SpartyBlue

1 hour ago, Ghoat said:

1. I've not heard that brought up vis-a-vis the 13th, 'tis interesting. I'm guessing it has survived legal challenges because the courts see the "pay" as going to offset the cost to the taxpayers of incarceration. I think I have heard $30k used as an average cost per inmate per year. If you assumed 20% of pay to taxes, that would mean a gross of $37,500. If based on a 2080hr work year, they are getting "credit" for $18 per hour - decent for (mostly) unskilled labor?

2. Is this not covered under an umbrella from another amendment/law? What is the consequences of not having it/what would having it address? Confessing total ignorance on this!

1. The prison labor system we have is pretty messed up for a variety of reasons. I expect it’s not been challenged because there is nothing to challenge. You can’t say something is unconstitutional if it’s explicitly accounted for in an amendment. It is, quite literally, constitutional.

2. You are correct that their are various protections in place within other laws. The ERA itself has an interesting history. Cruised through Congress in the 60’s or 70’s but fell just short of the 38 states that needed to ratify largely due to the work of one woman who made it her life’s mission to oppose it. If you’re familiar with John Oliver’s show on HBO he does an excellent (and amusing) summary.

Just now, Bailey said:

I was watching a program when they were talking about transfer requests (well it wasn't just about that as that would be a weird show) and they said that if a transfer request becomes public knowledge then it is normally the club releasing the news as they are getting ready to sell the player and they want the fans on side, blaming the player for the move away rather than the owners. If the player heard that in the news they knew they were off and should start packing.

This was from a player who had retired a couple of years ago and things have changed a lot since the transfer he was talking about but I thought it was interesting.

This makes a lot of sense. Judging by the Palace forum the tide is certainly turning against him now. I'd be a surprised if he played against us even if he stays so from that perspective we've accomplished something already.

9 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Im a bit of a fence sitter with him. I think he improved a lot last year and started to look as though he was maturing as a footballer but £30million is a LOT of money.

I think its clear we are after someone who can beat a man and be direct when looking at the bids for both him and Zaha but I know I would much rather have the latter.

I guess the question is would you rather have Iwobi and 40m or so? The net impact may be greater w/ the extra money.

4 minutes ago, Wiggytop said:

That are poor stats, although he was the only Arsenal player to look dangerous when we beat them at Goodison this season, with his age he might be worth a punt, is he left footed mainly?

Very tricky with the ball from what I know and good at driving it forward. The knock is that he lacks end product but at 23 it's still quite possible he could develop there. I see on the Arsenal forum that many people think he'd be good as a 10. Given that we are linked to Doucoure and that we are apparently pursuing Zaha AND Iwobi I wonder if he's seen as competition/eventual replacement for Siggy as opposed to a full-time winger. Silva seems to value versatility very highly.

2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

So he's smarter than the average Berra?

 

Hey hey boo boo

7 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

My neighbor who I hang out with all the time is from Detroit (as is his wife). He still proudly wears his T-Shirt from the perfect 0-16 season "Lions 2008 Preseason Champs 4-0" Reminds me, after I go check the ffl, it's probably time to start a football ('Merican) thread

I could get into that. I'm knee deep in my fantasy football/daily fantasy sports research for the upcoming season. I suppose we should contain all the American sports chat to a future thread though.

59 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

To Sparty's point, the framers of the US Constitution were a bit paranoid about the central governments powers. A significant portion of the Constitution is restrictions on the power of the central government with various checks and balances, putting the military under elected civilian authority and the rights of states. Whatever was not specifically granted, or prohibited within the Constitution fell to the states. 

Generally speaking you had a mixture of lay people and thinkers of the day that had the opportunity to create what they considered an ideal country or an ideal system of government. The intent was for people to be governed by the laws of the state they chose to live in, and for the states to send their own elected representatives to the two legislative bodies  for a few days, hash out laws that affected the Union, and then go back home to their jobs and let the states take care of the rest. 

For 13 States and 2-3 million people it worked. Almost 250 years later, it's 50 states, 300+ million people and the document still works with little changes. There have only been 27 amendments in all that time, and 10 of those (Bill of Rights) included in the original Constitution so I don't really know why they count as amendments. And the first 10 were largely restricting the power of the federal government, and granting citizens protection from prosecution. I guess it will be fair to say the second amendment falls under both of those categories.

Regardless there have only been 17 actual changes since the Constitution was adopted, and several of those apply procedures for Congress. one said liquors illegal, and another one said nevermind no it's not.

There are probably maybe 10 "big" amendments, that range from the abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote, voting age etc. It's not perfect and there have been some changes and interpretations and powers, but the framers did a pretty damn good job I'm creating something out of thin air that has had that few substantial changes over time.

And For better or worse, Americans tend to get a bit skeptical when you seriously talk about changes to the Constitution. It has worked stunningly well over the test of time, and there is a fear of making a substantial change within it that upsets any of the balances/checks of power or limits the rights of individuals or states that are expressly provided.

I do find it a little humorous or ironic that we revere the Framers/Founder as some of the greatest Americans history... Without stopping to realize most of them were first generation born in this country to ex-pats/colonists.... So it was pretty much a collection of very forward thinking, wise Brits who wrote it

By comparison, my State Constitution (Alabama) is only 117 years old, but written by crooked redneck lawyers. It's more than twice as long as any constitution in the world, over 40 times longer than the US Constitution, and has nine hundred and twenty fucking eight Amendment. 

And back on topic, amendment or not, I can't see any reason for a 21 year old to be able to buy an AK-47 or handgun with a 30 round clip

Well said. I think it's important to both recognize the success of the document and it's limitations. By doing so it will hopefully appear to people as less of a religious text and more of the insightful but changeable framework it was meant to be. One example I like to cite to people who are a bit dogmatic about the Constitution is the slavery exception in the 13th amendment. If you're convicted of a crime the government is perfectly allowed to force your unpaid labor and you are essentially a slave of the state. The consequences of this exception have directly resulted in a lot of the problems we have with our prison population to this day. Also, we still don't have an Equal Rights Amendment which I bet would surprise a lot of people. 

1 minute ago, Ghoat said:

Sorry to hear. "Thoughts and prayers" of course

haha.Low blow. At least we are bad enough where we should have some very high level prospects coming through in the next 2-3 years. At least I have the Lions to look forward to...

1 minute ago, Ghoat said:

Bastard

Just now, Ghoat said:

I will let the immortal words of Yogi Berra answer that for me. "When you come to a fork in the road, take it"

He is the Shakespeare of our time. 

2 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I simply cannot say. Zaha would transform our front line, Zouma would transform our backline.

It's like asking me if I would rather lose my left testicle or the right one.

Well?

18 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I've got my fantasy draft tonight, I guess I could go ahead and pick him, he should start for SOMEBODY next weekend

The palace game is gonna be pretty spicy no matter what happens, especially in their building

15 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Not buying that anymore, go back pre-PL and it's a valid point. Nowadays poor/average players earn £40/50k a week (that's upward of £2m pa); as long as they're not complete doughnuts or end up with a gambling addiction Dan Gosling level players will never have to do a days work in their lives.

That’s not really how it works though, is it? As an an example look at every other major sport. A career could end at any moment and many athletes are not simply concerned with their own welfare. They are supporting an extended family and trying to set up their children and grandchildren. It’s not as if the vast majority of “regular” people would turn down a 100% pay raise. 

Just now, Sibdane said:

Stop. Stop it right now. 

Better drama than Game of Thrones season 8.

6 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

you got victor martinez from my indians as well.  yeah i was happy you guys won it, my uncle was a pitcher for the tigers in the 80's for 8 years, i also like detroit it's a nice city (contrary to public opinion), also it's similar to cleveland in that it's a cool rust belt city that gets ripped on.  i have some good friends from detroit and have been to a show at Chene Park, nice venue.  

 

back to zaha, let's hope he comes as advertised

Chene Park is a gem. I saw Smokey Robinson there last summer. It pains me to correct you but while we did make two World Series we were unsuccessful both times. We really should have gotten a World Championship during that time but, alas, the last one was in 84' as you're obviously aware of. Mind if I ask who your uncle was?

12 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

Steve you must have missed the dripping sarcasm in my post.  The republicans will fight at all costs to keep guns because they are backed so heavily financially by the NRA.  It’s their sugar daddy.  They use the guise of mental health to try and skirt the issue.  Some democrats are backed by the NRA as well but nowhere near the amount of republicans as well.  I think they should ban all that lobbying and special interest stuff myself but the greedy fat cats love that money.

Lobbying, in theory, is perfectly reasonable. You have a group who believes in a certain cause or has a particular ideology and they organize to make their position known to those in power and vote for those who share their views. The problem comes from the money and power some of these groups control. The NRA, as an example, supports positions on guns that even their own members do not. Their influence and their views are in conflict with what the majority of the country wants and, I'd argue, with the best interests of the nation. Same for something like the tobacco lobby which wielded huge influence and as a result contributed to untold deaths for decades. The issue though is that there isn't really a good way to stop them in my opinion. Sure, you could limit political donations from these groups but I don't see that as a real fix. There would be nothing to prevent an organization from strongly encouraging it's members to give to certain candidates who would do their bidding. No different than how a particular religious denomination can encourage it's members to vote a certain way. This scenario might be slightly more agreeable because it's up to the individual ultimately but powerful lobbies and special interest groups would continue to persist.

Just now, markjazzbassist said:

and i get it from that aspect but i feel about Zaha how i felt about Walcott, he's not that good and he's overrated.  i am hoping and praying i will be proved wrong many times over.  especially for that price.

Personally, I feel like Zaha is significantly more likely to be successful than Walcott but I get where you're coming from. There is something to be said for people around the world tomorrow looking at transfer news and thinking "Wow, Everton aren't f*cking around." Fans see that, managers see that and future players see that and it will make an impact. 

Since you're an american i'm comfortable with the following analogy. I'm from the Detroit area and as such am a Tigers fan. For many years (and right now, incidentally) we were one of  the worst teams in baseball. Then in 2004 we were able to coax Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez  to come to Detroit, a destination that was not at all attractive to free agents at the time. That one move set a tone that would later result in signing players like Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield and most notably, Miguel Cabrera. For many years after we were among the best teams in the league. Sometimes it just takes one statement of intent and one player willing to buy in to the vision of a club to change perceptions. I'm not saying Zaha is for sure that guy for Everton but I do think his signing would change the perception of us as a good mid table club to one who is a real threat to the established order.

3 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

 

just gonna put this here.

If we do sign him, regardless of how he works out, it does put us in a different tier on the global stage. The ability to sign a player like him for that sort of money is a very clear message. In fact even launching these kinds of bids is a statement. 

9 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

I’m blown away that he even wants to come here tbh. We must be willing to pay him a shitload in wages. 

Bit of a snowball effect. Playing attractive football towards the end of last season and having some good results vs. the top 6, new stadium plans moving along, signing a really high level teenager like Kean, clearly having an owner who is willing to spend what it takes to push into Europe. Lot of factors all pointing in the same direction.

25 minutes ago, Finn balor said:

I think the marcel hug could be the difference 

On that we are agreed.

4 minutes ago, Finn balor said:

Well there’s probably a lot reasons why he would. Mates with charly got Bernie there just bought a wonder kid centre forward. Got Gomes and big JPG to smash people behind him. Plus loads of money and marcel to hug him 

Gonna play with good players for a ton of money anywhere he goes so I don’t think that’s particularly relevant. Our main problem attracting players is our lack of European football and the perception that we are not an elite club. No reason to believe these issues wouldn’t be factors for Neres or any other high profile signing. 

6 minutes ago, Finn balor said:

Let’s just offer £60 million for Neres. They’ve took £57 million for de light which is scandalous if you look at what McGuire has gone for. Offer that and do different deals for Tosun, McCarthy, and get money back. I’ve never thought he was viable for us. I thought we must be interested but let’s buy a younger player 

This assumes Neres wants to come.

Palace 0-1 Everton

Richarlison

18 minutes ago, Peter H said:

Yes and yes he is. Had a poor spell last season but the whole team was poor at the time. 

He certainly looks like he can do the job going forward. I'll admit that I have no idea how well he defends but I'd agree with other comments that if he has gotten caps for France he is likely to be at least decent in that regard. 

27 minutes ago, Chach said:

Quite an odd concept in a democratic republic of 50 states, makes me think the collective rather than individual theory was the way it was intended.

Well, remember that we had just broken away from what we perceived to be a tyrannical government. The greatest strength of the constitution, in my opinion, is that it attempts to set up a government that protects people from government. It recognizes that power often corrupts and so puts in safeguards to try and ensure that no branch wields too much power. The most obvious of these safeguards is our system of checks and balances but I would argue that the second amendment is another. It was intended to be a protection against too much power residing with the military. Unfortunately technological advancement has made this balance untenable and the amendment has been interpreted so broadly that the original intent is mostly ignored. The only people who adhere to the original intent are those you find holed up in cabins somewhere writing anarchist manifestos.