USWNT

I can appreciate a Molson Export -- reminds me of the late '80's and early '90's, drinking my way around the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, watching Ayrton Senna battle Alain Prost.
Liked Senna. I was a Nigel Mansel fan.
 
Montreal is a beautiful city, glad you can reminisce. Always surprised how few Americans have gone north of the border. I get it during winter, but Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal etc. are beautiful cities when thawed. A lot easier and cheaper than Europe too. Same time zones, etc. From SoCal, Vancouver is an easy and very worthwhile trip. A lot of Yankees saw the city at its best during the WWC 4 years ago.
My uncle has a doctorate from the Uof M. What field of education are you in?
 
Last edited:
Educators like myself have a weakness. We always feel like we can help a person learn no matter how dense and no matter how many times they demonstrate the incapacity to learn. It's still summer break and I am feeling charitable today, so I am falling victim to this weakness with EOL.

For the past year, in post after post, EOL demonstrates that he/she just hasn't learned the skills of analytical and logical reasoning. It's too bad really because he writes pretty well. So, kudos to his grammar teachers. But something happened during those reasoning lessons. Not sure. It's possible that just might be a weakness. We all have them as referenced above. Or, maybe he's still in high school and hasn't got there yet?

Alas, I will try to help him learn one last time with his latest example:

EOL flawed argument #1: Jackie Robinson jerseys a parallel to rainbow jerseys.
The simple mind thinks, oh, MLB had everyone wear jerseys different than their customary duds, so that is the same as USWNT mandating players wear rainbow numbers. And they both involve numbers, so that's a good argument. And they both involve classes of people who have been/are discriminated against.

Well, no. A deeper understanding of analysis and logic demonstrates that these two scenarios are apples and oranges. For one, JR was a baseball player. MLB is the league he played in. MLB at the time he played did not allow black players (not only African Americans). Therefore, JR became the first black baseball player in MLB. I could go on...but MLB is celebrating one of its own players, for a historical event that actually happened, and collaterally implies that it should have never happened. It's not just a jersey day but all MLB ballparks have a #42 in the outfield and I believe no player can wear the number on any team beyond that day. That is a message, not a movement. If USWNT wants all players to wear #20 because of barriers that Abby Wambach broke as a gay player, then you have apples to apples. Make sense? That wouldn't happen of course because AW in no way can be compared to JR. Last, one of the biggest flaws of making that comparison is that MLB is a private league. They are free to do whatever they want as long as it is legal. USWNT is not the NWSL nor the Portland Thorns. USA Baseball is not the one issuing the #42 mandate for its players. If they did, then the argument would be more relevant.

That's my last lesson for this student. "Can lead a horse to water..." With that, I will retire to my preferred summer drink of Molson in the backyard shade. Enjoy the day everyone!
Do they still make Molson Ice?o_O
 
Quebec City is a great place to spend part of the Christmas holidays! Le Massif for skiing is a short bus ride away. And it is all relatively inexpensive. Plus, Molson Canadian is stronger in the Great White North, eh?
True, very true.

My uncle has a doctorate from the Uof M. What field of education are you in?
Great school! Economics. There is talk that the Tampa Bay Rays MLB team may play some/half of their games in Montreal again. (Rays are the reincarnation of the Expos.) That would be something and the city would love it.

Do they still make Molson Ice?o_O
You betcha! Not a huge fan, but have friends that's all they drink in summer especially.
https://drizly.com/beer/lager/pale-lager/molson-ice/p9403
 
True, very true.


Great school! Economics. There is talk that the Tampa Bay Rays MLB team may play some/half of their games in Montreal again. (Rays are the reincarnation of the Expos.) That would be something and the city would love it.


You betcha! Not a huge fan, but have friends that's all they drink in summer especially.
https://drizly.com/beer/lager/pale-lager/molson-ice/p9403


"Poor"

https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/433/1359/

The Rays ownership couldn't put up a viable team in either city, so their apparently serious solution is for both cities to build them new stadiums. One facet of their split-season plan that might work to their advantage is that they could schedule their games so that they play in whichever city is likely to have the better weather -- spring and fall in Florida, summer in Montreal.
 
