All Posts (Eers88)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 628 »


 
Re: Charlottesville

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Thanks for your account 88.

I still disagree with some of your takes on parts of it, although I agree with the majority of it.

None of these groups are "right" or "left"....they're simply assholes. No more, no less.



You can see the division it is causing by labeling them right or left. 1818 is apoplectic about trying to say the "left" is worse than the "right." It is all a sideshow to the real issues surrounding these groups.

Posted on: Today 12:54 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Transgender Children

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

Turkish wrote:
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Still in the "you raise yours your way and I'll raise mine my way" camp.


Dude, I'm actually proud of you for saying that. That is a real actual 'liberal' stance for a change --instead of a wimpy modern liberal feelings protector idea! You do your thing, I'll do mine.. wow what a concept! Goodness if we can get the rest of the world to feel like you do about this issue, about many many more issues, the world really would be a better place.


Um, hate to bring it up, but you just posted that some folks were committing child abuse by raising their kids "their way" with regard to this issue. That isn't "you raise yours your way and I'll raise mine my way" at all. It is the opposite of that.

Posted on: 8/17 2:46 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

Turkish wrote:
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

Turkish wrote:
Any small business owner should be able to choose who they do business with, even if they are wrong in their ideals. If they don't want cops in then its on them. If they don't want whites, or blacks, or whatever --its their business and no one elses. If they don't want to bake a cake for someone there shouldn't need to even be a reason explained other than "because I said so and its my life and my business". End of story....


Sorry, you lose legally...and you're morally wrong to boot!

I will give you some props though...you are certainly consistent! Good to see you back in the Soapbox!


I love being back, although it can be hard to walk away from a place a gorgeous as Glacier and come back to Morgantown where the roads are not big enough for the population anymore....

Yeah, its morally wrong to allow people to chose what they do in life --according to modern liberals. It used to be what liberalism was all about --live and let live...you know, open-mindedness and acceptance of peoples differences despite anything. Not anymore. You folks would rather force people to do stuff they are not comfy with at gunpoint just to make yourselves feel better. Liberals now want to shut down businesses and ruin lives of people who simply feel differently than they do. Its amazing, but also why modern liberalism is the fastest shrinking idea on the planet, currently.


You are literally accusing people who oppose racism, sexism, etc. of being racist and sexist, and claiming people who are racist, sexist, etc. are being open-minded and accepting.

Posted on: 8/17 2:43 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Dangerous Donald

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
You really dont know history, do you Eers? Your replies read like you have no knowledge of anything outside of incorrectly labeling people racist and Nazis. Are you a member of antifa? You sound mad. Anyway -
How is Robert E Lee a symbol of oppression? Last I knew everyone even people in the north had slaves til Lincoln lord of the realm outlawed it and plenty of northerners hated it. Pretty sure all Lee was, was one of America's finest generals. And that statue was a monument to his greatness as a leader strategist and his achievements despite his lack of men equipment and weapons during the war. He was reluctant to join the fight against his own countrymen in the first place. His father fought in the American Revolution to free us of bankers and oppression I guess he's evil by default too. Unbelievable how these college kids and mindless liberals consider themselves unbigoted and tolerant yet show blindness and bigotry towards common sense, ignorance to reason, and logic. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned about 500 slaves total. I guess the next step is to blow up half of Mount Rushmore.

In 1986 Trump received the Ellis Island medal of honor with Rosa Parks and Ali.

In 1991 Trump said he hates seeing what David Duke represents.

In 1997 anti-defamation league president praises Trump for tackling the issue of discrimination at private clubs

In 2000 Trump calls Duke a bigot, racist, and a problem

In 2008 Trump shelters Jennifer Hudson after her family is murdered

In 2015 Trump said he didnt want the support of David Duke

In 2016 Trump disavows the alt-right

This week Trump condemns neo-Nazis, the KKK, and the alt-right.


A couple of points on the removal of the Lee statue and the name change for Lee Park to Emancipation Park.

1. This is a local issue. I don't really give a **** what you or anybody else not from here thinks about it. This isn't a hypothetical place. I literally walk by it more than once per week.

2. The park was originally "whites only." I know black residents who remember not being able to use the park.

3. The issue arose when some black residents petitioned to change the park because they found the statue and the name, in the complete context of its history, to be offensive. So, after wide public debate, the city council decided that the park should be equally enjoyed by all residents, and decided to take down the statue and rename the park.

4. There is still a court case to determine whether the removal violates a state statute regarding removal of war memorials. The issue is whether it is a war memorial.

5. The argument that people are trying to change or erase history is a straw man. No proponent of removal has ever argued that removing the statue will erase history. That is a physical impossibility because time doesn't go backwards. What we do today cannot affect the past. The statue, however, is here in the present, and is causing some current residents to feel like second-class citizens here and now. That is a problem that can be fixed.

6. This seems like this history is trending in a way that traditional conservatives would appreciate and support. Traditional conservatives favor more governance at the local level rather than federal level, and that is what is happening here. Also, it is trending from more governmental regulation ("whites only") to no regulation at all (equal enjoyment).

7. Finally, although Lee was at one time a US soldier, this statue shows him in a confederate uniform. He fought against the US, and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers. Some would call him a traitor. This isn't comparable to Jefferson and Washington, who are the founders of our country and never fought against the US.

Posted on: 8/17 2:05 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Charlottesville

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

wvufan1818 wrote:
Eers, how can you honestly say it was only one side when there are videos of alt-left antifa goons punching people, even reporters who were filming? One female news reporter had to get stitches in her head because she was attacked by the alt-left. Even Jake Tapper was calling out the alt-left for attacking people. Don't try and blame this on one "side" when everybody on both sides is guilty. President Trumps statement was simply true and nothing wrong with what he said at all.


https://m.imgur.com/a/jvI2Z


Re-read what I wrote. I said there were some counter protesters responsible for skirmishes. BTW - there is no group recognized as alt-left. It is literally a creation of Sean Hannity. I would guess they are actually opportunistic anarchists rather than anti-fa, but how can you tell unless you take photos of them at this event and match them to other photos of known anarchists or anti-fa. I really don't care who they are. Certainly all the violence is bad. But FFS, what they did is nothing compared to what the alt-right did to Charlottesville. You are comparing a coordinated two-day terrorist attack by like a thousand Neo-nazis with a handful of physical altercations by a handful of people. It is like saying, "Well, you have lung cancer and you also have this mosquito bite, so out of some weirdo sense of fairness we have to treat them both the same." They aren't.

When you find yourself saying,"Well, in all fairness to the Nazis ..." you might want to rethink what you are saying.

Again, this isn't a partisan issue. These people don't represent conservatives or liberals. None of them. I don't want any of them here. But I sure as hell wouldn't wish what the neo-nazis did here on anyone else's city.



Posted on: 8/17 1:31 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Charlottesville

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
I appreciate everyone's concern. Frankly, I have avoided coming here for fear of what I would find. If people want to be here for the people of Charlottesville, then they should stop advancing false narratives about what happened here and who was at fault. This isn't a tough call. Even if you want to break it down into "sides," here is a list, in chronological order.

One side:
1. Submitted false paperwork for its permit so that it could be held at Emancipation Park, which is less safe because it is smaller and surrounded by narrow streets and buildings on three sides. To be fair, they did this because the statue is there, but it made it less safe for everyone.
2. Threatened, planned and/or organized attacks on various Charlottesville places of worship, including burning them down.
3. Held a group of congregants captive in a church when they surrounded it holding Tiki torches and chanting "Heil Trump," "Blood and Soil," and "You (or Jews) will not replace us." The first report I received of this was a friend in the church posting on Facebook that the congregants were unable to leave and were scared to death.
4. Marched through UVA (after intentionally giving a false path of travel to UVA officials in order to avoid police protection) carrying Tiki torches and again chanting those same chants and getting into several altercations with UVA students, eventually surrounding a group of students in a circle about 10 nazis deep at Thomas Jefferson's statue.
5. Armed themselves with AR15s, handguns, clubs, helmets and shields.
6. Intentionally disobeyed the Police's safety plan designed to protect them and the lawful counter protesters by literally forcing their way through the counter protesters to enter the park. The safety plan called for them to enter through the side of the park where the police had removed all of the counter demonstrators. They never told the police they were going to do that, and, not surprisingly, their pushing their way through the counter demonstrators led to skirmishes and is why the Police declared the assembly unlawful and ordered them to disperse.
7. Ignored the police's orders to return to McIntire Park, which is a couple of miles away, where the police could maintain their safety, and instead roamed through downtown looking for small groups and individuals to prey on, as well as synagogues and churches to strike. Fortunately, these places of worship were protected by local citizens.
8. Drove a car into a group of peaceful protesters killing one and injuring many. This was not related to any skirmish and was well after the crowds were dispersed.
9. It also appears that they may have called in false bomb threats to move police to areas away from where they intended to strike, and that there was a coordinated effort to strike a crowd by car because there were alt-right members on foot coordinating with the driver. Based on what I know, this is likely so, but I wouldn't say I know it to be true. I understand it is being investigated, and several people who were at the scene said the car stopped at the top of the street, asked a white male if he was "alright," and then spoke some more before driving into the crowd.

