Soxbadger

If Pettigrew is as good as people claim its a good pick for the Lions. TE who can block and catch are pretty valuable, plus its going to take pressure off of Johnson.

Than Derrick Williams at 49? I hope that Nicks or some one else is available there.

I hope there are better WR's left than that.

Browns must want some one specific and know he isnt going to get drafted soon.

Haha broncos

Hester was just really raw so its hard to tell if he still can develop or not. I dont like trading Hester + the 2nd for Boldin because the Bears still would need help at WR. Right now I hope they just see how the draft plays out.

Its just a bad pick.

Well I think it was Mangini wanted some of is ex players.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Mock-Draft-A.php Bears getting Nicks in the second, thats what ive been wanting forever. Nicks is built like Boldin and from what ive seen Nicks is going to be a good NFL player.

I barely even remember going to class in college. I mean I was there like 5-6 times, but those times really didnt make that much of an impression. Usually I cared more about what classes had hot girls. Im an intellectual as you can tell.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-t...o&type=lgns I know that is just for fun, but the fact Cutler is the 5th qb selected shows just how much the Bears improved at that position.

We didnt have Carlos during last years playoffs.

Agreed Steve. It was a good game, but not the best.

I dont think the NBA wants the Celtics being eliminated in the first round...

Well the Bulls could really win this game,terrible decision by Noah. Rose is good,I was really wrong about him before the season.

Dear sir, I dont know what VEISHEA stands for it sounds like some sort of hippy antimeat federation. Anyways, all you can drink for a set price is always encourages excessive drinking. Gotta get your moneys worth. And Wrigleyville sucks End transmission.

I was at the Daley Center and at the Jackson Post office yesterday, I didnt even know about the protest until I read this thread. Not sure what time the protests were though so maybe it was after I was there.

Im not sure why people think Texas can secede. This issue was discussed in Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...74_0700_ZO.html When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Indissoluble relation. No place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of states. Pursuant to the Supreme Court, Texas or any other state can not leave the US except for revolution or through consent of the states.

This isnt something that is new. If you look at many of the first Supreme Court cases they cited Blackstone and other British legal authors because you have to get precedent from some where. I think what Ginsburg is saying is that she would use foreign law the same way a state uses another states law. In Illinois, only Illinois law is binding, while all other states are merely persuasive. It does not mean that you cant cite an Ohio case in Illinois, it just means that if there is an Illinois case on the same topic, the Illinois case is more authoritative. As Northside said, most of these cases are cases of first impression where there is very little if no case law on point. So does it really hurt to cite other international courts reasoning? Probably not as the Supreme Court can interpret the law how they feel.

If it was sarcasm, so be it. Didnt seem very sarcastic to me, and its pretty similar to other arguments ive heard from conservatives/republicans, so I apologize if I didnt see the intended sarcasm. Its nice to know that you agree that the US should treat everyone equally.

Come on, you think that US citizens would have been treated any different in a hostage stand off? Perhaps you should ask the Branch Davidian compound how nice they were treated because they were US citizens... I think you are confusing the argument of how "alleged" foreign terrorists are being treated, with an argument of how actual foreign pirates are being treated. When you catch some one in the act, they are no longer "alleged" and when you are in hot pursuit the same rules dont apply. But then again, that is the same in the US, so not sure what the argument is.

An important part of a contract is a "meeting of the minds". https://www.faulkner.edu/images/userimages/...%20HUMMELL1.pdf This is not an Illinois case, but Im pretty sure you can see how the "release" is not necessarily enforceable.

The lawsuit is inherently not frivolous if it cant be dismissed via summary judgment. Rock, Imo, the ticket doesnt cover this. And that is basically conceding that the ticket can actually prevent you from suing the Sox (which is up for debate.)

As for who may be responsible for the falling concrete, that would depend on which entity had the duty to upkeep the concrete. I think its becoming clear that this case is a question of fact. Questions of fact can not be determined by a judge. The standard for Summary Judgment is that there are no set of circumstances which the Plaintiff could recover. I think from the last few pages its pretty clear that there is a set of circumstances where Plaintiff wins. Thus it depends on the facts of the case, which can only be argued at trial.

I said for the sake of simplicity that I wouldnt get into the back of the ticket. First of all, I would argue that t-shirts being thrown into the stands are not "incidental to the Game". T-Shirt throwing is not part of the baseball game. If you went to the Sox game and the a piece of concrete fell from the upper deck and paralyzed you, the Sox may be liable if they were negligent. All I am saying is this case is not as clear cut as people are making it out to be.