kreed5120

⬆ This guy gets it.

I do vote and once again I don't identify myself as a liberal. I wasn't blocking streets and vandalizing nor were anyone that I know personally. Once again there were MORE liberals that voted. See the numbers that Balsy and I posted. Liberals are just more concentrated in large population centers. Cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and LA vote are landslide victories for liberals where they pull anywhere from 85-90% of the vote. The fact they are so concentrated and not more spread out is what costs them seats. Obviously its you who doesn't understand how the system operates.

Not disputing the election results. Trump won fair and square. Just stating there are still more liberals in this country than there are conservatives. Stating otherwise is wrong.

I'm confident in Amato's ability to come up with a good game plan. I have 0 faith we have the Jack and Joe's to execute it to the level we'd need to.

Skip, laws are being written to allow for business owners to discriminate against gays on the basis of expressing religious beliefs.If they are invoking that right that means they are saying they are doing it because of religion. That's how I know. In the case of the cake that was outside of one of those states and you said the guy closed shop. I can live with that outcome. Let me prefix this by saying I'm a moderate just making an observation. You say the country is swinging conservative, but the popular vote still favored the blue party. Not saying that means the democrats should have won the election as that's not how the election system operates, but it does tell me we have more liberals living in this country than we do conservatives. That's a fact. As the older generation continues to die off and millennials become the voting majority you'll see the conservative party loosen up on certain social issues to avoid losing votes. I have no problem with someone not being in favor of gay marriage. What I have a problem with is someone telling them they can't eat in their restaurant solely because they are gay or that they can't adopt a kid because they are gay. That's an over generalization. That's like saying all liberals are whiny crybaby snowflakes. There are bad apples on both sides. The people who didn't like Obama because of his issues aren't racists. The conservatives who were going around posting pictures of a noose around his neck clearly were. Unfortunately there is too much animosity between the two sides to ever come to agreements in the middle.Its a big reason why I wish they would do away with the 2 party system all together. Let people pick and choose issues that they are important. Both parties have some good things and bad things about them.

Why is he against gay marriage marriage, but has no problem with people getting married a second or third time? What makes gay marriage so bad, but remarriage not? "You shall not commit adultery" is one of the 10 commandments. Luke 16:18 states remarrying is committing adultery. At one point in time getting divorced and remarrying was viewed a shameful act. Eventually people wised up and realized that was dumb and now it's a very common occurrence. The same will happen with gay marriage because each new generation it more tolerant than their parents. Your generation was more accepting than your parents and my generation is more accepting than yours. People like Glynn Wolfe, who was married 29 times, do more to destroy the meaningfulness of marriage than 2 gay people. I just used it as an example. There are plenty of other examples. The restaurant in Texas, the pizza parlor in Indiana, now the adoption agencies in Alabama, etc... "Again, just go down the street and buy a cake from a business that wants your business. That's what all of us do. Instead, they contacted the Civil Rights Commission, and the ACLU eventually got involved. We all know what happens at that point." Based off that statement are you okay if we back to the days of businesses refusing service based off skin color or nationality too? My problem is people use religion as an excuse to discriminate. They pick and choose parts of the bible to follow that conveniently fit their lifestyle than turn a blind eye to the rest.

I actually like this years promotions.

I heard you get it if they sneeze on you.

@Balsy To be fair though both parties try to focus on the extreme cases to delegitimize the other parties stance. They also try to deflect a point by going on a tangent completely unrelated to the subject at hand and name call as you can see in the post above. I'm pretty sure I heard his rant word for word on Fox News, but of course all media is liberal biased *eye roll* Edit: I just wish if people used religion as justification to discriminate against gays they would also enforce it on other groups the bible states are sinners. Instead they single out a select group because they are an easy target and make them feel better about themselves. Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Edit: As an aside I do actually agree that men should use men bathrooms and women should use women restroom. I just don't understand the logic that a place would refuse to make a cake for a gay couple because they are sinners, but will make one for someone going on their 4th marriage.

I'm going to regret getting involved in this I know, but what does the economy have anything to do with this issue at hand? I absolutely hate how the 2 party system divides this country. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, but so many people are adamant their party is 100% right on all issues and the other is 100% wrong. One party could come up with the cure to cancer and the other would find a reason to object because they weren't the ones to come up with the idea (obviously I know a party wouldn't come up with a cure to cancer). This makes the country weaker, not stronger. As a moderate, I just wish candidates would run without party labels and the people would pick the candidates solely based off the issues, not because they belong to a political party their parents supported.

I'm going to assume you meant his inability to get back down the floor on defense. I agree 100% with everything you are saying. I can see him being a dominate in some league overseas, but he just doesn't have what it takes to cut it in the NBA.

Knew I shouldn't have clicked in this thread.

Yeah, I don't really feel that article applies to Akron that much. Akron's problem isn't that students are attending the game in masses then can't afford to attend once they graduate so they watch the games at home or a local bar instead. Their problem is that students aren't attending period and the alumni aren't watching the game period. Unlike OSU where you are paying $75 for nosebleeds, you can get 30 yard line lower bowl GA tickets for $10/piece (with season tickets) and numerous times I've had strangers give me them free. Not only are alumni not attending, they aren't watching from home nor the bar either.

13 players seems like a really small class. 85 scholarships divided by 5 classes equates to an average of 17 players per year assuming 100% of all freshman redshirt. When you factor in players dropping out of school, leaving via transfer, or leaving early for the draft that number is likely closer to ~20 new scholarship players we could get per season. I wonder how many of out allowed 85 scholarships we are using?

Not to mention the whether. It's much better taking to the streets when it's 80 and sunny compared to when it's 25 and snowing.

When you factor in the University would actually be able to rent out the new arena for midsize concerts and other stuff since it would be Akron's largest and nicest indoor venue, they both come away as roughly equally poor investments.

We couldn't even sell out VCU the year after they went to the Final 4...

If winning was all it took to draw decent crowds, the JAR would be sold out way more than it is.

Oddly enough I felt the tailgating experience was better at the RB. Everyone is much more spread out now.

No. It's all about $$$. OSU - Indiana isn't that appealing of a match-up week 8 when it is overshadowed by a lot of better conference match-ups. It's a watchable game week 1 on a Thursday when there are few to no other good games.

My response was in regards to A-Zips comment, which appears was deleted. I have no problem having conversations regarding our bad attendance if it's done in a constructive manor. I just see no value in going on and on tirelessly about how our attendance is poor compared to YSU, FCS, and other G5 programs. meanwhile, not offering suggestions for how we can improve it.

33 point dogs, that's it? I'm flying out to Vegas tomorrow. I might have to stop and place a bet somewhere. Sounds like easy money.

What exact point are you trying to get a crossed? Bitching about our attendance to people who actually attend games isn't going to suddenly make it improve. We all know it's bad and would like to see more people at games.