Totally agree with free speech, but this dude is acting surprised that his X post caused people to spread hate towards the QB he says he is friends with. I mean is that not what you intended by posting that? Because if his intention wasn't to be a distraction or cause tension in the locker room then you dont post that on X. Kid better grow up if he doesn't think that far out.
If everyone was like you the world would be a miserable place. Bunch of people taking a roast of a comedian and turning it into platform to talk about how much you hate America. Come on my guy. This was never and never will be that deep. If you're so miserable, move to place that meets all your expectations of strangers. I mean or you could keep sitting on one of those billionaires platforms talking about how miserable you are all day.
@IlytrionNorsain@VerytiredLAfan@arakkosuperstar Was toriyama incorrect about the race of his main protagonist? Those examples are all about lore or detail. Not the main character of their stories race. Did blizzard for get the races of their characters?
If being slimy and gross was against the law I would but its not. Instead I'll do something that actually can help people that's within my power and vote out the people I think are unbecoming of positions of power in our country. I'll also be out here fighting for awareness for real monsters, the pedophile that are working for our school districts. The monsters abusing their own family members and the lack of reporting by the others who see it. This is an adult woman interested video who went into the situation trying to get the result she got for a movie. Not some innocent child being taken advantage of.
I'm going to put this simply. Is this guy a pervert? Sure. Is he doing anything against the law in this video? Not to my knowledge. Is she a consenting adult 5 years over the age of consent whom never disclosed what she is pretending to be? Yes. If being slimy and a pervert was enough to send people to incarcerate people most of the washington elite would be behind bars. I would go out on a ledge and say most old gross men with power have conducted themselves in a way similar to this with younger women and that's gross but not illegal. You insinuation of pedophilia is sad when there are true pedophiles out here committing atrocities to kids who aren't even in the double digits. Don't use it as a flippant argument and Tool to attack somebody who is on the opposite political spectrum of you unless there is proof. It lessens the crime for the monsters out there who are harming the children of this world when people are debating over whether somebody is a pedophile for being gross with 23 year old adult.
Raiders have one of my favorite draft classes so far
Mendoza
Stukes
Crawford
Zuhn
They have the second pick to start the fourth round. Would love for that to be Sarratt
Ty Simpson had 38 career pass attempts from under center
Only 10 FBS teams operated under center at least 18% of the time in 2025 and the top 3 of those were the academy schools
Doing it more often in the NFL is an adjustment for EVERY QB prospect unless you went to Iowa
@BrothermanPod@RazorbackNut59@TonyLaneNV@V_Lady2024 I have no problem with the officials being filmed. The officers responded to what they deemed a potential security risk in force but yet you claim they shouldn't have.
That dude comments and immediately blocks me. Real certain he has no ground to stand on. I work with incarcerated individuals and I can't tell you the lengths some would go to do this exact thing I posited. Taking photos of officers homes, leaving threats in their mailboxes. How dare the officers react to a random guy filming around the prison and their vehicles without jist checking in. Had he done that, I would bet not a soul would have given a crap. But apparently the security of the men who work their is of no concern.
Out of curiosity, consider this hypothetical: An individual posing as an 'auditor' films a location that could represent a potential security vulnerability. In reality, this person harbors no journalistic intent but is instead conducting reconnaissance for an escape plan, one in which they are prepared to use deadly force against a peace officer if necessary. Should responding officers, upon encountering such an 'auditor,' be expected to remain entirely unconcerned with the filming activity—dismissing any potential threat it might pose—simply because the federal or state government has not posted explicit signage prohibiting it?
Out of curiosity, consider this hypothetical: An individual posing as an 'auditor' films a location that could represent a potential security vulnerability. In reality, this person harbors no journalistic intent but is instead conducting reconnaissance for an escape plan, one in which they are prepared to use deadly force against a peace officer if necessary. Should responding officers, upon encountering such an 'auditor,' be expected to remain entirely unconcerned with the filming activity—dismissing any potential threat it might pose—simply because the federal or state government has not posted explicit signage prohibiting it?