section122

Another great thread derailed by crayonz... I know mods don't spend much time here but seriously just go away. Your schtick isn't funny.

Yep I think he was (is?) the best player in this draft. I like Burke a lot also. Some of the guys ,ade me laugh though 6'9" 195 lbs?!?! 7' 215?!?!? These guys are bean poles. I forget how young they are and how much growth they have left. The NBA draft really only produces a handful of contributors each year. It happens very quickly after the playoffs and the names are not well known. It could never reach the level of the NFL draft because there are 24 contributing players on each NBA team there are 7-8. Surprises me bc I really feel Southerland had the best NBA game. MCW needed to come back to school and develop a shot. He may be alright but would have done much better staying for another year. These guys don't think about the second contract (the one where you make real money) and they should. Donte Greene, Johnny Flynn, Wes Johnson all would have done well to stay 1 or 2 more years. None are making near the money they could have bc they cashed their tickets to early.

Tbh I don't miss him. I never got the "allowed" trolling. That said my friend tupac said he is alive and well. Said he saw him at a Memorial Day party with some old fat guy named Elvis.

4merper4mer outed himself as crayonz. I forget which thread but he mentioned that he had predicted the last 4 nba champs.

I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote. Is that against the rules here on ppp?

I've had this help me already by doing just what you say. I'm always looking for new opportunities and well more money. It would be nice if they were looking for me too!

This I can't agree with at all. The heat had stormed back. For the Spurs to even be ahead in the game they had to make plays and Parker hit a couple of great shots. That was a game the Spurs had in the bag until the 4th, the Heath had in the bag until there was 2 minutes left, and then the Spurs had it in the bag with 30 seconds to go. That was not even on any sort of scale for a biggest collapse ever. So and so never left when he couldnn't? That is your argument? Seriously? He left to win. Not to strike it rich like most players. None of the 3 took a max deal so they could all play together. They all could have been much much wealthier and instead made sacrifices to win. Your right though we should hate him because of a tv special that was 3 years ago. I didn't like it when he did it, rooted hard for the Mavs, and was happy when they won it. Shoot I'm rooting for the Spurs in this series. That said last year you could see a light go on for LeBron. He figured it out. He became a winner. Game 6 last year against Boston was one for the ages. He has 2 triple doubles in these finals. He is the best basketball player on the planet. I wish some people would admit his greatness is what turns many off. Just like people hated Jordan and talked trash for any reason they could find (there's an active thread on here speaking to that) they are doing the same to LeBron. Enjoy this. We are getting to see a player that combines Magic's passing, Michael's scoring, and defensive ability we haven't seen before (he guards 1-5 whoever he needs to).

I'm wondering how I can get recruiters to contact me for jobs!

I know (hope) this is tongue in cheek but the state union in NYS drives me insane. It is almost as irritating listening to a state employee talk about how great their job, pay, and benefits are as someone on unemployment. At least they work for their money but all I can think is that they too are a huge contributing factor to the financial situation of this state. Unions used to be neccesary and now they are bloated, corrupt, and protect bad workers more than help good workers. I can't stand unions (in case you couldn't tell)

yeah me neither That girl is crazy and as you should already know never stick your d*ck in crazy. On a serious note, I wonder if it is her attraction to him that is making her go to this clinic. "he beats the sheet out of me but I love that guy" where she knows it's wrong and wants some help.

92 Chevy Beretta had automatic shutoff between 100-115. I didn't even know that was a thing and started to panic before it slowed and kicked back on. Every car I have owned I have gotten over 100 mph. I live near a section of road called the flats and it is a nice long straight away. Unless you know there are law enforcement officials reading this in which case I'm just joking and would never drive that fast.

