Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Insomniac

Members
  • Posts

    1,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Insomniac

  1. Governments have an inherent obligation to spell out the procedures required to cast a ballot. That's not what people mean when they talk about "big government." For example, no libertarian that I know of complains about the government maintaining polling places, buying polling equipment, hiring election officials, etc. Also, I strongly disagree that voting is THE most fundamental right. I'd far prefer to live in a dictatorship that allowed freedom of speech and refrained from unreasonable searches and seizures than a democracy that routinely trampled on things like that. So would you, I'm guessing. There was an on-line citizen test I took years back that had a question on what the most important right was and the answer was the right to vote. The argument you are using is the same argument the racist Southerners used for the literacy tests they used to prevent blacks from voting. What's the difference between "literacy tests" and voter ID? It's certainly not intention. In both cases the primary intention was to prevent minorities from voting. People who care about the integrity of elections should concentrate on the voting machines. It's much easier to change election results by hacking them than getting enough people to show up at the polls who shouldn't be there. It's not who votes, it's who gets to count the votes.
  2. If its a good fit for him and the team the $20 mil could be converted to a bonus as part of an extension.
  3. if thats true im much happier with the deal, essentially a 2 year 22 million dollar deal then. The CBA specifies that players get the greater of the Franchise tag value or 120% the prior year salary. So a tag next year would be for $14.4 mil.
  4. I wonder what the DEA is going to think about the video they made to blackmail Hank. Doubt they'll believe Skyler and Marie's story.
  5. Why would you be surprised? Until ~1970 the big southern colleges wouldn't even let black players at any position be on the team. Not sure what that has to do with professional football.Marlin Briscoe played 11 games at QB (starting five of them) for the Broncos in 1968. Let me re-phrase. Why are you surprised that racism existed in sports at all levels in the mid 1970's? Maybe you're not old enough to remember but there were plenty of people back then that speculated that "some people" thought blacks weren't smart enough to be QBs.
  6. Why would you be surprised? Until ~1970 the big southern colleges wouldn't even let black players at any position be on the team.
  7. I don't get this line of thinking. All the people responsible should be punished and shamed, but there's no reason to screw over the football players, current students, and fans by taking away the football program. That's just punishing a lot of other people that had nothing to do with this.The purpose of the coverup was to protect the revenue and reputation of the football program. The deliberate coverup for and enabling of a pedophile for over a decade by assistant coaches, the head coach, the athletic director and university officials all the way up to the President of the university has to be by far the absolute worst case of 'lack of institutional control' ever. If ever a program deserved the death penalty it's this one.
  8. So the people who run the athletic department and the university spend years covering up and enabling a child rapist in order to protect their football program and the reputation of the coach and you think it's unjust for the victims to get monetary compensation from the organization they were acting for?You're talking about a handful of people who enabled this crime. I'm talking about thousands of students, teachers, university employees, all of whom will be adversely affected as a result of these lawsuits. I just don't think that's right.Your answer boils down to thinking the real victims don't deserve compensation. The individuals involved probably don't have anywhere near the assets to justly compensate the victims, if that's even possible. By the time the cases got thru the courts the individuals assets probably get eaten up in legal fees so the victims would get nothing. They might end up even further in debt due to their own legal fees.
  9. So the people who run the athletic department and the university spend years covering up and enabling a child rapist in order to protect their football program and the reputation of the coach and you think it's unjust for the victims to get monetary compensation from the organization they were acting for?
  10. Of course I'm in denial. I don't want to see her go.The series is about character development and more than any other character she's undergone the biggest and most positive change. There's just nothing left for her growth on this show. She went from secretary to the #2 creative and she's never going to be the #1 at that agency. In her personal life she became the thoroughly modern woman but there's not anything left to do there either for the show.Even bringing her back for random episodes seems like a bad idea. Her last scene was a perfect coda, nobody else has left happy and smiling on their way to bigger and better things. I just don't get this line of thinking.Sure, she's made quite a journey already and just took another huge step forward in her career, but that doesn't mean her growth is done as a character. I mean, if "making it" in your career is the end of character development, then what's been the point of following the story of son of a whore/identity thief/retail clerk once he be a creative director on Madison Avenue? Maybe there are other stories they'd rather tell now, that's fine, but I absolutely don't buy the notion that the growth of the Peggy character is done. In many ways, her career is just beginning and her social life is a long way from settled. Heck, she was just giving out handy's in a movie theater. The growth of her character is limited by the constraints of the show. It's a show centered on Don and the agency. There's no way they're going to double the size of the cast to have a Peggy's agency story. Even if they had the budget it wouldn't be good for this series. OTOH a spinoff series centered around her character is plausible. They wait Mad Men ends and they move her into the 1970's.
