Balsy

Brilliant response Keener. Brilliant.

Wait a second...did they follow my advice and make multiple posters, of different players? Or was that one just made specially for him?

And they didn't bother to show up and vote for TRUMP! Sorry Keener, stupid response dude. Kreed's arguement > yours.

You clearly don't understand Millenials at all Skip. You act as if we're a bunch of idiots, when we're the most educated generation in American history. We came of age in one of the worst economic downturns since the great depression, which happened on your, watch because you guys failed to maintain the systems you yourself benefitted from. You're right we're pissed off. We're pissed off that you got to benefit from the hard work of your parents, and instead of you opening doors for us (as the generations before you had done) you slammed them and made them harder us to open. We were told when we grew up that hard work pays off. Only to find out that we work our asses off, only to find that it doesn't pay off. We were told growing up that systems work, and loyalty matters. Only to find our parents getting screwed for their loyalty as their jobs are shipped overseas, and the systems around us stripped and dismantled instead of maintained by your generation of greed and excess. We were raised believing that if you work hard you can go to college, and if you work hard in college, you can make a decent living...only to find that college is almost financially impossible to achieve without accepting an absurd amount of debt (skyrocketting compared to what you, our parents and grandparents paid to attend), to graduate underemployed and undervalued because of the economy you guys set fire to. You're damn right we're pissed off. You're damn right we want things different, we're tired of being the generation who works our asses off and are continually screwed over. And we're going to work like hell to make them the way we want, we just gotta wait for you guys to get the hell out of the way. Healthcare should be affordable. People who work full-time jobs shouldn't need to find 2nd and 3rd jobs just to scrape by. We shouldn't balance the budgets on making cuts to our grandparents and parents pensions, that they worked their asses off for, cuts in social security, which our parents and grandparents worked their asses to maintain, and the poor. And a lot of other things. I think it's absurd that you can even suggest that as we enter the "real world" and start doing "real world stuff" we'll become more conservative. No. We've been told crap like that our entire lives, and have found it to be complete BS. Outrage is the only way change happens. Thank goodness the founding fathers didn't have your approach to the world or we'd still be printing the queen on our money. And you guys wonder why millenials don't give a Rat's ass about coming to games. SMH. It's because we're tired of this crap. We've been sold a bill of bad goods, and are criticized for telling the emperor he isn't wearing any clothes.

Your chart is outdated. Here's the final official chart: And your point of posting that image Hilltopper? Just because you won an election doesn't justify discrimination (which was the point of this discussion). Trump could have won the popular vote...hell he could have won the popular vote by 60 million! And it still Doesn't justify discrimination against gay people. But if you want to breakdown Millenials (which Kreed and I have been talking about being more progressive) Here it is: Gee I wonder which way young people lean...

We don't have to. It doesn't matter. Your rights stop when they impede upon the rights of others. Your right to swing your arms stops just before my nose. If you hold a religious belief, that's find. If your religious belief leads you to enacting laws that impact me, or business practices that impact me, or anyone, you don't have that right. Sorry. Don't like it, there's fundamentalist countries out there that practice one religion you can move to. This country, however, was founded as a secular nation with a separation between church and state (to protect religions from other religions...like the Church of England being connected to government etc.). I disagree with you that being gay is a choice, because it's not backed by science. Studies on gay populations hints to a complex codominant sex-linked recessive trait (appearing more in males...heterozygous females showing "bi" characteristics considerably higher than males etc...) But even if it were a choice, religion is also a choice. Does that mean a store owner has the right to deny service to a non-christian because it's their sincerely held religious belief? But it's a choice isn't it? Oh wait...we actually have a law preventing that? But I thought it was a choice...and we can discrinate against people by the choices they make... The accrobatics you guys have to do to justify this asinine horse crap public policy is just sad. We should just not discriminate against people period. Especially in things that aren't our business. If you have sincerely held religious beliefs, that's fine. But you're sincrely held religious beliefs stop when they potentially interfere with other people. If you don't like that, don't live in America. Because that's what FREEDOM is. Freedom to not give a rat's ass about your beliefs, or be inconvenienced or impeded by them. I won't impede on your right to hold them, so long as you're not impeding on the rest of us.

And I'm not. Because business owners shouldn't have that right. If you're operating in the public sphere, and offer a product, your product should be available to all regardless of Race, Sex, Gender Identity, or whatever it is you do in your personal life. Your have the right to believe whatever you want to believe, but you do not have the right to impose your beliefs onto others. Owning a business, where then you can impose your beliefs on the public through your actions in the public, included. No-one gives a rat's ass about your personal beliefs. If you don't want to serve all people, than don't serve any people.

