Numark3

No, that's not the only logical explanation

Depth...?

He is the 4th RB

The nfl doesn't care about morals. They have a PRATICAL REASON. You are the person preaching illogic Yea you are wrong. But Ignore the two posters that disagree with everyone in these threads. Ignore the two posters who claim to be smarter than everyone. Ignore the posters insulting me and telling me to suck on their balls. And for someone profiling a stranger and throwing out personality disorders.....well let's just say you may have described yourself. I wouldn't go around incorrectly labeling a stranger with two personality disorders, claim the other person thinks they are the smartest person in the room, and profile them. What a joke Yes they care about their image. If they didn't think it helped them financially, then they wouldn't do it. I'm sure a multi billion dollar industry knows a little bit more about business than you.

I wish we could all live in the land of make believe like you!

It's called consequences. People with kids don't get excuses when they are charged with felonies.

Then why did you claim to know the intent of Adrian Peterson? Why can't you answer that question. Was it because you jumped to conclusions without knowing facts and blew smoke?

Sorry to excite you, but im legal Just so everyone knows, im referring to when Rob asked for underage pics to the disgust of the father. Sorry to derail the thread, but I noticed him bring up underage kids again and felt obligated http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/170763-has-roger-goodells-handling-of-ray-rice-incident-devalued-the-nfl/#entry3248921

Unfortunately it's not an underager

Aren't you the guy who was asking for underage pics a few days ago? Someones a little preoccupied on something...

Spiller for sure. Jackson had that amazing OT play, but there is no doubt spiller is the explosive back Spiller has more talent though and outplayed him

You aren't. How do you know ray rice and adrian petersdn's intentions? (ignore this question since you can't answer it)

There's always goofballs, but I think 99.9% of people who spank would agree on something that has gone too far. As the famous Justice Stewart would say, "I know it when I see it"

I doubt DC Tom is as educated as me when it comes to behavioral psychology. But for a stimulus such as spanking to be a negative reinforcement, it would have to be to a degree painful. What DC Tom was trying to articulate, is that spanking has gone to far when you are causing too much pain, enjoying it, creating lasting marks, etc. I think we all know what too much is though, just some of us can't explain it as well as others

"My name is DC Tom. I don't jump to conclusions like the rest of you fools, and I actually wait for the facts.....But when I do jump to conclusions, I like to state what was going through a person's mind. Did I mention my name is DC Tom and I am smarter than you?"

Why would we get any respect when our fans didn't respect us during the preseason?

Exactly! And the nfl doesn't pass laws, they just set precedent based on what they do! Glad you finally got it

Do not use the societal values dictate punishment. It flies over their heads as if that's not the case for any legal authority in this country

just stop

yikes, i see your logical process is as strong as your grasp of percentages. There is a 0% chance I am right......or wait is it a 100%....uhhhhhhh

Well someone just said that stating the preamble is very important (perhaps the most important) part of the constitution is stupid. I don't think that is getting topped today

***looks around....realizes people have called cam a racist....then realizes Jauronimo is extremely stupid (and can't grasp percentages)

where have I argued about the meaning of the constitution? You just aren't good at this. But if we were to argue about the meaning of the constitution, do you know where the best starting point would be to understand the purpose, scope, and context of the constitution? The preamble dufus Whoooooooosh (some things go over your head, but luckily you aren't smart enough to usually notice im sure) On a side note: Do you really think the preamble isn't extremely significant and arguably one of the most important phrases in the entire constitution? Or you just going to be so dense and try troll?

One, we aren't arguing law. Two, use google if you really want to find out the importance of the preamble. (I know you are trying to contradict everything I say, but you look incredibly stupid for not understanding the importance of the preamble. At some point during an argument, you should realize what you are saying is very dumb. The preamble is incredibly significant, amazing, and unprecedented. Its remarkable, but I guess you have to have an understanding of the constitution to recognize that)