Digest for alt.sports.football.pro.sf-49ers@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 3 topics

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

"Toast" <toast@yahoo.com>: Feb 28 03:19PM +0100

A comprehensive examination of all the things New England's
model franchise has been bad at since the 2001 season
 
It's impossible to be perfect at football. The game is too
multifaceted. You can have 21 great starters, but if your
quarterback stinks, then your team will probably stink, too.
Even the best rosters in the NFL have weaknesses. No team is
dominant on offense and on defense and also on special teams.
 
No team, apparently, except the Patriots. Which is a bummer,
because I've hated the Patriots for the entirety of my adult
life. It's easy to root against them in theory, but it's
tiresome to root against them emotionally — after years of
trying, there's simply no way that I can argue they suck. They
have been excellent on offense, led by an ageless, all-time
quarterback, and have finished among the top 10 in the league in
points scored in 15 of the past 16 years. On defense, they've
finished in the top 10 in points allowed in 13 of the past 16
seasons. And head coach Bill Belichick thinks more about special
teams in one day than most of us do in a lifetime. A writer for
Bleacher Report tried to evaluate the Patriots' strengths and
weaknesses this spring and came to the conclusion that all of
the Patriots' position groups are strengths except running back
(where New England had the league leader in rushing touchdowns
last season) and special teams (where the Pats have the fourth-
most-accurate kicker of all time among players with at least 60
attempts). It sounds too positive to be unbiased, only it's
maddeningly accurate.
 
During its dynasty, New England has had Pro Bowlers at every
position except punter and long snapper. (Technically, it has
never had a Pro Bowl right tackle either, but the Pro Bowl
doesn't categorize linemen by side.) Belichick is not just a
historically great coach, but he's also an expert roster
builder. There are no famous Pats draft busts; they've given few
hideous contracts to undeserving players (they gave $35 million
to Adalius Thomas, that's about it); and they often fleece teams
on the rarely used NFL trade market.
 
As part of The Ringer's Patriots Week, I wanted to find the
things that the Pats are bad at. Not the things they're worse
than their own standard at — for instance, the Patriots are 43-
19 in night games since 2001, which equates to a worse winning
percentage (69.4) than their overall 196-60 record (76.6) during
that stretch, but can be explained by the higher caliber of
competition in prime-time matchups and still shows that New
England is really, really good. Rather, I set out to find the
aspects of football in which the Pats are worse than league
average.
 
Over the duration of their dynasty, the Patriots have had almost
no flaws. But I discovered five! More often than not, though,
New England's miniature failings teach us something about its
successes.
 
1. Landing Skill-Position Stars Early in the NFL Draft
The Patriots tend to avoid targeting skill-position players in
the early rounds of the draft — and they don't have an
impressive hit rate when they buck that trend. Below is a list
of the Pats' skill-position player draft picks in the first four
rounds since 2001:
 
First round: Laurence Maroney (RB, 2006), Ben Watson (TE, 2004),
Daniel Graham (TE, 2002)
Second round: Jimmy Garoppolo (QB, 2015), Aaron Dobson (WR,
2013), Shane Vereen (RB, 2011), Rob Gronkowski (TE, 2010), Chad
Jackson (WR, 2006), Bethel Johnson (WR, 2003), Deion Branch (WR,
2002)
Third round: Jacoby Brissett (QB, 2016), Ryan Mallett (QB,
2011), Stevan Ridley (RB, 2011), Taylor Price (WR, 2010),
Brandon Tate (WR, 2009), Kevin O'Connell (QB, 2008), David
Thomas (TE, 2006)
Fourth round: Malcolm Mitchell (WR, 2016), James White (RB,
2014), Josh Boyce (WR, 2013), Aaron Hernandez (TE, 2010),
Garrett Mills (FB, 2006), Cedric Cobbs (RB, 2004), Rohan Davey
(QB, 2002)
There is one legitimate superstar above: The Pats landed Gronk,
who is on track to become the most statistically prolific tight
end ever, with the 42nd overall pick in 2010. There are a few
more players who made significant contributions to the team's
success — Deion Branch was the Super Bowl XXXIX MVP; Stevan
Ridley posted a 1,200-yard rushing season in 2012; and from a
strictly on-field perspective, I suppose Aaron Hernandez was a
good pick — but that list of names raises plenty of questions.
 
First: How did New England end up with so many bad wide
receivers? Boyce, Dobson, Price, Jackson, and Johnson quickly
busted out of the league. Tate has found a modicum of success in
Cincinnati and most recently Buffalo, but the Pats cut him after
two seasons.
 
Second: Why so many quarterbacks? The Patriots have had Tom
Brady this entire time, but since 2001 they've used five first-
or second-day selections on backup passers. Garoppolo might be
good, and it's far too early to issue judgment on Brissett. But
it's hard to say anything positive about Mallett, O'Connell, or
Davey.
 
And finally, how is it possible that any team — let alone a team
that's won so many freaking games — has failed to land a star
skill-position player with a first-round draft pick in 17 years?
Think of a franchise that's been trash at drafting players, and
it's probably landed a standout skill-position player with a
first-round pick since 2001. (I picked the Jets. I had to go way
back, but eventually got to Santana Moss.) To be fair, most of
the Patriots' picks have come late in the first round, but they
still haven't been good. Laurence Maroney had the worst career
of the four first-round running backs taken in 2006 (Reggie
Bush, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai); Ben Watson and Daniel
Graham were decent tight ends, but neither was worthy of a top-
32 selection. (In the best season either player ever had, Watson
ranked seventh among tight ends in receptions and eighth in
receiving yards.)
 
Of course, what's happening here is easily explained by the
Patriots' other successes. They have found value in grabbing
defensive players early, as it's been 11 drafts since the Pats
used their first pick on a skill-position player. They've had a
lot of hits with that strategy, nabbing Pro Bowlers like Jamie
Collins, Chandler Jones, Devin McCourty, and Brandon
Meriweather. And New England has been excellent at locating
skill players through other means. Finding Brady in the sixth
round is the greatest draft pick of all time, and Julian Edelman
was a seventh-rounder. The Pats traded — and didn't even give up
a lot — to get Wes Welker and Randy Moss. Three of the team's
leading rushers since 2011 — LeGarrette Blount, Jonas Gray, and
BenJarvus Green-Ellis — were essentially unwanted before signing
with New England.
 
The Patriots haven't been good at this, but they haven't needed
to be.
 
2. Having an Effective Run Defense
There have been only a few seasons in New England's dynastic
reign in which the team's run defense has been elite. In 2005,
the Pats allowed just 3.6 yards per rush, the fourth-best figure
in the league. But they've ranked in the bottom 10 in that stat
five times since 2001, including a 29th-place finish in 2002 and
a 28th-place finish in 2007.
 
Scrolling through Football Outsiders' defensive line statistics
pages, it's easy to find run defense stats in which the Pats
finished last or close to last in the NFL. In 2014, they allowed
first downs on 81 percent of opposing third- or fourth-and-short
run plays, the worst power success rate in the league. In 2013,
they stopped only 13 percent of opposing runs at or behind the
line of scrimmage, the worst stuff rate in the league. (They
also finished dead last in stuff rate in 2004, and have never
finished inside the top 10 during their dynasty.) In 2012, they
were the second-worst team at stopping runs off the right
defensive end and the third-worst at stopping runs off the left
defensive end. In 2009, they were the worst in the league at
stopping runs between the guards.
 
Still, New England has found a way to make stops when it counts.
In 2014, when they had the worst power success rate in the
league, they also allowed only six rushing touchdowns — the
second fewest in the NFL. The Pats surrendered just six rushing
scores last season as well, the fewest in the league. And they
keep contain. New England has given up a mere 107 rushing plays
of 20-plus yards since 2001, an average of 6.7 per year and the
second fewest in the NFL behind the Ravens. (The Saints, Rams,
Bills, and Browns have allowed twice as many opposing runs of 20-
plus yards.)
 
The Patriots may rarely make stops behind the line of scrimmage,
but they routinely have exceptional linebackers and disciplined
secondaries that refuse to break when the defense bends.
 
3. Having a Good Defense in General From 2010-2012
The Pats failed to place a defense in the top 24 of yards
allowed for three straight seasons. Things bottomed out in the
2011 campaign, when they allowed 6.2 yards per play, 30th in the
league. New England allowed the second-most passing yards in the
NFL (4,703) and the most first downs (370) that fall. It started
players such as Kyle Love, Jerod Mayo, James Ihedigbo, and 34-
year-old Shaun Ellis. It couldn't stop the pass or the run.
 
The result of that awful defense? A trip to Super Bowl XLVI. And
the Pats almost won it, because they somehow managed to generate
turnovers. New England forced 34 turnovers in 2011, third most
in the league. This tendency was a constant during this period.
 
 
The Pats racking up a lot of turnovers despite being inefficient
defensively makes some logical sense: Perhaps they were gambling
for interceptions or forced fumbles, or perhaps opponents took
more risks against a defense that had proved porous. This
defense was also on the field a lot, thanks to a quick-scoring
Patriots offense and a tendency to allow first downs. Still,
it's stunning that New England was simultaneously bad and good
at defense for a three-season stretch. It hasn't finished inside
the bottom 10 in yards per play — or in the top 10 in turnovers
forced — since.
 
4. Punting
I searched so hard for things the Patriots were bad at. I
searched their quarter-by-quarter splits. (They've been kind of
bad in the second quarter over the past two years, but it's not
a trend that holds in the long run.) I dug into their
directional running splits, and how their performances varied by
kickoff time and time zone. I looked at their offensive line
stats during the supposedly dreadful two-year period when
longtime positional coach Dante Scarnecchia was semi-retired; in
spite of that one horrendous AFC championship game against the
Broncos, they were awesome. There have been no trends at which
the Patriots have been consistently bad.
 
Except for punting! Since 2002 (as far back as ESPN's data
goes), the Pats have finished in the bottom five of net punting
four times, ranking 32nd in 2009 with a measly 36.4 net yards
per punt. The first punter of the dynasty era, Ken Walter, was
honestly just very bad. (I truly cannot praise Football
Outsiders enough; here is an in-depth analysis of Walter from
2003.) New England has been in the top five in net punting
during its dynastic run only once, in 2011, when it was fifth.
The grand disgrace of the Patriots: On average, throughout this
span, they've placed 17th in net punting.
 
This is surprising, considering Bill Belichick absolutely loves
punting. Especially left-footed punters. Here, read 628 words
from Bill Belichick about punting. My guess is that the
Patriots' net punting averages are sophisticated in a way that
the numbers can't explain. Belichick would not be sold short
here. He has earned our trust on this of all things.
 
I refuse to give it to him. The Patriots are excellent at
everything, and their fans know it. But I will never let them
live down the embarrassment of being mediocre in net punting
average.
 
5. Beating the Giants in the Super Bowl
The Pats are the NFL's model franchise since the turn of the
millennium. They have almost no flaws. They have a winning
record against 30 NFL teams since 2001. (Congratulations to the
Packers, who have gone 2-2 against New England.)
 
But like I said up at the top: Football is multifaceted. Nobody
is perfect.
 
Nobody.
 
https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/8/10/16126598/new-england-
patriots-dynasty-five-flaws
"Toast" <toast@yahoo.com>: Feb 28 02:14PM +0100

Price: $19.99 & FREE Returns
 
https://www.amazon.com/Patriots-Suck-T-Shirt-Hate-
Shirt/dp/B077Q4R62R
"Repatriation To Africa" <bye.nigs@naacp.org>: Feb 28 08:53AM +0100

Papa John's International Inc. will no longer be the official
pizza of the National Football League, the pizza chain and the
league said Tuesday.
 
"While the NFL remains an important channel for us, we have
determined that there are better ways to reach and activate this
audience," Papa John's Chief Executive Steve Ritchie said on a
conference call. Instead, the company will shift its marketing
from the broader NFL sponsorship to partnerships with 22 NFL
teams and on its relationships with league players and
personalities,...
 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/papa-johns-is-no-longer-the-nfls-
official-pizza-1519776546
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 rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 4 topics

Eric Ramon <ramon.eric@gmail.com>: Feb 28 05:28PM -0800

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second
 
the Washington Post also talked about it
 
'One of the strangest moments came when he argued that the alleged shooter in the tragedy in Parkland, Fla. — about whom there were numerous red flags — should have had his guns taken away, regardless of what the law allowed.
 
"I think they should have taken them away, whether they had the right or not," Trump said. He added later, in case there was any doubt: "Take the guns first, go through due process second."'
 
The NRA didn't much like it.
 
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/nra-issues-blistering-statement-on-trump-gun-control-meeting-great-tv-but-bad-policy/
unclejr <watsona64@gmail.com>: Feb 28 08:10PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 7:28:31 PM UTC-6, Eric Ramon wrote:
 
> "I think they should have taken them away, whether they had the right or not," Trump said. He added later, in case there was any doubt: "Take the guns first, go through due process second."'
 
> The NRA didn't much like it.
 
> https://www.mediaite.com/tv/nra-issues-blistering-statement-on-trump-gun-control-meeting-great-tv-but-bad-policy/
 
His position on this matter will change 10 times between now and the summer.
CtrlAltDel <altiemcd@aol.com>: Mar 01 02:38AM

they tried to fuck Allah up the ass anyway and paid for it. Muslims
don't get tricked; they know when Allah is getting plod-ed.
 
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/indonesian-christians-flogged-in-rare-
shariah-punishment-for-non-muslims-1519815905>
 
https://is.gd/xJW1MM
Some dued <theodoreward@gmail.com>: Feb 28 03:26PM -0800

If the topic is getting rid of lobbyists then I agree it's the same thing. But is that the topic that we're discussing?
"the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" <the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com>: Feb 28 12:42PM -0800

I like this.
 
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/heres-how-to-stop-deranged-madman-killing-defenseless-kids/
 
By no means a perfect solution. If the world were perfect, we wouldn't need a solution.
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.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for alt.sports.hockey.nhl.mtl-canadiens@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 1 topic

gorgofromns@gmail.com: Feb 28 06:06AM -0800

Apparently he's 2 for 4 on the shootout and has scored a couple of near ones. I have no problem with it, MaxPac is 0 for 8 going to last season.
Chuck <barberphoto411@gmail.com>: Feb 28 06:27AM -0800

Always have found CJ's choices odd. 2 for 4 is good. Time to bring in a shoot out consultant. And get their shooters to be a little less predictable. Too often shooters on all teams can't resist being too fancy with the puck and run out of ice!
Nyssa <Nyssa@flawlesslogic.com>: Feb 28 09:29AM -0500


> Apparently he's 2 for 4 on the shootout and has scored a
> couple of near ones. I have no problem with it, MaxPac is
> 0 for 8 going to last season.
 
Oh, how I wish it had been MaxPac going bye-bye instead of
Plecks!
 
Our Dear Leader is still here with his platitudes after losses
though, so I guess the Foxhole thinks that makes him more useful
than winning face offs or other trivial stuff like crashing
the net or scoring.
 
Nyssa, who is getting very cynical at this point that anything
will change for the better over the summer either
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Feb 28 07:40AM -0800

I never understand when a big scorer doesn't want to do shootouts. Ovechkin is like that too iirc. I know Pacioretty has a history of sucking on breakaways and shootouts. But come on, the guy can snipe, he isn't one of the top 5 goal-scoring wingers the last 5 years for nothing. Come in fast and shoot hard, it doesn't have to be anything fancy. I also don't understand why a captain doesn't want the game on his stick in this situation. Don't underestimate yourself, dude! I know this isn't the way you get most of your goals in games, but those goals aren't all flukes either. Pacioretty can skate and shoot with the best, and nobody is checking him in a shootout, he ought to be more of an asset in that situation IMHO.
 
Schlemko, wow, maybe he got lucky a couple of times, but I doubt he scored more than 10 goals in a season anywhere since junior. Pacioretty scored 39 in the NHL and shouldn't be out of the mix when you get past the top-3.
 
Anyway, it's a bit of a <shrug> all the same, because a loss is actually better for the Habs than a win at this point in the season. (Sorry Charlie!)
 
l8r,
Gerry
Chuck <barberphoto411@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:08AM -0800

Maybe too many players treat the shootout like a slam dunk competition, thinking who can make the highlight reel. Some Players may have very accurate shots during game play, but give them a chance to deke, accuracy drops
Gerry <gerry14@hotmail.com>: Feb 28 09:17AM -0800

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:08:36 PM UTC-5, Chuck wrote:
> Maybe too many players treat the shootout like a slam dunk competition, thinking who can make the highlight reel. Some Players may have very accurate shots during game play, but give them a chance to deke, accuracy drops
 
Definitely. I can't believe how many guys come in slow, dipsy-doodling, and then run out of real estate and waste their chance at the end. That's not how they score goals in real life. Even on a clean breakaway in a game you have to skate hard and make the moves at game speed, shootout should be no different IMO. Maybe there are a few Datsyukian magicians out there who can be an exception to that, but the vast majority of players aren't in that category.
 
Pet peeve. :)
 
l8r,
Gerry
Chuck <barberphoto411@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:24AM -0800

It doesn't appear Coaches make any effort to simplify player's shootout efforts
Mike <mike@gmail.com>: Feb 28 01:33PM -0400

On 2018-02-28 10:29 AM, Nyssa wrote:
> the net or scoring.
 
> Nyssa, who is getting very cynical at this point that anything
> will change for the better over the summer either
 
according to Bergy in his presser Max is doing his best. Max says he
takes his share of the blame, can't take all the blame though, he has a
family, blah blah.
 
I guess were supposed to feel bad for him. The poor guy. So give up the
Captaincy and give it to someone who won't crack under the pressure. Why
the players picked this guy to be their leader speaks volumes doesn't it?
 
I'll give Bergy this much - he said he wants to move forward with youth,
speed and character. Yep on all 3 fronts but especially on the character
front. There isn't any on this team. There was when Bergy took over but
for all his BS about character, he chased it all out of this team and
replaced it with players who lack it. Yet another reason to not buy in
to his continuing stream of BS.
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 5 topics

MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Feb 28 03:58PM -0600


> There is no independent clause. There is only one sentence and it is
> about a well regulated militia manned by people that keep and bear
> arms.
 
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:59PM

Clave wrote:
 
 
> > > The text...blah blah...
 
> > Your repeated
 
> I will, yes:
 
Post something you understand so you can support it. If you cannot
debate the point then you cannot make the point.
 
NN F#4
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 10:00PM

Clave has nothing to say:
 
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 10:01PM

Clave has nothing to say:
 
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 10:02PM

Clave has nothing to say:
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 10:12PM

Clave still has nothing to say:
 
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 10:12PM

Clave wrote:
 
> > > Simple? LOL! And no, they did not blow it in the least.
> > Was it unanimous then?
 
> Why would it need to be, limey troll?
 
Are you saying you don't know or that it is unimportant how tenuoulsy
this "right" is percieved?
 
If I'm a troll I have you hook, line a sinker.
 
You're fucking obsessed... even when I filtered you out and ignored you
you couldn't stop responding to my posts. I'm catnip and you're a flea
ridden mangy pussy.
 
:)
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Feb 28 04:12PM -0600

>>> simple for Congress to legislate a more descriptive law.
 
>> Simple? LOL!
> OK, not simple for this Congress.
 
Not for ANY Congress. You need 2/3s from both chambers.
 
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 10:13PM

Clave still has nothing to say:
 
 
--
Moderate! STOP!
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:34PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:59 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Post something you understand
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:34PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:00 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Clave has nothing to say:
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:35PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:01 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Clave has nothing to say:
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:35PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:02 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Clave has nothing to say:
 
> --
> Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:37PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:12 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
>> Why would it need to be, limey troll?
 
> Are you saying you don't know or that it is unimportant how tenuoulsy
> this "right" is percieved?
 
Neither.
 
I am saying that we have always had the unfortunate appointment of
libitarded activist judges.
 
> If I'm a troll I have you hook, line a sinker.
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
 
> you couldn't stop responding to my posts. I'm catnip and you're a flea
> ridden mangy pussy.
 
> :)
 
And now your home group gets to enjoy your inanity as well!
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:37PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:12 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Clave still has nothing to say:
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:38PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:13 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Clave still has nothing to say:
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Feb 28 04:41PM -0600

DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> you couldn't stop responding to my posts. I'm catnip and you're a flea
> ridden mangy pussy.
 
> :)
 
And yet, here you are responding. Even when you filtered him out and
ignored him.
 
By the way, it's tenuously and perceived DCUK.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:48PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:41 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> :)
 
> And yet, here you are responding. Even when you filtered him out and
> ignored him.
 
Those killfiles have revolving doors, doncha know...
BK@Onramp.net: Feb 28 08:45PM -0600

>> about a well regulated militia manned by people that keep and bear
>> arms.
 
>WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
LOL.
 
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Feb 28 02:51PM -0800

'Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and one of
President Trump's longest-serving advisers, is to step down, the
administration says.
 
The 29-year-old former model and ex-Trump Organization employee has been
by Mr Trump's side for years.
 
She is reported to have told colleagues she felt she had accomplished
all she could in the White House.'
 
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43235675>
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:52PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 3:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> 'Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and one of
> President Trump's longest-serving advisers, is to step down,
 
Any thing of the slightest consequence happen up in Canuckistan today?
 
No?
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Feb 28 09:28PM -0500

On 02/28/2018 05:51 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
 
 
> She is reported to have told colleagues she felt she had accomplished
> all she could in the White House.'
 
> <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43235675>
 
She must know she's not getting away from what's coming. I'm guessing she
just panicked.
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: Feb 28 09:16PM -0500

On 02/28/2018 09:50 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
 
>> The power of propaganda to manipulate the weak honestly makes me afraid
>> for the future.
 
> You would know, fakes news consumer.
 
Don't ever change, Mike.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 03:33PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:51 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Too bad Dicks quit selling them 5 YEARS AGO.
 
> Wal-Mart stopped selling them around 2015.
 
Mostly due to very low sales volume.
michaelunowho@gmail.com: Feb 28 02:06PM -0800

Rut, roh..
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.

Sažetak za hr.rec.sport.nogomet@googlegroups.com - Broj ažuriranja: 2 u 1 tema

branko 10 <branko@ck.t-com.hr>: Feb 27 11:23PM +0100

Espanyol - Real Madrid 1-0
Gerard Moreno (90+3') [Full HD]
https://vk.com/video230765537_456241494
 
:)
branko 10 <branko@ck.t-com.hr>: Feb 28 12:44AM +0100

Espanyol - Real Madrid 1-0
Sažetak [Full HD]
https://vk.com/video230765537_456241497
Gerard Moreno (90+3') [Full HD]
https://vk.com/video230765537_456241494
Primili ste ovaj sažetak jer ste se pretplatili na ažuriranja te grupe. Postavke možete promijeniti na stranici članstva u grupi.
Da biste odjavili pretplatu na ovu grupu i prestali primati njezine e-poruke, pošaljite e-poruku na adresu hr.rec.sport.nogomet+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Feb 28 12:31PM -0800

On 2018-02-28 12:24 PM, Clave wrote:
 
> Oh well...
 
> You simply have NO business speaking top American policies and politics.
 
> Deal.
 
Please...
 
You had no clue I was on your side until I told you.
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Feb 28 03:20PM -0600

> to combine and form a military fighting force if needed.
 
> I believe that the Supreme Court blew it on this one. It would be
> simple for Congress to legislate a more descriptive law.
 
Simple? LOL! And no, they did not blow it in the least.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:23PM

Alan Baker wrote:
 
 
> > That seemed to be their intention, to have citizens keep arms in
> > order to combine and form a military fighting force if needed.
 
> That is one intention that they specifically called out, Bobby.
 
No, that is THE intention they specified.
 
> But they also call out that the right exists independent of that
> intention.
 
Interesting though clearly incorrect use of tense.
 
They recognise the right and give the one reason (maybe the only
reason) most important to it not being infrigned. That is it. Nothing
else. Anything else is speculation.
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:24PM

MNMikeW wrote:
 
 
> > I believe that the Supreme Court blew it on this one. It would be
> > simple for Congress to legislate a more descriptive law.
 
> Simple? LOL! And no, they did not blow it in the least.
 
Was it unanimous then?
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Feb 28 01:25PM -0800

On 2018-02-28 1:23 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
> They recognise the right and give the one reason (maybe the only
> reason) most important to it not being infrigned. That is it. Nothing
> else. Anything else is speculation.
 
Correct:
 
 
They recognised a right that already existed.
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:29PM

Alan Baker wrote:
 
> > Nothing else. Anything else is speculation.
 
> Correct:
 
> They recognised a right that already existed.
 
That is specualtion. Does a right exist before it is recognised? The
assumption might exist but until it is recognised that may be all it is.
 
Recognition, as here may be what creates the right. Can an unrecognised
right really exist?
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:30PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:02 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>>> speculation as to whether infringement is permissable.
 
>> The text...blah blah...
 
> Your repeated
 
I will, yes:
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:30PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:04 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> you just proved plain English is not your thing.
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:31PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:05 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> No it is NOT "recognized"!
> Sure it is else why the prefatory clause.
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:31PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:09 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> No point to 'argue'
> On that we agree
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
BK@Onramp.net: Feb 28 03:33PM -0600

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:05:02 -0800, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>
wrote:
 
>> to combine and form a military fighting force if needed.
 
>That is one intention that they specifically called out, Bobby.
 
>But they also call out that the right exists independent of that intention.
 
There is no independent clause. There is only one sentence and it is
about a well regulated militia manned by people that keep and bear
arms.
 
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
 

Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:34PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:23 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> They recognise the right and give the one reason (maybe the only
> reason)
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:35PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:24 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
>> Simple? LOL! And no, they did not blow it in the least.
> Was it unanimous then?
 
Why would it need to be, limey troll?
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:37PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:29 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Does a right exist before it is recognised?
 
Wow.
 
Does your mind even work?
 
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:38PM -0700

> There is no independent clause. There is only one sentence
 
FUCKING IDIOTA!
 
 
The text of the Second Amendment supports the existence of an individual
right.
 
Proper constitutional analysis always begins with the actual words of
the document. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
 
As Justice Scalia noted in his Heller decision, the amendment contains
both a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause, a
common feature at the time of drafting, does not limit the operative
clause; rather, it explains its purpose.
 
The operative clause is, of course, clear: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As Scalia correctly
observed, every other time the original, un-amended Constitution or the
Bill of Rights uses the phrase "right of the people," the text
"unambiguously refer[s] to individual rights." Further, the language
clearly indicates that the amendment wasn't creating a new right but
recognizing a pre-existing individual liberty — one that is referenced
in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language "shall not be
infringed" indicates recognition, not creation.
BK@Onramp.net: Feb 28 03:45PM -0600


>> I believe that the Supreme Court blew it on this one. It would be
>> simple for Congress to legislate a more descriptive law.
 
>Simple? LOL!
OK, not simple for this Congress.
 
>And no, they did not blow it in the least.
Our opinions differ.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:46PM -0700

>>> simple for Congress to legislate a more descriptive law.
>> Simple? LOL!
> OK, not simple for this Congress.
 
True, you'd need a treasonous Dem majority to do that kind of damage.
>> And no, they did not blow it in the least.
 
> Our opinions differ.
 
Yours however is on NO value whatsoever.
BK@Onramp.net: Feb 28 03:48PM -0600

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 21:24:55 -0000 (UTC), "DumbedDownUSA"
>> > simple for Congress to legislate a more descriptive law.
 
>> Simple? LOL! And no, they did not blow it in the least.
 
>Was it unanimous then?
 
Nope. 5 to 4,
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:05PM

Clave wrote:
 
 
> > Without the need for a militia it is recongnised that it may be
> > necessary to "infringe" the right.
 
> No it is NOT "recognized"!
 
Sure it is else why the prefatory clause.
 
 
> And there is ALWAYS a need for the Militia, you royalist supplicant.
 
That a lost argument, you totalitarian toilet.
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: Feb 28 03:51PM -0600


>> Fucking kowtowing cuntly cowards.
 
> Too bad Dicks quit selling them 5 YEARS AGO.
 
Wal-Mart stopped selling them around 2015.
--
michaelunowho@gmail.com: Feb 28 01:46PM -0800

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 8:54:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> ...if everything is so above board?
 
> <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/trump-aide-hicks-said-to-appear-before-house-intelligence-panel>
 
 
Looks like you're to stoopid to know what happens when you talk to law enforcement, Shitstain.
 
They like to "interpolate" facts. Look it up.
 
Looks like you lose...
 
...again.
 
:-)
"DumbedDownUSA" <ddtrumpets@gmail.com>: Feb 28 09:17PM

Clave wrote:
 
 
> > > LOl, but this makes for such good PR!
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/28/dicks-sporting-goods-announces-end-assault-rifle-sales/
 
> > Your inability to read simply emphasises your ignorance.
 
> Your obsession with America tells a tale of jealousy and
> insignificance on your part.
 
This seems to be a recurring theme with you when you find yourself
losing out badly.
 
You must realise that American politics since Trump won has been like
car crash television. Hardly an obsession but certainly both
entertaining and important, if only for it's historical (not just
hysterical) significance.
 
Meanwhile your ignorance persists as does your inability to address it;
rather you blunder into the same mistakes over and over again making a
laughing stock of yourself.
 
I had you in the bozo bin and wondered why hh and AB bothered with you.
I see now it is because you are a whipping boy and they are toying with
you. It's sad really.
 
--
Moderate! STOP thinking about my penis.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:32PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:17 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
 
>> Your obsession with America tells a tale of jealousy and
>> insignificance on your part.
 
> This seems to be a recurring theme
 
I know, all the scurvy parts of the former British "empire" are obsessed
with the USA - canucks, auztards, kiwi sheep shaggers, and of course you
royalist serfs.
Clave <chris.clavious@the.monastery.com>: Feb 28 02:34PM -0700

On 2/28/2018 2:17 PM, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> I had you in the bozo bin and wondered why hh and AB bothered with you.
 
Lol, Sgt. Cupcake is a total trip - and so easily flogged with his
repetitive pedantry.
michaelunowho@gmail.com: Feb 28 01:44PM -0800

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 12:53:20 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:
> Chairman & CEO
> DICK'S Sporting Goods'
 
> <http://pressroom.dicks.com/press-information/media-statements.aspx>
 
Old news, Shitstain.
 
You should look before you shit.
 
You just can't help losing.
 
:-)
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.