home

NFL Sunday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:51:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Amato (John Amato of Crooks and Liars) and Armando Show for this NFL Sunday.

Our picks (disagreements in BOLD) Kansas City Chiefs -4 over Buffalo Bills, St. Louis Rams +3 (A),Tennessee Titans +4 (J), Seattle Seahawks -17 over Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Green Bay Packers -11 over Chicago Bears, Cleveland Browns +3 over Baltimore Ravens, Pittsburgh Steelers +7 over New England Patriots, San Diego Chargers -1 over Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys -10 over Minnesota Vikings, New Orleans Saints -6 (J), New York Jets +6 (A), Philadelphia Eagles +3 (A), Oakland Raiders -3 (J), Carolina Panthers -7½ over Atlanta Falcons, Indy Colts -3 (J), Houston Texans +3 (A).

Open Thread.

< Saturday College Football OpenThread | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NFL Sunday Open Thread | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 176 (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:35:31 AM EST
    She's back, but she sure ain't goin' to church. (link)

    And the rest of last week's comics, for those in a coma or currently in orbit with the space program who missed them:

    Vol. 175
    Vol. 174
    Vol. 173
    Vol. 172
    Vol. 171
    Vol. 170

    Happy Sunday, my friends. Our house is so cold right now, I woke up in sweatshirt and pants and a beanie, and didn't remember getting up freezing in the middle of the night to put them on. Three cheers for old houses with original, paper-thin windows and ancient furnaces you're afraid to turn on because the thing costs a fortune to use, and the last time it was turned on you had to take out a loan to pay the gas bill. I love renting.

    Peace.

    Xmas story making the rounds... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    An old man calls his son and says, "Listen, your mother and I are getting divorced. Forty-five years of misery is enough."

    "Dad, what are you talking about?" the son screams.

    "We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," he says. "I'm sick of her face, and I'm sick of talking about this, so call your sister and tell her," and he hangs up.

    Now, the son is worried. He calls his sister. She says, "Like hell they're getting divorced!" She calls their father immediately. "You're not getting divorced! Don't do another thing. The two of us are flying home tomorrow to talk about this. Until then, don't call a lawyer, don't file a paper. DO YOU HEAR ME?" She hangs up the phone.

    The old man turns to his wife and says, "Okay, they're both coming for Christmas and paying their own airfares.

    Grumpy manipulative old f***ers, eh? Lol!

    You can't fix (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by ragebot on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    stupid

    And Moving Forward... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    New NSA Reform Bill Authorizes All the NSA Activity That Was Making You Angry
    Wyden was one of four "no" votes on Dianne Feinstein's "FISA improvements" bill--11 "aye" votes got it out of the Intelligence Committee, where it had been marked up in secret. Julian Sanchez makes short, ugly work of it:
    The bill for the first time explicitly authorizes, and therefore entrenches in statute, the bulk collection of communications records, subject to more or less the same rules already imposed by the FISA Court. It endorses, rather than prohibits, what the NSA is already doing. Moreover, it imposes those restrictions only with respect to bulk collection of communications records--which is dangerous, because it signals to the FISA Court that Congress implicitly endorses the use of Section 215 to collect other records in bulk without comparable restrictions. (The key phrase "acquisition in bulk," incidentally, does not appear to be given any concrete definition.)

    Perhaps most troubling, the bill contains a section stipulating that bulk orders for communcations records may not acquire the contents of any communications. That sounds good, right? The problem is, under canons of judicial interpretation, a narrow and explicit prohibition on getting content under bulk orders for communications records could easily be read to imply that content can be acquired via non-bulk orders, or even via bulk orders for other types of records.
    Surprised the line on SD/WASH is only 1 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:26:45 AM EST
    Charger defense hasn't allowed a touchdown in two-plus games, held the Colts to 3 field goals a few weeks back. If I were a 'Skins fan, I would be worried about my young QB staying ambulatory.

    Tough break for the Chargers at the end. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    But hey, I have to give all the credit in the world to the defense of the team whose name I had previously vowed to henceforth never mention again until they finally do the decent thing and change it. That was an awesome goal line stand.

    I mean, first and goal from inside the one, and the Chargers still couldn't put it in the end zone. Ouch.

    How does the "Washington Scandals" sound as a team name?

    ;-P

    Parent

    Iroquois? (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:13:06 AM EST


    Parent
    There are rumors that Dan Snyder ... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:00:08 AM EST
    ... indirectly registered a trademark on the name "Washington Bravehearts."

    How appropriate, then, that they might choose a new name first popularized by an actor / director who allegedly had a few things to say about Jews to the Malibu police officer who arrested him for speeding while schnockered.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If Snyder wants a name (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:03:31 AM EST
    that symbolizes power, he should change the name of the team to the Washington Lobbyists.  After all, they're the ones in DC who have the power and influence.

    Parent
    Did you see this (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:46:35 AM EST
    in The Onion a couple of weeks ago?

    Highly offensive, but I think it gets the point across.

    Parent

    Well, hey... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    When you got it flaunt it, I guess.

    Or wave it in their faces...

    Business Insider, Nov. 2, 2013

    According to the new book "Double Down," in which journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicle the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama told his aides that he's "really good at killing people" while discussing drone strikes.
    Miami Dolphins bullying situation (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    Just watched the ESPN NFL ex-player roundtable discuss it, Ray Lewis, Chris Carter, Ditka, Tom Jackson. To my surprise, pleasantly, and admitting they had knowledge of things the general public didn't, they, to a man, Ditka included, stood up for Martin and his decision to leave the team, with Tom Jackson saying with disgust on his face, "Let me put this in plain talk for our audience: this young man is afraid. He's afraid of his teammates." Very encouraging reaction from these former players. Wish I had the clip of it, but maybe I'll find it online tomorrow.

    Speaking of ESPN, I highly recommend ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:34:10 PM EST
    ... the acclaimed Sam George documentary, "Hawaiian: The Legend of Eddie Aikau," which premiered last month as part of that network's "30-for-30" series.

    Narrated by actor Josh Brolin, it's a haunting film about a true contemporary hero, a Native Hawaiian lifeguard and world champion surfer who managed to attain immortality in the face of his own doom. While nominally telling a story about the sport of surfing, "Hawaiian" actually seeks out its subject's backstory to reveal the sorry plight of a besieged native people.