That is interesting. I wonder why that it is? I wonder if they are glad that they can pull out the "but but terrorists card" and think that many will be pacified, while the other scandals don't have such an easy answer (scapegoat?). It is a very interesting point regardless, the why makes it moreso for me. Then again it is kind of frightening that they believe so strongly in this program. It isn't strawman. I was pointing out several examples of the law being wrong, meant to refute your "So if you don't like a law, that means it's an invalid law?" statement. I think you see that. Where is this fake outrage that you speak of in this case though? I along with many other people am outraged that this is a practice of our government. I'm hoping that more than just myself are calling on their representatives to do something about this, and if they don't replace them with those that will. I don't like the IRS story either but this thread isn't about that. You don't mind the collection of this data and I do. Hopefully more people fall on my side than yours so we can see real change. That is the democracy side of things - if they fall on your side we won't see change to this ridiculous law and I will be sad. As for the cars and license plates in public outrage - when I am in public, specifically on government roads I am okay with them knowing I am there. If I was in my neighbor's yard I would want him to know I was there. There is no expectation of privacy for me while out in public. When I am sitting on my couch, minding my own business, talking to a friend I do expect privacy. Where are their manners! Listening to other people's conversations is very rude! Didn't their mother's teach them anything?! (alright the last part was in jest) I don't see the situations as similar. I'm democrat, fairly liberal, for gay marriage, for guns (not gun control), and all over the place in general in my belief system. Each situation deserves its own fact finding, research, and conclusion. Partisanship is a bad bad thing. I know this might not be the place to say that but I think it gets lost regularly in PPP. (this is not directed at either of you 2 in particular just a general observation). This thread started as a great conversation then devolved into name calling. We all love this country (I hope) please don't lose sight of this as this DISCUSSION continues. (told you I was an idealist )

It is clear that you agree with this happening may I ask why? Is it the overwhelming sense of terrorist groups coming to get you? I don't want to give up my expectation of privacy. It is one of the things I value most about being American. Wasn't Bush's whole argument to not let the terrorists win that we should stay the course? That we shouldn't change our day to day lives? I like/prefer living in a society where I don't fear the government. This isn't me being grandiose either. I am a nobody. They aren't coming after me. However, they can go after anyone that doesn't fit their agenda. They can silence critics. It is a very slippery slope. If you are okay with that and trust them to do the right thing then that is the disconnect. I can't/don't. So every law ever passed was a good one until it wasn't? MLK was in the wrong because he spoke out against segregation? The Jim Crow laws were good until they were illegal? It was okay to own slaves until it wasn't? Women not voting was okay until it wasn't? The government has made many terrible laws and they were brought down by people getting together and speaking out against them. This is one of those cases to me. The government has overstepped their bounds to me and I am glad that Snowden brought it to light. The system of checks and balances between the 3 branches has one final check/balance - public opinion. If it turns out I am in the minority this program will continue on. That is a democracy where we the people DO (or should at least) get to decide what's best. yes I know I'm an idealist.....

What?!?! I hope it's retirement by choice.

For the first part: That is why I asked is this the one you are talking about in my post, I didn't "conveniently" leave out anything. The definition you posted is an extremely broad definition. Is it treason to lie to your wife? Is it treason to drive over the speed limit? Is it treason to call in sick when your not? All of these violate somebody's trust and don't even come close to treason. As for part 2: What? I enjoyed someone's post and said as much. I don't even understand your post as a response to his. Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right. -Isaac Asimov

I thought that Palin was the nail in the coffin that secured the office for Obama. The republican party tried to steal all of the Hillary votes by adding her and she was a complete moron. McCain had the war hero angle to grab the older generation, had the straight shooter reputation to grab the middle class, and had you know experience as a politician at the highest levels. Obama had the younger generation that for the first time threw an f-you to the establishment (and actually voted) and the "minority" vote that he carried. I know anti-Bush sentiment was strong but even McCain supporters couldn't bring themselves to vote for Palin.

