Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JDaveG

  1. That chair will be empty after summary judgment. It might be empty after a MJP. But......BUT......having it adjudicated would presumably prevent the other side from raising it to the jury, so yeah, probably.
  2. I'd have taken Brady or Brees 10 years ago, or maybe even 5, over Ryan. I'm not sure today. It's not exactly a fool's errand. If we win the Super Bowl with either one, it's totally worth it. I'd be the first to say that. But I don't think that's a guarantee (perhaps not even a likelihood) at their age and current level of performance, and given that, my preference would be to ride or die with Matt Ryan. Not because he's "better," even today, than either of those guys. Only because if we trade the (near) future and don't win the Super Bowl, we're stuck looking for a QB again, and if that's the trade, I'd rather trade Ryan for multiple first rounders and pick that QB in the draft in a strong QB class. And I don't think there is any way we'd ever do that, so I'd have to say I wouldn't trade Ryan for any QB in the league right now.
  3. I love GMD’s reviews. Dude is on point.
  4. I would suggest, as I did during his confirmation hearings, that Kavanaugh is hardly a lock to overturn Roe. In fact, I'd wager him a probable vote against it.
  5. Wasn’t me, but I like the look.
  6. I was curious, because I could see situations where there would be a cause of action against the car dealership (or against gun dealers or manufacturers) for negligent entrustment. That's basically the cause of action they are pursuing, but it's odd that they claim the dealership knew or should have known of his criminal history. I have never had a criminal history pulled when purchasing a car, and I don't see how they are going to connect those dots. Doesn't mean they can't, but the best information I have leads me to believe that car dealership is going to get out on summary judgment. https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2019/05/13/victim-sip-n-cycle-crash-sues-driver-car-dealership/1167088001/
  7. "Male Chihuahua, free to good home. Pees on floor and injures owners. Also bites because he's a Chihuahua. Up to date on shots though."
  8. I'm curious if the third dragon is going to die. Because Jon is the only one other than Dany who can deal with them. Maybe Tyrion, but I think Tyrion is not long for this world.
  9. .....is going to go in here and say something about the wheelchair ramp? SMH
  10. This is why I prefer to just sit out and let you all direct your stupidity at each other. It's also why I responded to @Gritzblitz 2.0, but am not responding to others. So I'll just let you get back to your fratricide.
  11. Some of them are, for sure. I don't place Georgia's law in that category. It includes exceptions for rape, life and health of the mother and a futile pregnancy (i.e., the baby will never survive). The only thing arguably draconian is the date set for the cutoff -- it used to be 20 weeks. Now it's 6 (or whenever there is a detectable heartbeat). But then, that gets to the too frequently begged question -- what is the status of the unborn. And unless that question is begged in favor of "non human clump of cells until after the entire baby exits the birth canal," then taking it from the viewpoint of the bill's authors, it is not draconian, but in fact is a compromise. The point of the law is this -- once there is a detectable heartbeat, we have a human life. The authors (and I) believe it is actually earlier than that, but the existence of the heartbeat is something that should give us a pretty solid basis to say "this is no longer merely a clump of cells," and so that was chosen. Once there is a human life, it should take extraordinary circumstances to justify snuffing out that life. And for that reason, the law sets forth a multitude of other benefits. The mother can claim the child on her taxes. She can collect support. And as I noted before, she can sue a doctor who performs an abortion on her past that date. It codifies the personhood of the unborn around a specific and bright line event -- the detection of a heartbeat. The ones that don't include exceptions for rape, life, health, etc.? Sure, those are bad laws, and in my opinion bad tactics. But if a detectable heartbeat is "draconian," I'd be curious to hear what you think would not be. 8 weeks? 10 weeks? 12 weeks? 20 is pretty close to viability under current medical technology, though I expect that to drop over the next 50 years as it has the past 50.
  12. This is really all that needs to be said. Lombardi could tell me my screen name on AFMB is "JDaveG" and I'd look it up to double check him on it.
  13. For what it's worth, a couple of things. First, that Slate article is highly misleading. The Georgia abortion statute does not apply to women who have abortions or those who self-abort pursuant to a Court of Appeals case from 1998, one I just checked to ensure is still good law (it is). The new statute does not address that decision nor affect it as best I have been able to tell. The case is still good law. The new law does not impact the statute at issue in that case (Hillman v. State, 503 S.E.2d 610, 232 Ga.App. 741 (Ga. App., 1998)), which was OCGA § 16-12-140. You can search the bill for that statute by pulling up the full text version here: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20192020/187013.pdf You can read the Hillman decision here: https://casetext.com/case/hillman-v-state-21 So the underlying statute, legal basis and rationale for the Hillman case are unaffected by the new law. Second, one of the principal sponsors of that bill is a very good friend of mine. I can assure you from my discussions with him he has zero intention of seeing women prosecuted for seeking abortions, much less having miscarriages, under this law. Legislative intent doesn't have a lot of meaning in Georgia, unfortunately, but it is helpful to look at what the law does and what it does not. There are also textual reasons to discern that it is not intended to apply to women seeking abortions, such as the fact that it includes a specific provision allowing the woman to sue the medical provider for damages for violating the statute. I agree with you it is intended to go to the Supreme Court, but there is another reason it was passed, and that is to send a message to the Supreme Court and to federal courts in general that there is significant support in this country for limiting abortion as a practice, something the Court has given short shrift to in the years since Roe v. Wade was passed. I, for one, do not think Roe is likely to be overturned. But I do think the Court could well allow a lot more limitations on abortion than it has since Roe and, especially, Casey, and the groundswell for heartbeat bills is in part designed to send that message to the courts. In that, I'm fine playing the long game. I don't think in any sense this is a short-term victory. But it is a solid first step in moving the Court off its scientifically invalid 1973 rationale for allowing only the most insignificant restrictions on abortion.
  14. If you didn't read this in Christopher Walken's voice, you should re-think your life. I chuckle every time I read it, and I usually don't laugh at my own jokes.
  15. Triple option came in after Calvin. He was pro style under Gailey.
  16. Calvin was also one of the greatest NCAA wide receivers ever. Literally everyone knew what he would do in the NFL, which is why he was drafted 2nd overall.
  17. You KNOW.......you could stay with ME........instead of going back to CERsei.
  18. Everyone is talking about Cersei's baby and Arya's baby (we don't yet know if Arya is pregnant, but that is also true of my question below): What about Jaime and Brienne's baby?
  19. When Koetter was hired in 2012 the story was he only knew how to run the ball. Now he's hired again and apparently he's never been able to run the ball. Yeah, stories are changing alright. But not the ones you think. Koetter, like any quality OC, will use the weapons he has, not the weapons he wishes he had. The last part of your last sentence is the only reason for caution. We might start two rookies on the o-line. And that will take time to sort out. But Koetter knows what he's doing.