首页 > 

7 bets casino

2025-01-25
Share Tweet Share Share Email If you’ve purchased a new or used vehicle in California and are struggling with persistent mechanical issues that just don’t seem to get resolved, you may be wondering whether you are entitled to a remedy under California’s Lemon Law. This law exists to protect consumers from vehicles that repeatedly fail to meet standards of quality, safety, and usability. Los Angeles Chevrolet lemon law attorneys are here to help you navigate this process and determine if your car qualifies as a lemon. California’s Lemon Law, formally known as the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, is designed to provide protection for consumers who purchase or lease cars that have substantial defects. If your car is under warranty and has been repeatedly repaired for the same or similar issues, you may have grounds for a lemon law claim. In this article, we’ll explore the key factors that determine whether your car qualifies under the law and what steps you can take if you think your vehicle might be a lemon. What Is California’s Lemon Law? California’s Lemon Law is a consumer protection law that covers the repair or replacement of defective vehicles. If you purchase a new or used car that is under warranty, and that car has a significant defect that cannot be fixed within a reasonable number of repair attempts, you may be entitled to a buyback or replacement vehicle. The law is designed to ensure that consumers are not stuck with faulty vehicles that impair their safety, use, or value. The Lemon Law applies to new vehicles, including cars, trucks, motorcycles, and SUVs. It also applies to used vehicles if they are still under the manufacturer’s warranty at the time of the purchase. Defects covered under the Lemon Law typically affect the vehicle’s safety, use, or value, such as problems with the engine, transmission, brakes, electrical system, or airbags. Cosmetic issues, like paint chips or small scratches, do not usually qualify. If your car has been in the shop multiple times for the same issue or has been out of service for an extended period, you may have a valid claim under California’s Lemon Law. Los Angeles Chevrolet lemon law attorneys are here to help determine whether your car fits the criteria and guide you through the process. How to Determine If Your Car Qualifies Under California Lemon Laws To qualify under the California Lemon Law, your vehicle must meet specific criteria. Below are the most important factors to consider when determining whether your car qualifies: 1. Warranty Coverage The first key factor in determining whether your car qualifies under California’s Lemon Law is whether the car is still covered by a manufacturer’s warranty. If your car is no longer covered by a warranty, it may not be eligible for lemon law protection. However, some used vehicles may still be under a manufacturer’s warranty, in which case you may still qualify. New Cars: If you bought a new car, it is almost certainly under warranty. These warranties typically last 3 years or 36,000 miles, but this can vary by manufacturer. The warranty should cover most defects that occur within that time period, including repairs to major systems such as the engine, transmission, and safety features. Used Cars: If you bought a used car, it must be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty at the time of purchase. Certified pre-owned cars often come with a manufacturer’s warranty, which may provide lemon law protection. Check your warranty documentation to see if your used car qualifies. If your vehicle is out of warranty, it may still be eligible for other forms of legal action, but it will not be covered by the Lemon Law. 2. Repeated Repair Attempts for the Same Issue One of the most important criteria under California’s Lemon Law is whether the car has been repaired multiple times for the same issue. The manufacturer or dealership must be given a reasonable number of chances to fix the problem before the car is considered a lemon. California law typically requires that the vehicle be repaired at least two times for the same defect without success. However, there are certain situations where a single repair attempt may be sufficient. For example, if the defect is severe (like an issue with the braking or steering system), even one repair attempt may be enough. Additionally, if the vehicle has been in the shop for four or more attempts for different problems, this could also be grounds for a lemon law claim. Another important factor is if the car has been out of service for repairs for a total of 30 days or more due to defects. If your car has been in the shop for an extended period, it may be eligible for lemon law protection. 3. Serious Defects Affecting Safety, Usability, or Value To qualify under the Lemon Law, the defects must be substantial enough to affect the vehicle’s safety, usability, or overall value. Minor cosmetic defects, such as scratches or small dents, are generally not covered. However, if the defect impairs the car’s ability to function properly or poses a safety risk, it is likely to qualify. Some common defects that may qualify under the Lemon Law include: Engine problems (e.g., stalling, overheating, or loss of power) Transmission issues (e.g., slipping, failure to shift, or inability to engage gears) Brake system defects (e.g., brake failure, reduced braking power, or issues with anti-lock braking systems) Electrical problems (e.g., issues with the battery, lights, or electrical wiring) Safety system defects (e.g., airbags failing to deploy or seatbelt malfunctions) If the defect makes your car unsafe to drive or diminishes its value significantly, it is more likely that your vehicle will qualify under California’s Lemon Law. 4. Reasonable Opportunity for Repair The manufacturer or dealership must be given a reasonable opportunity to fix the defects. This typically means that the vehicle must have been brought in for