bartshan-83

I think it's kinda weird to hate any player that you haven't had a personal dealing with. I've never hated any man just because he played for another team and was either (a) good, (b) seemed like a dick or © both. I've never really met any pro athletes so I have no idea. I think Bryan Cox qualifies though since he basically said "F YOU" to everyone in person. At ND, I came across Anthony Fasano more than a few times and he is a straight-up rooster. Can't really say one nice thing about him. So, yeah I guess I hate that dude. On the other hand, I was real close with Justin Tuck. He is one of the nicest, most genuine people you will meet. Easy to root for him. I have no use for dirty players though. Middleton, Harrison, Wilfork, etc. F them (especially Middleton and Wilfork). I believe in addition to what he did to Cowart, Middleton was also the genius who blasted Barret Robbins after he went AWOL before the Super Bowl. Sweet teammate...

Wow.

Yeah, this about nails it. Link

10 team, non-PPR. QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, WR/RB, TE, K, D 1. (6) Frank Gore 2. (15) Peyton Manning 3. (26) Cedric Benson 4. (35) Greg Jennings 5. (46) Steve Smith 6. (55) Wes Welker 7. (66) LeSean McCoy 8. (75) Tony Gonzalez 9. (86) Johnny Knox 10. (95) Fred Jackson 11. (106) Donovan McNabb 12. (115) Lee Evans 13. (126) Steve Breaston 14. (135) Kellen Winslow 15. (146) Miami 16. (155) Rob Bironas Tough choices were Jennings over Boldin, Steve Smith over Percy Harvin, Gore over Turner/Matthews and Benson over Pierre Thomas. And I got two Bills.

Nicer guy than me. I probably would have made it bigger after he asked. No worries. I'll get used to it in time...just like the other facelifts through the years. Thanks for keeping us moving, Scott!

I was considering pulling the trigger in the 7th rd in my draft last night (10 team/non-PPR). But he went 1 pick before mine (#74). I think that was a bit early. But sometimes that works out because he could get more touches as the year goes on. If you plan on being in the playoffs, he could be a gem by week 15. I ended up getting Fred Jackson in the 10th. So I mean, I like the idea of having the STARTER 3 rounds after the current 3rd stringer (although obviously that can change).

I try to stick with SW as much as possible. Their F-Up rate seems to be much lower. Plus the free bags is legit. I carry on 95% of the time, but $50-60 for a single bag is just absurd. Last time I flew a non-SW airline (actually might have been Delta), I missed my connection in the most bizarre way. I was flying out to South Bend for a game (can't get there direct from most places) and only had about an hour for connection. Anyway, the plane shows up a little late...whatever. Then nothing happens for awhile. No one gets off. Finally, I see them wheeling out a handicapped guy. So I'm like...oh okay, not a big deal. Then the guy gets another wheelchair and goes back in. 4-5 mins later, he comes out wheeling another dude. Then nothing. Then all of a sudden, everyone else starts getting off the plane. So I figured it was all over...cutting it close, but whatever. After every "walker" got off the plane, nothing happens again. Then the dude goes BACK in with the wheelchair. When he comes out, he tells the gate woman that there are about 15-20 more people on the plane requiring wheelchairs and tells her to get more straight-backed chairs. So here we all are, standing like cows in a field, while 20 more people in wheelchairs are unloaded one-by-one. It took like 45 minutes. I couldn't believe what I was watching. I don't often tell this story because I'm not sure if I sound like a completely heartless prick (maybe ). I have no beef whatsoever with people in wheelchairs needing assistance. But whoever at that airline decided it was a good idea to put 20 such people on the same plane without altering their schedule is crazy. End of the story is....we get to Detroit about 90 mins late. They radioed and have been holding the plane. So a bunch of us run off and hop on the monorail thing and sprint to the gate (I hate doing that btw...I'm never more self-conscious than when I'm clumsily running though a crowded place holding 2 bags while everyone else is walking normally). When we get to the gate, they say they couldnt wait any longer and had taken off 5 minutes ago. Why the !@#$ would you wait a half hour for a specific plane to land and then leave 5 minutes before people could get there??? And the next flight I could get on ended up getting delayed 5 hours for "mechanical problems" prompting us to switch gates 3 times. I left my house for the airport at 8:00 that morning. I arrived into SB at 12:15 am. UNREAL. :beer:

+1 I just back from a week vacation in Vermont. I've never been so confused. I'm digging it now, but the giant font really messes me up. Reminds me of how my mom sets her computer resolution so big that her icons look like playing cards. Any way to adjust this beyond adjusting my entire browser zoom?

The 1st amendment applies because telling an owner of private property that they can't build a religious structure on that property is prohibiting the free exercise of that religion. The government doesn't have to ban a religion to get to the level of the free exercise clause. If you aren't allowed to build a house of worship on land you legally own, then your exercising of your religion is being infringed.

