Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LJpalmbeacher2

A interesting article in NY Times

Recommended Posts

The Saints got screwed, but I kinda resent the New York Times trying to tell me I need to feel the same about the other two contests.

 

It's too easy to make something seem like an abomination, so easy to get caught up in their hysteria, but I'd rather take each circumstance on it's own merit, and make my own judgement.

 

I can be as cynical as the next guy, but try to weed out the peer pressure of it all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could have been a coincidence, but when I tried to close out of the article my computer froze.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Complete load of crap. 

 

I understand that the Saints got screwed on one play. I get that. It had nothing to do with Brees throwing a pick in OT though. The Saints could have easily won that game despite the bad call. I get it, but stop crying about it. 

 

And the Patriots-Chiefs game getting lumped in with this garbage is absolute nonsense. The roughing the passer call on KC was terrible. Not a penalty. But in an equally as egregious manner, the Chiefs got away with a major penalty (offensive PI) on a 2nd down play (same as the Patriots) on a 4th quarter drive on a long completion to Watkins.

 

So, each team benefited from a late-game call or non-call.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An article comparing the NFL to the world of politics will only end up in a political discussion which isn’t allowed by the site rules. 

 

Locking.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yep. Up until that neck injury I don’t think manning missed a snap his entire career here.
    • Andrew has had 3 maybe 4 injuries since the beginning of his career, manning only missed one season here. So no worries the bad luck was all Bob's. 
    • that guy is too short, has no wheels, and has to take a time out after every 6 attempts. will never make it.. nice jugs though
    • The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.     She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did.  She wanted round 3.  She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.     There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning.  I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation.  And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...     At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the  minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.   So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police.  But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO?  Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...   Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...     No worries, at least we know each others positions.  All is good.     Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-   https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/california/stanford-university/admission/     We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused.  Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?   If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask.  At least, that's my perspective.  
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...