
sheeeit
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
On 8/10/2023 at 7:24 PM, CooterBrown said:
My neighbor micro doses daily and it’s improved her happiness significantly. Her co worker grows his own mushrooms, dehydrates them in the RonCo Food Dehydrator. Gives them a spin in the Vitamix until they’re powder and fills empty capsules he buys on Amazon. She takes a capsule a day.
That is a shockingly descriptive post.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:
Bare with me, on my phone so hopefully links work and what not.
So it is your contention that Christianity, and religious groups had no role in abortion law? Only because the decision doesn’t explicitly state it? It is very convenient to think this way. However, it seems pretty obvious to many folks that Paxton and Abbott are definitely pushing their religious beliefs onto others.
Paxton in 2015 is clear about how he views the separation of church and state:
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/20/paxton-addresses-grapevine-church/
And his homie Abbott mentioning the “creator” in regard to SB8:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/
Was SB8 not part of the Roe being overturned? It’s fairly easy to connect the dots here. If you can’t see it, I’m not sure what to say. Maybe one of these law dogs can say it better than myself.
Regarding gay marriage, Abbott has been an opponent his whole career. Very easy to find articles that quote him saying as such.
It’s not called a culture battle, it’s a war. Many battles are fought within a war. You don’t think given the chance Abbott and Co. won’t revisit this? I think Brisket handled it up thread.
How about these proposed bills:
https://www.equalitytexas.org/legislature/legislative-bill-tracker-2023/
Those must all be secular since God isn’t mentioned. This is also heavily discussed in the LGBT thread.This took a weird turn which is sort of predictable here. I have no desire or interest to defend Abbot/Paxton and I think many of the platforms of the Texas gop are stupid and wrong. I would not argue that many in the the Texas gop would like to revert to a more traditional (certainly traditional in our country) form of governance but I do not think they will be successful and, very clearly, the country as a whole is moving on without them. If you just wanted to do a Texas gop is bad and religion is bad thread then I would not have responded.
Your original post asked "It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country." I do not think that is true. And Texas isn't the country. I would say the country is actually heading in an opposite direction of a theocracy. Plus, what group that wants something politically doesn't weaponize their support for it? I do not have any issue with religious people being politically active on issues just like I have no issue with any group that wants to become active politically and fight for what they believe in.
When I think of a theocracy, I think of some society ruled by the teachings/rulings of some divine being or some group that considers themselves as divinely guided. Like making it illegal to eat meat on Fridays during lent or mandating prayer at govt functions or similar. In our country's history we had some ideals like that but they have mostly been eradicated. We are a far, far more secular govt today than in the past. That is undeniable. Maybe it isn't happening as fast as some would like, and I tend to think that is a good thing in most cases, but it is moving in that direction and there is absolutely no traction nationwide for a return to some sort of theocracy.
Abortion- Again, I have made my personal beliefs known and I think the Texas law is grossly bad. However, I can understand an argument from people who think abortion is killing a potential life. An atheist can believe and be scientifically and medically supported that life occurs at conception. I doubt we will ever get a consensus on that. But I do not find arguments against abortion to be specifically religious. It certainly aligns with the beliefs of many religious people but taking it literally- believing that abortion is killing a potential life- there is no society or religion that would agree that killing a potential life is legal. I can respect that argument.
Gay Marriage- Our society's feelings on gay marriage have changed quickly in a short period of time. Even Obama was against it as recently as 2008 and you would not consider him a right wing religious zealot. But attitudes change and our govt laws change. Gay marriage is legal everywhere now. Yes there are Neanderthals in the Texas gop that would want to change that but they don't have much chance of that happening. Texas courts would likely shut it down and certainly the SC would and did. If someone argues against gay marriage on its face then I would ridicule them and would not support them. If a religious person argued that they should not be compelled to perform a service that contradicts their religion then I would absolutely defend that persons rights.
