|
Post by zacharyjarm on Jan 22, 2015 15:39:00 GMT -5
Favre cock picks weren't him, made up story, nice try though never read Ken Stabler's auto but let's be real there were different rules "back in the day" than there are now, Babe Ruth would never get away with being "The Babe' in todays culture Joe Namath was cocky for sure but see Ken Stabler Steve McNair was a good QB.. ok.... but regardless to my knowledge he was instantly out of football at that point. seems to be a direct correlation on that one, so this example actually proves my point me thinks... Who is Bobby Layne??? Alright I looked up Bobby Layne but nowhere do I see that he was sentenced to prison for life. I see where his son was sentenced to prison for a year for failing to pay his taxes. Please link where the guy went to prison for life becuase all I can find are articles about him being inducted in the NFL HOF and of him dying at age 59 of cancer. You'd think a prison sentence would be prominent somewhere in the first 15 articles on google wouldn't you??? I didn't find it either. Just that he liked to drink heavy is all I found.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 22, 2015 15:47:13 GMT -5
Alright I looked up Bobby Layne but nowhere do I see that he was sentenced to prison for life. I see where his son was sentenced to prison for a year for failing to pay his taxes. Please link where the guy went to prison for life becuase all I can find are articles about him being inducted in the NFL HOF and of him dying at age 59 of cancer. You'd think a prison sentence would be prominent somewhere in the first 15 articles on google wouldn't you??? I didn't find it either. Just that he liked to drink heavy is all I found. Yea I saw that too
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 22, 2015 23:19:13 GMT -5
Provide the link that the favre cock pics weren't him. I couldn't find that.
I think I mixed up bobby lane and denny McLain the pitcher for the tigers who did go away for like 30 years.
Look, all I'm saying is there are lots of stories about qbs doing stuff off the field but doing well on the field. Being an idiot off the field and brilliant on it aren't mutually exclusive although I will grant you that more guys who keep it together off the field tend to be better on the field than those who don't.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 23, 2015 16:52:30 GMT -5
Provide the link that the favre cock pics weren't him. I couldn't find that. I think I mixed up bobby lane and denny McLain the pitcher for the tigers who did go away for like 30 years. Look, all I'm saying is there are lots of stories about qbs doing stuff off the field but doing well on the field. Being an idiot off the field and brilliant on it aren't mutually exclusive although I will grant you that more guys who keep it together off the field tend to be better on the field than those who don't. The official final word on the matter from the NFL: On the basis of the evidence currently available to them, investigators could not conclude that Favre violated league policies relating to workplace conduct. The forensic analysis could not establish that Favre sent the objectionable photographs to Sterger. The review found no evidence to contradict the statements of both Favre and Sterger that they never met in person, nor was there anything to suggest that Sterger engaged in any inappropriate conduct.
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 23, 2015 23:05:41 GMT -5
Provide the link that the favre cock pics weren't him. I couldn't find that. I think I mixed up bobby lane and denny McLain the pitcher for the tigers who did go away for like 30 years. Look, all I'm saying is there are lots of stories about qbs doing stuff off the field but doing well on the field. Being an idiot off the field and brilliant on it aren't mutually exclusive although I will grant you that more guys who keep it together off the field tend to be better on the field than those who don't. The official final word on the matter from the NFL: On the basis of the evidence currently available to them, investigators could not conclude that Favre violated league policies relating to workplace conduct. The forensic analysis could not establish that Favre sent the objectionable photographs to Sterger. The review found no evidence to contradict the statements of both Favre and Sterger that they never met in person, nor was there anything to suggest that Sterger engaged in any inappropriate conduct.
You sure have drawn some firm conclusions from a very ambiguous statement
|
|
|
Post by tophb21 on Jan 24, 2015 0:16:49 GMT -5
At the end of all of this, I'm pretty sure that Swan, DD, and I have a bet. The rest of you all can sit and watch at least one of us enjoy the liquor/beer of our choice..................in 3 or 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 26, 2015 18:24:53 GMT -5
The official final word on the matter from the NFL: On the basis of the evidence currently available to them, investigators could not conclude that Favre violated league policies relating to workplace conduct. The forensic analysis could not establish that Favre sent the objectionable photographs to Sterger. The review found no evidence to contradict the statements of both Favre and Sterger that they never met in person, nor was there anything to suggest that Sterger engaged in any inappropriate conduct.
You sure have drawn some firm conclusions from a very ambiguous statement I'd say you drew some firm conclusions from something that was never proven to be true in the first place. Remember I didn't bring it up.....