Educators like myself have a weakness. We always feel like we can help a person learn no matter how dense and no matter how many times they demonstrate the incapacity to learn. It's still summer break and I am feeling charitable today, so I am falling victim to this weakness with EOL.

For the past year, in post after post, EOL demonstrates that he/she just hasn't learned the skills of analytical and logical reasoning. It's too bad really because he writes pretty well. So, kudos to his grammar teachers. But something happened during those reasoning lessons. Not sure. It's possible that just might be a weakness. We all have them as referenced above. Or, maybe he's still in high school and hasn't got there yet?

Alas, I will try to help him learn one last time with his latest example:

EOL flawed argument #1: Jackie Robinson jerseys a parallel to rainbow jerseys.
The simple mind thinks, oh, MLB had everyone wear jerseys different than their customary duds, so that is the same as USWNT mandating players wear rainbow numbers. And they both involve numbers, so that's a good argument. And they both involve classes of people who have been/are discriminated against.

Well, no. A deeper understanding of analysis and logic demonstrates that these two scenarios are apples and oranges. For one, JR was a baseball player. MLB is the league he played in. MLB at the time he played did not allow black players (not only African Americans). Therefore, JR became the first black baseball player in MLB. I could go on...but MLB is celebrating one of its own players, for a historical event that actually happened, and collaterally implies that it should have never happened. It's not just a jersey day but all MLB ballparks have a #42 in the outfield and I believe no player can wear the number on any team beyond that day. That is a message, not a movement. If USWNT wants all players to wear #20 because of barriers that Abby Wambach broke as a gay player, then you have apples to apples. Make sense? That wouldn't happen of course because AW in no way can be compared to JR. Last, one of the biggest flaws of making that comparison is that MLB is a private league. They are free to do whatever they want as long as it is legal. USWNT is not the NWSL nor the Portland Thorns. USA Baseball is not the one issuing the #42 mandate for its players. If they did, then the argument would be more relevant.

That's my last lesson for this student. "Can lead a horse to water..." With that, I will retire to my preferred summer drink of Molson in the backyard shade. Enjoy the day everyone!

Teaching Sunday school does not make you an educator.

The WNT absolutely plays in a league, just like MLB teams. It is a league operated and overseen by another private company which you probably know as FIFA. USSF is literally no different than the Dodgers, although I understand that small minds cannot get past the reflexive jingoistic impulses that cloud their judgment every time a private business slaps the words USA and the red, white, and blue onto a product. I bet people like you get really jingoey when the Padres wear their jerseys supporting the military.

MLB requiring players to wear 42 jerseys is exactly the same as the WNT requiring players wear rainbow jerseys, with the exception they are supporting equality for different historically oppressed minorities. Regardless of how you misrepresent the purpose for MLB and USSF requiring its players to wear the specific jerseys, the fact is that both are doing so for the exact same reason - to show support for equality. Of course, people know better than to oppose equality and civil rights when it relates to blacks, but they think it is still ok as to gays. So they continue creating excuses in their minds and engaging in mental gymnastics in order to rationalize their opposition to full civil rights because the alternative - and reality - that they're a bigot is not something they will ever admit. It is the same reason you don't touch the issue of USATF supporting black history month. Or the US Chess Federation supporting Jews. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

This is a very simple concept. USSF is a private company. The LA Dodgers are a private company. Both play in leagues operated by a private entity. Both have every legal and moral right to support equality, and they do. Hinkle is a homophobe who opposes civil rights. Fundamentally, you and others like you know deep down that opposing civil rights is wrong but, you cannot reconcile that with the fact that your god says it is ok - and even said gay people must be stoned to death right up until he changed his mind and his kid apparently said you don't need to do that anymore. Well, that isn't good enough.

