Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Ring 6]

Bottom line is that the special master did NOT exonerate the owners. He concluded that some of their behavior violated the SSA and the CBA and awarded players damages.

My argument was not whether they were correct in doing so, but that they had reason to believe what they did was allowed (as opposed to the argument that it was some type of black op)
The case overall came down to which concept, 'best business practices' or 'good faith effort" to maximize revenues overrode the other. And the other discrepancy was whether a deal that began after the CBA was over needed to comply with the CBA if it was negotiated during it.
The Special Master ruled that protecting their businesses took priority and Doty disagreed, saying good faith overrode, even to the point of defaulting on their loans.
I think it is plain to see that the league had a reasonable interpretation of the agreement that their attorneys could have in good reason judged to be allowable, even if their argument did not win in Doty's court. The Special Master, for one, chose to agree with them on the priority of the clauses, but not on the timing, which IMO shows the interpretation was not cut and dried, and implication that they secretly, knowingly and purposely violated the agreement with disregard to the legality of their actions is off base.
I am not arguing the merits of their case, simply that the interpretation they used to believe they were within their rights was reasonable and claims that they 'stole the TV money' are sensationalist and don't consider the true facts.

 

[Miguel]

My argument was not whether they were correct in doing so, but that they had reason to believe what they did was allowed (as opposed to the argument that it was some type of black op)
The case overall came down to which concept, 'best business practices' or 'good faith effort" to maximize revenues overrode the other. And the other discrepancy was whether a deal that began after the CBA was over needed to comply with the CBA if it was negotiated during it.
The Special Master ruled that protecting their businesses took priority and Doty disagreed, saying good faith overrode, even to the point of defaulting on their loans.
I think it is plain to see that the league had a reasonable interpretation of the agreement that their attorneys could have in good reason judged to be allowable, even if their argument did not win in Doty's court. The Special Master, for one, chose to agree with them on the priority of the clauses, but not on the timing, which IMO shows the interpretation was not cut and dried, and implication that they secretly, knowingly and purposely violated the agreement with disregard to the legality of their actions is off base.
I am not arguing the merits of their case, simply that the interpretation they used to believe they were within their rights was reasonable and claims that they 'stole the TV money' are sensationalist and don't consider the true facts.

http://www.nfllockout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NFL-Decision-Tree1.jpg
convinces me, otherwise.

 

[Ring 6]

http://www.nfllockout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NFL-Decision-Tree1.jpg
convinces me, otherwise.

Well thats your opinion and I respect that, but I don't agree.
I think it is clear that the deal and the CBA were related, but I never doubted both sides operate to gain leverage.
My disagreement is that the NFL knowingly, willingly and maliciously violated the CBA just hoping they would never caught.

 

[lamafist]

[/B]
Here you completely contadict your previous position that the 5th Amendment established the right of the Government to take personal property and prove my point that the 5th Amendment instead establishes the necessity to justly compensate when this occurs.
You have proven yourself wrong with your own words.
There is no need for me to respond to the rest of your drivel, because it is just a step along the way to the eventuality of you again citing an issue that proves you wrong as proof you are right.
Why would I continue to discuss this with you when your approach is to insult me then admit I am right while pretending that proof makes you right.

Uh, ok buddy. From that tortured, lame attempt at hair splitting, I think it's safe to assume that you know as well as I do how incoherent your argument is, and just lack the stones to ever admit you may have gotten something wrong.

The distinction with no difference you're trying to make between establishing the power of the government at that present time in 1787 and establishing the constitutionality of the government's exercise of that power for the federal judiciary in every case involving eminent domain since, doesn't actually help your larger argument at all.

Either way, the fact is clear that the framers considered the government's seizing of private property for public use to be such an obvious and intrinsic function of government that its existence could be assumed, and deemed it necessary only to bring up one limitation on its practice, that the owner be compensated.

 

[Ring 6]

Uh, ok buddy. From that tortured, lame attempt at hair splitting, I think it's safe to assume that you know as well as I do how incoherent your argument is, and just lack the stones to ever admit you may have gotten something wrong.

