UNTstormchaser

Cool cool, anyone have any idea when they other side is going up?

Well played...

I was wondering the same thing.

I've got a TMish wingspan, so I can reach pretty easily. But thanks for the concern fellow Mean Green fan.

Really? It would be apples and oranges if I was comparing race and a true lifestyle issue, such as political affiliation, housing preferences, clothing preferences, musical preferences, career and money issues, whatever. Being gay is nothing like any of those. It isn't a lifestyle, it isn't a subculture (although admittedly many gays choose to live a certain way, but not all do). I don't know why you're turning this into a left vs. right thing, or a atheist vs. Christian thing. My point in bringing up Christianity and the bible is saying that one cannot legislate their religion, which is fact. I believe what I believe, and you believe what you believe, and neither one of us can legislate our beliefs. If it were up to me, God would be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. But that's MY opinion, and I cannot legislate that. The point I am attempting to make here is not that I want my views to be law. I don't want that at all. I am trying to make the point that we need to have equal rights for all, and currently that isn't the case when it comes to gays. Being gay is not a choice, that is a fact. There is no other evidence needed for that other than this: 10% of men are gay. That's all the evidence necessary, you know why? Because 10% of the world's male population would not choose to change their natural sexual orientation to live a life in which they are talked down upon, and don't have equal rights. My gay uncle has said he wished he was straight, because his life would be a lot easier. But he isn't, and that can't change. Whether or not it's genetic, or happens sometime during childhood development, is beyond me. No one knows which it is for sure. But, that's irrelevant. The point is that, as a nation where we say that everyone has the same inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), we cannot deny gays the right to get married. This isn't a lifestyle choice; sexual orientation is as much a part of who a person is as the color of their skin is. Due to this, we cannot deny them the right to get married. Denying them marriage is infringing on their freedom, or liberty. It also blocks their pursuit of happiness. I really don't understand why this is such a controversial issue, it's so freaking basic that it's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with left or right. It has nothing to do with Christian or Muslim or atheist. It has to do with inalienable rights, and simple logic. I'm going to now defend myself a bit here. I preach tolerance and understanding, you are correct. I preach that for all people. That is where I call others out. If you don't share the vision of all people having the same rights and everyone getting along, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, height, weight, hair color, whatever, then you are intolerant to whatever type of person it is that you don't want rights for. Again, simple logic. A person who does not tolerate another person due to things that they either are born with, cannot change, or that does not effect the judging person in any way, shape, or form, is not tolerant towards that person. This isn't even 1+1=2 in logic factor. This is literally 1=1. I'm not saying tolerate murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc., because those people harm others and effect people in a negative way. If someone wants to dye their hair the colors of the rainbow, what's wrong with that? It's a bit taboo, but why judge? It doesn't effect you at all. If you men or women want to get married because they love each other, and they want the same rights that straight couples have, what is wrong with that? It does not effect you or your life at all in any way, so why does it matter to you? I really do not comprehend how people fail to understand this logic. I reiterate, this has nothing to do with religion, nor politics. It is simple freaking logic. I have said countless times now due to the fact that people cannot read, and see me defending gays and immediately go into "attack the commie" mode, I support the rights of all people. I disagree with Christianity, that doesn't mean that I want it to be outlawed. As a nation we need to understand that people differ than each other, and there are going to be countless amounts of opinions, thoughts, etc., on every subject. That doesn't make one right or wrong, they're opinions. But it isn't an opinion that gay marriage should be legal in our country. It is fact found through logically looking at the inalienable rights that every citizen of our country has, and by looking at our constitution. If you don't want this country should legalize gay marriage due to your own personal reasons, or you think that it should due to your own personal reasons, those are opinions. There is a major difference there. I think that Jerry Sandusky should be tortured like we did to suspected terrorists at Guantanamo. That's an opinion. But, I know that that isn't going to happen due to our laws, and I believe that under our laws that it should not happen. If someone thinks that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, again because of their personal beliefs and morals, then fine. But they should also know that because of the fact that we have inalienable rights and because of the things in our constitution, namely freedom of religion, that it should be legal. They can have the opinion that it shouldn't, and they may believe that we should change our laws, constitution, and rights, to exclude gays, but until that happens, they should understand that it should be legal. Also, as a quick side story, to show you how this issue should have little to do with religion and politics, one of my best friends is hardcore Christian. Incredibly hardcore Christian. He's also a right leaning, gun loving, libertarian. He supports legalizing gay marriage. Not because he agrees with it (he doesn't), not because he wants to partake in it (he doesn't), but because we can't keep infringe on the rights of gays, regardless of the reason that they are gay. Everyone has the freedom to live how they choose, and as long as it doesn't harm others, it should be fine. That's basically his logic to it. And you know what? That's why he's one of my best friends. We may have major differences when it comes to religion, politics, and social issues, but he actually uses the brain he has and thinks logically. That is literally all that needs to be done here. Finally, I completely support CFA in being closed on Sunday's and believing what they want. As I said, what he said wasn't even an issue, or even remotely bad. People overreacted totally. But what he said did something important. It brought the fact that CFA donates millions of dollars to organizations whose primary purpose is to legislate Christianity, mostly banning gay marriage and abortion, to national attention. Most people nationwide did not know this, and that is what got people the most upset. I had already known this, it wasn't news to me, so I didn't give a damn about the whole fiasco, and I continue not to. I support the people's right to protest against CFA in any way and their right to stand up for what they feel is morally right. And I support the supporter's of CFA and their right to protest and stand up for what they believe is morally right. So, don't throw political and anti-religion labels on me. Be angry at me for being logical and for knowing more about the bible and Christianity than most Christians if you want to. But don't imply that I'm some liberal extremist who wants only my opinions to be tolerated. Get to know a few of us, we're a lot more tolerant and intelligent than you may think.

