Hts121

Yeah, I was probably wrong.

I was wondering what was going on here. So, with the two homes over at 108th & Magnolia possibly being razed and now the ZBT house on Bellflower probably being razed...that's 3 mansions in this historic area that we're going to lose. Despicable. The march goes on and on... Did the church get approval to demolish those two homes on 108th and Magnolia? Or am I thinking of a different demolition proposal?

Not positive about this, but I believe the red tower crane was headed to the MM/CC, not FEB

How long is Ubaldo locked up for? That is a LOT to give up unless he is signed through at least 2013.

Another real solid, albeit not spectacular move by the Browns trading a 5th round pick to the Eagles for Broderick Bunkley. He had been a starter for them until hurting his elbow lat year. 3 technique DT. Right around 300 lbs. Strong as a bull (44 reps of 225 at the combine). Former 1st round pick (2006). Gives us some quality depth at DT. For Philly, I'm guessing this is a salary dump move they weren't expecting to make until they swooped in and stole NA

^ I was watching the game. I was hoping that someone would come off the bench because LaPorta was about the last person I wanted to see up in that situation. He either hits it a mile or hardly at all. He strikes out too much and is real slow, so a big chance for him to get doubled up. As far as you mentioning the 4-6-3 (or 6-4-3) double play...the infield was way in, so they were going home first no matter what. Also, the ball was hit right at the second baseman, so I'm not sure even Grady would have beat the throw back to first. He did get a slow start out of the batters box, but that was because it was a check swing on an inside pitch (which may have been ball 4). A strikeout would have been better at that point, so I would have liked to have seen him take that pitch and take his chances on it being called a ball and tying the game up. He did have an awful swing on an outside slider when the count was 0-1, but that's par for the course for him. I can't believe that guy can't learn to put a decent swing on that pitch, he looks like a fool every time someone throws him a slider just off the plate. Huh? :) Seriously dude, I don't even see how that is possible.

The Browns will spend in free agency. They have never been shy about that. Steinbach, Bentley, McGinest, Baxter, etc. All of those were big signings at the time. But they also have continually failed to build a foundation and establish a system/identity. I am not saying they should ignore free agency, but I think you can get stuck on the mediocre highway by focusing on it too much. That anaylsis of Ravens/Steelers draft picks vs. the Browns picks would probably become even more shocking if you compared the talent side-by-side in addition to the sheer numbers. And, yes, I don't think H&H will be terribly disappointed if we are drafting high next year.... although I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that losing is their goal in order to land Andrew Luck. Keep an eye on SF for such 'efforts' this year.

The Ravens drafted Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs, Michael Oher, Ray Rice, Haloti Ngata, Todd Heap and Joe Flaco The Steelers drafted Ben Rothliesberger, Troy Palamalu, Casey Hampton, Hines Ward, Lawrence Timmons, Lamar Woodley, Maurkice Pouncey, Brett Kiesel, Aaron Smith, Rashard Mendenhal and Mike Wallace. They also signed James Harrison as an undrafted rookie free agent. One could argue that any one of those players is better than any player we have on our roster. The two teams simply have a wealth of talent over and above our beloved Browns. And the talent gap you see is a direct result of the Steelers and the Ravens being two of the best at using the draft to improve and maintain success, while the Browns are not even in the conversation. So, to the extent Heckert is focusing on 'building through the draft', I have NO problem with that at all. I also thought that the market during this free agent frenzy got out of hand.

Plenty of good citizens grow and/or smoke pot. It's the jay-walkers that need to be quartered.

Do they have an explanation in English?

Maybe

This confuses me. Regardless of how we calculate GDP, there still has to be a constant, no? Meaning, if you define a recession in traditional terms, how can using a different calculation for GDP mean that we are in a recession now when GDP is still rising month over month (albeit veeeeery slowly). Forgive my ignorance in economics.

That's really just a rant against Republican controlled state legislatures. You're right. It probably doesn't fit within the thread topic. :)

It would still have some value if RTA could have figured out a way to install the corridor without chopping of the facade. I am in the tear it down camp. It is such an eyesore and really frustrates MidTown's efforts to change its image IMO..... but, then again, I suppose it doesn't look any worse than Quay 55 did 15 years ago.

