All Activity

Sierra, This is why we’re having an adult discussion about a complicated issue. If you actually read my post you’ll see I’ve been careful not to judge the validity of her claim. I’m simply asking whether this the appropriate remedy for the damage she claims that she suffered.

We traded him for the 5th round pick that we used to select Kyle Williams. I think it worked out for us pretty well.

I wonder if he wears short pants... 🙃

Deek... imagine this happened to your daughter. Now tell me what you would advise her to do... file suit or don't file suit?

They are “modest” policies in the sense that they are well-supported in the international macroeconomics research literature. The public grocery stores idea is Zohran’s only one that would be classified in Europe as an example of socialism. If you are so perturbed by the thought of government owning the means of production for 5 NYC grocery stores, then consider redirecting your ire towards your precious free markets that created the urban food desert conditions in the first place. “Laissez-faire” was a hyperbolic remark meant to characterize this post-1970’s era of neoliberalism. It would be perfectly reasonable to characterize the historical American economy as laissez-faire all the way up through the Gilded Age. Neoliberalism, for the record, is economically sub-optimal and leads to middle class degradation, working class immiseration, and massive political instability. Laissez-faire economics, for the record, is even worse and includes all the above plus outrageous human rights violations, widespread ecosystem destruction, and intolerably deep and lengthy busts in the natural boom-bust cycles. You’re not averse to hyperbole yourself, as evidenced by your Venezuela remark. Do you have even the slightest clue as to how authoritarian socialism in Venezuela came about, or why socialism specifically failed in that country?? How about a step-by-step outline of the political process in which a city mayor can go from 5 public grocery stores to the complete seizure of the means of production for every bodega (and every private business, in general) in every borough?? Your attacks are all over the place. First, clarify the problem. We are discussing urban affordability for lower and middle classes, which comes down to a discussion of wages versus cost of living (food, housing, transportation, utilities, education, health care) and other economic subtractions (various forms of taxation, inflationary effects). Next, figure out the approximate allocation of responsibility and blame. Surely you understand how local politicians are limited in the extent that they can affect the aforementioned economic factors, compared to state and national politicians? Do you also understand how little political power the actual far left has and has historically had, relative to the establishment left and to right-wingers? Recall one of the most basic definitions of the far left: no acceptance of corporate/big-money campaign donations. NYC hasn’t had a far-left mayor in the ideological vicinity of Zohran since La Guardia (though de Blasio admittedly did a few good things that were progressive). Okay, so NOW you can begin to fairly assess the culpability of local far-left politicians with regard to the aforementioned economic factors. I’m a reasonable person and could concede frivolous far-left regulations and wasteful far-left spending here and there, but it would be absolutely LAUGHABLE to blame the big-ticket items (especially wage growth and health care expenditures) on far-left politicians and not neoliberal ones! It’s genuinely shocking to see the lengths you PPP’ers go to defend corporate oligarchical empowerment. You’re okay with your tax dollars going to low-wage workers when they have to subsist on food stamps, yet you scream “Communism!” at the thought of raising taxes proportionately on the billionaires who won’t pay these low-wage workers higher wages…

There's an ages old saying that "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." In modern times it's more common to say that "Luck is the residue of design." Regardless of the above, there is an element of true, random, uncontrollable luck involved in sports... which have black and white outcomes. And no one will argue that the Bills have been the more talented team compared to the Ravens. I agree that the Chiefs will win the West... but at what cost? Will a more rugged and challenging division create regular season hardships and injuries that will affect them come playoff time... or will better competition actually make them a better team? That is the question.

Yes, I think most of us know the difference between criminal and civil suits. That gesture might make some people feel better, but IF she was wronged I don’t see any reason to restrict what our expectations are for her use of any funds that come as a result. Maybe she wants to give it away, or pay for a graduate degree, or put a down payment on a house. She can give it to YOU for all I care. It should be entirely up to her, IF she was the person harmed. She can’t “un-do” that night. This is all she has by way of getting some “justice”, so I won’t tell her how to handle it if she were to win a verdict of some type. I don’t like this whole line of discussion, because it’s mostly speculation. Have a nice Sunday!

