nittany ram wrote:

bnw and wv…

Two Mulders adrift in a sea of Scullys.

…yeah well I never explicitly said i was SURE
Alien pod-creatures ate Scalia’s brains. I’m just
saying an autopsy might have shown his brains were
gone.

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

The OLine is still a question mark.

Personally? I don’t think it’s a question mark. I think at worst it is already an average OL.

They added 12 linemen starting in 2014 and haven’t even sorted out yet which of the present 14 they have now…with more to come…will be the 9 or 10 they take into 2016. Either way all the signs indicated they did well with that, with better than usual for rookies rookie performances from 3 of the ones they drafted in 2015 (who gets 3 good linemen in one draft??? …but then who gets 2 consecutive rookies of the year).

Yeah, i am close to that point of view.

Its mainly GRob I’m still concerned about.

And the Ram-OL Curse.

w
v

Mackeyser wrote:

Dunno why this is controversial.

The justice of the peace relied on information from Scalia’s doctor and law enforcement on the scene.

So, unless we accept that Scalia’s doctor AND all of the Texas Law Enforcement were at the very least brought to cow… there can be no conspiracy. The mere act of no autopsy is not direct nor circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy nor indicative of any type of motive.
Basically, there is no “there” there.

———————
But Mack how would a family doctor and some local cops
know if Scalia had been poisoned or killed KGB-professional-style ?
There is no way nonprofessionals would or could KNOW.
It would take an autopsy to know.

Now, do i suspect foulplay? No.

But am i surprised an autopsy wasn’t required
by law or wanted by the family? Yeah.

And yes you DO know why this is controversial — cause
this country is very divided and has millions of
people who dont trust the system. Like, at all.

w
v

• This reply was modified 10 years, 2 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

It aint because he’s funded by some rightwing machine.

You do know no one said conspiracy theories are funded directly by an rw machine. In fact saying that would be a conspiracy theory.

But there are resources out there that are supported by private money, yes. They provide access and distribution but there’s no conspirator making up conspiracy theories and putting them in people’s heads.

And the popularity of this one guy doesn’t have anything to do with that either way. There’s always all kindsa guys out there. But in given years, certain kinds of issues take massive precedence…like the energy time and money spent on proving Obama was this or that foreign thing.

Yes, agreed.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

In fact it fans the flames.

There will be very few flames.

That’s my bet.

That is exactly what Vince Foster said about Benghazi right before his emails turned up in Whitewater.

Conspiracy dynamics are interesting to me. There seems
to be so much of it in the last ten years.
What accounts for it? Is ‘it’ increasing? Why
would that be? Does the internet have something
to do with it?

I mean, even the network-suits are plugging into it.
The X Files kinda capitalized on this dynamic,
with its story lines, and other shows have as well.

w
v

waterfield wrote:

As a criminal defense lawyer I’m surprise at your opinion of Scalia. His “originalism” belief in the constitution actually joined and authored several decisions that gave protection to the accused. Even if he had to hold his nose at the same time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0
——————————

Nah, he was the devil. He did hideous, hideous
things to poor people and to the bio-sphere.

Sometimes even the Devil does some things i might
agree with — Like, i remember William F Buckley liked
peanut butter. He wrote a column on it. And i agreed with him 🙂

…We just have fundamentally different views of the “law”
and where it comes from and what it is, W. I agree
with the thoughts below. You have a different view.

w
v
“In practice legal mythology is primarily directed at obscuring
the bitter struggle between the classes and at articulating in
consciousness the view that law is unaligned with any interests…
…law can be characterized in its modern period, by the
conscious camouflaging of interests…expressing in human
relationships on one hand, while hiding its relation to
economics institutions on the other…legal theorists believe
‘will’, rather than material conditions to be the basis of law. …
the state is the political form through which the ruling class
controls and mediates class antagonisms…..law is fundamentally
class law….. M.E. Tigar (“radical lawyers”)

