OT: I am now done with the NFL
- Thread starter deadirishpoet
- Start date
Since the protest is about police abuse, I surmise you don't understand the issue, or are using a strawman argument in an attempt to change the subject.
You mean like hands up don't shoot which St Louis Rams players tried to come out and do looking like fools
You need to have some people in the private sector to pay for $700 billion worth of big government employees.
No not all the time what your point I thought this was about police abuse?
So I guess military personnel don't pay taxes outside of a war zone or hostel area?
Sounds like a good excuse to shrink the government
I figured you never served. Doesn't mean you can't honor those who did.
Did Hillary sign a copy of her book for you?
Well, it is like this: they don't pay enough in taxes to pay for their own employment... Without a private sector providing the money to pay for those paychecks & benefits, there would be no military. You are welcome!
I
I didn't know that there were this many conservative posters on this site—I knew there were some, but the majority?
In addition, I doubt that many of the posters including the OP who post here actually attended Norte Dame because if they did, I highly doubt that we would see the circle jerk responses posted in this thread.
In addition, I doubt that many of the posters including the OP who post here actually attended Norte Dame because if they did, I highly doubt that we would see the circle jerk responses posted in this thread.
I'm afraid you're confused without a military you'd be speaking the queen's English
You're welcome
I'm always fascinated (genuinely) by the divide between the right and the left and the tendency to move further right in response to someone leaning further left, or vice versa. It makes sense, but It's still fascinating. We talk a lot about compromise and meeting in the middle for the better of society, but I don't feel that many of us are generally interested in that in practicality. For example, if we could comprise on two topics that would both lead to fewer deaths, would we take a practical approach and do it for the overall betterment of society? I'll give you an example.
If I took 100 people on the right who are completely in support of the current guns laws and who are vehemently against abortion laws and 100 people on the left that want a nationwide gun ban and who are completely in the corner of pro choice, and I proposed this compromise scenario that would undeniably lead to fewer deaths, would they take it?...
We will make all abortions in America illegal, with the exception of those that are the product of sexual assault towards the woman in question or in a case where a doctor deems the woman's life to be at risk if she was to deliver the baby. All other babies must be carried to term and delivered into the world. Any other form of abortion would be met with 1st degree murder charges against the woman who performs it and those who help her. Federally mandated and funded parenting courses will be provided to all first time expected mothers.
In exchange, there will be a federal gun ban across America, with the exception of hunting rifles and shotguns, which must be stored in locked cabinets, seperate from their amunition. Background checks, and a federally funded firearms course must be completed prior to purchase. Automatic weapons and handguns are completely illegal (outside of law enforcement). Failure to adhere to guns laws are punishable by severe fines and jail time.
Put your politics aside for a second. Put your religion aside for a second. Put your Constitutional interpretation aside for a second.
Would that scenario not lead to substantially fewer deaths in America both in terms of abortions and shooting deaths? Would both sides get something they want, or at least pretend to want? I think we can all agree that it would. The problem is that as much as we want to point the finger at the other side for being the problem, the reality is that most of us don't value human life over our own personal politics, religion or agenda. I'm guilty as hell of that at times and while this is just one raw example of what compromise truly would look like between the general bodies or the right and left, we're not actually interested in compromise. We're interested in getting what we want, while conceding a small percentage to our opponent along the way out of necessity. So the battle becomes about who is going to lose and who is going to win, rather than what's practically better for the health and functionality of society.
If I took 100 people on the right who are completely in support of the current guns laws and who are vehemently against abortion laws and 100 people on the left that want a nationwide gun ban and who are completely in the corner of pro choice, and I proposed this compromise scenario that would undeniably lead to fewer deaths, would they take it?...
We will make all abortions in America illegal, with the exception of those that are the product of sexual assault towards the woman in question or in a case where a doctor deems the woman's life to be at risk if she was to deliver the baby. All other babies must be carried to term and delivered into the world. Any other form of abortion would be met with 1st degree murder charges against the woman who performs it and those who help her. Federally mandated and funded parenting courses will be provided to all first time expected mothers.
In exchange, there will be a federal gun ban across America, with the exception of hunting rifles and shotguns, which must be stored in locked cabinets, seperate from their amunition. Background checks, and a federally funded firearms course must be completed prior to purchase. Automatic weapons and handguns are completely illegal (outside of law enforcement). Failure to adhere to guns laws are punishable by severe fines and jail time.
Put your politics aside for a second. Put your religion aside for a second. Put your Constitutional interpretation aside for a second.
Would that scenario not lead to substantially fewer deaths in America both in terms of abortions and shooting deaths? Would both sides get something they want, or at least pretend to want? I think we can all agree that it would. The problem is that as much as we want to point the finger at the other side for being the problem, the reality is that most of us don't value human life over our own personal politics, religion or agenda. I'm guilty as hell of that at times and while this is just one raw example of what compromise truly would look like between the general bodies or the right and left, we're not actually interested in compromise. We're interested in getting what we want, while conceding a small percentage to our opponent along the way out of necessity. So the battle becomes about who is going to lose and who is going to win, rather than what's practically better for the health and functionality of society.
