Jump to content

West Orange-Stark turf


Majestyk

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

This is going to look really good especially if you've been looking at this since the West Orange Chief days. And this turf is quick, I stopped by last night and ran a 4.3 just messing around. Can't wait for the first "Rouser on a rug" from Hooks stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Majestyk said:

This is going to look really good especially if you've been looking at this since the West Orange Chief days. And this turf is quick, I stopped by last night and ran a 4.3 just messing around. Can't wait for the first "Rouser on a rug" from Hooks stadium.

Someone told me that a satellite picked up what was thought to have been a missile launch in the West Orange area. That’s must have been u running a 4.28 40

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2019 at 9:24 AM, PlayActionPass said:

Does anybody in Orange own a Drone with a camera? We would like some aerial shots.

On 2/25/2019 at 2:30 PM, LC-M said:

Yeah I saw it awhile back. I was trying to make some easy money, I think the bears will be the first team to play on it.

TRASH!! I would go against the grain put wos in each endzone, and put the horse in the middle. And don't be like everyone else 

58029.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING said:

TRASH!! I would go against the grain put wos in each endzone, and put the horse in the middle. And don't be like everyone else 

58029.jpeg

I’m glad they’re not taking your advice.   The only thing that I’m going to hate about it is the soccer lines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Agreed. We dont even have a soccer team

Putting wos in each endzone and the horse middle would have been classic. But people r always afraid of what's different. I never said I didn't like the field, I posted that months ago it just pop up again when I showed the pictures. I'm the type of guy that hates happy endings in movies and loves it when everyone dies. Dont like everything being plain and simple. At the end of the day it is what it is. Soccer lines doesn't bother me, anything to bring in the cheese 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING said:

Putting wos in each endzone and the horse middle would have been classic. But people r always afraid of what's different. I never said I didn't like the field, I posted that months ago it just pop up again when I showed the pictures. I'm the type of guy that hates happy endings in movies and loves it when everyone dies. Dont like everything being plain and simple. At the end of the day it is what it is. Soccer lines doesn't bother me, anything to bring in the cheese 

TRASH!! ...pretty much means you don’t like it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wo-s#1 said:

TRASH!! ...pretty much means you don’t like it 

I like the turf i just wanted a different design 

6 hours ago, ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING said:

Putting wos in each endzone and the horse middle would have been classic. But people r always afraid of what's different. I never said I didn't like the field, I posted that months ago it just pop up again when I showed the pictures. I'm the type of guy that hates happy endings in movies and loves it when everyone dies. Dont like everything being plain and simple. At the end of the day it is what it is. Soccer lines doesn't bother me, anything to bring in the cheese 

6 hours ago, ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING said:

Putting wos in each endzone and the horse middle would have been classic. But people r always afraid of what's different. I never said I didn't like the field, I posted that months ago it just pop up again when I showed the pictures. I'm the type of guy that hates happy endings in movies and loves it when everyone dies. Dont like everything being plain and simple. At the end of the day it is what it is. Soccer lines doesn't bother me, anything to bring in the cheese 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...