repairs at least two or three times for the same issue before pursuing a Lemon Law claim. In the case of more serious safety issues (such as defects affecting the brakes or airbags), one repair attempt might be sufficient. If the car has been out of service for 30 or more days, you might also have a claim under the law. What Should You Do If You Think Your Car Is a Lemon? If you believe your car qualifies for a Lemon Law claim, the first step is to document the defects and the repairs made. Keep all receipts, invoices, and service records that show the repairs, including dates and descriptions of the defects. Next, it’s important to contact a lawyer who specializes in lemon law cases. Los Angeles Chevrolet lemon law attorneys are here to help guide you through the process and help you understand your legal options. An attorney will help you determine whether your car qualifies and can assist in filing a claim with the manufacturer. Once your attorney determines that you have a valid claim, they may send a demand letter to the manufacturer requesting either a buyback or a replacement vehicle. In many cases, the manufacturer will offer a settlement without the need for a lengthy court battle. If the manufacturer does not offer a satisfactory solution, your attorney can help you take the case to court. How to Choose the Right Lemon Law Attorney in Los Angeles If you’re facing issues with your vehicle and believe you may have a lemon law case, it’s crucial to choose the right lemon law attorney in Los Angeles. Here are some tips for selecting an attorney: Experience: Look for an attorney who has handled lemon law cases before and is familiar with the specific details of California’s Lemon Law. They should understand how the law applies to various types of vehicles and defects. No Upfront Fees: Many lemon law attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if you win your case. This can make it easier for you to pursue a claim without worrying about upfront costs. Client Reviews : Look for reviews or testimonials from past clients to get an idea of the attorney’s success rate and customer service. Communication : Choose an attorney who communicates clearly and promptly, as lemon law cases can involve complex legal issues that require close attention. Conclusion If you’re experiencing recurring issues with your car that affect its safety, value, or usability, you may be entitled to a refund or replacement under California’s Lemon Law. Determining whether your car qualifies requires evaluating several key factors, including the severity of the defect, the number of repair attempts, and whether the vehicle is still under warranty. If you believe your car may be a lemon, Los Angeles Chevrolet lemon law attorneys are here to help you understand your rights and guide you through the legal process. Choose the right lemon law attorney in Los Angeles to help you navigate this process, ensuring that you are treated fairly and receive the compensation or replacement vehicle you deserve. Don’t let persistent defects ruin your driving experience—take the necessary steps to protect your consumer rights today. Related Items: Car , Lemon Laws Share Tweet Share Share Email Recommended for you The Benefits of Renting a Car in Dubai: A Guide for Travellers Top Applications of Satellite Technology for Cars Scrapping a car: How will I dispose of my old car in 2025? CommentsCOP29 climate finance deal clinched, what are countries saying?Rivals buying votes for Rs 1,000 in my constituency, Kejriwal’s sensational charge7 bets casino

Colorado adds record insurance coverage for Sanders and Hunter before Alamo BowlESCONDIDO, CA -- The stars of "Mufasa: The Lion King": Aaron Pierre, Kelvin Harrison Jr. and Tiffany Boone opened up to On The Red Carpet about playing the three lead lions in the upcoming Disney adventure. Pierre voices the title character, Mufasa, the father of Simba who was first introduced in the original 'Lion King' movie in 1994. Harrison Jr. plays his adoptive brother Taka who fans know better as the villain, Scar. And Boone plays Sarabi, a female lion who attracts the attention of the two males, putting their brotherly bond to the test. The new film opening in theaters December 20, isn't the first time Pierre and Harrison Jr. have worked together. The pair also portrayed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X in Nat Geo's "Genius: MLK/X." Harrison Jr. jokingly calls Pierre his "big brother" because they're "months apart." But! Pierre quickly clarified their birthdays are only a month apart. Boone revealed to On The Red Carpet what if feels like to see her character on screen as an animal singing, "Strange. Yes, when I finally saw it or even when we would see some of the sketches come to life it was like 'this is really, really strange' especially how intense the technology is. It's so life-like." Speaking of "intense," Pierre opened up about starring in a highly anticipated film hitting theaters before the holidays, "I'm very nervous but you know I'm really hopeful that people will connect with this and it resonates with people whether they choose to see it on their own or with their loved ones, I just hope people leave feeling inspired and feeling joyous!" Boone shared similar sentiments about voicing Sarabi. "It's an amazing opportunity to be in this cast of actors, to be working with (Lin-Manuel Miranda), to be working with (director) Barry (Jenkins). It's one of those moments where you have to pinch yourself and be like, 'oh, ok you are in this amazing opportunity, what are you gonna do with it and hopefully be present in it." Pierre says he's pinching himself too. "I still can't quite believe that this is a reality," He said. "So, I'm still pinching myself and I'm happy to be pinching myself with other people who are pinching themselves about this movie." "Mufasa: The Lion King" will be in theaters on December 20. The Walt Disney Company is the parent company of this ABC station.