The other side:
1. Didn't submit false paperwork for its permit, which was awarded by the city.
2. Was prepared to follow the police safety plan and was surprised to see the the alt-right members forcing their way through them to "enter" the park given that the police safety plan called for them to enter the park through the side that was vacant. (The demonstrations were coordinated, or at least they were supposed to be, in order to allow both sides to demonstrate peacefully.) This path and manner of entry was clearly designed to incite violence.
3. Protected people and places of worship.
4. Probably began some skirmishes. Most of them were local and armed with signs so I don't see them looking for a fight, but in those conditions it is likely some of them struck out.

It isn't hard to see which side is responsible for the two-day terrorist attack that happened here. It was intentional, and BLM, anti-fa, or any other group didn't conduct this type of coordinated attack against the city and university.

As if this isn't enough evidence to place responsibility firmly with the alt-right, consider that the KKK was here just weeks ago, dressed in their hoods and shouting "white power," and nothing like this happened. The KKK followed the police safety plan so that the groups stayed separated. They arrived when and where they were supposed to. They left when they were supposed to. They spoke similar words of hate and white supremacy as the alt-right, and there was no clash or violence between the groups because they weren't here for violence. There were actually some counter protesters who were arrested at the KKK rally because they refused to disperse afterwards, stood in the street, and wore masks, which is against a city ordinance. They might have well have held signs saying "Please arrest us." But in any event, there was no violence between the groups, and there was no attack on Charlottesville or its residents.

Frankly, seeing all of this, I honestly thought that this would be something the country could finally unite around. Neo-Nazis literally came and committed a terrorist attack. Who could possibly not stand up against that without equivocation? Trump's statements that what happened here was an "egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides" was a gut punch to me and everyone here. There was only one "side" displaying "hatred, bigotry and violence" in Charlottesville, and people advancing that rhetoric makes it really hard to recover. This isn't a partisan issue, it is a decency issue.

Posted on: 8/17 12:32 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Charlottesville

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Thanks. I still live here. Still trying to make sense of it all. I walk my dog almost every weekend where the crowd was struck by the car. The street he drove down is the street where we access the downtown mall. I stayed away this weekend. It is surreal to see photos and videos of nazis walking around my city, and hard to process. Thanks for checking in.

Posted on: 8/14 7:45 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:

Quote:

There has to be a dividing line in which all persons' rights are observed equally. Otherwise you are placing one person's rights above another. It's time in this country that we need to stop being easily offended and start being fair. The way we are going about it is greatly degrading our society.

It amazes me that the people who have chosen to cultivate their own world view have placed themselves as the moral authority over us all. No wonder they can't see just how skewed their point of view has become. It's because at their inception point they had no standard to begin with. It's like trying to use a meter that never was calibrated. You can never hit the mark without first basing yourself off of a standard. It is scientific fact.


You have it backwards. It appears that you are literally espousing a system without any standard in place of a system with very clearly defined standards and rules.


Well that is a nice observation. What makes you come to that conclusion?


The standard is pretty simple. If you perform a service or sell a particular good, then you cannot refuse to sell the service or good to someone because of their race, religion, national origin, disability, etc.

What you are advocating is a system where nobody knows who will sell what to whom, which is a bad idea from any perspective. Economically, which is what the right seems to care about most, it is a disaster. There is a huge cost to discrimination.

Posted on: 8/12 5:38 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Cord Cutters

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
I get the page using Safari as my browser.

Posted on: 8/12 3:31 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Let's say a Christian was putting together a study on the scriptures in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong. That Christian in turn goes to a printing company to get some materials made up to use as handouts in the class.

As it turns out the owner and operator of the company is homosexual. Upon seeing the topic of the material and the views expressed, the owner tells the customer that he/she is not comfortable with the subject matter, and denies the customer service.

The denial of service is based solely on the customer's religion, and the views expressed there in. Would that not be equally discriminatory by the gay printer shop owner, to deny service to the Christian customer? Would you side with the homosexual in all instances?


Yes, it would be discriminatory if the owner performs the same service for others, which seems likely under your hypothetical.

