Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sheerstress

  1. Oh come on. You know as well as I do that no agnostic or atheist individual alive is against gay marriage. It is religious individuals and religious individuals only. Sure you might be able to search and find that one or two agnostic or atheist individuals who are against it, but for the majority those who oppose are religious and specifically radical Christians or radical Muslims. Johnny I just sent you a PM.
  2. "Sheerstress what does the constitution say regarding religion? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Re-read it again and still come up with the same thing. Freedom of religion, meaning that I can be a Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, spiritualist or whatever I choose to be. The criminalization of gay marriage is adhering to the Christian religion and therefore saying that it is not ok to be anything other than. Once again a direct violation of the constitution." Johnny: I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing up this part of the Constitution, but this is what I see: Ammendment 1 of the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." All that boils down to is that there will be no state-supported religious body and that anyone is free to practice their religion peacefully in this nation. I don't see anything that says that an individual having an opinion or favoring certain legislation based on religious views is a violation. So with that said, how do you then come up with "The criminalization of gay marriage is adhering to the Christian religion and therefore saying that it is not ok to be anything other than."? You might be against gay marriage because you're a Muslim. Or a conservative Jew. Or a Buddhist or a Hindu. Or even agnostic or atheist or a-religious, simply because you don't like homosexuality. It doesn't matter. Being for or against gay marriage can involve religious or non-religious factors, and the government is not going to follow you into a voting booth based on your reasons for having a certain opinion. The Supreme Court might decide in a few months that gay marriage is permissible because it denies certain indivduals equal rights. I haven't heard that they will make their decision because of religious factors or the lack thereof. So again, my point is simply that just because you disagree with someone's opinion, religious or not, it does not necessarily mean that it's unconstitutional!
  3. "If a law's sole purpose is to effect another's life in a negative way, then yes that does violate the constitution." Again, we really differ on this one. There are innumerable instances in the legal system where one party says that another party's law or actions affects theirs in a negative way. Everything from abortion to wind turbines to buying health insurance, all throughout the political spectrum. I think that is more than evident. That, however, does not necessarily make the law or action unconstitutional. That is why the issue of gay marriage is up before the Supreme Court. "Legislators allowing such an issue to be up for debate in itself is what I'm referring to.....If someone tried making the eating of pork illegal, because when someone else eats a porkchop it offends them religiously, they'd be laughed at. The same way they should be laughed at for this issue. I'm glad that in many sects, they finally are." New York City succeeded at making it illegal for restaurants to sell meals with trans fats in them. They almost succeeded in making large sodas illegal as well. There are plenty of people in the food and restaurant industry who say that this negatively affects their livelihood. Again, just because you disagree with someone's opinion doesn't necessarily make their actions unconstitutional.
  4. "The first amendment protects speech, and allows anyone within reason and substance to say how they feel about anything without (at least in theory) having to fear possible repercussions for what they express. That's fine and something that should be tolerated, as it is protected by free speech. However, to further that speech into action legislatively is where the line is drawn." So you're saying that someone cannot vote on or promote legislation because of one's spoken beliefs? I'd really beg to differ with you on that one. Just because you don't like someone's opinion doesn't mean that you can stop them from exercising their right to vote or engage in the legislative process. That's whether you believe in the Bible, the Quran, the Communist Manifesto, Nietzsche, or your spaghetti monster. Whether the legislation is constitutional and/or impinges on the rights of others is a separate argument.
  5. I thought that Camp was headed for HWT.
  6. Now that hindsight is a perfect 20/20, it's easy to come in and play Monday morning quarterback. Back in the Fall, when the dual meets got off to a good start, and two of the freshmen were ranked, and all of the other wrestlers were doing well, no one was complaining about having "thrown them to the wolves." If the decision had been made to trash the season by starting all the second-stringers at 133, 165, and 184 (which is what you're implying should have been done), I really don't think there would be much love on this board for that "choice" either. I've already elaborated on that in other threads. I agree with wreferee that no one could have foreseen such a disappointing end to the season. Especially after so many changes made over the last two years. No where to look but up.
  7. "Does the fact that DT has four pins (three in the first period) and that Dake has had two tight matches change anyone's mind about who will win?" "this is Kyle Dake we are talking about. No one has even scored a point on him at this tournament and I believe he only gave up 1 point last year at the tournament. I expect the same type match they had before with Dake pulling out another narrow victory." Classic matchup of irresistible force meeting immovable object. I won't make a prediction at this point - it's going to be good!
  8. No, RS Junior. You get to enjoy his high octane style for 1 more year. And to think, some thought he was the best kid coming out of high school that year. He still has one more chance to AA and if he's smart he will get his weight down and wrestle 141. That's a big "if." Perhaps (hopefully) this year's results will encourage him to do just that. He's still got worlds of talent, but his tools just aren't the right ones for 149.
  9. Thanks for sharing that one - that really must have stunk for those guys.
  10. Not college, but one other guy who missed weight was Rulon Gardner, and back in 1996 at the Olympic trials. I think he missed it by less than a minute.