Unlike you, I harbor no illusions that you will learn from anything I am saying. If you think a god tells you it is ok to oppose equality, no amount of logic and reason can help you.
 
Great post! UCLA has the #42 retired for every sport. Jackie Robinson was a letterman in an incredible 4 sports there!

You inadvertently raise a very interesting point. Did you know UCLA baseball also makes its players wear 42 on their hats every year? So here we have the set of facts the bigots were looking for and were trying so hard to rationalize some justification to oppose rainbow jerseys. Specifically, we have a sports team run by a public entity and supported by taxpayer dollars that is forcing players to wear a uniform that directly supports civil rights. Does anyone want to step up to the proverbial plate and oppose what UCLA is doing? Or do they only have a problem with uniforms that support civil rights for gay folk?

Do the bigots still think a "public" sports team cannot or should not require players to wear a jersey supporting civil rights at all? Do the bigots still think it is "political" for a team that represents the public to require that players wear a jersey supporting civil rights, or does it only become "political" when it is a civil right they oppose? Do the bigots still think an amateur sports team should stay "in the business" of sports and stay out of community organizing? Would the same people who "respect" Hinkle for refusing to wear a rainbow jersey also "respect" a UCLA player who refused to don a 42 hat? Let the cerebral pretzel twisting re-commence.

Just admit it folks. You support 42 hats at UCLA because you support equality for one oppressed minority group, but you oppose rainbow numbers because you oppose equality for another. You do it because your god tells you to oppose equality for an oppressed minority group, so you do it. Admit what Hinkle isn't afraid to. Otherwise, your god may judge you harshly for all the excuses you keep making.
 
You inadvertently raise a very interesting point. Did you know UCLA baseball also makes its players wear 42 on their hats every year? So here we have the set of facts the bigots were looking for and were trying so hard to rationalize some justification to oppose rainbow jerseys. Specifically, we have a sports team run by a public entity and supported by taxpayer dollars that is forcing players to wear a uniform that directly supports civil rights. Does anyone want to step up to the proverbial plate and oppose what UCLA is doing? Or do they only have a problem with uniforms that support civil rights for gay folk?

Do the bigots still think a "public" sports team cannot or should not require players to wear a jersey supporting civil rights at all? Do the bigots still think it is "political" for a team that represents the public to require that players wear a jersey supporting civil rights, or does it only become "political" when it is a civil right they oppose? Do the bigots still think an amateur sports team should stay "in the business" of sports and stay out of community organizing? Would the same people who "respect" Hinkle for refusing to wear a rainbow jersey also "respect" a UCLA player who refused to don a 42 hat? Let the cerebral pretzel twisting re-commence.

Just admit it folks. You support 42 hats at UCLA because you support equality for one oppressed minority group, but you oppose rainbow numbers because you oppose equality for another. You do it because your god tells you to oppose equality for an oppressed minority group, so you do it. Admit what Hinkle isn't afraid to. Otherwise, your god may judge you harshly for all the excuses you keep making.

Flawed argument. No taxpayer dollars pay for athletic scholarships at UCLA. Jackie Robinson was a student at UCLA. You keep reaching hard on this one. You are clearly lying about your personal stake in this issue. Keep trying to come up with an obscure scenario.

I fully support LGBTQ rights. My daughter has even schooled me on the significance of "pronouns" (for those that aren't sure what I am referring to ask your teenage daughter about it).
 
No taxpayer dollars pay for athletic scholarships at UCLA.

I also fully support all basic human rights (which include all minorities). But any student that goes to a taxpayer supported school is benefiting from taxpayer dollars. For that matter, so are all of us.
 
I also fully support all basic human rights (which include all minorities). But any student that goes to a taxpayer supported school is benefiting from taxpayer dollars. For that matter, so are all of us.

That is not true when the athletic department has fully endowed scholarships. What this means is that the athletic department pays the school for each student unlike at some schools where they get a waiver. Athletes are some of the most profitable students at UCLA! Not to mention that the athletic department makes money!
 
