Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ramsay Hunt Experience

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ramsay Hunt Experience

  1. I want to have the confidence to sing as full-throated as Matt Turner considering Matt Turner’s voice.
  2. If you’re no going to play Brooks, Ream is the other natural LCB.
  3. Is it bad that while I'd never heard this nickname, I instantly knew who it must refer to?
  4. All the opinions relating to the order are at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/20
  5. Finally, the appropriate thread to discuss Oman's stunning 1-0 victory over Japan in Japan in Asian qualifying.
  6. That dual jersey is sweet. I wonder if they'd let me wear one. I don't have a drop of Salvadoran blood, but I really, really like pupusas.
  7. So good. I feel like a proud papa. Our boys are all grown up!
  8. You might ask yourself that if the legislature considered an unborn child a person and murder already criminalized the unlawful killing of a person, why the Florida legislature would need to draft this law.
  9. Of course we CAN say that. We traditionally have not said that, though. Particularly the part about charging the guy who punches a pregnant woman with murder. Some states have amended their murder laws in that way, but I don't think it's the majority and those amendments are clear deviations from the traditional common law definition of murder. We can also criminalize butchering animals. This is what I mean by circular reasoning (or as Ivan says, question begging). It's not clear that the unborn have "rights." Lots of living things don't have rights. You're arguing that the unborn SHOULD have rights. And the state can justify lots of regulations that may protect the unborn without actually relying upon the unborn's rights. If you punch a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry, the criminal penalty could be said to be vindicating the pregnant woman's rights. And any civil suit would almost certainly be brought in her name and not in the name of the unborn fetus.
  10. Do I have to agree twice? Yes. I makes something that was alive no longer alive. Nobody disputes this. It just isn't a particularly relevant inquiry unless you think the Orkin man is history's greatest monster.
  11. The only point I was trying to make is that we have a much longer line of precedent looking at penumbral fourth amendment issues arising out of the vaccination context than we do arising out of the contraception context. The fist vaccine mandate case to reach the Supreme Court was in 1905. And if your argument against Roe and Casey is that you reject a penumbral analysis of the Fourth Amendment, then you kind of logically have to believe that the Fourth Amendment wouldn't prevent the government from vaccinating your kids without your consent. Because that's neither a search nor a seizure.
  12. Because it makes the "state action" question fuzzy. If the cops aren't enforcing the law, the argument goes, who can the Court enjoin? The obvious answer would be state court judges, but there is some confusion over federal court's authority to enjoin state courts as well (although I think that confusion is being exaggerated).
  13. I think if there is really a debate, it's over the definition of a "person." And particularly, over legal personhood. Which is a term of art (a corporation, after all, is a "person" under the law). But even then, you're going to run into a circular reasoning problem. A fetus would or would not be a person solely according to what the relevant governing law says about that topic, I just think its important that people understand that Roe did not suddenly usher in this great change where fetuses were suddenly not considered legal persons under the law. They were universally not considered legal persons and that was based on a very long legal tradition that itself arose out of an Ecclesiastical tradition. For that reason, when Roe was argued, it was argued as a question of the state's right to regulate abortion versus the mother's right to bodily autonomy. None of which is to say that we're tied to that position or even that framework. I just think people should understand the existing framework before making arguments that rely upon some other basis.
  14. It hasn't, but that's because while I think the government has the power to enforce lockdowns and restrict certain events to only vaccinated people, I don't think the government has the right to physically violate your person by giving you a vaccination you have not consented to. And the arguments are certainly related to abortion arguments, because the precedents that led to Roe v. Wade were about precisely that type of issue. The limitations of government's ability to intrude upon a person's body even if the intrusion was not technically a "search or seizure."
  15. Both are clearly alive. But I can't think of any society, ever, that has had a blanket prohibition on killing things that are alive. I mean, the coronavirus is alive.
  16. Sure. It's terminating fetuses. Which is different than killing infants and certainly different than "murder" considering the born alive rule has been a component of the common law definition of murder for hundreds of years and arguably a millennia if we consider Ecclesiastical Law.
  17. Yes, I disagree. We have a term for developing yet unborn organisms . Fetuses. "Baby" isn't really a Biology 101 term.
  18. My point is that we have an amendment in the Bill of Rights that expressly recognizes the existence of rights that are not otherwise enumerated in the Constitution. Your argument, as satisfying as it is to you, bears no relation to the intent of the Founders. And we know this because they explicitly told us so.
  19. This is going to be a weird game for me because I really want Hugo to succeed with ELS and think he was treated very shabbily by the USSF. But I also don't want to feel stressed at any point tonight. I mean, I want Landon Donovan putting on the shades thrown at him by the Salvadoran fans in Baltimore level vibes. I'm very fragile.
  20. I've only seen Doyle speculate that it's what he would do.
  21. Definitely a consideration. If we can assume Pulisic is healthy for Canada, I think we can assume that whoever Canada's RWB is (either Buchanon or Laryea) is going to be able to be pinned back. So maybe for that game, you switch Dest to LB and play Yedlin and give him zero offensive responsibilities.
  22. I'd be inclined to restart my Manhattan tradition, but with a 10:05PM start, I'd probably be asleep before the first substitutions.
  23. A. It depends on what GGG wants to do. Acosta and Lletget (or Roldan) don't really solve the problem of verticality if they're playing on the wings. All those guys are going to pinch in and keep possession (which is what Gio would do as well). That's a viable option, but it's a tradeoff that GGG seems to have some reluctance to make. Similarly, even in the 3-3-3-1 that I'm looking at, I'm not sure I wouldn't put Acosta in for Aaronson if I wanted to maximize ball winning and the press. But that's a big creativity trade-off. I look at the depth issue another way. I trust Sands (in the right circumstances) and I trust Acosta and Lletget as well (assuming we have someone else on set pieces). Of the 11 I posted and the ones you've brought up, I'd say that I'm most iffy on Jedi, but I think we're in a situation where I'm pretty comfortable with most of the roster starting most of the qualifiers. There's not a Bornstein. B. All of these guys are going to play and probably start at least one of the games (except maybe not Sands if we stay 4-3-3 for all three games). I'm as guilty as anyone of daydreaming what our "Best XI" is, but in reality that stuff is all contextual. There is no Best XI. Even if we were able to assume perfect health, a lack of fatigue, and the top form for each player, matchups would still dictate what a best XI would look like. We might play a back three only against Canada, for instance, because we want our wingbacks to push back their wingbacks instead of letting Davies and Buchanon sit high with an invitation to run at our fullbacks. Now, I think there's a limit to that. I don't think you can just chop together formations and tactics completely out of the blue to match an opponent. But it makes sense to have at least two "systems," even if one of them (the back three) is more situational. And that's what GGG seems to have.
  24. Leaving aside our policy preferences, this is just an insane understanding of Constitutional design considering the existence of the Ninth Amendment.
  25. Although I guess I might sit Brooks for this game as I don’t think we can expect him to go 270 minutes with 180 of them being in Central America.
  • Create New...