daveakl

So that was my thought, that the actual increase in building was tied more to intimidation and it just happened to coincide with the 50 and 100 year marks (in the same way that it could have coincided with the 25 and 75 or whatever you want to cite after the fact). But I had never heard or seen that written anywhere and still can't figure out where he got that idea from.

Or it's right. I honestly had never heard that before and couldn't find a thing anywhere to support it. Well, this happened "In 2015, only days after the 150th anniversary of the Civil War was commemorated, a white man killed nine parishioners in an African-American church in South Carolina." That kind of started the tide of removing them right?

A good friend of mine said the following while three of us were talking about confederate statues and the large amount constructed during different civil rights movements to intimidate people. Paraphrasing "now hold on, the statues were not constructed during those times because of civil rights issues, they were built during the 50 and 100 year anniversaries, largely funded by the daughters of the revolution. I've actually read up on this a lot because there is a so much misinformation out there." So how does one respond to that? He's correct that the timing lines up but it seems more coincidental to me.

http://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills Let's let science decide. Now that being said, I think the wear and tear on a guy 6'10" is different from a guy that's 6'1. So the range of recovery time across all players may be greater in basketball then hockey.

All good.

No, I'm saying holding the response time of the Charlottesville pd to that of the Baltimore pd isn't fair. Neither is saying that the Charlottesville pd should have gone in guns blazing the same way that police did at other protests when the people were a different color. The police that have reacted at other rallies should be called out, but saying the response here proves police are racist since they didn't automatically attack an armed mob is silly.

Now that is a great person to lay blame at. 100% agree.

Tonight's event was planned for weeks (maybe even longer then that) and the city fought allowing it. They tried to move it as well. They are planned to deal with it. Last nights "march" was more quietly planned and today's junk was as well. Baltimore has a much larger police force to draw from (as well as military supplies) then Charlottesville. Blaming the police for the response time today compared to other events that are in no way similar isn't fair to them.

I don't disagree, but which protest are you going to run into if both are largely illegal (no permits, minor property issues, etc)

Can you point me to the part where they marched through the campus and beat up students? I'm not for what's going on, but flaming the situation with false facts doesn't help either. If you are a cop what is easier: Go attack and beat up an unarmed black group or Go attack and beat up an armed, somewhat body armored, helmeted, white group

To be fair to the police. This happened ridiculously fast today. The alt right side was walking around with pieces of body armor on, helmets, and guns. It takes time to amass a police force that can clear out that many people safely. They have the force ready and on standby for tonight. Today was a bit if a surprise.

Griff Aviation has a drone that can carry 490 lbs.

And Trump! Under him we got a animal living in our house! An ANIMAL living in our house!

I don't know. Under Bush 2 I had a string of amazingly hot ladies, vacations around the globe, and spare money to do whatever I want. Since he left I've had only 1 amazingly hot lady, vacations limited to Disney and in laws, and absolutely 0 money to do what I want.

I imagine we get 1 more in the first if Pulisic was playing. 2-0 opens up Jamaica and we probably end up winning 3 or 4-1

Fair enough. What value do I want to force upon folk?

Yes, in the United States of America you are required to either carry health insurance or pay a penalty for choosing not to. Are you not in favor of that?

You've lost me in semantics. It's the government saying you have to either have health insurance or pay $ for choosing not to. It's the price you pay for being an American citizen living here.

I'm failing to see your point. Tax / fine / penalty you aren't forced to carry coverage but there is a consequence for choosing not to.

It's not a tax. It's a penalty for not carrying health insurance.

Such a stupid argument. You can choose not to get health insurance and pay a fine.

The list goes: CP3 Irving Curry Westbrook L. Ball Lowry Then you have: Lillard Walker Conley Thomas Wall I'd think of more as tiers though. 1st tier and 2nd tier.

This guy gets it! He's a top 6 point guard already based off the summer league games.

Well....1 goal went through his legs and the other almost through his hands.