Digest for alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic

Monday, April 23, 2018

John Walsh <jwalsh589@gmail.com>: Apr 23 11:37AM -1000

John Lynch: Reuben Foster out if charges proven true
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000928065/article/john-lynch-reuben-foster-out-if-charges-proven-true
 
The San Francisco 49ers are electing to allow the judicial process to
play out before deciding on the future of linebacker Reuben Foster.
 
Speaking to the media on Monday, general manager John Lynch noted that
the "gravity" of the charges is not lost on the organization.
 
Foster is facing three felonies stemming from an alleged attack on his
girlfriend -- domestic violence with an allegation that he inflicted
great bodily harm; forcefully attempting to prevent a victim from
reporting a crime; and possession of an assault weapon.
 
Lynch said if the charges are proven true, "he won't be a part of this
organization going forward," per NFL Network's Jim Trotter.
 
Lynch says decision on Foster will be based on both information
that comes out as case progresses as well as the final outcome of the
case. Keeps stressing that the organization needs more information.
ā?? Jim Trotter (@JimTrotter_NFL) April 23, 2018
 
The 49ers are allowing due process to run its course with the 2017
first-round linebacker a year after cutting ties with corner Tramaine
Brock immediately following a domestic violence arrest. Charges on
Brock were later dropped, and he was cleared by the NFL.
 
On Monday, Lynch confirmed that Foster will continue to be kept away
from Niners offseason workouts. The team is working with the young
linebacker to create a structure away from the facility, the GM added.
 
In addition to the criminal charges, Foster is subject to potential
NFL discipline under the league's personal conduct policy, which
mandates a six-game suspension for a first-time domestic violence
offense.
cao <pobox19875@gmail.com>: Apr 23 08:47PM -0700

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 2:37:30 PM UTC-7, John Walsh wrote:
> NFL discipline under the league's personal conduct policy, which
> mandates a six-game suspension for a first-time domestic violence
> offense.
 
Yeah man. Due process. Innocent until proven guilty. We learned about it in Civics class. And this would be the right move...if this were 10 years ago. But not now. Now it is a hand grenade with no pin.
 
So if the girlfriend tanks (recants, whatever) and Reuben walks it all peace and harmony? I don't think so. Lynch is playing with fire.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Apr 23 07:12AM -0700

And on another note, Markov wins the KHL championship last night. Nice to see he got something after the Olympic snub.
 
l8r,
Gerry
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Apr 23 11:52AM -0400

On 04/23/2018 11:24 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> shocking life events. You can still prepare in advance even though you
>> lack the ability to see the inevitable.
 
> LOL!!! Say the moron who had Hillary winning.

Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election day, so
clearly she was the most reasonable choice. It also seems reasonable in
retrospect that the polling did a poor job of accounting for the non-legal
assistance provided by foreign nationals in the election.
 
I will also point out that you were dead-assed wrong about the 2008 and
2012 elections, and both times you had exactly the same "gut feeling" even
though they were also behind in the polls on election day.
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 11:02AM -0500

>> you've bought that shit. At one time you offered a reasonable
>> conservative view. Now it is just Trump idiocy.
 
>You were reasonable at one time. No more.
 
Now where did I hear that? Oh, its what I said to you about an hour
ago. Can't you come up with an original thought?
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 11:04AM -0500

>> shocking life events. You can still prepare in advance even though you
>> lack the ability to see the inevitable.
 
>LOL!!! Say the moron who had Hillary winning.
 
EVERYONE had Hillary winning....including you.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Apr 23 11:32AM -0500


>> You were reasonable at one time. No more.
 
> Now where did I hear that? Oh, its what I said to you about an hour
> ago. Can't you come up with an original thought?
 
Still the truth.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Apr 23 08:49PM -0700

- hide quoted text -
> that thinks Donald Trump has any worth at all. I can't believe that
> you've bought that shit. At one time you offered a reasonable
> conservative view. Now it is just Trump idiocy.
 
You were reasonable at one time. No more.
 
No truer words...
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 11:00AM -0500

>> article. Unlike you the author gives a balanced view.
 
>Your hypocrisy about the media is astounding. And like you would know
>anything about balance lefty.
You're dead assed wrong Mike. I know a hell of a lot more than you
would like to give credit for. This review was balanced and you can't
see it through your shit stained eyes. Trump really has gotten to
you.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Apr 23 11:33AM -0500

> would like to give credit for. This review was balanced and you can't
> see it through your shit stained eyes. Trump really has gotten to
> you.
 
Balanced according to you. Which isn't saying much.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Apr 23 09:34AM -0700

On 2018-04-23 9:33 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> see it through your shit stained eyes.  Trump really has gotten to
>> you.
 
> Balanced according to you. Which isn't saying much.
 
What have you EVER produced here for support that even had a scintilla
of balance, Mikey?
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 12:26PM -0500

>> see it through your shit stained eyes. Trump really has gotten to
>> you.
 
>Balanced according to you. Which isn't saying much.
 
Then you didn't read the review. Which is saying everything.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Apr 23 01:14PM -0500

>>> you.
 
>> Balanced according to you. Which isn't saying much.
 
> Then you didn't read the review. Which is saying everything.
 
I did read it. You have a biased view of balance. Basically if you agree
with it, you declare it balanced. Otherwise its, "snore", or
"horseshit", ect,ect.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Apr 23 11:25AM -0700

On 2018-04-23 11:14 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
> I did read it. You have a biased view of balance. Basically if you agree
> with it, you declare it balanced. Otherwise its, "snore", or
> "horseshit", ect,ect.
 
So demonstrate it's supposed bias in some concrete way, Mikey.
 
