That was SEVEN years ago? I find a new reason to feel old every day.

Where would you say Gordon and Saric rank on the “Butt” spectrum? Are they sub butt?

Aliens, clearly.

Only monsters refrigerate chocolate.

Unless they win a ring or two, they aren’t getting in. IMO. Stanford is youngish so he has time. Rivers does not. He is what he is and he isn’t getting a ring in SD anytime soon. Rivers is one maybe two years from retirement.

If Rivers and Stafford make it, then Romo is a shoe in. Check the numbers. They aren’t making it.

Forgot about Roethlesberger. My bad. Clearly he is up there with the rest. My apologies to Steelers nation.

Different era, imo, in that he started in the 90s. A distinction without difference maybe but I see Peyton as the preceding era. Clearly getting in.

I agree, but the HOF voters will not, unfortunately.

“Does Romo have a Hall of Fame case?”

GOOD DOGS

I forgot for a moment where this is the internet and, after reading a wikipedia article (haha yeah right. More like skimmed the introduction), you are now well versed in the doctrine of reasonable doubt. Notice how most of that article has no citations? And how there is a warning pointing that out? And how in…

I’m a licensed attorney....

Hopefully that’s what he was saying. But in my experience, juries all to often convict or acquit based on whether they believe the guy did it.

Not sorry, but I think you’re missing the point in that you took my comment as doubting the verdict of the jury when it was a comment on juries in general and the attitude that what he believes is what truly matters. Hence “side rant time.”

Did they prove that he “knew” that it had been reported as child abuse beyond a reasonable doubt? I don’t know. My point is the jury could and should acquit in every criminal case in this country even if they believe the defendants is guilty IF the state has not proved he knew beyond a reasonable doubt. In other…

Side rant time. I take this as an admission that he believes “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” to mean “persuade me that he did it.” He can believe the guy did it without the burden being met by the state. The standard for acquittal should not be “do I think he did it” but that is effectively what it is in this…

I should not have laughed at this. And yet hear I am cackling like an idiot. Take your star you son of a bitch.

If I’m at a bar that doesn’t serve food, I’m going to be to drunk to care what’s sticking anyways.

That makes every game taxing like a road game though.