Not to pile on but, Borough with highest % knowing a Muslim: Manhattan (66%) Borough with lowest % thinking Islam encourages violence towards non-Muslims: Manhattan (12%) Borough with highest % supporting/lowest % opposing mosque: Manhattan (46%/36%) Borough with lowest 'high' response to "How much have you heard or read about a proposal by a Muslim group to build a Muslim mosque and cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero?" : Manhattan (34%) Borough with highest % response to "Some people say that building a Muslim mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero will foster understanding and teach people that not all Muslims are terrorists; others say that it is an insult to the memory and families of the 9/11 victims - which comes closer to your point of view?": Manhattan (54%) So, the borough that has the most people who personally know a Muslim: a) thinks the most highly of Islam b) opposes the Mosque the least c) believes it will foster understanding the most d) has heard the least about this controversy And happens to be the borough where the controversy is located. And you were using this as evidence for your argument?

OH MY GOD, THE HUMANITY!!!

What an excellent description. What's crazy is, I still can't decide which of the 4 of them ends up the most F'd. I'd go with Connolly or Wayans...but there are no winners.

You're unaware of the Freedom of McNuggets section of the 1st amendment?

That's where I am. If it were me, I'm not so sure I'd want to hurl myself into this shitstorm. But I'm far less comfortable making that decision for them. They have a 100% legal right not and I find the arguments equating it to an endorsement of terrorism to be ludicrous and ignorant (did I use it right, RH?)

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...1-families.html Just a link a friend of mine posted on FB. I don't think it's a perfect analogy, but it's food for thought.

I know...the NCGA provides no help. As far as I understand it, North Carolina follows the common law definition of manslaughter which is an intentional killing with the existence of adequate provocation (heat of passion). Here's an example: North Carolina, heat of passion voluntary manslaughter is essentially a first-degree murder, where the defendant's reason is temporarily suspended by legally adequate provocation. The specific intent to kill does [***15] exist in the mind of such a defendant; however, the defendant is only legally culpable for the general intent because the "specific intent" is not based on "cool reflection." The specific intent is based on an "adequate provocation" that would cause an individual with an ordinary firmness of mind to become provoked, and which did, in fact, provoke the defendant to commit an act spawned by provocation rather than malice. State v. Rainey, 154 N.C. App. 282, 289 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) So basically, you can't have voluntary manslaughter w/o 1st degree murder. So if you don't believe the first is possible, than neither is the second.

That sounds awesome.

I'm not going to lie and say that I'm familiar with each individual fight in each of those 45 states. But if the point of contention is "whether or not to call it marriage" and that is a very important point to many gay people, then I don't equate refusing to capitulate with poor representation. If calling it marriage is a very important point of the argument, then surrendering that "isn't doing it properly." If I'm negotiating something and I tell my lawyer that there is something that I just won't budge on, you better believe he better not budge. And while many might find the word argument trivial, it obviously isn't to many people since it is hotly contested on both sides. Maybe I'm not understanding you, but how are those things opposites? I think that all religious marriages should also have to be certified civilly. So I think I'm agreeing with you there. If you are saying that you have a problem with any religion being allowed to perform a legally recognized marriage, then I'd agree with you. But I don't see how that is important when discussing the topic at hand. It's a different fight. What do you mean when you say marriage is an option, not a right? I consider marriage a right. Many courts have agreed. Now this is a very tricky argument I think, and not a brush off for either side. Because this will always inevitably lead to a "where do we draw the line?" discussion. Everyone has their lines. I'm no better. But understand that what Loving did was make it illegal for states to criminalize interracial marriage. So there was never a proclamation or statute that read "Interracial marriage is now a right." It was done in reverse by stopping the bans. That is what would happen with the gay marriage stuff. There would never be (I think) a statute saying "Gay marriage is a right." Rather, states simply would not be able to prevent legally recognizing them. I think this goes back to the heart of the argument over whether or not to call it "marriage." I believe that fight is significant enough for gay people that they will not abandon it (I'm speaking so generally I know this). I think I'm basically agreeing with you with some minor exceptions. Let me revise my plan: - All church marriages have no independent legal meaning. The meaning they have is contained within the church and its convocation. - The state cannot prevent any church from marrying or refusing to marry anyone they want. And why would they if it carried no legal status? - All church marriages need to be certified civilly for legal recognition and the rights that come with it. - And the kicker, we will call these civil unions.....(drum roll please)....marriages! Now, no church needs to redefine their beliefs. No church is interfered with by the state. Everybody gets "married" by civilly. And we don't have to re-write everything to accommodate civil unions. So the all this discussion comes down to a single word. Just as it always has been. I'd be inclined to agree with you that this portion of the fight is what has clogged the entire movement and that it is insignificant in comparison to the bigger picture. But I am unwilling to make that decision for a class of people who are fighting for it.

That's not entirely true. You're right that in this case, would need intent to kill for 1st Degree murder, but not for 2nd degree. Murder does not require intent to kill, it requires some sort of malice aforethought. Generally, there are four classifications of that (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict great bodily harm, (3) reckless indifference to human life, and (4) intent to commit a felony. So intent to kill is one of the ways to get murder, but it is not the only way. Now this obviously varies state to state. Those 4 categories are common law definitions. That is why I said I thought the NC statute was vague. Actually, I misspoke. It is not vague, it is just not detailed. Some states parse murder into the different degrees by specifically defining them. Other states, like NC, just define 1st degree, and say the rest is 2nd degree. So, IMO, in this case, there is no 1st degree murder. NC statute requires "by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14‑288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon." So you must make the argument that the guy INTENDED for her to die when the paver left his hand. I think that is a stretch. BUT, if NC follows the other common law definitions of malice aforethought, then I could much more reasonably buy intent to inflict great bodily harm or depraved indifference. Hence, 2nd degree murder. The only other way to get Murder 1 would be to consider the paver a deadly weapon (check) and show that he was committing a felony (don't think so). I couldn't find any felony that match up with damaging her car.

johnnyb has nailed it throughout the thread. I think the NC statute is kind of vague and I think objectively, this is 2nd degree murder (closer to manslaughter than 1st degree). In some states, it would probably be voluntary man. If I were defending him, I'd argue that he was just trying to damage her car and scare her. Of course, if I were really defending him, I'd tell him to take a plea. If I were prosecuting him, I'd definitely push for 1st Degree. He's either going to fold and plead out to life, or he is going to take his chances with a pretty unsympathetic jury. Because as a juror, while I'd feel uncomfortable about 1st degree, I'd probably sign up for 2nd degree. No way he'd walk out with manslaughter.

I understand the idiots who spell his name Clausssssen I understand the idiots who think he is the same as Brady Quinn I understand the idiots who read that he showed up in a limo 4 years ago and made their opinion then I understand the idiots who don't like him because they don't like ND They didn't see him play. But as a Notre Dame fan, who saw what he did the last year, what didn't you like about his game? He was the most accurate QB I've seen in years. He made maybe, 5-6 mistakes all season. If he had been on a team with a top-30 defense or a good coach, they would have made a NC run and he'd have won the Heisman. I'm not calling you an idiot at all, so please don't take it that way. If Clausen busts out, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. But it would still be a surprise. And if you saw him play a lot, I can't understand how it wouldn't be.

Seconded again. When is last time someone complained about a WNBA chick holding out for $50MM? We all cringe at the $$$ amounts being discussed, but if you are legitimately upset about Revis's situation, remember there is one thing, and one thing only, separating HIM from that WNBA shooting guard: YOU.

Yes, but that is the exact same situation Revis is in. His employer (Jets) will decide if he is worth the money. If he is not, they will replace him with someone who is cheaper, even if they think he is the best guy (CB) in the group (team/league).

Easy there....no stipulation. This is where this disconnect is occurring. If Perry v. Schwarzenegger goes to the US Supreme Court, and it is ruled that Prop 8 (and other analogous state statutes) is unconstitutional, it will not be the same thing as passing a federal law that says "Marriage is a right that can be defined by anyone and any such definition must be accepted by everyone." It will simply be a declaration that a state will not have the legal power to prevent a church (or any legal entity) from marrying a gay couple. This is very much akin to the decision in Loving v. Virginia. To this day, I am unaware of any successful lawsuit by an interracial couple against a church that refused to marry them because it contravened the canon. Why you think these two situations would turn out differently is what I do not understand. The Free Exercise Clause is not easily trampled. If a gay couple decides to sue a church who won't marry them, why would they win when an interracial couple has yet to do so? What is wrong with this proposal: 1. Any religion that wants to marry a gay couple may do so without interference from the state. 2. Any religion that does not want to marry a gay couple because it is in conflict with its beliefs, may do so without interference from the state. 3. Getting married in a secular fashion, will still be called "marriage" so we don't have to re-write thousands of laws regarding marital rights. People are then free to define their marriage as it is defined within the institution that performed it. People from Church X that believes in marriage as between a man and a woman can continue to believe that. It does not devalue or divest the institutional meaning of that marriage when another entity defines it differently. To use an analogy I just thought of and I hope makes some sense, marriage licenses become sort of like driver's licenses. Every license gives you the same right to drive a vehicle, but the forum that granted the license has discretion over who/how/when, etc. you can obtain one. If Maine says you can get one at 15 and New York says 17, it doesn't matter. They are still both licenses and people from either state can both drive a car. I know this is not the same, but I'm using it to make a broader point that I hope you understand.

That's funny.