|
three posted:Tim Tebow won a playoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, and was out of the league at a younger age. so you're saying kaepernick is going to be an atlanta brave
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Wasn't he like a decent baseball prospect or am I making that up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:Did you even read what Baldwin said? Kaepernick and the 49ers had a very public falling out to the tune of Kaepernick potentially forgoing millions to get the hell out. It's like you and volkerball just ignore facts. Spoeank fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Logic the age old enemy of war crimes
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:Kaepernick and the 49ers had a very public falling out to the tune of Kaepernick potentially forgoing millions to get the hell out. It's like you and volkerball just ignore facts. Jed York probably threw such a bitchfit at the owners meetings as a result. Then again, almost all the owners are rich right wing old fucks (yes, I know some donate to left wing causes but come on).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Flikken posted:He played well enough in certain schemes that he absolutely could/should have found a job by now. Michael Sam never made a 53 man roster, Kaep played at a high level for a period of time, even Tebow with how bad he looked got far more chances than Kaep is getting. Go enjoy yourself, Kaep is has earned a spot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
I used to think the Raiders posters were good but they were actually always bad. Troubling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
SunshineDanceParty posted:I used to think the Raiders posters were good but they were actually always bad. Troubling. Welcome to the real world
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
SunshineDanceParty posted:I used to think the Raiders posters were good but they were actually always bad. Troubling. I'm just surprised so many of them can post on this forum without their parole being revoked for congregating with known criminals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
warcrimes posted:Did you even read what Baldwin said? What does Baldwin's comments have to do with anything? He think Kaep is a starter. Good for him, but Kaep has already shown he is willing to be a backup. So why hasn't he been offered a contract? As I have already said, we know he hasn't because we'd know about it by now, because the NFL would leak that poo poo immediately. You can't argue he won't take less money when nobody is willing to offer it to him!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Coldforge posted:The 49ers became relevant again (however briefly) before the Raiders did, and that cannot be tolerated. Sibling rivalry or at least deep sibling-related feelings in general are a big part of warcrime's life experience so this makes sense
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
SunshineDanceParty posted:I used to think the Raiders posters were good but they were actually always bad. Troubling. Can confirm. We were always bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
the mean lunch lady posted:Wasn't he like a decent baseball prospect or am I making that up? He was a decent prospect in HS. I played big time D1 baseball and remember hearing about him but He went football (poo poo I would have too if I could) My buddy is super into baseball and we watched clips of his try out and he looked bad OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
News: The Supreme Court has struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, which was used to remove Washington and Snyder's trademark. They will likely get it back in very short order, as I believe their case is still pending appeal based on the outcome of this SCOTUS case. The case at the court wasn't on the 'skins specifically-- it was on an Asian-American musician seeking trademark protection for his band, "The Slants." The full decision is available online at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf .
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:News: The Supreme Court has struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, which was used to remove Washington and Snyder's trademark. They will likely get it back in very short order, as I believe their case is still pending appeal based on the outcome of this SCOTUS case. Let me guess, 5-4 with the usual suspects?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
iospace posted:Let me guess, 5-4 with the usual suspects? I doubt it, it's clearly a government restriction on the freedom of (vile) speech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
iospace posted:Let me guess, 5-4 with the usual suspects? A sloppy unanimity, Gorsuch wasn't around for it. 8-0 in the judgment, with a mish-mash of opinions gathering partial responses. gently caress if I'm going to go any deeper than "the clause is dead."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jasontaylor/status/876850596325855232 should have gone wannstedt
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:I doubt it, it's clearly a government restriction on the freedom of (vile) speech. It always seemed to me that the NFL needed to solve this problem, not the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Relying on a business to make an ethical change when it's making money hand over fist in its current situation? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:Relying on a business to make an ethical change when it's making money hand over fist in its current situation? Are you saying that if the Washington Team didn't have a name that was a racist slur that it wouldn't make money?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
How many Skins fans are using the word snowflake right now
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Alito's opinion is the main opinion here, so I'll follow its framework and try to discuss the other opinions as they deviate. I. Summarizing the case; no disputes here. Remember that this case is actually about the band The Slants, not football teams. II. The law forbids trademarks that disparage "persons". The Slants say that this only applies to individual people and not broad racial/ethnic groups. Alito, with nearly-unanimous agreement, says that disparaging a group necessarily disparages the members of the group. Thomas doesn't disagree but says the Court shouldn't even waste time talking about this because The Slants didn't bring it up until they got to the Supreme Court. III and IV. The 1st Amendment generally prohibits government restrictions on speech. Are trademarks special in some way that permits such restrictions? Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, and Breyer, breaks this down into two parts: (III) specific reasoning about trademarks and (IV) commercial speech. (III) is then broken down by three different arguments about trademarks. IIIa. There are precedents saying that the government does not have to be viewpoint-neutral in its own speech. The government argues that trademarks are a kind of government speech because the government has to e.g. publish the database of registered trademarks. Alito says that, no, trademarks are private speech because private parties decide what they want to trademark and the speech is still clearly attributed to them. Things like paying a registration fee don't change that. IIIb. There are precedents saying that the government can restrict speech that it subsidizes. The government argues that trademarks are a kind of subsidized speech. Alito says that the precedents are specific to direct subsidies, not just indirect benefits (e.g. commercial advantages arising from exclusive use of the trademark) related to administrative expenses (e.g. maintaining the database of registered trademarks), and it's a stretch to call this a subsidy. IIIc. The government argues that trademarks are a kind of government program, and it suggests that speech from such programs should be restrictable. Alito declines to create a new constitutional doctrine here. IV. There are precedents saying that commercial speech, e.g. advertisements, can be restricted if the restriction is "narrowly drawn" and serves a "substantial interest". Does this apply to trademarks? The Slants argue that trademarks aren't just commercial speech because trademarks are names for things, and a name can be an important aspect of a group's message. Alito says that it's not important to resolve the question of whether this is commercial speech because, even if it is, the law isn't narrowly drawn to serve a substantial interest. The government claims an interest in preventing offensive speech, but Alito says this is not a legitimate government interest by itself because even hateful speech is protected by the First Amendment. The government also claims an interest in ensuring the "orderly flow of commerce", but Alito says that the law isn't narrowly tailored to do that. So this law doesn't fall within the commercial speech exception. Since there's no exception that permits this restriction, it violates the 1st Amendment. Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, approach this very differently. Kennedy argues that the proper way to go about this analysis is to ask whether the law constitutes viewpoint discrimination. The 1st Amendment generally forbids laws that discriminate by viewpoint, with only very specific exceptions, e.g. for fraud, defamation, and incitement. This law constitutes viewpoint discrimination because the government is trying to suppress a specific kind of speech according to its content; the fact that only trademarks are being suppressed doesn't matter, because the important thing is that there's viewpoint discrimination. The government argues that they're not really discriminating by viewpoint, they're discriminating by the likely affect of the speech on its audience, but Kennedy says that that's also not okay and it amounts to the same thing anyway. All of this applies whether it's commercial speech or subsidized speech or whatever. The only time that the government is allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination is when it's the government's own speech; like Alito did in (IIIa), Kennedy says that this is clearly private speech, not government speech. All eight justices strongly reject the law, using many of the same arguments. Notably, both groups reject restrictions on offensive speech regardless of whether the speech is commercial. Kennedy et al. would go further and say that all viewpoint-based restrictions on commercial speech are unconstitutional, but Alito et al. leave open the possibility that there could be viewpoint-based restrictions that would be narrowly drawn to serve a substantial interest. Because there's no majority opinion on this point, the more moderate opinion (Alito's) is controlling. But don't over-weight the existence of a split here; the Court is not split at all on the central question of the case. rjmccall fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Eric Decker to the Tennessee makes me feel like the Titans would be a playoff team if not for Mike Mularkey. I guess playing in the AFC South they might still be anyway, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Mike Mularkey is now cool and good, please adjust your posting accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
If Decker's mostly recovered than it's a fantastic move for the Titans. He's always been a quality #2 WR when he's been on the field and he's much bigger than most of the DBs covering him, so he gives Mariota another sure option. Tbh Tennessee is gonna be pretty fun to watch this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
fsif posted:Eric Decker to the Tennessee makes me feel like the Titans would be a playoff team if not for Mike Mularkey. I guess playing in the AFC South they might still be anyway, though. the reasons why the titans didn't make the playoffs last year were: corners and special teams play. Mularkey while sometimes infuriating was not an issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
They were 9-7 with the only pass catcher worth a drat was that tight end guy who people like. If they have a halfway decent defense then they'll probably compete for a WC
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Metapod posted:the reasons why the titans didn't make the playoffs last year were: corners and special teams play. Mularkey while sometimes infuriating was not an issue Actually do you think they'll use Corey Davis in s/t to improve that metric?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Diqnol posted:Actually do you think they'll use Corey Davis in s/t to improve that metric? no but adoree jackson will and not having april at all as the st coach will do wonders Chromatic posted:They were 9-7 with the only pass catcher worth a drat was that tight end guy who people like. rishard mathews is very good actually
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Underrated and reliable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Durandal1707 posted:If Decker's mostly recovered than it's a fantastic move for the Titans. He's always been a quality #2 WR when he's been on the field and he's much bigger than most of the DBs covering him, so he gives Mariota another sure option. It's my favorite FA signing of the off season.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Michael Bennett talking about Aaron Donald on the Top 100 is my favorite thing this offseason
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
NFL top 100. Just a mini-update 16. Drew Brees 14. Dak Prescott. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Kalli posted:NFL top 100. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Kalli posted:NFL top 100. Holy gently caress lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
MY NIGGA D-LINK posted:Michael Bennett talking about Aaron Donald on the Top 100 is my favorite thing this offseason Link? google wasn't popping anything up immediately
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Link? google wasn't popping anything up immediately https://youtu.be/vXVwUzgE33U
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Kalli posted:NFL top 100. Hahahaha Players are even dumber than us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/cowboys-quarterback-dak-prescott-mvp-article-1.2903134
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:30
|
|
