TBayXXXVII

Exactly.

He's making a joke, not being serious about it on every play. His contention with you was that you said it had to be on a penalty, which is not the case.

The funny thing is, I think you're right. Little is legitimately the best player they have on offense. If they can have him kick from their 40 (or closer), yard line every time they get a fair catch, instead of going on offense, I'd bet they'd score more points. That said, if he misses and the other team gets the ball at that spot, their defense would probably give up too many points over the course of the game. It would probably be a net negative.

The first line of the rule says "After a fair catch is made....", so all the receiving team has to do is call for a fair catch and make it. The rest of that line covers the possibility of a fair catch not being made as a result of a penalty. If you watch this play, you'll notice 2 things... 1) The ref literally puts the ball 1 yard further back than what it should be, and most importantly 2) no penalty was made. There are 2 slight advantages to this... 1) There's no rush and 2) You don't need to back up the 8 yards behind the line.

Because there are too many b!tches in the other 92783401 committees to get it right the first time.

In my keeper league, Williams is THE reason why I'll be looking to trade Odunze in the off season.

Plenty of people get it... the only ones who absolutely refuse to believe it, are those too stubborn to realize that it's their fault.

Last I recall, of the people on government assistance who were registered to vote, 85% were registered Democrat. Have things changed in the last 20 years on that front?

Absolutely, without doubt.

You didn't want to answer huh? Shocker. Trump was blaming Obama because Obama was a crappy President. He was just piling on. Your turn. Do you want to answer or just continue to pretend the Democrats aren't the problem here?

So you're saying he was right and that Obama was to blame for the shutdown and all of the Democrats back then were lying?

I doubt it.

Hack triggered again!

LOL, yeah, let's pretend you're right.

"we" in this case = Democrats. Nice to see you finally calling out your side.

I'll have to hear liberals pretend that it's the Republicans' fault.

Ok, my bad. I thought I read they extended the law by 6 months, so that she could file her suit. What I read was that the window expired in 6 months.

No, I'm saying that NYC changed their S.O.L. so that E. Jean Carroll could accuse Trump of sexual assault and allow for him to be tried for it. This was done, purposefully, to interfere with the election. You understand that, right?

Ok, so then you should have no problem with changing the S.O.L., after the fact, right?

No, talking about changing the statute of limitations of sexual abuse from 5(?), years to something like 30 years, so that they can run their kangaroo court proceedings for Carroll in the effort to sway voters before the elections. I don't recall ANY Democrat having a problem with that.

NYC has paved the way to change this to fit one's needs, have they not? Or is that only ok when Democrats do it?

You may be a moron, but this post is funny.

Yeah, that's what happened.

I find it comical hearing Democrats having a problem here, when the Biden’s were doing the same thing.... as well as every other politician.

This is why I say that people hammering on Trump being corrupt is simply hypocritical. They all do it, none of them should, but we sit around and let them.... then everyone calls out everyone else, when it fits our agenda. How about, we never vote again for people whom we know do this? Or, how about we say that no family member of a politician is allowed to make money... in ANY capacity (involving political ties), while said person is holding office. If you hold a position prior to your family member becoming a politician, then you're ok.