You have successfully convinced yourself you are right and no one knows anything.
How proud you must be.
That said, you cannot even admit when your own statements cotradict themselves.
By the way, you will notice that although you want to be the judge of the strength of your argument, you should note the rule of thumb that since you must resort to insulting me in every post, that is the true indication of how weak your argument is.

The distinction with no difference you're trying to make between establishing the power of the government at that present time in 1787 and establishing the constitutionality of the government's exercise of that power for the federal judiciary in every case involving eminent domain since, doesn't actually help your larger argument at all.

I am not making any distinction, you contradicted yourself first saying the Bill of Rights empowered the Government to take private property (seriously, we learn in elementary school that the Bill of Rights is for rights granted the people not rights taken away for the government) then saying it did not.

Either way, the fact is clear that the framers considered the government's seizing of private property for public use to be such an obvious and intrinsic function of government that its existence could be assumed, and deemed it necessary only to bring up one limitation on its practice, that the owner be compensated.

Keep trying. Since they gave a right TO THE PEOPLE to force just compensation in the event in was necessary, I don't know how you get clear meaning out of something you don't even understand.


Other than obligatory insults and stating you are right because you say so, what else ya got?

 

[Ring 6]

Uh, ok buddy. From that tortured, lame attempt at hair splitting, I think it's safe to assume that you know as well as I do how incoherent your argument is, and just lack the stones to ever admit you may have gotten something wrong.

.

Lets focus on this statement. Do you 'have the stones' to admit you first said the 5th Amendment established the right of the Government to take private property and then said it did not?
Do you have the 'stones' to admit you got something wrong?

 

[lamafist]

My argument was not whether they were correct in doing so, but that they had reason to believe what they did was allowed (as opposed to the argument that it was some type of black op)
The case overall came down to which concept, 'best business practices' or 'good faith effort" to maximize revenues overrode the other. And the other discrepancy was whether a deal that began after the CBA was over needed to comply with the CBA if it was negotiated during it.
The Special Master ruled that protecting their businesses took priority and Doty disagreed, saying good faith overrode, even to the point of defaulting on their loans.
I think it is plain to see that the league had a reasonable interpretation of the agreement that their attorneys could have in good reason judged to be allowable, even if their argument did not win in Doty's court. The Special Master, for one, chose to agree with them on the priority of the clauses, but not on the timing, which IMO shows the interpretation was not cut and dried, and implication that they secretly, knowingly and purposely violated the agreement with disregard to the legality of their actions is off base.
I am not arguing the merits of their case, simply that the interpretation they used to believe they were within their rights was reasonable and claims that they 'stole the TV money' are sensationalist and don't consider the true facts.

The way you phrase it, it sounds as if Doty ruled that "good faith" overrode "sound business judgement" as a matter of principle when equally attached to the charged obligation in parallel. He did not. He ruled that the specific language of the CBA only applies the "consistent with sound business judgement" clause after the injunction to bargain in good faith is satisfied:

The court must construe the SSA in light of the language agreed to by the parties and New York law. The phrase “consistent with sound business judgment” qualifies, and is qualified by, theSSA requirement that the parties act in good faith and use best efforts to maximize total revenues for the joint benefit of the Players and the NFL. Indeed, “consistent with sound business judgment” allows the NFL to consider its long-term interests provided it does so while acting in good faith and using best efforts to maximize total revenues for each SSA playing season.Accord Dist. Lodge 26 of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & AerospaceWorkers, AFL-CIO v. United Techs. Corp., 689 F. Supp. 2d 219, 242(D. Conn. 2010) (considering contract’s “every reasonable effort”provision). “Sound business judgment” does not allow the NFL to3pursue its own interests at the expense of maximizing total revenues during the SSA. Therefore, the special master committed legal error in his interpretation of “sound business judgment,”which effectively nullified pertinent terms of the SSA.

The Special Master had imported whole cloth an interpretation of "consistent with best business practices" from corporate law that cannot apply in a labor context:

In a corporate context, the business-judgment rule exists to insulate corporate directors from personal liability when they take good-faith risks on behalf of a corporation. The rule protects directors from actions by stockholders (owners) and others. Unlike corporate directors and stockholders, whose interests generally align, the interests of management (owners) and labor are adversarial.

In the context of the CBA, as dictated by the language, the "consistent with sound business judgement" protection only applies when the "sound business judgement" is being exercised on behalf of both parties, not one in the exclusion of the other. Negotiating so as to protect the solvency of its businesses would indeed be consistent with sound business judgement for both the NFL and players, and thus valid under both the Special Master and Doty's rulings, but neither judge found it plausible that that's what the NFL was doing.

As Doty ruled:

The NFL also argues that the broadcast contracts were renegotiated to avoid defaulting under certain loan covenants. That fact alone substantiates value to the NFL without a corresponding increase in total revenues. Moreover, the value of the renegotiated contracts far exceeds the amount needed to satisfy loan covenants, and the DirecTV contract creates a financial incentive to institute a lockout. Further, the decision to lockout the Players is entirely within the control of the NFL, thereby rendering a debt default also entirely within its control. Lastly, the debt covenants are of the NFL's own making.

The risk of debt default brought about by a lockout does not excuse or justify a breach of the SSA.

There is no reasonable interpretation of the CBA the NFL's lawyers could have devised using dept covenants to justify securing continued payments far exceeding the dept amounts during a lockout that is entirely and solely the NFL's volition.

 

[Ring 6]

The way you phrase it, it sounds as if Doty ruled that "good faith" overrode "sound business judgement" as a matter of principle when equally attached to the charged obligation in parallel. He did not. He ruled that the specific language of the CBA only applies the "consistent with sound business judgement" clause after the injunction to bargain in good faith is satisfied:

He went into great detail in his ruling on this. The special master felt that sound business judgment trumped good faith, and Doty disagreed.

The Special Master had imported whole cloth an interpretation of "consistent with best business practices" from corporate law that cannot apply in a labor context:

In the context of the CBA, as dictated by the language, the "consistent with sound business judgement" protection only applies when the "sound business judgement" is being exercised on behalf of both parties, not one in the exclusion of the other. Negotiating so as to protect the solvency of its businesses would indeed be consistent with sound business judgement for both the NFL and players, and thus valid under both the Special Master and Doty's rulings, but neither judge found it plausible that that's what the NFL was doing.

The NFL argued that it was acting to protect its solvency, and Doty essentially said it didnt matter that they have convenants in their loan argeements that would result in default, because they didnt need to have loans if they didnt like that, and that arguing the harm to their business in a work stoppage was illegitimate because they could just not lock out the players.
Regardless, as was my point, there is a very reasonable case that the owners felt they were within compliance with the agreement.

As Doty ruled:

There is no reasonable interpretation of the CBA the NFL's lawyers could have devised using dept covenants to justify securing continued payments far exceeding the dept amounts during a lockout that is entirely and solely the NFL's volition.

As I said above, that is the judges ruling but to consider that the only reasonable interpretation is silly.

 

[lamafist]

You have successfully convinced yourself you are right and no one knows anything.
How proud you must be.
That said, you cannot even admit when your own statements cotradict themselves.
By the way, you will notice that although you want to be the judge of the strength of your argument, you should note the rule of thumb that since you must resort to insulting me in every post, that is the true indication of how weak your argument is.


I am not making any distinction, you contradicted yourself first saying the Bill of Rights empowered the Government to take private property (seriously, we learn in elementary school that the Bill of Rights is for rights granted the people not rights taken away for the government) then saying it did not.


Keep trying. Since they gave a right TO THE PEOPLE to force just compensation in the event in was necessary, I don't know how you get clear meaning out of something you don't even understand.


Other than obligatory insults and stating you are right because you say so, what else ya got?

I also learned that in elementary school. Later on, I learned that -- shockingly enough -- the way we were taught to understand things in elementary school is drastically simplified so as to be suitable for the purposes of imprinting on a 10 year old mind, and that by the time we get to High School, we're expected to understand things on a more nuanced and adult level.

The 5th amendment did not create a new power of the government to take control of private property, for as far as the framers were considered, governments had legitimately had this power since the magna carta -- but as far as the US judiciary has been concerned since the earliest eminent domain cases, the 5th amendment does indeed establish the government's constitutional authority to exercise it.

Lets focus on this statement. Do you 'have the stones' to admit you first said the 5th Amendment established the right of the Government to take private property and then said it did not?
Do you have the 'stones' to admit you got something wrong?

Actually, what I first said in reference to the 5th amendment in this thread was: As for the founding fathers, sorry, but they considered themselves progressive just for insisting that the government not take private property "for public use, without just compensation" in the 5th amendment. As British colonials, they were used to laws of eminent domain from the Magna Carta and later that didn't even require that the crown or parliament compensate people they deprived of property.

The second time I referenced the 5th amendment, I said: I was replying to your general statement that the US government doesn't forcibly buy out private businesses and make them public, when, in fact, its authority to do so is clearly derived from the 5th amendment to the constitution, under the condition that it provides compensation.

So far I've already made it clear that the right of the government to take private property existed in the colonies long before the constitution, and that the government's authority to do so is derived from the 5th amendment. This is 100% and precisely true.

It's not until my third reference to the takings clause that I even use the word "established," and even there, it should be pretty clear in the context of my prior references to it that I'm not saying that the power is created anew by the 5th amendment, but rather that it's from the 5th amendment that the government's consitutional authority has been established, in this case, through a couple centuries of judicial precedent.

Then in the 4th reference, I go back to more accurately qualifying that it's "the 5th Amendment... where the congressional authority for eminent domain originates in the constitution. The establishment of that particular limitation on congress' use of eminent domain entails the existence of the power in the first place."

The fifth reference, I quote directly from the supreme court.

So, what I have the stones to admit is that in one out of five references to the takings clause of the 5th amendment, I left a little room for misinterpretation with imprecise language. My bad... I guess?

So what I'm still wondering is who you thought and think you are fooling when you seize on that one out of five references to the takings clause to try to misrepresent what I'd been clearly saying from the beginning?

Do you think focusing on this particular hair your splitting distracts me from the fact that you were, and still are, just plain wrong about the supposed Commie unAmerican-ness of the government doing something that it's clear from every Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution that it's entitled to do so long as it provides just compensation?

 

[Ring 6]

I also learned that in elementary school. Later on, I learned that -- shockingly enough -- the way we were taught to understand things in elementary school is drastically simplified so as to be suitable for the purposes of imprinting on a 10 year old mind, and that by the time we get to High School, we're expected to understand things on a more nuanced and adult level.

Of course the obligatory insult. (Guess I am right again)
Are you seriously telling me that you think the Bill of Rights was written to take rights from the people and give them to the Government.
Seriuosly answer that one first, because you will either have to come clean and admit you are wrong, or prove you are a waste of time to discuss this topic with.

The 5th amendment did not create a new power of the government to take control of private property, for as far as the framers were considered, governments had legitimately had this power since the magna carta -- but as far as the US judiciary has been concerned since the earliest eminent domain cases, the 5th amendment does indeed establish the government's constitutional authority to exercise it.

The greatest legal scholars in America dispute what the founding fathers intended. You have stated numerous times that you know their intentions. Really????/
Please show me where the US Judiciary has stated that the 5th Amendment established the Governments right to Eminent Domain. Because now you are just making stuff up, and contradicting your own statements in order to prove you didn't contradict your own statements.

Actually, what I first said in reference to the 5th amendment in this thread was: As for the founding fathers, sorry, but they considered themselves progressive just for insisting that the government not take private property "for public use, without just compensation" in the 5th amendment. As British colonials, they were used to laws of eminent domain from the Magna Carta and later that didn't even require that the crown or parliament compensate people they deprived of property.

Again you claim to read the founding fathers minds.

The second time I referenced the 5th amendment, I said: I was replying to your general statement that the US government doesn't forcibly buy out private businesses and make them public, when, in fact, its authority to do so is clearly derived from the 5th amendment to the constitution, under the condition that it provides compensation.

So far I've already made it clear that the right of the government to take private property existed in the colonies long before the constitution, and that the government's authority to do so is derived from the 5th amendment. This is 100% and precisely true.

You argued numerous times that the 5th Amendment established the governments right to take private property.
Are you now saying that was wrong?

It's not until my third reference to the takings clause that I even use the word "established," and even there, it should be pretty clear in the context of my prior references to it that I'm not saying that the power is created anew by the 5th amendment, but rather that it's from the 5th amendment that the government's consitutional authority has been established, in this case, through a couple centuries of judicial precedent.

Then in the 4th reference, I go back to more accurately qualifying that it's "the 5th Amendment... where the congressional authority for eminent domain originates in the constitution. The establishment of that particular limitation on congress' use of eminent domain entails the existence of the power in the first place."

The fifth reference, I quote directly from the supreme court.

So, what I have the stones to admit is that in one out of five references to the takings clause of the 5th amendment, I left a little room for misinterpretation with imprecise language. My bad... I guess?

You have sufficiently answered your own question by proving you do not have the 'stones' to admit you are wrong, and instead want to post volumes dodging what you said.

So what I'm still wondering is who you thought and think you are fooling when you seize on that one out of five references to the takings clause to try to misrepresent what I'd been clearly saying from the beginning?

I am niot misrepresenting anything you said. You ARGUED that the 5th Amendment established the right of the government to take private property. You hurled insults when you couldn't come up with a good argument.
Now you blather on ridiculously trying to hide from contradicting yourself in the middle of acting like an arrogant @sshole.

Do you think focusing on this particular hair your splitting distracts me from the fact that you were, and still are, just plain wrong about the supposed Commie unAmerican-ness of the government doing something that it's clear from every Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution that it's entitled to do so long as it provides just compensation?

Yes, you conveniently ignored my responses to your Communist comments.

Dude, you need to lighten up with the 'who do you think you are fooling' and 'splitting hairs to distract from the fact' and all that crap.
I am trying to have a discussion. You apparently are playing to some kind of an audience that you want to get a grade from.

In any event, grow up and stop the insults. They make you look like a fool.

 

[lamafist]

He went into great detail in his ruling on this. The special master felt that sound business judgment trumped good faith, and Doty disagreed.

And I'm saying that "sound business judgment trumped good faith" doesn't adequately express what the special master an doty both went into great detail discussion. Neither of them intended to imply that in the case at hand, that "sound business judgment" and "good faith" were ever in confliction.

The NFL argued that it was acting to protect its solvency, and Doty essentially said it didnt matter that they have convenants in their loan argeements that would result in default, because they didnt need to have loans if they didnt like that, and that arguing the harm to their business in a work stoppage was illegitimate because they could just not lock out the players.
Regardless, as was my point, there is a very reasonable case that the owners felt they were within compliance with the agreement.


As I said above, that is the judges ruling but to consider that the only reasonable interpretation is silly.

You forgot about the part where the amount of lockout insurance the NFL secured was far in excess of the NFL's loan covenants. And how at the time the NFL was negotiating the TV contract, the loan covenants persistence into the time of a potential work stoppage was unnecessary.

The NFL's logic reminds me of that WC Fields line "I always keep a supply of whisky handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy."

And if the judge felt that there were a reasonable case to be made that the NFL thought it was acting within the spirit of the CBA and SSA, than it would by definition not have been acting in bad faith.

 

[Ring 6]

And I'm saying that "sound business judgment trumped good faith" doesn't adequately express what the special master an doty both went into great detail discussion. Neither of them intended to imply that in the case at hand, that "sound business judgment" and "good faith" were ever in confliction.

