Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Man is Free!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/sports/football/tom-brady-suspension-deflategate.html

Now we need to get Roger Goodell of office and replace him with Condoleezza Rice in a few years, she is already moving up fast in the sports world.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13555705/condoleezza-rice-was-natural-choice-college-football-playoff-committee

Good, you can't punish Tom Brady for misinterpreting the rules....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good, you can't punish Tom Brady for misinterpreting the rules....

No clue what you mean by this.

What else is new?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What else is new?

Besides you making up assumptions...nothing.

No it means that when People on that slide of things CHEAT its ok. But if others do it ,it isn't.

So does this mean all those "Ball boys" or what ever will get their jobs back with pay?

I wanna see Rice as Commissioner.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
No it means that when People on that slide of things CHEAT its ok. But if others do it ,it isn't.

So does this mean all those "Ball boys" or what ever will get their jobs back with pay?

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/tom-brady-celebrating-interception-super-bowl.gif

"Judge Richard M. Berman of Federal District Court in Manhattan did not rule on whether Brady tampered with the footballs in a bid for competitive advantage. Instead, he focused on the narrower question of whether the collective bargaining agreement between the N.F.L. and the players union gave Goodell the authority to carry out the suspension, and whether Brady was treated fairly during his attempt to have his suspension overturned."

IOW: "We're not concerned if Brady cheated to gain an advantage, we're concerned if Brady's feelings were hurt during the investigation." LoL, what a joke.

As far as Condoleezza Rice getting involved with the NFL, I say good, whatever keeps her out of US politics. NFL's a corrupt organization; she'll fit in nicely.

Originally posted by Robtard


As far as Condolezza Rice getting involved with the NFL, I say good, whatever keeps her out of US politics. NFL's a corrupt organization; she'll fit in nicely.

Coming from the guy who supports Hilary

This place is never short on irony.

Quit hating on this All American Woman

http://imgick.nj.com/home/njo-media/width620/img/new_jersey_education/photo/condoleezza-rice-rutgers-selection-commencementjpg-2540f70b62141834.jpg

You deflect onto Hillary when you don't have a proper counter more often than all the combined runners in the first GOP debate.

Anyhow, I'm hoping for Bernie Sanders, you're confusing me smashing your Hillary lies as "Hillary support", when it's just debunking lies.

Robtard doesn't like it when black people succeed in the world. he like them only in ghettos and throwing balls around or singing songs about killing cops.

Originally posted by Robtard
You deflect onto Hillary when you don't have a proper counter more often than all the combined runners in the first GOP debate.

Anyhow, I'm hoping for Bernie Sanders, you're confusing me smashing your Hillary lies as "Hillary support", when it's just debunking lies.

Show me one thing Rice did that was corrupt. You brought Politics up, so blame yourself.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Show me one thing Rice did that was corrupt. You brought Politics up, so blame yourself.

Besides being part (SoS) of the lie that lead us into a disastrous eight year war; which in turned set the foundation for the creation of ISIS?

Let me think about that for a bit and get back to you.

Originally posted by Robtard
You deflect onto Hillary when you don't have a proper counter more often than all the combined runners in the first GOP debate.

Anyhow, I'm hoping for Bernie Sanders, you're confusing me smashing your Hillary lies as "Hillary support", when it's just debunking lies.

I'm confused as to why you single out republicans for "corruption", when the democrats are no less guilty. That's why you get the responses you get.


Calling it disastrous is a bit overdramatic and claiming it set the foundation for ISIS is reaching, but it's consistent with your "republicans are at fault not democrats" viewpoints.

But you're right. IT was all the republicans.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html

Oops

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm confused as to why you single out republicans for "corruption", when the democrats are no less guilty. That's why you get the responses you get.

He can't accept blame or bad light on his screwed up thinking for him or his socialist party.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm confused as to why you single out republicans for "corruption", when the democrats are no less guilty. That's why you get the responses you get.

Why did I "single out" Condoleezaa Rice in a thread that specifically mentioned her? Think about that for a moment.

You missed or ran from his edit Rob.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He can't accept blame or bad light on his screwed up thinking for him or his socialist party.

Didn't you a day or two ago speak out how you want the wealthiest people to lose their wealth and for said wealth to be distributed among the masses?

Originally posted by psmith81992

Calling it disastrous is a bit overdramatic and claiming it set the foundation for ISIS is reaching, but it's consistent with your "republicans are at fault not democrats" viewpoints.

But you're right. IT was all the republicans.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/15100-democrats-share-the-blame-for-tragedy-of-iraq-war
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted-to-authorize-fo_b_85652.html

Oops

To your edit.

Either overdramatic nor reaching.

Yes, the vote to wage war on Iraq and remove Saddam was from both sides, that's never been in contention.

The not-truths (since Righties freak out when you say "lies" that lead to those votes going through were from the Bush cabinet. Or are we going to conveniently forget that WMDs were not found.

Oh my

Originally posted by Robtard
To your edit.

Either overdramatic nor reaching.

Yes, the vote to wage war on Iraq and remove Saddam was from both sides, that's never been in contention.

The not-truths (since Righties freak out when you say "lie) that lead to those votes going through were from the Bush cabinet.

Oh my

Neither*

So what's your point? That it happened on Bush's watch? But then when someone mentions Obama spent 6 years driving our economy into the ground and increasing national debt to historic proportions, it's because he had to make up for Bush's deficiencies? Which one is it or are you applying double standard?

Originally posted by psmith81992
Neither*

So what's your point? That it happened on Bush's watch? But then when someone mentions Obama spent 6 years driving our economy into the ground and increasing national debt to historic proportions, it's because he had to make up for Bush's deficiencies? Which one is it or are you applying double standard?

It's not a double standard though, it's just facts. Bush did start the wars...the crash/recession did start before Obama took office.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a double standard though, it's just facts. Bush did start the wars...the crash/recession did start before Obama took office.

The other fact is that a large number of democrats supported the war AND Obama drove the economy into a much deeper hole for the first 5-6 years.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Neither*

So what's your point? That it happened on Bush's watch?

But then when someone mentions Obama spent 6 years driving our economy into the ground and increasing national debt to historic proportions, it's because he had to make up for Bush's deficiencies? Which one is it or are you applying double standard?

You found a typo, +1 points to you.

My point is exactly what I said. The Iraq war was based on not-truths.

Is this more deflection from the Iraq war?

Originally posted by psmith81992
The other fact is that a large number of democrats supported the war AND Obama drove the economy into a much deeper hole for the first 5-6 years.

The first is correct, but partly based on falsified documents. The second is not really true, Obama did his best (in the face of unprecedented opposition) and enabled a relatively quick recovery.

Originally posted by Robtard
You found a typo, +1 points to you.

My point is exactly what I said. The Iraq war was based on not-truths.

Is this more deflection from the Iraq war?

I love the people who use the Iraq war as scapegoat, did you go to war Rob? If you didn't you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Looks like a cute cop out response. Congratulations
I'm surprised you didn't edit your typo and scream "what typo" as usual.


The second one is true if it took 6 years increasing national debt for a year and a half of a pseudo recovery. You have to place credit and blame equally.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The second one is true if it took 6 years increasing national debt for a year and a half of a pseudo recovery. You have to place credit and blame equally.

That silly, of course there are clear differences between the two issue....

Originally posted by Bardock42
That silly, of course there are clear differences between the two issue....

The closest war you been to, is at the dinner table or deciding btw McDonalds and Burger King.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I love the people who use the Iraq war as scapegoat, did you go to war Rob? If you didn't you really don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm sorry, I live in America, am an American and pay taxes. I have a say same as you.

edit: Should have included "using your standards"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The closest war you been to, is at the dinner table or deciding btw McDonalds and Burger King.

Yeah, you've been in a war and you have stupid opinions. The second one is the relevant one currently.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Looks like a cute cop out response. Congratulations
I'm surprised you didn't edit your typo and scream "what typo" as usual.



Look again.

Huh? You've turned rather hostile already, you often do this when you're incorrect. Relax, we're having a polite discussion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That silly, of course there are clear differences between the two issue....

One gets blamed because it happened on his watch, the other one gets praise because he had to make do with what he had (ignoring the blame he gets on his watch). That's THE definition of a double standard.

So, uh, Tom Brady...

Originally posted by psmith81992
One gets blamed because it happened on his watch, the other one gets praise because he had to make do with what he had (ignoring the blame he gets on his watch). That's THE definition of a double standard.

But they are not equal situations. If you take your approach you can extend that to anything. Lets go Godwin on it "Hitler gets blamed cause the holocaust happens on his watch, but Abraham Lincoln gets praise because he had to make do with what he had and had to fight a ware to free the slaves, that's a double standard"

You have reduced it to meaninglessness. The actions and circumstances we are talking about are vital to the judging of the two situations.

Originally posted by Digi
So, uh, Tom Brady...

Blame Rob.

Originally posted by psmith81992
One gets blamed because it happened on his watch, the other one gets praise because he had to make do with what he had (ignoring the blame he gets on his watch). That's THE definition of a double standard.

See this is just not true.

Sure 9/11 happened on his watch; I don't blame Bush for that.

Starting the Iraq war on not-truths is an entirely separate animal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you've been in a war and you have stupid opinions. The second one is the relevant one currently.

My opinions are relevant to my country, yours are relevant to the peanut gallery.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Blame Rob.

Alright, my bad.

Let me amend my post and say "Condeleezza Rice going into US football. I have no problem with that."

So well get back on topic, fine by me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
My opinions are relevant to my country, yours are relevant to the peanut gallery.

The nonsensical nature of your opinions are relevant to their ability to change anyone's mind.

Btw, did you know that Condoleezza Rice is on the board of Dropbox Inc

Oh man, that's news to me. I love Dropbox.

Originally posted by Digi
Oh man, that's news to me. I love Dropbox.

Yeah, she joined last year. Lots of people were pretty outraged, what with her standing for excessive government surveillance, and Dropbox having all our stuff....

Oh you mean like what Obama has been doing, compiling all of our info. It's funny you worried about a Rice though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh you mean like what Obama has been doing, compiling all of our info. It's funny you worried about a Rice though.

I'm just reporting to Digi what happened.

You addressed me first about drop box.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You addressed me first about drop box.

Yes I told you about the Dropbox thing, cause you like Rice, then Digi interjected, and I told him about what happened. How does that make me worried about her or excuse the Obama administration's snooping? You just throw about baseless accusations left and right.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes I told you about the Dropbox thing, cause you like Rice, then Digi interjected, and I told him about what happened. How does that make me worried about her or excuse the Obama administration's snooping? You just throw about baseless accusations left and right.

You were the one to throw out baseless assumption at first, don't play stupid with me there buckaroo.

You brought up the fact that you thought she was corrupt, and now she is on the board of dropbox.

I find it a hilarious assumption and a stupid one. Made by none other then you.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You were the one to throw out baseless assumption at first, don't play stupid with me there buckaroo.

You brought up the fact that you thought she was corrupt, and now she is on the board of dropbox.

I find it a hilarious assumption and a stupid one. Made by none other then you.

You are accusing me of something I didn't say again. Do you have a condition where you can't tell people apart? Where did I say she was corrupt?

TBF, I'm the one who said she was "corrupt", B42 was just passing on info and other people's concerns.

Fair enough

Now let's hope she's able to find corruption in the NFL better than the cabinet she was part of was at finding WMDs in Iraq.

https://lintukoto.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/bush_laugh.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
TBF, I'm the one who said she was "corrupt", B42 was just passing on info and other people's concerns.

Who was concerned that she works at drop box, besides B450.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Who was concerned that she works at drop box, besides B450.

I'm uncertain if B42 is concerned. But "lots of people were".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, she joined last year. Lots of people were pretty outraged, what with her standing for excessive government surveillance, and Dropbox having all our stuff....

It's off-topic, but there really was a lot of concern:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/04/11/condoleezza-rice-appointment-to-dropbox-board-sparks-internet-outcry/?cmpid=prn_digtrends

This thread was about the NFL and her possibly becoming commissioner one day, it spiraled out of control hitting all major hot topics lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Besides being part (SoS) of the lie that lead us into a disastrous eight year war; which in turned set the foundation for the creation of ISIS?

Let me think about that for a bit and get back to you.

Hillary did, as well, mang. She's part of that.

But, in her defense, Hillary did say she made a mistake and that actually made me respect her, more.

NFL is appealing the decision to lift the suspension.

Wow, after reading this I think we need a title change.

****ing ridiculous

Blame Rob the tard for making it political.

Well tbh any thread that's serious here is a waste of type/thought.

Shit post ftw

Hahaha

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's off-topic, but there really was a lot of concern:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/04/11/condoleezza-rice-appointment-to-dropbox-board-sparks-internet-outcry/?cmpid=prn_digtrends

Look at this 2 year old news.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look at this 2 year old news.

Yes, this news we were talking about is over a year old, as I said. It's still relevant, and apparently most people, including you, were unaware of it.

FiveThirtyEight calculates the Tom Brady call is worth about half a win, statistically.

Really? That can't be right.

Pretty much knew Brady was getting off when the report basically said there was he possible knew and Goodell hit him with the same suspensions as drug violators.

Especially when I read up how the ball measurements in the NFL were working at the time. I hope the NFL learned they need to have a better system in place for keeping track of the ball PSIs before during and after the game. I mean they could easily hire 32 people to make sure during the games each sides balls are within the acceptable range.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Really? That can't be right.

It can't?


He's good enough that he improves the odds, and over four games, that adds up.

It can't be right that it's only half a game.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, this news we were talking about is over a year old, as I said. It's still relevant, and apparently most people, including you, were unaware of it.

No my cousin works at drop box, I knew, however the relevance to the thread, I don't know, so come up with something else to make your irrelevant off topic point stick.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No my cousin works at drop box, I knew, however the relevance to the thread, I don't know, so come up with something else to make your irrelevant off topic point stick.
It's only relevant to the thread in so far as Condoleezza Rice (who you brought up) is relevant to this thread....which is to say...loosely.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's only relevant to the thread in so far as Condoleezza Rice (who you brought up) is relevant to this thread....which is to say...loosely.

Its irrelevant.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Its irrelevant.

Yes, only relevant to you talking about Rice, not relevant to the thread.

Oh your right, she works for dropbox, now what? Lets talk about it all day.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh your right, she works for dropbox, now what? Lets talk about it all day.

Sure. Do you think that her working for Dropbox is a good thing for the company? Do you think her involvement with government surveillance sends a message to customers that is maybe not intended?

I have no opinion on her work at dropbox. I literally don't care.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I have no opinion on her work at dropbox. I literally don't care.

Do you care that maybe being on their board would interfere with the potential of her becoming NFL Commissioner?

If the ball thing is such a big deal just replay the super bowl or whatever. I'm sure they'd make an assload of money off this.

Originally posted by Surtur
If the ball thing is such a big deal just replay the super bowl or whatever. I'm sure they'd make an assload of money off this. The issue didn't arise in the Superbowl. It was first brought up in the AFC Championship game against the Colts.

Afterwards the Pats were told to reflate the balls in which case for some reason the Pats did better in the second half after that.

That balls used in the Superbowl were closely monitored.

I see. So would it be silly to ask why they don't just check the status of the balls immediately before starting the game? I mean since..well, why wouldn't they?

Originally posted by Surtur
I see. So would it be silly to ask why they don't just check the status of the balls immediately before starting the game? They do check them.

But from what I've read it's just a quick check by the refs. They don't record any of the numbers and they apparently don't have enough time to recheck all of them at half time.

People tend to forget that I think one or two of the Colts balls were technically underdeflated as well.

EDIT: Sorry I need to append something. The refs only tested 4 of the colts balls. I can not remember if any of them were deflated.

So they expect humans to be able to eye ball these things and notice even minute differences? Since as I've come to understand even a little bit too much or too little deflation can drastically change things.

Originally posted by Surtur
So they expect humans to be able to eye ball these things and notice even minute differences? Since as I've come to understand even a little bit too much or too little deflation can drastically change things. The refs have gauges to test the PSI of the ball. But the process around measuring the PSI throughout the game definitely needs upgraded.

They could install small digital psi meters inside the balls and it would give the refs real-time readings at all times.

That would stop cheaters like Brady from cheating.

The NFL has a shitload of money, why not just hire some specific ball checkers.

Because ball checkers can be biased and/or bribed by rich ball-deflating cheaters like Tom Brady.

The psi meters can be read my multiple people at all times. Hell, they could show the ball's psi on screen at all times, so even the fans know.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because ball checkers can be biased and/or bribed by rich ball-deflating cheaters like Tom Brady.

The psi meters can be read my multiple people at all times. Hell, they could show the ball's psi on screen at all times, so even the fans know.

Is their proof he deflated anything, other then your ego?

That question doesn't make any sense, seems like you're just attacking me again.

Is there proof he deflated the balls?

Since when do you need proof? Allegation usually is enough. *cough* Clinton Emails *cough*

What does this have to do with Hilary? Talk about deflecting..

Page 1
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Coming from the guy who supports Hilary

Tom Brady lol comapres to Hilary Email scandal.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It can't be right that it's only half a game.

He's good, but keep in mind he can only make a difference when, one, the other team isn't playing bad enough for his team to win anyway, or two, the other team isn't playing good enough to win despite him.


If his team can normally win without him, he doesn't change the odds much.

This is what really happened!!