LGTB- This is such a new issue, especially transgenderism, and the country is going to have to figure it out. I would never ever support legislation that stripped rights from a trans person. I read over some of the bills you linked above. Many of them are just too stupid and have zero chance of passing. The ones worth discussing, imo, have to do with medical/surgical care for adolescents. I saw Troph's post about how she feels about it and I agree very much with what she believes. There should be very good communication about it, there should be long term professional counseling involved and then informed decision making between the child, parents and their doctor. My personal belief is that medication or surgery before 16 is misguided. Truly being trans is not really anything anyone wants. It is a brutal thing for them to deal with. Troph does not want anyones pity but we can be very empathetic to her and others in a similar situation. But the subject needs to be treated carefully. I think troph would completely agree that people who are pushing medication/surgery on adolescents that do not go through the proper procedures (like long term counseling, parental input, medical input etc) are dangerous and need to be stopped. When people read about abuses like that they are naturally going to react emotionally and they will rush to support legislation to stop it. However, over time, a rational plan will be clawed out and we will be much better at dealing with these types of issues. To round out the discussion, that is an example of how I feel the country is moving away from a theocracy. We may stumble along the way on both sides, but, in the end, our society will have a plan to deal with trans youth that is both helpful and practical.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Patricio Swayze said:
Abortion...again, it has been discussed at length in the abortion thread. However, I do not know a single person that advocates for abortion on demand or supports late term, viable fetus abortions that do not endanger the life of the mother. I do agree it is very difficult to get everyone to settle on the definition of life or viable fetus (although the latter seems much more possible). However, you are conveniently leaving out special interest groups and the amount of money the pour into the the Republican party. A politician or a judge doesn't have to actually site God or the bible as a reason, even if it is a big part of it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/roe-v-wade-abortion-christian-right-america
Regarding LGBT agendas, I am not sure if you are serious or not, but again, tons of money and endorsements for right wing politicians to push legislation through. You say these laws read rational. Can you explain how they are rational? I am struggling to think of a legitimate reason why two adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to get married.
Regarding how to stop it? Well, the 1A for one. But you are right, they will always be there.
Your first paragraph is kind of making my point. It seems you want to believe that the court made its ruling based on religion. It did not. The decision was based on pretty straight forward legal theory. And Alito went out of his way to remark that abortion is very different from other "social" liberties due to the fact that it deals with potential life. You also want to imply that money from special interest affected the decision. There is obviously no proof of that but the same argument could be made for any number of court decisions that are controversial and important to some group. Energy companies, unions, trial lawyers, tech, etc. They all give tons of money to their causes.
On the gay marriage issue, I have already pointed out my personal belief. I read your link and have read many other links. Abbott/Others did not say, at all, that gays should not have the right to get married. They can and they can get married in the church. What they said is that the govt should not be able to compel someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs. That is an argument I can understand and respect whether I agree with it or not.
You say there efforts to push legislation through. That is why I asked for specifics. Most times that I read about some egregious bill, when I read the actual text of the bill it is a lot different from what was reported.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Patricio Swayze said:
No problem.
Legislation that restricts the liberties of LGBT community such as outlawing gay marriage. Venture into that specific thread for a myriad of laws that affect and hurt them. Abortion was mentioned, but in general women’s rights and bodily autonomy. You see saber rattling about going after contraception now.
That should be a good start, I am sure others will chime in.Appreciated. Lets start with abortion. I was raised catholic and lost all interest at one time and am more or less back now. Admittedly agnostic and do have to question those that believe beyond any doubt. I am not opposed to abortion within certain limitations and think the current Texas law is terrible. That being said, I read a lot about the recent overturn of Roe and religion is never mentioned in any of the court documents I could find. No question the battle against abortion is being waged by many that profuse to be religious, but that doesn't mean that they are pushing their religion on anyone. It is an issue that many religious people feel very strongly about, and, they are engaging in their right to make their voices on the issue heard. Abortion is never going to be settled as there just seems no way to make a scientific case for when life begins. We tried with "fetal viability" but it is still arbitrary. It is not my belief, but I can understand someone thinking abortion is killing a life, and I can respectfully disagree with that position. But if you feel abortion is killing a life then that is not only a religious wrong but also a societal wrong that we already make illegal.
