America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/47001424...oid-hurt-feelings/?intcmp=hpbt4#sp=show-clips

This really should be posted in the Funny News Stories thread but here goes. The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association has decided that some fans are just out of control and that total chaos reigns at some sporting events so they've decided to issue some new guidelines for cheering at sporting events. I realize that some of these are totally outrageous and may not be safe for work and I might be skirting a ban for saying this...so I'll put it in a spoiler so you can't read it accidentally.

Spoiler: Stuff you can't chant at sporting events anymore

"U-S-A, U-S-A",“Air Ball,” “Season’s Over,” “Fundamentals,” “Scoreboard,” and “Over-Rated.”

 

[Dennisch]

Wut.

Edit

Ah come on. What the **** is happening to the USA? Are you raising a bunch of pussies nowadays?

It used to be my go to country should I ever become rich, but the way it is going now, it hardly qualifies for a vacation.

Thanks a lot PC Principal. I mean Obama.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/47001424...oid-hurt-feelings/?intcmp=hpbt4#sp=show-clips

This really should be posted in the Funny News Stories thread but here goes. The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association has decided that some fans are just out of control and that total chaos reigns at some sporting events so they've decided to issue some new guidelines for cheering at sporting events. I realize that some of these are totally outrageous and may not be safe for work and I might be skirting a ban for saying this...so I'll put it in a spoiler so you can't read it accidentally.

Spoiler: Stuff you can't chant at sporting events anymore

"U-S-A, U-S-A",“Air Ball,” “Season’s Over,” “Fundamentals,” “Scoreboard,” and “Over-Rated.”

Here are the purported contents of the source email. If this is genuine then it's very hard to understand.

I don't see "U-S-A!" or "over-rated" in there though...

Seasons Greetings,

I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, as well as the opportunity to take a short breather.

Heading into the new year with the holiday tournaments and conference schedules ramping up, and the winter sports Tournament Series soon to follow, we want to identify a point of emphasis for sportsmanship this season.

As we reviewed the fall tournaments and the sportsmanship evaluations and observations, we want to address concerns with a noticeable increase in the amount of chants by student sections directed at opponents and/or opponents’ supporters that are clearly intended to taunt or disrespect.

Not wanting to restrict creativity or enjoyment, an enthusiastic and boisterous display of support for a school’s team is welcomed and encouraged at interscholastic events when directed in a positive manner. However, any action directed at opposing teams or their spectators with the intent to taunt, disrespect, distract or entice an unsporting behavior in response in not acceptable sportsmanship. Student groups, school administrators and event managers should take immediate steps to correct this unsporting behavior.

Some specific examples of unsporting behavior by student groups including chants directed at opposing participants and/or fans. Among the chants that have been heard at recent high school sporting events are: “You can’t do that,” “Fundamentals,” “Air ball,” “There’s a net there,” “Sieve,” “We can’t hear you,” The “scoreboard” cheer, and “Season’s over” during tournament series play.

Thanks for your assistance!

 

[CodeRedR51]

Ah come on. What the **** is happening to the USA? Are you raising a bunch of pussies nowadays?

Yes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here are the purported contents of the source email. If this is genuine then it's very hard to understand.

I don't see "U-S-A!" or "over-rated" in there though...

Which part is hard to understand? The USA thing was in a second article I didn't link.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which part is hard to understand?

Perhaps you could explain why WIAA have seen fit to issue this advice? Personally I'm at a loss.

The USA thing was in a second article I didn't link.

Understood. I'm just wondering where it came from as it isn't mentioned in the email, at least not in any publication of it that I can find?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Perhaps you could explain why WIAA have seen fit to issue this advice? Personally I'm at a loss.

Political correctness gone wrong? Liberal do-gooder attempts at making everyone feel safe and comfortable?

Understood. I'm just wondering where it came from as it isn't mentioned in the email, at least not in any publication of it that I can find?

It was in an article somewhere, I found it after hitting a bunch of links. Don't remember where it was from to be honest.

 

[ukfan758]

I wonder what Trump will say about this . As for my own opinion, I think that this is ridiculous.

 

[Dennisch]

Seeing all this. South Park is really hitting the nail on the head. Big time.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The NRA party like it's nineteen ninety ... uh, five:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-22/nra-criticises-australias-gun-laws/7106404

 

[squadops]

Funny how you consider some rights over others.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Funny how you consider some rights over others.

For one, I don't consider the right to bear arms to be a right.

But more imoortantly, if you're going to defend a right, do it properly. Don't intentionally misrepresent something for the sake of your own agenda. I know seventh-graders who do better research than the NRA. Unless you think that consciously relying on information that is two decades out of date and deliberately ignoring the subsequent regulatory changes somehow counts as good governance.

See, our gun laws encouraged a buy-back system. The NRA would have you believe that this amounted to the government taking your guns. It didn't. In fact, it was the first step on a soft reset of gun laws. Subsequent laws reclassified all types of guns and created a uniform, nation-wide system of registration and regulation, with stricter controls in place to track the sale of weapons; this simply modernised an out-dated regulatory framework. Any outstanding guns following the buy-back were, by law, required to comply with the new laws. Our laws may have made it harder to acquire a gun, but actually made it easier to own a gun and to transport it.

 

[squadops]

How do you justify one man's right to arms over another? Or do you consider no one having that right.

 

[Johnnypenso]

For one, I don't consider the right to bear arms to be a right.

But more imoortantly, if you're going to defend a right, do it properly. Don't intentionally misrepresent something for the sake of your own agenda. I know seventh-graders who do better research than the NRA. Unless you think that consciously relying on information that is two decades out of date and deliberately ignoring the subsequent regulatory changes somehow counts as good governance.

I don't consider Bernie Sanders to be a suitable candidate for President of the United States but that doesn't change the fact that he is a candidate for POTUS. Our feelings don't change the fact that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Our feelings don't change the fact that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

If you're going to mount a defence of the Second Amendment, don't you owe it to the constutuents and members to actually fairly and accurately represent the system? The NRA's video amounts to fear-mongering, falsely assuming that any degree of regulation amounts to a conscious effort by the government to undermine your rights, which in our case, is patently untrue. As much as our laws called for a greater degree of regulation, it also facilitated ownership under a national framework so that people no longer had to try and comply with multiple (and potentially contradictory) laws at the state and federal level.

After all, our laws were written with our constitution in mind, not yours - a fact that the NRA seems to have overlooked since they give the distinct impression that they think we wrote our laws with your constitution in mind. How, exactly, are they supposed to be defending the constitution when they are apparently unaware of there being many constitutions, much less which one they're supposed to be defending?

 

[squadops]

Nope

The right to arms is a check against the type of government you support.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The right to arms is a check against the type of government you support.

You have already demonstrated that you do not even read my posts, given that you have put words in my mouth on more than one occasion. Now you're taking liberties with what I believe, predicated on false assumptions.

So please, explain to me why anything you have to say has any redeeming value.

 

[squadops]

Who has a right to arms then?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Nobody. Because nobody needs them. If you want them, you go through the proper channels. If that means opening yourself up to increased regulatory oversight, then so be it. You are, after all, attempting to acquire a deadly weapon.

 

[squadops]

Are you serious? I'm sure you could easily petition your gov to give up theirs?

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you're going to mount a defence of the Second Amendment, don't you owe it to the constutuents and members to actually fairly and accurately represent the system? The NRA's video amounts to fear-mongering, falsely assuming that any degree of regulation amounts to a conscious effort by the government to undermine your rights, which in our case, is patently untrue. As much as our laws called for a greater degree of regulation, it also facilitated ownership under a national framework so that people no longer had to try and comply with multiple (and potentially contradictory) laws at the state and federal level.

After all, our laws were written with our constitution in mind, not yours - a fact that the NRA seems to have overlooked since they give the distinct impression that they think we wrote our laws with your constitution in mind. How, exactly, are they supposed to be defending the constitution when they are apparently unaware of there being many constitutions, much less which one they're supposed to be defending?

I don't need to defend the second amendment. It exists. Until someone passes another amendment that supersedes it, it's here to stay.

Nobody. Because nobody needs them. If you want them, you go through the proper channels. If that means opening yourself up to increased regulatory oversight, then so be it. You are, after all, attempting to acquire a deadly weapon.

I could count at least 50 deadly weapons in my house, all of which are easily concealable and none of which require any regulatory oversight. Every time I go out to work I carry a deadly self defense weapon I custom made for carrying in my truck to work in dangerous neighbourhoods after the boogeyman comes out at night. A cop saw it in there the other day when my truck crapped out on the highway and thought it quite ingenious. Perhaps we should create a new Bureau of Boxcutter Safety (aka the Bureau of B.S.) or a Kitchen Knife Regulatory Commission.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are you serious? I'm sure you could easily petition your gov to give up theirs?

Certainly. Our constitution is written in such a way that the federal government only has the power to make laws about federal issues. The states are free to dictate their own issues on their own terms, and local councils dictate their own issues. For example, if the federal government wants to reform taxation, they need the support of the individual states and territories, and the states and territories will only support it if the local councils are on-board. Meanwhile, parliament is structured so that there is equal representation across the states and territories regardless of population through the senate while also taking into account population disparity in the house of representatives.

In theory, if the people wanted the government to disarm law enforcement and defence forces, it could happen.

 

[squadops]

Well that would be something, you people give up your responsibilities and then request the government to do the same LMAO

Feel lucky in your freedom to be idiotic lol.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Weren't you listening? The federal government can only pass laws on federal issues. The state government can only pass laws on state issues. The whole constitution was written with the understanding that the states (and to a lesser extent, the territories) should be capable of autonomous governance. The federal government can only govern on issues that are common to the states, with the support of the states.

 

[squadops]

Let me know when your governments give up their weapons for the cause :rofl:

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't need to defend the second amendment. It exists. Until someone passes another amendment that supersedes it, it's here to stay.

So I am forced to accept that the Second Amendment exists, and that by criticising it, I am impeding upon somebody else's rights. But at the same time, when I am defending the policies designed to protect the rights of another group of people in another country, I am still impeding upon somebody else's rights. You don't see the irony in this? You've become the tyrant that you claim to be guarding against because you expect that one set of rights supersedes the other regardless of the context in which they are presented. You're assuming that the rights you value have more importance than the rights we value, and expect us to recognise this.

Let me know when your governments give up their weapons for the cause :rofl:

It will probably happen around the same time that you have to take up arms against yours.

 

[squadops]

How long has ours been around, and a measure of relative success?

 

[Johnnypenso]

More political correctness and mindless bureaucracy run amok in America. Here's the scenario. You're in grade 10 and another kid in your class goes down with an asthma attack. Literally falls off her chair and onto the floor, wheezing and gasping for breath.

Teacher's response: Sends an email to the school nurse and tells all the kids not to touch the person on the floor having an asthma attack. Yes, an email.

15 year old Anthony Ruelas' response: Defies the teacher, picks her up and carries her to the nurses office potentially saving her life.

Result: Anthony Ruelas is suspended for walking out of class.

Source

 

[Dennisch]

The PC crowd.

Destroying the USA one step at a time.

 

[ECGadget]

More political correctness and mindless bureaucracy run amok in America. Here's the scenario. You're in grade 10 and another kid in your class goes down with an asthma attack. Literally falls off her chair and onto the floor, wheezing and gasping for breath.

Teacher's response: Sends an email to the school nurse and tells all the kids not to touch the person on the floor having an asthma attack. Yes, an email.

15 year old Anthony Ruelas' response: Defies the teacher, picks her up and carries her to the nurses office potentially saving her life.

Result: Anthony Ruelas is suspended for walking out of class.

Source

That's just rubbish. Firstly on the count that the email was sent. Secondly on the count of that kid could have saved the others life. Do these people not know how serious an asthma attack can be? Stupid people. Whoever suspended him should be given their P45 and the teacher suspended for not even attempting to do something.