Oh don't forget the part in Leviticus where it talks about eating shellfish is an abomination: Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." Or the part where women on their periods are unclearn, and anything they touch also becomes unclean... Leviticus 15: 19. Guess we should shun them and not sell them anything either during that time.

Skip read the articles. The type of legislation that has been passed or floated by those states INCLUDE legislation that would ALLOW shop owners to deny the service to gay people BECAUSE of sincerely held religious beliefs. You're scenario outline here, doesn't match that legislation at all...because your case here is a response to not having legislation to explicitly protect. These states in question are giving them the legal means to not have to avoid the issue and continue selling cakes. I really don't get why this is so hard to understand. Yeah, if you have a problem selling cakes to gay people don't sell cakes! I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with states passing laws that say it is LEGALLY ALRIGHT to not sell the cake to a person BECAUSE they are gay, and it violates your sincerely held belief. Which is what Alabama, Tennessee, Texas have all either passed or introduced, and Indiana famously failed at doing.

What a fishing expedition! The headline outright lies it says "transgender bathroom" and then the body reads "Target changing room". Those are two separate things. Target has always had unisex changing rooms, as a frequent target shopper I know this. Not to mention many other stores do to: Old Navy, Urban Outfitters, H&M, Macy's, Walmart, and many...many more...and they did so YEARS before the new rash of legislation afraid of shadows. Wait...and this is the one instance you have? Like you are grasping at straws, as is that article you posted, to defend this red-haring BS. You know, men can go into bathrooms right now, sit in a stall, and do the SAME DAMN THING right now. Predators are going to prey. And guess what, women can be predators too. Instead of doing the sensible thing, and educating people to be aware of their surroundings (how the guy in the Target was caught), we're going to pass snowflake inspired laws to allow police to check people's IDs before they enter bathrooms, and kick out people who aren't dressed "woman like" enough for the police officer...because you know police don't have anything better to do. 'MURICA!!!!!

So the sign on the door "men" and "women" is what prevents predators from going into the bathroom to prey on people? And I thought it was the crazy liberals who came up with wacky ideas! Folks, people go to bathrooms to 1) take a crap. 2) take a pee. 3) both. It's 2017...we really gotta go to the "if you have a pee pee you can't be sitting in the stall next to a person who doesn't have a pee pee". Please, and I thought you guys were saying it was the Liberals need safe-spaces. If you're worried about predators, they usually do other things like set up cameras, stalk people...that sort of thing. The ones who go into bathrooms, STILL CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW ANYWAYS. Especially a women's bathroom. A really savvy predator could just go sit in a stall and wait and no one would be the wiser. You guys are inventing a bogie man that simply doesn't exist. Predators aren't changing their sex to prey on people. Hence the reason I called it a "Red-Harring".

1) This is also what every racist says. "I have lots of black friends..." Like this is literally the last thing to say in a conversation where you're trying to convince people your not biased towards whatever it is you just referenced... 2) This is a fallacy. Trans-gender Male-to-Female aren't going to be a big Burley man who walks into a bathroom. Their going to look like a girl. Like there is nothing stopping men from walking into bathrooms right now if they wanted to anyways, you think a law is magically going to stop that? The issue is that there are people who change their gender identity (wouldn't otherwise know if you didn't lift of their skirt to check) using a bathroom. Yeah this point is BS. 3) Everyone has the right to be equally protected under law and not be singled out for special criticism. Period. Bigots deserve to be called out for being bigots. And when you think I'm being a bigot CALL ME OUT ON IT. Why are people so afraid of being called out for things? I'm not. I'm not a snowflake who needs a safe-space. I'll meet anyones criticisms of me and the things I say with facts and logic. Anytime anywhere. 4) Wouldn't it just be as easy for a Black person to just go find a black person store to shop at? Same logic you're presenting here. If you live in a community that is mostly religiously inspired against gay people, you're screwed. Equal protection under law should apply. If you have a problem serving black people, don't open a business. If you have a problem serving gay people, don't open a business. Screw you and your (Not you individually Skip, more a broad statement to those offended by gay people) religious convictions, none of us care. You have the right to hold them, but we have the right to not give a rat's ass about them or have them impact/impeded our lives. 5) Yes, common sense laws like seat belts, water and air, chemical regulations protect people. Anti-gay legislation is not common-sense. We got to protect people from gay people? Really? Just like how we once had to protect from black people right? Please...this is a GARBAGE point. You know it, I know it. Since you're all about protecting people, you're going to jump on board for the next waiting period/background check on all firearm purchases legislation right? You're going to jump on board for the banning of assault weapons right? Because you're all for common-sense legislation that protects people right? You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite right? Obviously with that last bit I'm being OBVIOUSLY HYPERBOLIC and pointing out the hypocrisy of that argument. These laws actually protect people (anti-LGBTQ)? BS!

This should be separated into two separate things. You guys are deciding to focus on those who believe themselves to be a different gender than they were born. I've so far been focusing my commentary on discrimination on serving gay people. Looking at the legislation being opposed by the travel ban, it was targeting BOTH kinds of legislation, not one. Actually Hilltopper, I don't know how I feel about it. Using a bathroom is one thing. Locker Rooms and local health clubs, eh...not so sure about it. But I think this is a fallacy on your part, the same fallacy that conservatives levy against liberals whenever the gun control debate comes up. Why legislate to something that doesn't actually happen. I do not for a moment believe there is a rash of trans-gender individuals who all of a sudden are using locker rooms, or even bathrooms TBH. Trans-gender people have always existed, and believe it or not...they probably used those bathrooms and facilities WITHOUT YOU KNOWING anyways. So what harm was done? What are you actually trying to solve? Are we going to check the genitalia of everyone going into a bathroom now? How I feel about it is irrelevant to the fact that passing laws on this is entirely irrelevant. It's a non-issue, red-haring used to divide us. I mean look at the people on this forum already, ready to go at each other's throats over a relatively minute, almost non-existant thing. As for Legislation on being allowed to discriminate against Gay people in whatever business you want (which is separate from the bathroom issue you keep focusing on) I am absolutely against this, and it is a considerably bigger issue than the one above. There are far more gay people, their marriage to each other is now legal, and they live everywhere. The California Law, according to article from Al.com in the first post: "prohibits state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with laws that authorize or require discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or same-sex couples." In the same article hyperlinked within that one Alabama specifically is on the list because: "In Alabama's case, it was the passage of a lawallowing adoption agencies in the state to follow faith-based policies, including the option to not place children with gay couples." You, for some reason, have decided to focus on the red-haring. I have decided to focus on the other. Hopefully you actually read this post.

I know you might find this hard to believe, I 100% agree with you. I hate the two party system that boils the things down to a divisive issue, instead of a conversation. I'm personally an advocate in the Democratic party, for it to open it's umbrella and accepting people who don't agree with us 100% on every issue. You wouldn't believe the blowback I got. I know I come across as a Pure-Democratic-Live-And-Die, I'm really not. I despise both parties, and I have candidates I like in both, however they usually get torpedoed by a system that isn't set up for debate and discussion of ideas. Unfortunately it's all about the $$$$. Parties make it easier to run, which in turn makes it easier for those who have $$$ to have access to the parties.

Look, I never claimed the Democratic party as the bastion of liberalism, or classic liberalism in this country, or progressivism. In fact, I guarantee you I am highly likely to not vote in the Democratic party in the relatively near future, but that's because the party has had a massive shift away from the things I believe it needs to be focused on and running campaigns on, and it's massively corrupt (as is the Republican Party). For instance it has made social issues the forefront, while I think Jobs and the Economy should be. (That's without saying that BOTH political parties are different in rhetoric, but in reality of things accomplished are pretty much the same). But there are issues generations become defined by, here's an analysis of it. You do see a shift on many issues over-time. This isn't bound to a political ideology. I know it's hard to believe, there's Republicans I support! Mostly on the Local, County and state levels, but because of certain issues, and where I place value in them. This younger generation doesn't give one-flying-flip about passing laws about allowing discrimination against LGBTQ people. Not because we all want it, or believe it's acceptable, we just don't care to ban it. It's very, Libertarian of us. We grew up with friends who were out, and we don't care about it. Just like your generation didn't give a one-flying-flip about passing anti-black laws, which older generations might have been more in favor of. My mother, roughly in your generation (a little older I'd take it) and I have conversations about this stuff all the time. I just want to be clear on this; overtime issues become the center of what will change based upon a generation's view on it. I say with a high level of confidence, there will not be a drastic change in millennials views towards healthcare, LGBTQ, and a number of other issues. I'm a critic of many things on the left myself, I know that's hard to believe. Oh I'll agree with you that how I view the world has changed in the last 6-years, but it has not changed how I feel on issues. But I'm probably a lot more well travelled and experienced than you'd realize. That's what the generations thing above is a good read.