Or are you just incapable of that?
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 01:40PM -0500


>I did read it. You have a biased view of balance. Basically if you agree
>with it, you declare it balanced. Otherwise its, "snore", or
>"horseshit", ect,ect.
 
I have opinions just as you do. Never have you offered an unbiased
view, but I have. This revue pointed out the author's positive AND
negative thoughts about Comey. How is that not balanced? If you ever
present both sides of an argument it'll be stunning. In the meantime
its iniquitous for you to make the statement that others are biased.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Apr 23 11:48AM -0700

> negative thoughts about Comey. How is that not balanced? If you ever
> present both sides of an argument it'll be stunning. In the meantime
> its iniquitous for you to make the statement that others are biased.
 
Mikey barely ever presents arguments at all.
 
He sneers at the sources of others.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Apr 23 02:07PM -0500

>> "horseshit", ect,ect.
 
> I have opinions just as you do. Never have you offered an unbiased
> view, but I have.
 
BWHAHAHAHHA!! Riiiiiight.
 
 
This revue pointed out the author's positive AND
> negative thoughts about Comey. How is that not balanced? If you ever
> present both sides of an argument it'll be stunning. In the meantime
> its iniquitous for you to make the statement that others are biased.
 
Others ARE indeed biased. Including me. Including you.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Apr 23 12:21PM -0700

On 2018-04-23 12:07 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> present both sides of an argument it'll be stunning.  In the meantime
>> its iniquitous for you to make the statement that others are biased.
 
> Others ARE indeed biased. Including me. Including you.
 
Only you only care about bias part of the time.
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 04:02PM -0500

>> present both sides of an argument it'll be stunning. In the meantime
>> its iniquitous for you to make the statement that others are biased.
 
>Others ARE indeed biased. Including me. Including you.
 
I know you don't have a comprehension problem but you sure have the
ability to keep from addressing the true content of a post.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Apr 23 08:57AM -0700

On 2018-04-23 7:43 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>> authenticity of his reports and his own credibility."
 
>> More here: https://goo.gl/4w5QTt
 
> Notice how carby like to pawn off opinion as fact?
 
How is this doing that?
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Apr 23 06:34PM

MNMikeW wrote:
 
> > own credibility."
 
> > More here: https://goo.gl/4w5QTt
 
> Notice how carby like to pawn off opinion as fact?
 
No, but I notice those that live in a world of twitter literally do not
know the difference.
 
--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting, ignorant, cowardly, racist, homophobic, latrine
cleaning mawine.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: Apr 23 08:26PM +0200

Lol, does this old doofus even work.
 
Oh I forgot, he is a millionaire!
 
Lol
Maybe the clown can count some of those millions for us.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: Apr 23 11:10AM -0700

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:49:20 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > This is for you dumbcuntUK
 
> > <https://www.dailywire.com/news/29674/bombshell-report-suggests-cnn-helped-orchestrate-ryan-saavedra>
 
> What in that article shows "orchestration", Mikey?
 
For one thing, that it is from the fired Brietbart Ryan Saavedra
suggests an orchestration as a right wing smear job.
 
For another, the liberal use of "suggests" and "may have" upfront
illustrates that they have nothing, even as the article tries to
morph to make more declarative claims.
 
And then there's their own use of supposedly classified docs,
while simultaneously claiming that that it would have been
impossible for Comey to ever have released redacted versions,
which illustrates the flawed logic being attempted in the article.
 
Similarly, information which is being claimed as "lacked even
a possibility of corroboration" ... has before this article's
publication date included elements which _have_ been corroborated.
 
And its interesting to wonder just how Comey was able to write
meeting records weeks & months prior to him able to become angry
at the future blindsiding event of him being fired.
 
Other than that, Mrs Lincoln thinks it was a great play! /S
 
 
-hh
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 10:56AM -0500


>>> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/rosenstein-said-to-tell-trump-he-s-not-target-in-mueller-probe>
 
>>> 3. "Sources say". Why are anonymous sources suddenly OK with you?
 
>Why not? They certainly are OK with you.
 
You'll be hard pressed to show that.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Apr 23 11:35AM -0500

>>> not officially be a target, but Mueller hasn't ruled out making him
>>> one at some point in the future, according to a U.S. official with
>>> knowledge of the unfolding investigation:
 
Hmm, this quote you just used is from "a U.S. official with knowledge of
the unfolding investigation".
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 12:41PM -0500


>>>>> 3. "Sources say". Why are anonymous sources suddenly OK with you?
 
>>> Why not? They certainly are OK with you.
 
>> You'll be hard pressed to show that.
 
To begin with I wasn't the one who posted that question to you. It
was added to my original post by Alan.
>>>> knowledge of the unfolding investigation:
 
>Hmm, this quote you just used is from "a U.S. official with knowledge of
>the unfolding investigation".
 
The direct quote to which I posted was told in the heading and
repeated in the article.....that Rosenberg told Trump he wasn't a
target by Mueller. That isn't anonymous.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Apr 23 11:30AM -0500

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:24:31 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
wrote
 
>>LOL!!! Say the moron who had Hillary winning.
 
> EVERYONE had Hillary winning....including you.
 
Not me. Serial liar.
--
BK@Onramp.net: Apr 23 11:13AM -0500

>a friend of Comey. And very recently, he posted another article from
>another Comey pal saying its balanced. One was posted by Fox, one my
>Rolling ston
Perfect example of you having your head up your ass. I didn't bash
any article by a friend of Comey's....that was the one on Rolling
Stone and I thought it balanced. The only thing I had to say about
the Fox report was "Snore". It didn't criticize Comey but did Lynch.
Why would I bash it?
 
Again you come up with stupid shit.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.