Quote:


There has to be a dividing line in which all persons' rights are observed equally. Otherwise you are placing one person's rights above another. It's time in this country that we need to stop being easily offended and start being fair. The way we are going about it is greatly degrading our society.

It amazes me that the people who have chosen to cultivate their own world view have placed themselves as the moral authority over us all. No wonder they can't see just how skewed their point of view has become. It's because at their inception point they had no standard to begin with. It's like trying to use a meter that never was calibrated. You can never hit the mark without first basing yourself off of a standard. It is scientific fact.


You have it backwards. It appears that you are literally espousing a system without any standard in place of a system with very clearly defined standards and rules.

Posted on: 8/12 3:30 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

EERY wrote:
I don't think there is any correlation between a public servant and a private business owner.

In the instance of the Clerk, she should do her job or be fired. If she has a moral issue with issuing homosexual couples marriage licenses, then she is free to step down from that position. If it is something she feels passionate enough about, she can become an activist and try to get the law changed.

On the other hand, a private business should have more freedom to choose who or what they are willing to provide a service for. As long as the service being denied is not necessary to the health and life of the other individuals. If a cake maker is not willing to offer a service to another individual, that individual is free to take their business somewhere else. The cake maker is doing it at their own detriment, because they will lose a sale, and the word of mouth will spread.

To say that the cake maker should have to provide the service, is to place the rights of one individual over another. You can try to spin it a hundred different ways, but it still equates to the same thing. Forcing a Christian baker to proved a service is forcing them to place their faith on a shelf. You are saying there is no room for their beliefs in a public setting. Just because you might disagree with their beliefs and the stand by which they take upon them, doesn't change the rights they have to live by them.

Refusing to make a cake for a couple because they are gay, does not force the gay couple to place their homosexuality on a shelf. It forces them to Google another bakery that will provide the service they desire. However their right to be a homosexual was not infringe upon. They might feel slighted, but their rights have not been denied.

Should a Christian or Jewish person have the right to try to force a Muslim business to provide a service that puts them in an awkward position that they don't feel comfortable with? By all means no. The same as a mother doesn't have the right to sue a cake maker for refusing to make a Trump cake for her son. You just gotta put your big boy pants on, and move on with life.

Besides nobody that I ever have known has died because they were denied cake.


The cake baker is just as free not to bake a cake as the clerk is to step down from office. If you don't want to participate in commerce according to the rules, then there is the door.

Posted on: 8/12 2:06 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
I think that falls into the same category as the Kentucky clerk that wouldn't sign gay marriage certificates. However...the baker is not a government employee. I still say just bake the damn cakes.


Sort of. The principle is that the clerk isn't acting in her personal capacity when she carries out her duties, so her personal beliefs aren't relevant to her obligation to carry them out. Similarly, the baker is acting in the flow of commerce, and not as a christian or muslim or whatever. He or she is acting as a baker. That is what matters.

Posted on: 8/12 2:05 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

EERY wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.


If one bakery wasn't able to make a cake due to their inability to do so then then this is fake outrage as she could have at least tried another bakery.

If one bakery was able to make the cake but refused then they are discriminating. To me it's all equal...if you bake cakes then you have to bake cakes for everyone. Funny that the lawyer for the anti-gay bakery chose not to be consistent and defend the anti-Trump bakery's right to discriminate but rather attack liberals for not complaining about it.

If several bakeries in one area refused and were able to make the cake then this is seriously an outrage and needs looked into.



Not all discrimination is unlawful. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a Pitt fan, they don't have to make the cake. It is a business issue and not a legal issue. If it is because of the person's membership in a protected class (i.e. race, religion, sex, disability, etc.) then it is unlawful.

The law doesn't require businesses to provide services or products that they don't normally provide just because a customer is in a protected class. For example, if a bakery doesn't make x-rated cakes for anybody, then it doesn't need to make them for a person just because the person is in a protected class. A Trump supporter cannot go into Carvel and order a Donald Trump cake because they don't make it, and the law won't make them make it just because you are a Trump supporter. You can order Fudgie the Whale or Cookiepuss like everyone else. Being a Trump supporter is not protected, and there is no discrimination, unlawful or lawful, because they business isn't providing the service to some and not others.

EDIT: And I am speaking generally here. What I am describing is disparate treatment. There are some claims based on disparate impact, where a policy appears neutral on its face, but has a discriminatory effect. An example would be a doctor refusing to treat patients with sickle cell anemia. It seems facially neutral, but because sick cell predominantly strikes african americans, it is actually discriminatory in practice. I don't think that is what we are discussing.


