nodak651

Wow! None being accredited is odd. This guy was definitely qualified, and he worked outside of the academic setting before becoming a teacher. Public schools should be allowed to have more flexibility in areas like this. For example, if Wes Rydell was willing to teach a business class or two at a high school, he should be able to. Private schools can do that, and apparently charter schools can too, lol.

Yeah I think something to do with Fleck getting hired, but I could be wrong because I feel like he's been there forever already. Is Agyekum on campus yet?

Sure, but to be fair, it says something about a players potential if a school like Florida was ever interested in the first place. Example would be Richard Agyekum - I think a lot of us are excited about him, but he lost his scholarship offer from the Gophers, and it's unlikely his Penn State offer was still commitable. https://247sports.com/Player/Richard-Agyekum-46083211/#timeline

That's exactly the point. You are knocking my anecdotal evidence, while at the same time admitting you didn't research anything? Part of the problem is that there are no legit studies that prove cancelling the seasons actually make the players any more safe. So everyone is just guessing, but mainly leagues are making decisions based on money, risk of lawsuits, and the risk of bad press. If there were a study that fairly accounted for all variables, of course I would value it, but there isn't, so until then, logic and anecdotal evidence > fear mongering/money/politics.

I went to a major private school in the twin cities and had at least one teacher who wasn't accredited. He was also one of the best teachers I ever had.

Can both sides agree on this? Most of the reason for bad cops rarely being fired is the police union.

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?