    It's really not an understatement to contend that the dire circumstances which ultimately led to Eddie Aikau's mysterious and tragic end, served to inspire the subsequent resurrection and revival of a then-dying indigenous Hawaiian culture.

    "Hawaiian" is the best social documentary about present-day Native Hawaiians I've ever seen. Keep an eye out for it.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    'fins statement (none / 0) (#9)
    by ragebot on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    Part of the 'fins statement:

    "As an organization, we take any accusations of player misconduct seriously. The notion of bullying is based on speculation and has not been presented to us as a concern from Jonathan or anyone else internally. The reports that the NFLPA is investigating our players are inaccurate."

    I am still not convinced we know the full story.  There are reports the NFLPA is not investigating because Martin has not filed a complaint, and more reports Martin is afraid to file a complaint because of possible retaliation.

    Something more is going on, but as of now those who know what it is are not talking.

    Parent

    Incognito is an idiot (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    He's been suspended by the team. Martin is a good kid who is scared, justifiably.

    Parent
    And now the idiot is finished (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    Stuff is awful. Until he gets serious help, Incognito's playing days are done. (link)

    Parent
    The complaint has been filed (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    This from the Miami Herald speaking of Incognito:

    "He's done," a ranking club source said Monday. "There are procedures in place and everyone wants to be fair. The NFL is involved. But from a club perspective he'll never play another game here."


    Parent
    NYT October 30... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    The President Wants You to Get Rich on Obamacare
    Today's discussion centered on the most significant change in decades to the nation's health care policy, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. As Scully walked to the front of the room, some 50 managers from hedge funds, mutual funds and private equity firms tucked into the round tables. Others gathered in the hallway. A hush of anticipation hung in the air.
    [...snip...]
    During the past year, anxiety about the onset of Obamacare has created a chill in some parts of the economy.
    [...snip...]
    Before he even began his speech, one attendee said he feared that only three million new patients, far fewer than estimated, would be signing up for insurance. "No way," Scully said. "Way more -- way more. At least 15 million, maybe 20 million. The Democrats have a huge incentive to make this work."
    [...snip...]
    "It's not a government takeover of medicine," he told the crowd. "It's the privatization of health care." In fact, Obamacare, he said, was largely based on past Republican initiatives. "If you took George H. W. Bush's health plan and removed the label, you'd think it was Obamacare."

    Scully then segued to his main point, one he has been making in similarly handsome dining rooms across the country: No matter what investors thought about Obamacare politically -- and surely many there did not think much of it -- the law was going to make some people very rich. The Affordable Care Act, he said, wasn't simply a law that mandated insurance for the uninsured. Instead, it would fundamentally transform the basic business model of medicine. With the right understanding of the industry, private-sector markets and bureaucratic rules, savvy investors could help underwrite innovative companies specifically designed to profit from the law. Billions could flow from Washington to Wall Street, indeed.



    But guess who are some of the most unhappiest? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    Senate Democrats.


    Democratic senators have a warning for the White House: Fix Obamacare's problems or put Senate seats at risk next year.

    In interviews, Democratic senators running in 2014, party elders and Senate leaders said the Obama administration must rescue the law from its rocky start before it emerges as a bigger political liability next year.

    Democratic senators from red states -- the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection next year -- voted for Obamacare and have been among the law's biggest champions, believing that voters would embrace it once they experienced its benefits. They could end up being some of the law's most prominent casualties if its unpopularity continues to grow.

    If voters continue experiencing problems like a balky website, canceled policies and higher premiums, the fallout could be brutal next November, Democrats acknowledge.

    For that reason, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) issued some blunt advice to the administration: "Fix it."

    SNIP

    Asked whether the White House's credibility had been shot through this latest episode, one Democratic senator said: "You got to have it, to lose it."

    Ouch.

    Parent

    Posterity... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    "You got to have it, to lose it."

    I doubt though that obama is worried that nobody will ever vote for him again...

    Parent

    And if They Lose the Senate... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    ...the odds of ACA making it, decrease significantly.  No need to shutdown the government when have both houses of Congress.

    They aren't going to be able to ignore ACA this time around like they have the past two times.

    I totally agree about the WH credibility, they lost it long ago.  All of this mess is their own GD doing, or rather un-doing, can't blame republicans for this one.

    Parent

    So, the source is "Politico" (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:14:16 PM EST
    So, does that right-of-center source identify much other than Durbin's "fix it"...because, of course, the website should be fixed?  The Democratic centers, actually, seem to standing together more than they have in years.  Simply amazing.

    Parent
    Jeebus (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:27:01 PM EST
    It's the Senate Democrats who may be in trouble who are saying this.  You are really whacka-doodle if you think Politico is "right of center".  You don't have to like certain writers, but you are WAY out of touch.

    How about The Hill?  "Right of Center" too?

    And you can't read, apparently, because Durbin's comment was about ALL of Obamacare, your comment is just once again, pure nonsense.


    If voters continue experiencing problems like a balky website, canceled policies and higher premiums, the fallout could be brutal next November, Democrats acknowledge.

    For that reason, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) issued some blunt advice to the administration: "Fix it."

    Asked how it would affect Senate Democratic candidates in 2014, the No. 2 Senate Democrat said: "If it's fixed, and when it's fixed, that will decide whether the issue is a big issue next year."

    Yes, it is simply amazing and stunning that you are so invested in Teh One, that you are so blind as to reality.

    Parent

    Hey, jb...while Politico isn't my go-to (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    for much in the way of analysis, and sometimes they make me want to throw things, I don't think they make up quotes, so if they're saying Durbin said what he's quoted as saying, I'm pretty sure he actually did say it.

    What I'm sensing, overall, is that many of these Democrats feel like they've been put in a pretty bad spot: on the one hand, as good Democrats, they feel obligated to be supportive of their president's signature achievement (they did, after all, vote for it), but on the other hand, as the president's numbers go south, they are beginning to feel the weight of being dragged down with him in the year heading into mid-terms.  

    More than anything, these are politicians who don't want to lost their comfy, cushy jobs, which is why they are more or less begging the administration to get this mess fixed so they don't have to choose between cheerleading for the ACA and getting re-elected.

    "The centers are holding" is pretty much one of the more humorous things I've read today...

    Parent

    I don't go there for deep analysis either (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    But, I like you, believe that they are not making up quotes. They cover the Hill and have access and are right here - unlike some remote papers that don't have reporters who eat and live among these same politicians. And since The Hill has virtually the same piece up, as well as a similar story in Roll Call, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's pretty accurate.

