jv_coach

I saw this game in person, and Union Hill has some legit talent. They got two go-daddies and about 5-7 guys that enjoy being nasty. Now this was my first ever 6-man game so my knowledge is limited, but Union Hill passed the eye test and the played fast test

[Hidden Content] Tuesday, November 28, 2017 Culture Flat earth Conspiracy We Can Actually Learn Something from the Flat Earth Society The Earth is flat. NASA is a tax scheme. All you’ve ever heard of satellites, space travel and (of course) the moon landing – is a fraud. by Isaac Freeman The Earth is flat. NASA is a tax scheme. All you’ve ever heard of satellites, space travel and (of course) the moon landing – is a fraud. Let that sink in for a moment. If the statements above sound crazy to you, it may come as a surprise that some of those who read posts on the internet and watch YouTube videos made by a group called “The Flat Earth Society," including influential celebrities, actually think some of it – or all of it – makes a lot of sense. We might ask ourselves: “How is it possible that in #current_year, almost 23 centuries after the Greek astronomer, Eratosthenes, calculated the size of the spherical Earth with a minor error, do people still believe it is flat?” Furthermore, the most amazing thing about this phenomenon is that the number of “believers” in this conspiracy theory is actually rising! The Secret of Internet Marketing It is important to note that “The Flat Earth Society” is not a new group. In fact, it has been around since the mid-1950s and until very recently (no more than half a decade ago), it influenced – at most – a few hundred people (an example). So how on Earth (the round one) do they have over 68,000 followers on their Facebook page, and almost 12,000 followers on Twitter? And why do we have (at least in the United States) a debate about it in the media, which involves some distinguished scientists, explaining things to us which are clear-cut and obvious to most? My answer to these questions is that people don’t reject the exceptional – it makes them curious about it. A common urban legend in Israel claims that “if you want to make money in Europe or North America, you should open a falafel restaurant." The reason for this common belief is that people are attracted to the unusual, the innovative, the unique. Another reason for the partial success of “The Flat Earth Society”, at least when it comes to creating a discussion on a non-issue, is that they use the common man’s lack of faith in the government and traditional systems. In some of their videos they aim the arrow directly at the public education system. It is easier to make people doubt a subject, when you make them believe their basic instincts are right, and that which others are telling them is a lie. If the flat-earthers would have appealed to logic and science, no one would have been convinced in the first place. But the feature which is most remarkable, in my perspective, that gave me the idea to write this column in the first place – is the power of the internet, which makes small things look huge. A few weeks ago, I found on 9GAG a post with Andy Dwyer (a.k.a “Afraid to Ask” Andy) asking why there is even a discussion about Earth being flat? Here’s the reason: Vegans, feminists and other minority groups are already using the accessibility of the internet to make them look stronger than they might actually be electorally, and “The Flat Earth Society” is no different. As I was watching a video on YouTube by “The Anthony Cumia Show”, which has more than 1.5 million views so far, there was an option to answer a survey which had only one question: “Do you believe the earth is round?” 89% replied “Yes, it’s round!”, while 11% replied “No, it’s flat!” Read the results again, please. Eleven percent, one of every ten people who have access to YouTube and Google, believes the Earth is flat! That is simply IMPOSSIBLE! But here is the trick: flat-earthers are searching these videos, answering surveys online, and making it seem like their numbers are actually much larger, by scale of 100 or 1,000 times greater than their real presence in society (and we have a serious problem if they make up more than 0.01% of Western population). What Can Libertarians Learn from It? This long introduction was meant to help you – the activists who promote liberty – understand nothing is impossible, and your ideas can always be heard and actually attract new people. Someone calls you “crazy," when you speak about liberty? Use it to your own advantage. “The Flat Earth Society” may have 80,000 followers on Facebook and Twitter, and their video “Flat Earth in 5 Minutes” on YouTube reaches almost 1,000,000 views (as of May 2017), and the video named “Voted “BEST FLAT EARTH PROOF 2017″” has over 1.2 million views. (“Crazy” also means “unusual” and our curiosity makes us want to check ourselves if something is indeed – “crazy.") We all have a desire to challenge “the system” and to check whether or not what we were told when we were young was in fact – true. When you speak with people about liberty, use their doubts about the existing system, and show them, logically and with the help of past evidence, how liberty would benefit their lives. Activism matters! If people think you are everywhere on the web, and if they see you everywhere on the street, on campuses, and in political meetings, they’d think you have more influence than your actual power in the voting box. Those of you who read Friedrich Hayek’s Guide to Social Change would know what I’m talking about. Those who did not read it yet – please contact an SFL member who can send you a copy. Whenever you have doubts about people’s willingness to listen, just remember that even in the 21st century, when people drive to work using their GPS, making conference calls abroad via satellite phone or have access to live footage of Earth from space – they are still willing to accept the insane idea that the planet is as flat as King Arthur’s Round Table. You never know who reads your posts and remains silently lurking. Here are two examples: On my sister’s wedding, some of my cousins approached me, and instead of blessing me for my sister’s marriage, they had a single request: “You have to tell us more about this libertarian group you’re always posting about.” I have never spoken to them about politics until then. Yet for a long time, they read what I’ve posted and liked these ideas. Before the 2013 elections in Israel, when a liberal party ran in parliament for the first time in decades, a friend of mine from technical college, whom I did not speak with for almost 3 years, texted me. He said he wanted to talk to me about the upcoming elections. When we met, he revealed to me that this time not only was he not going to vote for his “traditional” party, but he wanted to actively help us get someone into parliament. Just like in the first example I gave – I did not speak with him about politics at all. To conclude, you can never know who you are influencing through social media or how this influence manifests. Yes, the struggle for liberty is not easy. We’re all aware of that. But with the right tools, even “The Flat Earth Society” makes a debate arise, and we have a far better starting point and the best ideas. Reprinted from Students for Liberty. Isaac Freeman Isaac Freeman is a 32 years old MA student for German and European Studies at the University of Haifa and a Local coordinator for ESFL in Haifa, Israel. Republish Open Comments

There’s only one antidote to the poison of consumerism. Giving. The benefits of giving are powerful: 1. Giving unleashes endorphins and creates feelings of happiness.1 2. Giving restores our role as stewards of God’s resources, not owners.2 3. Giving reminds us that “God so loved the world that He gave...” 3 4. Giving is more blessed than receiving.4 5. Giving stores up treasures in heaven.5 6. Giving to the “least of these” is giving to God.6 7. Giving put our blessing in perspective of others’ needs.7 Here are some groups that I have gave support to. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

The Proper Role of Government in the Economy November 28, 2017 Wallace Garneau Leave a comment Sometimes the most important questions go unasked. Politicians constantly debate the need (or lack thereof) for different regulations, but what never seems to get asked is what the role of government in the economy is. What framework should we use to decide when, and where, regulation is appropriate? What is government even for? Most discussions about government flip between extremes – as if the only answers possible are either an unlimited government, or no government at all. The vast majority of people want a government. We want police and fire protection, and a strong military, at the very least. In providing these things, government necessarily involves itself in the economy. Police, firemen, and soldiers all draw salaries. We have to spend money equipping our police, firemen, and soldiers. We have a whole industry built around national defense. We may disagree on specifically what government should spend on these things, or on what level of government should do certain things (between federal, state, and local), but we should all agree that spending the proper amount on legitimate government services – whatever that may be – is appropriate. What is an economy? Frederick Hayek said that we are the economy, and he was absolutely right. People sometimes look at the economy as some kind of machine that can be driven, but really the economy is made up of all the everyday activities each of us perform as we live our every day lives. Our jobs are parts of the economy. Everything we purchase are all parts of the economy. Every interaction we have that drives any form of economic activity – basically everything we do – that’s the economy. As such, there is no engine to start, or ‘it’ to drive. The economy is nothing more than the composite of all of our everyday activities all rolled together. We are the economy. When government manages the economy, it manages us. The government exists, primarily at least, to preserve and expand negative rights. In a libertarian society, each of us has the right to live our lives however we see fit, provided we allow others to do the same. Anything government does that protects our collective ability to live as individuals is thus legitimate, even to a libertarian. Protecting our nation from invasion is a legitimate government activity. Protecting freedom of the seas is a legitimate government activity. Passing and enforcing laws that prevent us from infringing on the negative rights of one another – these are all legitimate government activities. Some might want to expand this list beyond what libertarians would include, but I would hope we can all agree with those things I have listed, as a starting point of common ground. It is much harder to justify positive rights. If one person claims a right to food, they are claiming the right to force others to provide food. If one person claims a right to healthcare, they are claiming the right to force others to provide healthcare. While we all want, and need, food and healthcare, we have no right to force others to provide us with those things. We have, rather, a responsibility to work within the economy to earn the income to provide those things for ourselves. Obviously, a minimum level of income is needed to afford a minimal level of sustenance, and we might as a society try to create a mechanism to ensure that everyone has the ability to live at least at that level, but none of us have the right to demand anything from others without first doing what we can to support ourselves. As such, any legitimate wealth redistribution system must be based on making working-age people as independent as possible. Governments often guide public behavior through tax law. This is not a legitimate government function. We can debate how to tax, and what to tax, but I would hope we could all agree that the purpose of our tax system should be to fund government, and not to guide public behavior. There is one exception to this rule that I’ll get into in a couple of paragraphs, but for the most part, government has no role in guiding public behavior, beyond that of protecting negative rights. People debate whether we have too many regulations, or too few. A better debate would be that of what to regulate, and why. I would suggest that government has two legitimate roles in regulating the economy. Any regulation that follows these roles is legitimate, and any regulation that does not, is not. Those roles are: The first role is fairly straight forward. Markets tend to move toward higher levels of efficiency, over time, on their own, but in a truly efficient market, consumers know as much about products as producers do. Government has a role in enforcing truth in advertising laws, as doing so helps make markets more efficient. Government has a role in ensuring that consumers know the risks of using different products. Where government can make markets more efficient than they would otherwise be, it should do so. The second role is more nuanced. Note the use of the phrase, ‘societal need’, rather than ‘individual need’. The government should not provide for individual needs, but only for societal needs. Also, any need that can be provided by the market economy, should be. This still leaves roles for government, such as environmental protection. There may be other legitimate societal needs that run counter to market efficiencies as well. Rational people can debate what those things may or may not be. Whenever government regulates to perform the second role, it should remain mindful of the first. Government regulations should always be designed to have as little negative impact on market efficiencies as possible, and that is where the exception to tax policy I alluded to earlier comes in: sometimes the least intrusive regulation is the imposition of a tax. I rarely advocate for new government agencies, but we probably should have an agency that works with Congress to strike down regulations that do not fit within these two roles, and to try to constantly make regulations more efficient. I would also suggest that regulations should be applied at the lowest level practical. Each state should protect its own environment within its own borders. The federal EPA should only worry about pollutants that cross state lines. California should decide what Californians consider ‘legitimate societal needs that runs counter to market efficiencies.’ California should not decide what that means in Michigan. Needs should be addressed at the state or local levels whenever practical. That’s it. Government should have no other role in the economy at all. Government should not pick winners and losers. Government should not dictate societal behaviors. Government should not involve itself with defining the culture of the country. There should be no federal Department of Education. State and local governments are closer to the people they govern, and as such, local governments are far more responsive than are federal bureaucrats. There is no reason to have the federal government doing anything that is not truly federal in nature. There will undoubtable be some people who read this and who disagree with it. If you are one of those people, I would like to ask that you comment with your suggested framework. How would you determine what government’s role within the economy should be? This is one of the most basic questions of all, so let’s try to get this one right. We can debate the details later.

