Fernando

Did someone said Murillo? 🥳

CEASEFIRE DEAL: A ceasefire in Gaza came into effect at 12 p.m. local time (5 a.m. ET), the Israeli military said, after Israel's government approved the first phase of a deal intended to bring the war to an end. HOSTAGES RELEASED: Trump said he expects Israeli hostages to be released Monday or Tuesday in an exchange for Palestinian prisoners. Forty-eight hostages remain to be returned, 20 of whom Israel says it believes are still alive. TRUMP TO EGYPT: Trump said he plans to travel to Egypt for an official signing ceremony. TROOP DEPLOYMENT: The U.S. military is preparing options to deploy as many as 200 U.S. troops to Israel to support stabilization in Gaza and the flow of humanitarian aid and security assistance into the enclave, two U.S. officials familiar with the planning said. AID FOR GAZA: Aid is expected to flow into Gaza, where scenes of devastation and hunger, as well as a famine declaration, have prompted outrage around the world and left Israel isolated diplomatically.

I'm actually more happy with this. This constant VAR has done some harm. I always wanted the option to appeal to technology as well to give only a finite amount to appeal those making it more tactical when to use. I'm okay with 2 for now, maybe 3 per match. That way the Ref or VAR don't stop the game every time, but it would be the affected club and they would used it wisely as they only have a finite opportunity. I'm much better with this.

FIFA to trial 'simplified VAR' at U20 World Cup FIFA is employing an alternative review system that allows coaches to appeal two referee's decisions per match at the Under-20 World Cup in Chile. The football video support (FVS) is a "simplified version" of VAR and has transformed the youth tournament into a testing ground for new technologies. Unlike VAR, which uses special cameras and a supporting team of officials, FVS referees review their decisions based on images captured by the television broadcast, without further assistance. According to FIFA, the FVS system aims to "democratise football by introducing video review technology as a complementary option," not only for top-level competitions but also for those that "could not afford VAR infrastructure," thanks to its low cost and simplified operation. Coaches can only appeal in four specific situations: whether or not there was a goal; whether or not there was a penalty, over a direct red card, or in case of suspicion that a card was not shown to the correct offender. The system had already been tested by FIFA in other competitions, such as the 2024 Youth Championship/Blue Stars in Switzerland and the 2024 Under-20 Women's World Cup in C

And as well Contract expires: Jun 30, 2033. If he has not signed a new contract by 2029 we can sell in 2030 that's a nice 5 years of use of him plus potential value we will get in 5 years time.

What happens if Strousburg make it to the CL? Right now they are in that spot granted it's early in the season.... They also play PSG on Friday October 17.

Uefa gives ‘reluctant’ approval for domestic games to be played abroad this season Governing body says go-ahead shouldn’t set precedent Barcelona poised to play in US, and Milan in Australiahttps://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/oct/06/uefa-approval-domestic-games-to-be-played-abroad

So any hope of Hamas and Israel war coming to conclusion this week? Or will it drag on? And after the war is finish a lot of people in Israel goverment should be trial, as many committed big war crimes.

Why you putting words on someone. Have you seen anyone protest on the streets about this recently? The ones that where enrage recently where the left that took to the street when the wade abortion was overthrown. And as you tipically do you think the right is the authoritarians all the time when the same happens with your leftist. To me they are both of the same coin. They each try to play the high moral ground when in truth they each try to force you to believe their ideologies.

I agree with the Dissenting Opinions. I wonder if they bring it up now with a larger conservative judges if they would change it. I'm in favor of changing this.

United States v. Eichman (1990) was a Supreme Court case that struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989, a federal law that criminalized flag desecration. The Court ruled 5-4 that the Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression, finding that the government's interest in protecting the flag was related to the suppression of free expression and the content of that expression. This decision reaffirmed the Court's earlier ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which also found flag burning to be a protected form of symbolic speech. Background The Flag Protection Act of 1989: In response to the Texas v. Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which made it illegal to destroy or deface an American flag. The Protests: The case involved individuals who burned U.S. flags on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to protest government policies. The Supreme Court's Decision First Amendment Violation: The Court found that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional because it infringed on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Content-Based Regulation: The Court determined that the government's interest in protecting the flag was directly related to the suppression of expression and the content of that expression. Strict Scrutiny: Because the law was a content-based restriction on speech, it had to be subjected to strict scrutiny, a high legal standard that the government could not meet. Reaffirmation of Texas v. Johnson: The Court's decision in Eichman essentially reaffirmed its holding in Texas v. Johnson, confirming that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Dissenting Opinions Justices William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, arguing that the law did not truly infringe on First Amendment rights and that there were many other ways for demonstrators to exercise their rights.

Not sure. He did good but I thought he was a bit bad when coming to the press and help with defense. Some he help at other he was a bit of a worry for me. I don't think he is ready for the league yet and we should use him as a sub for now.

Well we will have to wait and see if the supreme court ever decides to take up that matter with the input of Trump and company because as you alluded they make the law.

Nope I gave my opinion of why it should be illegal to burn the flag. But if the supreme court has a ruling then there's nothing we can do, and if Trump does it now he is breaking the law. I agree with what he said but he would need it to bring to the court to me modified. Just like they did with abortion.

Well I gave you my opinion. Now as you stated the law says your allowed to do it so I will agree with you then that it's unlawful to arrest someone right now because of this. You can't do it because we have a ruling against it. If trump and company wants to be serious then they should push it to the Supreme Court to consider this, in which I'm in favor of.

So basically what I'm saying, the law it's the law and there's nothing I can do at this moment but I can voice my opinion on not agreeing with it. As people do with this recent ruling: The most significant recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion was the June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and determined that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a right to abortion. This decision eliminated the federal constitutional standard for abortion access, allowing individual states to set their own abortion policies, which has resulted in some states banning or severely restricting abortion.

So your in favor to use the Supreme Court ruling when it's in your favor? But when they strike down abortion it's wrong? Consistency is the issue here. Hence the people have the right to question that, because that is freedom of speech. Just like I'm questioning this law and if it should be changed. I'm giving my opinion and why I'm in favor of this being reformed like they just did with me abortion. And Trump is not king for me, I don't agree with many things he does i have said it here. But in this matter I agree and I give my opinion why I believe like that.

Using the Supreme Court does not win your argument as I can still not agree with them. Example the supreme court rule against the abortion and many people don't agree and voice their opinion. Burning a flag is a political speech I agree but not in the country your in. Example I'm against Maduro and I live in Venezuela. This doesn't give me the right to burn the flag in the country of Venezuela. I'm outside sure whatever. But in your country no I don't agree.

Because you say so? In not country that is giving you the freedom does it equate the right to burn the flag in its own country.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with burning a USA flag. In no right mind you should do that in USA. Go to another country and do it. Hence in favor of that.

He was actually very good when he first came here and then he suffered the injury. He has been woeful since then, but yes best game since that time.

I'm okay with that. Your in USA, you don't do that. Go to another country if you want to burn the flag.

Yes but it took time, which many people don't want to do with the rest of the players.

Probably, but I prefer to watch a full un edited video from Tucker about what he was talking as that girl just put a couple of minutes from him and spend the majority of the the show talking....

Israel intercepted a Gaza-bound flotilla carrying aid in international waters. Can it do that? https://apnews.com/article/gaza-flotilla-international-maritime-law-7c0b4c31e46e17119accb62d7b6933f3 I think this is messed up from Israel military. They are people who are wanting to help not bringing weapons to Hamas.