VOR
-
Posts
4,767 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by VOR
-
-
When he played teams won games.
Well as I was making fun of Mr. WEO over, Michael Vick (forgetting the legal issues) had better stats, was a winning QB, and even led his team to a playoff win. Yet everyone thought he sucked as a QB. Is it because Flutie is 5'2"? White? Wasn't the 1st overall pick? Won the Heisman?
-
I'm still not sure what those three posts were supposed to mean. He went to Chicago, stunk the joint up, and then was traded. Awesome!
I've never seen so much love for a guy who had a 54.7% completion percentage, almost as many turnovers as TD's, who had maybe 2 good seasons out of 12 in the NFL, and who never won a playoff game.
-
ML was warned. He decided that he didn't need to take the Commish seriously. (He also decided he didn't have to return your creepily unconditional devotion and similarly showed he didn't give a sh***t about his non-crazy fans.)
For the one millionth time, I think ML got what he deserved. I think Vick should have gotten worse. What is preventing you from comprehending this.
oh...that's right.
Oh, you think Vick should have gotten worse? Yet Lynch deserved what he got. And you're pissed because HE screwed you over, not Goodell? Makes perfect sense.
Any Bills fans should be incensed that a dog-killer and pot smoker (what was that you said about Lynch allegedly smoking pot again?) received just ONE game more than Lynch. Oh...that's right.
"Something tells you"??? It was ME! Many times, in fact. Those were not the voices in your head.wow.
Sorry if I can't keep track of every wacky thing you say. And that certainly makes your creepy unconditional devotion to Flutie as pathetic as it originally sounded. At least Vick won a playoff game, while posting a better winning percentage and stats in a shorter period of time.
-
I was talking about the gun bust report.
You mean the first true offense? Yep, he had an illegal weapon in a box in the trunk of his car. He got a wholly appropriate misdemeanor and fine for a first-time, non-violent, non-threatening case. It's not like he got away with anything there, like Stallworth did in his case or Marshall did in his cases.
Where do I stand on Vick's suspension? Know how I "operate", eh? Looking for "obvious spin"?Well, hate to ruin it for you (again), but my thoughts on Vick haven't changed:
Despite that, you, in the same thread, posted this nugget of non-comprehension:
So, to spell it out in a way so plain that even you will not be able to claim confusion---I don't think vick belongs in the league and should have gotten at least a couple of years suspension, if not lifetime.
Now's the part where you say Mr. WEO thinks Vick is great and the Commish is infallible because of TOs contract with the Eagles......
Actually chief, I was asking for your thoughts on Sir Roger's reported 4-game suspension of Vick. You have to think he's as retarded as I thought he was for Lynch's suspension. Well?
And talk about non-comprehension! The stuff about Vick, his winning percentage, and taking his team to the playoffs and winning was sarcasm, given your Flutie taint-licking. And something tells me you had the same dislike of Vick even before the dog killing.
-
I didn't mention this before, primarily because the Gates thread sort of covers it, but I thought Obama made a HUGE mistake saying the cop in the Gates case "acted stupidly," and then went onto talk about how Black and Latinos have been discriminated. While there might have been truth to it, he basically alienated most of the law enforcement community, as well as a good portion of the white community who merely turn off when race enters into things.
-
Bet they overpaid him!!
Idiots!
-
You still, somehow, after all this time and discussion, have not grasped the fact that the Commish regards the gun bust as a second offense. Especially after he sat down with Goodell after the hit and run. No doubt also he read the police report and made his own conclusions.
And it would clearly surprise you to learn that the law does not take into account intent when it busts you for an illegal weapons charge. Tank Williams was busted for having guns in his house. Also a second strike, that cost him 6.
I didn't realize that a moving violation ticket for accidentally and unwittingly hitting a woman (which is all Sir Roger could have deduced from reading the police report, much less the other pieces of data that make up the whole case) constituted an "offense." The only "offense" people took was to Lynch exercising his 5th amendment rights (the horror!). But hey, judging by this latest ruling, Sir Roger just makes the rules up as he goes along.
I find it funny that Vick testing positive for pot while on bail didn't constitute an additional offense, meriting him an 8-game suspension at least. And judging by how you've been railing against Vick, I can't believe that this ruling by Sir Roger sits well with you. But knowing how you operate despite the little amount of time you've been here, you'll obviously spin this in a way to make it seem wholly appropriate. So let's hear it.
-
Gee, a strike or a lockout will disrupt the NFL? Ok, ah.....yes. Very good.
