StrangeSox

Need to get the funding from somewhere

The problem still is linking accountability to the Federal dollars with a national standard of evaluation, right?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Sounds like the report is bogus. I can't find it anywhere other than the forum I read it. fyi http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html

I believe the national standards are changing. I know Illinois is undergoing large changes right now.

Sounds awesome.

A paper examining arbitration clauses I can't find the date, but it does include this example from an AT&T agreement:

AT&T's current Arbitration Agreement! You waive the right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action regardless of the forum.

btw, here's where I'm pulling the documents from: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases...y-v-concepcion/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:55 AM) I know the feeling. But saying "Do the googling!" isn't an adequate response. At this point? Yeah, it is, because I've supported my claim thoroughly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) Sir, seriously, do the Googling yourself and find the support if you're the one making an argument. I've repeatedly posted links to amicus briefs, quotes from the various States in support of the Concepcions, and a guide from a pro-consumer group explaining mandatory arbitration and what it means. I've been met with "nuh uh" and "well Scalia phrased it this way, so It Must Be So."

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:33 AM) Edit: Although I'll admit this isn't just any blogger, and it appears he reviewed the oral arguments. But still, I have yet to see anyone actually say Scalia's summary of the agreement was flat out wrong. I'm not saying that he was flat-out wrong, just that it was either misleading or perhaps poorly worded. The Concepcions felt they were defrauded. Rather than go through an individual arbitration, they elected to file suit and challenge the arbitration agreement itself as unconscionable. Note that it wasn't an either/or option, but that they had to first get the arbitration agreement voided. They challenged on the grounds that the agreement restricted any class action, and California found that to be unconscionable. AT&T argued that that law is against the FAA and that they must go through the arbitration process, as agree in the contract. It would be nice if I could find the actual contract somewhere, but perhaps the wording of the 9th circuit will suffice to illustrate that these agreements force you to go to arbitration instead of the judicial system. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin...27/08-56394.pdf Regardless, as Dorf points out, the specific provisions and how consumer-friendly this specific agreement was are irrelevant to this decision.

Someone should alert the courts that mandatory arbitration doesn't exist! Think about it, if they could simply file a suit in court, they would have and this entire thing would be a non-issue. Your argument that these agreements do not compel arbitration makes no sense. The various amicus briefs, also prepared by lawyers and their highly qualified staffs, put this plainly, not just a "blogger or reporter," even if that particular blog is by a Cornell Law professor. Just google for "mandatory arbitration" or "forced arbitration" and keep trying to say you can file suit and avoid arbitration with these sorts of agreements.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:24 AM) TY. Nevermind then, Bears probably owe the Ravens the pick here in good faith. Why? The Ravens did the exact same thing and didn't give any good faith picks to Minnesota.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) WTF?? Everything I read said the Ravens called the office, but the Bears didn't. Why is it so hard for the true story to come out? If Newsome is adamant that no deal was consummated because he didn't t call Bussert, then hell no I don't give 'em that 4th rounder. Very interesting. But clearly, the Bears' front office once again proves how moronic they are. Luckily, it appears that they made the first pick in round one. No no no, that's a quote from Newsome from 2002 or 2003 when they did the same thing to Minnesota.

Interesting analysis of AT&T v Concepcion. I'll again note that every single thing I have read regarding this case, sans Scalia's description, points to mandatory arbitration and AT&T blocking the filing of any civil suit.

In that case, screw 'em.

That doesn't really follow.

Superman threatens to renounce US citizenship

Bulls in 3. After winning the first 3 games by an average of 80 points, the Hawks forfeit to save face.

Awesome quote from Cutler, and yeah concussions do suck.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) That show was so bad through the first few episodes. But at some point they really hit their groove and it's been hilarious ever since. I don't get why people say this. Sure, Season 2 was significantly better, but I thought Season 1 was alright, certainly better than 90% of the garbage out there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 29, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) So, my wife was interested in this stupid wedding that just happened. I was interested because that chick Kate is like a 10. I caught about 10 minutes of the coverage this morning before I left for work, and I had watched a little bit of the "history of/what to expect" programming last night. It just made me laugh and feel bad for the people that actually care. I guess I understand the angle of a woman being interested in a big fancy wedding. But I don't get the people who actually view the royals as important people. They hold a ridiculous amount of wealth in that country for having done nothing but be born into that family. There's a scepter they have that no one has touched but the Queen for like 100 years and it's got a 535 carat diamond worth a half a billion dollars. How is this s*** allowed? How is it celebrated? It's 2011! The revolution is over. The commoners won. Ugh. Yeah, the family that held the throne when the monarchs lost most of their power really scored big. No threats to their claims and bankrolled for generations. It's a cultural/historical thing would be my guess. They're a part of their past and a proud tradition.

Reality response: I don't think Fox was really harping on this too much, though, it was more crazy fringe sites like World Net Daily.

18 hits, 2 runs.

How many of those guys are getting dropped or cut because of injuries? And even if they're only in the NFL for 2 or 3 years, they've still got probably 15 years of football under their belts. No insurance company is going to want to touch that without huge premiums.