  11. Of course I'm in denial. I don't want to see her go.The series is about character development and more than any other character she's undergone the biggest and most positive change. There's just nothing left for her growth on this show. She went from secretary to the #2 creative and she's never going to be the #1 at that agency. In her personal life she became the thoroughly modern woman but there's not anything left to do there either for the show.Even bringing her back for random episodes seems like a bad idea. Her last scene was a perfect coda, nobody else has left happy and smiling on their way to bigger and better things.
  12. Today I got tired of the Linsanity hype so I put the NPR BBC World News on and got a story about Jeremy Lin.
  13. I've had people tell me that I remind them of Mike Greenberg. In the old days you would have challenged them to a duel to retain your honor.
  14. This isn't something I ever looked into but is there some reason to give the founder of the KKK the benefit of the doubt about his responsibility for this?
  15. How is a guy from "old money" that is a potential future campaign chairman for a President a step down socially from a partner in a boutique ad firm? The impression I had from the series is that Henry is an advisor whose advice was taken. Think Karl Rove.
  16. Pretty much. They had legitimate power at their feet. It wasn't going to be easy and they would have to work within the confines of the system that they always worked within and legitimized when they got the concessions they wanted. But in the end, the deep south simply was unwilling to keep doing it. Had the convention stayed together and nominated one candidate they would have beaten Lincoln and taken the White House.And a candidate could have emerged fairly easily. It probably wouldn't have been Douglas because in any deal like this there has to be a sacrifice and it would have been him at the top of the ticket. But they could have formed some team to win the election and steer policy for the next 4 years. I doubt the northern leaders wouldhave accpted Breckenridge at the top of the ticket the way the southern ones did, but I'm willing to bet that they could have stolen John Bell from the Constitution Party, with Breckenridge or Dickenson as VP, or really thinking out of the box, giving Andrew Johnson the VP nomination, but if this team was formed, there would have been a guarantee that the leaders of the firebrand deep south would monopolize the cabinet. I'm thinknig Breckenridge would be better as Sec. War, You stick Douglas in as Poastmaster General to get him out of the Senate but make it look like a 'bi-partisan' cabinet for the north, get a northern dem for Sec. State who can temper the fire of the deep south in diplomatic settings, and probably get one more northern dem for Sec. Navy. Other then that, grab Jefferson Davis and the rest of the deep south leaders and put them in cabinet spots. It could have worked. 1860 election resultsLincoln received just under 40% of the popular vote but he got more than 50% in nearly all the states he won. The states he received electoral votes from with less than 50% were California, Oregon and New Jersey. (NJ split their EC votes 4-3) Lincoln had enough electoral votes without those states. There doesn't seem to be a possible combination that would gain votes in the states Lincoln won. A more "pro-slavery" candidate than Douglas probably would have resulted in some of the Douglas voters switching to Lincoln.
  17. There are some historians that believe his primary motive was survival. If he had reason to believe that these guys were planning on killing him and his family does that give him the moral right to "do unto others before they do unto you"? It's not like the authorities were going to protect him.
  18. There is absolutely no evidence to support that view. The South's economy was built on slavery and the people in power were almost all part of the slave owner aristocracy. Can you think of any ruling group in history that decided to voluntarily destroy what they considered the source of their wealth and power?
  19. You can't underestimate the favoritism of the electorate to the Steelers. Everyone recognizes that there are people who grow up in one market but become fans of a successful team from a different market. In the 70's there were 3 main "Public" teams, the Cowboys, the Steelers and the Raiders. Of those front running kids who grew up in the 70's a disproportionate number of Steelers fans became HOF voters. They've used their power to elect unworthy people like Swann & Stallworth and now they'll elect compilers like Bettis and Ward.