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Jan 26, 2015 21:40:21 GMT -5
You sure have drawn some firm conclusions from a very ambiguous statement I'd say you drew some firm conclusions from something that was never proven to be true in the first place. Remember I didn't bring it up..... You guys sure did use firm a lot when talking about Favre's package. Is there something you are trying to tell us?
|
|
|
Post by dubldeac on Jan 26, 2015 22:08:24 GMT -5
You sure have drawn some firm conclusions from a very ambiguous statement I'd say you drew some firm conclusions from something that was never proven to be true in the first place. Remember I didn't bring it up..... No you didn't. And frankly I didn't know there was any doubt about those pics. As I read it, they're saying the accuser wasn't wrong didn't do anything wrong and they couldn't definitively prove it was Favre. So I don't know exactly what to think about it but I certainly wouldn't definitively say he didn't do it based on that informarion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 23:42:10 GMT -5
Or, in other words, OJ was found Not Guilty too.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 27, 2015 10:40:23 GMT -5
Or, in other words, OJ was found Not Guilty too. OJ wasn't guilty... what's your point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 10:45:54 GMT -5
Or, in other words, OJ was found Not Guilty too. OJ wasn't guilty... what's your point? No, a jury found him not guilty. Not even remotely the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 27, 2015 10:50:26 GMT -5
OJ wasn't guilty... what's your point? No, a jury found him not guilty. Not even remotely the same thing. Actually it is.... the entire word guilty in the context of law is predicated on a jury (or judge) finding you guilty. Hence he was not guilty. I believe what you were trying to say in your sarcastic tone was "And OJ was innocent".. His innocence is up for debate, his status of not guilty is not. It's actually why they use the phrase "not guilty" instead of "innocent"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 12:34:03 GMT -5
guilt·y ˈɡiltē/ adjective adjective: guilty; comparative adjective: guiltier; superlative adjective: guiltiest
culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 27, 2015 13:06:32 GMT -5
guilt·y ˈɡiltē/ adjective adjective: guilty; comparative adjective: guiltier; superlative adjective: guiltiest culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing. And.... Thanks for posting a Webster definition that helps prove I am right even further... ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 13:11:02 GMT -5
Actually, it doesn't. Sorry. You are playing the "well legally..." game, I am not. Clearly he was responsible, just ask the civil trial jury.
But we can go around in circles on this all day, and none of it was the point. You believe your hero didn't send penis pics. The rest of us have our doubts.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 27, 2015 17:23:23 GMT -5
Actually, it doesn't. Sorry. You are playing the "well legally..." game, I am not. Clearly he was responsible, just ask the civil trial jury. But we can go around in circles on this all day, and none of it was the point. You believe your hero didn't send penis pics. The rest of us have our doubts. Since when does a civil trial mean someone did or did not do something. Oh wait, that's right it doesn't.... Was he convicted. NO.... Is there clear cut evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. NO.... So I am sorry but he was not "clearly' responsible... that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts...
|
|
|
Post by bilogle on Jan 27, 2015 17:41:11 GMT -5
a civil court jury held him legally responsible for their deaths..... how is this 'not guilty'?