Flawed argument. No taxpayer dollars pay for athletic scholarships at UCLA. Jackie Robinson was a student at UCLA. You keep reaching hard on this one. You are clearly lying about your personal stake in this issue. Keep trying to come up with an obscure scenario.

I fully support LGBTQ rights. My daughter has even schooled me on the significance of "pronouns" (for those that aren't sure what I am referring to ask your teenage daughter about it).

Player scholarships constitute only a portion of the athletic budget. UCLA sports programs are very much subsidized with public money even if donors and Under Armour pay for the scholarships and then some. The mere fact they play on property owned by the taxpayers of the State of California makes it more our business than the private USSF making people wear rainbow jerseys. Of course, you are forgetting that I'm not the one taking the position that a public entity shouldn't be allowed to use #42 hats if an apparel company pays for them. In fact, I think both are great ideas. The more support for equality, the better. Ironically, if you're taking the position that it's ok for a sports team to require players wear jerseys if a private company pays for them, also great, because Nike pays for the rainbow jerseys.

Seriously, what position are you taking exactly? A public entity should not support equality on uniforms unless an apparel company pays for them? A public entity can support equality but a private one can't? It's ok to support equality on uniforms so long as they tie it to one person who previously played for the team? Does the patriot Ashlyn Harris meet your standards? I mean, she's been a way bigger contributor to the WNT than Jackie Robinson ever was for the UCLA baseball team, since he only hit .097. Of course, if the rule is that a team can only support a civil right if it is tied to a player who played for the team, how do you explain the Texas Rangers wearing #42 jerseys? They didn't even exist when Robinson played. And how does it explain the Padres honoring our military? That's not one person. What kind of messed up cause is it to support our military industrial complex anyway? How can UC Davis school of law name their school after MLK Jr? Dude didn't even go there. Does the "must have been a prior contributor" rule only apply to sports teams but not law schools?

Ha ha, rainbow jerseys just keep coming, and Hinkle keeps going nowhere. If you really think Hinkle would have played in the WC if she'd just kept her mouth shut, hopefully all the bigots out there learn something from that.
 
Player scholarships constitute only a portion of the athletic budget. UCLA sports programs are very much subsidized with public money even if donors and Under Armour pay for the scholarships and then some. The mere fact they play on property owned by the taxpayers of the State of California makes it more our business than the private USSF making people wear rainbow jerseys. Of course, you are forgetting that I'm not the one taking the position that a public entity shouldn't be allowed to use #42 hats if an apparel company pays for them. In fact, I think both are great ideas. The more support for equality, the better. Ironically, if you're taking the position that it's ok for a sports team to require players wear jerseys if a private company pays for them, also great, because Nike pays for the rainbow jerseys.

Seriously, what position are you taking exactly? A public entity should not support equality on uniforms unless an apparel company pays for them? A public entity can support equality but a private one can't? It's ok to support equality on uniforms so long as they tie it to one person who previously played for the team? Does the patriot Ashlyn Harris meet your standards? I mean, she's been a way bigger contributor to the WNT than Jackie Robinson ever was for the UCLA baseball team, since he only hit .097. Of course, if the rule is that a team can only support a civil right if it is tied to a player who played for the team, how do you explain the Texas Rangers wearing #42 jerseys? They didn't even exist when Robinson played. And how does it explain the Padres honoring our military? That's not one person. What kind of messed up cause is it to support our military industrial complex anyway? How can UC Davis school of law name their school after MLK Jr? Dude didn't even go there. Does the "must have been a prior contributor" rule only apply to sports teams but not law schools?

Ha ha, rainbow jerseys just keep coming, and Hinkle keeps going nowhere. If you really think Hinkle would have played in the WC if she'd just kept her mouth shut, hopefully all the bigots out there learn something from that.

