44 replies to this topic

[The Legend]

lrnvlFan1w, on Feb 11 2014, 01:10 PM, said:

That's not how I took the original post.

I too think its ludicrous to make a law to have a Neurologist on the sidelines of a Pee-wee Football game.

If your kid gets whacked and has a head injury being a good parent and common sense should tell you to take them to a doctor.

Should be the league that places rules over injuries not the Government.

We have enough laws. People need to do what is right because it's right not because it's the law.

The point that's being missed is liberals don't want new laws because they care about people they want new laws to have additional CONTROL over people !!'n

[lrnvlFan1w]

The Legend, on Feb 11 2014, 02:46 PM, said:

The point that's being missed is liberals don't want new laws because they care about people they want new laws to have additional CONTROL over people !!'n

I agree with that.

Wait until he fully rolls out his retirement plan which takes everyone's 401k and invests them in Government bonds...

[Dirt54]

clwillis, on Feb 11 2014, 03:21 PM, said:

Nope not saying live in a bubble. Just saying these are not scraped up knees they are head injuries. There was a kid in lower New York who died from such last fall. His headache did go away. The bad way. I have never babied any of my kids. They all 3 played football. If they had a head injury your damn straight i want them checked out. That is common sence. The alternative sucks.

I am sure he isn't saying and I know I wasnt saying, about not taking the a kid to a hospital if they received a severe head injury. Read what he is saying, wake up America.

[scruffy1a]

BaconBits, on Feb 10 2014, 07:54 AM, said:

Head injuries wouldn't be nearly the issue they are if kids were taught proper tackling these days. Nowadays, kids are taught to launch themselves at the ballcarrier. They proper way to tackle is to put your head on the football and drive through the ballcarrier and wrap up around the legs. The proliferation of turf doesn't help things at all either. That shit is hard as hell.

But yeah, football by nature is a violent game. You take the violence out of it, and you take most of the mass appeal out of it, too. Liberals in power must be soccer fans, and want the mass appeal that football has.

If you want to talk tackling technique that reduces the risk of injury, check out Heads Up. It teaches neither putting ones head on the football, nor wrapping around the legs.

If violence was the reason for the appeal, would not the second most violent sport be the second most popular? It is not.

You're bunk.

[scruffy1a]

The Legend, on Feb 11 2014, 10:59 AM, said:

The people who died had pre existing conditions. If those impacts were deadly in a 100% healthy person people would be dying weekly in the NFL. A guy 270 running a 4.4 40 in a full sprint hitting a dude helmet to helmet on a full sprint the other direction isn't killing people. People have Alzheimer's who never took a hit in their lives. Back in the Pride fighting championships knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent were legal and no one died . It's simply the pussification of America . For every junior seau who killed himself there's 5000 dudes who didnt

I know you're trying to make a point - common sense should not be governed - but nobody who weighs 270 runs a 4.4. Also, a ball carrier and a tackler (especially a 270 pounder) both running full sprint at each other and making helmet to helmet contact is an extremely unlikely scenario.

You're saying liberals are trying to kill youth football. Do you think parents will be more or less likely to allow their children to play if they know there will be a doctor and/or a certified trainer present at all times? I know this staffing will cost money. It may reduce insurance premiums and increase participation too.

I skimmed the link on this thread, but didn't read the particulars. I found a similar situation (also from New York, no coincidence) from September, but the bill was getting zippy support. This will not happen.

Edited by scruffy1a, 12 February 2014 - 01:00 PM.

[The Legend]

scruffy1a, on Feb 12 2014, 12:59 PM, said:

I know you're trying to make a point - common sense should not be governed - but nobody who weighs 270 runs a 4.4. Also, a ball carrier and a tackler (especially a 270 pounder) both running full sprint at each other and making helmet to helmet contact is an extremely unlikely scenario.

You're saying liberals are trying to kill youth football. Do you think parents will be more or less likely to allow their children to play if they know there will be a doctor and/or a certified trainer present at all times? I know this staffing will cost money. It may reduce insurance premiums and increase participation too.

I skimmed the link on this thread, but didn't read the particulars. I found a similar situation (also from New York, no coincidence) from September, but the bill was getting zippy support. This will not happen.

If they require a neurologist on the sidelines that will be the end of youth football. Yes their are guys at 270 who run sub 4.5. Your right common sense has to apply , the parents played youth football and they are not shaking like Mohammad Ali ... This is just another manufactured Crisis by the liberals to grab more power ...

[dirtstudent2]

.

Edited by dirtstudent2, 12 February 2014 - 04:34 PM.

[The Legend]

dirtstudent2, on Feb 12 2014, 04:19 PM, said:

"If they require a neurologist on the sidelines that will be the end of youth football."

I found nothing out on the web, saying a neurologist must be present. That tells me your fears about the end of youth football are not real, except for something you were told, heard or conjured up in your mind. The premise you started this thread on, I cannot find any information indicating it is true.

What powers are you afraid liberals will grab from us?

If it's the power of the parent to decide critical things for their children, requiring a doctor to be at each game grabs no power. It might grab a nickel or two from the parents pocket to provide the doctor. I doubt you would want it any other way, A way like having tax money go towards protecting children, by having a doctor present.

When you think about this stuff, are you able to separate between additional cost and loss of power or rights? I think your concern is maybe one of forced taxes or cost, I don't see the connection to loss of power. I'm not for big government either, but there are things which alone we cannot do and must rely on government to do. My anger like yours is about how many hands are needlessly into my tax money. I also care that profits made consuming my tax money go to more people, instead of less and are minimal.

Please tell me what power or powers I'm loosing?

So you are a socialist and beleive profits are evil .... I'm done recognizing your existence ...

[dirtstudent2]

The Legend, on Feb 12 2014, 05:33 PM, said:

So you are a socialist and beleive profits are evil .... I'm done recognizing your existence ...

Good catch there Legend. I edited at 3:34 and you grabbed it at 3:33.

My words are there and there is nothing for you to rant about, name call and slander into socialism. I tried to erase the post, because I thought it would lead to what just happened. I'm still going to read your posts, because it helps keep me aware of ...

[JollyFun]

[quote name='The Legend' date='Feb 12 2014, 05:33 PM' post='386007']
So you are a socialist and beleive profits are evil .... I'm done recognizing your existence ...

So you are a 1%er? With an self proclaimed IQ of over 150 that puts you in the top 1%. MIT may be calling or Carnegie Mellon. Einstein should be your handle, not the Legend..

[The Legend]

I'm not concerned with being in " that " 1% ....

[JollyFun]

I'm not concerned with being in " that " 1% .... Well you only need to make around $400,000/yr to be in the "other" 2%. Good luck!

[dirtstudent2]

150+ IQ I'm curious to know what feel good liberal institution told you about your IQ. All the high IQ people I know or I think have high IQ's, are generally the sort of person you only need to explain or say something once to and they easily understand. They don't live by innuendo's and ranting, they don't need to. Life and things around them are clear to them. Somehow you just don't fit the mold of understanding and seeing what's in front of you as truth. I wish you good luck racing and I'm sorry we can no longer chat on a civil level. I don't know why you changed so much. oh well ...

[ItsmeItsme]

http://en.wikipedia...._encephalopathy

I'll close with how all posts should be closed when responding to some folks.

Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. — Mark Twain

[race ace]

is a person a liberal or a conservitive when they keep hacking up good late models and then bitch about them not rotating in the center ?seems to me the chasis builders would have it right in the first place and all that the hacker is doing is screwing up the design .just sayin!!!

[The Legend]

race ace, on Feb 15 2014, 03:46 AM, said:

is a person a liberal or a conservitive when they keep hacking up good late models and then bitch about them not rotating in the center ?seems to me the chasis builders would have it right in the first place and all that the hacker is doing is screwing up the design .just sayin!!!

Yes aesthetic changes are considered " hacking a car up " The ability to " hack " shit isn't in my DNA ... Look at the cars up in your hood then check out mine as tell me what a " hack " I am

[jmmr]

snooky, on Feb 11 2014, 10:40 AM, said:

Totally off topic of racing. Frankly, I'm tired of your vulgar posts. You are entitled to your opinions as messed up as they are but at very least keep them some what clean.....

I second this comment- nobody cares abt what u think about politics on a race site and the language is not appropriate here as well. Too bad the moderators don't do their job.

[snooky]

LIKE!

[The Legend]

snooky, on Feb 17 2014, 08:24 PM, said:

LIKE!

And you same people just bend over and grab the ankles every time a radical leftist tells you to exchange freedom for handouts .... You want to talk about vulgar ???? What's vulgar is the president telling the entire population of black people that they are completely worthless and unable to survive without welfare !!! That's what's vulgar !!

[Don88]

The Legend, on Feb 18 2014, 06:59 AM, said:

And you same people just bend over and grab the ankles every time a radical leftist tells you to exchange freedom for handouts .... You want to talk about vulgar ???? What's vulgar is the president telling the entire population of black people that they are completely worthless and unable to survive without welfare !!! That's what's vulgar !!

Now your talking!!!!
LIKE!!!