  20. Fom what I have read, probably around 20% of the population owned slaves. But what's important to remember is that percentage is probably MUCH higher in regards to people in power. I would guess a good majority of the southern lawmakers (or their families/political allies) owned slaves. So the people in power vote for the state to secede... and the north is going to invade. At that time, people identified strongly with their state. Much more than their country. There's almost no choice but to fight. 20% seems high...but I'll run with it.So it's safe to say that a great percentage of those who fought and died on the Southern side were not slave owners or even fighting for the right to own slaves seeing as how they'd never actually own one. But to say most of those fought because of their statehood...I can accept this premise. There's more than a few that take it a step further and say that a majority fought for their state's rights. This is where I stand and most everyone I grew up with stand...black or white...it's understood by most Southerners that the war was about the State's rights and how the gov't in the North was infringing upon them. It wasn't too much earlier that we went through the same thing with England...funny how a great number choose to look at the two very similar circumstances differently nowadays. And we're seeing it all over again with the gov't running wild and free...until we stage another revolt. It's my hope and belief that the South will indeed rise again...in the hearts of every true American. But what was the "right" that was the burning issue of, and completely dominated, the time period? There's no way around it - it was slavery. I do agree that the average southern soldier likely wasn't fighting to personally own slaves - it wasn't economically feasible. The average soldier on both sides probably fought for the same reason most soldiers in history fought. US vs THEM. Any discussion of why the war was fought should concentrate on the motivations of the people in power on both sides.
  21. Just a question I have always had - everyone says slavery was THE cause of the war. Obviously it was a major issue and the hot one at the time of the war. But wasn't THE issue really the south's belief that the states had the right to do what they wished? You had SC threatening secession in Jackson's presidency over taxation. So was it really going to war over slavery or going to war over the right of the state to be its own sovereign (and to have slavery if it wished)?edit because I can't spellA good place to start is South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal UnionThe people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments - Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms:"ARTICLE 1 - His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were - separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.Adopted December 24, 1860
  22. Well atleast Don agrees. I don't see this at all. She sees the future where she gets older, maybe punches out another 1 or 2 kids then gets dumped by Don/Dick for a trophy wife. Instead she chooses to become a trophy wife for a guy that's richer and much more powerful than Don. She's upgrading her social/economic status. He's also older so it's more likely she's the last trophy wife for him. Of course her new guy is headed for a really bad year.Where do you get that Francis is richer and much more powerful? He's an advisor to the governor.Francis has been portrayed as a chief advisor to Nelson Rockefeller. I got the impression that he was portrayed as an advisor whose advise was followed. Are you unaware that Rockefeller was a leading candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination in 1964? Don/Dick makes a lot of $ but he's not on the same economic/power level as an inner circle Rockefeller Republican (in 1963). Of course this is based on perception at the end of 1963. We know that the Rockefeller campaign will fail disastrously but Betty doesn't know that. Look at it from her viewpoint. If Rockefeller wins she's married to the White House Chief of Staff or something similar. Really the only question for 1964 is when her new man's dreams go down the tubes while Don's new business takes off does she dump Francis and crawl back to Don.
  23. Well atleast Don agrees. I don't see this at all. She sees the future where she gets older, maybe punches out another 1 or 2 kids then gets dumped by Don/Dick for a trophy wife. Instead she chooses to become a trophy wife for a guy that's richer and much more powerful than Don. She's upgrading her social/economic status. He's also older so it's more likely she's the last trophy wife for him. Of course her new guy is headed for a really bad year.
  24. I agree, the fact that there has been a string of B&Es in the recent past in the area probably has absolutely nothing to do with it.It was 12:30 in the afternoon.Who the hell breaks into houses then?And shouldnt the lady have recognized her neighbor?The break ins in the area had occurred during the day.The woman who called the police works somewhere nearby but doesn't live there. She also wouldn't have seen a limo because he probably used a car service that uses regular expensive cars instead of limos to drive 1 guy from Logan Airport to Harvard Square.
  25. Sounds like Harvard professors get ####ty accomodations.It's a couple of blocks from Harvard Square which at least used to be a very expensive area.
×
  • Create New...