    The Democrats quoted in the piece are in red states and are fighting tooth and nail to keep their jobs.  And while many here don't necessarily like those same Dems, everyone has to understand that we are never going to get Massachussetts or San Francisco liberals elected out of places like Arkansas.

    And frankly, some of the columnists that are posted around here, taken by gospel speakers by some, well, sometimes, I think their analysis is off too.  That's why I read all kinds of sources and not just the ones that agree with my world view.

    That's just me.  Others would prefer to live in a vacuum.

    Parent

    "San Francisco" Democrats (3.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    was a phrase used by Jeanne Kirkpatrick in her "Blame America First" speech....and had its roots in the fight over aid to the Contras...

    Conservatives have used the label as an epithet to refer to gay and lesbian rights, and other cultural issues....

    Parent

    Or, more likely (3.00 / 2) (#78)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:13:38 PM EST
    Being descriptive, as I also said "Massachusetts" liberal, drawing a distinction between those who espouse liberal ideas inmore center and conservative areas of the county, but maybe not as many as those in the aforementioned liberal bastions.

    Intelligent people would figure that out.  Not so intelligent people and children would automatically assign that to a much more nefarious description and call names.

    Parent

    Some children just (3.50 / 4) (#80)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    parrot conservative lingo without knowing what it means.

    There were a number of way to express your idea about giving a pass to red state Democrats, and I largely agree, but you chose conservative buzzwords....

    Parent

    You got anything new? (3.67 / 3) (#84)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:48:03 PM EST
    Spekaing of parroting - you keep repeating the same lies over and over.

    Whatever.  You have proven yourself a champion of christine and neither of you are to be taken seriously on this issue.

    Parent

    Don't fret ... the center is holding (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    Seriously.  Take what Politico says (that right-of-center source) with a grain of salt.  Give it a few days....

    Parent
    Well, since you're making the claim (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    that the center is holding, how about something that backs up your assertion?

    Something we can get to with a link, as opposed to just going off your Ouija board/crystal ball-gazing/tea leaf-reading "feelings."

    Parent

    "Give it a few days..." (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    Means something like Durbin's words will change retroactively, or something... apparently?

    Politico must have reported them backwards or something?

    Lol.

    Parent

    Give it a few days, Edger, means (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    that the story of last week has taken on a different cast this week. Not so simplistic.  So, it means "Give it a few days."

    Parent
    Here's a different cast (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    Or rather, more of the same.

    Obamacare 'War Room' docs: We're concerned next media story is some consumers getting on website and finding fewer options, higher prices

    But hey - the actual WH War Room notes areprobably just conservative talking points.

    Parent

    They're realizing (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:08:15 PM EST
    they'll have a "messaging problem" when people start to find out what the real reality of it is?

    Damn PR spinmeisters are falling down on the job?

    Parent

    Not fretting (3.60 / 5) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    We just take your school-girl crush comments (out of touch with reality) with grains of salt all the time.

    Parent
    I'm sure you do jbindc; I'm sure you do (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:46:11 PM EST


    Parent
    That important word (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    The conditional "if" is the key word says one who would read.

    Parent
    Making my point (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    "IF it's fixed", which leads one (at least, one who uses critical thinking skills) to wonder if even Sen. Durbin does not have full confidence that this can be fixed.

    Parent
    BS (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:31:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Sucks to be wrong (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:44:10 PM EST
    AND called out, doesn't it?

    Parent
    I think the reason people provide links (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    to material they quote is so that if those reading the snippets have questions, they can go to the source and perhaps find the answers they're looking for.

    But what would be the fun in that, right?

    Parent

    TPM, a site known as a strong supporter (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    of Obama(since site supports Obama it could be a called a right-of-center source), has a post which disputes your assessment of the Democratic centers standing together on ObamaCare:

    Red State Dems Push Reforms That Would Damage Obamacare

    A trio of face-saving changes to Obamacare proposed by conservative Democratic senators would do significant damage to the law, according to health policy experts.

    Landrieu -- who faces a potentially tough re-election battle next year -- announced legislation Thursday to let people on the individual market keep their current insurance policy for as long as they continue paying their premiums.
    ...
    Manchin's proposal would give uninsured Americans a one-year grace period to comply with the law.
    ...
    Nine Democratic senators -- nearly all from red or purple states -- are supporting Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's (D-NH) push to extend the open-enrollment period beyond March 31.

     

    Parent

    Mo Blue (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    Why are you posting Republican talking points?

    <snark>

    Parent

    Christine, it is still (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:32:53 PM EST
    early with respect to ACA implementation.   The key is what happens over the next few months....not the last four weeks....

    And the Democrats are holding together remarkably well.

    Parent

    That would (4.00 / 4) (#95)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:51:58 PM EST
    be
    The key is what happens over the next few months....not the last four weeks....
    half a Friedman Unit?

    Parent
    Do you really think (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:51:12 PM EST
    you already know enough today to come to a final conclusion?

    No, I am afraid you are not omniscient.

    Parent

    So... (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:50:53 AM EST
    ...did you notice the question mark? That wasn't a declarative sentence. Punctuation matters. Reading comprehension, you know.

    Parent
    So, it was not a rhetorical (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    question but a sincere request for information.  How sweet.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    I didn't think you had noticed how sweet I am.

    Parent
    But a genuine question can be (4.00 / 3) (#124)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    ...made with humor. Can I help it if you have no sense of one?

    Parent
    The difference a US President makes! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    link

    Now combine this with the achievement to make Syria dismantle it chemical weapons sites without dropping a single bomb on that country.....

    Rand Paul is angry, very angry. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    Called out on his plagiarism of Wikipedia for various speeches by Rachel Maddow, he says that he would challenge her over those charges "if dueling were legal."

    Well, last I heard, "Dueling Banjoes" was legal. Frankly, that ought to be the official GOP soundtrack.

    Aloha.

    How is (none / 0) (#11)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    your daughter doing, Donald?
    It's good that she has caring parents to help her.

    Parent
    She's doing much better, thank you. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    She's still pretty sore, but will take this week off to get used to the harness she has to wear for the broken clavicle, and is already planning on going back to work next week.

    That could prove complicated, as she's the primary IT person for the city's largest private social service agency, which has multiple sites across the island, and the job sometimes requires her to climb on ladders and get on her hands and knees to run cable.