Anyway, why disrupt labor peace and get rid of the CBA? This is the first , and perhaps last, time the League will have an opportunity for the SCOTUS to lay down the final word on their status as a single entity. Let's see, would the NFL rather have to haggle over the same contract every few years to renew a CBA, or would they rather not have a CBA, and persue the possibility to simply set salaries?
Hmmmm. I'll let you take this one.
Good point. The owners so totally overmatched in the last round of CBA talks, that another round would likely have seen them working for the players. So better to let the SCOTUS do their dirty work for them so they don't allow themselves to get raped again.
No wait, it was all about "labor peace," which would have been fatal to the league back in 2006, but suddenly doesn't matter anymore. It was a plan all along to take the ANI case to the SCOTUS. Riiiiiiiiight.
Also, loved how you slipped in the completely off topic TO/Eagles VOR gem. Priceless.My bad. TO agreed to the contract with the Eagles and then sought to break that contract because he thought it was a bad one. That's TOTALLY off topic.
Then again, TO didn't go crying to the courts to try and change the rules.
How much does it cost for you to watch every Bills game on TV? Didn't you file for one of Obama's gov't digital rabbit ears for your Zenith? The Ralph is full of happy (or at least consenting) ticket purchasers having a great day at the stadium.What's your point Sr. Guevara?
How much does it cost most of us to watch the Bills, or for most fans to watch their own teams (because most watch on TV)? What's your point, Sr. Guevara? Because MY point is that with this supposed new found power over setting players' salaries, they'll have a LOT more money. So that means that prices should fall for the fans. You see Mr. WEO, this isn't just about the Bills. But I wouldn't expect you to see anything more than what your narrow scope allows you to see.
-
I expect Levitre and Byrd to sign before camp opens. Maybin and Wood will miss a couple days.
-
The least you can expect from TO is an honest effort.
-
I think what he's saying is basically this (and these numbers are just hypothetical): Say your re-fi'd mortgage without paying points is $3000/month. Alternately, say you pay points to reduce your interest rate, and your mortgage is lowered to $2700/month.
If you spent $3500 to pay points and lower your rate, it will take you at about 12 mortgage payments before you'll have gotten that $3500 back and begin to realize the amount you saved by buying the rate down. If you sell the house before you realize that return, then you'll essentially lose that money (not accounting for any increase in home value).
So while you're not sure how long you will stay in your house, you can do some simple math to at least determine the feasibility: mortgage payments without points minus mortgage payments with points, then take that amount and divide it into how much your paying for points.
Hope that makes sense.
Yeah it does. Thanks to both of you.
-
That's the D&C.
Rotoworld...no mention of Maybin, only Wood. I smell a rat and it aint Maybin.
wha happened to the SKOOBYTHREAD? This makes even less sense than most of my other threads without it.
Yeah, and I'm not seeing anything. I didn't read either site and am just playing-off of Beerball's joke.
-
Clearly, you have no idea what that term actually means
It was reverse discimination towards Wood. Sheesh.
-
The above quote if from an article sited by Rotoworld in announcing that Eric Wood may be a holdout.
Why does Rotoworld also not list Maybin?
Is this racially motivated?
Sounds like reverse discrimination. They don't want to say anything bad about the black player, i.e. that he may be a "holdout."
-
I will be going the HSA/high-deductible health insurance route next year (have been trying to get it the past 2 years, but that's another discussion). That's how it should be done.
-
Stallworth did not get a lifetime ban.
My mistake. He got an indefinite suspension.
And John Clayton is also reporting that 4 games seems to be the length of the suspension. So there's a whole lot of non-retraction retracting going on here.
-
Why not 8 games? Or a year? I'm not saying lifetime ban, like Stallworth got.
-
I prefer mousse.
I prefer spendenoughtimewithoneanotherinordertolearneachotherstendenciesandtoplayasaunit, but it's damn long to type.
-
Yeah, but Wood and Levitre could REALLY use the work with the rest of the 1st team. It could make a huge difference if they could get those two in on time atleast.
I don't disagree at all. And you think that Wood and Levitre would realize this themselves and want to be there from the get-go. So the problem isn't just on the Bills' side.
-
It's OK. The Bills have left themselves with plenty of options and don't really need most of these guys right away.
Oh wait...
The Bills have options. And since the Bills are starting camp early, the currently unsigned rookies in-effect won't be missing any more time than any of the other rookies.
-
I will have to look through my old Charts from 2005, The current system is no better with private insurance. Please....
This is an excuse to do nothing. Agreed it would be easier if thing were simpler, but in order to reform the system and with all the contending laws it is going to look a little convoluted. Common you are dealing with lawyers, doctors, hospital systems, state and federal government and did I say lawyers... This is an inane chart and comment.
