Peace

3rdnlng pwned by conner!

Coal barons? Never heard that one but I'll add it to my populist vocab. coal baron oil baron health care baron pharmaceutical baron auto baron software baron Glad to see the new baron in town.

He's not wrong about the Bills. The Vegas over/under at 5.5 is spot on. But the Raiders? That would indeed be a sleeper.

Math fail. Add 72000 and the Bills are still #10. 9 Houston 564,864

-1

You read the Koran in Muslim-ese?

That's not the same as requiring identification of the funding source. Posting a bond just requires evidence of the funding. If the mosque just has to do what everyone has to do, this is not an issue. But people are calling on the State to require them to publicly disclose their funding source, which to my knowledge, is not legal. I can't argue with that except that these people seem eager to increase governments control over religion--but only because it's not their religion. Scary stuff.

The issue here is that people are calling on legislatures, and legislators are calling on the mosque, to publicly disclose funding. But that's not legal, to my knowledge. What private companies do between them (requiring disclosures to secure loans, etc) is their business within the boundaries of the PATRIOT Act.

Both. No state entity asked me who was providing funding when I built my office. People only want to know now because it's a mosque.

Zzzzzzzzz Thanks.

Since when is that the State's business during construction?

Ack, a PPP thread broke out. Time to flush!

The difference being that attorneys for the plaintiff can work off retainer so the little guy never runs out of money as long as the plaintiff's attorney keeps fighting the appeals. That's how big companies fall in big cases. Best example of this is set forth in the great book and lesser movie A Civil Action. Interesting idea. That's some middle ground. Right now the losing party has to pay costs (copies, travel costs, etc) in federal court. They were sued, according to Wikipedia, for "defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress." The common law elements for the latter are (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. I agree that the result is right (God hates fags people win) but it wasn't that outrageous to sue in that instance. Nevertheless, the father of the slain soldier then had to pay the costs to the "god hates fags" people and under the system proposed in this thread, would have to pay even more.

They do it that way (loser pays atty fees) in the UK. The flip side to why the US system is better is that in a "loser pays the other side's attorney fees," the little guy will never bring a lawsuit against the big company because the big company will pile up a ton of fees that the little guy--should he lose--will never be able to pay. The other flip side of this now three-sided coin is that in "loser pays," you can have worse outcomes than in our "pay your own fees" sorts of cases. For example, the "God hate fags" people protested outside a funeral of a slain soldier. The father of the slain soldier sued the "God hates fags" people...and lost. (This is an actual case BTW.) Should he now have to pay the "God hates fags" people a few hundred grand? Ugh, right? Bad result. As it happens, because he lost, he has to pay the "God hates fags" people their costs because that is in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...but if he had to pay their attorney fees too, that would be a nightmare. Neither system is great but when erring on one side vs. the other, I'd rather that the individual had a stronger opportunity to bring his case. Fixing the system needs to start with judges being less afraid to sanction attorneys and attorneys being better at policing themselves.

10-4. I am happy to chill. Thanks.

It's all over this thread already. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/117470-most-boring-thread-on-the-internet-last-post-wins/page__view__findpost__p__1943185 Granted, it's a silly thread... I wonder, without criticizing if: (1) There could be a feature where only the thread-starting post could include a video (2) The thread-starting post could contain a tag to allow vids and images in the thread These may not be available features. As I may be in the minority of people not wanting vids, images (I even hate emoticons), feel free to disregard. Your vision on this board far exceeds mine, as the thousands of members attest.

You're right. Perhaps when he said "I do not give a shiz" and "I don't care" about the victims, he was saying it from the perspective of someone who is always there for victims. My apologies.

Thankfully, most people aren't like you. In your hour of need, people may turn their backs on you but some will help, even though you wouldn't. Those people--the helpers--are better than you.

It's like Pixyland but with a beard.

Thanks. I also note that the first thing I see when I go to TBD is some guy and his girlfriend. This feature is good when all the pics are of football games but not when it's drunk fans.

Love that they are not in sigs. I have no idea what the image size limit is--but the post that caught my eye and its response here http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/117731-tight-end-problem/page__view__findpost__p__1942217 That's a punch in the face. A thread full of stuff like this will look a song lyric web page. (Why do song lyric all have so much junk on them?) And BTW, I am really happy to hear that your aesthetic wants to avoid that look.

I see that you can post pics and vids into posts. My own $0.02: This uglifies the board. I kind of like it with a thread-starter...but the photos and photo responses and photo responses and animated gif responses detract from the dialog. Once the posters figure out how to insert pictures here, and they will, and it will make threads rough to navigate. I've already seen 2 boxes of Preparation H in threads. And it was old the first time.

Steve Johnson is about as speedy as a tight end. Do it Chan.

There's a youtube vid that collects all of his sheeeee-its. I won't link it since NSFW but you can google it.

The Bills have 2 elite RBs? I'd say they have 2 unproven backs, an underacheiving back, and an older vet who plays his heart out. No elites.