Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - rwd5035

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 125
Would love a 3 and D guy on our team. Haven't had one for a few years.

« on: Yesterday at 12:36 PM »
You're making some leaps in your reply. It's a very religious corporation. The family is devout. They closed on Sundays to observe the Sabbath.

Well, I think only religious organizations should get religious exemptions as well (because what Hobby Lobby does has nothing to do with religion). It appears they do close on Sundays and do actually talk about God in their Company's mission. That still doesn't make them a religious organization though.

That still doesn't change how discriminatory the outcome eventually is and hypocritical it is to offer men Viagra but not offer women birth control. And further it doesn't change that all the company is doing is taking out a health insurance policy, the employee would select the coverage they get. The employer's interest is incredibly remote.

Sure, the left is against CItizens United

I think anyone with a working brain should be against Citizens United and their corporate language. They essentially said that corporations are people and can influence the outcome of elections because they have money and money = speech. Can corporations vote? Can corporations drive a car? Can corporations eat? Can corporations go for a run? What about corporations makes them PEOPLE? All they have is money and all they are is an entity. They should have NO VOICE in elections at all. Especially since it's a well known fact that the candidate that invests the most money tend to win elections (the number is obscenely high, somewhere over 80% I believe). Candidates now have to get the approval of the Corporations, what will come as a result of that?


And now corporations can be a part of the driving force that dictates what the real issues are. There's already enough special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington and this decision has made it a lot worse. If the Government's interests in preventing political corruption and the appearance of political corruption aren't enough to dictate why corporations shouldn't have a say in elections (because well um, they can't vote), then what can have a say? Why should corporations have free speech? Where does the Constitution say that corporations or business associations should have the protections of free speech? I'll save you some time, it's not there at all.

Anyway, case is over, get over it.

I'm sure that's what some white people said about Dred Scott as well. 

Re male vs female. Males don't get contraceptives covered. Who's being hypocritical? Viagra treats a medical condition. Birth control is like $30 per month, and it should be made OTC.

And birth control can do the same but you know what the vast majority of men use Viagra for, TO HAVE SEX. Do you know what the vast majority of women use birth control for? TO HAVE SEX AND NOT GET PREGNANT. These are very interwoven things. I wonder what the response from the Supreme Court would've been if it was men not being allowed to get Viagra. How can it be said that men are allowed to have sex whenever they want but women can't without the risk of pregnancy? And why can't women get it, because their employer won't let them get it out of their policy.

But you didn't respond to the 8 free visits women get. Women get 8 free visits, men get zero. How is this fair?

Because it's not relevant to the case.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Recruiting
« on: Yesterday at 11:27 AM »
So we should be on the lookout for a Tone/Tony Carr visit soon.

« on: Yesterday at 09:34 AM »
Not a believer in the First Amendment, I guess? My body, my choice, your responsibility? Sure, women can have contraceptives, but why does someone else have to pay for them? Re the tit for tat vs. men, don't think you want to go down that road. Did you know under the ACA, women get 7 "free" visits per year? I'm not joking. Do men get anything like this? Think of the cost. 8 visits, at let's say, $300 per visit x 100 million women=$240 billion annually. Who pays for these "free" visits? There's no such thing as a "free visit". Don't believe me? Show me where men get anything like this. Now, if you're honest, and think it should be "equal", the deck is stacked against men. Does any male here get 8 "free" visits per year, with no co-pay. Any idiot can give away "free" stuff to garner votes. It's an old trick. Effective, though.

Just to ignore the ACA stuff here and talk about the actual decision, since it didn't actually analyze the ACA from the perspective that you just carted out really without reason and it compared the ACA to the RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Of course I believe in the First Amendment and a person's right to freely practice their religion but corporations and businesses need to actually practice religion in order to get protections of the First Amendment. In my opinion and in opinions written by the Supreme Court in the past (see Employment Division v. Smith), when deciding on whether a corporation should get a religious exemption, what should be examined is what the Corporation is and if the Corporation itself practices its religion. Yes, it's privately held but the corporation itself has no religious belief, it's an arts and crafts supply store. There's nothing religious about it and it doesn't practice any sort of religion. The family who owns it can be as religious as they want and practice those faiths, but their business should do the same if they want to get an exemption. Did you know that approximately 90% of the corporations in America are closely held? So now, any closely held corporation can claim a religious exemption even when they do not practice one, that to me is an abuse of the law and is derelict to the purpose of the First Amendment.