Great Britain has problems too. But I don't envision that revisionist history scenario as necessarily worse. Unless, it messes with college football....
The beauty of this country is we pick winner's and loser every four years though with this Congress we are all losers
That's all besides the point. W/o a military we would be speaking the queen's English and playing rugby.
And spend those 4 years doing our best to undo everything the previous administration has done, always at a substantial expense to the taxpayers, seeing how high we can drive the federal debt that our kids, kids, kids, kids will be paying off. We have the same issues here
We used to play rugby. I don't know that it wouldn't still have evolved as it did.
Tough, tough sport. I like it a lot, as I do most contact sports (huge hockey fan as well). Rugby players have excellent conditioning for guys that size. I know some elite football players who have played it and although they were plenty good enough athletes to excel in the sport, cardio was always the problem. Football has a lot more breaks to catch your breath. Rugby requires almost soccer like cardio, with football like muscle. Great athletes, overall... If you could get some of those Kiwi Maoris to grow up building those monstrous rugby legs and bring them to the US as high school juniors and allow them to play 2 years of high school football, you could get some monster interior offensive and defensive linemen.
Well done!!! I don't have season tickets but I'm expressing my outrage by refusing to watch any more NFL games until this disrespectful knelling duting the national anthem stops. Also, I called the NFL hdq (212-450-2000) to voice my displeasure.
When I was in Ireland it was big there. It was the first time I seen it. It kinda reminded me of to in moveable object against each other.
I too love hockey I just wish the flyers loved me back
Claude Giroux lives about 10 minutes away from me. I used to play against him in a summer ball hockey league all the time. He was just out there for the cardio and to hang out with the buddies he grew up with.
One of the reasons compromises like you suggest don't happen is that the two sides aren't interest in genuine compromise. What they want to do is set up a deal what will just be a stepping stone towards their ultimate goal. For example, the left will only agree to a "compromise" that is a pathway toward outlawing guns, and the right will only agree to a "compromise" that is a pathway toward outlawing abortion.
Exactly. Which is why when you are talking about high stake compromise, you must be willing to concede something of high stake in return. Both sides are notoriously guilty of wanting the other to compromise entirely on one issue, but in return they are only willing to give in slightly on a reciprocal issue of importance... When the side that feels they aren't getting adequate value in return declines, we all become sensationalists and accuse them of being unwilling to negotiate.
If you want to make positive changes for society, you must be willing to give up things you want in exchange for things you deem more important, even if it friggen sucks. Prioritizing is key. Sometimes we all suck at it.
Get out of here....
He is only my favorite Center in all the NHL, and Wayne train Simmonds is one of my favorites as well, but Neuvirth needs to be effective for any kind of chance
Damn...sounds like a great guy
The problem is, both sides have proven track records of trying to manipulate such a compromise. Logically, there really isn't an incentive to compromise when the other side has proven it will not hold up its end of the bargain.
Claude is a good guy. Gatineau boy from just across the Ottawa river in Quebec. Fun to have beers with after a ball hockey game. We have a military team in the league. He played on a team with his as junior hockey buddies. Needless to say, we bought the beers hahaha.
Wayne is one of my guys too. He's our (Canada's) Jerome Iginla 2.0. It's a shame NHL hockey isn't going to be in the next Olympics. I couldn't wait to see a grind line for Canada of Marchand / Toews / Simmons... What greasy line to play against!
I had our projected line combinations looking like this....
McDavid / Crosby / Stamkos
Benn / Tavares / Seguin
Marchand / Toews / Simmons
Duchene / Bergeron / Giroux
Getzlaf
Weber / Doughty
Keith / Burns
Pietrangelo / Subban
Letang
Price
Holtby
People contract their rights away all the time what are you talking about.
What I'm talking about is, the very basis of some contracts would not be valid in the first place. As I pointed out in my example, you couldn't have a contract whereby one party agreed to be a slave of another. Even if both parties agreed and signed, such a contract is not even valid.
If the CBA took away constitutional rights from players, that agreement would be invalid in the first place.
People can take whatever side they want, just be honest about your motivations.
Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed dog fighters? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed guys who beat women? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed a guy guilty of child abuse? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed Ray Lewis? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed known steroid users/cheaters?
You were watching the NFL.
So if you're taking the moral high ground on this one "for the troops", just know that we know you weren't there before, so we know where your morality begins and ends.
And enjoy the rest of the NFL season because you'll still be watching, you just won't be talking about online.
Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed dog fighters? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed guys who beat women? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed a guy guilty of child abuse? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed Ray Lewis? Where were you boycotters when the NFL employed known steroid users/cheaters?
You were watching the NFL.
So if you're taking the moral high ground on this one "for the troops", just know that we know you weren't there before, so we know where your morality begins and ends.
And enjoy the rest of the NFL season because you'll still be watching, you just won't be talking about online.
THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE. The most obvious example of this within the context of the CBA is the arbitration provisions, which are contractual clauses that take away the constitutional right to a jury trial. In some instances you are correct and contracts are deemed void b/c of public policy. The slave contract is a good example of this but contracts are literally just two parties exchanging rights (Including the ability to exercise rights and the ability limit the exercising of rights) with one another.