    But she's determined, and her boss likes her and said that he'll assign her an assistant to do the physical stuff while she's recovering.

    There's a Honda dealership just up Bishop Street from my office downtown, so I'm going there tomorrow to buy another car. We're going to look for a used car for her, too. She was using mine for work when she needed to go to other sites, and that's what she was doing when she got hit.

    But even before the accident, that arrangement was getting complicated and increasingly problematic. She really does need her own wheels for her job. That'll be her Christmas present.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    She definitely does not (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    need to be climbing ladders and running cable;  in fact, she physically cannot do this.
    Get yourself another used car, and get her a used car, too.  Sounds like a good Christmas present to me.
    I am assuming that there was insurance on your car, and insurance on the vehicle that plowed into her?  So you should be receiving some insurance reimbursement, at least.
    The important thing, though, is your daughter's recovery.  Best wishes to her.
    Namaste, and peace, my brother.

    Parent
    Hawaii has a no-fault insurance law. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    If you own a car, you are required to have motor vehicle insurance. We'll be okay financially.

    I actually already had my eye on a new car for a few months now, and know exactly what I want, the Honda Accord. I can't help it, I'm a Hondaphile. The Honda CR-V I had was almost seven years old. I was going to give my old car to Elder Daughter. Now I'll use the insurance reimbursement to buy her a good pre-owned vehicle.

    Me ke aloha pumehana, Mme. Zorba.

    Parent

    If she was working when the accident (none / 0) (#30)
    by BeDazzled on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:16:20 AM EST
    happened, the company insurance should be where the primary claim goes.

    Parent
    Certainly something for me to check out. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    Thanks. Having never filed an auto insurance claim before, I'll have to see exactly how our no-fault law works. But if I can avoid my premiums going up by filing elsewhere, that would be good.

    Parent
    Typically, insurance follows the car, not (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    the driver, so a claim should be filed with your insurance company.  After you tell them the details, it's possible your insurance company would seek to get daughter's employer's insurance company to pay - whether it would be successful is another matter, but I think this is how the process would work.

    Just be careful, and remember: you don't have to talk to anyone if you don't want to - not even a representative from your insurance company - but if you do, be aware that your conversation will be recorded and if there's anything there that can be used to get out of paying up, they'll take full advantage of it.

    Also, the cost of having her injuries treated might be considered a workman's comp event, if she was on company business, so you might want to check that out.  At a minimum, your daughter may be required to notify her employer of the incident and the injuries that resulted.

    Keep us posted and glad to hear your daughter is feeling better!

    Parent

    Her employer already knows, given that ... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    Anne: "Also, the cost of having her injuries treated might be considered a workman's comp event, if she was on company business, so you might want to check that out.  At a minimum, your daughter may be required to notify her employer of the incident and the injuries that resulted."

    ... she was using my car for an agency call when the accident occurred.

    In fact, her employer has been very supportive and has already given her the forms to apply for workers comp. As the executive director told me last Friday afternoon at the hospital, "It's exactly for times like these that we have that insurance."

    And as he noted, filing a workers comp claim doesn't preclude her from filing a subsequent tort claim, should she decide to pursue that avenue. The cost of her injuries has already easily cleared the $5,000 threshold under Hawaii no-fault law.

    She really wants to go back to work ASAP, driven young woman that she is, but we're all urging her to not rush things and give her body a chance to start healing properly. (As a now-former college athlete, she really should know better.) Her boss has said that when she feels up to it, she can come back and work in the office, but he also cautioned her that he cannot allow her to go on site calls without a physician's clearance.

    Thank you, Anne, for your concern and kind thoughts.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If you do not talk to (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    your insurance company, you could run afoul of the cooperation clauses in the policy...and they could deny coverage on that basis.  Do not blow off the carrier without carefully reviewing policy language first.

    Under some policies, the carrier can require you to submit to an Examination Under Oath, which is basically a pre-litigation deposition.

    Parent

    I've already contacted my carrier. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:26:39 PM EST
    So, no worries about that.

    Parent
    You call the carrier on the phone (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    and make a telephonic claim first.  Then, pay attention to what they ask for.....A lot of people get screwed by not "cooperating."

    Parent
    Donald, Hawaii (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:46:10 PM EST
    apparently has a no fault quantitative threshold of $5,000 in medical costs before one can sue the other party (driver)  in tort.  Your daughter's injuries may qualify.

    I would be wary of Anne's suggestion of seeking worker's compensation.   Typically, the damages are much less there than in a tort claim against the other driver.  And the subrogation issues could be tricky.

    Because your daughter's injuries are significant, you need to talk to Hawaii counsel.  Not armchairs here.

    Parent

    I did not suggest that Donald (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    seek workman's comp, MKS; I suggested he might want to check it out - as in "I don't know if it applies, but it's one more thing to consider."

    And speaking of "armchairs," apparently you were sitting in yours, providing "advice," right before you suggested Donald not listen to the "armchairs" here.

    Pretty funny, even if unintentionally so.

    Parent

    You were atrociously wrong (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    in your advice that an insured has no obligation to talk to his or her insurance company.  Anyone reading this could have lost big time listening to you.

    I know enough to know what you said was wrong and to refer people to local counsel regarding a serious injury like this.  

    You popped off without knowing what you were talking about--on a legal blog no less.

    Parent

    So, you call your insurance company to (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:42:04 PM EST
    report a claim.  You provide the date, the time, the other driver's information, copies of any citations or police reports.  But you do not have an obligation to submit to a recorded interview by either your adjuster or the adjuster for the other person's company.

    Whether an interview is recorded by your own company, or the other party's company, anything you say in it can be used against you.

    Somehow, I suspect that Jeralyn would say that no one should offer any statements or submit to being recorded without consulting someone with expertise in this area.

    Here - take a look at this.

    Parent

    You're just cutting (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:43:10 PM EST
    and pasting from the internet.  Are you really asking people to rely on that?

    But for a moment let's take a look:

    How about this:

     Preparing for Your Car Crash Recorded Statement

    Or there is this nuance:

    If you have been in an California, and you are getting pressure from the other driver's insurance company to give a recorded statement - don't do it! You should never give the other driver's insurance company such a statement, since you are not required by law.

    Or this:

    The lawyers in our Orange County office caution against giving a recorded statement to any insurance company but the claimant's own after the car accident

    You do not have a contractual obligation to someone else's carrier....(And focusing on California, since you quote a blog from a California law firm.)

