Dbag smith still talking crap

[Lords0fPain]

It's pretty well known what papers (and news channels) fall under what party:

Here is a 60 page research paper of how some of these papers have gotten their reputation. A little older, however it tracks pretty for today:

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/research_papers/r25_tomasky.pdf

"also new york slimes is something a retarded gay baby would say"

Are you serious? Personal name calling...you certainly do resemble that remark...grow up...

[Bama Panther]

and the owners appealed to conservative judges. big deal

No, they didn't. The owners appealed to the Circuit Court responsible for the district in which the players originally filed their suit. The owners had absolutley no say as to which Circuit Court heard the appeal.

[Rhys]

No, they didn't. The owners appealed to the Circuit Court responsible for the district in which the players originally filed their suit. The owners had absolutley no say as to which Circuit Court heard the appeal.

Judges who must have been purely politically neutral ... right? RIGHT!? :rolleyes:

[DaCityKats]

No, they didn't. The owners appealed to the Circuit Court responsible for the district in which the players originally filed their suit. The owners had absolutley no say as to which Circuit Court heard the appeal.

whose judges are conservatives. it doesnt matter what court they appealed to they knew they were in favor when they decided to appeal to that court. just like the players knew they were in favor in Minnesota. it is other circuit courts they could have appealed to.

[DaCityKats]

Maybe party lines, but unless nelson's court falls under the "exception" the libs are ones playing politics. dbag is well...still a dbag and not a "good" lawyer.

TITLE 29 > CHAPTER 6 > § 101

Prev | Next

§ 101. Issuance of restraining orders and injunctions; limitation; public policy

No court of the United States, as defined in this chapter, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/129/usc_sup_01_29_10_6.html

and so are the conservs.;)

[Davidson Deac II]

This is not really a liberal vs conservative issue.

[thefuzz]

The players will break, and since they are at the end of the day contract employees, just like me, I think that's how it should be.

[Fiz]

It's pretty well known what papers (and news channels) fall under what party:

Here is a 60 page research paper of how some of these papers have gotten their reputation. A little older, however it tracks pretty for today:

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/research_papers/r25_tomasky.pdf

uh all that paper says is that the WSJ and the WT are terrible business rags without a shred of integrity, something intelligent readers have known for a while. That doesn't say anything about your assertion that the NYT is a liberal magazine. Oh well they only criticized clinton 33% of the time what a liberal disaster!

Since you didn't answer to the fact that the NYT editorial page employs the son of fuging Irvin Krystal, or the biggest apologist for genocide and neo-liberal reform in the country in Thomas Friedman, perhaps I can bring up a larger example?

By the end of 1919, when the defeat of the Allies and the White Army appeared likely, the New York Times treated its readers to headlines and stories such as the following:

30 Dec. 1919: "Reds Seek War With America"

9 Jan. 1920: "`Official quarters' describe the Bolshevist

menace in the Middle East as ominous"

11 Jan. 1920: "Allied officials and diplomats [envisage] a

possible invasion of Europe"

13 Jan. 1920: "Allied diplomatic circles" fear an invasion of

Persia

16 Jan. 1920: A page-one headline, eight columns wide:

"Britain Facing War With Reds, Calls Council In Paris."

"Well-informed diplomats" expect both a military invasion

of Europe and a Soviet advance into Eastern and Southern

Asia.

The following morning, however, we could read: "No War With

Russia, Allies To Trade With Her"

7 Feb. 1920: "Reds Raising Army To Attack India"

11 Feb. 1920: "Fear That Bolsheviki Will Now Invade Japanese

Territory"

Readers of the New York Times were asked to believe that all these invasions were to come from a nation that was shattered as few nations in history have been; a nation still recovering from a horrendous world war; in extreme chaos from a fundamental social revolution that was barely off the ground; engaged in a brutal civil war against forces backed by the major powers of the world; its industries, never advanced to begin with, in a shambles; and the country in the throes of a famine that was to leave many millions dead before it subsided.

In 1920, The New Republic magazine presented a lengthy analysis of the news coverage by the New York Times of the Russian Revolution and the intervention. Amongst much else, it observed that in the two years following the November 1917 revolution, the Times had stated no less than 91 times that "the Soviets were nearing their rope's end or actually had reached it." (10)

If this was reality as presented by the United States' "newspaper of record", one can imagine only with dismay the witch's brew the rest of the nation's newspapers were feeding to their readers.

WHAT A LIBERAL RAG!

I look forward to the next pdf you pull from google that you haven't read which doesn't defend your original assertion

lol...typically a very liberal paper that picks and chooses the "news" and cherry picks the information it uses. Don't like any "news" organization (liberal or conservative) that does things like that....give the all facts and let the people decide...

We have an entire forum for people like you to piss in each others' mouths. How about you take Highlandfire there and don't come back.

[g5jamz]

Go listen to the Adam and Joe show from 99.9 the fan yesterday. Had a lady who is a laywer, was a general manager and minority owner of Philadelphia Eagles. Adam was alone in the interview and he's very pro-players. Great conversation ensued.

D.Smith is being a dumb-A right now though with some of the assinine comments he's making.

[TANTRIC-NINJA]

I was listened to NFl Sirius today and they mentioned several points of interest brought up by their myriad of guests.

First off if the players win the damages from Dody's court which could be $750,000,000 and they short track the appeal, if the owners have to pay that this year it would allow the players to hold out for a long time. Thoughts are the players could win it.

Secondly, all accounts are that Smith is doing exactly what the players want. Although Upshaw got them the best deal in their history, players always felt that he was in bed with the owners. They like that Smith is emotional and essentially says "up yours" to the owners. They like this win at all costs mentality. Remember these players aren't businessmen, they are guys who all their life have been taught to be aggressive and win at the cost of other's losing. They don't want compromise they want to win.

Smith appeals to that sense and is doing exactly what they want him to do.

While I don't agree with him, I can see how the players feel and why things appear less optimistic then they were even a few days ago. That kind of rhetoric hardly seems conducive to working out a deal.

That sounds too much like my Stryker Medical sales interviews! HOO RAH.. I am benching as I read this!

[DaveThePanther2008]

See this is where the De-certification comes in. The "Union" no longer exist and therefore the statue doesn't come into place. Not that I am a lawyer but this is my understanding of why they decertified in the 1st place. This is why the players were not negotiating in good faith from the beginning. Their Bonehead lawyer D. Smith figured they could change the whole system and basically put the players in charge of the NFL.

The de-certification is a sham and everyone knows it. For crying out loud their leader is still leading the charge. What more evidence do you need than that.

I know many are on the fence as who is at fault. I am one that thinks the players are overstepping their bounds. Just play the damn game. Collect your millions and stop worrying about the fact that the owners might put a little jingle in their pockets too.

The ones who should be up in arms are the Fans... but as long as we pay the prices we do... (I am guilty as the next) there really isn't much we can say or do.

[Rhys]

I know many are on the fence as who is at fault. I am one that thinks the players are overstepping their bounds.

You're in the minority with your opinion on placing blame.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81fe4767/article/poll-owners-more-to-blame-than-players-for-labor-strife

Just play the damn game. Collect your millions and stop worrying about the fact that the owners might put a little jingle in their pockets too.

Wow. Just wow. Who are you, Dave D Rockefeller?

[g5jamz]

Right now...Players are at 52% and owners are at 48% on the take.

Players are immune to stadium leases and costs.

Cash flow isn't constant for owners (signing bonuses, signing periods, etc) with respect to when STHs money starts flowing. So what do they have to do? They borrow.

D.Smith thinking he can decertify yet operate as if a union is still in place puts him in a position of no standing IMO. That was a dumb-A move I think w/ decertification.

[Fiz]

Players are immune to stadium leases and costs.

And profits.

With like 2 exceptions no nfl owner loses money on their stadium. Now the NBA on the other hand....

D.Smith thinking he can decertify yet operate as if a union is still in place puts him in a position of no standing IMO.

He's not doing this at all.