On the LGTB issues, we are probably going to have to be more specific. Interesting that you used the phrase "restricting liberties". It seems almost all conflict in this regard is when 2 or more different groups/people both feel their liberties are being restricted. If we are talking about Gay Marriage (which I am in complete agreement with) and potentially the Supreme Court with Obergefell, if the case gets overturned it will be on ideological/legal basis rather than religious. Obviousy there has been a lot of LBGT, especially trans, in the public eye lately. Maybe there is legislation out there that is different, but when I read the actual text of the various laws, they seem to be based on fairly rational thinking. I may disagree with them, but I do not think they are "religiously" written. No question they are favored by many on the religious side of things but every contentious issue has rabid sides.
I actually think the ability of religious people to get certain pet ideologies passed into law is is lesser now than in the past. Before most of these laws were passed in darkness to the masses. Now we get to see and read everything. I strongly believe that the influence of purely religious fanatics is waning.
To your last point about how we can stop this (even though I do not feel it is something that is really getting worse), I think the answer is that you cant. And, more importantly, you shouldn't. Religion is never, ever going away. It is a bit of a pendulum at times and has wide sways in followers, but it always swings back the other direction. The religious right is pretty big and they are always going to have some influence. The best way to curtail them is to watch what they do and call them on things when they go too far. But our system of government already does a really good job (certainly compared to the rest of the world) of protecting the rights of the minority in 2023.
-
On 3/21/2023 at 9:19 AM, Patricio Swayze said:
It feels like more and more we are headed towards theocracy in this country. At the very least, the right are determined to commingle church and state much more. This goes for all religions, but since we are in the US, that mostly means Christianity. They weaponize it for whatever cause and policy they are trying to push on the country.
As a father, I am concerned about indoctrination of my kids. I have said it before, but I feel like most religions, including Christianity, are a net negative for humanity. Not only would I be worried my kids could be sexually assaulted, I have daughters and am very worried about how all this bullshit might affect their bodily autonomy and health. Now with all the destruction and take over of the education system, it sometimes feels like soon I will have to explain to my girls that the world isn’t 6,000 years old. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
How is this stopped?
Why do y’all on the right insist on pushing your beliefs onto others in the form of policy and law?
Good thread mostly. I'd like to debate with you but need some clarification. Can you be specific about examples of the right trying to comingle church and state? It is easier to respond to specifics than generalities.
I agree 100% that religion should be completely separated from policy. I hate it when politicians mention their religious beliefs in conjunction with some policy. The rub is when morality/ethics are embedded in laws/policy. It is certainly possible that some politician could author legislation that is good and moral and deserving of thoughtfulness. That same politician might say that he authored the legislation as a result of his religion. He might actually feel in his heart that this is true. He might just be saying it to gin up his base. I suppose only the author knows for sure. But, just because he used religion is not a reason to automatically disregard his legislation. It is hard for me to come up with actual policy that is pushed by the right that is predominantly religious in nature. By that I mean the actual text of the bill/legislation.
Not at all playing gotcha here. But would you give a few examples of what you see happening?
-
On 1/22/2023 at 3:12 PM, RomaVicta said:
Negged for improper use of quotation marks. You're not quoting anyone that doesn't live in your own head. It's dishonest. Easy for the perpetrator, but fundamentally dishonest and idiotic.
Thank you! Now crack him on his knuckles and deny recess. I don't think I am the only one who sleeps better at night knowing you are out there protecting us from "improper use of quotations".
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 10/27/2021 at 12:38 PM, sheeeit said:
Really tragic situation. Obviously AB had no intention to harm anyone and it truly seems like a tragic accident.
I have no opinion on AB as a good or bad person as I do not know him, but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability.
Also, it is important to note that my guess is that the things that were going on on the set probably happen on most sets. Shootings like this are extremely rare so human nature says people will get sloppy with the rules. However, when a tragedy like this occurs then the set will be held to the standards that are the written rules for safety.
Some of this will be based on reported actions (never believe any news report more than 50% for accuracy) and will need to be verified and some not.
From a legal liability standpoint, AB's production company, based on reports, was in charge of hiring/firing (including director) and was the on site supervising authority for the film. If true, AB was the "highest authority" on the set and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the workplace. If some of the reports are true like 1) people on set using the guns for target practice at lunch, 2) combining the role of the armorer and property master, 3) live ammo being recovered from the scene etc. There are very specific SAG and industry rules on guns on set including:
1) No "live" ammo is ever supposed to be on a set (this is a biggie)
2) Rubber guns are supposed to be used exclusively in rehearsals (this is a biggie)
3) The armorer and property master are the only people supposed to handle the guns except for the actors (it is reported an assistant director handed the gun to AB- which again probably happens all of the time but it doesn't matter if the rules were broken from a legal standpoint)
4) Actors, by SAG rules, are never to point a gun at anyone, including directors.
