Jump to content

sheeeit

Full Members
  • Content Count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

90 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. “Oh..he dead”.
  2. Might be a bit high but high five for “the cream and the clear” reference. Can’t stop laughing
  3. Not to derail too much but I was curious too and read the DA report. I am not sure you really did read it. They literally have a picture captured from the cop cam before the shooting that shows the air rifle between the guys legs. I am not sure it matters if he reached for it or not. If anyone, regardless of race, is sitting in a stolen car at night with a weapon between their legs and the cops come up, you will get shot if you do not tell the cops it is there. As for the Minn case, I am glad they have charged the cop with murder and glad they charged the other cops at the scene. Maybe this will deter cops for covering for each other in the future.
  4. Pretty good debate. Lots of good suggestions. To me, there is really only one bottom line- the union. Cops are human and human nature is always going to be human nature for all of eternity (with exception of true sociopaths etc.). The union set up has made the policing of their own detrimental to the ones doing it. No system is ever going to work if it requires people to do things that are against their own self interests. That is just human nature. If a good cop sees a bad cop doing something wrong and reports it, the union is going to defend the bad cop and make a pariah out of the good cop. A system like that will always fail. I read on here the cop in Minn had 18 complaints filed against him. As mentioned, hard to know If that is a lot but it seems like a lot. However, he obviously was never fired. It is really, really hard to fire a police officer. Really hard. And it should not be but the union has tremendous power. Everyone who has had kids go through school knows who the bad teachers are at the school. Everyone. But we just hope our kids dont get them because they almost can not be fired. Cops are the same way. In every precinct everyone knows who the bad actors are. Everyone. Yet, they cant say or do shit because the union will protect the bad apples and then the good guys get shit on. We need to have a 3-5 person panel made up of the police chief and a group of officers that are elected by their own. That group should have 100% power to fire anyone on the force. No questions asked and no appeal. Its certainly possible someone could get fired unjustly but life sucks sometimes. I would also have no problem with all of the transcripts/evidence from these hearings reviewed by the DOJ. Although it may be unpopular right now, we do need to consider what we are asking of cops. The pay is terrible. The hours are long. The stress is high. They deal with an underbelly that is psychologically demoralizing. And there is no doubt it attracts a certain personality type. I would advocate for a much more tiered pay scale for cops. Start lower but have the ability to get much higher. Use the initial years to weed out the bad apples and then retain the quality ones and pay them to stay. Not an apples to apples comparison but you will get the gist. I worked for years with trade unions- carpenters, welders, electricians, plumbers etc. You would have 5 guys on a line and 1 would be worthless, 3 would be adequate and 1 would be a stud. Yet, you could not fire the worthless one and you could not pay/reward the stud more than the others. In the end, the studs go do something else and everything gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It is the same currently with cops.
  5. This is just fun debate and obviously very subjective, but I do not think you ever played hockey or watched much hockey, certainly not live. How would 5 180 pound guys that are phenomenal skaters and puck handlers etc ever stop another team from scoring? Do you know how physical hockey is? They would beat the 180 pound guys down to a pulp. The 180 guys might not even come out for the 3rd quarter. The college guys could hang out in front of the goal and not one of the 180 guys could move them. Every time a puck went into the corner (which happens 50+ times a game) the 180 guys would get bludgoned. Well it kind of does. When you say NOBODY, I will agree that NOBODY says Gretzky is not the greatest offensive player of all time. NOBODY disputes that. But for the GOAT of all of hockey, you just ignore defense and physicality. This debate was whether or not MY was a bigger GOAT in basketball than Gretzky in Hockey. I am arguing that Jordan was the very best offensive player in the game. Still holds the highest season scoring average (in an era where total scoring was much lower), holds the highest playoff average all time, holds the highest finals average all time, etc. Plus he is included on almost any list of greatest nba defenders. Holds the record for most 1st team all defense. No one comes close to those combinations.
  6. Perhaps you just don't look very hard. You can google many, many experts that think Orr was better. Don Cherry- Hard to find more of an expert (played professionally and watched more games than anyone alive)- He says it is Orr. He is certainly "somebody". More: https://puckprose.com/2016/07/23/bobby-orr-is-greatest-hockey-player-of-all-time/, Steve Simmons- Arguably the greatest hockey sports writer of all time. Ranked the 100 best in NHL history and has Orr 1 and Gretzky 2. https://nationalpost.com/sports/hockey/nhl/wayne-gretzky-was-great-but-bobby-orr-is-the-greatest-steve-simmons-ranks-the-nhls-100-best-players Obviously these are just opinions but when you said NOBODY (3 times) thinks anyone else is the goat I gave you 2 unquestionable hockey experts (as opposed to dorks like me who's opinion is just that) that publicly state Orr was better. The point being, there is certainly a debate. Personally, I think gretzky is the GOAT but , again personally, I think Orr has a better argument for GOAT than any other basketball player has to MJ.
  7. I believe it. They would all be injured in the first quarter. Seriously though, in his heyday Gretzky was maybe 180 lbs? A team of all Gretzkys could never dig the puck out of the corner. Could never move people out from in front of the goal. Teams would score at will against them. On defense, the other team would just sit back a bit and mug. Games would be like 10-4 against. Hockey is incredibly physical and a team of Gretzkys just could not compete physically. Gretzky had decent speed but was very, very quick and one of his biggest attribute was his agility, in that he could get to a top speed and not lose any agility. He also had incredible hands and an innate feel for the game. But no hockey team ever could compete with just guys like Gretzky. No Houston Rockets/ Golden State Warrior small ball teams. The game is just to physical.
  8. At the risk of being booted, I kind of liked the Dr Beeper arguments and kind of agree with him. If say Emmit Smith or Deion Sanders or Christian Mcaffery or any 100 or so world class football, basketball players decided at age 15 to quit their sport and focus entirely on cycling, I think it is very, very likely they would have been a world class cyclists. If Lance, or any great cyclist, quit cycling at 15 and focused on literally any other sport, they likely would not even be good enough to be a college standout. Not to say they are not great athletes and they certainly dominated their sport but they did not compete against the greatest athletes in the world. On the actual show, I was a big Lance defender until the bitter end but when he said he basically sleeps well at night then it is obvious he still does not get it and is not the least bit sorry for his actions.
  9. Not getting into this fight but I will take exception with your point above about Gretzky. I think Gretzky is the GOAT in hockey but it is not nearly as clear cut as MJ in basketball. Gretzky was the all time GOAT of GOATS offensively in hockey but he was, self admittedly, a liability on defense. Tom Brady can be argued as the GOAT in football but was he really better than say Lawrence Taylor? Impossible to know. But we do know that Gretzky sucked at defense. Bobby Orr was a great offensive player. He is still 4th all time in points per game average and Gretzky is number 1 but the spread between the two is not that big (1.4 to 1.9) but Orr is considered the greatest nhl defender ever. He was NHL defensive POY 8 times, still a record. He also won the scoring title a few times in his career. The delta between the offensive greatness of Gretzky and Orr is way, way smaller than the delta between them as defenders. Orr is in the top 15 of offensive hockey players ever but Gretzky cant crack the top 500 defenders. All of that to say that Gretzky is still the GOAT but there are very good arguments for others. During his run, MJ won both scoring titles and defensive titles. It is not even close. 6-0 in finals and mvp all 6 times. Only player in leauge history to win a scoring title, finals, finals mvp and 1st team all defense in the same year, and he did it 4 times. Think of it this way, a 5 man team of all Jordans probably still wins an NBA championship. A 5 man team of Gretzkys couldnt beat a college team.
  10. I really like all of these guys. I already had insights into the actual personalities of all of them except Brady. It always amuses me when you see the guys behind the cameras how they are actually kind of dorky, except for Payton. Brady calling everybody baby was kind of surreal. He sounded like a complete and total doofus. if I was going to rank them on who I would enjoy playing in a member guest with it would be Manning, Mickelson, Woods and a distant Brady. Don’t get me wrong. He is an amazing athlete and an all-time great. He is probably a super guy but I just don’t think he would be that much fun to hang out with.
  11. Tough one. Good arguments can be made for all of them. If we are talking 2020 NBA where 3’s are hyper valued and it is necessary for point guards to create their own shots I would say: nash, cp3, payton, stock, kidd
  12. OK. Maybe we just disagree. I assumed that the reason the DOJ did not spend much time on the lie aspect was because Flynn's petition did not rely on it. Obviously, everything goes into the equation when two sides are arguing. At the end of the day (especially because the transcripts were never produced) the defense went with a different legal tactic. This is similar to the fact that Flynn;'s plea made no mention of FARA, or Logan Act, or his son's prosecution etc. But all of those things were obviously very important in his decision making. We will also just have to disagree on the transcript part. Lets take Flynn out of the equation. Do you think it is "right" for the govt to be able to go to a person and accuse them of lying and then not have to share with them the evidence that they have regarding the lie? I am talking from a big picture prospective. It just doesnt seem right to me that the govt can go after someone and cause them considerable financial and reputational harm and use that as leverage to get them to cop a plea and never have to actually show them the evidence. It is like the govt saying we have the proof and it is going to cost you millions of dollars in legal fees to see it. I just did not think the system worked that way. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback and insights.
  13. What do you think that proves anyway? You think people have never plead to things they were innocent of? It happens daily. How about this other "public" statement anyone can read: Stupid is as stupid does.
  14. I get all of that, and I just used 1 example. You are the attorney, but it certainly seems to me that if you were negotiating a plea deal regarding your client lying to the FBI and the agents that did the interview stated that they did not think your client was lying, that you would be able to use that in your negotiations. Especially considering they (flynn and his lawyer) never got to see the transcript. If in a 5 minute phone call there was 10 seconds of Kislyak asking about sanctions and Flynn telling him they would talk about that after the inauguration (a completely forgettable 10 seconds) then you would tell the fbi to go pound sand. And without getting way off in the legal weeds, it is being alleged that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage against flynn to plea. I don't think there is anything wrong with that but don't they have to disclose that in his plea? Since they were wanting to use him in future cases as a witness, doesn't the other team and the jury deserve to know that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage? Shouldn't that have a bearing on his credibility? I am not sure you are correct about the governments motion. It does include this ""The Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn committed a false statement under its burden of proof," the filing said. "The statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal ('I don’t know') or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question." Seems like that says they didn't think he lied or, at a minimum, that they could prove it. I am genuinely curious why you (and any other attorneys on here) will not comment on the fact that the govt was able to put pressure on flynn for lying in his call and not have to give him a copy of the call transcript.
  15. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/ Hard to tell how much teeth all these have but it is incorrect to say this admin has not done anything to Russia. And yes, Trump is still an idiot.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...