Foxmeister

Non-profits can't afford to spend money they don't have. They usually have to break even to pay bills.

Just because a few players now want to accuse the Patriots of using under-inflated balls for their blowing two 14-point leads in the game? The two interceptions Flacco threw had nothing to do with their loss? The Ravens ran the ball 28 times for 136 yards and the Pats ran it 13 times for 14 yards. Brady had 51 pass attempts with 31 completions and 408 yards passing; while Flacco was 28 of 45 with 292 yards passing and 2 interceptions. The key difference in the game were the trick plays the Pats used. In one Brady threw the ball laterally to wide receiver Edleman (used to play quarterba

What you're saying is the officials referring the Super Bowl were afraid of Brady and Belichik and therefor ignored under-inflated balls. I don't think so because they don't work for the team, they work for the NFL. Let's face one simple fact here, which is every time someone is accused of being guilty of something, you're on the bandwagon to have them punished when not all the facts are in. Don't go saying all the evidence proves Brady had knowledge the balls would be under-inflated or gave the order to under-inflate them because there is no evidence that proves that. There is way too

Like I said, a referee cannot tell the difference? They're supposed to know as it's part of the rules.

If you can't possibly tell the difference between a ball inflated to regulation and one that is slightly under inflated in freezing weather, than really what difference does it make?

At least one official touches the ball on every play, when he spots it on the line of scrimmage. Most of the time, two officials touch the ball following each play, and at times three officials. Anyone see something wrong here? None of the officials of the game could tell any of the balls were under inflated? As far as the text messages; they don't prove Brady had anything to do with under inflating the balls or had knowledge of it. It's purely speculation on the part of the attorney who "conducted" the investigation and wrote the report. Unless they can actually prove Brady had anything

Where do you get I think the loss of jobs and destruction of property is a bigger issue than murder? I never said that. The point I was making is those who caused the destruction during the riots, didn't give a damn about the rights of others. I will also point out to you that although the officers were charged with criminal offenses, the charges have not been proven against them as they have not been tried in court. Do you not believe a person is innocent until proven guilty?

I didn't take the discussion off topic - it was already off topic. You certainly read a lot that wasn't there. I simply pointed out the obvious.

Show me anywhere in this topic where I said I agreed with Chuck Norris. So, who is playing who pubby? Hypocrite.

You have to ask a question about all this. Who has the most to gain for this fictitious story? Is it Walmart? Is it DHS? or is it the owner of a website?

Here's an interesting article that states between April 2013 and May 2014; 49% of people shot by police officers were white, 30% black, and 19% Hispanic. The other 2% were Asian or other races. Here's another report using data from the CDC that says, There's this interesting article from CNN as well. We're trying to play you? Get real. The problem is when you are faced with facts you can't accept them.

When a cop shoots a black guy, especially when the cop happens to be white; you guys scream racism. Hell, you all found the officer in Ferguson guilty of murder right after the shooting made the news and before any details were released by the police. Then there were some of you who said the investigation was completed with the intent to clear the officer. When a black officer in Utah shot and killed an unarmed 18-year old white guy, you all ignored it.

A 25-year old police officer Brian Moore died after being shot in the face by a 35-year old career criminal Demetrius Blackwell. The criminal has a long list of prior arrests and convictions to include serving time in prison for attempted murder. Moore and his police partner were sitting in their patrol vehicle when Blackwell opened fire. The shooting took place two days ago. What you don't see here are any demonstrations or riots taking place. Article.

What I understand is this; destroying the property and livelihood of others is wrong. If you owned that liquor store in Baltimore that was destroyed by rioters, would you be happy about it? Would you be able to justify what they did? That's exactly what he sounds like. All of us here agree that if the evidence presented during a trial proves the officers are guilty of Gray's death, then they deserve to be punished. The difference between the conservatives and the liberals in this discussion is we don't condone rioting as a solution to anything, but you on the other hand are justifying

Like I said before pubby, a thug is a thug regardless of their color, gender, ethnic background, race, occupation, etc. You seem to be one who continues to want to make something about race.

The rioters didn't give a damn about CVS or the loss of jobs they caused when they destroyed CVS. Hell they didn't give a damn about the people in the neighborhood who used the drug store to get their prescriptions filled. They didn't give a damn about the owner and employees of the liquor store, the church that built the senior center or those that would be benefiting by it. They didn't give a damn about the people whose cars they stole and set afire. The rioters didn't really give a damn about anybody other than themselves. Apparently those who appear to support the rioters by justif

Her post went right over the top of your head or perhaps you agree with the rioters.

Those on the left who have participated in this discussion have proven they will parrot anything that comes from the left. I will bet that before someone from the left decided that the use of the word thug to describe the rioters in Baltimore was the same as using the n-word, the participants here from the left never once thought using thug was at all racist.

So what do you call a thug pubby? You probably could. Being a thug has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, occupation, or beliefs.

Do tell.

That's a real stretch. The only reason thug is being considered a "dog whistle" for the "n" word is because there are those on the left that want to believe that is the intent of the use when describing those in Baltimore who committed acts of arson, theft, and assault during the riots. It's nothing more than an attempt to try to make those who committed those acts out to be victims. Now there are those from the left who want to call them "misguided youths." They knew those acts were breaking the law. They were thugs plain and simple. According to the dictionary, a thug is someone who co

You should read some research that has been conducted about crime and poverty in urban areas.

Rest assured if hooligan starts getting used to describe rioters who are black, it will become another new "n" word. I'm not surprised thought to see pubby embracing thug as the new "n" word.

I guess now if you call a member of the Mafia a "mobster" it will be the same as calling them a "wop" because they're Italian. Of course the meanings of "mobster" and "woo" are not the same. This is nothing more than an attempt to downplay the looting, burning buildings and cars, throwing softball sized chunks of concrete at police officers and to accuse those who call them "thugs" as racist.