100% wrong. Doty discusses this in his decision and in fact 'reprimands' the special master.
I'm not exactly sure from the awful grammar there, but it appears you are saying when Doty discusses this and says te special master was wrong to rule sound business judgment a priority to good faith, that now you are telling Doty he is wrong and didnt mean what he said?

Are you reading his mind now too?

You forgot about the part where the amount of lockout insurance the NFL secured was far in excess of the NFL's loan covenants. And how at the time the NFL was negotiating the TV contract, the loan covenants persistence into the time of a potential work stoppage was unnecessary.

When I said the loan convenants were only a part of the issue, what did you think that meant, that I was saying it was the whole issue?

The NFL's logic reminds me of that WC Fields line "I always keep a supply of whisky handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy."

I have no clue how that applies here.

And if the judge felt that there were a reasonable case to be made that the NFL thought it was acting within the spirit of the CBA and SSA, than it would by definition not have been acting in bad faith.

What? The fact that the judge ruled that the violated the agreement is proof that they intentionally and knowingly violated it and had no reasonable cause to interpret it differently.
That is ridiculous.

 

[lamafist]

Of course the obligatory insult. (Guess I am right again)
Are you seriously telling me that you think the Bill of Rights was written to take rights from the people and give them to the Government.
Seriuosly answer that one first, because you will either have to come clean and admit you are wrong, or prove you are a waste of time to discuss this topic with.

Huh? What insult?

I'm telling you what I've been saying to you from the very beginning, which is that the 5th amendment, according to every Supreme Court decision "is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use."

Please find me a post where I said that the Bill of Rights was written to take rights from people and give them to the Government. I never said anything remotely like that. That's just a total straw man.

The greatest legal scholars in America dispute what the founding fathers intended. You have stated numerous times that you know their intentions. Really????

Again, lame straw man argument. I never claimed to have any special understanding of the framer's intentions. That eminent domain was the accepted law of the land in England and its colonies is a simple matter of fact. That any reading of the takings clause of the 5th amendment presumes the continued existence of this power is also a simple matter of fact.

Please show me where the US Judiciary has stated that the 5th Amendment established the Governments right to Eminent Domain. Because now you are just making stuff up, and contradicting your own statements in order to prove you didn't contradict your own statements.

I've provided links. I've cited a few decisions. Didn't read them? Whatever. As the man once said, you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.

You accuse me of contradicting myself. Please, show me where. Don't just claim I have -- actually demonstrate the things I've said that I'm contradicting.

Again you claim to read the founding fathers minds.

Nope, sorry. I don't. Are lame straw men all you got? You seem either uncapable or unwilling to respond to my argument without first misrepresenting it.

You argued numerous times that the 5th Amendment established the governments right to take private property.
Are you now saying that was wrong?

No. I didn't. I'm saying that I only used the word established once, and even then, it was clear from my prior, more detailed, comments, what I meant by that.

Once again, your only resort is to make up things I said that I never said.

You have sufficiently answered your own question by proving you do not have the 'stones' to admit you are wrong, and instead want to post volumes dodging what you said.


I am niot misrepresenting anything you said. You ARGUED that the 5th Amendment established the right of the government to take private property. You hurled insults when you couldn't come up with a good argument.
Now you blather on ridiculously trying to hide from contradicting yourself in the middle of acting like an arrogant @sshole.

I quoted you all of the times I referenced the 5th amendment. Again, only one of them even used the word "established." The rest of them -- especially the first two times -- all acknowledge the nuance that the 5th amendment doesn't create a new power, but contains a "tacit recognition of a preexisting" one

Yes, you conveniently ignored my responses to your Communist comments.

Which?

Dude, you need to lighten up with the 'who do you think you are fooling' and 'splitting hairs to distract from the fact' and all that crap.
I am trying to have a discussion. You apparently are playing to some kind of an audience that you want to get a grade from.

In any event, grow up and stop the insults. They make you look like a fool.