Eh.... I can't really see Jackson lining up at WR all that much. I would say they would use him for passing downs out the backfield, but both Hillis and Hardesty can catch the ball just fine. Hillis especially has incredible hands as we saw last year. As far as a recieveer to stretch the field, I believe they are hoping that Carlton Mitchell fits the bill. MM can also go deep and Cribbs too.

Jackson will be an upgrade over Mike Bell and a good insurance policy if Hardesty doesn't pan out or gets hurt again. Of course, Jackson has his own injury history. Smaller back, but plenty tough. Could be used on 3rd downs regardless if we have our two big backs healthy or not. Well, I suppose we are set at RB for now with Mr. Madden, Montario and BJax. Nice stable.

I don't think that is how Paul would interpret DOMA's scope and intent. To him, it simply is a measure that forbids what he may call 'the nationalization of same sex marriages.'

The Young signing is no show-stopper, but I like it. He can be a utility DB at worst. Decent size (5'11 200lb) and sub 4.4 speed to go along with a 40+ inch verticle. Considering that the Saints thought he might be able to cut it at corner, I suspect he is signed to compete for the FS job opposite Ward.

JJ, don't make me slap you with a libel suit. I never said any of that

Interesting and thanks. That is encouraging as far as their individual beliefs, but does not really address the constitutional question (my fault for not properly framing the question in the first place). May I suggest changing the poll to this - "According to true libertarian thinking, does a State Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage violate the Federal Constitution?" That would distinguish the question from one of personal preference to a question of right and llberties. Only because he thinks it maintains Texas' right to deny recognition of gay marriages performed in states that allow them. It goes back to the 'don't impose your Boston values on us' line of thinking.

I believe the concern is that it was a landfill or something like that before it was an airport. I don't believe it is natural land, but rather an extension of the natiral shoreline. And I don't believe that concern would apply to constructing a green space. It was more addressed at the possibility of significant structures using that land as a foundation.

The Ron Paul forums are crawling with libertarians who disagree with Ron on libertarian issues. I was being serious, I'd post that question there to see what the response would be. (a) I don't cheat on UO. Besides, we have plenty of Libertarians on here who should be able to provide insightful input. (b) I am fairly certain I already know the mixed bag of responses I would get from a Ron Paul forum. If my prediction is correct, and due to the fact that most Ron Paul libertarians are right wing leaning, they will find somehow, someway to preserve the ability to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Most will likely say it shouldn't be done through DOMA or any other Federal Regulation. But a lot will agree with Paul that the issue should be left to the States. The trouble I have with that and the reason I don't think it is consistent with Libertarian principles, is that the rules on amending state constitutions (such as Ohio) offend the very notion of a constituiton. Populist thinking is expressed through legislation. What the people want (though their elected representatives) the people get. But a constitution is a different animal. It is supposed to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. No matter what >50% of the country believes should be the law, that belief must fall in line with constitutional principles. Problem here in Ohio is that all we need is >50% of those who decide to vote in any given election to say what the those principles are. In application, that may only translate to 25% of the electorate dictating which laws may or may not be enacted. A constitution cannot be dictated by mob rule or it is of very little use or at least not useful for its intended purposes. Further, to the extent that State DO grant marriage licenses, I personally believe that the Federal Constitution prohibits denying those licenses to gay and lesbian couples for the same reasons that the Federal Constitution prohibits states from deciding that they don't want to recognize interracial marriages. I personally believe that the rationale for Loving v. Virginia applies here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Now, obviously, sexual orientation is not yet considered by the Supreme Court to be a classification subject to the 14th Amendment. That is a big hurdle that will need to be overcome, but I really think it is only a matter of time. The unanimous decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy law was certainly encouraging and showed an evolution of the court, even if it did explicitly stop short of extending the needed protections to sexual orientation.

I think everyone is making some big assumptions here. Wait for details.

Come home Nate! I can live with it even if I HATED the dude when we were in HS and he was suiting up in that ugly red and white. On another note, I just heard that the Browns signed three of their rookies - Sheard, Little and Marecic - and expect them in camp on Friday.

Makes you wonder if the title was clear. May have been some tax or other liens and/or expensive code violations in need of attention. Then, of course, you have to consider that the buyer will have a heavy property tax bill on a building that is quickly emptying out, particularly when Calfee Halter moves to its new digs.