Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by pdouble: since when is dui manslaughter a 30 day sentence , the million dollars he gave to the family certainly helped his jail time Since the Miami-Dade prosecutor's office decided it was when they offered the plea bargain. I don't recall any reports as to the amount of the settlement (and a cursory search of the Internet comes up with an undisclosed amount). If the prosecutor used that in coming up with the plea deal then that isn't Stallworth's fault. He definitely got off light but the prosecutor came up with and approved the deal. |
Popo21 | 12 |
|
|
He served 24 days of a 30 day sentence that he received as part of a plea bargain.
He didn't pay the family off to avoid charges. One doesn't serve time if one avoids charges. He was charged with DUI manslaughter. He settled with the family to avoid a civil lawsuit which he would have almost certainly lost anyways since he admitted to drinking. He was suspended by Goodell for the entire 2009 season. |
Popo21 | 12 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Will_See: With all do respect tinfoil....its a ground rule double...two bases awarded to everyone...therefore if a man was on second his run will count. In your other scenario of a fly ball to the outfield, if the outfielder decides to catch the fly ball for a out, the rbi that ends the game would be scored as a sac fly...if the outfielder is not there to field the catch and the ball bounces over the wall...two bases for ground rule! If it stays in the park its a single otherwise anything that gets out of the park should be considered to what were used to seeing...just adds another element to saving the runline for those that need it in the bottom 9 for the home team! Its not that hard. Really there should not be a argument here...mlb should look into changing it! I have lost a bet with the exact same scenario a few years ago but the rules are crystal clear on this subject. 4.11(c) f the home team scores the winning run in its half of the ninth inning (or its half of an extra inning after a tie), the game ends immediately when the winning run is scored. EXCEPTION: If the last batter in a game hits a home run out of the playing field, the batter-runner and all runners on base are permitted to score, in accordance with the base-running rules, and the game ends when the batter-runner touches home plate. APPROVED RULING: The batter hits a home run out of the playing field to win the game in the last half of the ninth or an extra inning, but is called out for passing a preceding runner. The game ends immediately when the winning run is scored, unless there are two out and the winning run has not yet reached home plate when the runner passes another, in which case the inning is over and only those runs that scored before the runner passes another shall count. There is no exception to what would normally be rule a ground rule double. That makes the hit a single in the official statistics. The argument that it is unfair to the batter is debatable. I wasn't watching the game but I am certain that (with no one out, bases loaded, tie game in the bottom of the ninth) the outfielders were playing way in so that they would be able to catch a line drive that would normally be a single. A long fly ball is going to score a run regardless so playing back is useless. So had this been another inning the hit very well may have ended up a sac fly instead of a ground rule double. It is no more or less unfair to credit him with a single instead of a double then it is to credit him with a double instead of a sac fly. However, this scenario occurs so infrequently that debating whether it is unfair to the player is irrelevant. It may also be unfair to the bettor but it really doesn't matter as MLB is not going to change the rules because you lost a bet. They didn't change it when I lost. |
Will_See | 24 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream: then we should remove the the league anti-trust exemption for broadcasting. the league was using broadcast $$$ to build a lockout fund to get leverage over the players. they built up the cash reserves to be able to sweat out the players, hurt local communities and enforce monopoly power. They attempted to build a lockout fund but Judge Doty ruled that that deal with the networks violated the existing CBA (the ruling was just prior to the expiration). Therefore the owners would not have had access to that money until a new CBA was reached. Regardless, the appeals process really needs to change. |
AustinHoopDream | 15 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by pinoy1da: how does taxing and gambling actually work here in the U.S. tho? i've won money and i've never filled out w8 forms or whatever they are called. is it really not taxable? serious question asking for serious answers In the US, Gambling winnings are always taxable. However, unless you receive a form W-2G you are on the honor system to report winnings. A W-2G must be provided by a US operated gambling establishment if any of the following apply: 1. $1,200 or more in gambling winnings from bingo or slot machines; 2. $1,500 or more in proceeds (the amount of winnings minus the amount of the wager) from keno; 3. More than $5,000 in winnings (reduced by the wager or buy-in) from a poker tournament; 4. $600 or more in gambling winnings (except winnings from bingo, keno, slot machines, and poker tournaments) and the payout is at least 300 times the amount of the wager; or 5. Any other gambling winnings subject to federal income tax withholding. |
jkirkpleasant | 22 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by HugoBossNYC: The term "knuckledragger" indicates someone whos a meathead, whether black or white. The term "hoods" refers to a ganster thug mentality, not the african-american race. Your defense reminds me of this. |
HugoBossNYC | 34 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69: Nah, I'll just keep being me, cause it works. You keep out thinking yourself and see where that gets you. One can't out think oneself when thinking isn't required for the subject at hand. It requires no thinking at all on my part to keep control over my money and it works for me. However it appears that the concept is over your head and thus the "over thinking" comment. Would you give me $200 every month if it was absolutely guaranteed that I would give you $2400 within 3 days after you requested it but you could not request it until February 1 of the following year? That is a better deal then the government gives you because it wouldn't require any paperwork be filed. I would hope you would say no but all indications are that you would actually say yes. The money you keep could be put in a non-interest bearing checking account and you would still better off because at least you can get to the money anytime if necessary. If you want to give your money to the government to hold for you that certainly is your choice as it is your money after all. Personally, when given the choice, I would rather receive an interest free loan then give one. You go the other way. |
RATPACK9921 | 21 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69: So you can invest it and lose 20% or keep it in your savings account drawing .25% interest? Good idea. You lose 20%? That must make you an investment adviser. Good luck with that. Even my 8 year old son understands that .25% interest is better then 0% return you get on your tax refund. I recommend you actually increase your withholding substantially as it would quite obviously be extremely beneficial to you. |
RATPACK9921 | 21 |
|
|
I am not in the business of giving out interest free loans (especially to the government) so I make sure I owe instead of getting my own money back.