    You do too need to talk to your carrier.  This issue of providing a recorded statement is not the easy pie analysis you state.

    Auto policies may have truncated cooperation clauses, but many property and casualty policies require Examinations Under Oath and appraisal provisions that are akin to de facto arbitration clauses, etc.  You cannot duck those forever.  

    And Jeralyn is a criminal defense lawyer.  The Fifth Amendment applies.  This is a civil case that is deemed a matter of contract law, and you waive any Fifth Amendment right by making an insurance claim.

    You have no basis for any of your comments.  

    Parent

    Give it up, will you? Donald replied to (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:09:37 PM EST
    my comment, appears to have things well in hand, and contrary to your alarmist shrieking about the dangers of a workman's comp claim, his daughter's employer offered it as exactly what the company pays the premiums for.

    And now you're running around with your hair on fire because I said that there is no legal requirement to have one's statement recorded by the insurance company, and for some reason, you're having a meltdown because I gave you a link to more information.

    Yes, Jeralyn is a criminal defense attorney, but she is also a champion of individual rights, and I have to think that a lawyer who believes it is usually in one's best interests not to speak to anyone in authority or with the power to use one's words against one would not recommend the people voluntarily consent to being recorded by an insurance company adjuster without the advice of counsel.

    Yes, you told Donald he should consult an attorney.  Congratulations - you are clearly a master of the obvious.

    But you are avoiding the elephant in the room, namely that after ripping me for making a couple of suggestions of things Donald might want to think about, and telling him he should avoid armchair advice, you plumped up the pillows, and settled your a$$ in a comfy armchair from which you then proceeded to offer Donald the benefit of your advice.

    Between your hairbrained logic and arguments on health care and how we're all supposed to hold our breaths waiting for Hillary to save us, and this detour into yet another scenic Trip to Nowhere, you're beginning to pile up an alarming number of comments that make people less informed after they read them than they were before.

    Parent

    You do go on yourself, true? (none / 0) (#107)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    I actually have a basis for what I say....You do not.

    Parent
    Go tell it someone (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    who loses coverage for failing to cooperate.

    Parent
    My advice was to seek Hawaii counsel (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:18:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's a Hawaii.gov (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    memo on no fault:

    Link

    Do you know the guy that wrote it?

    Parent

    Still sitting in that armchair, I see... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:15:17 PM EST
    so you can give advice, but no one else can, I guess.

    Parent
    That's SOP (3.00 / 2) (#96)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    He castigates others for what he does. My fave is when he starts calling others names while screaming "ad hominem!I declare, you can practically see the spittle on the monitor.

    Oh, and when he does the equivalent of "you are butting into this conversation" on Open Threads (or topical threads, for that matter) right after he has butted into a conversation.

    LOL. and bless his heart.

    Parent

    The difference here (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:49:15 PM EST
    is that Anne had no clue what she is talking about.  

    (And, yes, I do.)  

    The errors were marked and potentially fatal to lurkers who decided to blow off their carriers....

    Parent

    The issue with your "butting in" (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    is you add nothing of substance to the conversation.  

     

    Parent

    Sure I do (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:17:05 PM EST
    The issue with your "butting in" (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 07:56:33 PM MDT

    is you add nothing of substance to the conversation.  

    Oy

    Parent
    No, you don't (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:26:11 PM EST
    Anne pontificated in a field she knoweth not.  But it was substance even if wrong substance.

    You have had nothing to say about insurance or cooperation clauses or recorded statements or Statements Under Oath.

    Zero.

    Parent

    Still looking for your bona fides on the (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:36:40 AM EST
    subject of insurance, by the way - guess you didn't have time to post them in the overnight.

    See, the thing is, MKS, I never claimed to be an expert.  You seem to want to cast me as someone who did, while hinting at - but never disclosing - your own expertise from your seat in that comfy armchair.

    And I think you need to look up the definition of "pontificate," because it seems to fit what you've been strutting through the thread doing.

    The whole thing about not having to talk to the insurance company - well, to be fair, not having to agree to have your conversation recorded - was something a co-worker related to me after she met with an attorney in connection with an accident in which she was rear-ended.  She was advised that she did not have any legal obligation to provide a recorded statement to either her own or the other driver's insurance company.  Obviously, one has to "talk" to one's insurance company to report the accident, and the other driver's information - if you took my comment as meaning one didn't even have to report the accident, well, all I can say is, really?

    The gist of my comments to Donald was "be careful," "consider this" and "you might want to think about..." which, if you hadn't been so hell-bent on slapping me around, you'd have picked up on.

    Is that just part of your sui generis charm, too?

     

    Parent

    Anne, (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:47 AM EST
    For the benefit of the lurkers, and I do not worry about Donald, a couple of additional thoughts:

    Here is a blurb from the California Insurance Commissioner (the carriers hate these guys):  

    Important Tips
       5.Immediately notify your agent and/or insurance company of an accident.
       6.Cooperate with the insurance adjusters/investigators to aid in their efforts.
     (Emphasis Added.)

    And from the Maine Insurance Commissioner blurb on auto claims:

     

    Am I required to provide a recorded statement about the claim?

    In a first-party claim, your contract requires you to cooperate with your insurer in the investigation of a claim, and also to submit to examination under oath if required. This is more formal than a recorded statement. Failure to submit to an examination under oath or refusal to participate in a recorded statement could be considered failure to cooperate with the insurer and result in denial of the claim.

    In a third-party claim, you have no such contractual obligation, but refusal to provide information in the manner the insurer has requested could also lead to denial of the claim.

    (Emphasis in Original.)

    The Maine comment sounds familiar....Who said that?   The carrier is unlikely to ask for a recorded statement right off the bat, so there is time to get counsel involved....

    Your amended answer of just giving name, rank and serial number to the insurance company is not generally a good way to go, either.  For example, in Donald's case (no offense, Donald, but you got this, and your daughter fortunately seems as if she will be okay), instead of giving the carrier hardly anything to go on, it is better to say: "My daughter was hospitalized, her collar bone was broken, she will miss work, she will not be playing volleyball for awhile."  That'd give the gnomes at the carrier a basis to pay a lot of moolah--and that is the goal here.

     As to my c.v., it seems tacky to say, although you have asked, but perhaps another time....I will say how deliciously good the last two episodes of The Good Wife have been with the spin off and fight over clients....

