|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who pays for your education? | |||
| Parents |
   
|
117 | 33.52% |
| Other relatives |
  
|
10 | 2.87% |
| Student loans |
  
|
52 | 14.90% |
| Financial aid |
  
|
69 | 19.77% |
| You |
  
|
87 | 24.93% |
| other |
  
|
14 | 4.01% |
| Voters: 349. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#281
11-16-2007, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Your referral to Son of Sam laws is completely irrelevant, because while, yeah, they're likely to be "special reporters" because of the book, they're not profiting from illegal activity [/ QUOTE ] So you don't think they are profiting from the illegal leaking of the testimony? How else would they get their story? Do you think the lawyer just leaked it for [censored] and giggles to whoever he felt like? Of course not, he leaked it to them because they went looking for it and they got it. Claiming that these reporters are just innocent observers of the process is a [censored] joke, when they engaged in a concerted, cooperative effort with someone they knew to be a criminal to conceal him from justice. Get [censored] real, of course they profited from the crime. [/ QUOTE ] Reading comprehension FTW. The law IS ONLY IN PLACE TO PREVENT PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF THINGS LIKE BOOKS, AND TO STOP PEOPLE EITHER DIRECTLY INVOLVED OR CLOSE TO THOSE INVOLVED FROM GETTING MOVIE DEALS, ETC. Not only that, but you completely ignored the fact that I said these laws do NOT exist nationwide. Its simple - as a reporter, if you want a story, you look for someone who can help you. The guy who leaked it did his time, and they would've done time for keeping his confidentiality. THIS IS STANDARD JOURNALISM. Now, obviously they could choose not to use leaked material, but that's ethics, not law. The two authors didn't commit a crime themselves (well, other than refusing to reveal their source) and never served time as their source revealed himself before they went to prison. Look it up, and get the [censored] real yourself. It'll take 20 seconds of Google to learn what a Son Of Sam law is for yourself, I suggest you do it. Jesus Christ. 
|
|
#282
11-16-2007, 03:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure the record would be stricken from the book only upon conviction, which I think is pretty fair since they've kept Pete Rose out of baseball for stuff he (at least technically) did OFF the field. [/ QUOTE ] I could see your point if you were talking suspending or banning Bonds from baseball......but you're talking about removing his stats, which is completely different. As for the example, they didn't take away Pete's hit record....they banned him from baseball. [/ QUOTE ] You are correct, but Pete Rose's gambling doesn't seem to have any effect on how he played the game. The same can't be said for Bonds and possible steroid use. I don't know if they SHOULD strike his records, but I could see either side of that argument. That will take some more thought on my part.
|
|
#283
11-16-2007, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
I now understand how juries can let OJ go and award millions of dollars to people who fall down.
It's because juries can be full of complete idiots like some of the people in this thread. "Bonds lied under oath but it's ok cuz he was being unfairly targetted for taking steriords... ya he actually took them, but that's besides the point too."
|
|
#284
11-16-2007, 03:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
The law IS ONLY IN PLACE TO PREVENT PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF THINGS LIKE BOOKS [/ QUOTE ] Edge, I know you might not have seen one before, but this is a book:  i didn't know the laws don't exist nationwide. learn something new every day. [ QUOTE ] The guy who leaked it did his time, and they would've done time for keeping his confidentiality. THIS IS STANDARD JOURNALISM. [/ QUOTE ] So breaking the law and profiting from violating the rights of others is standard journalism? No wonder I don't hold them in such high regard. You can argue all you want that what they did isn't technically in violation of a law, or that it's normal, or whatever. I'm saying that it's scummy and wrong. Funny how you can be so obsessed with your 'classy' Colts and then rush to the defense of a bunch of dirtbag reporters who aid and abet criminals and profit from the process.
|
|
#285
11-16-2007, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
If Bonds is shown to have used steroids, etc. and they decide to remove his records...man, that's starting a slippery slope that may never end.
|
|
#286
11-16-2007, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
I now understand how juries can let OJ go and award millions of dollars to people who fall down. It's because juries can be full of complete idiots like some of the people in this thread. "Bonds lied under oath but it's ok cuz he was being unfairly targetted for taking steriords... ya he actually took them, but that's besides the point too." [/ QUOTE ] QFT.
|
|
#287
11-16-2007, 03:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
I can somehow understand taking away Bonds record if he was found guilty of taken steroids, but if hes guilty of lying or perjury or whatever that shouldnt affect his numbers in baseball even though they are baseball-related.
|
|
#288
11-16-2007, 03:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The law IS ONLY IN PLACE TO PREVENT PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF THINGS LIKE BOOKS [/ QUOTE ] i didn't know the laws don't exist nationwide. learn something new every day. [ QUOTE ] The guy who leaked it did his time, and they would've done time for keeping his confidentiality. THIS IS STANDARD JOURNALISM. [/ QUOTE ] So breaking the law and profiting from violating the rights of others is standard journalism? No wonder I don't hold them in such high regard. You can argue all you want that what they did isn't technically in violation of a law, or that it's normal, or whatever. I'm saying that it's scummy and wrong. Funny how you can be so obsessed with your 'classy' Colts and then rush to the defense of a bunch of dirtbag reporters who aid and abet criminals and profit from the process. [/ QUOTE ] If you can tell me what ONE CRIME the authors of that book have profited off of, well, you'll have something NOBODY else has ever gotten. The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not violate anybody's rights. The AUTHORS OF GAME OF SHADOWS did not "aid and abet criminals". I guess when you're so obsessed with arguing with me that you'll ignore the truth of the story when you're so blatantly wrong, that says a lot more about you than you say about me. This has nothing to do with the Colts. This has EVERYTHING to do with you being completely, 100% wrong. Do some actual research and you'll see. Until then, keep trying, champ. Bang your head against the wall enough and maybe you'll knock yourself out and quit with this BS you're posting. And I know you're not a moderator of this SPECIFIC sub-forum, but I would think 2+2 would like to hold themselves to a higher standard than your performance in this thread calling people racists and saying "I know you may have never seen a book before". I mean, you're pretty high up on your horse there, chief.
|
|
#289
11-16-2007, 03:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
It's because juries can be full of complete idiots like some of the people in this thread. "Bonds lied under oath but it's ok cuz he was being unfairly targetted for taking steriords... ya he actually took them, but that's besides the point too." [/ QUOTE ] i'm sure you're the same guy who thinks it's great when people get arrested for smoking pot or drinking underage, too. take a look at a little concept called jury nullification sometime, you might find it illuminating.
|
|
#290
11-16-2007, 03:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Barry Bonds indicted
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct, but Pete Rose's gambling doesn't seem to have any effect on how he played the game. The same can't be said for Bonds and possible steroid use. [/ QUOTE ] Rule 21 was posted on the entrance of every clubhouse during Rose's time, and he was definately aware it was against the rules, and the reasoning behind the rule is explicitly because it could have an impact on how someone plays the game. In Bonds' case, the allegations in the indictment pertain to time periods prior to it being in violation of MLB policy. Not to mention, MLB has already said it will not take anything prior to Sep 30, 2002 into consideration, as it was prior to the MLB Steroid policy as instituted in the CBA. [ QUOTE ] I don't know if they SHOULD strike his records, but I could see either side of that argument. That will take some more thought on my part. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it should...but then again, the CBA doesn't protect numbers, stats, records, or the like. It protects the player. Realistically, MLB isn't going to do anything....they are happy as hell it took this long and they weren't put on the spot during the season or prior to him breaking Hank's record. Bud is cashing 6 billion in revenue....as far as he is concerned, it's between Bonds and the government now.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