5) Actors, per SAG guidelines, are supposed to pull the trigger on any guns handed to them at least 6 times pointed at the ground before using.
6) When filming scenes with real guns, industry rules say plexiglass must be installed to protect directors and others that may possibly be in the line of fire.
From a legal liability standpoint this will be ugly and messy. The insurers are going to point to clauses in their contracts that say standard industry practices and SAG rules etc must be followed. I am sure they will try to deny any claims on that basis. Obviously, AB set up a company to produce the film which, in part, is always done to protect individuals from any personal liability. However, since AB was on set and actively involved in the actions, both from an oversight position and as the actually person that fired the gun, I think he will be sued personally and will likely have liability.
From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter. A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.
I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.
On 10/27/2021 at 3:03 PM, RomaVicta said:I don't know where you're getting your sense of reality if you've bothered to read anything posted on here by anyone other than fanatics.
Read the affidavit posted more than once above. The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd.
Civil responsibility may very well be determined along the lines you describe. I have no idea how that will go. I don't know how much weight the affidavit recording that Baldwin showed great concern about set safety will have in that determination.
Baldwin has had his bad moments as a person. A virulent group hate him for what they have been told are his politics or that he's not a member of the virulent group. This thread is lengthy because of that group.
This was a horrible accident followed by a band of fuckwads rushing to speculate ahead of any facts so they could get their unfounded digs in at somebody they hate. It's just another day for the hate engine.
I look forward to more hilarious t-shirts from the degenerates who will balley-hoo this while continuing to shit in the overflowing toilet they're making of this country.
On 10/27/2021 at 3:15 PM, DDD Dad said:You know how I know you didn't you pass criminal law in law school?
On 10/27/2021 at 6:31 PM, Judge Roybeanbag said:He’s just positing question, c’mon, man! There’s no agenda.
On 10/27/2021 at 9:30 PM, RomaVicta said:TL;DR
Answer to question: no and no
Classic CR. Went back and read the whole thread. Roma the schoolmarm was really doing God's work with the negs. We need him on that wall.
-
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:
Well, he's also doing it because he feels an affinity with Putin. Both of them think it's good and right for the rich and powerful to simply take what they want and they think there should be no legal or even social checks on people like them doing whatever they want.
I am having a really hard time understanding your positions here. You keep telling everyone that Musk is cozying up (affinity) with Putin/Russia and cares nothing about the people. Yet, he is essentially spending hundreds of millions personally to provide Ukraine with internet access via Starlink that every person with any knowledge of the situation has aid is absolutely vital to Ukraine's success. It has resulted in saving thousands of Ukrainian lives and led to the killing of thousands of Russian soldiers and caused Putin to lose massive amounts of money/power/influence etc in the world. The whole invasion could possibly topple Putin.
Listen to what you posted and liked "Both of them think it's good and right for the rich and powerful to simply take what they want and they think there should be no legal or even social checks on people like them doing whatever they want. " No one single person (and really many countries) has done more to oppose Putin/Russia in this invasion than Musk.
-
4
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:
His businesses (pre-Twitter) are or have been entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent. He just bought a company that has only occasionally turned a profit in the last 9 years based on a whim driven by his need to shitpost.
Even charlatans can make money.
This is so indicative of the attitudes of many like yourself. Maybe Musk is a horrible person. I dont know him. But your post is so stupid. First, he founded his first company (Zip2) with his brother and another guy in 1995 at 24 years old. They used angel funding of around $200K or so and 4 years later they sold the company and Musk personally made around $25M. More money than 99% of people will earn in their lifetime. Not even remotely "entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent". From there he founded X.com with a few others which eventually morphed into Paypal and he sold out in 2002 and personally pocketed around $160M. 31 years old and a hundred plus millionaire, again, without even a shred of "entirely dependent on the taxpayer dime to be solvent".
He very well may be a horrible person with no morality, but to suggest he wasn't extremely successful and a wildly successful businessman is just you being a petty, jealous fool.
As for SpaceX and Tesla, he absolutely utilized govt money. But he didn't steal it. He asked for it and they gave it. Many, many if not most successful businesses started with some type of direct govt funding or SBA loans. I once advocated to short Tesla stock as I thought the numbers were fishy and I thought Musk was fishy. I did not think there was any way it would be successful long term. Yet, their latest reporting showed around $12B in operating profit and free cash flow of almost $7B (almost equal to the entirety of their current debt). It is actually remarkable. It could still fail as competition increases and margins fall but, by any business measure, Tesla is a resounding success.
-
4
-
-
On 8/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, Tex-19 said:
Does anyone else think it's kinda crazy how high the national expectations are for Ewers this soon? As others have said, he's basically a true freshman. I didn't hear a peep when Bryce Young redshirted (granted, Mac Jones was very good). No one expects Weigman or Klubnik to start at any point this season. Yet for some reason, it's a huge failure if Ewers isn't ready week 1?
In fact, I can't even name a single true freshman QB who started week 1. Not Lawrence, not Fields, not Rattler, not Caleb, etc.
I know, I know, Ewers isn't technically a true freshman. But just like all true freshman, he's played 4 seasons of football since he entered high school and like them, he's learning a new system this year. Being a redshirt typically means you had a year to learn the playbook. It also typically means you had a Senior season as a starter in HS. Not the case here.
Anyway, thanks for attending my ted talk.
This is a fair point, but my thinking is that Ewers had a redshiort season in a great system with loads of talent. The issue is that we all saw what Card has to offer. If Ewers isn't noticably better right now than Card then we will likely have issues.
-
Fantastic band. Pete was a pretty conflicted and complex guy but he is a true musical genius. Daltry is pretty great too but a poor man's Jagger.
-
1
-
-
On 4/11/2022 at 10:09 PM, Beau Vine said:
Of course you can sympathize, being a complete piece of shit yourself.
And this is why people stop coming here.
-
1
-
-
-
-
One of my favorites from him. He said his daughter was arguing with him about something and said things were not fair. His response- you were born in the USA, white, smart and well off. You better pray things never start getting fair.
-
3
-
1
-
-
-
3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:
i'm responding to both of your posts, so i apologize if this gets a bit jumbled.
japan wanted our carriers. i think they thought our carriers would be at pearl. i think we led them to believe that.
i get a bit tin foil hat conspiracy-ish after that, if not even before.
japan would have been smart to wait a little while longer. we were destined to go to war with germany, and i guess, italy. but they wanted to take the world by the balls. and again, when you look at it in that context, it's bold as fuck and very much in their national character. there's nothing wrong with sneak attacks if you get it right. just look at overlord.
I can certainly see the perspective of your posts. Especially in hindsight. But, IMO, the "FDR knew the attack was coming and let it happen to galvanize the country" withers under scrutiny. We could debate this for 100 pages as historians have done for years but the following points are what seal it for me:
1) Carriers- At the time of the invasion, carriers were considered secondary to battleships for naval warfare. They were used much more for transport than active warring at the time. Obviously in hindsight, they were critical. Most of the conspiracy ideas come down to the carriers and radio intercepts (next point). As mentioned above, the carriers were not coincidentally missing from Pearl. They were all out on missions that had been in planning for a while and one (there were only 3 in the Pacific at the time) was in repairs and had been for months.
Also, as recent intel has shown, Japan had a spy at Pearl giving them regular updates. Yamamoto knew on 12/5 that there were no carriers at Pearl. The spy gave them direct intel. He decided to attack anyway because they still figured that they could cripple the US fleet long enough to get strongholds around their supply lines.
2) Radio Intercepts- Contrary to current thinking, we really did not have word for word ability on Jap codes. But, most importantly, the Japs (just like us and every other military) would routinely send out false messages to try and fool us. The attack on Pearl could very easily have been an elaborate ruse designed to get us to pull back our defenses so that the Japs could take over the fuel routes that they desperately needed. We sort of knew where their ships were but not really and they could move around without detection. One of the reasons that our carriers were not at Pearl was because they were reinforcing bases that we thought were more likely to be attacked.