    Parent

    MKS - I never said, nor would I ever say, (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:20:50 AM EST
    that one should not cooperate with one's insurance company.

    Everyone with insurance has rights.  It's good to know what those rights are.  It's good to know the consequences of the decisions one makes when having to interact with agents and adjusters and claims people.  If an adjuster says, "we would like to record this conversation," you can ask, "am I legally required to allow you to do that?"  And if the answer is "no," you do not have to agree to it.

    Kind of like asking a police officer, "am I free to leave?" and, if you are, and you leave, have you "failed to cooperate" with them, or are you just exercising your rights?

    You have taken a simple, non-legal conversation that everyone but you understood to be just a "hey, you might want to consider this, or think about that" kind of thing, and turned it into what you always turn these things into.  What you've turned several ACA-related conversations into.  

    Just. Let. It. Go.

    I don't give a tiny rat's a$$ what you do for a living, but I sincerely hope it's nothing that requires expertise in the areas in which you routinely lose your mind and your way here trying to prove people wrong.

    ::rolling eyes::

    Parent

    You are still equating (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    talking to an insurance adjuster with talking to the police.  Anne, they are really not the same. Trust me, they really aren't.  The adjustor is not going to put you into jail.

    Stop with this innocence routine.  You toss out venom, albeit encased in a plethora of words in an effort to provide a patina of plausible deniability, at people like Christine and others all the time.  

    You just got called on your error here.

    Parent

    :::whooosh::: (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:30:03 AM EST
    That really made me laugh. Sometimes, I have to amuse myself.

    Parent
    Not advice (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    Good grief.  Just consumer information.

     

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR! (none / 0) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    What country, though?

    It's Japanese (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    anime games.

    Parent
    How 'bout them Eagles? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    49-13 over Oakland going into the 4th quarter.  Second string QB Nick Foles has tied the NFL record for most TD passes in a game (7).

    so the ducks... (none / 0) (#21)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:56:46 PM EST
    and the dreaded Stanford birds on thursday...late here...like 10:30 which makes it over at 1:00 am...well let me be the first to say GO DUCKS

    FSU hops above the Ducks (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    in the BCS again this week after an Oregon bye and a Seminole rout of undefeated Miami.

    An Oregon win over 6(AP)/6(USAToday)/5(BCS) Stanford this week will likely have the Ducks leapfrog the Seminoles again who match up with unranked Wake Forest.

    Parent

    As Yogi said (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

    But I won't let that stop me.  Assume all the teams run the table as much as possible.  Clemson will wind up 12-1.  Stanford and the U will wind up 11-2.  UCLA or ASU will wind up 10-3.  The question is how they will wind up in the final BCS rankings.  Will a 11-2 Stanford, with a loss to a crap team, be ranked ahead of a 12-1 Clemson, with a loss to FSU.  Will a 10-3 UCLA or ASU be ranked ahead of a 11-2 UM with both losses to FSU.

    It is hard for me to see how Oregon can argue a harder schedule than FSU.

    Parent

    Stanford lost by 4 on the road to ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    ... a decent Utah team. The Utes have played everyone tough this season, and are not "crap." Clemson, OTOH, got blown out by 37 at home against FSU in a game that got ugly on them quickly and was never close.

    Schedules are actually quite relative, when you actually look at past performance. What we find is that regardless of the conference and whether it's BCS or mid-major, running the table and going undefeated is a very difficult task to accomplish during the regular season. That's generally why only one or two teams are able to do it in any given season.

    Most of the time, when an unbeaten team finally stumbles it'll likely be in-conference. Boise State with Kellen Moore as QB went 50-3 over a four-year period, and did not lose a non-conference game against the likes of Oregon, Virginia Tech, Arizona State, Washington, Utah and Georgia, among others. All three of the Broncos' losses occurred in-conference to WAC / MWC teams.

    I'd have to rate the Pac-12 as a stronger overall conference than the ACC this season, although not by much, so that's pretty much a wash. Look to the quality of FSU's and Oregon's respective nonconference competition, and that's where I'd give the Ducks a decided edge over the Seminoles.

    But since they don't play one another, it's sort of a pointless argument.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Utah lost to USC (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    and is not really a good team.  Hard to assess out of conference SOS.  UF is normally ranked higher than UT but this year UF is really down.  Those are probably the strongest OOC teams this year.  UV probably is better than any other team on FSU's schedule this year but I am not sure you can point to that as an advantage.

    I view this as a really down year for the Pac 12.  USC is under NCAA scholarship reductions and is really bad with coaching changes.  UCLA is not up to what I consider it's normal level.  Cal is bad.  Stanford seems to have no offense and an injured D.

    None of this addresses my claim that FSU has the most impressive signature win of any team this year.  Clemson has a very good chance to go 12-1 and have the best record of any losing signature win team.  Even with out Duke the U may well end up with only two losses, both to FSU.  While FSU's SOS was front loaded and they passed the test UO's SOS is back loaded so no way to compare.  But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

    Another thing to consider is Winston is a red shirt freshman.  No question Mariota is a first tier QB but with only eight games under his belt Winston probably has more potential upside.  Especially if he gets better as one would expect.

    FSU also has a big recruiting edge.  UO does have great speed but FSU has great speed and great size.  FSU has been in the top ten recruiting for the past five years or so.

    The biggest difference I see is coaching.  FSU has a more conventional power and speed O and D.  UO plays an unconventional O that confuses the D and gives up huge plays.  If the UO offense works it is spectacular but if the other team's D is not fooled it falls flat.

    I would love to see FSU/UO in the NCG.

    Parent

    I think FSU is a very good team. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    They looked great against Miami. So is Oregon, who's looked scary awesome against everyone they've played thus far. It would indeed be a great bowl matchup.

    But honestly, I have no idea how to interpret your statement "UCLA is not up to what I consider it's normal level"? The Bruins have won all of their nonconference games, and have lost only to No. 6 Stanford and No. 2 Oregon.

    But as far as "its normal level" is concerned, please keep in mind that UCLA's enjoyed only four winning seasons over the last ten years -- and in two of those, the Bruins finished 7-6.

    So, I have no idea what you mean, because if past performance is anything, the Bruins under Coach Jim Mora have actually exceeded most people's expectations this season and the last.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The Dolphins suspend Richie Incognito tonight (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:57:12 PM EST

        Richie Incognito was advised by Joe Philbin tonight he has been indefinitely suspended by team while NFL investigates, Incognito tells me.
        -- Jeff Darlington (@JeffDarlington) November 4, 2013

    Looks like the team nay have been more aware of what was going on than they acknowledged prior to this evening.

