Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. Based on what the OP has said this isn't something being done by the coaches. As someone said above these "stay to play" tournaments are not uncommon and they most definitely are a way to generate revenue from a captive audience.
  2. They have a long history of sharing stories that are taken out of context or have not been verified. They are not in any way a valid news source. An example: Another: In both cases they take something that is true and take it out of context to generate reactions from its readers. In the first they used a 2 year old story and exaggerated what actually happened, and in the second they leave out some important facts (namely that Harvard still had a main graduation and the "black graduation" was a separate event organized by individuals). What they do goes well beyond a slant or bias in reporting.
  3. Except there are actual "fake" news sites that intentionally report false and misleading information. They are not mainstream and neither is their target audience. There are also others (example: that are so obviously biased that there is no way to gather credible information from them without fact checking every part of a story. Those who support those sites are the ones pushing the narrative about "fake" news in the mainstream media, and blurring that line for consumers is intentional.
  4. Our schools around here have them, but I don't believe they are commonly used anymore. I know one school we used for basketball practice used their shower area for storage. From talking to other parents the only times there showers are usually used would be when the basketball teams have early morning practices and the kids don't want to smell bad all day.
  5. Our local middle schools (all relatively new construction) have a coaches office in the locker room with a window that can see into the changing area, which sounds similar to what you had but on the ground level.
  6. Fingerprint data isn't need for most background checks. Even many federal positions do not require fingerprints for the FBI background check.
  7. And what is collected from imprints would not be useful in a fingerprint DB.
  8. 1.) Since when do they take fingerprints at birth? And what database are these on? 2.) Only 4 states require fingerprints (most just a thumbprint) for a DL. 3.) Many background checks do not require fingerprints.
  9. We already have various age restrictions (alcohol being a primary one) which have been upheld so I don't think you will find much traction to end them.
  10. 1.) No idea. 2.) The distinction is a well trained *and supervised* 19yo versus a random one who can make a purchase just because they have enough money. Weapons and ammunition in the military are accounted for and tightly controlled.
  11. I actually thought a great deal about the 18 vs 21 issue when I read that law. I think military service is an interesting point to bring up, but considering those in the military at that age receive significant training and oversight I think that is enough of a distinction to justify the restriction. I had some concerns about the being charged for a gun being stolen/used in a crime but I agree with you that the guidelines are clear and reasonable.
  12. When you have a moment take a look at the ballot initiative just passed in Washington state:,_Changes_to_Gun_Ownership_and_Purchase_Requirements_Measure_(2018)
  13. Even when there is a lease, it isn't like landlords in low-income neighborhoods are not familiar with this type of situation. Many small landlords don't ask for an ID if they got the tenant via a referral from someone else.
  14. In fact many do not. From the WP articled I linked above: "Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law."
  15. One thing to keep in mind is that the (suspected) goal of voter ID laws isn't really to prevent whole groups from voting, but to suppress turnout in certain demographics. Some people will jump through hoops to vote but others won't, and in elections decided on thin margins that can make a difference. Throw in some other means of suppression (deleting registrations for starters) and it isn't difficult an election can be determined by these efforts. I think Georgia's governor is being determined by less than 65,000 votes right now and we have had voter suppression methods that have affected hundreds of thousands of voters. It is easy to stand from a place of privilege and say you don't understand how people don't have IDs/if they really wanted to vote they could and on and on, but when the targeted groups are often the same ones who were victimized by poll taxes and literacy tests surely you can grasp why some of are give these efforts the side eye. If anyone is seriously questioning the intent of these laws, simply look at the ID law in Texas. At one point a concealed carry license was acceptable, but a state-issued student ID from a university was not.
  16. 1.) There multiple people working under the table jobs. 2.) They could have used the alternate proof (and fwiw its worth as long as someone isn't illegal the lack of proof will never bite anyone). 3.) Some on benefits could have had the proper paperwork when needed but haven't reapplied since. Especially the elderly as standards have changed over time. 4.) Yes, it is literally millions. A good interview on this topic: Another great read on the issue:
  17. I didn't say one word about kids who punched someone for grabbing their butt. Your logic is strange. I am not sure how you can say something is not a big deal but also worthy of punching someone over. One would think you would also support those who take the route of reporting someone who grabbed their butt.
  18. Grabbing the genitals of another goes past being "wrong" imo. We aren't talking about someone being rude and ticking someone off.
  19. I don't get your logic at all. Why is it okay for a stranger to get one free grab at the privates of another if they are adults?
  20. He explains the legal perspective fairly well. He was very neutral on the perjury issue, with my only quibble being the larger perjury issues were raised before the Ford allegations.
  21. Everything else aside, the owner of that site is taking on a legal risk that is mind boggling.
  22. Subjective opinions are not necessarily insults. It is a way of explaining why someone is viewing an issue differently.
  23. It's an observation. It is based on perception, and one can choose to take offense from it if they are so inclined.
  24. Threatening/hinting at a lawsuit when you know you have no intention of going forward or know you do not have a solid legal basis to go forward is a poor tactic. Youth sports organizations have liability coverage that will cover them if they are sued, including all legal costs. I am on a board that has been threatened with lawsuits numerous times, been sued twice (2-0 in court fwiw), and it really isn't that much of a threat. If you do make that kind of threat and then don't follow up with legal action when changes aren't made, any complaints made later won't be taken as seriously. Regarding what the league "should" be doing, officiating is always tricky and is filled with gray areas in any contact sport (one of the reasons for the gross negligence standard), The pool of highly skilled officials in any area is generally low relative to the population, and youth leagues often work with the best they can get. Citing specific areas of concern in the officiating and offering constructive suggestions for how the officials can improve will often get a better response than taking an immediately adversarial approach.
  • Create New...