If you can't beat a team because you suck all you have to do is accuse them of cheating. There was NO proof but you can yell truth truth truth and that wouldn't make it true.
Kind of like Obama.
It was decided in court for Tom. Obama has not even had to answer for his crimes so I don't get the comparison.
-- Edited by Tinydancer on Monday 26th of October 2015 01:50:59 PM
Which was a farce and pretty much illegal. We haven't heard the end of that yet...
You can't convict someone because of popular opinion or because you think he did it. Unless they find proof which they obviously haven't then there's really not much point in taking back to court.
Convict? LOL! He was never going to be "convicted". He was never charged with a crime. But his CONTRACT says that he must use an arbitrator and he went to court, which is a violation of his contract. It's still being looked into, and most analysts and lawyers agree that this is not the end of it. Pete Rose didn't break any laws either, but he's still banned from baseball. He broke his contract. This is nothing but contract law.
I was speaking of the legal system not just Tom Brady. They will still need PROOF that he broke his contract. Unless you believe he should just be punished because of public opinion.
That be broke the contract has never been disputed. That's common knowledge...
Common knowledge is not proof no matter how much he's disliked.
Are you being willfully ignorant, or do you really not know this? Some fan...
Goodell realized he can't be judge, jury, and executioner while keeping his standing. Are YOU be willfully ignorant or do you believe people can just say "Oh I think he did it" and railroad him without proof?
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
Is he a victim if he gets railroaded with no proof or can I just say he's a witch and have him burned at the stake. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty not guilty if we hate you and THINK you did it. If they'd had proof it wouldn't have needed to go to court.
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
Is he a victim if he gets railroaded with no proof or can I just say he's a witch and have him burned at the stake. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty not guilty if we hate you and THINK you did it. If they'd had proof it wouldn't have needed to go to court.
Blah blah blah...
He's being protected. He's no different than Hillary. Everyone knows he's guilty, everyone knows SHE's guilty. But they are golden children, so they get their way...
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Blah blah blah... Proof...There is so much proof against Hilary (golden child...haha) and and it's concerning national security but please let's compare deflated footballs where there is no proof to a dead Ambassador where she left him to die. Sounds like a valid comparison to me...lol
-- Edited by Tinydancer on Tuesday 27th of October 2015 07:55:06 PM
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
Definitely a valid comparison. Both are protected whiny babies. The sycophants that support him are no different than Hillary supporters. The only people that defend him are Pats fans. That says a lot about their fan base....
Other quarterbacks have a broader following. Peyton, Aaron, Colin. They defy team loyalty. Not so with Brady. Hes not respected. Nor should he be...
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Sure it would be valid if they have proof. Again I ask, where is the proof? In Hilary's case proof is all over but just because the haters say "I think he's guilty" does not make it so. Do you believe in proof or do you prefer the Spanish Inquisition?
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
Definitely a valid comparison. Both are protected whiny babies. The sycophants that support him are no different than Hillary supporters. The only people that defend him are Pats fans. That says a lot about their fan base....
Other quarterbacks have a broader following. Peyton, Aaron, Colin. They defy team loyalty. Not so with Brady. Hes not respected. Nor should he be...
Definitely a valid comparison. Both are protected whiny babies. The sycophants that support him are no different than Hillary supporters. The only people that defend him are Pats fans. That says a lot about their fan base....
Other quarterbacks have a broader following. Peyton, Aaron, Colin. They defy team loyalty. Not so with Brady. Hes not respected. Nor should he be...
Exactly! We aren't blinded by his "glow."
flan
Actually, the bolded isn't true. Lot of NFL players and former players from other teams have defended him.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.