nedboy7

Is running the ball just not an option?

What a gift

***** you Ken Dorsey

What the ***** is going on with this game.

or maybe because the right believe everything they read. 😂

Is that true? Or just more fake news. "As an American, the idea of another Trump campaign and all of his lies and divisiveness and his efforts to undermine American democracy is an absolute horror show," Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, told The New York Times ahead of Trump's announcement. "On the other hand, I got to say that as a politician who wants to see that no Republican is elected to the White House in 2024, from that perspective, his candidacy is probably a good thing." "I think we would all like Donald Trump to run again," Terry McAuliffe, the former Virginia governor and Democratic National Committee chairman, said in a recent interview. here is another liberal MSM article making a mockery of your narrative. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-21/skelton-trump-running-2024-weak-candidate?_amp=true And another. LOL https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/07/14/bidenworld-fellow-dems-dreaming-of-a-trump-pre-midterm-announcement-00045969

Have you read Matt Taibbi's 2017 book "Insane Clown President"? Pretty good read. Twitter, like all media, being biased is not really shocking news. To me at least. Matt talks about media across the board being in contact with the feds. He doesn't suggest twitter is corrupt while foxnews is real.

So Jan 6th was a non issue but the Twitter files are. Can’t make this crap up.

Love Hyde. I wonder if he can call offensive plays from the booth.

Sick of these extreme weather games. Just lowers the quality of the play.

Nope. That is fake news. Taibbi and Weiss did not say this. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/twitter-files-explained-elon-musk-taibbi-weiss-hunter-biden-laptop.html

Nah you don't understand why businesses can't discriminate. Frankly I don't care. Did I defend a 34 year old woman who wants an abortion? I think that would be quite horrible unless its some medical situation I guess. Does that happen often? Cause that might happen should we not let a raped teen get one? As for the criminal, I dont care dude. Why do you care if they rot in prison for life instead of get killed? I don't give a ***** either way what happens to a murderer. I just am not flipping out cause they aren't getting executed instead of being in prison for life. I don't mind***** it and go oh see! liberals love murderers.

Let's be real. No one is as obsessed with Trump as you are with BillStime. 😂

Yes both leagues. First place in one, 8th in the other heading into playoffs. Won one last year, second place the other. Had first pick in the first league (PPR). Went with Ekeler. Happy with the decision.

I can understand that criticism. Do you understand the whole cake thing? You dont have to make a cake that offends you. You just cant deny making any cake cause someone is a sinner in your opinion. You ok with incestt then I take it. And rape. And under age girls being forced to carry babies for whatever sick religious cult they belong to. See how I can make nonsense arguments like you?

You can deny that request. But you cant deny making the same cake you did for a straight person. You seem to have a really hard time understanding this concept. Not sure what @Chef Jim is knocking down.

I don't see a 14 year old girl aborting her uncles baby as murder. But you carry on. Not sure how they relate to each other.

I sense you are trying to make an argument to justify discrimination. You do not understand the case I think. You do not have the right to deny service to someone based on certain things. But you do not have to put ***** blood on the cake. The woman can deny making a cake that offends her freedom of speech. But she cant deny making a cake she would make for anyone else. For example she can deny to make a cake that has a giant penis on it. But she cant deny making an ordinary cake just cause they are gay.

Yeah great argument! You can't seem to have opinions one a subject without making a logical salad of multiple things to make an absurd point. These inmates are doing life. They were not released.

Do you guys just need to B word about everything? How about some perspective. By the end of 2021, a total of 108 countries had abolished the use of the death penalty, more than two thirds of the world; nevertheless, 55 countries still have the death penalty in their penal toolbox. Most notable are the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's not like those inmates got released. They are doing life.

I don't know if Satan worshipers are recognized as a legitimate group? It's a slippery slope, I agree. But to have a working society you need laws that might sometimes be uncomfortable? My thinking is if I open a business, I know the laws. And while it would suck to serve someone you do not agree with, that is what you sign up for as long as they are respectful and law abiding. Am I wrong on this?

It is not punitive action to demand people to respect laws concerning discrimination. It is one of the fundamental requirements of having a civilized society imo. I am like you. I would never let a person's orientations effect how I serve them at my business. I have had a few so called "tolerant non-racist" liberals that ask me how I can provide services to Trumpers. I am really taken back by this question and I always tell them I take pride in serving everyone, especially people I do not agree with with or maybe find odd. I have no problem with religion or sexual orientation. I think this woman is an exception. I do not know a single person of faith that would discriminate against a homosexual.

It will be fun to see the demented and coddled Trump take down the party he supposedly loves.

Two features of the law make clear that Colorado’s law does not coerce artists to express a message with which they disagree. First, no artist has to open a business to the public in the first place. Most writers, painters and other artists never do; they pick their subjects and leave it at that. The photographer Annie Leibovitz, for example, does not offer to take photographs of anyone who offers to pay her fee but chooses her subjects. She is perfectly free to photograph only white people or only Buddhists. But if Ms. Leibovitz were to open a portrait photography business that offered to take portraits on a first-come, first-served basis to the public at large, as many corporate photography studios do, she could not turn away subjects just because they were Black or Christian. Her photographic work would be just as expressive. But the choice to benefit from the public marketplace comes with the legal obligation to equally serve members of the public. And requiring businesses that offer expressive services in the public marketplace to follow the same rules as all other businesses does not violate the First Amendment. Second, even businesses open to the public are free to define the content of what they sell. A Christmas store can sell only Christmas items without running afoul of public accommodations laws. It need not stock Hanukkah candles or Kwanzaa cards. But it cannot put a sign on its doors saying, “We don’t serve Jews” or “No Blacks allowed.” 303 Creative argues that it is not turning away same-sex couples because they are gay, but because it objects to the message that making a wedding website for them would convey. The company has, however, asked the court to declare its right to refuse to make any website for a same-sex couple’s wedding, even if its content is identical to one it would design for a straight couple. According to this line of argument, the company could refuse a gay couple even a site that merely announced the time and location of the wedding and recommended places to stay. Colorado’s law doesn’t dictate the content of what a business sells. 303 Creative is free to post on all the websites it designs, “The Bible condemns gay marriage.” And by the same token, it could refuse to design a site that says, “The Bible blesses gay marriage,” if it would not design that website for anyone. In that case, the decision would not be discrimination based on the customer’s identity, but a permissible decision to define the product it sells. 303 Creative has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.” Otherwise, interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group. The First Amendment protects the right to have and express bigoted views, but it doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.