Soxbadger

Eh STL is a shell of itself. LA or NY are much better teams.

The main reason I wouldnt give Trump a chance is that he does not seem to have the emotional stability to be President. I would gladly give a businessman a chance at President, they just would have to be someone who I perceived as stable.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 12, 2015 -> 03:01 PM) The definitely mean Jeff Fisher. He went there. I guess I didnt read far enough back. Doesnt make any sense as Jeff Fisher has never coached a day in the NCAA, and I dont really see him as the type who would want to recruit.

I think they mean Jimbo Fisher. Im not sure any of those guys would want the USC job (unless the money was just insane).

Vick's physical talent is just something special.

I have a spigen case and a separate glass protector. Keeps the phone thin but adds some nice protection just in case.

QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Sep 16, 2015 -> 12:45 PM) You'd be crazy to count out the Packers just because Jordy is out. To me, the lack of depth at ILB is a bigger cause for concern than the WR position. Not saying they are guaranteed to win the Super Bowl by any means but they have as good or a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than any other team in the NFL right now. http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/i...or-september-15 The Packers have the luxury of playing in what may be the worst division in football. But they barely beat a Bears team that may only win 4-6 games this year. Its early, but I really expected the Packers to look a lot better last week (even without Nelson).

QUOTE (Brian @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 04:03 PM) If they had anything, the federal judge wouldn't have thrown the suspension out. They have a busted phone. That's it. The ruling had almost nothing to do with the evidence and guilt. It was mainly that the procedure was so one sided that it just was completely unfair and arbitrary.

Im pretty sure this all stems from the belief that when the CBA was signed that the commissioner was going to be fair. It seems that Goodell has taken his power to an extreme that the NFLPA didnt really believe would happen. Did they partially create this? Absolutely. And I think in the new CBA you are going to see some changes to this process. But right now they still have to try and protect the players so that he cant just call anything detrimental to the league and give out unprecedented suspensions. Ultimately the NFL and its attorneys either a) f***ed up or b) believe they are going to win on appeal. It should have been pretty obvious when the judge implored them to settle that he was likely not going to rule in their favor. It was an all or nothing argument, so the NFL should have just given Brady 1 or 2 games. They already had the penalties against the Patriots. They proved their point. Kind of like merchant of venice, sometimes when youre greedy you lose.

Jenks, Look at page 20 where they cite the Bountgate case. Tagliabue vacated a suspension based on obstruction saying that it had never been done in NFL history and that many times players basically lied and were not punished for it. That is the precedent. If the NFL wants to change this precedent they should have bargained for the ability to suspend players who do not cooperate with the process. (edit) And isnt "destroying evidence" and "not cooperating" just in the eyes of the beholder. If I dont turn over tapes or if I destroy the tapes, isnt it just semantics, in either case the NFL doesnt get access.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:53 AM) see above You didnt answer. How does obstructing the investigation (which no player in the NFL has been suspended for) equal 4 games? Even if we give the NFL the benefit of every fact that Brady purposefully destroyed his phone, there is no precedent for 4 games. According to the ruling no player had ever even been given 1 game. Like I said if the NFL was reasonable and gave him 1 game I doubt they lose, but 4 games was just way too much.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 11:45 AM) See, I guess that's my problem. I mean, again, this whole thing was a farce and ridiculous, but we all know Brady was involved. And we all know he destroyed his phone to destroy direct evidence linking him to it. And yet based on some pretty weak technicalities, we don't get the result we all think is appropriate (some kind of punishment). Lets not forget the Patriots received a huge penalty. I think all things being equal that the end result is probably slightly harsh on the Patriots. (edit) You also keep failing to recognize that never before had anyone who was caught tampering with footballs been given anything close to this harsh of a penalty. Even if it was just 1 game I think the NFL probably wins here. But 4 games was pretty ridiculous when the other instances were mere warning or fines.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:39 AM) But again, this hasn't happened before, which the NFL admitted. You've got a player that violated a rule and then tried to hid it. Why should there be a requirement of notice to something not anticipated by either the NFL or the players union? And why cut away the conduct detrimental clause, which was included precisely in these situations as a catch all? And didn't Goodell rule that Brady was involving with the deflation? If not, the fact that he believed he was involved but didn't specifically rule/conclude that he was definitely, isn't that just a technicality? Edit: and keep in mind this is a decision wherein the court is supposed to give great deference to the arbitrator. Seems to me he's given basically no deference on this notice point. Again, i think there's some ok arguments made about Brady's inability to question Pash or look at evidence. But this argument is weak. edit 2: without going back to Goodell's opinion, here's ESPN's summary of it regarding Brady's involvement: "The commissioner said he concluded Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards" to ensure balls were deflated." Seems pretty definitive to me that Goodell ruled that Brady violated the rule on football inflation. Because the judge found its more appropriate to apply the rule that said competitive advantage for equipment was a fine. They point to specific incidents where a ball was tampered with (being heated) and they were given a warning. And non-cooperation has happened before, the Judge specifically referenced that no player had ever been suspended for obstruction. (See Page 20) The law requires due process. According to the rules given to Brady, cheating by manipulating equipment was a fine. No one had ever received any penalty greater than a fine for that. If the law says that the maximum penalty for stealing is 5 years, they cant sentence me to death. In the judge's opinion (and Im just explaining the decision), there were established rules/penalties and Goodell went beyond them arbitrarily. As such that violates CBA law and the decision can be overturned. Whether he is right or not, its definitely concerning what Goodell is trying to do. I also think that ultimately the judge is trying to say to Goodell that he cant just merely make s*** up as he goes, even if thats what the strictest reading of the CBA may suggest. That there are always fundamental due process principles and he has to at least give the players a chance.

Well it matters because according to the ruling it seems that the lack of notice of the potential penalty violates the "law of shop". (Langhorne) Which basically said that in order for the violation to be enforceable the rule must be clear and unambiguous as well as the consequence of the violation. (see footnote page 27 of ruling) Under the player policy which Brady was given, the violation for deflating balls was a fine for competitive equipment. Brady never received notice of something else called the "Competitive Integrity Policy" which was only given to executives and coaches. (See page 30) Previous precedent made it so that the NFL was not allowed to retroactively apply the policy. (See page 30) The Judge then went on to say that the comparison to conduct detrimental policy in the steroids cases was bad because those players were suspended after there were findings specifically under the domestic violence policy. Basically since Brady was told a competitive equipment advantage would only be a fine, it was ultimately unfair to suspend him when he had no idea that was the penalty.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Sep 2, 2015 -> 10:34 PM) For what it's worth I am in Lake County(IN). I'm not sure if there's a difference between states, or counties for that matter, but right now all I know is we owe 10 thousand dollars in property taxes. If we don't pay that full amount by TOMORROW the house goes up for auction Friday. I have no idea if that means we have to be out by Friday or what. My mom ( yes I am 28 and live at home with my mother) is going to the Lake County treasury tomorrow to see what the hell is going on. 10k is just too much to ask for. I don't know anyone with that kind of money. It does matter here is what I can find: https://www.lakecountyin.org/portal/media-t...ge/default.psml 1) Have you received certified letters? If not, maybe there is some avenue for an emergency motion to stay the proceeding. 2) Even if it is the worst case scenario the new person would still likely have to evict you. I dont practice law in Indiana so I dont know the exact rules. If I was in your situation, I would go to the tax sale. If the taxes are purchased I would contact the purchaser. I would see if I could work out some sort of deal to buy the property. Using all of your facts the taxes are approximately $10k, the house is worth $25k. The new purchaser could basically make $15k if he was to enter into a deal where you buy back the house at $25k payable over time. Also it sounds like the property needs significant repairs, so they wouldnt have to invest anything and possibly could net a nice profit. For your family it basically sucks, you lose a lot of money but you get to stay in the house and if you can figure out a way to pay $25k over even 10 years, you live to fight another day. Sometimes there is no magic trick, but its always about money.

If you havent been paying your taxes you then each year they should have been sold at a tax sale. If they were sold 3 straight years then the person who bought the taxes can get the property through a tax sale. Even if they do this theyd still have to evict. http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/aboutus/Doc...n_eBrochure.pdf Have you gotten an estimate of redemption? Have you contacted any friends, acquaintances, relatives who could potentially pay off the taxes and then put a lien on the property? Based on what youve said im just not 100% sure at what part of the process you are at.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 31, 2015 -> 08:27 AM) I wish the BIG would stop bending over for the SEC. Every time they play an early-season "neutral field" game it's in an SEC state. Grow a pair and make them play a game at Lucas Oil or Ford Field. LSU is playing Wisconsin at Lambeau Field, Green Bay, WI next year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 21, 2015 -> 09:45 AM) And i'm saying it's ludicrous if anyone thinks that just because 2 guys who just pointed a gun at you in your own home run away, they're still not a threat minutes later. Literally everyone in this country should applaud this guy. It boggles my mind that people think he's a criminal for shooting would-be armed robbers. If he went and hunted these guys down 10 minutes later, an hour later, days later, sure, I agree with you. But if this all happened quickly, there's no way a reasonable person would be over that fear of imminent death. I dont applaud people who shoot other people in the back. Its a question of fact whether he had a imminent fear of death, but I personally dont think shooting people in the back is something to be cheered. As soon as they began to flee he should have called the police. Now if they ran back or did something to threaten him further, then I think its much more plausible that he still had an imminent fear of death. I guess I just dont like the idea of people shooting at fleeing targets. Just too much risk to the general public. And its all a question of fact, so who knows if he is really a criminal or not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 05:07 PM) I agree about the risk of hitting an innocent bystander, but not the jail part. I don't get how you can so easily dismiss everything that came before the shooting. I'd agree with your position if the facts end up being that he waited 5-10 minutes before running out of the house, or if he had given chase down the road and then shot. But that doesn't appear to be what happened here. Even if he SHOULDN'T have chased and shot, why doesn't he deserve some deference given that he just had a gun pointed at him and he was in serious, appreciably danger of his life? What purpose does it serve to send this guy to jail? Justice for the s***head criminal? We dont want vigilante justice. And deference is given when there is imminent danger (which is a question of fact). But once that danger has passed, the deference is no longer there. Our society is built on police and the justice system handling crimes, not individual citizens. Whether that is good or bad, that is the system we have.

What it means is that by being allowed to own guns you could stand up to the govt if they tried to restrict your speech. I guess the 14th got lost somewhere.

Joe Montana (3rd round) and Dan Marino (27) are pretty high on that list (historically).

Preseason is always fun.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 05:01 PM) i dont want to take away their made up 'right', i just dont want to pay for it. Youre going to have to pay either way, so why not pick the cheapest option?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 04:43 PM) No, that is where the personal responsibility part comes in. Why is it society's duty to pay for your child? That is where a huge disconnect is here. Society shouldn't have to pay either way for your 'decision'. Keep it or not, you pay for it. Remove tax funding and most of the arguments go away. If you take away someones right to get rid of it, why should they pay for it? And if we are just talking costs, if X option is cheaper than Y option, shouldnt we pay for X option? Otherwise you are just wasting your money.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 04:30 PM) No offense, but I don't f***ing care. We are talking about people. While something could happen to those fetuses naturally that prevents them from being born, the reality is most of them are real lives. The sad part is the people in this situation in the first place and most of them are probably desperate and the mistake is going to change their life and potentially ruin it. I understand those things, but at the same time, the baby is a person as far as I'm concerned. Not going to debate, you either feel that way or you don't, but since I do, I'm not going to throw out some whacky argument around cost / finances. We are talking people's lives. It is why I have actually supported many of the concepts behind Obamacare because I think healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Note: My view differs entirely if someone is pregnant due to cases of assault. And that is fine. But what I am saying is that people who are poor in America, are real lives as well. So when Republican's (not saying you) argue that they want to reduce social services for real people while at the same time arguing against abortion, it just does not make any sense. Either lives matter or they do not. My personal belief is based on science in that until X time a fetus can not live on its own. Therefore until X time, it is entirely up to the mother whether she wants to go forward with the pregnancy. After X time has passed, abortion is no longer okay. That way you balance the right of the mother versus the rights of the potential life.