nodak651

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, in that you listen to both sides of an argument, so I suppose I wrongly assumed that you were capable of making an argument based on what is actually said, rather than by who says it. You also implied that it was the stupidest thing you had seen on the internet all day, so I, again, assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about. Thank you, though, at least I now understand how somebody can have such a distorted view on what actually happened during the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting.

Are you trying to mislead people? He never said they were touched. This quote is pretty good though: ""They were shouting threats to us, to kill us, to hurt us, but also threats saying shout, shouting 'say her name,' Breonna Taylor, and it's like you couldn't reason with this mob, but I'm actually the author of the Breonna Taylor law to end no-knock raids, so the irony is lost on these idiots that they're trying to kill the person who's actually trying to get rid of no-knock raids,"

Please. What stupid things did Ben say in that video?

Please show me the science based evidence which proves that cancelling D1 sports is safer for the players than the players being in a controlled environment with regular covid testing/screening, and players maintaining a more limited social "bubble".

Copy and pasting this comment from the NY Times article. My thoughts exactly: I'll be surprised if they can convict Rittenhouse on 1st degree murder. Even the weakest public defender is going to be able to frame the videos as self defense. The kid never attacked first. What's really going to save him, though, is the part at the end where he doesn't shoot the pistol guy. He points the rifle at him, and clearly chooses not to shot, and then pistol guy makes a second attack with his pistol, at which point Rittenhouse shoots his gun arm rather than killing him. He's remarkably calm for a 17 year old being swarmed by a mob. You can paint it as a murderous rampage on twitter, but that's never going to work on a real jury. I actually wonder if the DA didn't overcharge him on purpose, knowing it would both sate the angry internet mob that was gathering, while also giving Rittenhouse an easy path to beat the charges.

My league in Minneapolis just finished its summer season that started in July. Zero guys got covid. Let them play...

They are. Could request a refund within thirty days of postponement announcement.

"Take their party back" Have you seen his approval rating within the party? The will of the people is why Trump beat out 20 something primary candidates last year. Of course RINOS and career politicians have been upset about him. Good. Pretty sure we heard pretty much this same story line from 4 years ago as well though, no?

Wrong. Thanks for trying.

P5's don't offer seniors? News to me.

Agreed. Could have blind sided them with the tweet. Curious what their discussions have looked like....

This. Really rubs me the wrong way that they will be getting the extra practice time, and UND backed out of a money game.

Not sure if hes waiting on a potential p5 offer or what, but "commitment" sure doesnt mean what it used to. But at least hes up front about it - guys back out of commitments all the time, and I'm guessing he isn't much less likely to follow through than many of the other commits. If he doesn't sign on the first signing day though, deal breaker imo.

Why was this filmed with hidden camera?

A darker color could help to put more focus on the field, but it would have to be thought out and done well. Probably isn't possible because it's already painted but the tan-painted cement could maybe look cool with an acid etch or a grayish/dark stain - wouldn't want it to match the metal walls though... need some contrast. Do you have any ideas?

My opinion is that the answer to this question is laid out in the constitution - Article 4, Section 4. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The Federal govt greatly overreaches in many areas, but I think it is pretty clearly written in the constitution that border security is something that the US government shall ensure. This is one of the basic duties of a limited government. In regard to the excerpt above, the (southern) boarder is not secure, and the US govt is obligated to take action needed to protect the country from the decades long "invasion" of economic immigrants who are crossing the the border illegally. The large number of people that enter the country illegally make it easy for drug cartels to conduct their business internationally, and within our boarders. I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that the drug trade has accounts for a large percentage of the violent crime in America. The US government is obligated to strengthen the boarders (build a wall, among other strategies) to limit aliens from coming here illegally, and to help curb the cartel drug trade (and directly associated violence), and also any potential spies/terrorists that could so easily sneak into our country. The United Stats Government SHALL protect us. In regard to the eminent domain issue - the landowners should be fairly compensated for whatever economic loss that they have as a result of border protection. Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". I'm not sure what the current situation is for the landowners at the border, such as how much land is being taken, the value, and if/how much they are being compensated, but this is an entirely separate issue. The US government has been using "regulatory takings" arguments to screw over land owners, partly because it wastes so much money on pork spending and government handouts, which causes the budget to be stretched thin for basic functions of the government. Edit: I'm not going to argue about the constitution with a lawyer, and I don't have time for it, but you get the general idea. The above is my opinion on it - I'm not sure what the talking heads say, but I would think that I probably am not very far off from what someone like Ben Shapiro would say.

Agreed. They will not be forced to play. They do not lose eligibility or scholarships by not playing this year, and they risks are not unknown. I just don't see how they have any standing, but of course litigation would be expensive, and the conferences would undoubtedly end up settling for big money, IMO.

Serious question: are those reported crimes or convictions?

Trump and his supporters are fine with LEGAL immigration. If they over stay their visas, they SHOULD be deported. How is that confusing? The workers that overstay their visa do so, and they abuse the system, because Democrats enable them by creating sanctuary cities and by allowing illegal aliens to mooch off of our public resources. At the same time, these unskilled illegal immigrants saturate the job market with cheap labor, which in-turn suppresses the wages and opportunities of low skilled and unemployed Americans, many of which happen to be minorities. Instead of allowing the free market to work, local governments are now left to jacking up the minimum wage. I disagree with the guest worker program, because although many people claim that Americans won't "do the work", most would, just not for the wages that are being paid. If there were no guest workers, the ag companies and roofing companies, for example, would have to increase their wages to a point that they could attract workers. Yes, prices would increase as well, but Americans in poverty or on welfare would have higher paying jobs as a result. And I would much rather pay more for products than pay that extra money into an inefficient welfare system that keeps many minorities in dependent on government handouts - many call it the Democratic plantation. I just do not see how that is racist, and I do not agree with a robust guest worker program. To contradict myself a little bit, I could see the benefit of some seasonal ag work, and limited uses of the program in other areas, but only at greatly reduced numbers and with strict policies for making sure workers do no illegally overstay their visas. I apologize in advance for any micro aggressions.

This is entirely irrelevant to my comment, which was in regard to the promises that he has made to his constituents and the efforts that he has made to follow through on those promises. You are trying to shift the goal posts.. Besides that fact, this was before he seriously ran for public office and before he was elected. If anything, this shows that he isn't an ideologue, and his beliefs are more centrist than the media would like the public to believe - this is a positive trait and similar to the views of most Americans. The Democrats have radically shifted their policies further and further to the left, and he hasn't changed his philosophy very much. It wasn't that long ago that Democrats (Biden) passed a "tough on crime" bill, were saying that they wanted to strengthen the borders (and the border wall), and were against gay marriage, for example. Hell, they even embraced Robert Byrd as high level senator as recently as 2010, and he was a former KKK member and chapter leader.

Very glad to be corrected. Did he make a large donation recently? I forget why he was being talked about on the message board recently. Maybe it was speculation? Edit: Found what I was thinking of. LOL

So give the money back to him? Not sure how that helps anyone but him.

He's the reason we have money for the business school Donated 40 million I believe. I think he was the anonymous donor, but may be wrong. Edit: I am wrong.

Does UND have his money yet?