I like that you discount his entire post because there is no proof and then offer up the bolded section. Since when do politicians tell the truth? Innocent civilians is another phrase that I have trouble with in your post. According to the law someone may not be innocent but that doesn't neccesarily mean what they are doing is wrong. Just like someone following the law may not be doing the right thing (especially when laws are massaged to make their own actions legal) 2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country. Is that the definition you are talking about? His or her country in this case was most certainly not betrayed by his disclosure of this information. His government maybe but his country no. The government has betrayed their own citizens by putting in a program that violates the 4th amendment and then pretending like it doesn't. Would people that voted traitor as opposed to her be more comfortable if the vote was patriot or traitor. He did what people before him have done - fought against an oppressive government. It just happens to be our own. Every so often a post comes along that makes me glad to visit here. This is one of those posts. Well put. I agree and wonder where are all the Bill of Rights protectors. When I mentioned in a gun thread that owning a gun is legal and a right until the government makes it not so. People jumped all over me saying that it isn't easy to change or get around the Bill of Rights. This is the fourth amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Warrant-less searches have already been authorized as well as the collection of data of individuals that have done nothing to warrant such collection. I have no idea how the Supreme Court isn't all over this! Oh yes I do. Before Snowden brought this to light, the information was considered classified and therefore didn't technically exist so it couldn't be challenged. While now someone is willing to testify that it does exist. Therefore protecting our rights. Hero! Link for the lazy Link for the lawyer speak savvy

You changed the entirety of what he did though. He exposed a government program that is extremely dangerous to regular citizens. Why would you bring a what if into the situation? Talk about what he did do. How do you feel about those actions? Are you happy that he did it or mad that he did it? Do you think he should have done it or not? He unveiled a major injustice being carried out by our own government. That makes him a hero in my book.

Absolute Hero. Before he spoke up anyone who was concerned about the government doing this was thought to be a nut job. Scary, scary, scary stuff.

For sure... however he did it he sold all of America a bill of crap. If only McCain hadn't picked Palin Obama wouldn't have seen the office. Then Romney was offered up and didn't even want the job. He ran on a platform of "I'm not George Bush" and it got him the presidency. Bush was that bad. The sad part is that Obama has been just as bad, yet people want to get in a pissing match about who was worse. They have both been bad, both have not done right by the American people, and both somehow got second terms. It is our own damn fault that for 16 years running (at the end of his term) America was run by someone who was nowhere near qualified for the job. By all means though continue to blame "liberals" and "conservatives" like it is just that easy.

I love the tossing around of "liberal" as an insult in this thread. As for the bolded section, do they have to be mutually exclusive of each other? Bush was a terrible president. Obama has been a terrible president (democrat here - it is almost inarguable at this point). Bush handled himself poorly after 9-11, while invading iraq, and generally came off as a buffoon while speaking. Those facts don't make Obama a better or worse president. Obama has the gift of gab which somehow tricks people into believing he hasn't pushed the Bush agenda further than probably Bush himself ever imagined possible, that it is okay that the gov't spies on everything you do, and that he is a horrible leader. None of that makes Bush a better president.

I somewhat agree with you and yet completely disagree with you. I have stopped buying it because it stopped being a superior product when they got the official license. I don't care anything about the money. I care about fair business practice and other companies pushing EA (if you've read the thread I have already pointed out what a terrible company they are) to create a good product. Lawyers are getting rich and I probably won't see any money and I don't care. What I do care about is voicing my opinion that their practices and product are subpar. This was and is an outlet for me to do that. I don't care about my measly few bucks that I will get I care about getting a good quality Madden game back - if this pushes ea sports to try harder than it is a win for me. I've said it 3 different ways so I hope you understand 1.

well watch the footage... At around 1:58 everything happens. Looks like he is clearly in his rights. The woman tries to hit him with the bottle and gets smacked for her efforts. I might get flamed for this but.... good for him.

What a mug!

The people that don't think Stevie is a #1 are stuck in the old way of thinking. Back in the days of x y and z receivers. Where the x was your #1 and all around, y was your deep guy and #2, while z was your smaller slot #3. Football has moved past this and so should posters on this board. A #1 receiver is now whomever your go to guy is on offense. It was Welker, it is Steve smith, and it is Stevie Johnson. #1 now means the #1 option in your receiving corp. Stevie Johnson has been that for 3 years running now.