USWNT

MakeAPlay said:
Man I can’t even follow you. What did you accuse me of lying about? Look you are a contrarian with too much time on his hands. Any time that you want to find out what I think we can meet at Kaminski’s near my house (I know that you know where that is) and I can show you. PM me and I will give you my number. Otherwise you are just a pussy and somebody that I don’t have time for.

You heard my position, I assume that even someone as lazy as you can use Google.

If you want to find out how far I will go you should Google me. And PM me.
Click to expand...

Are you denying that you made all those false statements about me?
 
This WC is looking like it will be decided by fouls and handballs in the box, unfortunately. The 3 favorites - France, US and Netherlands all played poorly this round and were saved by the whistle. Maybe the answer is if it's not a deliberate/intentional handling in the box then it's an indirect kick, not a PK?

Japan was brilliant. A post and crossbar away from advancing.

If France loses Friday they are out of WC and the Olympics next year! Ooof. Talk about high stakes. As many have said, I think the homefield advantage may actually work against them. USA 2-1. 3-1 if Lloyd starts over Morgan :)
 
MakeAPlay said:
Man I can’t even follow you. What did you accuse me of lying about? Look you are a contrarian with too much time on his hands. Any time that you want to find out what I think we can meet at Kaminski’s near my house (I know that you know where that is) and I can show you. PM me and I will give you my number. Otherwise you are just a pussy and somebody that I don’t have time for.

You heard my position, I assume that even someone as lazy as you can use Google.

If you want to find out how far I will go you should Google me. And PM me.
Click to expand...

I googled "Makeaplay". I got a site featuring New York City youth basketball coaches. Is that you?
 
Glen said:
I voted for Clinton (holding my nose) and Obama (twice - and proudly). But, again, your response is indicative of why some who voted for Obama voted for Trump. Turn everything into a flame war, turning those that on your side against you.
Click to expand...

MAGA 101. The belief that YOU are the one being persecuted because you are losing the right to exercise your bigotry without repercussions.
 
Janie270 said:
MAGA 101. The belief that YOU are the one being persecuted because you are losing the right to exercise your bigotry without repercussions.
Click to expand...
JUNE 26, 2019
Making LGBT a Protected Class Will Kill Religious Liberty
By T.R. Clancy
The current campaign to amend federal and state civil rights laws to extend protections to sexual orientation and gender identity isn't meant to eliminate discrimination — it's meant to eliminate religious freedom.

What else are we to believe when proponents of such amendments tell us as much?

Earlier this month, Michigan State Senator Jeremy Moss introduced legislation to amend the state's civil rights law to add sexual orientation and sexual identity as protected classes. One of the main objections to changing the law before now has been the harm it must do to conscience protections and the free exercise of religion. Like their federal cousin, the Equality Act, these laws can't ensure equality because, as gay writer Brad Polumbo explains, they work by "elevating [LGBT] rights over those of religious Americans."

Senator Moss isn't even pretending this isn't the case. As reported in the Oakland Press, Moss said:

[T]he legislation will not make exceptions for those whose religious beliefs condemn homosexuality and other lifestyles[.] ... That would mean, for example, that a Catholic school that teaches against homosexuality could not discriminate against a homosexual job applicant on the basis of sexual orientation.

Bakery owners and photographers could not refuse to serve a same-sex couple's wedding on the basis of their religious beliefs.

None of this bothers Moss, who "says he is gay as well as a practicing Jew," and doesn't see what the problem is. He "knows plenty of rabbis and other religious leaders who support the legislation." Besides, believers who don't see it his way just don't understand the Bible, or their own faith: "A few passages in the Old Testament (teaching against homosexuality) don't give people the right to discriminate. I don't believe there is a conflict between religious values and treating everyone fairly."

And if it turns out there is a conflict between Moss's ideas about "treating everyone fairly" and someone's religious values, then we'll just ignore the religious values. As David Harsanyi recently noted at The Federalist, "compelling the right kind of speech no longer seems a bothersome prospect to most progressives. Any neutral principles that are inherent in the First Amendment have long been discarded for more pressing matters of social justice." How else could Moss write a law that forces a Catholic school principal to hire a homosexual teacher whose lifestyle contradicts Catholic teaching, and forces a Christian baker to design a cake with a message the baker considers sinful?
 
Sheriff Joe said:
JUNE 26, 2019
Making LGBT a Protected Class Will Kill Religious Liberty
By T.R. Clancy
The current campaign to amend federal and state civil rights laws to extend protections to sexual orientation and gender identity isn't meant to eliminate discrimination — it's meant to eliminate religious freedom.

What else are we to believe when proponents of such amendments tell us as much?

Earlier this month, Michigan State Senator Jeremy Moss introduced legislation to amend the state's civil rights law to add sexual orientation and sexual identity as protected classes. One of the main objections to changing the law before now has been the harm it must do to conscience protections and the free exercise of religion. Like their federal cousin, the Equality Act, these laws can't ensure equality because, as gay writer Brad Polumbo explains, they work by "elevating [LGBT] rights over those of religious Americans."

Senator Moss isn't even pretending this isn't the case. As reported in the Oakland Press, Moss said:

[T]he legislation will not make exceptions for those whose religious beliefs condemn homosexuality and other lifestyles[.] ... That would mean, for example, that a Catholic school that teaches against homosexuality could not discriminate against a homosexual job applicant on the basis of sexual orientation.

Bakery owners and photographers could not refuse to serve a same-sex couple's wedding on the basis of their religious beliefs.

None of this bothers Moss, who "says he is gay as well as a practicing Jew," and doesn't see what the problem is. He "knows plenty of rabbis and other religious leaders who support the legislation." Besides, believers who don't see it his way just don't understand the Bible, or their own faith: "A few passages in the Old Testament (teaching against homosexuality) don't give people the right to discriminate. I don't believe there is a conflict between religious values and treating everyone fairly."

And if it turns out there is a conflict between Moss's ideas about "treating everyone fairly" and someone's religious values, then we'll just ignore the religious values. As David Harsanyi recently noted at The Federalist, "compelling the right kind of speech no longer seems a bothersome prospect to most progressives. Any neutral principles that are inherent in the First Amendment have long been discarded for more pressing matters of social justice." How else could Moss write a law that forces a Catholic school principal to hire a homosexual teacher whose lifestyle contradicts Catholic teaching, and forces a Christian baker to design a cake with a message the baker considers sinful?
Click to expand...

Nobody here is reading this.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
JUNE 26, 2019
Making LGBT a Protected Class Will Kill Religious Liberty
By T.R. Clancy
The current campaign to amend federal and state civil rights laws to extend protections to sexual orientation and gender identity isn't meant to eliminate discrimination — it's meant to eliminate religious freedom.

What else are we to believe when proponents of such amendments tell us as much?

Earlier this month, Michigan State Senator Jeremy Moss introduced legislation to amend the state's civil rights law to add sexual orientation and sexual identity as protected classes. One of the main objections to changing the law before now has been the harm it must do to conscience protections and the free exercise of religion. Like their federal cousin, the Equality Act, these laws can't ensure equality because, as gay writer Brad Polumbo explains, they work by "elevating [LGBT] rights over those of religious Americans."

Senator Moss isn't even pretending this isn't the case. As reported in the Oakland Press, Moss said:

[T]he legislation will not make exceptions for those whose religious beliefs condemn homosexuality and other lifestyles[.] ... That would mean, for example, that a Catholic school that teaches against homosexuality could not discriminate against a homosexual job applicant on the basis of sexual orientation.

Bakery owners and photographers could not refuse to serve a same-sex couple's wedding on the basis of their religious beliefs.

None of this bothers Moss, who "says he is gay as well as a practicing Jew," and doesn't see what the problem is. He "knows plenty of rabbis and other religious leaders who support the legislation." Besides, believers who don't see it his way just don't understand the Bible, or their own faith: "A few passages in the Old Testament (teaching against homosexuality) don't give people the right to discriminate. I don't believe there is a conflict between religious values and treating everyone fairly."

And if it turns out there is a conflict between Moss's ideas about "treating everyone fairly" and someone's religious values, then we'll just ignore the religious values. As David Harsanyi recently noted at The Federalist, "compelling the right kind of speech no longer seems a bothersome prospect to most progressives. Any neutral principles that are inherent in the First Amendment have long been discarded for more pressing matters of social justice." How else could Moss write a law that forces a Catholic school principal to hire a homosexual teacher whose lifestyle contradicts Catholic teaching, and forces a Christian baker to design a cake with a message the baker considers sinful?
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. Good read!
 
This month\ the Wall Street Journal published an audit of the revenues generated by the USWNT and the USMNT. The article is behind a paywall but the main headline supports the idea of increased pay for the USWNT...From the Wall Street Journal:

"U.S. Women’s Soccer Games Outearned Men’s Games
The 2015 World Cup title was a catalyst to boost women’s game revenues, which in recent years exceeded the men’s
By
Rachel Bachman
June 17, 2019 6:00 am ET

PARIS—In the three years after the U.S. women’s soccer team won the 2015 World Cup, U.S. women’s games generated more total revenue than U.S. men’s games, according to audited financial reports from the U.S. Soccer Federation."


Here is the link but the paywall is an issue: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-womens-soccer-games-out-earned-mens-games-11560765600
 
oh canada said:
If France loses Friday they are out of WC and the Olympics next year! Ooof. Talk about high stakes. As many have said, I think the homefield advantage may actually work against them. USA 2-1. 3-1 if Lloyd starts over Morgan :)
Click to expand...

4-1 if Press starts over Rapinoe...no, wait a second, since most games are being decided on a PK, Rapinoe probably needs to stay in there.
 
oh canada said:
This WC is looking like it will be decided by fouls and handballs in the box, unfortunately. The 3 favorites - France, US and Netherlands all played poorly this round and were saved by the whistle. Maybe the answer is if it's not a deliberate/intentional handling in the box then it's an indirect kick, not a PK?

Japan was brilliant. A post and crossbar away from advancing.

If France loses Friday they are out of WC and the Olympics next year! Ooof. Talk about high stakes. As many have said, I think the homefield advantage may actually work against them. USA 2-1. 3-1 if Lloyd starts over Morgan :)
Click to expand...

Japan was not brilliant and the Japanese way of doing things has been proven to be an epic failure. Japan has gotten worse in two straight world cups. This time around they got smoked by England, couldn't get past a weak Argentina and struggled against Scotland, all before crashing out in the round of 16. I don't believe they've beaten the US in nine years. You are confusing pretty soccer with effective soccer. You probably think Jessie Fleming is the greatest player ever, since she'd fit right in with Japan's merry band of circus jugglers who routinely get pushed off the ball and can't effectively defend bigger, stronger and faster opponents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top