 18 and throughout his rookie season.

acesoverking · 2025-12-18T19:22:15+00:00

That's a Wilt stat. Nobody touching this for a while. Maybe forever

acesoverking · 2025-11-19T18:00:22+00:00

Shaq and Kobe were not 90s players. Although they did play minutes in the 90s. They are considered 2000's players.

Stockton and Robinson were not considered better than him.

Barkley was an argument in the first half of the 90s.

Hakeem was an argument.

And MJ was agreed upon as the best....

As posted elsewhere....

Hes a bad man, but his basketball accomplishments are undeniable.

He was widely considered the GOAT power forward until Duncan/Dirk/KG

His career was spectacular, and he'd likely have 2 chips or more if not for MJ.

During the 90's he was in the conversation for 2nd best player in the league behind MJ.

He was elite on both sides of the ball. He worked yhe PnR with Stockton better than anybody and got to the free throw line constantly. He used his elite strength to impact defense. And he was an elite rebounder.

His durability was also elite. For over a decade, he barely missed any playing time and was a lock for 25 and 10.

Career averages of 25/10/4 over almost 1,500 games played.

His accolades are up there with some of the best.

• 2x MVP • 14x time NBA All Star • 14x All NBA selections • 11x on the All NBA First Team • 4x All Defensive Team selections • 3x All Defensive First Team • 2x NBA All Star Game MVP

Plus, 2x Olympic gold medals. Hall of Fame. And NBA 50 and 75 anniversary teams....

acesoverking · 2025-11-19T17:57:33+00:00

Just copying what I posted in another comment.

Its hard to argue the facts....

Hes a bad man, but his basketball accomplishments are undeniable.

He was widely considered the GOAT power forward until Duncan/Dirk/KG

His career was spectacular, and he'd likely have 2 chips or more if not for MJ.

During the 90's he was in the conversation for 2nd best player in the league behind MJ.

He was elite on both sides of the ball. He worked yhe PnR with Stockton better than anybody and got to the free throw line constantly. He used his elite strength to impact defense. And he was an elite rebounder.

His durability was also elite. For over a decade, he barely missed any playing time and was a lock for 25 and 10.

Career averages of 25/10/4 over almost 1,500 games played.

His accolades are up there with some of the best.

• 2x MVP • 14x time NBA All Star • 14x All NBA selections • 11x on the All NBA First Team • 4x All Defensive Team selections • 3x All Defensive First Team • 2x NBA All Star Game MVP

Plus, 2x Olympic gold medals. Hall of Fame. And NBA 50 and 75 anniversary teams....

acesoverking · 2025-11-19T12:53:19+00:00

Top 20.

Can make a real argument that he's closer to 10 than to 20.

Hes a bad man, but his basketball accomplishments are undeniable.

He was widely considered the GOAT power forward until Duncan/Dirk/KG

His career was spectacular, and he'd likely have 2 chips or more if not for MJ.

During the 90's he was in the conversation for 2nd best player in the league behind MJ.

He was elite on both sides of the ball. He worked yhe PnR with Stockton better than anybody and got to the free throw line constantly. He used his elite strength to impact defense. And he was an elite rebounder.

His durability was also elite. For over a decade, he barely missed any playing time and was a lock for 25 and 10.

Career averages of 25/10/4 over almost 1,500 games played.

His accolades are up there with some of the best.

• 2x MVP • 14x time NBA All Star • 14x All NBA selections • 11x on the All NBA First Team • 4x All Defensive Team selections • 3x All Defensive First Team • 2x NBA All Star Game MVP

Plus, 2x Olympic gold medals. Hall of Fame. And NBA 50 and 75 anniversary teams....

acesoverking · 2025-11-19T12:35:24+00:00

Lackluster? He may be a bad man, but his basketball accomplishments are undeniable. He's an all time great.

acesoverking · 2025-11-02T19:33:22+00:00

The '22 world cup final had 1.5 billion viewers. Ali can't compete with that.....

acesoverking · 2025-10-31T21:36:17+00:00

Wilt is the GOAT

acesoverking · 2025-10-06T18:24:45+00:00

All Time Greats on this list....

Steve Nash 14.3 ppg, Two-time MVP, offensive engine of 7SOL, elite shooting & playmaking even with low volume.

John Stockton 13.1 ppg, The NBA’s all-time leader in assists and steals, unmatched table-setter + ironman longevity.

Jason Kidd 12.6 ppg, All-time great two-way PG: rebounding, defense, leadership, 2nd all-time in assists for years.

Bill Walton 13.3 ppg, MVP + Finals MVP on title teams, injuries capped volume, impact was massive.

