Reputation: 410 MVP
- Active Posts:
- 1,937 (2.16 per day)
- Most Active In:
- General NFL Talk (504 posts)
- 03-January 11
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Yesterday, 09:47 PM
- Member Title:
- Advanced Member
- 25 years old
- February 18, 1988
- NFL Team:
- TGP Bookie Champion - 2012
Topics I've Started
25 September 2012 - 03:56 AM
QuoteThe Lingerie Football League Announces That It Fired "A Couple Crews Which Apparently Are Now Officiating In The NFL" Because Of Incompetence
After the Hall of Fame game in August, Mike Pereira let it slip that Craig Ochoa, the referee who worked that game, had been fired from the Lingerie Football League. The Lingerie Football League—which recently uprooted itself from its US host cities to barnstorm in Canada, the United States, and Australia over the next year—didn't respond to our request for comment on Pereira's charge then.
But now they have, and, boy, oh boy, this is great:
Because of the LFL's perception it is that much more critical for us to hire officiating crews that are competent, not only for the credibility of our game but to keep our athletes safer. Due to several on-field incompetent officiating we chose to part ways with with a couple crews which apparently are now officiating in the NFL. We have a lot of respect for our officials but we felt the officiating was not in line with our expectations.If there was ever a reason for a public statement from a third-tier football league at 12:28 a.m. on a Tuesday, tonight's debacle was it. And, yup, Roger Goodell, you just got served. By the commissioner of the Lingerie Football League. Eat it.
We have not made public comment to date because we felt it was not our place to do so. However in light of tonight's event, we felt it was only fair that NFL fans knew the truth as to who are officiating these games.
20 July 2012 - 08:11 AM
QuoteGOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative
By Ted Barrett, CNN updated 8:29 PM EDT, Thu July 19, 2012
ashington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "insource" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad. In voting against the bill, Republicans raised both substantive and procedural problems with the measure.
The bill fell four votes short of the 60 needed to bring it to debate, with 42 voting against it. Four GOP senators -- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Dean Heller of Nevada -- voted in favor of the bill.
Romney drives a truck through Obama's 'build that' remark
With job creation the top issue this campaign season, and outsourcing being blamed as a big contributor to the high unemployment rate, Democrats saw the bill as an election-year winner. Sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, who is running for reelection, the bill made it to the top of the "to-do list" for Congress President Barack Obama unveiled earlier this year.
The Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the United States and would rescind business expense deductions available to companies that are associated with the cost of moving operations overseas.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had warned Democrats before the vote that his party would want to amend the bill -- possibly with hot-button issues like repealing the health care reform law or extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded that those amendments were not germane to the bill and he would not allow votes on them.
In addition, Republican aides called attention to opposition by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who generally support Republicans.
Biden knocks GOP over outsourcing
In a letter to senators this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."
The Chamber said it would count how senators voted on this motion in their annual "How they Voted" scorecard.
Doubtless they did this because they didn't want taxes raised on the rich company owners that outsource; after all they might just lose their campaign money, but their prime argument for not raising taxes on the wealthy is that they are job creators and it "trickles down." What's the argument for not raising taxes on the rich that don't provide jobs for Americans?
I don't personally care for Obama as a President, I've hated some of the things he's done, but I'll be damned if I vote for a party that will trash him for not making jobs and then turn around and prevent something that would aid in doing so just for their own political agenda.