K-9

You'll recall in season 1 after Jimmy and Chuck met with Sandpiper's lawyers and Chuck demanded $20m to settle, that night, while Jimmy was asleep, Chuck stepped outside to make a call. Thinks about that. Chuck steps OUTSIDE to use an electronic device. Such was his level of moitvation. Turns out he was calling Howard to tell him to cut Jimmy out of the case and deny him a position at HHM. The next day at his triumphant return to the HHM offices, Howard offers Jimmy the finder's fee and Chuck acts like he's surprised and hurt by Howard's dismissal of Jimmy when it was he who contrived to arrange it that way. Talk about a slippery manipulation. This was all revealed by Chuck to Jimmy later that evening. If that's not sabotage, I don't know what is. All this after Jimmy worked his ass off for a degree while working in the mail room and after all his hustle to land one of the biggest class action suits in New Mexico history. Chuck also was complicit in Kim's exile to the documents room in the basement at HHM earlier this season. I believe Chuck was willing to send Jimmy to jail because when Kim suggested that if the story Chuck was telling about the forgery was true, then Jimmy would be arrested for fraud, forgery, "even breaking and entering." Chuck says, "I don't like it any more than you do, but the facts are the facts." Chuck also went to great lengths to find the copy center and interrogate the store manager; first by sending Ernie and then risking his very health by leaving his comfort zone to question the store manager in person. So yeah, I think Chuck was hell bent on getting Jimmy arrested and charged. Let's face it, Chuck, while possessing many admirable and sympathetic qualities, is not above hurting a loved one out of ego and jealousy.

Kim knew Jimmy did it when listening to Chuck tell the story. But she chose to benefit from Jimmy's act, anyway. The arm punches and advice to "cross all Ts and dot all Is" only confirmed that she knew.

Is there a national chapter of the Chuck McGill Fan Club? I wanna join. The man is a saint; above acting in any malevolent way. Seriously though, he isn't the first sympathetic literary character with high morals and ethical standards that has been motivated by jealousy to harm a loved one. Sure, we can all say he was just protecting the firm and we can all listen as he professes how he loves his brother, but he was willing to send Jimmy to jail because "facts are facts." And to think he did anything short of trying to sabotage Jimmy's law career is willful blindness to what we saw in season 1. Great guy. Schitty older brother who puts conditions on his love for Jimmy, while Jimmy literally nursed him through many nights when there was nobody else around, no questions asked.

Agreed. That's been a running theme all season. She objects to the shady behavior up until she benefits from it. Her suggesting that one has to "cross every T and dot every I" when dealing with Chuck was indicative, I think. But that damned coffee cup still won't fit, I bet.

Chuck is the good guy? Are we forgetting how he royally screwed Jimmy over in season 1? Like all the characters in the show, he has sympathetic qualities, but his ego and jealousy of Jimmy have caused him to harm Jimmy professionally and personally.

Oh for phuck's sake. I am not missing the point on anything with regard to what a representative republic is or isn't. Not an absolute democracy? Thanks for the remedial 7th grade history lesson. You are too hung up on literal definitions of terms. If the wealthy few have a more powerful voice in our government than the rest of the electorate, it becomes perverted. I don't have the time or inclination to explain it all here. Read some studies that have been done that suggest that for the last 35 years the wealthy elite have better success in getting their political agendas passed at the expense of a wider spectrum of the electorate, especially the middle class and poor. What is that? I mean other than a form of government you are so willing to accept? And I don't think the money is filling the space we are not using. I think it is taking up space no longer available to us. Depends on perspective, I guess.

I think Jack is recuperating from various nagging injuries. I think he was advised to take the time off.

I believe the founders envisioned a representative republic democracy. If you possess some keen insight to the contrary, please let us all know. What were we suppose to be if not a representative republic? I'm struck by your seeming contradiction of being able to accept that the wealthy elite few can and should hold important sway in our government while at the same time declaring that we don't live in an oligarchy.

You don't see how big-money interests, controlled by an elite few, perverts the process? As for arguing what the founders intended, I'm out. It's a moot point that has absolutely NO bearing on anything. The Constitution means what the SCOTUS has interpreted it to mean. Period. If you're OK with one vote not being equal to another, then you advocate a system of government that excludes a sizable, perhaps even a majority, portion of the electorate. And that is NOT the representative republic democracy we were founded to be.

Your damned right the founders intended for the wealthy to have the power in this country. It was the wealthy elite that created the union in the first place. And yet, they also gave a way for the Joe Schmoes to have a voice. Why didn't they means test the right to vote? What has Joe Schmoe ever done? Really? He was born a US citizen with a constitutional right. I'm insulted you could even ask the question in such a condescending, dismissive way. Yep. And when the northern founders caved to the protests of the southern plantation owners and gave each state two senators regardless of population count, undue influence was guaranteed. Cue the "but the tyranny of the majority" rants.

If your tia had balls, she'd be your tio.

Just look at the history of elections in this country, and you'll see we have "voted the bums out" numerous times. That has become exponentially harder to do over the last 35 years as the study I've linked in my edit above proves. I'm not disagreeing with any bit of the idea that we need to get more active in the process. But how many Joe Schmoes with one vote in one district equal one $900m donor who buys influences in multiple federal congressional and local state/city/county races simultaneously across the country? 100 Joe Schmoes? 1,000? I only disagree with your assessment that we don't live in an oligarchy of at least some form. And I am not conflating recognition of that with the need to take action, if only we would.

We've "voted the bums out" numerous times in our country's history. But I don't care about literal definitions, anyway. Oligarchy or not, our country's policies are unduly influenced by big money, big industry, and big influence. Oligarchy or not, this has rendered the concept of "one person, one vote" a moot point in this country. If you don't recognize the potential to deprive voters of choices as a result of this arrangement, so be it. EDIT: I meant to attach this short article from the Washington Times, not exactly a bastion of liberal op-ed. The study cited is interesting if you get a chance to look at it more. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

Things are just so much easier when everything is defined in a literal sense. Black is always black, white is always white. If I give you a list of five things to choose from I certainly didn't deprive you of choices. If I deliberately withhold a 6th choice, then you certainly were deprived. I don't disagree that we are apathetic about things, but it's not as easy as simply voting the bums out, either.

I don't think lack of choice is the same as being deprived of choice. Not at all.

I could argue that oligarchy implies a deprivation of choice.

Then I'm feelin' ya.

What's your vector, Victor?

I hope not. I'd like him to re-up for another year. He's one of the best on ice coaches we've had. GO SABRES!!!

I have no problem with anyone being angry, I'm just pointing out that in support of that anger, it's harder to boycott than you might think. We put money in the NHL coffers simply by buying the products advertisers sell during their broadcasts, whether we watch/listen to them or not. It's hard to escape. GO SABRES!!!

Are you going to buy products from those companies that advertise during NHL broadcasts? GO SABRES!!!

It's the number 72 in Cyrillic, but I like your interpretation better. GO SABRES!!!

Carlo in for Casey Nelson, I believe. GO SABRES!!!

This is what Rip would put on Panarin's jersey:

He showed a marked progression over the last six games of being able to hurt teams from the pocket, which is the most important aspect of his development. Over those last six games especially, Roman saw enough to start trusting him with attacking the middle of the field, something that teams knew he was reluctant to do earlier on (we saw the same thing when he worked with Kaepernick). So we just get what we can while there's market for him? That's all well and good, but it screws us for next season. There wouldn't be one QB on the team that the veteran leadership would trust. For better or worse, TT is our only option. And his agent knows that, but the threats to sit out are just noise. TT would be doing himself a great disservice if he sat out. GO BILLS!!!