|
RATPACK9921 | 21 |
|
|
Gaming revenue reports for Nevada casinos can be found here.
|
Europa | 35 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by bigballer559: It is clear that you need learn what rights are granted under the First Amendment. Perhaps it would help if you actually read it at some point in time. |
AK415 | 24 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose: The United States Constitution protects all forms and types of speech, including speech that offends. Not if that speech is threatening or inciting in nature. You said the people around you were saying "Yeah, c'mon, let's go" which could easily be interpreted as inciting. You directed your "Get the fuck out of the window" at the person which could easily be interpreted as threatening. You were not simply being offensive but were attempting to intimidate. Perhaps YOU should have gone to the supervisor to resolve the issue. |
TheGoldenGoose | 38 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by misfits: they dont, they just steal peoples identities and have 20 anchor babies apiece so they can drain every public assistance program dry so they can send all of the money they make back to mexico to sneak the other 40 members of their dirty ass family across the border to do the same They don't steal identities or even have to. They don't owe taxes but are entitled to a refund. Refundable tax credits give a refund whether you owe taxes or not (non-refundable tax credits can only reduce your tax liability to zero). So they can simply file a return that allows them to collect the entirety of any refundable tax credit. From the article: "The Treasury Department says that in the 2010 filing year more than $4 billion in child credit refunds went to 2.3 million people who filed tax returns but didn't have Social Security numbers proving they were citizens or legal workers." |
Daddy_Freddie | 7 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by spiff: So the Patriots finished in first place and will play the first place teams in the AFC West and AFC South (Denver and Baltimore). That should obviously be AFC North. |
Europa | 35 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Ice4Blood: it is odd that the two #1 seeds would have the easiest schedules... the formula that creates schedules is designed to do the opposite... Prior to the realignment to 4 divisions the scheduling formula was designed to give the better teams the tougher schedule based on the previous seasons standings. Since realignment there are only 2 games on the schedule based on where a team finishes in the standings. In addition to their 6 divisional games each team rotates through the other 3 divisions in their conference and through the other 4 divisions in the opposite conference. So 14 of the Patriots (plus the Packers and 30 other teams) opponents in 2012 were known in 2002. The AFC East: 2008 - AFC West / NFC West 2009 - AFC South / NFC South 2010 - AFC North / NFC North 2011 - AFC West / NFC East 2012 - AFC South / NFC West 2013 - AFC North / NFC South Each team will also play the 2 teams that finished in the same position in the 2 divisions within their conference that they are not playing that season. So the Patriots finished in first place and will play the first place teams in the AFC West and AFC South (Denver and Baltimore). The NFC North, by the luck of the rotation, will also play the NFC West and AFC South. So both the Packers and Patriots (as well as the other NFC North and AFC East teams) play 2 teams (Colts and Rams) that finished 2-14 last season. That will of course tend to lower those teams strength of schedule. The only part of the scheduling that could be considered a formula is the 2 teams based on record and those would make the strength of schedule harder. However, as you pointed out, it is not that accurate of an indicator. Here is the strength of schedule for the 2011 based on 2010 standings. The Patriots were tied for 15th. If you use the standings for 2011 only the Saints were lower. |
Europa | 35 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by mainmanmainman2: i agree w. this, welker couldve re-adjusted and make a blind catch on his brady mispass 3rd and 10. Yep, that pass wasn't the best throw but Welker had both hands on it. He has made tougher catches then that and had he come down with it no one would have give it a name like "The Grab" or something. |
mainmanmainman2 | 10 |
|
|
I thought both he or Welker could have been in a better position. So I just watched it again.
Welker is about 2 to 3 yards ahead of Gronkowski until the end zone, then looks back and essentially stops just inside the goal line. If he just gets closer to the crowd maybe he makes the grab. The tip went to his side as Gronkowski had to cross his path. Gronkowski keeps going towards the crowd of players, slows down briefly, then continues and dives for the ball. Perhaps if he doesn't slow down... I think Gronkowski did a better job of Welker considering he has a bad wheel. Low probability play but they had an excellent chance. |
mainmanmainman2 | 10 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by UberDog: Didn't a camera show Eli say "F--k!" after a Patriot score? Who cares? Apparently, this group for one. Talk about making something of nothing. |
DickyR | 61 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by bigballer559: Seriously this is annoying. Act like we are bunch of kids in trouble. How the fuck you end up here? Covers prison? I have a right to plea my case. Wtf happened to first amendment?? The reason you are in the box is obviously rooted in the fact that you don't understand the First Amendment. |
bigballer559 | 16 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1: I read that NBC had all the artists sign a waiver that if they pulled a stunt like hers, they were on their own regarding fines. She got here 15 min of fame. I can't speak to the contract they signed but it would have had to stipulate that they agreed to pay any fines levied on NBC by the FCC. That of course would effectively be the same thing but the FCC only has authority over the broadcasters. Yes she got her 15 minutes and will be forgotten even faster. |
DickyR | 61 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.