cprenegade

Members
  • Content count

    22,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

161,680 Excellent

About cprenegade

Converted

  • Location
    over the Rainbow
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. NO! This would be a terrible pick. Jackson is at best questionable as an NFL QB prospect. If he fell a few rounds later, perhaps. The Ravens have other needs rather than to take a larger version of RG III. He's athletic, but his pocket passing is suspect. Several teams inquired about whether he would be willing to switch to WR. That's always a concern when a team thinks so highly about your QB skills that they want you to switch positions. The Ravens have too many other needs than to waste a middle first round pick on a QB that has as much chance of being a bust as he does being a star. This pick as the last first round pick of Ozzies career would definitely tarnish it.
  2. That's kind of the funny thing. The narratives, and from whom, would no doubt be quite different if this were a thread about some tenured professor who tweeted out some white supremacist BS.
  3. It's amazing how many people do not seem to understand that her protection under the first amendment does not extend to an employer or to and employer's right to punish her for an action that can be deemed as damaging to that employer's reputation. It never has. Actions have consequences. The university is currently deciding if her actions merit consequences, and what those consequences should be. Her first amendment rights are not being compromised in any way. No matter what the outcome of Fresno State's investigation and subsequent action, she is absolutely free to continue voicing her opinions any way she likes.
  4. What do you think the motivation is? I believe it is quite simply that Sylvester Stallone asked him to do it. No matter what the motivation is, the family seems to favor it. Maybe it is the right thing to do. If you think Trump is going to get some kind of political boost from this, I seriously doubt it. I don't think there are very many people who give a damn about it one way or the other. The family does, and that's about it.
  5. No. There is nothing in her comments that can cause her to be subject to being legally punished. But the first amendment does not guarantee that her employer may not feel that her views made public have not damaged their reputation. Every employer in this day and age has a social media policy which usually states that public statement advanced in a social media setting that reflect negatively on the employer may be subject to disciplinary action including reassignment of duties or possibly even termination. Every employee acknowledges that when they sign their employment contract. And even those employees who predate social media have likely had to review social media policy and sign off on it. Actions have consequences. We will see what happens to her. My guess is they will stop short of termination, but will remove her from the teaching rotation.
  6. I agree with that. The Washington Post is left leaning, but not full blown left radical the way MSNBC used to be or the way FOX news is all out radical right propaganda. But the thing is that none of these organizations that pass themselves off as NEWS organizations should be leaning any way. They should simply be reporting the news in a factual manner. Any editorial comment immediately puts them into an agenda based agency. Give people the news, let them form their own opinions. Once you start giving the news and slanting it one way or the other, you cease to be a news organization and become more of a propaganda influencing agency.
  7. A few months ago people like this writer were totally alarmed at the rhetoric being tossed back and forth between Trump and Kim. Now they don't want diplomacy. No doubt Kim could be running a game here and should not be trusted, but isn't it better to at least be engaging him as opposed to talking military action? Our allies in that region seem to think so. NK is not to be trusted, anymore than Iran was. But talking to them is better than the alternative. Amazing how quickly the narrative from the media changed because they didn't think it was possible. The most absurd thing they put out there is that agreeing to meet with NK legitimizes them. Really. NK has been around since the end of WWII. They are a member of the UN. The same ruling family has been in power since the 1940's. They have demonstrated that they already have nuclear weapon capability, although how much is debatable. They are already legitimate.
  8. Do we need government guaranteed jobs for this? Hire the poor. As the supporters for an increase in immigration numbers are quick to point out, immigrants are doing the jobs that Americans won't do. We don't need a guaranteed jobs program, the jobs are already there, Americans just need to be willing to do them. If they won't do them now, what makes you think they will do a government provided job working on the infrastructure?
  9. I'm thinking that if there was any chance of him getting another look, this may have put the nail in that coffin. At one time he indicated he was not going to kneel for the anthem anymore. This seems to contradict that. As I said in an above post, he simply does not seem to want to help his own case. He is certainly entitled to his feelings and to share them, but don't complain that teams are unfairly not giving you a job when you are continually making it more difficult for them to justify it with their fan base.
  10. How do you know they haven't? The donor outrage in this instance is because the woman is a university employee. She has brought negative publicity to Fresno State. There is precedence for the university to take some kind of action against her, most likely removing her as a teacher. This is the same university that demoted another professor after he voiced the opinion that Trump must hang. I think a lot of people would like to see her fired, but my guess is she will be demoted to a position where she will not be teaching and interacting with students.
  11. No, that is not necessarily true. And if it is, they have the power to not enter into the agreement in the first place. Sometimes the university itself is being paid by the speaker. Nobody can force a business or an institution to pay someone to give a speech when they don't want them there.
  12. I agree. The North had an unbelievably favorable schedule last year. It was already weak but was made quite a bit weaker by all of the starting QBs that went down on those scheduled teams. This year's schedule looks on paper to be quite a bit tougher. Jamison Hensley was on WBAL last night, went game by game, and arrived at a 9-7 conclusion. Now I know there is no way to predict games that far out because of so many factors, but it can give an overall big picture. Where I took issue with him was he had late season wins at KC and at LA (Chargers). The Ravens road record hasn't been all that great to expect wins in either of those places. He said the Chargers usually fade late in the season but that's just wrong. Normally the Chargers struggle early in the season and come on late. Last season they lost their first 4 and came on to be in the hunt down to the last weekend. Personally, I like the Chargers as a playoff team this year, potentially even to win their division. My early take on the Ravens season is 7-9 or 8-8.
  13. Right wing white supremacist speakers are not employed by the university. A person employed by a Maryland high school was recently fired when it was discovered he had ties to a white supremacist group. When a persons public actions reflect poorly on an employer, they usually respond.
  14. Probably not for long. Fresno is conducting it's own investigation into the matter. And several donors have said they are considering withholding donations unless action is taken by the school against her. That will probably cause them to take action quicker than anything. At the very least she is probably done as a professor there. She may be kept in some other capacity but her teaching days are likely over.