ATLANTA — Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who won the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, endured humbling defeat after one tumultuous term and then redefined life after the White House as a global humanitarian, has died. He was 100 years old. The longest-lived American president died on Sunday, more than a year after entering hospice care, at his home in the small town of Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died at 96 in November 2023, spent most of their lives, The Carter Center said. “Our founder, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, passed away this afternoon in Plains, Georgia,” the center simply said in posting about Carter's death on the social media platform X. Businessman, Navy officer, evangelist, politician, negotiator, author, woodworker, citizen of the world — Carter forged a path that still challenges political assumptions and stands out among the 45 men who reached the nation’s highest office. The 39th president leveraged his ambition with a keen intellect, deep religious faith and prodigious work ethic, conducting diplomatic missions into his 80s and building houses for the poor well into his 90s. “My faith demands — this is not optional — my faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference,” Carter once said. A moderate Democrat, Carter entered the 1976 presidential race as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad smile, outspoken Baptist mores and technocratic plans reflecting his education as an engineer. His no-frills campaign depended on public financing, and his promise not to deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and U.S. defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter repeated before narrowly beating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, who had lost popularity pardoning Nixon. Carter governed amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over racism, women’s rights and America’s global role. His most acclaimed achievement in office was a Mideast peace deal that he brokered by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the bargaining table for 13 days in 1978. That Camp David experience inspired the post-presidential center where Carter would establish so much of his legacy. Yet Carter’s electoral coalition splintered under double-digit inflation, gasoline lines and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His bleakest hour came when eight Americans died in a failed hostage rescue in April 1980, helping to ensure his landslide defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter acknowledged in his 2020 “White House Diary” that he could be “micromanaging” and “excessively autocratic,” complicating dealings with Congress and the federal bureaucracy. He also turned a cold shoulder to Washington’s news media and lobbyists, not fully appreciating their influence on his political fortunes. “It didn’t take us long to realize that the underestimation existed, but by that time we were not able to repair the mistake,” Carter told historians in 1982, suggesting that he had “an inherent incompatibility” with Washington insiders. Carter insisted his overall approach was sound and that he achieved his primary objectives — to “protect our nation’s security and interests peacefully” and “enhance human rights here and abroad” — even if he fell spectacularly short of a second term. Ignominious defeat, though, allowed for renewal. The Carters founded The Carter Center in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind base of operations, asserting themselves as international peacemakers and champions of democracy, public health and human rights. “I was not interested in just building a museum or storing my White House records and memorabilia,” Carter wrote in a memoir published after his 90th birthday. “I wanted a place where we could work.” That work included easing nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, helping to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti and negotiating cease-fires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, The Carter Center had declared at least 113 elections in Latin America, Asia and Africa to be free or fraudulent. Recently, the center began monitoring U.S. elections as well. Carter’s stubborn self-assuredness and even self-righteousness proved effective once he was unencumbered by the Washington order, sometimes to the point of frustrating his successors. He went “where others are not treading,” he said, to places like Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had wandered across the border in 2010. “I can say what I like. I can meet whom I want. I can take on projects that please me and reject the ones that don’t,” Carter said. He announced an arms-reduction-for-aid deal with North Korea without clearing the details with Bill Clinton’s White House. He openly criticized President George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He also criticized America’s approach to Israel with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” And he repeatedly countered U.S. administrations by insisting North Korea should be included in international affairs, a position that most aligned Carter with Republican President Donald Trump. Among the center’s many public health initiatives, Carter vowed to eradicate the guinea worm parasite during his lifetime, and nearly achieved it: Cases dropped from millions in the 1980s to nearly a handful. With hardhats and hammers, the Carters also built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The Nobel committee’s 2002 Peace