You really reached deeply for that one. I won’t bother giving you the Rangers’ connection to JR because it is pretty obvious what it was. I also won’t bother to respond to the statement about the athletic budget, because it is very clear that you don’t know what you are talking about (I can Google shit too). You are arguing about the wrong set of facts so like when my ten year old wants to argue I am going to just consider it as beneath me.

What I will say is if you think Ashlynn Harris is a patriot you clearly have never met an actual patriot.

I support some of your agenda but you are clearly the wrong person to be preaching the message.
 
To put Harris on a pedestal and look up to her after her comments and call her a patriot, is one of the most ignorant things I have read.

Obianuju Ekeocha, a public speaker and founder of Culture of Life Africa, was the person who shared an old video clip about Hinkle. In that clip Hinkle speaks about being called up to the national team and then declining it since they were wearing LGBTQ Pride Month jerseys.

Ekeocha wrote that “Apparently, the US women’s Football team is not a very welcoming place for Christians.” The remark was not prompted by anything current Hinkle said or did, or by any recent news coverage of the year-old comments.

Yet Harris puts Hinkle on blast in her tirade, and Harris is a patriot, attacking a player who didn't say anything about Harris or the team. Still SMH.
 
To put Harris on a pedestal and look up to her after her comments and call her a patriot, is one of the most ignorant things I have read.

Obianuju Ekeocha, a public speaker and founder of Culture of Life Africa, was the person who shared an old video clip about Hinkle. In that clip Hinkle speaks about being called up to the national team and then declining it since they were wearing LGBTQ Pride Month jerseys.

Ekeocha wrote that “Apparently, the US women’s Football team is not a very welcoming place for Christians.” The remark was not prompted by anything current Hinkle said or did, or by any recent news coverage of the year-old comments.

Yet Harris puts Hinkle on blast in her tirade, and Harris is a patriot, attacking a player who didn't say anything about Harris or the team. Still SMH.
Honestly. There are gay Christians too. WTHeck. What year is it? Feel like we we in the dark ages.

Wish they had just worn the rainbow jerseys, but allowed her not to. Then we wouldn't be talking about this ridiculous issue. They did have her to come back in to a camp, but you all seem to be ignoring that fact. The coach finally determined she wasn't what she wanted, like she did with many others. And then they won the World Cup.
 
Last edited:
That is not true when the athletic department has fully endowed scholarships. What this means is that the athletic department pays the school for each student unlike at some schools where they get a waiver. Athletes are some of the most profitable students at UCLA! Not to mention that the athletic department makes money!
The school would not exist without taxpayer funding. No school, no teams. All of the students benefit from taxpayer dollars.
 
Honestly. There are gay Christians too. WTHeck. What year is it? Feel like we we in the dark ages.

Wish they had just worn the rainbow jerseys, but allowed her not to. Then we wouldn't be talking about this ridiculous issue. They did have her to come back in to a camp, but you all seem to be ignoring that fact. The coach finally determined she wasn't what she wanted, like she did with many others. And then they won the World Cup.

Did the coach give her a shot? She didn't play a minute. Sort of like she gave Casey Short "a shot." Jill decides who she wants regardless of how they play. Crystal Dunn was one of the best players in the lead up to the World Cup in 2015 but she was left off for older players who didn't even play. Please explain to me a good reason why you leave one of your best players in qualifying off of a roster in favor of someone that you don't even play and never intended to play?

Let's be honest here. She invited her into camp likely to not appear that she was discriminating against her due to her views. The actual NWSL numbers say that she has been the best leftback in the league over the last 2 years. The actual NWSL numbers say that Alex Morgan, and others, are average to below average in the US professional league, yet they apparently are the best players that we have. Yes we won, however, I am convinced that any decent coach can pick 24 US pro players and win.
 
The school would not exist without taxpayer funding. No school, no teams. All of the students benefit from taxpayer dollars.

That is a silly argument. So even though no taxpayer dollars are consumed by a program AND they pay the school money for every athlete, your argument is that it is still eating up taxpayer dollars? Wow. So Stanford, $C and Harvard (which receive federal funding too) are in the same category because the vast majority of their money comes from federal or state sources?