[Hidden Content] Football Coach Bill Curry: We Choose What We Worship Man has always worshipped. If we follow the course of history, we see that the objects of man's worship have varied from the ridiculous to God. As I studied history in high school, I felt that many men had been foolish in choosing what they would worship. I decided that my country must be extraordinary in that our people knew who ought to be worshipped, and how to worship Him. Georgia State University Bill Curry in 2012. I actually began to take pride in this knowledge, and to look around myself for the first time. As I looked at the lives of people, I came to the realization that they did not worship God at all, but rather chose objects to worship that were more foolish than any I had read about. I saw boys that actually worshipped automobiles, liquor or the idea of sex. I realized that many men active in my church had placed money first in their lives. I came to know girls that lived only to achieve popularity. Many may think that men and women could not possibly worship such things, but I think whatever a person places first in his or her life is what he or she worships. All these thoughts came to me rather suddenly, and it was awhile before I stopped to take a look at myself. What I saw horrified me. For almost twenty years, I had but one god: myself. I saw that almost everything I had ever done had been for number one: Bill Curry. I worked hard in football, basketball and baseball for one reason - to glorify Bill Curry. I thought that success in sports would ensure success in life, and thought I had arrived when I received a football scholarship to Georgia Tech. After about ten minutes of the first practice at Tech, I knew football was going to be mostly work from then on. I still loved it and do to this day, but I found out the hard way that it was not the way to what man is entitled to in life. God wants us to worship Him before all other things. If we want to follow God's plan, we will accept the power He offers each of us through Jesus Christ. Without Him, we are powerless, and will always revert to worldly wants. God has shown me a truly wonderful and abundant life through Christ, and I will always be thankful for it and serve Him with all my heart. I say this not in my own strength, but remembering Paul's words in Philippians 4:13: "I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me." Bill Curry, a center for Georgia Tech University football team, is a quiet, soft-spoken gentleman, possessing a winning sense of humor; but on the field he is an aggressive competitor and one of the outstanding linemen of the nation. He writes of his Christian conviction with candor and genuine feeling. * * * Billy Curry's words were written 50 years ago, appearing in the April, 1964 issue of The Christian Athlete, then FCA's primary publication. Five decades later, the words ring as true today as they did then. Then a center on Georgia Tech's football team, Curry would go on to play professionally for 10 years, winning Super Bowls with the Green Bay Packers and Baltimore Colts, before embarking on a coaching career that would take him from his alma mater, Georgia Tech, to Alabama, Kentucky and Georgia State. He also served as a television color commentator for ESPN. Through it all, Curry has been a loyal spokesman for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

Republican Sabotage by Wallace Garneau As a small government guy, I'm usually ecstatic when the government can't do anything. Government passes far more than it repeals, and as a result it tends to grow bigger over time, so when it does nothing, I'm happy. Doing nothing means that the economy has a chance to grow faster than does government, reducing the burden of government on our everyday lives. Gridlock is good. But there are two things the Republicans have to do: repeal the (Un)Affordable Healthcare Act, and simplify our tax code. We know what happened with the ACA; the Senate could not come up with anything all of the Republicans in the Senate could agree on. Now we're seeing the same thing with our tax code. Right now, the news story is that the tax bill is 'in uncertainty', but mark my words: the Republican Party will not pass any meaningful changes to our tax code, and in fact the Republican Party will not pass anything meaningful at all before the midterm elections. And why? Because there are quite a few Republicans who do not really believe in limiting government. These Republicans do not believe that free markets work, and they are afraid of being blamed when free market reforms fail. The Republicans will then lose the Senate next year, and be reduced to a perilously small majority in the House. In 2020, after four years of Republican leadership, Republicans will own their inability to do anything, and the Democrats will take back the House, deepen their hold on the Senate, and take the Presidency. Bold prediction? I think not. The lack of accomplishments will cause some Republicans to stay home, and a lack of turnout always leads to defeat. Sabotage by big-government Republicans will kill the Republican Party. The fact of the matter is that all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, are getting killed by healthcare costs, as well as by our complicated tax code. If the Republicans could fix those two things, or even just make them less bad, the lives of everyday Americans would improve, the American people would see that Republicans are capable of leading the country, and Republicans could ride an improving economy, and improving lives, into the midterm elections, perhaps picking up enough seats in the Senate that they could afford to lose a couple of votes and still pass legislation. Instead, the Republican Party is incapable of passing anything meaningful at all, and is going to go into the midterm elections without a single accomplishment it can point to. This will happen with a President who has, whether by his own fault or not, approval ratings that would clog a toilet. I'm not a fan of approval ratings. I'm a firm believer that if our government does the right things, approval ratings will follow. I'm also a big believer that many of the people in our country want the wrong things done, and we know from WikiLeaks that the mainstream media (which is far too centralized to be called a 'free press') is on the wrong side. As a consequence, chasing approval ratings would force government to do the wrong things, and though that might make approval ratings soar in the short term, in the long run it means disaster. And then we have scandals. Roy Moore should not define the Republican Party, but Republicans believe in due process, and were slow to turn on him. Democrats are going to take a Senate seat, and will continue to talk about Roy Moore at every turn, going into the midterm elections. Republicans can point to all of the allegations of sexual misconduct coming out of Hollywood - virtually all Democrats - but the media is not going to make the link between Democrats and Hollywood, and in the meantime now we have allegations coming out of Washington D. C.. I'm going to guess that since the Democrat Party has a history of protecting Democrats who commit sex crimes, such as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, that many of the allegations coming out in Washington D. C. will be against Democrats At least some will be against Republicans though, and those are the ones the media will focus on. I fully expect that for every story about a Democrat who has been accused of sexual misconduct, there will be ten stories on Republicans, and it will be the number of stories rather than