I personally expect that all Allen > Darnold debate will be over this year and instead we’ll get more (cause we’re already seeing it) of the Darnold excuse train while those who have been anti-Allen from day one will amazingly forget the trash they had talked.
The bar is open once you throw the pre-supplied bricks through the window and liberate the poor alcohol being held in the clutches of evil capitalism.
Bonus points if you kill or maim the bar owner in the name of equality and unity.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your comment. I was under the impression that you were agreeing with the poster you quoted who said:
“I'll never understand why this stuff makes people angry. If you get upset over this you're part of the problem.”
I think it’s a well worn tactic to state a side and then create an ultimatum that those who don’t agree with your definition of the side are *insert pejorative here*
I can care 100% about social injustice and still think that much of the above video is offensive narrative and unnecessary pandering.
That feels more devistating. We go 75 to Diggs on the first play then come back and go balanced attack for 10/80 and 7 minutes and 7. 14-0 and the jets have barely touched the ball.
Then a pick six by Tre on the next drive and McD can personally deliver Gase’s pink slip.
I get that, but there’s no real evidence to date that he is an improvement, so people acting around here like we’re gonna be in trouble cause he isn’t playing must have been watching a different defense the past two years.
I don't understand where this narrative that Norman is a huge upgrade over Wallace is coming from... We haven't seen anything in Camp to suggest as much and Norman has not played well the past few years.
@C.Biscuit97
Do you believe that players wearing “black lives matter” on their helmet are actively supporting the organization black lives matter and in doing so supporting the leaders of that movement who have admitted to being ideological Marxists? Or do you think it’s possible to support the phrase Black Lives Matter (or even the org.) without also supporting that specifically?
I thought it was accepted that shooting back after being shot at was a form of white supremacy, racist intent, and police brutality... pretty sure that’s in the constitution so it can’t be debated. Clearly.
Why is he misinformed? What points do you disagree with? He even numbered his assertions making it very easy to respond to. To which point do you disagree?