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Jan 27, 2015 20:07:16 GMT -5
Actually, it doesn't. Sorry. You are playing the "well legally..." game, I am not. Clearly he was responsible, just ask the civil trial jury. But we can go around in circles on this all day, and none of it was the point. You believe your hero didn't send penis pics. The rest of us have our doubts. Since when does a civil trial mean someone did or did not do something. Oh wait, that's right it doesn't.... Was he convicted. NO.... Is there clear cut evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. NO.... So I am sorry but he was not "clearly' responsible... that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts... There was DNA on the scene. Not much doubt from this juror. If you are using the OJ Simpson trial as an example of justice, you have lost me. That is a clear cut example of the justice system failing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 21:49:03 GMT -5
Actually, it doesn't. Sorry. You are playing the "well legally..." game, I am not. Clearly he was responsible, just ask the civil trial jury. But we can go around in circles on this all day, and none of it was the point. You believe your hero didn't send penis pics. The rest of us have our doubts. Since when does a civil trial mean someone did or did not do something. Oh wait, that's right it doesn't.... Was he convicted. NO.... Is there clear cut evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. NO.... So I am sorry but he was not "clearly' responsible... that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts... Fucking pathetic, but from you, not surprising. Now go back to telling us all about how GB should have kept Favre and got rid of Rodgers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 21:49:38 GMT -5
Since when does a civil trial mean someone did or did not do something. Oh wait, that's right it doesn't.... Was he convicted. NO.... Is there clear cut evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. NO.... So I am sorry but he was not "clearly' responsible... that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts... There was DNA on the scene. Not much doubt from this juror. If you are using the OJ Simpson trial as an example of justice, you have lost me. That is a clear cut example of the justice system failing. Damn lib.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Jan 28, 2015 8:56:37 GMT -5
There was DNA on the scene. Not much doubt from this juror. If you are using the OJ Simpson trial as an example of justice, you have lost me. That is a clear cut example of the justice system failing. Damn lib. Neither lib or con....but many of the members of my family are cons...convicts.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 28, 2015 9:58:46 GMT -5
Since when does a civil trial mean someone did or did not do something. Oh wait, that's right it doesn't.... Was he convicted. NO.... Is there clear cut evidence beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. NO.... So I am sorry but he was not "clearly' responsible... that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts... Fucking pathetic, but from you, not surprising. Now go back to telling us all about how GB should have kept Favre and got rid of Rodgers. When have I ever once said GB should have gotten rid of Rodgers. That has never come out of my mouth, not once ever. Not even ever been insinuated.... apparently you have total recall of all things imaginary, though not surprising coming from you... fucking pathetic
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 28, 2015 10:01:09 GMT -5
a civil court jury held him legally responsible for their deaths..... how is this 'not guilty'? Simple, it's not a criminal trial, it doesn't have the burden of reasonable doubt. Civil trials never have the burden of guilt or innocence. Or was McDonald's "guilty" of making their coffee "too hot" when they had to fork over all that money from that civil trial... GMAFB.... civil trials and lawsuits in this country are a fucking joke and are what is wrong with this country in general.... that being said do you really want to engage in this Arthur? Can't you see I am purposely baiting notdpb and trying to get him mad on purpose because he's been being such a douchebag lately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:00:22 GMT -5
Fucking pathetic, but from you, not surprising. Now go back to telling us all about how GB should have kept Favre and got rid of Rodgers. When have I ever once said GB should have gotten rid of Rodgers. That has never come out of my mouth, not once ever. Not even ever been insinuated.... apparently you have total recall of all things imaginary, though not surprising coming from you... fucking pathetic Whatever you say Kaara. In the interest of the board I will not continue down the path you started of making this personal. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 28, 2015 11:26:23 GMT -5
When have I ever once said GB should have gotten rid of Rodgers. That has never come out of my mouth, not once ever. Not even ever been insinuated.... apparently you have total recall of all things imaginary, though not surprising coming from you... fucking pathetic Whatever you say Kaara. In the interest of the board I will not continue down the path you started of making this personal. Have a nice day. To clarify, I didn't start the personal attacks, you did.... I merely acted in kind to your personal insults.... have a nice day
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:54:53 GMT -5
Whatever you say Kaara. In the interest of the board I will not continue down the path you started of making this personal. Have a nice day. To clarify, I didn't start the personal attacks, you did.... I merely acted in kind to your personal insults.... have a nice day that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts...
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 28, 2015 11:56:52 GMT -5
To clarify, I didn't start the personal attacks, you did.... I merely acted in kind to your personal insults.... have a nice day that is the problem with you libs, you don't like reason, logic or facts... Thank you, I was waiting for that..... Sorry but this was posted first: I took that to be very personal and very insulting. You said it with clear intent and derision and it was obvious you were making it personal. I merely responded in kind. You then upped the anti from there by saying I think this pretty much solidifies exactly what your intent was in that statement in case you try and back track and pretend it wasn't personal and wasn't meant as an insult... so as I said it's clear who started it... I would also mention me and dubldeac were having a perfectly rationale and civil conversation and mild debate before you decided to interevene with your insulting and sarcastic remarks.... it's your MO, you do it to many others on here as well, the only difference is for some unknown reason I continue to enagage you while others check out...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 12:04:09 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but calling Favre your hero is a personal attack? OK then. I guess you're right. Ummm....sure. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by kaara on Jan 28, 2015 12:09:11 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but calling Favre your hero is a personal attack? OK then. I guess you're right. Ummm....sure. My bad. Considering all the evidence, and the clear tone in which it was delivered. Yes it absolutely was and I absolutely took it as such because of who it was coming from and the manner in which it was delivered and the on going commentary afterward clearly backs me up as shown above.... I knew you'd try and use that logic which is why I showed further evidence.... like I said, pretty clear cut
|
|