Jump to content

hardyaf

MotownSports Fan
  • Content count

    783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About hardyaf

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 06/19/1988

Converted

  • Location
    Houghton, MI
  1. Lions 2018 Schedule

    I'll take my crack, as the eternal optimist. W Sept 10 7:10p NEW YORK JETS (Monday Night Football) W Sept 16 4:05 at san francisco L Sept 23 8:20 NEW ENGLAND (Sunday Night Football) L Sept 30 1:00 at dallas W Oct 7 1:00 GREEN BAY Oct 14 BYE BYE LOVE (Dedicated to Rock & Roll Hall Of Famers The Cars) W Oct 21 1:00 at Miami W Oct 28 1:00 SEATTLE L Nov 4 1:00 at minnesota W Nov 11 1:00 at chicago W Nov 18 1:00 CAROLINA W Nov. 22 12:30 CHICAGO (Thanksgiving) W Dec 2 1:00 LA RAMS WL Dec 9 4:25 at arizona W Dec 16 1:00 at buffalo W Dec 23 1:00 MINNESOTA L Dec 30 1:00 at green bay ... 12-4? That can't be right. Honestly, as I posted earlier, I think this schedule broke in the best way possible, given the known opponents. NE, Seattle, Car, Rams all at home is huge Edit: I don't actually think that's how the games will go. I guess I bet they drop at least 2 winnable ones, but that's what I think happens if all games go by skill/home.
  2. Lions 2018 Schedule

    Without really knowing how good all the teams will be, seems like all the tough games (Rams, Seahawks, Patriots, Panthers) will be at home. That's a fortuitous break I think. Dallas really the only truly tough road game (non-divisional) is nice.
  3. Lions RELEASING Ebron??

    FWIW, I didn't think his comments were directed at Stafford at all. It seemed to me like he was saying he chose Indy over any other team because Luck can get him the ball. As opposed to going to Denver or something. Obviously going back to Detroit was not an option, so I'm not sure how Stafford plays into it.
  4. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    No gripes here. I hate poorly constructed arguments too. I disagree with your last paragraph, but don't have need to argue because IMO, you are being honest. Calling them babies, survive on their own, etc means you are acknowledging they are human, we just fall on different sides of "what should be allowable" in our government.
  5. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    I'd argue just because slavery was abolished in 1865, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong before then. And likewise we don't judge the people on the wrong side of history as correct because it was "of the times".
  6. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    If you have a moral objection to slavery, don’t own one. Don’t be a dick and force your beliefs on other people - and absolutely don’t have government tell you what you can or cannot do to your property. If you have a moral objection to murder, don’t commit one. Don’t be a dick and force your beliefs on other people - and absolutely don’t have government tell you what you can or cannot do with your body. We all understand there are circumstances where women are forcibly impregnated. It's still a human life. Similar to what I said wrt to guns, its just a question of where the line should be drawn, but to pretend its not killing a human is dumb.
  7. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    I can't agree more. Reference my earlier post. It's asinine the pro-choice crowd is pro-contraceptive, pro welfare, etc, and the anit-abortion crowd (outside of outliers like me) are against all of that.
  8. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    I hate the majority argument. Majority is not the same thing as being right. You are right. This doesn't relate to the gun control issue. However, there was no democratic majority around slavery, or around women's suffrage either. Until there was. You are on the wrong side of history here though. There will come a time where we look back and can't believe we ever allowed the murder of unborn children simply because we didn't think they were human. It's not a religious issue. It's a human rights issue. Edit: probably shouldn't have quoted you, but there have been a couple posts from people regarding this.
  9. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    The mental gymnastics people (Democrats) play to say a fetus isn't a human is just as bad as the mental gymnastics people (Republicans) play to stop caring about other people once they are born. We as a society have a messed up view on life Imo.
  10. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    Off topic, but I would vote for someone who wanted to do both these things, however I also think there needs to be a societal/government effort to assist our young men and women in not becoming pregnant, and we could probably do better at supporting people in need of welfare much better than we do.
  11. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    I guess this is probably part of what I am saying.
  12. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    You do you. I won't back down from the opinion that to pretend it's not a gun issue is ignorant, or lacking knowledge and unsophisticated. It's inconceivable to me that anyone could possible argue it's not a gun issue, so I won't pretend. It's not meant to be a reflection on you as a whole, since I don't know you, but this instance of your opinion. It is the best word to describe my opinion. At the end of the day, we aren't even just talking about mass shootings. We are talking about all the things deadly weapons enable.
  13. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    I know this was meant to be a bad thing, but quickly perusing that site, I can't help but notice how much training was emphasized. In fact, after ~3 minutes, I'm not sure what the card actually does for you, except apparently unlock extensive amounts of training. Even if its only lip service, hard to see how its anything but a net positive.
  14. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    The fact that you are even unwilling (in tandem to a mental health issue) to call it a gun issue proves the point. If you want to remove the word "gun" and call it an "arms" issue, that's fine too. Surely you don't believe I should be allowed to possess nukes, or chemical weapons, so we can establish you are in favor of arms regulations on at least some level. It just so happens that guns fall somewhere in the middle of what most American's consider an acceptable weapon for mass consumption, so to say there is not a gun/arms issue is once again, either lying, or being willfully ignorant. Please explain this method to me that you have that can determine who will shoot up a school/stadium/concert. I am capable of admitting I'm wrong. Like I said, I just want an honest discussion. There has been, and likely will never be a time in human history where everyone is mentally healthy. What does "mentally healthy" even mean to you? This ties into the above point. Mental Health is such a vague term. Are you going to eliminate depression? Are you going to eliminate jealousy? Are you going to eliminate greed? Are you going to eliminate bullying? What about the 99.9% of mentally unhealthy people who don't commit massacres? Are you aware that mental health is an extremely subjective concept? It's much easier to take someone who shot up a school and say he was mentally unhealthy, than it is to take a random person and tell me if he will massacre a bunch of innocent people. It wasn't my intent to hammer in on "without obstruction". You can say whatever you want there. The important thing is acknowledging that you are okay with the current level, or with a slightly lower level of people massacring eachother. Honestly, I don't even think that's a bad thing, I'm not even calling the "NRA camp" in the wrong. Our society is built on a concept of balancing good and bad. Example: It's good that I can get in a car and drive where ever I want. It's bad that I can get in a car and kill a bunch of people. I am comfortable saying I am willing to accept the current amount of driver deaths that are caused by the importance I place on this freedom. I also acknowledge we could have less driver deaths with more stringent driving laws. I don't think this makes me a bad person, and it doesn't mean I am against innovations to reduce the number of deaths. Likewise, it does not make you a bad person for wanting to protect what you probably feel is a very important right. I am not comfortable with how easy it is to buy a gun and go kill a bunch of people. I'm probably also not comfortable with the tighter level of restrictions that you are comfortable with. That's fine. Just be honest, if we all admit that "you are willing to accept that there will be a few massacres", and stop pretending the solution is to solve mental health, we can work on compromising on how many deaths, while tragic, are acceptable. Edit: it got long, so I bolded some stuff
  15. Gun Legislation, Crime and Events

    People who deflect the issue to mental health instead of guns do so because they know eliminating mental health issues is an unsolvable problem. They have a convenient scapegoat that will never go away, meaning no change to the status quo. Regardless of how you feel about current gun laws, that is a dishonest argument. I wish people would just say, "I am willing to accept that there will be a few massacres here and there, because the right to own a firearm without obstruction is more important to the collective good of our society than any individuals life". I would respect that person more, because at least we can have an honest discussion then.
×