  11. The Davis story was one of the first I read in SI on Iowa wrestling, and one of many that kept me interested in the sport at the collegiate level: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
  12. White was a professional boxer, albeit briefly, before getting into the promotion side of things.
  13. Agreed - it really will depend on which Michigan team shows up tomorrow, particularly the guys in the last five matches you mentioned. Looking forward to it!
  14. Congrats to Q and his wife! Looking back, there have been plenty of wrestlers who have married while still in college competing, although having kids during this time seems to be another level of juggling an already packed schedule. I imagine Q's wife will handle more of the middle-of-the-night crying spells over the next several weeks as nationals approaches, although it will be payback time thereafter.
  15. There already is a penalty for leaving the wrestling area (fleeing the mat). I think it's more a matter of the refs enforcing, it or perhaps making a modification to the rule making it harder to stay in situations at mat's edge
  16. Wow, that was a nail biter. Nice to see the upper weights step it up. I was a little surprised about the HWT forfeit. At a time in the season when a lot of true frosh are feeling the grind, Massa seems to be getting stronger week by week.
  17. I'm not sure I understand: are you saying that the problem is that Massa may not AA this year, or that the problem is that not redshirting this year will adversely affect his performance for the next three?
  18. If they had redshirted the three and put in the others I mentioned above, the team might be 3-7 right now rather than 6-4. And the "lose a few more matches if it gives you a better future" strategy with the team was actually done back in 2009-10. At the time, I actually agreed (and still do) that it was the better thing to do, but people on this board were screaming for Joe's head all season - can you imagine what it would be like here if that had been repeated this year? That's probably why they've been alternating him with Chris Heald for a few duals - to soften the "beatdown." This is probably also Sean's and Donny's decison as much as it is Joe's, so they share some of the "incompetence." Yes, Jordan would certainly have benefitted from a redshirt, and I've mentioned before that ALL three of the true freshmen would have benefitted from that (http://www.usawrestlingnation.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14802&p=182818#p182818), but for now, this is what we've got. Sometimes when you start a true freshman you end up with a Hunter Stieber or a Jesse Delgado, but more often you end up with a guy who takes some lumps. That's the way it is. Michigan has actually defeated CMU the past two seasons, and narrowly lost this year's dual, largely because Jake Salazar had a herpes outbreak and couldn't compete. The Chippewas will have a bit of a rebuilding season next year themselves with Sentes, Corby, Bennett and Trice all graduating. It will be interesting to see how they do. And as far as the best kids leaving, what about Coon and Whitford? And for that matter, Massa and Thomas? I don't know why they actually decided on the route they took, but at the time (back in that horrible 2009-10 season, BTW) they took Smith out of the lineup, he was 2-7 in duals and injured. Collins was about .500 at the time, and was healthy, so they made the choice to replace Smith, which is in agreement with the idea here that a coach shouldn't just send out the guy who won the wrestle-off every time. Yes, Smith went on to Penn, but qualified for the finals of what?
  19. A bunch of Michigan wrestlers don't look very good. Zeerip, Bruno, Huntley, Jackson...even Yates is wrestling badly of late. Maybe injuries? On the flip side, Grajales has turned it on. He looks good. Whatever happened to Ben Apland? He was a promising hvy a few years ago. Grajales had a guy tailor-made for him last night. Did you see him at the Midlands--would make MI fans weep. At the Midlands I was in the midst of MI fans. They were at a loss to understand the coaching decisions that would take the red shirts off Bruno, Thomas, and especially, Massa. These three were combined 739-6 in high school with 12 state championships among them and they are struggling through true freshman seasons. So they should have redshirted these three, despite their having won the wrestle-offs, and put Grant Pizzo, Connor Brancheau, and Chris Heald in the lineup instead? I really beg to differ on that one - the duals against Oregon State, Pitt, and possibly even Duke would have been lost. Massa is doing fine (no, he's not going to be the next Cael), and Bruno was actually ranked top 20 a few months ago before hitting the thick of the Division I season. And as best as I can see, Thomas will be fine, he's just not going to contend for a spot on the podium for at least a few more seasons.
  20. Most of the people who were raving about all that were the ones who back in 2011 were also saying how crappy Michigan had done at recruiting and how substandard the coaching had become, despite a lineup full of blue chippers and several years of top 10 and top 15 finishes at NCAAs. Now, after changes made, two excellent coaches kicked out, and new coaches brought in, everyone's whining about how much better things should be already, despite having a lineup with as many as five freshmen starting. Sorry if you're disappointed, but this is the team you've got right now. Accept it.
  21. I didn't know of any program violations at LSU; the reason given back in 1985 was basically that it was just too expensive to run the program with the best competition being long distances away.
  22. Eric Siebert, Illinois Byron Tucker, Oklahoma Brad Smith, Iowa
  23. Boy, it sure didn't take long for this thread to turn into an extended pissing contest, did it? All over a former collegiate wrestler's success in MMA. Happy New Year everybody.
  24. How hard has it been for him to maintain the weight in prior seasons?
  25. Thanks Denny - have a great holiday season as well.
  • Create New...