    It's Wierd... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    ...at first they couldn't have been more compassionate about releasing info about the 'melt-down' of one of their players.

    They they put out another release that they had absolutely no idea, cough, cough.

    Now they aren't exactly acknowledging they knew, but it seems pretty clear by the more or less immediate suspension of Incognito someone knew something was going on.

    Dolphins:

    "we believe in maintaining a culture of respect for one another and as a result we believe this decision is in the best interest of the organization at this time. As we noted earlier, we reached out to the NFL to conduct an objective and thorough review. We will continue to work with the league on this matter."

    So the real question is who is going to cut that big check, the NFL or the Dolphins.  And Incognito is doing himself no favors with social media:

    @AdamSchefter Enough is enough If you or any of the agents you sound off for have a problem with me, you know where to find me #BRINGIT

    Yeah, pretty sure #BRINGIT they will and if that is the position Incognito is taking, he will not be in the NFL next year.

    This is a big deal IMO:

    Sources told ESPN that one of the significant allegations being reviewed is that Incognito got Martin to contribute $15,000 to help finance a trip to Las Vegas by some Dolphins last summer, even though Martin preferred not to travel with the group.

    Rather than go, Martin simply gave Incognito the $15,000, sources told ESPN, fearing the consequences if he did not hand over the money.

    It's not the $15k, but the fact the guy was scared to say no and/or travel with the team is pretty damning and pretty damn sad.  And what wass Incognito thinking by keeping the cash.

    LINK

    Parent

    Reports coming out (none / 0) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:12:37 AM EST
    that some veteran players on the roster used younger players "as their personal ATM's".

    Parent
    At Lunch... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:06:21 PM EST
    ...ESPN was on although I couldn't hear it.  They posted something about a message from Incognito to Martin being laced with obscenities and slurs.

    I couldn't hear what they were saying, but I am wondering if it's old or he did that after being suspended.  And what kind of slurs, if they are racial that guy is rightfully toast.

    Parent

    The ESPN boards (none / 0) (#49)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    have several posts about the slurs (not sure that is the best word) being that Martin is gay and Incognito (gotta love that name in this context) wanting dollars to not out him.

    Parent
    Son Zorba, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    who follows the sports boards and sports in general quite closely, says that Incognito is considered by a whole lot of people to be a first-class jerk.
    Certainly, many in St. Louis breathed a sigh of relief when he was released from the Rams four years ago, due to his inability to control his temper, both on and off the field.  He had a reputation as an overgrown, immature kid who was also a dirty player.

    Parent
    Here is a Message Transcribed (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    "Hey, wassup, you half n----- piece of s---. I saw you on Twitter, you been training 10 weeks. [I want to] s--- in your f---ing mouth. [I'm going to] slap your f---ing mouth. [I'm going to] slap your real mother across the face [laughter]. F--- you, you're still a rookie. I'll kill you."

    So like everything else you post and the sources you use, it was completely wrong.

    Parent

    ESPN (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    From your ESPN link (none / 0) (#82)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    Sources also say Martin received a series of texts that include derogatory terms referring to the female anatomy and sexual orientation.

    What specifically was false about my post.

    Parent

    Extortion... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:47:03 AM EST
    ...to not out him is what you specifically claimed, which of course also implies he is gay, something there is no way in hell you could know because martin hasn't said word one about it.

    Calling someone a (gay slur) is miles from making them give you money to not out them.  Not sure why you made me explain this fairly obvious fact.  You don't know if he is gay or not, quit implying he is.

    Ditto for the mental issues.


    Parent

    faggot and p*ssy (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    are hostile expressions commonly directed by a certain type of insecure, unstable young man at other men they're attempting to humiliate, or force some sort of confrontation with. It often has zero to do with the sexual orientation of the targeted male and everything to do with the stupidity and other problems of the one hurling the abuse.  

    Parent
    Someone has cards (none / 0) (#45)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    they aren't showing.

    Day before yesterday there were press releases about no one investigating Incognito, now he is out.  I am no fan of Incognito but wonder why he is taking all the head.  He was not the only one who went to Vegas on Martin's dime.  There were reports that several other team members were also involved in the hazing.

    There does seem to be agreement that Martin had some mental issues before he was a 'fin.  There are unconfirmed claims that some 'fins thought Martin was gay and afraid he would be outed.

    I am wondering if the real story will ever come out.

    Parent

    I think You Can Drop... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:04:01 PM EST
    ...the mental issue and gay thing, even if true, which seems unlikely, they have no bearing on what was going on.

    See comment #69 which is a transcribed message from Incognito to Martin.

    Parent

    Scott (none / 0) (#111)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:33:04 PM EST
    You may need to upgrade your reading and comprehension skills.  There are several places on sports blogs which discuss Martin's mental issues and others suspecting/claiming he was gay.

    In fact the link you provided contained this blurb:

    'Sources also say Martin received a series of texts that include derogatory terms referring to the female anatomy and sexual orientation."

    I am offended by derogatory racial comments in the text ascribed to Incognito.  But that was only one of several texts and the facts seem to be that Incognito did not limit his insults to racial ones in other texts.

    Parent

    No Issues With Reading.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:00:29 AM EST
    ...well actually I do, but not in this instance.

    Since you provided no links, as usual, you have added nothing but your opinion.  My link states nothing about him having mental issues and/or being gay.

    FYI, from my post above:

    Calling someone a (gay slur) is miles from making them give you money to not out them.  Not sure why you made me explain this fairly obvious fact.  You don't know if he is gay or not, quit implying he is.

    For someone who is offended by his comments, you sure are making a lot of assumptions about his victim, namely that he is gay and that he was being blackmailed to stay in the closet.  Please source or stop making the claim.

    Parent

    Scott, are you a moron (1.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    I quoted from the link you provided.

    The quote said Incognito used not only racial but anti gay slurs directed at Martin.

    That is why I questioned your reading and comprehension ability.

    Go back and read the page at the link you provided and if you can not find the quotation I posted from that link I will have to conclude your IQ is below room temperature.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    There are several places on sports blogs which discuss Martin's mental issues and others suspecting/claiming he was gay.

    Source them, instead of flinging insults, add links to these sources or stop making the claims.

    Parent

    Yesterday... (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    What a day for football, the Jets beat Brady a couple weeks ago and then yesterday they changed the undefeated Brees to the defeated Brees.  Geno ain't no joke.

    The winless Bucs almost beat the one loss Hawks.  They took it into OT.  The Bills looked like they might hand the Chiefs their first loss.  The Washington Negros pulled out a win in OT to a game that should have went to the Chargers.  Vick's back-up throws 7 TD's and the Browns eked out a win against the Super Bowl champs.

    And lastly, the Texans coach, Gary Kubiak, collapsed at half time while walking off the field.  The Texans look hot before half time and defeated the second half.  With all the talk of Schaub and Kubiak needing to go, the city loves both.  All indications is that he is fine, but last night was make for break, just don't see the Texans coming back from 2-6 to make the playoffs.

    Man, I can not believe half the season is already half over.  Tonight the Pack takes on the Bears at Lambeau and apparently are favored by 11.  The Pack/Bears games are the only games to us die hard GB fans.  Good to see the Pack is favored, but we all know the division rivalries can go either way.

    Well, thank goodness there was SOME (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    good football, because the Ravens now officially SUCK.

    No offense - inaccurate passing, can't run - (here's a clue, coaches: running Ray Rice up the middle DOESN'T WORK, and really, that last play was a Ray-Rice-stumble-forward-and-fall-down play?)

    No defense: Jason Campbell running for his life on 4th-and-1 and he makes the play?  Jason Campbell who was 3rd on the depth chart and been with a bunch of teams had that nitwit Solomon Wilcots gushing about veteran presence?

    What the hell did they do with their extra week?  

    Sorry - I am still ticked off that John Harbaugh and his coaching staff are still drawing up the same plain-vanilla game plan that hasn't worked all season, and expecting us to be satisfied with some version of "we need to play better."  Well, no, sh!t, Sherlock.  It's not players like Spears and Huff you need to get rid of, it's coaches like Castillo, who, in 8 games hasn't figured out that the zone-blocking scheme ISN'T WORKING.  If he's responsible for the offensive line, he needs to go, via the fastest way out of town there is.  I don't care if Harbaugh thinks he's a great teacher - Castillo sucks at coaching.

    Ravens are done.  Might as well just play for good draft position now, and I can find something else to do with that three hours that just sends my blood pressure through the roof.

    Aaaarghhhh!

    Parent

    Well You Can Have... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    ...Reed back, that guy is worthless on the field.

    If I had been drinking I would have spit it out yesterday when someone said something about it being time for Flacco to earn his new paycheck.

    Parent

    Well, I'm ready (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:08:51 PM EST
    to burn my purple sweatshirt, or donate it to Goodwill.
    It's not an official Ravens shirt or anything, but it is their exact shade of purple.     ;-)

    Parent
    Geno the Game Manager... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    RB Chris Ivory is no joke...he ran roughshod over the Saints D 18 carries 139 Yards.  Ground & Pound is back baby!

    5-4 at the bye...a most pleasant surprise.  It's amazing what a real offensive coordinator and no Tebow can do for a team.

    Praise the football gods the Seahawks came back...keepin' me alive in my suicide pool.  Close one.

    Now I gotta root for Da Bears tonight, as a couple people in the pool have the Pack.  Sorry Scott;)

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 177 (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    Twitter for Cornelius Vanderbilt, then J.P. Morgan. (link)

    Volume 176
    Volume 175

    Rainy days and Mondays yet again. Best to all of you, my friends.

    CORRECTION: Vanderbilt, Morgan, and... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    ...the federal government today.

    Parent
    Haven't independently verified these (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    numbers - although there are citations for the sources - but thought the graphic was something to think about, anyway.

    If you make $50,000 a year...

    Hard to verify (none / 0) (#50)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    SS, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and service on the debt account for about 60-70% of what the federal govt spends.  If a private company used the accounting tricks the feds use peeps would wind up in jail.  The feds borrow about 45 cents of every dollar they spend.

    Given the current tax setup if you made $US50,000 as a single payer with no dependents your tax burden would be much higher than if you were married with kids with some income from tax free bonds.

    Not to dismiss corporate welfare but just how do you determine that.  Does foodstamps used to buy Coke or other soda count as corporate welfare?  Does ethanol subsides to big ag corn growers count?  What about DOD expenditures to weapons makers?

    I am calling the $US4,000 for corporate welfare bull spit.

    Parent

    Of course, you are...what else is new? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:38:30 PM EST
    Jesus.

    Parent
    And I am Calling the.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    ...60-70% of what the federal govt spends bull spit.  It's actually 36%.

    That one is in every instruction booklet of all of our tax returns.  What the Fed spends on defense and foreign affairs is just about what it takes in on personal income taxes, roughly 25% layouts/intake.

    IRS Pie Chart, so easy to understand even a republican can figure it out.

    As far as corporate subsidies, that would be very hard to figure out in that those numbers directly effect their income, so more subsidies, more income, removing them would most certainly decrease their overall tax liability.

    Parent

    ScottW714 from your pie chart (none / 0) (#85)
    by ragebot on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    36% spent on SS and other,25% on social programs, 6% on servicing national debt.  This adds up to 65%, which is in the 60-70% range.  There have been real questions about how the federal govt keeps its books so I am more inclined to give ranges.

    Parent
    Why Do I have To Keep Quoting... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:17:27 AM EST
    ....you own words back to you.

    RageBot:

    Hard to verify
    SS, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and service on the debt account for about 60-70% of what the federal govt spends"

    Please explain to me where 'Social Programs' is in your original statement.  I called BS on your original quote, not the revised one you made after you you looked at the numbers.

    This is your forte', make a bogus claim, get called on it, you revise and act like you aren't completely full of it.

    What you originally posted was off by 25% and in my book that is BS.

    Parent

    Your getting a little picky (none / 0) (#126)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    My point is that the original claim was corporate welfare was much larger than everything else, e.g. $US4,000 compared to a few hundred dollars.  Yet there was no source for the corporate welfare.

    I pointed out that social programs like SS, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt service were somewhere between 60-70 percent of federal expenditures.

    Your objection is more along the lines of me not clearly listing everything in the 65%.

    Please try to make a substantive reply to the claim that the federal govt is spending way more money than they are taking in.

    Parent

    NFL Sunday Open Thread | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment