- Messages
- 19,128
- Reaction score
- 11,077
This is so sexist. I can't believe you are enjoying yourselves talking about women that way.
God help us for the dearly departed Gentleman's Club.
This is so sexist. I can't believe you are enjoying yourselves talking about women that way.
This is so sexist. I can't believe you are enjoying yourselves talking about women that way.
All of them, cis scum.Which post is sexist?
10th grade.
They've got the height, and a year of high-school competition under their belt to help them adjust to the experience that the all-star women have had.
I think a team of the 12 best 8th graders in the country would be a pretty even match.
Like this dude here -- ]8th grader born with one arm inspires many with in-game dunks | For The Win -- is more athletic as an 8th grader than every single player on the women's national team. And he's not even close to an "elite" top level AAU player.
Good thing our military is focused on major cultural and structural overhauls to facilitate women in combat roles instead of learning how to stop losing wars.
I guess I'm not giving enough weight to the idea that the "best" kids are all usually anomalies for their age range.
I guess it's not unreasonable that there are 12 8th-grade boys out there that already have the height and developed coordination to handle the best WNBA players.
And that's really my only hangup when you ask "Just how young would the youngest team to beat them be?" is the puberty/height thing.
Idk whether or not you'd be pushing it to find 12 8th graders that are tall enough, coordinated enough AND skilled enough to beat the tallest/best WNBA shooters.
Usually those guys emerge as freshman or sophomores once puberty and some exposure in AAU has kicked in, right?
The amount of fouls the best women's team would have trying to keep up with even the best 8th grade boys would be insane.
They'd either give up layups and wide open 3s, or foul out in minutes.
Which post is sexist?
Anyone actually listen to the Mcenroe sound bite? He wasn't at all trying to go after Williams, and was surprised by the question.
Her passive aggressive, melodramatic response on twitter... Anyone want to talk about that?
"Dear John, I adore and respect you but please please keep me out of your statements that are not factually based. I've never played anyone ranked 'there' nor do I have time. Respect me and my privacy as I'm trying to have a baby. Good day sir,".
Adding fuel to a fire that isn't there.
Anyone actually listen to the Mcenroe sound bite? He wasn't at all trying to go after Williams, and was surprised by the question.
Her passive aggressive, melodramatic response on twitter... Anyone want to talk about that?
"Dear John, I adore and respect you but please please keep me out of your statements that are not factually based. I've never played anyone ranked 'there' nor do I have time. Respect me and my privacy as I'm trying to have a baby. Good day sir,".
Adding fuel to a fire that isn't there.
So regarding California's travel ban on states who aren't snowflakey enough, what happens when happens if UCLA somehow makes it to the Final Four next year in San Antonio?
Grammar issues aside, any citizen of California cared to go – no problema. Any state employee would have to spend their own damn money and not state funds.
Grammar issues aside, any citizen of California cared to go – no problema. Any state employee would have to spend their own damn money and not state funds.
Right. And UCLA's coaching staff, AD, etc., are state employees. And it's not just about Final Four games. What about regular season games? What about recruiting trips?
And it isn't just the listed states. They don't want to go to any state that "allows discrimination" against "LGBT" people. Well, that would be just about every Republican state. So are they actually going to avoid all of those states? Or is this just posturing?
Im aware anyone can go.
So how about the team? They gonna make the players pay their own way to get to San Antonio? Would it be improper benefits for boosters to give them tickets?
Grammar issues aside, any citizen of California cared to go – no problema. Any state employee would have to spend their own damn money and not state funds.
Grammar issues aside, any citizen of California cared to go – no problema. Any state employee would have to spend their own damn money and not state funds.
Grammar issues aside, any citizen of California cared to go – no problema. Any state employee would have to spend their own damn money and not state funds.
Also, I'm curious if they'll be allowed to go period since they'd be there as an employee of California rather than as an individual person.
This could be fun. California....lol what a bunch of loons.
Also, I'm curious if they'll be allowed to go period since they'd be there as an employee of California rather than as an individual person.
This could be fun. California....lol what a bunch of loons.
Yes, you can go you're just not allowed to use state funds.
If this gets all the way to the federal courts, expect it to be struck down swiftly. If I remember correctly from my Constitutional Law class, the courts have absorbed freedom of interstate travel into the Commerce Clause (which the Court bastardized long ago).