Yeah, he's living in a dream world unfortunately. But, like I said, I like the confidence. Apparently he isn't the only one either. I remember someone else tweeting (99% sure it was Roger Franklin) that too many people from UNT are trying to jump to "the league" next year, and that he hopes it doesn't cause problems. My best guess is that CJ's freshman failing buddy Jordan Williams is one of the others who thinks that. They're both talented and were successful last year, and both seem to lack in the intelligence department. Oh well, agents and scouts will tell them the reality after the season haha.

1. What ^ said. 2. Again, what ^ said, haha. 3. I was going to originally, but it's too expensive with gas both ways and a hotel on a student's budget. So unfortunately, my aunt's house is where it's at, unless ESPNU is added to my on campus cable this year. I don't think it was on there last year. 4. My money is on Brelan Chancellor, punt return TD in week 1. 5. I'm guessing cafeteria food ): or fast food, like Whataburger or Sonic. GMG! haha.

Haha, I never understood how people can gripe at me being lazy with my R's in words when everyone here forgets that there is a U in aunt. Too funny. Wakefield's a really nice place, all of southern RI is beautiful, and the untouched areas of the west and north are great too. The over developed areas like Central Falls....ick haha. I missed a lot about New England when I was gone last year, but it was my first year away from home so that's understandable. I think I missed trees the most. But at this point, I am counting down the days until my return to freedom...3 weeks from tuesday (:

Right on! Cool to see another New Englander on here. I'm from Rhode Island, spent my first 18 years there until I came to UNT.

You're hired.

Like I said, I find +/- silly, and I could care less. I'm not pandering, I was using it to make a point. But feel free to -1 me, I could really care less.

Well that just sounds awesome. Cool cool, thanks.

Ughh, why does everyone think we say that? Hahaha. I assure you I do not say that, nor does anyone else I've ever met. If I address a group where y'all would be appropriate, I say 'you guys'. I have no idea where the rumor started that us Northies say 'you'se guys', but as far as I know it's an incorrect rumor, unless some halfbreed from the mountains of Maine says it.

And, although I think +/- is a silly thing, to make a quick point, there is a reason all of my comments have many +'s. I'm being incredibly fair, reasonable, and coherent. If you find that to be annoying bickering, then fine. But I do not.

