Originally Posted by Section103 (Post 2491869)

Moe - I understand where you're coming from with regards to watching games.

Carter - honest question - if "the script" favors your team next year, how much actual joy will it bring you given that "its scripted?" Seems exceptionally hollow.

Questions for both of you:

Is the SB fix set? Are the Chiefs guaranteed to win? Is it impossible for the Eagles to be so much better that they cant overcome the fix? (Here I admit I cant adequately size them up with precision).

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491355)

Well the crook Goodell did it again. How bad were the Refs in that game.... the NFL is a joke!

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491355)

Goodell gets his Chiefs in again.

Originally Posted by Section103 (Post 2491827)

For the record I wont be watching the SB either. Not because I think its fixed but because I dont care for either team. But my question was in the broader sense....I dont understand why you would watch any games at all. Just a hard habit to break?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491846)

Ok so he is like a GM to the owners, but as GM, or Well paid NFL Lackey, his job is about results and increased revenue. Owners are like YOU, make us money, we don't care how. You want to continue making $63 million a year, make us money or we'll replace you. All about the almighty dollar.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491833)

I'll say this.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491833)

I was at one point a Steelers fan.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491833)

Until Roethlisburger raped a girl.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2491853)

Part of the issue is Goodell’s fondness for the Chiefs is well known.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2491685)

More importantly, the Chiefs bring with them an army of Swift fans that otherwise don’t care about football.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491890)

Oh?!!!



Claptrap! In my experience the two demographics are different, very different. Any overlap between the two is marginal. In other words your typical Taylor Swift fan doesn't know the difference between touching down and a touchdown while the typical Kansas City Chief fan would rather be swilling beer in a dingy bar listening to somebody like Jimmy the Greek exercising his vocal chords than watching a dance pop diva lip syncing to her auto-tuned recorded vocals.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491889)

You've actually spouted more than enough nonsense in this thread already.



I was never a Steelers fan.



I am though a big fan of the presumption of innocence which is the fundamental cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence provides us all with an absolutely essential bulwark against malicious prosecution by an otherwise essentially omnipotent State. A Soviet style legal system wherein charges equate to guilt would be a nightmare (except to those who'd usher our society toward totalitarianism). Therefore with no conviction, Ben Roethlisberger is innocent; case closed. And like I say, I've never liked the Steelers but that's irrelevant to the principle in question.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491888)

There's nonetheless an enormous gulf between that position and your contention that the fix was in to enable the Chiefs to advance to the Super Bowl. Yes, there could well have been incompetence on the part of the officiating staff, but never assume malevolence when stupidity will suffice for an explanation. There's always certainly been enough of the latter in the world.

;)

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491909)

Innocent? Please. Did you follow this when it happened? It never went to trial so there is no "Innocent". He paid her off, FACT. Look it up. You don't pay someone off if you are innocent. He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?.....Not only was he GUILTY, or if you don't want to use the word Guilty, use the words HE DID IT, pretty sure he did it another time as well, it wasn't the only sexual assault claim against him. You can reply all you want I'm done speaking that dickwads name.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2491899)

That’s exactly right, Swift fans would not care about football absent Swift. With Swift, very engaged.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491944)

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

:mad:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491944)

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

:mad:

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491944)

Irrelevant!!! A man IS innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NO exceptions for any reason. Case closed.

Why are you so intent on undermining our (yours as well as mine) protection under the law? Do you not realize that failing to fully embrace this principle in all cases acts to undermine it? Do you want to empower the State to send you off to prison so easily? Is it 1984 which you'd like to see?

:mad:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 2491948)

Extra points for me, for using a form of the word "pervert".....ummm, 5 times now, in a thread about the Dodgers and the Yankees and the Chiefs and Roger Goodell. :D:D

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2491947)

I find it difficult to believe that even NFL management can think that any person/life form otherwise disinterested in football is more likely to tune into watching the Super Bowl because of Taylor Swift's newfound preference for any single team.

:eek:

Originally Posted by packs (Post 2492047)

Do you think there are women otherwise totally uninterested in football independently tuning in to the Super Bowl who aren't otherwise at a party where the game is on? I'm curious if the idea of women otherwise uninterested in football are truly additional eyes on the game or just eyes in the room on the game who otherwise would be ignoring it.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2492052)

I'm surprised some people want to pretend it's not a thing.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2492082)

The NFL at large benefits huge from her presence and the endless shots of her during the broadcast.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2492052)

I think it's silly, but her appeal and influence on the younger crowd is huge and definitely has steered many more eyes to the team. That's why the broadcasts won't shut up about her lol.... It's not a bad thing, just slightly annoying when watching their games

Originally Posted by Snapolit1 (Post 2492128)

Makes perfect sense that the NFL is pulling out the stops to
rig the sport for a team in America’s #33 ranked top media market. In Missouri. And deny the NY Jets a playoff appearance for 55 years. Yep, makes perfect sense. Let me explain ….

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2491811)

I won’t be watching the Super Bowl this year.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491909)

Innocent? ... He was suspended by the League for 4 games, another sign of "Innocence"?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492016)

Lighten up Francis....

