buddha

boo.

the people that liked the baez signing will be crowing when he gets hot for two weeks. the people that didnt like it will be crowing when he looks completely lost for two weeks and swings at everything. same as always. lol.

no qbs worth taking. you're not going to get much of a haul this year, imo.

dax hill not in miami...

i'd say the lions needs are everywhere, but greatest at qb, wr, linebacker, defensive end, and yes, cornerback and safety. walker is a free agent and harris sucks. they need a safety. the corners they brought in have been good and oruwariye has played better this year. do you trust him and okudah? im not sure. okudah may never be any good after that injury. the lions have the luxury of needing help almost everywhere!

no.

maybe. maybe they'll renegotiate the deal? at this point he can make more money in college than in the pros.

again, you're acting like harbaugh is a coach trying to maximize his leverage for a big contract or a new gig. and that michigan is worried about securing his signature on a new deal. again, he's a different cat. he's made a shit ton of money and he's happy where he's at. he has no agent so if something gets done, he and michigan will talk about it and do it. or not. there is no other coach for michigan.

chicago will 100% fire nagy. pace may stay. i doubt seattle fires carroll. pittsburgh will 100% not fire mike tomlin. no way. houston will not fire its coach. the giants have said judge is coming back, but we'll see. vegas coach is gone for sure. gonna be a lot of harbaugh to the raiders or bears speculation. expect to see a lot of breathless albert breer tweets about it, just like when he came to michigan and breer said there was no way he would ever leave the nfl for college. harbaugh is a different kind of cat. i think its 98% he stays at michigan. if he wins a national championship he might leave, but i still doubt it.

harbaugh isnt going anywhere.

right, "old laws." i think the passage of laws by any group has something to say about the morals of that group and what they value. its not just "religious people" who pass laws to put their moral views onto others, its every group. you just happen to agree with the current cultural/moral group that believes in their modern notions of equality and the ability of individuals to do whatever they want. and so do i. most of us are children of the 60s and the post civil rights era interpretation of the constitution.

what law excludes non-religious people?

from trump's tax cut to biden's infrastructure bill, to continued low interest rates, the money keeps flowing out of washington and into wall street's pockets. as long as we keep buying the rest of the world's goods and being a relatively good actor on the world stage, we can keep having the world's reserve currency and keep spending ourselves silly. i read an article recently comparing the US to 16th century Spain, awash in gold from the americas. i didnt really understand it all, but the basic premise seemed to be without any consequences for terrible financial mismanagement, government and society grew fat and lazy, and eventually collapsed. we'll see if history repeats itself, or just rhymes.

yes, because i'm sure you spend countless hours in rural america talking with southern evangelicals. lol. why did you limit your scope of bad religious people to "rural" and "southern evangelicals" and not urban, inner city evangelicals? some of the best parts of america and some of the worst parts (in our 21st century morality eyes) come from our history of protestant religiosity (both slavery and abolition, for example). it's interesting to me how much the 1960s have influenced modern thought on things like law and morality as we move away from common religion as a basis for community and more towards the individual's "right" to do whatever they want as a basis for our social contract with our government.

excluding them from what?

all of you seem to base your idea of "religion" on people who hold views outside the norm of most people in the country. joe biden is catholic. is he going to make you take communion and invade palestine? you all have been watching too many handmaid's tale episodes.

what american law requires a belief in god or a particular religion?

depends what we get for it.

he may not start in detroit, but he'll end up there. and actually, i think the odds are pretty good he does start there.

what should be the basis?

the infant mortality rate in france was about 35% back then, so a lot of babies died. also, abortion was a felony punishable by death, so maybe a lot has changed under the sun? one could argue that all of our american conceptions of morality derive from christian religious dogma, but whatever. i'm not religious at all and would have no problem outlawing abortion after 15 weeks. i'm not that concerned about who is perceived to be the driving force behind the attempt to change a law if i think that law needs to be changed. and dont worry, overruling casey wont stop the baby killing. blue states will welcome abortion seekers with open arms.

The anti-casey/roe argument does not rest on a "mystical revealed truth," but rather on a different interpretation of an 18th century legal document. And its an historical habit of mind for lots of people to forget that many other people come to different interpretations of the same facts or beliefs as they do for perfectly logical reasons and not for the continuation of some nefarious plot to convert the non-believer. see the above paragraph.

clarence darrow and oliver wendall holmes' intellectual lovechild couldnt persuade you that youre wrong, what chance does a mere mortal like amy coney barrett have?

urgent care around here has a 3 or 4 hour wait to get in.

right. it was about the author of that piece's opinion that barrett should recuse herself from abortion cases based on an old law review article barrett wrote. its funny how liberals were all about how judges needed to bring their own personal opinions and experiences to every decision when sotomayor testified to such effect in her confirmation hearings when talking about her take on discrimination cases. not so much when its barrett talking about abortion cases. and the same is true of conservatives when the situation was flipped. i dont think you have to be an atheist to interpret the constitution or read a law. as i said before, plenty of religious justices have done so in ways that you presumably agreed with.