Jump to content

Rams @ Saints


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, JasperDAWG said:

I apologize. I mis read your I'd name. I thought it said pngmom.  My bad my friend.

 

Did it cost a team a chance to go to the ultimate goal in which all teams play? Nope.

 

I never have said fixed or rigged. But I have called it what it is. THE WORST NO CALL IN NFL HISTORY.  

Of course it did, it ended their playoff run. Ending their chance of playing the ultimate game. Its happened before.  I'm in 100% agreement it is probably one of the worse calls in all post season sports, but the Saints didn't help their situation. It didn't have to come to that. They put themselves in a situation yo get screwed. Sean made some all time poor decisions under two minutes to even be in that situation. That's all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JasperDAWG said:

This is the hidden content, please

NFL would have loved "par or better".

Lol 

It's been declining for years. 100 million views drops it down slightly but is consistent with how it has been declining m the small decline had nothing to do with the New Orleans cry babies boycotting. The NFL made their millions 

Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,899
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    gosikij
    Newest Member
    gosikij
    Joined


  • Posts

    • How do you know that Harrison is not a big opportunity? I don't really know him, but maybe just maybe he is what Liberty needs. I was just wondering what you know about Harrison that doesn't make him a big opportunity. 
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • The last 2 or so minutes are so true
    • Looking back at the exact wording, it seems like you are correct and it was the concrete barriers that were the ultimate problem. I mentioned it in my last comment, even if it was just the barriers, did Texas take his property? I think a case like US v. Causby might go a long way to proving his case. Causby had an egg farm and during World War II, the US government started flying four engine heavy bombers for the war effort, low over his farm at full power. The extremely loud noise killed a bunch of his chickens and caused many of the rest of them to quit laying eggs. Even though he legally still on the property, he sued, saying that the federal government had effectively “taken” the use of his property from him. The US Supreme Court sided with him, saying that for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment, the federal government had indeed taken away the use of his property. It wasn’t intentional but that didn’t matter. It seems like this case would fall somewhere along those lines.
    • That might have added to it but it said that they intentionally raised the roadway to help it act as a dam. Even if it was the dividers and no intent, did the state “take” his property without compensation? I think that it is interesting that a local landowner fought his case all the way to the US Supreme Court and won in a unanimous decision. So while he has not won his case yet, he won the right to have his day in court and possibly heard by a jury.     
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...