Prize cites his “untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Carter should have won it alongside Sadat and Begin in 1978, the chairman added. Carter accepted the recognition saying there was more work to be done. “The world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place,” he said. “The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.” Carter’s globetrotting took him to remote villages where he met little “Jimmy Carters,” so named by admiring parents. But he spent most of his days in the same one-story Plains house — expanded and guarded by Secret Service agents — where they lived before he became governor. He regularly taught Sunday School lessons at Maranatha Baptist Church until his mobility declined and the coronavirus pandemic raged. Those sessions drew visitors from around the world to the small sanctuary where Carter will receive his final send-off after a state funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral. The common assessment that he was a better ex-president than president rankled Carter and his allies. His prolific post-presidency gave him a brand above politics, particularly for Americans too young to witness him in office. But Carter also lived long enough to see biographers and historians reassess his White House years more generously. His record includes the deregulation of key industries, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cautious management of the national debt and notable legislation on the environment, education and mental health. He focused on human rights in foreign policy, pressuring dictators to release thousands of political prisoners. He acknowledged America’s historical imperialism, pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and relinquished control of the Panama Canal. He normalized relations with China. “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore,” Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy director, wrote in a 2018 book. “He was not a great president” but also not the “hapless and weak” caricature voters rejected in 1980, Eizenstat said. Rather, Carter was “good and productive” and “delivered results, many of which were realized only after he left office.” Madeleine Albright, a national security staffer for Carter and Clinton’s secretary of state, wrote in Eizenstat’s forward that Carter was “consequential and successful” and expressed hope that “perceptions will continue to evolve” about his presidency. “Our country was lucky to have him as our leader,” said Albright, who died in 2022. Jonathan Alter, who penned a comprehensive Carter biography published in 2020, said in an interview that Carter should be remembered for “an epic American life” spanning from a humble start in a home with no electricity or indoor plumbing through decades on the world stage across two centuries. “He will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood and underestimated figures in American history,” Alter told The Associated Press. James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924, in Plains and spent his early years in nearby Archery. His family was a minority in the mostly Black community, decades before the civil rights movement played out at the dawn of Carter’s political career. Carter, who campaigned as a moderate on race relations but governed more progressively, talked often of the influence of his Black caregivers and playmates but also noted his advantages: His land-owning father sat atop Archery’s tenant-farming system and owned a main street grocery. His mother, Lillian, would become a staple of his political campaigns. Seeking to broaden his world beyond Plains and its population of fewer than 1,000 — then and now — Carter won an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1946. That same year he married Rosalynn Smith, another Plains native, a decision he considered more important than any he made as head of state. She shared his desire to see the world, sacrificing college to support his Navy career. Carter climbed in rank to lieutenant, but then his father was diagnosed with cancer, so the submarine officer set aside his ambitions of admiralty and moved the family back to Plains. His decision angered Rosalynn, even as she dived into the peanut business alongside her husband. Carter again failed to talk with his wife before his first run for office — he later called it “inconceivable” not to have consulted her on such major life decisions — but this time, she was on board. “My wife is much more political,” Carter told the AP in 2021. He won a state Senate seat in 1962 but wasn’t long for the General Assembly and its back-slapping, deal-cutting ways. He ran for governor in 1966 — losing to arch-segregationist Lester Maddox — and then immediately focused on the next campaign. Carter had spoken out against church segregation as a Baptist deacon and opposed racist “Dixiecrats” as a state senator. Yet as a local school board leader in the 1950s he had not pushed to end school segregation even after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite his private support for integration. And in 1970, Carter ran for governor again as the more conservative Democrat against Carl Sanders, a wealthy businessman Carter mocked as “Cufflinks Carl.” Sanders never forgave him for anonymous, race-baiting flyers, which Carter disavowed. Ultimately, Carter won his races by attracting both Black voters and culturally conservative whites. Once in office, he was more direct. “I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over,” he declared in his 1971 inaugural address, setting a new standard for Southern governors that landed him on the cover of Time magazine. His statehouse initiatives included environmental protection, boosting rural education and overhauling antiquated executive branch structures. He proclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the slain civil rights leader’s home state. And he decided, as he received presidential candidates in 1972, that they were no more talented than he was. In 1974, he ran Democrats’ national campaign arm. Then he declared his own candidacy for 1976. An Atlanta newspaper responded with the headline: “Jimmy Who?” The Carters and a “Peanut Brigade” of family members and Georgia supporters camped out in Iowa and New Hampshire, establishing both states as presidential proving grounds. His first Senate endorsement: a young first-termer from Delaware named Joe Biden. Yet it was Carter’s ability to navigate America’s complex racial and rural politics that cemented the nomination. He swept the Deep South that November, the last Democrat to do so, as many white Southerners shifted to Republicans in response to civil rights initiatives. A self-declared “born-again Christian,” Carter drew snickers by referring to Scripture in a Playboy magazine interview, saying he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” The remarks gave Ford a new foothold and television comedians pounced — including NBC’s new “Saturday Night Live” show. But voters weary of cynicism in politics found it endearing. Carter chose Minnesota Sen. Walter “Fritz” Mondale as his running mate on a “Grits and Fritz” ticket. In office, he elevated the vice presidency and the first lady’s office. Mondale’s governing partnership was a model for influential successors Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Biden. Rosalynn Carter was one of the most involved presidential spouses in history, welcomed into Cabinet meetings and huddles with lawmakers and top aides. The Carters presided with uncommon informality: He used his nickname “Jimmy” even when taking the oath of office, carried his own luggage and tried to silence the Marine Band’s “Hail to the Chief.” They bought their clothes off the rack. Carter wore a cardigan for a White House address, urging Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. Amy, the youngest of four children, attended District of Columbia public school. Washington’s social and media elite scorned their style. But the larger concern was that “he hated politics,” according to Eizenstat, leaving him nowhere to turn politically once economic turmoil and foreign policy challenges took their toll. Carter partially deregulated the airline, railroad and trucking industries and established the departments of Education and Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He designated millions of acres of Alaska as national parks or wildlife refuges. He appointed a then-record number of women and nonwhite people to federal posts. He never had a Supreme Court nomination, but he elevated civil rights attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation’s second highest court, positioning her for a promotion in 1993. He appointed Paul Volker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose policies would help the economy boom in the 1980s — after Carter left office. He built on Nixon’s opening with China, and though he tolerated autocrats in Asia, pushed Latin America from dictatorships to democracy. But he couldn’t immediately tame inflation or the related energy crisis. And then came Iran. After he admitted the exiled Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979 by followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Negotiations to free the hostages broke down repeatedly ahead of the failed rescue attempt. The same year, Carter signed SALT II, the new strategic arms treaty with Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, only to pull it back, impose trade sanctions and order a U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hoping to instill optimism, he delivered what the media dubbed his “malaise” speech, although he didn’t use that word. He declared the nation was suffering “a crisis of confidence.” By then, many Americans had lost confidence in the president, not themselves. Carter campaigned sparingly for reelection because of the hostage crisis, instead sending Rosalynn as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter famously said he’d “kick his ass,” but was hobbled by Kennedy as Reagan rallied a broad coalition with “make America great again” appeals and asking voters whether they were “better off than you were four years ago.” Reagan further capitalized on Carter’s lecturing tone, eviscerating him in their lone fall debate with the quip: “There you go again.” Carter lost all but six states and Republicans rolled to a new Senate majority. Carter successfully negotiated the hostages’ freedom after the election, but in one final, bitter turn of events, Tehran waited until hours after Carter left office to let them walk free. At 56, Carter returned to Georgia with “no idea what I would do with the rest of my life.” Four decades after launching The Carter Center, he still talked of unfinished business. “I thought when we got into politics we would have resolved everything,” Carter told the AP in 2021. “But it’s turned out to be much more long-lasting and insidious than I had thought it was. I think in general, the world itself is much more divided than in previous years.” Still, he affirmed what he said when he underwent treatment for a cancer diagnosis in his 10th decade of life. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015. “I’ve had a wonderful life. I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.”Micheál Martin calls for ceasefires in Sudan and Gaza as regions are threatened by famineDec. 24—I didn't mean to bother Jack Ham on his birthday Monday, let alone with a question about whether the Kansas City Chiefs could surpass the 1970s Steelers as the NFL's greatest dynasty of the Super Bowl era. From this vantage point, it's an easy call: A three-peat would absolutely vault the Chiefs past every Super Bowl-era dynasty on record, including the mighty Steelers. That doesn't mean I believe the Chiefs are a better team. There has never been a better team than the '70s Steelers and might never be. But the sheer magnitude of the achievement would put the Chiefs above the rest. Vince Lombardi's Green Bay Packers couldn't win three straight Super Bowls (although they won an NFL championship the year before winning the first two Super Bowls). Bill Belichick's New England Patriots couldn't do it. Neither could Bill Walsh's San Francisco 49ers or Chuck Noll's Steelers, although a lot of them will tell you their threepeat-seeking 1976 team — ruined by injuries that wiped out the running back room — was the best one of all. Eight teams have tried for a three-peat. None made it as far as the Super Bowl. Only one even secured a No. 1 seed in their conference, and that was the 1990 49ers, who lost to the New York Giants in the NFC Championship Game. As we sit here today, with Andy Reid's 14-1 Chiefs due for a Christmas Day visit, the Steelers dynasty still reigns supreme because it went back-to-back twice and won four Super Bowls in six years. No other team can claim those feats. The Patriots rank second, but because they went nearly a decade between titles, it's almost like they had two dynasties since the turn of the millennium — one where they won three times in four years, another three in five. But that's just one man's opinion, and I wasn't part of a dynastic NFL team. That's why I called Ham, who was an integral part of those '70s Steelers. He was, in fact, one of a handful of the greatest outside linebackers in NFL history. He spoke of the Chiefs' resilience, knack for winning close games and ability to "take everyone's best shot." But what about the question at hand? Ham insisted he wasn't speaking through gritted teeth, but it sure sounded like it when he finally got around to this: "To answer your question, yes, I think three in a row is better than four in six. Back-to-back is so difficult. I hold in high regard what ours was able to accomplish. We did that twice. But three in a row? Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that's better." (For the record, it would also mark four Super Bowl titles in six years for the Chiefs.) That led me to a few other members of those Steelers teams. And it seems no matter which one you find, you're talking to one of the greatest players in NFL history. Mel Blount, maybe the best cornerback who has ever walked the planet, was next — and he wasn't biting. "I have a lot of respect for what Kansas City has done, but even if they win three in a row, it'd be hard to say they're better than our teams or the Steelers are better than them," Blount said. "It's apples and oranges — and those are two different fruits." By that, Blount meant the "the game is different, the rules are different. ... It's a different game. That's why I'm hesitant (to compare). If Terry Bradshaw had some of the protections these quarterbacks have today, there's no telling what we might have done." Having said all that, Blount believes the Chiefs have a great chance to three-peat because of their quarterback, Patrick Mahomes. "Everybody says you gotta have that quarterback, and they've got the quarterback — that Mahomes guy," Blount said with a laugh. "He's different." Fair enough, but I'd say we're tied, 1-1, on the question at hand — and who better to break a tie than Mean Joe Greene? I told Greene that Blount and Ham were split on the matter. He considered the question and finally came to the conclusion that if the Chiefs win three in a row, "They would be in the catbird's seat, with everybody chasing them. They would start the conversation." Greene also believes it might be good for the Chiefs to lose one more game (the Steelers game would be nice, he said) before the playoffs. "I think that's their best chance," he said. "There were times in my career when we had it going pretty good, and I didn't feel too badly if we lost a game going into the playoffs. It helped us feel refreshed, you could say, going into the playoffs." The crazy part in all this is that the Chiefs, who have played more football than anybody in history over the past seven years, might be the freshest and healthiest team in the AFC when they begin their defense, likely in the divisional round. By the way, regarding the '76 Steelers team — which lost to the Oakland Raiders in the AFC Championship — there was another difference of opinion. Ham and Blount, like Jack Lambert, believe that was the Steelers' greatest team of all. Greene isn't buying it. "Oh no, I never thought that," he said. "We didn't win. That settles it all for me." (c)2024 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Visit the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at www.post-gazette.com Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

COP29 climate finance deal clinched, what are countries saying?SOS Limited Announces Filing of the 2023 Annual Report on Form 20-FScientists Urge Ban on 'Mirror Life' Before It Endangers Global Health

Previous: 7-bet
Next: 7 bet login