It is an inane chart. Sadly enough, it's pretty close to the truth. The government's answer is more bureaucracy, which means even greater complexity, oversight, inefficiency, and wasted money.
-
Well just to be fair I am not in favor of any of the plans in place by Obama and the House. I know the need for reform and I don't doubt the merits to arguing against a universal system. But i think that you are just missing my point you keep saying that if you give the poor health coverage they do things that are bad for them simply because they now have health coverage.
You implied that if a universal system was in place that the poor would go crazy and they would all become drug addicts and eat themselves into oblivion. To me that just isn't true.
You said "I am saying that fundamentally, taking away accountability for your own health care, namely, the hit in the wallet you take if you act like an idiot, is a bad idea. For rich people, poor people, all people. It already is a bad idea for those people who have gold plated insurance, and adding more people, regardless of status, just makes more "bad idea".
Think about it this way: you pay for your own car insurance. Therefore you take care on the road, because if you f up, you pay for it in terms of premium increase. There is no such mechanism for health insurance by and large, with the exception of SOME HMOs.
Health Insurance should be = car insurance, and there's no good reason why it isn't."
Great! Where are the car insurance public option plans?
What is Intrinsic encouragement to take care of your body is that it is the only one you have and no amount of health coverage (Especially if you are poor your coverage is going to be average at best) can fix that. If you are stupid and are going to treat your body like crap than you are going to do it regardless if you have insurance or not because you are stupid.If you are smart and treat your body well you aren't going to stop doing that because you have health coverage. I doubt there is someone without health coverage going man I want to eat unhealthy, smoke, and drink out of moderation but I don't have the insurance to do so. You are smart and understand your body insurance isn't going to make you dumb.
That is the one aspect of your argument that I simply say isn't true. I do agree that in any health care system you do need to raise rates on those who don't take care of themselves I get your point but to say obesity and smoking will become much more rampant because we switch to a universal system is just not true the Intrinsic risk of cancer and diabetes keeps most from doing that.
A lot of people don't care about taking better care of themselves. Most everyone knows that you should eat right, drink plenty of fluids, exercise, get plenty of rest, and avoid excessive drinking, smoking, taking drugs, high risk behavior, etc. Yet most people who can afford to pay for health insurance don't do more than a few of those things, much less the people that can't afford to pay. And the effects often-times don't manifest themselves for months to years later, so it's not readily apparent what you're doing to yourself. When you're driving in a car, you try to avoid accidents because first and foremost, you can get seriously hurt, if not killed, in an instant. Thoughts about damage to the car, the other driver, etc. are secondary.
I agree that giving free health insurance might not lead to people making more poor choices, but I don't think it will make one bit of difference, while saddling the rest of us with their bills. If you have no interest in taking care of yourself because it's your body, I have no interest in taking care of your bills.
And as I said before, food and shelter are the most basic "rights," yet you don't see anyone talking about a public option for them. Maybe giving free healthy food to the poor is the answer?
-
Gastineau and Montana were not NFL paupers in '87 and they crossed the line. In fact, only 89 players crossed, but it was enough to break the strike. Most of these young guys likely have big monthly bills to cover, being rich for the first time and having blown a ton on the cars, house, child support, etc. They won't last long---you're dreaming.
Sotomayor ruled in favor of the NFL in the past, but even if she didn't, her appointment is a wash.
Why would the NFL think they can prevail in SCOTUS? Hmmmm. Maybe because they already won their case and it was upheld on appeal to the Circuit Court. Most legal scholars who have commented seem to think it will win.
Certainly the NFLPA thinks the NFL will win the case. They are soiling themselves---their only response so far is a pathetic "We can only hope that the justices somehow decide that their decision to take the case for review was improvident and then decide not to make any decision."
Fine. But why disrupt "labor peace?" A strike and/or lockout is probably what we'll end-up seeing, and that will disrupt the NFL, or lead to some very bad football with replacement players. The NFL (like TO and his Eagles contract) agreed almost unanimously amongst themselves that this was a good CBA. We saw their celebration post-signing on ESPN, and saw Ralph made to look like a fool because he dared vote against it. So why blow it all to hell?
And if/when the owners get their ruling and have almost unlimited power over the "pathetic" players, I hope they do the right thing and rollback prices for the fans because....Sorry, I couldn't stop from laughing while typing that.
-
Vick suspended for 4 games.
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Mirer had a 56.4% completion percentage, 2833 yards, 12 TD's and 17 INT's, and was sacked 47 times his rookie year. Are you thinking of another Rick Mirer?