[Daseal]

I know we CAN sue if we feel employer qualifications are unreasonable. Hell, in this over-litigious society anyone can sue for just about anything. But that isn't the issue, either. When a court rules the way it does here, then privacy rights in this country and freedom of association are quickly becoming obsolete.

You're able to sue for anything you want. I could take you to court for not agreeing with me on this board. Obviously it wouldn't get far, but I'd force you to show up. That's how our lovely legal system works. That's one of the trick questions on the BAR in some cases. Want privacy? Vote democratic, hello Patriot Act!

You think it is 'far from absurd' for me to seek a court order demanding entry into your house for no other reason that I think I "deserve" to be there? Yes, Daseal. Give that one some thought, will you? Sleep on it tonight and hopefully you will awake tomorrow morning with a better understanding of how hysterically absurd that notion is. Any judge would have thrown my suit out the window, which is what Schindlin should have done with Clarett's.

I don't think it's far from absurd to seek one. That's crazy. I was simply stating that if you want to go to a court and state you belong to be in my house, you have the right to do that. Will you get in? Most likely not unless you are somehow entitled to my belongings. I've heard of crazier rulings. A man with his 7th DUI once was forced to move 1 or less blocks away from a liqour store to cut down on his drinking and driving. There are a million extremely odd outcomes to legal cases. I'm saying that if you were to win the lawsuit, there's nothing I could do.

What are you talking about? Get the anti-trust laws voided? Daseal, when I read posts like this, I get the feeling you are beginning to lose control. Earlier, you made this statement: "You're forgetting a key aspect of the Clarett case. THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS which you seem to be completely skipping in your analogies." I responded by saying that I am not questioning the fact that Clarett went through the legal process, I'm saying that the court decision is wrong. The fact that this judge made a completely wacked out ruling has nothing to do with whether the anti-trust laws need to be changed.

The Anti-trust laws being violated are what got Clarett into the NFL.

You didn't answer the is he qualified question. 95% of the football community feels he's qualified to play professionally. You honestly think in the extra year he would mature and grow up to a state much higher than the one he's currently in? I doubt it. One year means just about nothing in terms of maturing, but it means millions of dollars in salary. Which is more than I'll ever see in a year, that's for sure.

The NFL has no right to keep these players out because of their age. Let's talk about Mike Williams some? You seem to dodge questions about him. Is it you just don't like Clarett because he did something for himself? He fought the system which he felt was unfair.

It's like saying that because the blacks once weren't allowed to go to the same schools as white kids that who are they to challenge that rule and want an equal chance. Why does everyone in this country want an equal chance? Maybe if college football wouldn't exploit these kids and let them make some money in college football this would have never happened. Let them take endorsement deals, let them have a small share of jersey sales, fix the fucking BCS, then come whining to me about them wanting to play. They think they can move to the next level, who is the NFL to stop them? The NFL has to give them the ability to apply like stated earlier. It's not like Clarett's asking for a job guarentee, he just want's a chance to have his application in the mix. What's wrong with letting THE BEST PLAYERS into the NFL?