Also, we are focusing on the business, what about the employees of Hobby Lobby who don't practice a religion or who believe that contraceptives should be provided? They now don't get the same healthcare options as men do! How crazy is that? It's open discrimination against women because they aren't allowed to get the same coverage as men are, as explained next. You seem to conveniently omit that men can get Viagra and other male enhancement medicines at Hobby Lobby but women can't get contraceptives. Let's think about how unbelievably hypocritical that is. So, men are able to engage in all the sexual activity they want according to Hobby Lobby as long as they can get it up, but women aren't, or well they can and just get pregnant over and over again. That's not just, that's not a sound resolution and never mind the fact that birth control can be used as a cure for some diseases and conditions such as ovarian cysts.

Essentially, the Supreme Court has yet again bent backwards to give rights to corporations that they were never intended to have. Citizens United has started them on a track they can't stop yet. Hopefully some order can be restored but I don't hold my breath with this Court. Every time they seem to take a step forward (DOMA and Prop 8.), they always manage to take a few back (Hobby Lobby, Citizens United still being controlling and good law, McCutcheon could end up here depending what happens to the eventual contribution limit challenge that will be in front of the Court soon, I would expect in the next two years and their complete disregard that political corruption isn't going to look the same after Watergate, they aren't going to do the same thing again).

Penn State Basketball / Re: Recruiting
« on: Yesterday at 09:01 AM »
I think Maryland offered Tone Carr as well.

OT / Re: Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:48 PM »
I'm not familiar with the claims in that suit but I'd be interested to know the Statute of Limitations since most of the predominant ones expire after two years and since he was terminated in January 2012, that means it would have ran.

OT / Re: OT: PSU Football
« on: July 22, 2014, 02:06 PM »
A hush fell over the auditorium and the Alabama students began another
chant. "Give him another chance! Give him another chance!"


« on: July 22, 2014, 02:03 PM »
Well, I disagree with the Hobby Lobby decision almost entirely. It's very sexist. Women can't have contraceptives but men can have Viagra.

Better odds than Butler, suck it!

Penn State Basketball / Re: Tracking the Commitments
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:19 AM »
I like being the underdog and just playing hard, playing tough.

Welcome to Penn State! He certainly gets it.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 17, 2014, 09:17 AM »
I am pretty sure that Coach Parkhill resigned and was not fired, at least as I remember it.

Technicality, it was resigned or be fired.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:16 PM »
Can you name one time that a coach stepped into the shoes of a fired head coach and had a pretty good starting spot for himself?  Maybe at a school with a huge pedigree where standards are very high... MAYBE.   I'm actually curious, I can't think of any recent ones.

Just off the top of my head:

UNC: Matt Doherty fired, Roy Williams hired
Marquette: Mike Deane fired, Tom Crean hired
Siena: Rob something was fired can't remember his name, but Fran McCaffrey replaced him and I'm pretty sure had them in the NCAA Tournament two years later or at least close.

Also, didn't Jerry Dunn have a pretty good starting spot when Bruce Parkhill was fired?

Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 16, 2014, 03:41 PM »
As we have seen, if Penn State wants to start over now, it's another three or four year cycle before someone new *might* have us back in this position.

Possibly, it greatly depends on the situation the new coach would inherit. PC inherited a bare roster with loads of inexperience when he signed on. It was always going to take a couple years before we saw some signs of life from the program. PC has us deeper than we have been, if we fired him in two years for whatever reason, there would be reason to believe the next guy isn't starting from scratch. There will be transfers and such but I can't imagine a situation being worse or on par like Ed's inheritance or PC's inheritance.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Tracking the Commitments
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:30 PM »
You can definitely tell he's been working on his jumper and low post game.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 16, 2014, 10:55 AM »
Okay, but having a cheap buyout for PSU is like not really giving him any extension.  They can fire him at any time.  It just gives the impression that he's under contract for a while longer, which helps recruiting.  So I'm not sure I understand why you'd be against it.  It wouldn't tie us to PC for any longer than we want, because it would be cheap to fire him.