Of course I don't. But the research conducted on the matter, indicates that anti-LGBTQ legislation in any form...anti-marriage laws, allowed to refuse service laws, and bathroom laws (I'll come back to this one in a moment) are overwhelmingly not liked or supported by generation. Newsflash; millennials are more progressive, even the conservative ones, than your generation. It's just a fact. I am not practicing a brand of fundamentalism, sorry. You're allowed to excercise whatever ideals you want, I don't care. But I will challenge you on them, I will criticize you on them, and I will call BS on them. Where I have a problem is when municipalities pass laws that allow discrimination of ANY kind. Fortunately we have laws that protect based upon Race and Religions, but we don't based upon sexual preference. Of course, I AGREE with you that we shouldn't have to pass laws to protect that, it should just be a given. Who cares who you sleep with at night, or who you're married to? (This is a rather Libertarian idea BTW, not progressive). You get these states that then pass laws that say it is okay to single out someone, for something that's none of their business, because they have a "sincerely held religious belief" not to serve them. That's wrong. That's anti everything this country should stand for. It's in the same ilk of having a "sincerely held religious belief" of not serving black people in a restaurant. And I will call it out, every single time. Again this idea that people shouldn't be discriminated against for arbitrary reasons, is a Libertarian idea, not a progressive one. The progressive idea is that you must use the law to protect that right. The ones passing the laws, aren't the progressives in this case...it's the Republican legislatures.

Using religion as a means for discrimination? Yup. Fundamentalism is Fundamentalism no matter the flavor. Yeah, when you guys are no longer the major voting block and the millennials are, none of this crap will matter anymore because we don't care about preventing people from using the bathroom. Its a freakin bathroom. Someone wants to dress like a woman and use it because they feel comfortable, w/e its their life. It's more about the right of a business to discriminate against a person because of their personal life. I don't personally care about the bathroom issue. I do, however, care about passing laws requiring police to check people's IDs as they go into the bathroom. And if a Lesbian doesn't look "girl" enough to go into the women's bathroom, she's not allowed to go in because of asinine laws. Who the creak cares, it's a bathroom...and in the women's bathroom they go into stalls. What are you snowflakes scared about?

People travel to Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Tennessee to begin with? (kidding) All for it. 1) Any possibility of eliminating California teams from consideration of any national Title, I'm okay with. To Hell with California. And 2) California is just following the trend started in the private sector, so much so it lead to the VP's own party sending him to the political Siberia that is the Vice Presidency. I mean it's a disgrace that in 2017 we have states passing laws allowing discrimination of any kind. What are the snowflakes in Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota and Tennessee so afraid they're going to catch the gay or something? That they need to create safe-zones from homosexuals? It's 2017 America, not 1887, or Saudi Arabia. We're supposed to be better than this.

This is a confusing statement a-zip... are you saying we should have built the basketball arena in lieu of the Football stadium? Or is that we'd be having this same conversation if we'd built a 8000 seat basketball arena that fills at 3400 regularly vs a 27,000 seat football stadium that regularly has 9100? At any rate, I think it's a no brainer that Football > Basketball in NEO. If Cleveland could even muster a mediocre season in the NFL, the fan-fare support for the Browns would be about 1000x that which we see the Cavs get. It's not even comparable IMO. Football is KING in NEO sports, so making the call to go with a New football stadium on campus, is a fare better investment than a new, larger Basketball arena.

Isn't 5000 considered a "sell-out" at The JAR? 4400, is pretty damn good. Besides KENT games, That one was one of my favorites. They also gave a damn to make this cool post-game video afterwards.

Why not continue to do so? It's something to read while we're in the doldrums of July sports.

And the MAC is going to win all of them. Go Zips!

To really test the max-capacity-competing hypothesis for the Zips is difficult. They either need to pull of an impressive win in OCC, or be running something like an undefeated season. The problem with the having a good MAC-season, is when the Zips would be (hypothetically speaking of course) 6-2, the last four games are on Weekday nights. You could realistically be 8-2 as Akron, and have your next game against Ohio (which should draw lot more people considering the situation, than usual) on a Tuesday night. Would we have more than usual? YES. Would we have the max-capacity draw for a Zips game? No, unfortunately I don't think they'd get close to what they can draw on a Saturday. On the flip side, if the Zips were able to stun the nation with an upset win against the like of Penn State in the season opener (or something like that scenario) we'd definitely see a spike in attendance to what we regular are used to seeing, if just students alone. Zips have an opportunity next year 2018... @Nebraska and @Northwestern, to get their crap together and pull-off 1... or god forbid 2 ... Big-10 wins, then we really could test the hypothesis. Until we get the opportunity to really test it, which we haven't, then we'll never know where Zips football sits on possibility. We do KNOW where Zips Basketball stands.

Blue Ribbon Beer: bringing hipsters and rednecks together.

For one game yes. But What I'm advocating is every game. Make it a collective effort based on ALL games not just one. Points for how many members attend each game etc.