Rob's House

http://profootballta...-money/related/ He wants $100 mil over 5 years with $40 mil guaranteed. I know it's a QB driven league and all, but $20 mil puts a real burden on a team already struggling to retain its talent. Is he worth it? Is it a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario? Do they have a strong enough supporting cast to win with an Alex Smith type? Discuss

That just goes with the territory. You don't think if 3rd or Jboy copped to putting on a leotard & tutu to dance in the ballet we wouldn't rip on them too? Tell me you wouldn't join in? Or sweater vests

For the record, the only mod I've ever had any problem with in PPP is Simple Jack. Dude, for someone who's so concerned about appearances on a political subboard of an anonymous football message board, your petty whining over the maturity level comes off as bad as anything in this thread. I know you're far to mature to have a sense of humor or entertain the occasional discussion of moderation policy (and admittedly some whining) but if it bothers you so much just ignore the thread & pick another to remind us how smart & mature you are.

My sources have confirmed that the Bills will not acquire Josh Freeman this year.

I don't know which is worse; the humorless dicks that complain about this or the smart guys who have to let the cat out of the bag. It's like telling a joke with my wife in the room; she somehow thinks blurting out the punch line right away makes her funny too. It doesn't, it just ruins an otherwise funny joke. Grow a sense of humor. And BTW, you haven't contributed enough to make demainds.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/bucs-freeman-expect-competition-next-230007195--nfl.html

The only thing I'm sure of is we don't know a whole hell of a lot about what happened that night. I'm not going to declare Ray Lewis a murderer, but I'll always have reservations about him (not that my thoughts on the matter mean anything at all). Basically what I'm saying is, that while I'm not going to outright condemn the man, you won't catch me singing his praises or cheering him on either (unless he's playing the Pats*).

I've given up. I can't decide. I watch a guy and he looks awesome, then he looks ****ty, then he looks awesome in another game, I like him then I don't, then this other guy looks great...until he doesn't. I'm glad I'm not a scout, I would get fired and have to work for Cleveland.

I'll cooperate as long as you do what I say. (I learned that one from my wife)

Hence the problem in representative democracy, or any government of men, therefore the need for constitutional restraints, which will ultimately be usurped as they become inconvenient to the men running the government, hence... It's all so !@#$ing futile.

I could be wrong, but I think you'd be okay making a political reference as long as you weren't stoking the politica fires or trying to advance political points. If not, the problem is probably more with the enforcement of the rule rather than the rule itself.

You should have sent him out in the boonies to meet you, not shown up, and then called him a pu$$y for bitching out.

Yes! Love it. It's so true.

You're a facist man, NEO-FACIST! No, I don't really have an answer, I don't think anyone does. I generally support the doctrine of judicial review, but I do think it needs to be kept in check. It wouldn't be appropriate to defy the court for the sake of being contrary, but if the court were really egregious I do think it would be appropriate for the state to refuse to abide.

If you're referring to Marbury, it never quite established the concept of judicial review the way we think of it today. Marshall made a cogent point when he said that in deciding a case where the statute is in conflict with the constitution the court must follow the constitution - follow the supreme law. It wasn't until McColloch that the statist bastard took the liberty, by way of pure ditka no less, of designating the SC the sole arbiter of constitutionality. We've entertained this system for some time, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that we should, on the basis of "this is how we've always done it" accept congressional or judicial overreach. Just as the congress cannot act beyond its scope of authority, neither can the court.

So the Feds create the laws and determine if they're constitutional? You don't see a problem here? There's nothing built into the framework of the constitutional construction of our government that grants the Supreme Court plenary power to determine constitutionality. There are multiple schools of thought on the issue. Many believe that all entities of government: both houses, all three brances, and states included, have a responsibility to uphold the constitution. Your assertion that the states only redress can be their representation, which has been all but abolished by the decision to hold popular elections for Senate, essentially deconstitutionalizes the constitution, because if the only check on Federal power was representative democracy (Republic), there would be no need for a constitution to limit the power of the Feds in the first place.

It never is.

I don't think this is a fair and accurate assessment, although I appreciat you taking the time to express your view. I think you're referring less to the actual positions of conservatives and Republicans and more about the perception of them. A few points to ponder: - The evangelical crowd is far less powerful than it was in the 80s. Even in conservative circles these guys are primarily the minority and most conservative leaning people, many of whom are religious and/or respect the views of religious people, roll their eyes at the holier-than-thou bible thumpers. - The radical viewpoint becoming the mainstream viewpoint is not exclusive to GOP, nor did they start it. I still recall the days when the liberals got over their 9/11 unity hangover and began raging on Bush and anything and everything GOP was a scandal and an outrage plastered all across the news. I'll agree with you that the "news" has become absurd (I think of it as Pro-wrestling for political junkies) but I don't see how you lay that on the right and absolve the left. Like you became more left as you saw the radicalization of the right, I became more right as I watched the radicalization of the left. - As a fiscally conservative and social liberal (save abortion which is disgusting but I'm not pushing for congressional mandates on) I see little for me in the Democrat party. I see a bunch of socialists (which is somehow a dirty word) whose primary focus is incrementally trying to inch us closer and closer to their utopian government under the guise of "social justice". I see very little on the national stage to back off the "war on drugs" or any other meaningful social issue that affects people. More and more I see a group that claims an interest in preserving liberties on one hand, while systematically revoking them with the other. Basically, when it comes down to issues, it's hard to find where the right has moved right over the last 15 years. 15 years ago the right was against entitlement expansion, against tax hikes, and against socialized medicine. They still have all those stances. On the cultural/social front, all the gay marriage, drugs, abortion, etc. stances are teh same ones they had back then too. Republicans have been for protecting the border and preventing illegal immigration all along. While you've explained how your perception of the Republican party and conservatives has changed, you've not established how stances on issues have changed. By contrast, the Democrats have moved much farther to the left. Sure, they've always more or less been on the same side of the issues, but a lot of the crap they try today they wouldn't have dared try 20 years ago - okay, they tried Hillary care, but you see how quickly that got put to rest. I don't blame the party, because they always wanted to be statists, but the culture has become more liberal, and as it has the left has become more liberal. The right has stayed basically where it was, and by comparison to the ever leftward moving libs, looks more right by comparison. It's like that song in the 90s by Goldfinger: You have changed cuz I still feel the same.

fixed

Oh Yeah

If a law is in derogation of the constitution, or is outside the boundaries of which the federal government has legitimate authority to act, then they are under no obligation to follow it.

FWIW, I don't see the problem with having an election day political thread on the main wall during Presidential elections. I don't have any use for it because it always irritates me to find out posters I found to be reasonably intelligent, even insightful, are a bunch of blithering idiots, but I don't get the great outrage over the thread. I obviously like arguing politics, but it rubs me the wrong way when some dick bag starts talking about Faux News or some dumn **** like that on the main board. For me mixing football and politics is like mixing religion and porn; it just doesn't work for me.

Gotta take Bjoern Werner if he's there. He won't be, but if he were.

Your description implies that the primary purpose of the military is to create jobs and provide income for people who make no contribution, which is a wildly inaccurate description. You may not agree with the size and scope of the military but it serves a valid purpose and without it we would have no economy to worry about.

Holy ****. A DC Tom sighting. Where you been, bub? I thought you'd flown the coup.