Ono eligibility

[CHROMEBIRD]

8 minutes ago, Boring said:

A guy earlier in the thread said Ono already had 3 years of college in Japan. 

I didn't think the NCAA still started the 5in4 eligibility clock for international transfers or even NAIA or CC kids anymore. Like there are Euro bball players who get 4 years of eligibility when they transfer here. Maybe they weren't full time at their old unis though, idk.

[Jason Bryant]

Pretty sure pistol duel scheduling should take place in NWT or the Zoo.  

I didn’t think supporting a duel championship was a thing in PSU threads ….


oh wait.

D-U-E-L.

My bad.

[Seanyd]

Boring is Tim Walz's lesbian nephew.

[Doublehalf]

On 5/1/2025 at 8:56 AM, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

On 5/1/2025 at 8:49 AM, Boring said:

I think as long as he's following the rules and isn't protesting anything, he is probably going to be ok?

I know we're trying to steer away from politics but I just have to point out the absolute absurdity of this comment-

"following the rules and isn't protecting..."

is an unbelievable thing to say from someone that I assume is proud to be an American and would seemingly be a person in a crowd chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A!

The right to free speech and ability to protest is one of the most quintessential American things to do. 
 

The fact this comment was so casually stated is frighteningly disappointing and disturbing. The unconscious brainwashing has really taken its toll to the point someone would claim protesting is not following the rules when it is a citizens constitutional right to do so.

[Le duke]

I know we're trying to steer away from politics but I just have to point out the absolute absurdity of this comment-
"following the rules and isn't protecting..."
is an unbelievable thing to say from someone that I assume is proud to be an American and would seemingly be a person in a crowd chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A!
The right to free speech and ability to protest is one of the most quintessential American things to do. 
 
The fact this comment was so casually stated is frighteningly disappointing and disturbing. The unconscious brainwashing has really taken its toll to the point someone would claim protesting is not following the rules when it is a citizens constitutional right to do so.

Well said.

“As long as you relinquish your first Amendment rights, the government won’t persecute you” is where we’re at in 2025.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

10 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

I know we're trying to steer away from politics but I just have to point out the absolute absurdity of this comment-

"following the rules and isn't protecting..."

is an unbelievable thing to say from someone that I assume is proud to be an American and would seemingly be a person in a crowd chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A!

The right to free speech and ability to protest is one of the most quintessential American things to do. 
 

The fact this comment was so casually stated is frighteningly disappointing and disturbing. The unconscious brainwashing has really taken its toll to the point someone would claim protesting is not following the rules when it is a citizens constitutional right to do so.

Here is the disappointing and disturbing problem with your post: We are talking about non-citizens.

[Mr. PeanutButter]

16 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

Here is the disappointing and disturbing problem with your post: We are talking about non-citizens.

Doesn't the constitution say something about inalienable rights for all munchkins tho

[ionel]

13 hours ago, Doublehalf said:

The unconscious brainwashing has really taken its toll to the point someone would claim protesting is not following the rules when it is a citizens constitutional right to do so.

 

2 hours ago, Mr. PeanutButter said:

Doesn't the constitution say something about inalienable rights for all munchkins tho

But you said citizens above not munchkins.  

[okokzach]

The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens. All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people."

The fact that the Framers chose to limit to citizens only the rights to vote and to run for federal office is one indication that they did not intend other constitutional rights to be so limited. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."

For more than a century, the Court has recognized that the Equal Protection Clause is "universal in [its] application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to differences of ... nationality." The Court has repeatedly stated that "the Due Process Clause applies to all 'persons' within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."

Source

[Le duke]

Here is the disappointing and disturbing problem with your post: We are talking about non-citizens.

The 14th Amendment still exists.

Every person on US soil still has equal protection from the government.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk