Ziggy

My understanding is that they allow the starting QB to pick the ball they use as a team before the spring game, or when one is decided upon. TMart liked a worn in ball, and after he went down with the injury, the team continued using that ball until this spring, when they switched to the rifle ball that Tommy prefers.

Regardless of if they practice with all week or not, it adds to the difficulty of anyone who handles the ball. You can practice catching a greased pig all you want, but it's still a greased pig. The pictures I have seen of the ball that TMart preferred looked like a greased pig compared to a brand new ball that hasn't been warm down.

It has been announced recently that the team will take the field this year with the new Rifle football, based on the choice of QB Tommy Armstrong, who as the starting QB gets to choose the football the team uses. In contrast to the ball the team had previously used under TMart, the ball will be almost right out of the box brand new, with a much tackier surface, making easier to grip. I am beginning to wonder if some of our fumble issues are ball related and the introduction of the new rifle balls we will see RB's reduce fumbles, missed pitches and catches. Obviously, I think this also helps receivers catching short yardage passes and some of the difficult pass plays. Thoughts? On my ipad so attaching recent articles is beyond me until I get home.

Yep. While I disagree with that statement, I am complete agreement with you about many of the good things that came out of the bill. I actually am interested to see why you think it is so unfeasible for a law to be passed to pass every good part of the "obamacare" without the mandate. Maybe I am just seeing it from the wrong angle. because, without the mandate there is no reason for healthy people to join the pool. then you have a pool of only unhealthy people and the insurance company will either fail to be profitable or have outrageous premiums. I would counter and say that many healthy people have insurance already, and more would if insurance companies had to fight each other for every person who wants coverage. Most people I know who want coverage but don't have it are because the costs are so high. If companies have to fight for participants, like in the exchanges, they have to offer better pricing.

This is one of the biggest reasons why the premiums are falling in New York. http://www.washingto...ng-in-new-york/ Your original article point to another part of the bill that is producing the possible decline in prices.

Yep. While I disagree with that statement, I am complete agreement with you about many of the good things that came out of the bill. I actually am interested to see why you think it is so unfeasible for a law to be passed to pass every good part of the "obamacare" without the mandate. Maybe I am just seeing it from the wrong angle.

Are you serious? You can't be serious. Please don't be serious. This and Knapplc's response in post #433 is why sometimes I hate this board. People have opinions, people discuss their opinions which is great. But then people attack the poster for their opinions, instead of attacking the opinion. The fact that Knapp is a mod and did it as well pisses me off even more. If someone doesn't like what I have to say, tell me why, ask me questions that I can help clarify. But responses like Are you Serious? , Are you joking? Are you Kidding? do nothing to further the conversation, and if anything are condensing. Rant Finished. And yes I was completely serious, and not joking in any way shape or form. I'm sure you meant #435. #433 was your post. If you think my response and The Dude's were personal attacks, I'm going to invite you not to post in Politics & Religion anymore. Those aren't remotely personal attacks, and were very specifically discussing your opinion, not YOU. Oh come on! Tell me what part of those responses are a discussion? You are implying that someones opinion is so stupid it is unbelievable and that they must be joking. That is not a discussion. If you wanted to discuss why my opinion in your mind and The Dudes mind is wrong, you state which parts of my post you find problems with while giving your opinion back up by some evidence. Just because you do not call someone stupid, or an idiot, the implication is still there.

I agree, I think the term length is key. Sign me up, I would prefer a change to term lengths and a set max number of terms allowed to serve.

http://www.slate.com...it_matters.html Only 17,000 New Yorkers currently buy insurance individually. 2.6 million are uninsured. I think a lot of the smaller parts of the bill are defiantly a good thing. My biggest problem is the mandate requiring people have insurance. I never understood why people could shop for insurance regardless of what state they lived in, or have competition between insurance companies. But I am sitting on the fence on most of the bill to see if the premium reductions are not just short term to get lots of people into the plans, and then prices go back up again. I guess I don't trust the insurance companies very much, or most big business either.

The Senate I think has the advantage of only having 100 members, making compromise easier to achieve. Most Senators are going to know each other, and know that if someone is going to support a bill, or how best to "achieve" support for a bill. The HOR, is so big, and encompasses so many factions, its much harder to get a compromise on much of anything.

Are you serious? You can't be serious. Please don't be serious. This and Knapplc's response in post #433 is why sometimes I hate this board. People have opinions, people discuss their opinions which is great. But then people attack the poster for their opinions, instead of attacking the opinion. The fact that Knapp is a mod and did it as well pisses me off even more. If someone doesn't like what I have to say, tell me why, ask me questions that I can help clarify. But responses like Are you Serious? , Are you joking? Are you Kidding? do nothing to further the conversation, and if anything are condensing. Rant Finished. And yes I was completely serious, and not joking in any way shape or form.

The strong opinions over Zimmerman end right there. He had no reason to follow Martin, he was told by 911 dispatch not to follow him, and over a minute later he was engaged in an altercation with Martin, which ended in Martin being killed. This isn't rocket science. It's not confusing, you don't need any more "clarity" than that. Don't follow a kid going home after buying candy, and both Zimmerman and the kid are going about their regular lives right now. Nobody is saying Zimmerman forfeits his right to self-defense. What people are saying is he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in, and a kid died. The decision to insert himself in that situation should have consequences. My problem with people complaining about Zimmerman being out of his vehicle, is what if Martin wasn't just packing skittles and tea? What if after he shot martin they found drugs, stolen goods, illegal guns, or something else illegal. What if Zimmerman caught a kid in the middle of planning on blowing up his school, or the community center? According to Zimmerman, he had stopped following Martin when he got out of his vehicle, and was getting an address for the police to meet him at, and was confronted by Martin and beat up. Which in recent interviews at least most of the jury also believed that Martin threw the first punch, and that Zimmerman was the one who screamed for help. What if this same situation happened and lead to the break of the Boston Bombing, or prevented Sandy Hook, then no one bats an eye. Following someone is not a threat, for all Martin knows that guy is lost or an off duty cop. Like I have said before, just because someone appears to be following you, doesn't mean they are. And if you have a cell phone and the ability to get home before the threat is real, why would you stay around to be put into a possible threatening situation. If accounts are correct, and Martin got Zimmerman on the ground and began to ground and pound, he is no longer in a defensive position, he is the aggressor, he already won the fight.

That non-working link was from your citation. What's the current status of that case? Westlaw or state citation if possible . . . Lexis won't get me far. Next . . . we're talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in Florida . . . right? You're a long ways away . . . http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html If I am not mistaken, you are the one who called me out when I said that concrete could be considered as a use of a deadly weapon in the Zimmerman/Martin Case. So you are the one with the burden of proof, to show how I am wrong. And then asked for a single case, and so I give you one, then you want me to find you the actual case as if the link didn't provide enough information for you to find it yourself, as a lawyer and all. You cant move the goalposts, and you probably shouldn't be a betting man. Here is another example in Massachusetts. http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/425/425mass146.html

http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html http://www.courts.ca...nts/B231854.PDF ^^^Where's the case? Oh come on, you can google like everyone else, don't play dumb. http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/j-l-v-people-2012-cal-app-lexis-679-ca-ct-app-2012/

http://blogs.findlaw...dly-weapon.html

Martin was identified by his skin color and clothing as being on top, backed up by Zimmerman being wet laying in the wet grass. Indeed, the witness could see if Zimmerman's head was on concrete or not, but O'Mara testified that the abrasions were consistent with head to concrete contact. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jun/28/neighbor-testifies-about-martin-zimmerman-fight/#axzz2Z8UJQtPw

Look I understand this is an emotional debate, filled with way more information than anyone can truly process and understand fully. And we have a problem that so much information that goes around is conjecture, faulty, one sided, and often misrepresented. I want people to know I am truly saddened that Trayvon Martin lost his life, I agree that it should have never came to that end. Furthermore, I agree that Zimmerman is directly responsible for Martin's death. He decided to pull his concealed pistol and use deadly force. But I want people to be able to protect their families, their communities, and their own lives. I think its important that people who are afraid for their own well being be able to do something about it legally. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person, if people in the neighborhood felt he wasn't working in their best interests, they should have done something about it. Who are we to say Zimmerman was not afraid for his life, or that he didn't see Martin do something suspicious, like cutting through peoples yards, or appearing in areas that are known to have break in problems. Martin did not deserve to die because of his actions leading up to the fight, but if he as alleged by Zimmerman, jumped him, got him to the ground, and pummeled him MMA style against a concrete walkway, then I think Zimmerman could have the belief his own life was in jeopardy and felt the use of his sidearm was necessary to prevent Martin from killing or badly injuring him further. Thirdly, people always want to make things about right and wrong, black and white, good guy bad guy. But sometimes sh#t happens and people die. Sometimes a kid thinks he is tough and is gonna beat up a creepy cracker who is following him and then gets shot, sometimes a wannabe cop wants to harass a black thug kid wearing a hoodie, and pushes the kid too far, and gets his ass kicked, and gets scarred or pissed and shoots the kid. As they say it takes two to tango, and neither Martin or Zimmerman are without blame. I will leave it to you who you think. But I am not gonna argue that one or the other is solely to blame for the actions that both took that lead to Trayvon's death.

No. That's not "using a weapon." Explain how that is not using a weapon? If I push someone into a wood chipper, that's not using a weapon? That's not how it works. If you want to say that Martin used a weapon you have to prove that he used a weapon . . . I don't have to prove that he didn't use a weapon. If it had been hard packed dirt, would you be trying to claim that he used dirt as a weapon? (Now if you pick up a chunk of concrete and hit someone with it . . . that would be "using a weapon.") Witness and police reports back up Zimmerman's story about the concrete. I said in the first quote, that he used concrete as a weapon, he used the concrete inherent density to inflect more damage to Zimmerman than if his head was on grass or dirt. So alter your words all you want, and spin your spin, but Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into concrete, which is much more damaging to the brain that if he would just punch him while they were both standing upright.

It kind of makes you wonder why . . . In fact, I can understand passionate feelings regarding the death of an unarmed teenager . . . but it is very hard for me to understand passionate feelings on behalf of Zimmerman . . . Because I am tired of people making it out that somehow our judicial system failed us every time a jury chooses not to hand out what the public deems is right based on opinions and what the media has pushed since they sensationalized the whole thing.

Wrong. Zimmerman getting out of his car prompted Martin's response. Yes, Martin could have chose a different set of actions, but the actions he did choose were made in response to being followed and confronted. Zimmerman is still at fault and still the catalyst for the entire thing. You're trying way too hard on this and it's disturbing. I am not blaming Martin for Zimmerman getting out of his car. I am merely using the actual evidence to construct what jurors used to made their determination. If every time someone got out of a car after they appeared to be following me I would have had a lot of run ins with the law. By your logic only Zimmerman is responsible for his actions. You and I have no evidence showing that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Zimmerman told the police that he went to go find an address to send the police when they got to the area. He never wavered during any of the questioning that police put him through about his timeline.

How could he grab at a holstered and concealed gun? It became unconcealed during the altercation, is what Zimmerman told police. Martin was wearing a hoodie, and Zimmerman had on a jacket which concealed his gun IIRC.

No. That's not "using a weapon." Explain how that is not using a weapon? If I push someone into a wood chipper, that's not using a weapon?

Zimmerman said that Martin grabbed his gun... yet there is no DNA evidence to support this. So why am I supposed to believe the rest of his story? He grabbed at his gun, he had the gun holstered. DNA is the the end all of evidence, and the police say the only DNA they could recover was Zimmerman's. Incomplete or unreadable DNA is deemed inadmissible.

You mean aside from the fact that the only person with a gun pursued and confronted the only person without a gun? That evidence is kinda crucial, and paints a very different picture of the situation. It's really hard not to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor here with the available information. He left his vehicle because the dispatcher asked him which direction Martin went, and Zimmerman was parked in a spot where he could no longer follow by vehicle. Martin at any time could have called the police himself, 1 could have ran home, could have called his dad. Martin did none of these things, 2 he instead keep talking to his friend on his cell, and called Zimmerman a "cracker". 3 Why would a kid scared for his life turn and challenge a larger and older man instead of going home, calling someone to help him or getting his father involved in some way? 4 Where is the evidence that Zimmerman instigated the altercation that lead to Martin being shot. There is none, Zimmerman showed no bruising on his knuckles to indicate he even punched Martin. Zimmerman was also the only one to sustain any injuries prior to the gun shot. 5 Following someone is not a crime, its not aggressive, its not a justification to get into a physical altercation with someone over. First bold: He was going home. Second bold: It is not a crime to talk on your cell phone, nor is it a crime to describe someone as a "cracker" to your friend on the phone. Neither talking on your phone nor telling the person you're talking to that someone you see is a "crazy-ass cracker" warrants being stopped by someone you have no knowledge of or contact with. Third bold: I can think of a dozen reasons why he would do that, ranging from he's a nut-job trying to show off how tough he is to he's scared for his life because that larger, older man is threatening him with a gun. Neither I nor you know why he did that, or if Zimmerman gave him no chance to flee. Fourth bold: You mean aside from the fact that he was in his car, then left his car and pursued and contacted Martin? Third bold: Agree, but while it may not be a crime, it's also not prudent. Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, Martin would have gone home and lived. Zimmerman made the decision to leave his car while armed and pursue a teenager walking home, make contact with him, and then shooting him dead. The instigator in all of this is Zimmerman, not Martin. Martin was on a sidewalk, walking home from the convenience store. Nothing he did, nothing that he's alleged to have done, is illegal. You got your numbers messed up, need edited for other readers. 1. ok 2. I never said it was a crime, I said he could have hung up with his friend and called 911 or his father if he felt he was in danger from Zimmerman. 3. You have no evidence to back the second statement up, we only know Zimmerman was a legal conceal carry permit owner, not if he had it out, conceal, waving it around, pointing it etc. Zimmerman maintained he concealed it until Martin make a move toward it at which point he pulled it and fired killing Martin. 4. All well within his rights. 5. So because he got out of his car, Martin is dead, not because Martin got into an altercation with Zimmerman. Martin was out of Zimmerman's field of vision before Zimmerman got out of his car. Martin could have very easily made it home without every getting into that fight. Both parties are equally at fault for the altercation happening. 6. Following someone is not an excuse to get into a fight with someone, nor is it alright to slam a persons head into concrete. By all accounts he was the person on top pummeling Zimmerman, which is illegal, he used concrete as a weapon, which is attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.

Are you joking? The dispatcher asked him NOT TO FOLLOW MARTIN. http://www.documentc...-zimmerman.html You are assuming Martin started the altercation. Threw the first punch. You don't know this, you can't know this. The dispatcher is not a law enforcement officer, they only give recommendations. So just because they say that Zimmerman needs to follow the suspect, he is within his legal rights to continue to do so until a police officer has relieved him. My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same. Your assumption is based off of your preconceived notion that Zimmerman was guilty long before the trial ever started. Secondly, after the Boston bombing, 9/11, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc etc, we are told to be on the look out for suspicious behavior and to report it to the authorities to possibly stop these horrible events from happening again. I agree with this notion, and Zimmerman took it farther than I would have(though completely within his legal rights), but as long as we have people who break the law, and we continue to not have cops around every corner, its up to citizens to help police stay informed. We cant have it both ways, either people help stop crimes from being committed, or people give up their rights to complain when bad things happen that can be avoided.