I'm playing to an audience? What do you think you're doing, trying to make up things I said for you to argue against? You can't possibly think that I'll actually believe that I said all the things you claim I did, but somehow can't point to where I did.

As for the insults... pot/kettle/etc. I never called you an ********* or a fool. That's all you. And I don't think I started getting snide with you until long after you were with me. Or are you genuinely not aware how obnoxiously dismissive you can come off?

 

[lamafist]

100% wrong. Doty discusses this in his decision and in fact 'reprimands' the special master.
I'm not exactly sure from the awful grammar there, but it appears you are saying when Doty discusses this and says te special master was wrong to rule sound business judgment a priority to good faith, that now you are telling Doty he is wrong and didnt mean what he said?

Are you reading his mind now too?

Show me the bad grammar. I suspect that's another baseless accusation on your part.

I'm telling you that you're wrong when you say it's a matter of the priority of "sound business judgement" vs. "good faith." Priority has nothing to do with it.

When I said the loan convenants were only a part of the issue, what did you think that meant, that I was saying it was the whole issue?


I have no clue how that applies here.


What? The fact that the judge ruled that the violated the agreement is proof that they intentionally and knowingly violated it and had no reasonable cause to interpret it differently.
That is ridiculous.

Not ridiculous. Per Doty's ruling: "the NFL renegotiated the broadcast contracts to benefit its exclusive interest at the expense of, and contrary to, the joint interests of the NFL and the Players. This conduct constitutes “a design ... to seek an unconscionable advantage” and is inconsistent with good faith."

It's not just that the NFL violated the letter of the law of the agreement, but that their negotiating the lockout insurance constituted a clear breach of the spirit of the agreement, and represented the aforementioned seeking of an "unconscionable advantage."

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Huh? What insult?

You insulted him a little bit yourself, a little bit.

 

[Joker]

 

[BradyFTW!]

Well, this thread has literally gone nowhere since I checked in a week ago.

 

[Ring 6]

Huh? What insult?

I'm telling you what I've been saying to you from the very beginning, which is that the 5th amendment, according to every Supreme Court decision "is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use."

Please find me a post where I said that the Bill of Rights was written to take rights from people and give them to the Government. I never said anything remotely like that. That's just a total straw man.

You have said over and over that the the 5th Amendment established the right of the Government to take property. That is taking rights from people and giving them to the government. The Bill of Rights established rights for citizens not the government.
This is the height of the ridiculousness of your argument.
The 5th Amendment address Eminnent Domain by giving protection against it, not by creating the right of the government to take property.
I cannot help if you cannot understand the difference.

Again, lame straw man argument. I never claimed to have any special understanding of the framer's intentions.

You have consistently made comments about what they intended.

That eminent domain was the accepted law of the land in England and its colonies is a simple matter of fact.

But you told me it was ESTABLISHED by the 5th Amendment

That any reading of the takings clause of the 5th amendment presumes the continued existence of this power is also a simple matter of fact.

Adding an Amendment to the Constitution to require equitable compensation in the event Emenant Domain is exercised is not even close to ESTABLISHING it.
Again, you state that it was established when it serves your argument then state that it was not when it serves your argument, and refuse to admit you are wrong on either point after contradicting yourself over and over.

I've provided links. I've cited a few decisions. Didn't read them? Whatever. As the man once said, you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.

Providing links that do not prove your point is not proving your point. I agree you found links to information about court cases. It would help your argument though, if they actually proved your point, which they do not.
Again, show me the example where the US Judiciary says the Eminent Domain was established in the 5th Amendment. You haven't yet, because you can't.

You accuse me of contradicting myself. Please, show me where. Don't just claim I have -- actually demonstrate the things I've said that I'm contradicting.

I have said it many, many times. You claimed that the 5th Amendment ESTABLSIHED the right of Eminant Domain, and then claimed that it did not, and are now flip-flopping within the same post. Adding 'tacit' later doesnt solve the contradiction.

Nope, sorry. I don't. Are lame straw men all you got? You seem either uncapable or unwilling to respond to my argument without first misrepresenting it.