3) Audacity- Using carriers as attackers was relatively new in 1941 (interestingly neither Germany or Italy had a single carrier at the beginning of the war). Attacks from carriers were mostly short ranged and involved 6-10 aircraft. When the Japs used 6 carriers in a combined long range strike it was the first time in the history of war that it had been done. Trying to convince FDR and the military that Japan was going to do something so bold that had never even been contemplated before was a tough, tough sell and rightfully so. Japan used something like 350 aircraft in the strikes on pearl. No one in the world had ever seen anything like that before so it is not surprising that we did not plan for it.
At the end of the day, we knew there were Jap ships near us and that an attack somewhere was likely and that war was likely inevitable. We also had the foolish (certainly foolish in hindsight) belief that Japan would make a declaration of war (as was customary at the time) and give us some time to prepare. FDR made mistakes and we got very, very lucky. But I will never ever believe that a US President would knowingly allow an attack on our troops and fleet. Ultimately the overwhelming industrial might of the US and our spirit were going to win any war but it probably should have been a lot harder and taken a lot longer to beat back the Japanese.
-
4
-
1
-
-
On 12/7/2021 at 10:15 AM, Harrison Bergeron said:
For the first time in my life I worry that the current generation would not be able to respond to a similar call. I hope that I am wrong.
Bob Dole's passing was another great reminder of the sacrifices our forefathers made for our country.
I hear this a lot but just completely disagree. On 12/6/41 and before, there was deep disagreement about the war. Even after Pearl there was still opposition to the war. The opposition post Pearl was much smaller but it existed. There were near constant marches and protests in DC at the time, but no one really heard about them nationally. The difference is that in 1941 the crazies did not have a voice. The media, as it existed at the time, would rarely, if ever, give anti american voices a platform. But there were just as many extremists on each side of the political spectrum then as there are now.
Perspective is really hard at times. We all saw mass protests and looting/burning etc in Portland. Seemed like the whole city was taken over. At its absolute peak there were about 1000 people involved. That represented .15% of the population of Portland. Crazies like Antifa, Proud Boys etc garner an oversized and undeserved percentage of news coverage in today's world but represent an almost statistically insignificant number of people. Obviously small groups can do great damage but they do not represent the actual morals and values of 99% of the country.
If the US was directly attacked in some fashion where the actual fate of the country was at stake I firmly believe there would be millions of citizens lining up to fight.
-
2
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Lobo said:
What if they point the gun at me just because of what I’m saying/what I’m wearing/my skin color? What am I allowed To do in your world if I’m not carrying because I’m not a vagina?
Fix it?
-
3 hours ago, Codaxx said:
What do you think the coaches are selling recruits? This is literally the same pitch. This statement is for recruiting. It serves no other purpose. If you dont believe that, why dont you tell me why he put out the letter.
I actually think that if this statement was put out specifically for recruiting then it is an even dumber thing to do. Who are we kidding? Recruits are 17. They know the Head Coach and the coach specifically recruiting them. 95% have no idea who the AD is. You think they know the AD at OU, A&M, Alabama etc. No chance.
The negative recruiting with this is also really easy. Any outside coach/recruiter will ask a current recruit why they would want to go to a program where the admin has to make excuses for the poor performance on the field. They will ask a recruit why so many highly rated and talented players that signed with Texas are no longer on the team. Other coaches will rightly call it a train wreck and that Sark will get fired soon enough just like their last few coaches. The elite and confident players needed to win already expect to get playing time wherever they go. They want to be developed.
CDC is getting barraged with calls/texts/emails/tweets etc on what is wrong with Texas and what Is wrong with Sark. He is tired of answering the same question over and over and over. He put out a letter so people will stop contacting him. He will just refer them to the letter.
-
1 hour ago, Codaxx said:
I love the anger towards CDC comments. His comments were not directed to the fans or boosters. To save you guys the anger he should have just opened it up with
Dear Devon Campbell, Evan Stewart, Harold Perkins, Denver Harris, Kelvin Banks, etc..,
Lol. So recruits watch the games and know the talent is lacking. The coaches tell the recruits directly almost daily that there are all kinds of opportunities to get meaningful playing time immediately but a nuanced letter from the AD that likely none of the recruits will ever see from a guy most of them have never even heard of is going to be the clincher for them signing. Shit maybe he is a genius.