the number of allegations that will drive public perception. The only way Republicans do well in the midterms is if Republicans turn out in high numbers. That will require at least one major legislative victory. It would be political suicide for the Republican Party to fail to simplify our tax code, and yet that appears to be exactly what is happening. Is it possible that some members of the Republican Party hate Trump so much that they are willing to destroy their own party to take Trump out of office? I can see hating Trump on a personal level. I don't know him myself, but he is often brash on Twitter, and has shown a willingness to bully. Those are valid reasons not to like someone. He has also been accused of some terrible things, and to the degree that some of those things may be true, certainly there is cause to dislike him there too, but those have nothing to do with the policies Trump is forwarding. Do we have members of the Republican Party voting against bills they would support if Mike Pence were President instead of Donald Trump? Do we have Republicans actively playing sabotage? What is important to note is that the Republicans who are committing suicide are not killing themselves, but their party. Keep in mind too that it takes but a simple majority vote in the House to impeach a President. It would be possible to impeach President Trump even with a Republican majority if that majority were narrow enough. Getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove Trump from office would be far more difficult, but the House impeaching Trump after the midterms is a very real possibility, and one that would have a significant effect not only on the next Presidential election, but on the 2020 House and Senate elections as well. The Democrat Party is dying. They showed that they do not believe in democracy in the last primary, and they have pivoted so far to the left that many even within their own party have trouble voting for them. If the Republican Party was not committing political suicide, Republicans would be gaining ground rather than losing it, but if the Republicans cannot pass a meaningful simplification of the tax code, they will lose the Senate next year, and both the Presidency and the House in 2020. And some of them seem to want it that way. The only way to lose to a dying party is to die yourself. To those Republicans committing sabotage on their own party: your fellow Republicans have long memories, and you will never win another election. I hope it was worth it.

One Act Play letter jackets are a joke

i still have mine, in the closet. It is a keepsake that you can show of to your kids. Also one will get their letter jacket on the hottest day of the year and wear it with pride, because it is one of the things in high-school that is earned.

that made me laugh so hard

[Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

Racism!!!

i hope they can stop it.

keep watching their movies and tv shows

there is a difference between a good team whooping a good team and a good team whooping a bad team. still why should school divert funds for a fourth place butt whooping?

Why go watch a play-off game if it is going to be a whoopin? Why should schools divert funds from eduction to go to a play-off butt whooping?

Then why have districts?

To make the game fun, Tenha should spot Colmesneil 35 points and give them 5 downs to get a first down.

what if we are all really just reflections of a forrest in a dewdrop....

I suspect a bunch of Roy Moore’s increased support is coming from evangelicals because they, like I, are starting to assume any ugly thing out of a liberal’s mouth is just another lie. Also, that if the Left is against someone or something, we should assume that person or cause is worthy of our support. The left for years has adopted the idea that “truth” is whatever supports your goals. If destroying Roy Moore’s candidacy is to be achieved, all methods are valid. The “authors” of the despicable Protocols of the Elders of Zion were amateurs in comparison to today’s Left.

I heard he had a brain tumor or something and that has something to do with his hair style....

I would not mind being 401 on that list

About Virginia was more about mid-term elections as to the presidential elections