Your argument is seriously flawed and shows that you don't know how Power 5 conference athletic departments are run.....
 
Honestly. There are gay Christians too. WTHeck. What year is it? Feel like we we in the dark ages.

Wish they had just worn the rainbow jerseys, but allowed her not to. Then we wouldn't be talking about this ridiculous issue. They did have her to come back in to a camp, but you all seem to be ignoring that fact. The coach finally determined she wasn't what she wanted, like she did with many others. And then they won the World Cup.

It does not matter to religious bigots that USSF invited her back to camp, although that is compelling proof that she did not make the WC team because she isn't good enough, rather than due to her bigotry. They ignore that she was not an elite player in HS who was never invited to play on youth NTs or even recruited by a power program. They ignore that she was never better than a 3rd team All-American in college, which made her maybe the 30th best player her own age. They ignore that she was never called up to play in any meaningful games even before her publicity stunt, but was only called in for a handful of games and a camp just like scores of other fringe players to whom USSF provides a nominal opportunity to impress but who also get cut. They ignore that she was not good enough to make first team in the NWSL in 2018. Or second team either. They ignore, in fact, that she has never made first or second team NWSL. They ignore that one of her teammates was actually good enough to make one of the NWSL teams, but even she wasn't good enough to make the WNT. It does not matter how compelling the facts are. Bigots will do, say and believe anything to oppose equality. When definitive proof establishes that she is not good enough to make the team on merit, they skip that part. When definitive proof exists that USSF invited her back to camp even after Hinkle's self-promotion campaign, they skip that part also. When definitive proof exists that numerous WNT players are deeply religious but still make the team, they skip that also. When they speculate that the WNT will go down in flames because Ellis discriminates against Christians and favors lesser lesbian atheists like herself, they ignore that she has steered the WNT to the most successful run in its entire history and is therefore obviously making the best possible personnel decisions.

Hinkle is just a pawn being used by a bunch of bigots to oppose civil rights, nothing more. I'd actually feel bad for her if she weren't such an awful person.
 
Teaching Sunday school does not make you an educator.

The WNT absolutely plays in a league, just like MLB teams. It is a league operated and overseen by another private company which you probably know as FIFA. USSF is literally no different than the Dodgers, although I understand that small minds cannot get past the reflexive jingoistic impulses that cloud their judgment every time a private business slaps the words USA and the red, white, and blue onto a product. I bet people like you get really jingoey when the Padres wear their jerseys supporting the military.

MLB requiring players to wear 42 jerseys is exactly the same as the WNT requiring players wear rainbow jerseys, with the exception they are supporting equality for different historically oppressed minorities. Regardless of how you misrepresent the purpose for MLB and USSF requiring its players to wear the specific jerseys, the fact is that both are doing so for the exact same reason - to show support for equality. Of course, people know better than to oppose equality and civil rights when it relates to blacks, but they think it is still ok as to gays. So they continue creating excuses in their minds and engaging in mental gymnastics in order to rationalize their opposition to full civil rights because the alternative - and reality - that they're a bigot is not something they will ever admit. It is the same reason you don't touch the issue of USATF supporting black history month. Or the US Chess Federation supporting Jews. There is nothing wrong with any of that.

This is a very simple concept. USSF is a private company. The LA Dodgers are a private company. Both play in leagues operated by a private entity. Both have every legal and moral right to support equality, and they do. Hinkle is a homophobe who opposes civil rights. Fundamentally, you and others like you know deep down that opposing civil rights is wrong but, you cannot reconcile that with the fact that your god says it is ok - and even said gay people must be stoned to death right up until he changed his mind and his kid apparently said you don't need to do that anymore. Well, that isn't good enough.

Unlike you, I harbor no illusions that you will learn from anything I am saying. If you think a god tells you it is ok to oppose equality, no amount of logic and reason can help you.

do you spout off like this to muslims too?
 
Back
Top