When you state what the founding fathers had in mind as the basis of your argument and I state that you cannot read what was in their mind that is not a strawman that is rejecting the basis of your argument as flawed and arrogant.

No. I didn't. I'm saying that I only used the word established once, and even then, it was clear from my prior, more detailed, comments, what I meant by that.

You should write shorter posts and spend more time rereading them, becuase this statement doesnt even resemble the truth.

Once again, your only resort is to make up things I said that I never said.




I quoted you all of the times I referenced the 5th amendment. Again, only one of them even used the word "established." The rest of them -- especially the first two times -- all acknowledge the nuance that the 5th amendment doesn't create a new power, but contains a "tacit recognition of a preexisting" one

I'm not going to go back and requote every post. The only reason I even bothered to continue this is that you made a ridiculous statement that the 5th Amendment was designed to take rights away from citizens.
You have posted 75,000 words to backtrack from that, and now are denying ever saying it.
Just admit you were wrong, its a lot easier.

I'm playing to an audience?

It certainly appears that way.

What do you think you're doing, trying to make up things I said for you to argue against?

I am trying to discuss the issue, which you continue to dance around.

You can't possibly think that I'll actually believe that I said all the things you claim I did, but somehow can't point to where I did.

You admit you said that the 5th Amendment ESTABLISHED the right of the the government to take private property. For some reason you insist on posting volumes to make it seem you didnt mean that, or said something else more often, or something that I cant understand.
You have stated multiple times what the founding fathers intention was.

Those are the issues that you are dancing around, and now claiming you didnt say. You said them both.
I do not need to go back and requote out of volumes of lengthy posts to prove you said what you said.
Which of those 2 statements are you saying I made up and you didnt say?

As for the insults... pot/kettle/etc. I never called you an ********* or a fool. That's all you. And I don't think I started getting snide with you until long after you were with me. Or are you genuinely not aware how obnoxiously dismissive you can come off?

Again, I suggest you write less and pay closer attention to what you post.
You have consistently used an insulting, condescending attitude throughout this thread. That is not opinion, it is clearly obvious by your comments. I don't know what you are referencing to say I am being dismissive, when in fact, I am responding to every single point you make.

 

[Ring 6]

Show me the bad grammar. I suspect that's another baseless accusation on your part.

I quoted it.

I'm telling you that you're wrong when you say it's a matter of the priority of "sound business judgement" vs. "good faith." Priority has nothing to do with it.

I guess you need to take that up with Doty, because he wrote pages about it in his decision. He chided the Special Master for it.

Not ridiculous. Per Doty's ruling: "the NFL renegotiated the broadcast contracts to benefit its exclusive interest at the expense of, and contrary to, the joint interests of the NFL and the Players. This conduct constitutes “a design ... to seek an unconscionable advantage” and is inconsistent with good faith."

That has absolutley nothing to do with whether the NFL could reasonably believe they were acting appropriately.
"Good Faith" is not used here for general honesty, it is used in the context of maximizing revenues each year, and the NFL felt that it was not within best business practices to expose the league to the loss of income in 2011, and also believed that contracts negotiated for years that were not to be covered under the CBA were not part of that scenario.

But to understand your point, what you are saying is the NFL knew all along that they were violating the agreement, that there was no potnetially reasonable interpretation that could have led them to feeling they were in their rights to do so, and that they maliciously and capriciously violated the agreement knowing it was a violation, and scrambled to make up a defense?
If there was no question, why did the NFLPA need to appeal the Special Masters decision?

It's not just that the NFL violated the letter of the law of the agreement, but that their negotiating the lockout insurance constituted a clear breach of the spirit of the agreement, and represented the aforementioned seeking of an "unconscionable advantage."

They disagreed. Are you now saying that you sat down and read the CBA and understand it better than the NFL and their team of attorneys, including people in the room when the agreement was drawn?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Well, this thread has literally gone nowhere since I checked in a week ago.

Agreed.
Totally unreadable.

Ian...we need a hide threads feature.