• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
PCS

Assorted Militia/SovCit news,(formerly Bundy thread)

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I don't think serving the time which the judge sentenced them to, in full knowledge that it was less than the statutory minimum, should be labeled as a "clerical error". 

 

(Unless somebody's trying to say that the judge ruled that way because his clerk handed him the wrong law book, or something.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? It was part of their trial, they argued it was unconstitutional and won. They then lost in appeals and exhausted their options.

How is any of that a clerical error?

Because they were released prior to having completed their sentence.

Yeah, I don't think serving the time which the judge sentenced them to, in full knowledge that it was less than the statutory minimum, should be labeled as a "clerical error".

(Unless somebody's trying to say that the judge ruled that way because his clerk handed him the wrong law book, or something.)

What else is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else is it?

A judge's ruling.

Whether it's a good one or not may be a matter of opinion. But the phrase "clerical error" refers to "oops". (Or perhaps, it's more famous cousin, "Aw ****!")  Not what I think of as appropriate to use, to refer to a judge on the bench, offering a ruling about the constitutionality of a law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they were released prior to having completed their sentence.

 

 

They were released after completing their original sentence, while the entire process was still in appeals. In march of 2015 they exhausted their appeals and are now being required to report to finish their sentence.

 

There's no clerical error here. You're wrong. They exhausted their appeals and they lost. The law is quite clear here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they were released prior to having completed their sentence.

Really? I thought they served their sentence. (The Feds just appealed, and got a different sentence.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge's ruling.

Whether it's a good one or not may be a matter of opinion. But the phrase "clerical error" refers to "oops". (Or perhaps, it's more famous cousin, "Aw ****!") Not what I think of as appropriate to use, to refer to a judge on the bench, offering a ruling about the constitutionality of a law.

Uh, it definitely falls under an oops. Unless you're saying the judge knew about the minimum sentence and chose to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what happened Larry, he's either grossly misinformed or purposefully twisting things for whatever personal reason he has.


Uh, it definitely falls under an oops. Unless you're saying the judge knew about the minimum sentence and chose to ignore it.

 

He knew about the minimum sentence and heard, and agreed with, arguments about the constitutionality of the minimum sentence.

 

It went through the appeals process.

 

This is how the system is designed to work.

 

Maybe you should reconsider where you get your news from? You seem grossly uninformed/misinformed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, it definitely falls under an oops. Unless you're saying the judge knew about the minimum sentence and chose to ignore it.

According to several reports at the time,(one of which is the second link I posted),of their newest sentencing,yes he did.  From that link. 

 

 

 

When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what happened Larry, he's either grossly misinformed or purposefully twisting things for whatever personal reason he has.

He knew about the minimum sentence and heard, and agreed with, arguments about the constitutionality of the minimum sentence.

It went through the appeals process.

This is how the system is designed to work.

Maybe you should reconsider where you get your news from? You seem grossly uninformed/misinformed here.

Okay. Still falls under an "oops." Point is, old Bundy still owes more time and is trying to claim Double Jeopardy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clerical error would be if the judge's clerk put 1 year instead of 10 years, and someone noticed the error a year later.

 

This sounds like they challenged the constitutionality of the 5 year mandatory minimum, won at the trial level, lost on appeal, and were denied cert.

 

While it was a constitutional mistake to rule in favor of the defendants on the issue of the 5 year mandatory minimum, I don't think that would be a clerical error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the far-right media machine may be doing a disservice to the welfare of the country. This episode is a perfect example of that.

 

You and I butt heads on plenty of issues, but we're in full agreement here. It's quite scary how easily these people are manipulated by the far-right media machine. The ease with which they are able to rile up a group of people to pick up guns and take over federal land and property, and basically create a standoff with the federal government is scary...

 

Could you imagine if the Black Lives Matters protesters did this? Some of the same people sticking up for this nonsense are complaining about that protest group disrupting a mall... Or what if some Muslim group did something like this to protest the political ideas floating around right now (ban Muslim immigration, shut down mosques, surveillance on mosques, Muslims database, and whatever else I've missed)?

 

It's no wonder some of these people were on watch lists with the IRS. I don't know what you have to do for the government to finally treat you like domestic terrorists, but occupying federal land/buildings with guns and threatening the government with guns seems like enough for me...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IRS accepts lesser payment that what you owe, due to a clerical error or whatever, they will figure it out and come back to get the rest.  What possible excuse should a rancher who is getting forage at a highly subsidized rate, from me and you, have for expecting more lenient treatment from the feds?  

 

Ingrates of the highest order.  They do disservice to 2nd Amnd proponents, public land ranchers and people that may have a legitimate beef with the feds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and I butt heads on plenty of issues, but we're in full agreement here. It's quite scary how easily these people are manipulated by the far-right media machine. The ease with which they are able to rile up a group of people to pick up guns and take over federal land and property, and basically create a standoff with the federal government is scary...

Could you imagine if the Black Lives Matters protesters did this? Some of the same people sticking up for this nonsense are complaining about that protest group disrupting a mall... Or what if some Muslim group did something like this to protest the political ideas floating around right now (ban Muslim immigration, shut down mosques, surveillance on mosques, Muslims database, and whatever else I've missed)?

It's no wonder some of these people were on watch lists with the IRS. I don't know what you have to do for the government to finally treat you like domestic terrorists, but occupying federal land/buildings with guns and threatening the government with guns seems like enough for me...

BLM committed arson, destruction of property, robbery, and larceny. Nothing happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Still falls under an "oops." Point is, old Bundy still owes more time and is trying to claim Double Jeopardy

 

The only oops here is you calling it a clerical error.

 

It's not a clerical errorsand it's not an oops. It's a judge hearing an argument and agreeing with it; then the issue going through the appeals process as it should.

 

There was no clerical errors. They were not released from jail too soon. There is no double jeopardy here.

 

The funny part is if the government treated them like the terrorists i think they're being (for your imagination purposes, just think of these people as Muslims) they'd stand zero chance. They'd be wiped out easily and quickly.

 

All of their courage comes from knowing the government is reluctant to make a scene and would opt to just wait until they leave.

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLM committed arson, destruction of property, robbery, and larceny. Nothing happened.

 

No, specific individuals who may or may not have actually had ties to BLM committed those actions, and if they caught those specific individuals they'd be going through the legal system like normal.  Just as all of these people wouldn't have gotten charged for the actions of the arsonists.

 

That is, until they took control of a federal facility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, specific individuals who may or may not have actually had ties to BLM committed those actions, and if they caught those specific individuals they'd be going through the legal system like normal.  Just as all of these people wouldn't have gotten charged for the actions of the arsonists.

 

That is, until they took control of a federal facility.

If you actually believe that, I'm not sure how to respond. Because that is pure garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of their courage comes from knowing the government is reluctant to make a scene and would opt to just wait until they leave.

That's what I want to happen. (Just wait till they leave).

Not because I support their loony notion that the US Constitution says the federal government cannot own real estate.

But because I don't see any way to get them out short of lethal force, and I don't see them doing anything that justifies lethal force.

Surround em, wait em out, arrest em, and charge em.

Yeah, that option will cost money. But I suspect the Feds have the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you actually believe that, I'm not sure how to respond. Because that is pure garbage.

 

No, your media sources are pure garbage, if your clinging to your belief this is a clerical error is any indication.

 

BLM is both an organization and a movement.  The organization has kept their nose clean, but the movement is open ended on membership.  Someone could walk into a bank, hold it up, scream "I'm BLM" but that doesn't make them part of the actual organization, and the actual organization shouldn't be held accountable for that.

 

Not to mention, if we're going to be holding groups accountable for the actions of individual radical members, then there'd probably be a few million or more far right people in jail than there are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I want to happen. (Just wait till they leave).

Not because I support their loony notion that the US Constitution says the federal government cannot own real estate.

But because I don't see any way to get them out short of lethal force, and I don't see them doing anything that justifies lethal force.

Surround em, wait em out, arrest em, and charge em.

Yeah, that option will cost money. But I suspect the Feds have the money.

Could literally take months. Supposedly, they brought supplies.

 

Having money doesn't not mean that it's prudent to spend it that way. They didn't bring spouses or kids in, no reason not to Waco the place.

No, your media sources are pure garbage, if your clinging to your belief this is a clerical error is any indication.

 

BLM is both an organization and a movement.  The organization has kept their nose clean, but the movement is open ended on membership.  Someone could walk into a bank, hold it up, scream "I'm BLM" but that doesn't make them part of the actual organization, and the actual organization shouldn't be held accountable for that.

 

Not to mention, if we're going to be holding groups accountable for the actions of individual radical members, then there'd probably be a few million or more far right people in jail than there are now.

Really? Please tell me what specific individuals were responsible for stopping traffic? Obstructing the process of several emergency vehicles responding to calls? Initiated violence in Ferguson? Started riots in Baltimore? Who are these "specific individuals?"

 

If you don't think that BLM was not only aware but encouraged such behavior, you're crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Please tell me what specific individuals were responsible for stopping traffic? Obstructing the process of several emergency vehicles responding to calls? Initiated violence in Ferguson? Started riots in Baltimore? Who are these "specific individuals?"

 

If you don't think that BLM was not only aware but encouraged such behavior, you're crazy.

 

So everyone involved in a protest where illegal activity occurs, or where a group is tied to someone committing illegal activity the whole group is culpable?

 

No, that's not how it works.  Again, if it was, you'd have millions of far right people in jail.  The fact that they walk free and constantly post garbage to places like Stormfront is proof of that.

 

Specific individuals have been arrested and charged who were involved in the riots/protests you speak of.  That IS how it works.  You arrest the specific individuals who are committing the actual crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we would just ban country music, the rate of inbreeding might drop enough that we wouldn't have to deal with morons like this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I want to happen. (Just wait till they leave).

 

 

Your way is the right way to do it.

 

I just hate this crap because people like this make people like me look like loony  idiots when I claim to argue in support of the second amendment elsewhere. If I had any faith that these people would be held accountable for what they're doing, I'd be OK with your way, but I have a gut feeling they're going to skate on accountability and that's just going to continue to encourage this kind of behavior. If it's not stopped somewhere it'll escalate past being a stand off and by then we might have a real problem...

 

But I also don't have to be held accountable for making such a decision so it's quite easy for me to do so. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could literally take months. Supposedly, they brought supplies.

 

Having money doesn't not mean that it's prudent to spend it that way. They didn't bring spouses or kids in, no reason not to Waco the place.

Other than the fact that (in my opinion) lethal force is justified to life, or great harm. (And the fact that Waco was wrong.)

(Sorry, but I'm not one of those people who likes to claim that when a cop tells you to some out with your hands up, lay on the ground, and put your hands behind your head, and said person does not immediately do so, then said cop is justified in just killing him.)

 


 

I keep remembering a post I made, decades ago, here, that I consider to be one of the best posts I've made in this forum

 

Some dude had driven his car through the entrance to, I think it was the Treasury building.  (Next door to the White House.)  He was claiming that his family station wagon was loaded with explosives. 

 

My observation was that the person, right now, has two options. 

 

1)  Die. 

2)  Go talk to the nice judge. 

 

And that he should take all the time he needs, to contemplate those two choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.