If you take away the clean sweep of the swing states it could have gone either way.

not much a WR can do when his foot was hurt and couldn't play.. just that simple. Bills moved on as it would not cost them anything. Frankly, Bills prob would have done the same with Curtis Samuel if it wasn't for the contract commitment. They pretty much had to keep him and rehab him back to playing. Claypool (and Cooper for that matter) they could just cut /do nothing and get healthier or younger bodies in there. NFL is pretty brutal to guys who can't get/stay on the field. There's always somebody else out there ready to go.

When you stop and think about it, he’s probably not uncorrect. Flip everything around and we could be looking at a completely different outcome in the election. Though, if you flip it back again, we’re back where we started.

There is only a slim chance anyone will profit from their PSLs. In fact you'd be fortunate to only take a small loss. These PSLs are the fan's stake in building the stadium. If you think about it, it's more fair than sticking taxpayers with the whole nut. At the time $850MM was considered an obscene amount from taxpayers. Now it's only 38.6% of the cost. PSLs are around 10%. Pegula and the NFL cover just over 50%.

This right here is progress. 4 sentences and not a mere mention of the orange menace. Keep talking this way and you may come off the banned list.

Sorry my post should have a full stop after "combo." He has pure size/speed. But the other things you need for football talent are sadly lacking.

Thanks Augie The reason I bring up the funds is because a civil trial is very different from a criminal one. In a criminal case, the convicted goes to prison. The victim gets essentially nothing other than the knowledge that the convicted is locked up and therefore can’t hurt anyone else for the term of their incarceration. However, in a civil case the remedy goes directly to the victim, not to society at large. It’s why, as I’m sure everyone can tell, I’m uncomfortable with these cases. I guess it’s why I’d be less uncomfortable if the plaintiff said they were going to donate the proceeds.

Too late B.B. The lemmings here have their false narrative, NOTHING will change their minds.

You are swimming upstream. C-Section has stated that Trump won by “the thinnest of margins”. I know, hard to imagine.

“Anti climate change?” The post was a well thought out historically backed with evidence that events like this happen in Texas and gave examples going back 125 years. A disaster like it happens and your sides first instinct is freaking blame Trump. Or cuts to jobs that didn’t happen. How absolutely sick. As to the staffing:

Turning the discussion to a slightly different perspective, the subject of employment insecurity was touched on earlier. I've been in the workforce for decades in a few different industries and there definitely are: 1) some workers/employees that are nervous taking time off from work... even family leave... sometimes for good reason (see below). 2) some employers who will view time off from work negatively in their evaluation of an employee. On the subject of baby names (Seymour, Northrup, Chuck, Action, Fort, etc) I'm thinking if it's a boy that the either the first or middle name will be Lucas.

As for the bold, I think she is genuine in her beliefs (as is he, imo) and that she is pursuing the only remedy left available to her. Why do you care what she does with the money? That’s not the point here at all, imo. But it would be foolish to file a civil suit ahead of him signing his contract.

People most remember Thurman in the playoffs for losing his helmet in SB XXVI. Random fans were still making jokes about that 20+ years later. Not so much the big games in the XXV or the Chiefs AFCCG or even the crippling fumble and his pouting on the bench in SB XXVIII. His last 3 SB's he rushed 37 times for a pitiful 69 yards and had 4 fumbles. Brutal. The OL didn't show up for those games either and that kinda' illustrates my point about RB's.

Aloha people I’ve been trying to move this discussion away from the particulars of a he said, she said scenario because as I’ve posted a few times now, none of us knows what actually happened in this incident. The process will obviously play itself out. My conceptual question is whether people think that filing a civil suit is the appropriate remedy (‘justice’ as Sierra called it) for what allegedly happened here. I’m actually on the fence. On the one hand, a monetary settlement doesn’t seem particularly appropriate when the victim hasn’t been monetarily damaged. On the other hand I can understand the frustration of the alleged victim if all other avenues of redress have been (at least in her mind) exhausted. It’s on that point that the timing comes into play. Is it appropriate, as a victim, to simply wait in the weeds and pounce when the defendant comes into money? How does their financial status bring you justice? Are you promising to donate all proceeds to a women’s shelter? If the true intent is to get back at the defendant couldn’t you have done more actual damage to the defendant by bringing this into court BEFORE he even got to this point? I could go on, but I’m curious what people think. Believe me…I realize it’s hard to have such philosophical discussions on a message board.

I don’t know what you’re saying. He’s 6”4 240 pounds and ran a 4.4 not looking just like stop watch guy in the process.

I obviously didn’t read the whole thread. I’m only concerned with responses to my posts. 🙃