“The law is therefore a regulation of equality among unequals.
For those who believe the official slogans of the ruling class
— that we are a government of laws and not men,
and that our system guarantees equal protection —
Anatole France once answered by describing how
“the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well
as the poor from sleeping under the bridge.” …the law is an
expression of political ideology and propaganda as well as
an instrument of oppression….”
M.E. Tigar (radical lawyers)
—————-

I am delighted,
jesus, finally took him
and threw him
in hell.

w
v

Zooey wrote:

So the real question, it seems to me, is what is the end game? What happens if Obama nominates somebody in a couple of weeks, and the Republicans tie it up? If they can’t make a case against the nominee, and just fight on the principle that the country oughta wait…I think that’s disaster for Republicans.

Well i think yer thinkin like a Non-Republican.

The Religious Right will see it as a holy-war — abortion.
They will want the Reps to delay no matter what. They’ll applaud it.

And the Money-Corporate-RightWingers will also not want
a new justice who might roll back some of the huge
corporate gains in the last few years. So, they wont care about ‘honor’ or ethics or any of that silly liberal bullshit.

And the middle-grounders and the ‘undecided’ types who
decide elections ? Well they are off playing
video games or wondering whats on tv this week.

w
v

Mackeyser wrote:

I’ll say this about the “horserace”…ugh…

That said, what’s frustrating is that Dems say Hillary is “more electable”, but in EVERY SINGLE national poll, Trump beats or ties Hillary… ,but Sanders just CRUSHES Trump. It’s not close,

Yeah, i had to turn off NPR today and yesterday
because their ex-purts (cokie roberts, etc) were
all implying and inferring that Hillary was
more “electable” than Bernie.

NPR makes me gag, when it comes
to “news” and politics.

w
v

Mackeyser wrote:

… no one else is willing to solve these critical problems in a real way.
He sees many of these issues, Climate Change, Citizens United, mass incarceration, health care as a right as EXISTENTIAL threats to our democracy and the citizenry. Because no other candidate sees them this way (or at all)..

..I’m done triangulating and fucking around with the politics.

Based on that, there’s Bernie…. And there’s Hillary as a terribly distant second….
———————

Agree, on the first part.

On the Hillary/triangulation part? Why not vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party, Mack? Assuming that the Corporate-Machine rolls on as usual and the choice is presented as Hillary vs Rubio (or some other Rep)

I mean, isnt voting for Hillary the ‘definition‘ of ‘triangulation’ ?

Oddly, if i were to have to choose between
Trump and Hillary….if that were my only choice…(and of course it aint)…
I am not a hundred percent sure I’d pick Hillary. Trump is an odd bird.
I’m not a hundred percent sure he’d screw the poor
more than Hillary.

w
v

Well, yes “he was not used to playing in a pro style offense”
and that certainly didnt help,
but then why did he play so well the first four games?

I mean he started out with very little experience
in a pro-style-O and yet he did well.
THEN, at Green Bay, he entered the abyss.

w
v

Saunders was hired by Hue Jackson and the Browns,
i saw. It’ll be interesting to see how that works out.

I think all of us who have enjoyed learning about the history
of GSOT offense over the years (Gillman, Coryell, Zampese, Saunders, Martz, etc), have sorta kept an eye on guys like Saunders
to see how that offense is doing, and what permutations
are still taking place.

w
v

zn wrote:

‘We Read Them Like a Book’

Defensive coordinator Wade Phillips and his unit utilized ‘green-dog’ blitzes and an extra lineman to overwhelm Cam Newton and a Panthers offense that had no answers in Super Bowl 50

by Andy Benoit

Well, i dunno. Its easy to second-guess the Panthers
strategy. But that team was 15-1. If indeed
they just went with what had worked all year,
i can understand that approach. Thats kinda
what Martz seemed to do — the “lets just do
what WE do best” approach…

I’d also point out, the Broncos have
D.Ware and Von Miller — two all-pro, elite
Pass Rushers.

Two.

Like (healthy?) Quinn and A.D.

w
v