tvc184

Close game… in the 1st quarter.

I thought the same thing. I am not mad though….

It doesn’t matter. All that we need to do is to quarantine for two weeks…. 😂

He didn’t see another Tom Brady on the horizon and realized that his coaching record largely depended on the quarterback who would make anyone look like a great coach….

I wish that I could get tickets that didn’t cost $2000 each. 😂 The last Dallas Cowboys playoff game that I saw was Roger Staubach’s last game when they lost to the Rams in the divisional round. Back then they reserved seats for the general public, if you got lucky and got selected in a lottery. My friend that I went with got drawn during the year for a regular season game and we went. Since we were drawn, we were put the drawing for playoff games. Using that method, I did get to see an NFC championship game with the Cowboys beat the Vikings and went to the Super Bowl.

It is kind of funny but a few hours ago I made the comment above about the Lions trying to get a little bit too cute. The guy in this last video that I found said almost exactly the same thing, the Lions tried to get cute and it came back and bit them.

The boy, I look into it, the more it looks like the lines completely screwed up the rule.

I watched again and closer this time. The Lions has at least 37 seconds to report the mistake. They went to the huddle AFTER the “mistake” (assuming) was announced for the World to hear, called the play, broke the huddle and walked to the line before the play clock started. Then snapped it at the 17 second mark.😂😂😂

The main point is, even if the ref messed up, the Lions want Dallas to lose the game because of a referee mistake…. which was caught before the next play. Just like I brought up about games where the ref blows an inadvertent whistle. It doesn’t matter if the player would have gone 50 more yards for a touchdown and won the game, once the mistake is made by the ref, the play ends. So after the referee screwed up (assuming it is true), should Dallas forfeit the game which is basically what the Lions want? Dallas was tight that 70 was eligible, but 68 I understand the desire to punish the ref. That is not the Lions desired outcome, however. They want the illegal play to stand. Even if the referee completely blew it, it was an illegal play. I don’t buy the complaint that they didn’t have time. I just watched it again and AFTER Dallas was told 70 was eligible, they had to spot the ball and then start the 25 second clock. The ball was snapped with 17 seconds left on the play clock. The no time to report claim is nonsense and fishing for an excuse, whoever made it. Anytime there is a question with what is about to happen, the refs call an officials’ timeout to discuss it amongst themselves. We see it almost every game. In this case, by the time the announcement was made of 70 being eligible, there was about 30 seconds before the snap had to be made. If the Lions couldn’t find a ref in 30 seconds……

Do you know that the referees goofed though? Do we know what was said? Why did three linemen go up to the ref at the same time? Last but not least, even if the ref made a mistake, it was announced. Why didn’t the Lions stop the play because of something that the ref said that several million people heard? Was that the Lion’s intent, to try and slip one over on the refs? Why have three interior linemen in the ref’s face at the same time? I think the lions tried to get away with one and got caught. they got a little too cute.

Here is something that I have wondered about. Everyone has seen the video but we have no audio. All of the conclusions say, 68 must’ve reported because he was by the ref. So were two others, however, including 70. If we look closely at the video, the referee appears to be looking at 70 jogging toward him almost the entire time. All we are left with is two people, accusing each other. There appears to be absolutely no proof of either side of the story. However….. It has been reported that the referee went to Dallas and reported that 70 was a designated receiver. If that was true, even if that had been a mistake, should the play be allowed to stand? An example is that I’ve seen this from high school to the pros, if a referee has an inadvertent whistle, the play ends. They don’t speculate and play what if but the referees mistake negates anything in the future. We may have seen plays in the past, and I remember a couple, where a person broke into the open but the referee blew the whistle. They cannot speculate on what might have happened. If the referee makes a mistake, nothing after the mistake can go forward. So if 68 actually reported to the ref but the ref went to Dallas and mistakenly said it was 70, should the play go forward? Dallas could legitimately say, we did not line up to cover 68 because he should not have been an eligible receiver. The stuff that Campbell said about drawing up the play before the game on notifying the officials, which apparently is routine, should be meaningless within the rules. I imagine that’s just to give the referees a heads up of what “might” happen because what if Campbell wanted to run the exact play that he showed the referees before the game, but changed his mind and use a different lineman as a receiver? His excuse of, I told him before the game what might be coming… So what? Is his play calling limited to what he told the referees before the game? That would be ludicrous.

Trying to end the year with a bang.

It is Capital Murder. If convicted of that crime, the only punishment options are life in prison without parole or the death sentence. I would say that either is extremely deserving.

The ball now is in the Cowboy’s hands. Beat the Commanders next week and they are the division champions. If the Texans win next week, they are in the playoffs.

But I think they changed their party rules after the 2016 election and (I think) it was Donna Brazile who later admitted that the fix was in for Hilary. There has to be a contested convention before the super delegates are allowed to vote. Meaning, if any candidate gets 50% + 1 regular primary votes, the super delegates can’t change the outcome. That’s why I am wondering what they will do since the primaries start in less than a month. To stop Biden from getting 50%, someone will have to jump in fairly quickly. I believe all the states have deadlines on when you can get on the primary ballot and the clock is ticking. Which is why I said, the fix might already be in and what we see in the next three months will all be scripted. Who runs, the percentage of votes needed to keep Biden from 50%, allowing the super delegates and also who the nominee will be. Either there is actually a wide open and honest Democratic primary or they already know who is going to be nominee and what date that person will be declared the winner.

The primaries start in a few weeks. Super Tuesday is coming up in a couple of months. A party makes its own rules but it if getting late in the game to start having challengers since realistically no Democrat has been campaigning. Biden hasn’t withdrawn and the first primary is less than 4 weeks away. There will have be a mad scramble at this late date. Of course the fix might already be scripted with the eventual winner already known. If Biden stays in and starts piling up delegates in less than a month…..

That was my comment a week ago. State courts don’t have jurisdiction to prosecute or decide federal laws. If that was true, states could declare that Biden opening the border is an insurrection to try and use the masses to overthrow the current government and Constitution.

YES!!……. it has about as much chance of becoming law as a snowball’s chance of not melting in heck. Any member of the legislature in the state or federal congresses can submit any bill to change the law. Both sides play this silly game.

The Fourteenth Amendment which Colorado is referring to is within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court at required in Article III Sec. 1 & 2 of the Constitution. Insurrection is under federal law and the US Constitution and states have no such jurisdiction to enforce or interpret federal law. To deny any person the same privilege as anyone else (such as being on a ballot within established laws that apply to everyone) would in fact violate the Fourteenth Amendment in Section 1 where it says that everyone will be given due process and additionally “equal protection under the law “. So it appears that it is Colorado violating the Fourteenth Amendment, not Donald Trump.

It could happen but they better have it well planned, likely against their own rules. The first primary is in 4 weeks and within 10 weeks, 19 primaries will be concluded. So within about the next 10-11 weeks, almost half of the country’s primaries will be finished. I’m not saying that they won’t do it, but the fix had better be in already and waiting to spring into action at a moments notice.

🤔 Looking at a felony and up to 10 years in prison. They won’t get that if it’s a first offense but not the best way to start life with a felony assault conviction.

Hahaha…. Your supposed logic trumps your argument. As you said, when the comment was made, it was 100% true. Note that I never said otherwise. But my statement was likewise 100% true. If fixed hurts your feelings, try updated.

I saw much made on some of the sporting and gun forms where the (rightfully imo) complained about Trump pushing for the bump stock ban as part of the definition of a machinegun. The Fifth Circuit I believe has thrown out that ban saying that the ATF did not apply with the actual law on the definition of a machinegun. I agree but that’s not the point. Many people complained that Trump backed up the ban, expanding the definition of a machinegun, so maybe…. they look to the other party??? Okay, you disagree with Trump on that issue. But let’s look at the score for like minded conservatives. Border wall and heavy enforcement of the current laws: Trump - Yes Biden - No Cutting taxes by signing tax cut legislation: Trump - Yes Biden - No Opening up oil exploration: Trump - Yes Biden - No Backing Second Amendment and written definition of machinegun: Trump - No Biden - No So where do like thinking people turn because we don’t agree with Trump on one issue however, the other guy would do the same on the same issue? Trump vs. Biden on strong conservative beliefs: Trump: Yes-Yes-Yes-No Biden; No-No-No-No Any questions on the lesser of evils? Do you cut off your nose to spite your face? Let’s replace Trump’s name with Haley. Does it really change your beliefs, assuming you agree with the above? Whether a person likes Trump, Haley, DeSantis, etc., is Biden ever the answer if your conservative leaning candidate didn’t get the nomination?

We always vote for the lesser of evils. Haley isn’t my first choice but she is definitely in the lesser of evils category.