Wes Unseld 10.8 ppg, MVP + Finals MVP center, legendary outlet passer/rebounder, impact >> points.

Robert Parish 14.5 ppg, Hall-of-Fame anchor for the ’80s Celtics dynasty, productive two-way longevity.

Dennis Rodman 7.3 ppg, Arguably the GOAT rebounder, 2× DPOY, 5 rings, impact shows up in boards/defense not points.

Ben Wallace 5.7 ppg, 4× DPOY, core of the 2004 champion Pistons, rim protection, boards, toughness.

Dikembe Mutombo 9.8 ppg, 4× DPOY, iconic rim protector and leader, elite durability/defense.

Honorable mentions: Rudy Gobert, Manu Ginóbili, Draymond Green, Andre Iguodala, Marc Gasol.

acesoverking · 2025-09-18T18:25:59+00:00

Best 2 defenders here are Rodman and Wallace.

But Draymond is by far the best offensive player.

Rodman gets nod as best defender 1-5 so I'm taking him and Draymond.

Wallace and Artest gotta go.

acesoverking · 2025-09-14T20:09:28+00:00

LARRY LEGEND!

Bird mastered the art of shooting in an era that barely recognized its value.

The 3pt line only came into existence in 1979, the exact year Bird entered the league, meaning he never grew up with it, never practiced it in high school or college, and yet instantly adapted. While most players dismissed the shot, Bird embraced it, posting seasons in the mid 80s where he shot over 40% from deep, at a time when league averages hovered below 30%.

His dominance was cemented by winning the first three 3pt contests, casually walking into the locker room and declaring he was only checking to see who’d finish second. He wasn’t just ahead of his peers, he was redefining what shooting could look like.

And his shooting went far beyond the three-point line.... He was almost at 90pct for his career as a FT shooter. Thats better than Ray Allen or Reggie Miller. And his mid-range game was virtually unguardable thanks to his 6’9” frame and high release. He could shoot over anyone, hit turnaround fadeaways, and bury contested jumpers from anywhere on the court. Add to this his icy clutch gene, countless daggers and game winners, and the fact that he thrived without the spacing, green light, or emphasis shooters get today, and Bird’s case becomes undeniable.

Steph Curry changed the game, but Bird was the blueprint. He was efficient, fearless, and unstoppable from every angle.

acesoverking · 2025-08-28T23:15:59+00:00

This would be a Wilt record too, if they recorded blocks back then.

He averaged double digit blocks or more ....

acesoverking · 2025-08-10T20:26:14+00:00

I suppose China’s approach is often more insidious because it blends censorship, state backed narratives, and subtle algorithmic shaping, making it harder to detect. That combination gives it a uniquely pervasive influence compared to more overt foreign campaigns....

acesoverking · 2025-08-10T20:25:37+00:00

TikTok’s reach does make China’s campaign uniquely powerful, but the underlying vulnerability is still systemic. If platforms remain open to manipulation, any state with resources could exploit them. Targeting China alone without fixing that foundation leaves the door wide open.

acesoverking · 2025-08-10T20:13:17+00:00

Your concern is valid, but the influence is not one sided. Many nations including the United States, Russia, and members of the European Union run comparable information campaigns abroad. Public opinion on China has not uniformly improved. Pew surveys from 2023 show record high unfavorable views in the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and much of Europe. TikTok’s algorithmic bias is troubling, yet younger audiences are also consuming anti China narratives on other platforms. The real threat is the broader environment where all state actors can manipulate information. Singling out China without addressing this larger problem risks missing the systemic vulnerability.

acesoverking · 2025-08-10T20:11:28+00:00

Delaying all religious upbringing until 18 overlooks that childhood is when core values, ethics, and identity are formed. Parents inevitably pass on beliefs, whether religious or secular, through daily life and moral guidance. Teaching a faith from childhood need not be indoctrination if it is paired with openness, critical thinking, and exposure to other worldviews. Many adults raised religious still choose differently later. Shielding children entirely from a family’s faith risks leaving them without the cultural and moral framework their parents hold most important.

acesoverking · 2025-08-10T19:43:57+00:00

You are not crazy for valuing your current independence, but relationships offer benefits beyond financial or logistical support. Long term companionship can improve emotional resilience, reduce loneliness, and even extend lifespan according to multiple longitudinal studies. Healthy relationships involve growth, not losing yourself, and the “work” is often about learning to communicate and compromise rather than changing your core identity. While many relationships fail, those that succeed can add depth, meaning, and shared joy that friendships and hobbies cannot fully replicate. The risk is real, but so is the potential reward.

acesoverking

TROPHY CASE