This is far from a confused post. Comparing murder to gay marriage is like comparing beheading a dog to accidentally stepping on an ant. It really just is simple logic that takes us to a very easy conclusion: If you are a human being in the United States of America (and many other countries around the world that aren't totalitarian crapholes), you have inalienable rights. These rights do not go away regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. People made the same arguments towards interracial marriage that you and many others make towards gay marriage today. "How can a "right" that never existed in the course of human history be "taken away"". You failed at contextual reading sir, and you're resorting to petty nitpicking to prove your point. A state that outlaws the legalization of gay marriage is taking away the chance of any gay person in that state to have the same rights as everyone else. When this is 10% of the population, that's pretty bad. Again, I can point towards interracial marriage; one could have made the same argument half a century ago. "Blacks and whites have never had the right to get married to each other, especially not here in the USA, so why should they now?", or probably even more accurate to what the logic would have been, "Blacks have never had the right to marry a white person before.". Look how that turned out? Today, that happens all the time and no one says a damn thing, because it's okay and doesn't effect even the most racist person's life. I'm not about to turn this into a religious argument, because this isn't the time, place, nor venue for that. But just to make a quick point, using the bible to validate an opinion on gay marriage is actually incorrect, and outlawing gay marriage due to the bible is literally illegal. If we come to some scientific and unbiased conclusion that legalizing gay marriage greatly endangers everyone else in the country and invades their rights, then fine, it shouldn't be legalized. Obviously, that's completely ridiculous and allowing gays to get married doesn't effect any of us that do not choose to partake in gay marriage in any way, shape, or form. But let me go back to the point that using the bible to form a negative opinion about gay marriage is incorrect. The only place where the bible explicitly states that partaking in gay sex or being gay is wrong is in the Old Testament. You know what else is said in the Old Testament? That those who perform incestuous acts should be burned privately in a family home. That adulterers should be stoned to death publicly in the town square. That a man that rapes a virgin girl must then marry her. We don't take morals from the Old Testament, and for good reason. Christianity is all about the New Testament, and that is where Christian morals come from; specifically, they come from the teachings of Jesus. While incestuous marriage is illegal, that is because of the scientific dangers behind that. Incestuous marriage used to be common practice, especially between first cousins. It was seen as a good thing, until science brought to light the fact that it is awful for reproductive purposes, and children born of incest have an incredibly high rate of deformities, especially severe ones. And while adultery is definitely frowned upon and Christian values have something to do with that, we don't outlaw it. I shouldn't even need to comment on the rape example, that's illegal because it's disgusting and infringes on the girl's rights. And to complete the point, nowhere in the New Testament is gay marriage mentioned, nor is homosexuality mentioned at all. To the last comment, I'm not stirring the pot. I view this as an intellectual discussion between people of different viewpoints. Besides, if you'll note 2 of my earlier comments, some things are bigger than sports, and this is one of them. And I don't mean any offense by anything I say, this is just my opinion that I feel strongly about, and I respect other's rights to disagree with me and tell me why. I also respect my right to disagree with them and tell them why. Cheers.

What exactly is at alumni pavilion? As a student I never felt the need to go check it out, nor have I heard anything about it.

Glad you guys are doing this. If I wasn't 1500 miles away still I would have helped.

I feel like this is a similar situation to one I found myself in about a month ago. My Celtics drafted Fab Melo from Syracuse, a big man with no skills but he's huge and good at defense, and has a high upside. The biggest difference is that he has maybe 5+ years to develop, whereas in college you only have a couple, especially if he is already 20. But, let's withhold judgment here. Benford knows what he is doing, and he wouldn't waste a scholly on a kid that he didn't think would help the team. Even in C USA, 6'10 is rather large. Even if he plays 15 minutes a game of just good D and rebounding, but is an offensive waste of space, it will be worth it. Not many schools have that amount of size.

Somewhat on topic here, just from looking at Chris Jones' twitter, it seems he thinks he'll be joining Mr. Mitchell on draft day next year. Obviously incredibly unlikely, but I like his confidence at least.

Hahaha. When I typed that out, I actually deleted the 'wicked' because I was unsure if people would understand my meaning of the word. Glad someone caught it You wouldn't believe the crap I got from my buddies for saying that...on a side note I have yet to accidentally drop a y'all, I must resist the urge!

Very cool, I'd love to see us land a top recruit. Kind of like a TM in basketball, but for football, someone a fanbase can get excited about from day 1. It's a pipe dream, but who knows. I know we had Dunbar, but the key he lacked was the major hype from day 1. Getting a guy with hype that pans out would be really cool, and drive attendance.

Agreed. Great for the students too. I'm wicked happy that they decided to build this.

I'd multiquote this, but I'm too lazy. Here's my 2 cents. Parking garage: a new one would be nice, but the one they have just sits there because of the prices, like someone already said. Parking costs in general are absurd, I have to pay $250 for the right to park my car at my dorm. It isn't much cheaper to get a spot in that garage, and I'd have to walk across campus. But, that parking garage is amazing for looking at thunderstorms in the distance, it's the highest spot on campus. And for shooting laser pointers at the TWU towers from up there.....(I'm 19 shut up, I can still do stupid things). Bridge: Photos look great, I'm really impressed by how it's looking. I had low hopes for it aesthetically, so I am happy. It actually is an important thing (in reference to Skiver's doubts), and it makes things a lot safer and easier for traffic in the area. The way it is now, they have to stop traffic on the access roads on game day and have people walk across the North Texas Ave. bridge. That is a major hassle, and if fan support increases going forward like we expect it to, then this is majorly important. It alleviates the growing traffic and gives us students a place to walk to the stadium without all the bullshit necessary for us to walk across the other bridge.

Zing.