-
1 hour ago, Lobo said:
Though he only peripherally fraternized with the Officers, considering the shitshow they diffused—-there’s a decent chance our Fathers mingled at the same watering hole when that near-disaster had finished.
Quite possible. My dad said the very best port/duty or whatever it is called was Cuba.
-
8 hours ago, Lobo said:
I thank each and every one of you. I am trying to make it a point today to send each of the 15 or so veterans (and a handful still on active duty) in my mom's and father's sides of the family some well wishes and pictures of our oldest at her school's veteran's day celebration.
But I gotta drop a thread derail here. My daughter's elementary school asked for photos of close relatives who've served with a little description for a video tribute. So I gave her a cool pic and rundown of my dad's Naval service. Between his frigate and destroyer service, he was Morocco, Cuba, and Vietnam. And the poor lady at the school was just overwhelmed. Maybe she got bad raw data. The video was super sweet with great music broken down by branch. But her data entry was all over the place. She had guys serving in Korea in 1943. Grandads in the Air Force in 1938. Commissioned Officer rates next to photos of folks in enlisted uniforms. Even had a great-grandpa attending the USNA from 1936-1956 (Super Senior, maybe). But it was very well intentioned and made my daughter and I swell up with pride. Then my dad's pops up, gets NCO and years right and most theaters.
Then, "Cuban Navel Blockade." I cried laughing, my wife and daughters having no idea why. My father is dead laughing in his grave. I'm just picturing his carrier group trying to keep the mid-riffs of saucy Cubana ladies from barring too much skin on those humid Havana nights. /csb
Thanks for everything fellas. Wouldn't be here without you.
Interestingly, my dad was an officer on a ship (I think it was the Blandy) during the Cuban missile crisis. 13 Days was a pretty good movie about the crisis for those interested. It is almost impossible to explain what happened in those days to my kids today. They just can not imagine a world where no one knows anything about what the other side is doing.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, elfenix said:
the ceremony was over and the remains had been driven off.
this is just lazy fucking effort. troll better.
Back to the surly we love. Calling out a poster for trolling and being lazy by trolling and being lazy.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/usa-today-correction-fact-check-biden-watch
""Corrections & Clarifications: This story was updated Sept. 2 to note that Biden checked his watch multiple times at the dignified transfer event, including during the ceremony itself," the correction read at the top of the report on Thursday"
-
3
-
1
-
Israel
in Cloak Room
Posted
I really disagreee with both of these points.
On the first, your feelings are understandable in todays world where we are able to view everything in real time. Coupled with the fact that it really doesn't impact 99% of the people here (USA) personally. It is not our children and neighbors being killed. But imagine what the reaction would be to WWII say 4 months after D Day or after Dresden or during the bombing of Britain. War is hell on earth. Germany was indiscriminatetly killing civilians and, in turn, German civilians were getting killed in response. Imagine a bunch of people from Mexico calling the Allied forces barbarians when German civilians were killed. But Roosevelt and Churchill knew that a ceasefire against Hitler was pointless. He was never, ever going to stop. So "innocent" Germans were going to get killed. Hamas is never, ever going to stop killing Jews. Never. It would be great if Israel could eradicate Hamas in a week but that just isnt how it works. I hope it is quick and that the body count is low but Israel is not going to spare Hamas this time.
On the second, I just don't think that sentiment reflects reality. It is 2023. The citizens of Gaza have cell phones and internet and all kinds of communication capabilities. Yet very, very few criticize Hamas publicly and, to my knowledge, none have given intel to outside organizations about tunnels and weapons. One can certainly argue that criticizing Hamas is dangerous but it is certainly less dangerous now as everyone sees everything now. Further, the Palestinians are taught in school at very early ages and taught at home to hate the Jews and that the Jews are the sole cause of every bad thing that happens to Palestinians. To be clear, I am not defending the Jews. I am saying that the Palestinian population, from their very childhoods, have had hate for the Jews ingrained into their very psyches. That is a mental cycle that is immensely hard to break.
It is hard for me to comprehend the depravity required to use hospitals and schools as shields for tyranny. I don't think many Americans can understand this. Hamas literally hate Jews more than they love their fellow countrymen.