All Posts (Eers88)


(1) 2 3 4 ... 514 »


 
Re: Wofford Basketball game

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

Sane wrote:
I think Wofford's nickname should be the Waffles.


That is more intimidating than a Terrier.

Posted on: Ystrday 10:17 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Gotham Classic (New York, NY) WVU vs NCSU

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
I thought the basketball team was going to suck again. I couldn't be happier with how they are performing. This whole season is gravy. I could care less if they shoot well or not. I care if they win. In fact, I kind of like the fact that the team is kicking people's asses even though their shooting isn't very good. It feels more Mountaineer-ish because it is a combination of "Because we can" and "Because f@#$ you, that's why!" If they keep improving on defense, nobody will want to play them. How many times have you seen opposing players look totally confused and completely frustrated? It is also refreshing to see Huggs acting happy. He deserves it.

Posted on: Ystrday 8:03 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Gotham Classic (New York, NY) WVU vs NCSU

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270

Posted on: 12/18/2014 6:25 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Which recruiting site is most accurate?

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
WVU Target Predictions

These are pretty accurate in the aggregate.

Posted on: 12/18/2014 6:24 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: According to SI.Com NCAA might not let any Miramar kids play

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270

Posted on: 12/18/2014 6:18 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: WR Position Solved

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

MichaelJLucasWV wrote:
Did anyone see what comments Chuganov made about Dawson leaving? its one of those paid articles...


He said, "Shannon who?"

Posted on: 12/18/2014 4:42 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: 4 Star HB

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

08WVUEer wrote:
Quote:

jkmaynard wrote:
I have heard the same. Feel sorry for whitehead tho


I don't feel bad for whitehead he has the option to leave. He opened up his recruitment again and plenty of schools are interested in him.

I feel bad for the kids already there that will lose a year of eligibility of they leave and will pretty much lose 1-2 years learning a new system if they stay.


Exactly. Decisions have consequences. Deciding to go to Pitt will totally f@#$ up your karma.

Posted on: 12/18/2014 4:38 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: 4 Star HB

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

hailwvu wrote:
Is Whitehead already enrolled?


He was set to enroll at Pitt in January, but said he will postpone his enrollment until the summer after Chryst left. He is still committed to Pitt.

Posted on: 12/18/2014 4:37 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
You're misrepresenting my statement. I never said it should... I was just asking the question why it shouldn't.


In the context of the entire discussion, including your previous statement, the question seemed rhetorical.

Posted on: 12/17/2014 10:29 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Ollie

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

BeersNEers wrote:
He is gushing over the interim AD.

I believe the direct quote from President Gee is: "Me likey!"
Open in new window

Posted on: 12/17/2014 4:18 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:

Remember, the context of the discussion is whether a regulatory scheme (licensing) applied to the 2nd Amendment is "unfair" because this same licensing scheme isn't applied to the 1st Amendment.

Simply saying that if something applies to one member of a group then it must apply to all members of the group is nonsensical and illogical when the members of the group are very different.


Who are you having this fictitious argument with? Not a single one of these things were said.


This is where you applied the licensing scheme to 1st Amendment rights in response to a suggestion that licensing is appropriate for gun ownership:

I kind of understand what you're saying, and I want to be supportive...but how would you feel if everyone were required to have a license for free speech?....to practice their religion? ....to be able to invoke the 5th?

During a door to door manhunt.... "Oh, you don't have your 4th amendment license? We're coming in."




Where do you see any claim that it was "unfair" (as you so put)?

Where is the claim that "it must apply to all members"?


When you said this:

If you need a license for any Right (enumerated by the constitution, not GIVEN by it), why shouldn't it apply to all?

Posted on: 12/17/2014 4:06 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:

Remember, the context of the discussion is whether a regulatory scheme (licensing) applied to the 2nd Amendment is "unfair" because this same licensing scheme isn't applied to the 1st Amendment.

Simply saying that if something applies to one member of a group then it must apply to all members of the group is nonsensical and illogical when the members of the group are very different.


Who are you having this fictitious argument with? Not a single one of these things were said.


This is where you applied the licensing scheme to 1st Amendment rights in response to a suggestion that licensing is appropriate for gun ownership:

I kind of understand what you're saying, and I want to be supportive...but how would you feel if everyone were required to have a license for free speech?....to practice their religion? ....to be able to invoke the 5th?

During a door to door manhunt.... "Oh, you don't have your 4th amendment license? We're coming in."



Posted on: 12/17/2014 2:22 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Ollie

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

eers4evr wrote:
Ollie was leaving from the day he came....


Who isn't?

Posted on: 12/17/2014 1:40 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

MdMounty wrote:
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:
If religious beliefs could kill other people, then there would be no reason to have crashed the planes into the twin towers.


If owning a gun could kill there would be no reason to pull the trigger. That is not a wise argument. BOTH cases require action. You act like the mere fact you own a gun causes death. This is not the case. You are under the mistaken belief that the only reason people own guns it to kill someone.

Are you telling me that UNLIKE religion guns are a DIRECT cause of killing?

Herd away Esquire.


Read what he actually said again. He is clearly talking about actions, not the object. And yet you switched it to guns and ran with it.



No, you're misunderstanding...88 is saying words and religion DON'T cause harm. (Which, in pure definition, is true)

Brobison is simply extending that to the 2nd amendment as well. Owning a firearm DOESN'T cause harm either.


Remember, the context of the discussion is whether a regulatory scheme (licensing) applied to the 2nd Amendment is "unfair" because this same licensing scheme isn't applied to the 1st Amendment. The Amendments prevent very different issues regarding very different rights that are manifested in very different ways. There are limits on all of those rights, but, because the rights are manifested in very different ways, these limitations arise very differently as well. Moreover, the legal analysis for whether these rights are infringed is very different. Simply saying that if something applies to one member of a group then it must apply to all members of the group is nonsensical and illogical when the members of the group are very different. Simply put, you cannot license thoughts or words. There is nothing tangible to license. That is not a basis to not license other tangible things. If you want to argue about whether licensing is violative of the 2nd Amendment, have at it.

Posted on: 12/17/2014 10:20 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:
If religious beliefs could kill other people, then there would be no reason to have crashed the planes into the twin towers. Neither the Native Americans nor the 9/11 victims were killed by words or thoughts. They were killed by physical events.


So, I guess there is NEVER a good reason to infringe on a person's right to free speech since NO ONE can be hurt by words.


This is why talking to you is like herding cats. You take something someonec says out of context and then make a ridiculous statement as if they said that. I already gave examples of how the right to free speech is regulated. The context of this discussion was licensing it like guns, which are regulated because their reason for being is to cause physical harm.

Posted on: 12/17/2014 7:02 am
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

MdMounty wrote:
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
...any Right(enumerated by the constitution, not GIVEN by it)...


You keep saying that about the 2nd amendment like it is fact, but it's debatable whether it refers to private gun ownership.


As it was originally written, there really isn't much debate. "The People" is pretty clear either way...not "the Milita"..." Militiamen"...."Army". The "People".


Are you saying that the right isn't created by the Constitution, so that the language used doesn't matter in determining the scope of the right?

Posted on: 12/16/2014 9:11 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: 4* Michael Ferns

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Apparently the family has a relative in Wheeling who is a state delegate or running for state Senator or something.

Posted on: 12/16/2014 6:15 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

WVisHome wrote:
Quote:

Eers88 wrote:


Why would you need a license to practice speech or religion? Saying something (Speech) and believing something (Religion) won't cause physical harm to another person.



No verbal argument has EVER escalated to the point someone has lost their life, right?


Actually, this statement is literally true even though you didn't intend it to be. You and BRobinson don't seem to understand the difference between motive or motivation and causation. Nobody has ever been killed by words. Certainly physical fights have started out as arguments, but at that point they are no longer just words. Words don't kill or harm people physically.

By the way, your analogy also fails because speech is regulated, and licensing is a form of regulation. You cannot defame someone. You cannot exercise your free speech to stop traffic. The freedom of speech is regulated just like the right to bear arms.

Quote:

ISIS isn't killing people simply because the religion they believe in "tells them to", right?


Again, causation versus motivation. They aren't killing people with their religious thoughts. Your religious freedom gives you the right to believe what you believe. It is not an unfettered right that allows you to do anything you want in the name of religion. On the other hand, shooting someone with a gun is the cause of the injury or death.

Quote:

Why would you need a license for those? If you need a license for any Right (enumerated by the constitution, not GIVEN by it), why shouldn't it apply to all?


Because they aren't the same in that the exercise of most rights won't endanger other people. You and BRobinson want to create a fiction where people's thoughts and words are killing others so you can analogize them to guns. There is a gigantic hole in your analysis. Nobody's religion is the physical cause of another person's death. The physical cause is a sword, a bomb, or a gun. Motive or motivation does not equal cause. The cause is not religion and it is not words. When you show me a death certificate that shows someone was killed by another person's words or thoughts, then we can have the discussion about licensing thoughts and words. But for now, I am comfortable with the notion that nobody is being killed by other people's words or thoughts, and people are being killed by guns.

BTW - I am a gun owner and am thinking about buying another gun. I am not against the 2nd Amendment. I just think the arguments ought to recognize reality.

Posted on: 12/16/2014 5:14 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: Yet another school massacre post-mortem analysis

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

brobison wrote:
Quote:
Saying something (Speech) and believing something (Religion) won't cause physical harm to another person.


Seriously?! Tell that to the Native Americans and while you are at it about religion tell that to the families of 9/11 victims.


If religious beliefs could kill other people, then there would be no reason to have crashed the planes into the twin towers. Neither the Native Americans nor the 9/11 victims were killed by words or thoughts. They were killed by physical events.

Again, my question was why you would need a license to practice your freedom of religion or speech? Who are you going to cause physical harm to by simply believing your religious beliefs or speaking words?

Posted on: 12/16/2014 4:02 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 


 
Re: The Coaching Carousel Begins

Joined:
12/7/2009 7:07 pm
From Charlottesville, Virginia
Posts: 10270
Quote:

LesterBoy wrote:
Chryst acknowledges that he has spoken with Wisconsin about the job opening.

At the Armed Fources Bowl press conference.

In Houston.

That was a bit awkward.

Here's a quote from the article:

Quote:
Chryst said he hasn't heard anything concrete and doesn't expect to before Wednesday, the earliest Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez can name a successor to Gary Andersen, who is leaving Wisconsin for a similar job at Oregon State.

I was told nothing would happen before then, but I don't know," Chryst said. "I don't know what they're thinking specifically. A lot depends on the search."

Asked if his return trip was to Pittsburgh or Madison, Wis., Chryst laughed.

"No, no. I'm going back," he said. "We've got practice tomorrow."


That certainly isn't "I am not interested in the Wisconsin job and am definitely coming back to Pitt."

Posted on: 12/16/2014 3:50 pm
_________________
Open in new window
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer
 



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 514 »




Login
Username:

Password:

remember me





Copyright © 2004-2011 wemustignitethiscouch.com All Rights Reserved