Well it depends on the buyout you are giving because if it's as low as you are suggesting it may hurt him anyway because he can be fired at any time. Also, more years = bigger buyout most likely. I just don't think we should tie ourselves down to a coach who hasn't done anything. Yes, I know, we can buy him out blah blah but I don't really see it being that beneficial. Why not just see what he can do over the next two years and figure it out then? Then give him a longer extension if he deserves one. Just extending him for four years, effectively giving him six years total on his contract when he's not had a winning record yet, is just a bit too much for my liking.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 16, 2014, 10:30 AM »
I don't have an issue with a 4 year extension with results based raises and a cheap buyout for PSU.  Having a cheap buyout is the same thing as going year to year, but gives the impression to recruits of long term security. 

I need to see more development and progress from the club before I consider a 4 year extension after 3 years of a coach who has shown promise but not delivered anything yet.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Thank you Timmy!
« on: July 16, 2014, 09:09 AM »
Point Guards are often the worst players at Summer League for that very reason. MCW was not good in Orlando at all last year and won ROTY.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Give Pat a contract extension
« on: July 16, 2014, 09:03 AM »
Here is the way I see it. Consider Pat a new hire that comes with a large Rolodex. He was hired to bring I'm new account (I.e. Wins). The first two years he was making calls and going out to lunches but closed no new accounts. Last year he closed a few accounts but nothing major. This year we need him to close that monster of an account.

I think he does need to show progress this year in a big way. He's got the roster depth and the bigs he has have all been in the program for at least a year. The stars should be aligning for this coming season with DJ Newbill coming into his own.

However, we can't wait for progress shown during this season to offer an extension. We either fire him now or extend him. He can't recruit for 2016 at the moment and with him pushing so hard for Joe Hampton and other 2016 players, I would think it's best if we get him two years, that way he can at least lay the foundation for the class for a new coach to take over if things with Pat don't work out.

If he's underwhelming this year and next, we can cut the ties after his 5th year (when he has 7 total with his contract) saying we gave him an actual chance. All of Ed's players are out after this season, it's all his players and he would have had at least one class coming through plus his promising 2015 class would have a year. This, to me, is giving him a chance to prove he can turn the program around.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Thank you Timmy!
« on: July 16, 2014, 08:58 AM »
I thought Tim looked okay but was forcing a lot of the action and wasn't playing his natural game.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Recruiting
« on: July 15, 2014, 06:38 PM »
Alex Kline ‏@TheRecruitScoop  3m
Penn State has offered 2016 forward Matthew Moyer of VCC Warriors (OH).

Penn State Basketball / Re: Thank you Timmy!
« on: July 15, 2014, 11:39 AM »
According to this NBA box score:

T. Frazier    DNP - Coach's Decision
E. Millsap    DNP - Coach's Decision
M. Yarou    DNP - Coach's Decision

Yes, as I stated above....

According to the NBA box score, but they don't have the full roster for whatever reason.

Penn State Basketball / Re: Thank you Timmy!
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:25 AM »
According to the NBA box score, but they don't have the full roster for whatever reason.

The Sixers took the following players to Vegas and they all didn't play yesterday:

Tim Frazier
Tyreek Duren
Elijah Millsap
Garrick Sherman
Elijah Johnson
Rhahlir Rondae-Jefferson
Mouphtaou Yarou

Penn State Basketball / Re: Thank you Timmy!
« on: July 15, 2014, 07:13 AM »
Loads of players got a DNP from the Sixers yesterday. I expect we'll see them play today.

OT / Re: World Cup
« on: July 15, 2014, 04:59 AM »
Personally, I don't think the Bundesliga could catch on more than the Premier League. It's way more predictable than the PL and despite it being a very good and technical league, the language barrier will deter some. However, it can be well supported and I will be thrilled to watch more of Borussia Dortmund, who imo, are the most exciting team to watch in the world at the moment that isn't one of the massive financial clubs (Bayern, Real, Barca, United, City, Chelsea, PSG).

Language barrier?  I'm sure the broadcast will be in English.

It's easier for English speaking people to follow an English speaking country's league for obvious reasons. Following the Bundesliga means you have to check out their papers and get bizarre translations from German to English on occasion for news. That will deter some. That and Fox's coverage is terrible. I really hope Gus Johnson doesn't call any more games.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 125