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492016)

go drink a Molson.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2492145)

You though were the one who highjacked a Yankees-Dodgers thread to argue that the NFL with its commissioner Roger Goodell is corrupt from the top down. So logically the NFL's take on any such matters wouldn't be one you'd trust. But intellectual consistency doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492170)

I hijacked a thread?

1. I started the thread, so I hijacked my own thread?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492170)

How about you stop dumbing up threads by jumping in when you bring absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492170)

As I stated you jump into threads just to voice your opinion that nobody cares about because you like to try to sound knowledgeable but do the exact opposite.... It might save you from irrelevant comments just to be heard.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2492271)

You went from one silly rant to an unrelated but equally silly rant in a different sport in the same thread. I suppose if you retitled this thread "My silly rants!" it might make sense but....



Truthfully when it comes to dumbness nobody here can even come close to matching the conspiracy rants which you like to post.



Excuse me but I've contributed more to discussions on cards and collectibles in just one post than you've contributed since you've been here. Show me even one good post you've done.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 2491948)

Do you think everybody who's found innocent in the court of law is actually innocent....

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 2491948)

No exceptions?

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 2491948)

...and everybody who's found guilty is actually guilty...regardless of the circumstances?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492288)

I don't even know what to make your nonsense.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492288)

Feel free to stay out of threeads I create.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2492288)

You're just muddying up threads.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2492443)

We discussed this before. Your logic is circular because you are defining innocent as not found guilty in court.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2492445)

Circular? No. Our legal system is founded on precisely that concept. I not only fully embrace the concept but I'm entirely consistent in its application. I would call that a virtue on my part (to offset some of my failings perhaps).

And I'm sure the Ohio Bar Association would be intrigued (and probably appalled) to learn that one of its members doesn't fully embrace the concept.

;)

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2492137)

i think the entire nfl season is fixed, but who really knows. And mlb, nba and all the others as well.

Let's all tune in to this thread when the sb is over.

If the eagles win, i for one will express profound shock.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2492783)

I've always liked and sympathized with the Buffalo Bills who were the AFL champions in 1964 and 1965 the last two pre-Super Bowl years. And of course the Bills had the legendary Cookie Gilchrist at RB from 1962-64.

Of course there's a lot of good things that can be said about the Kansas City Chiefs as well, e.g. their bright and striking uniforms, their cool arrowhead logo, their participation in Super Bowl I and their subsequent victory in Super Bowl IV. Plus this video:

Snickers Chefs Commercial

:)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2492535)

And you clearly do not understand the legal system.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2492535)

Again, if you DEFINE innocent as not found guilty, then sure you're right, but that is completely circular.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2492535)

That the state may not be able to persuade a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, with admissible evidence, that a defendant is guilty does not mean they did not commit the crime.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2492535)

Indeed, it is not unusual for a defendant to be found not guilty by a criminal jury but then to be found liable for the same act by a civil jury.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2492535)

I haven't set foot in Ohio in decades LOL.

Originally Posted by jingram058 (Post 2495112)

Well, I hereby eat my words. Perhaps the NFL isn't rigged after all.

Originally Posted by Balticfox (Post 2495110)

Excuse me but I understand it very well. The State bloody well better be able to PROVE its case against me or I walk. And that's the way it absolutely, positively should be. No ifs, ands or buts. But for whatever reason you don't seem to wholly embrace the principal.



What the hell? That's also the way it's defined under the law. Why are you ignoring this key detail? To me that's an all-important detail since it's there for my protection.



So bloody what? Unbelievable how you still insist on missing the point. I don't CARE if whoever/whatever did something and is not convicted. That's the price I'm willing to pay to continue living in a free society where we can't be cavalierly prosecuted and jailed by the State.

You say that you're a lawyer yet you've not heard of Blackstone's Formulation? I don't agree with Blackstone's ratio though. Rather than 10:1 it should be 100,000:1.



Yeah, well I have real problems with those civil juries. Is that how you earn your living or something? Is that why you're so intent on eroding the protections we all enjoy under our system of jurisprudence? Are you simply a Deep State fascist?

:confused:



Just an accident of geography then. If you don't unequivocally embrace the principle that a man IS innocent until and unless proven guilty in an objective court of law, you should be disbarred (if you're indeed a lawyer) wherever you practice.

:mad:

Originally Posted by jayshum (Post 2495115)

Why are you responding now to comments from a week ago.

Originally Posted by jayshum (Post 2495115)

No one else cares.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2491785)

She is just an example of what happened and Goodell, hell call him smart, but I prefer power hungry and money hungry saw his meal ticket = the Chiefs to make the SB, the game itself as was last years will be clean, this was all about helping the Chiefs get there by the NFL once they're there, they've done their part. SB is clean.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe (Post 2495145)

I love it when I'm right....which is not always the case, but it was here.

So to wrap up Chiefs got help from the Refs/Goodell to get to the Super Bowl, and the game itself was clean.

Any geniuses saying this had to do with gambling or the NFL wanting the Chiefs to win another SB were just missing it.