Jump to content

35-0 halftime lead turns into Covid forfeit 1-0 loss


Boneyard Boys

Recommended Posts

So he moved to a fence near the field to continue watching the game, but the petty tyrannical school district couldn’t handle someone disobeying their useless mask order.  The police weren’t going to do anything so the school district cancelled the game.  It’s on them. It’s BS if they are rewarded with a forfeit win while losing 35-0.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eazy said:

So he moved to a fence near the field to continue watching the game, but the petty tyrannical school district couldn’t handle someone disobeying their useless mask order.  The police weren’t going to do anything so the school district cancelled the game.  It’s on them. It’s BS if they are rewarded with a forfeit win while losing 35-0.  

Amen.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tigers94 said:

I really hate these idiots who think they have a right to get sick and make other people sick. Just goes to show you how stuck on stupid America really is.

It is unfortunate that the kids playing the game have to be punished. They didn't do anything wrong.

Please read the article.. He wasn't allowed inside the stadium without a mask. That's just fine. Then he was watching alone from a distance and the game was still cancelled at halftime? This is a PRIME example of a power grab and over-reach by a petty school official. I get it if the guy was in the stands, he wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

The dad is a freaking IDIOT!

Why? Please explain how watching a game alone from a parking lot, apparently with no one else around with the exception of school officials who followed the dad to harass him, makes the dad an idiot? He was not allowed entrance to the game, and went to the parking lot to watch. Wearing a mask in a parking lot is the equivalent to wearing a mask alone in your car. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He picked the wrong sacrifice to make his point. He was still on their property. He knew the consequences, right or wrong, and he took a stand at those kid’s expense. I don’t agree with what the school made him do either. But I’m not gonna sacrifice all those kids’ win because I wanna be a jackass. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

He picked the wrong sacrifice to make his point. He was still on their property. He knew the consequences, right or wrong, and he took a stand at those kid’s expense. I don’t agree with what the school made him do either. But I’m not gonna sacrifice all those kids’ win because I wanna be a jackass. 

I'll counter by saying the school officials that made the unnecessary decision are the real jackasses. They did not have to do what they did. It was done out of pure animosity, hatred, and a hunger for whatever power the school officials feel they gained by taking that action. The guy went to the parking lot for crying out loud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they told me that I have to leave and I had a son playing on the team I will just had to leave I will not do anything or hurt the team like that he had a choice and he made the wrong choice he cause his son team to lose by forfeit it's not right for the kids to play real hard and lose like that but it's the choice the dad made and was he wrong I can't say yes or I can't say no if I know if I was the dad I would've just had to went home or watch it from the parking lot 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, gogo1734 said:

I'll counter by saying the school officials that made the unnecessary decision are the real jackasses. They did not have to do what they did. It was done out of pure animosity, hatred, and a hunger for whatever power the school officials feel they gained by taking that action. The guy went to the parking lot for crying out loud. 

I don’t disagree. Not one bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stangfan#1 said:

If they told me that I have to leave and I had a son playing on the team I will just had to leave I will not do anything or hurt the team like that he had a choice and he made the wrong choice he cause his son team to lose by forfeit it's not right for the kids to play real hard and lose like that but it's the choice the dad made and was he wrong I can't say yes or I can't say no if I know if I was the dad I would've just had to went home or watch it from the parking lot 

He was watching from the parking lot. Please read the article in the link with the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If u come to my house and I require a mask and u refuse to wear one and refuse to leave. I call the police and have him arrested for trespassing.

the subject was at their school which is their house . The law should have arrested him and it should have had no effect on the game. 
they should not be allowed a forfeit because the local law did not do their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team that was leading 35-0 was awarded the victory.  Both teams agreed to that.  People that have never had any power in their life now have this new found power over people and they are enjoying it.  It’s not about masks or safety of children.  They are actually destroying the mental health of their students.  Apparently that’s not a concern.  

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...