So if a gay couple is trying to get a Christian bakery to bake a cake for their wedding, which puts the Christian bakery in a personal moral dilemma, is it not discrimination by the gay couple to try to force the Christian bakery to bake them a cake? By your own list the Christian bakery owner falls into a protected class.


From a legal perspective, absolutely not. The baker is providing the goods or services to the public, not the gay couple. The law prohibits commercial enterprises, like the bakery, from engaging in discrimination. There are strong public policies and economic principles supporting this. Moreover, the people are not discriminating against the baker--they are frequenting the bakery despite the religious beliefs of the baker. Discrimination would only occur if they didn't go to that baker because of the baker's religious beliefs. Quite frankly, the "personal moral dilemma" appears to be fabricated. Nobody is asking the baker to marry someone of the same sex. They are asking the baker to bake a cake just like he/she bakes for everybody else.

Posted on: 8/12 2:02 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
I don't doubt your legal analysis. Just talking from my own "what's right" perspective. I believe the example of the Pitt cake refusal is legally ok but morally wrong...again, just my opinion.

Can a bar refuse to sell a beer if they don't like your team affiliation? Where does the line stop at that sort of legal discrimination?


The only protected classes are: Age, sex, race, religion, national origin, color, disability, military status, and some of those are only for employment. Whether it is morally wrong is a different issue and is up to the marketplace to fix--i.e. boycotts, etc.

Posted on: 8/12 1:54 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

eer_4da_beer wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.


If one bakery wasn't able to make a cake due to their inability to do so then then this is fake outrage as she could have at least tried another bakery.

If one bakery was able to make the cake but refused then they are discriminating. To me it's all equal...if you bake cakes then you have to bake cakes for everyone. Funny that the lawyer for the anti-gay bakery chose not to be consistent and defend the anti-Trump bakery's right to discriminate but rather attack liberals for not complaining about it.

If several bakeries in one area refused and were able to make the cake then this is seriously an outrage and needs looked into.



Not all discrimination is unlawful. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for a Pitt fan, they don't have to make the cake. It is a business issue and not a legal issue. If it is because of the person's membership in a protected class (i.e. race, religion, sex, disability, etc.) then it is unlawful.

The law doesn't require businesses to provide services or products that they don't normally provide just because a customer is in a protected class. For example, if a bakery doesn't make x-rated cakes for anybody, then it doesn't need to make them for a person just because the person is in a protected class. A Trump supporter cannot go into Carvel and order a Donald Trump cake because they don't make it, and the law won't make them make it just because you are a Trump supporter. You can order Fudgie the Whale or Cookiepuss like everyone else. Being a Trump supporter is not protected, and there is no discrimination, unlawful or lawful, because they business isn't providing the service to some and not others.

EDIT: And I am speaking generally here. What I am describing is disparate treatment. There are some claims based on disparate impact, where a policy appears neutral on its face, but has a discriminatory effect. An example would be a doctor refusing to treat patients with sickle cell anemia. It seems facially neutral, but because sick cell predominantly strikes african americans, it is actually discriminatory in practice. I don't think that is what we are discussing.

Posted on: 8/11 12:52 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: WVU Football Thread for Things That Don't Need Their Own Thread

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:

SI Scouting report: VT



They’re really well coached on defense. Coordinator Bud [Foster] runs a unique scheme. They’ll do some Cover 2 inverted stuff, and they love to load the box. They’ll choke out the run game and force you to win on the perimeter.

Grier could have a huge day.

Posted on: 8/10 3:31 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Dangerous Donald

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Nothing about Donald's rhetoric to North Korea? I would have thought somebody would have been screaming about what a badass tough guy or world menace he is. I guess football season being right around the corner has its benefits.

Posted on: 8/10 3:29 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
Quote:

EERY wrote:
So true. I don't know how some people can be so small minded.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ump-birthday-cake-9-year/


We need more details about the boy's cake. If he had a specific cake, like Donald Trump's head or something, and bakeries didn't make it because they have a set menu of cakes, that is different than if they just wouldn't make a cake on their menu that said something about Trump. It is also different from a legal standpoint because political ideology isn't a protected class, and religion is.

Posted on: 8/10 9:28 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: No cops allowed?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
It is senseless. People who have trouble with other people should try to interact with them, not isolate themselves from them.

Posted on: 8/9 5:51 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Class of 2019 QBs - Logan Holgrosen

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 12549
No way Howard is 6'1".

Posted on: 8/8 5:16 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 628 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved