Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About LTsharks

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

5,756 profile views
  1. How about that catch by Brown tonight? Can you imagine anyone on the Eagles making that catch?
  2. Where is this being reported about AB? edit - I looked, didn't see it anywhere. Just asking, not doubting you.
  3. What a complete load of crap. There is so much money being dumped into "anti-gun" research the government could never dream of spending enough to keep up. Acting like somehow if the government didn't fund the research it can't happen is embarrassing for you.
  4. At face value? How much deeper do we need to look? Embellish?? He lied about the cause of death of his wife and child to score political points and give a good speech. In doing so he also accused a dead man of a crime. Do you think he just forgot what caused that accident? It is disgusting.
  5. P.S. This isn't some time machine, taken out of context stuff. I live in DE. This was all printed a long time ago. The guy is a complete jerk. People just love the myth too much to worry about the actual man (hmm.... sound like a President we might have?)
  6. Where was it pointed out that it wasn't legal?? They walked out. There was a procedure for calling them back. I have not seen anything that said that procedure was followed. I saw where the Senate President called them back. That position does not have that power. Please point out when that happened. I have not researched extensively on my own, but nothing in this thread shows that it was. I could have missed it. Even if so, that procedure is very vague and subject to interpretation, even if it was followed. That would lead to the legality needing to be decided in court.
  7. It won't take the "right wing machine". Biden is just not electable. Like Clinton, the only person on the planet he could beat might be Trump. People will be voting for him while holding their noses. It might work, but it is a very big risk for the Democrats.
  8. Agree, a bunch of grandstanding. The Senate president isn't required to take a vote, but a group is required to compel. How do you establish a group without a vote? Of course the State Police would agree with the order. At least in my State they would. Here the head of the State Police only serves in that position because the Governor approves of them being there. I assume Oregon is the same way, they are going to agree with the Governor. Their thoughts on the lawfulness of the directive don't mean much to me.
  9. I haven't been shown anything. I've been shown the Senate President asked for them to be compelled. That position does not have the power according to the Constitution. What group of Senators compelled them?
  10. The elections did have consequences. There were enough republicans left to use what i believe was a legal means of preventing a vote. Those are the consequences. I actually enjoy that technical discussion. I meant by "will it matter. probably not" was in reference to the calls for violence. I didn't think anything would come of it, and sadly it looks like I was correct. That does not mean I agree with those results. That probably wasn't clear.
  11. Interesting. So the Senate President, while on the Senate floor without a quorum, while apparently not taking a vote of any kind of the members that were there, asked the Governor to dispatch police to round them up. The wording of all of this is pretty weak, I really don't think the Governor and the Democrats in the Senate would win this if it all ended up in court. I also think they know this, just like they did when they used the same tactic under the same state laws. So while technically I think the Republicans are well within their legal rights to act as they have, the violence rhetoric is over the top. Will it matter? Probably not, that kind of thing is going on far too much these days. Looks like the tactic has worked though, the minority used the only tactic they had left to prevent something that they opposed.
  12. At what point did the smaller number of Senators meet and compel the absent members to attend via a vote of that body? Edit: Just asking, I may have missed that article in the news. This is important. If they did, there could be a good debate about the authority of the Governor. If they did not, the Governor is acting out of line.
  13. When items are cited that have no relevance it takes a little time to work through them, sorry for taking one at a time. Especially when I'm not familiar with a particular state's constitution and laws.
  14. In reviewing ORS181A.090 there are serious questions. There are no criminal laws broken for not reporting as a member of the Senate, so that portion is not relevant. The next question is, what regulation did they break? Is not showing up to create a quorum a breaking of a regulation? Can you reference that regulation? I highly doubt it. In fact, refusing a quorum is a pretty standard method to compel action of any governed body.
  15. Great information, thank you. Upon researching, the Constitution sections mentioned provide no basis for the Governors actions so I'm not sure why you included them. The Senate rules might, not sure of those legal implications without further review. Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution: Quorum; failure to effect organization. Two thirds of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may meet; adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members. A quorum being in attendance, if either house fail to effect an organization within the first five days thereafter, the members of the house so failing shall be entitled to no compensation from the end of the said five days until an organization shall have been effected.—