LEOPOLD2

It's because there's not a single play on the team that any of us can really identify with or feel attached to in any way as an LSU player. And next year's team will be another completely different group of people.

I know I should care. But this is where college football has brought us. Nobody on this teams an LSU Tiger except for like three dudes. I cared more of that Chad Loup and Jesse Daigle then I ever will Sam Leavitt and they sucked. Rooting for a college football team used to mean watching guys develop and become part of the heart and soul of the team. Heck your typical NFL team has more loyal blood in it. College football has just become one giant glorified game of paid pickup football. There was like one guy on the team who actually gave a frick about for more than 6 minutes and he's injured right now and possibly odd for the season. Even when Joe burrow was a mercenary for us at least there were other guys on the team who had been around more than 5 minutes. There's not a single soul on this team I even feel bad for. I'm not sure they even really feel bad. They're getting paid.

I should add that the other problem with the conclusion is it pretty much fails to recognize that even smart people are dumb in some areas. In fact you can be a smart person Dumber in a certain area than a objectively less intelligent person. For example if you grabbed 10 random people from a Convention of brain surgeons and ask them to help you with your cattle ranch you're probably not going to have nice results. You're probably better off grabbing 10 cattle ranchers. And that's just the obvious but the cattle ranchers probably would also be better at helping you with basically anything related to farming than the genius brain surgeons. I meet people all the time who I know are objectively intelligent yet somehow painfully ignorant or just flat out stupid in certain areas

Fun fact. The DK results are highly dubious.

He's known for setting hyper aggressive goals which is not even particularly unusual among leaders. And nobody would give a frick except for that he is so visible.

quote:

---

it says anything possibly negative about Trump, it’s a hoax. He told us so

---

Oh for frick sake. Show some dignity for crying out loud

quote:

---

I noted multiple times that whether the claimant here is attractive or not has no bearing on anything, yet multiple posters have requested pictures of her so they could evaluate her claim.

---

I think the funny part about this accuser and the fact most women have run to support her is the fact that this accuser is exactly the type of woman that almost every one of these so-called supporters would fricking hate with a purple passion if they were around her in real life. And attractive woman that gets the attention of a lot of guys and is just a little bit slutty. If most of these people on the internet supporting her went to school with her they would have fricking hated her or guts

quote:

---

I’m telling mine that US women are a gamble

---

Yup. To the point that you almost need to demand that they let you video not because you feel like watching the video later but because you want evidence for when they eventually are embarrassed and feel like fricking lying

quote:

---

Glad you set the bar so high

---

Good Lord. This is pathetic

quote:

---

I don't have an answer

---

weird. You made a definitive assertion that if you're drunk you can't consent. Clearly you have a position. It appears as if you know the answer if you actually give one is a problem for your definitive position. Do you really think you're that slick? As for what my answer is. I think people responsible for their own fricking actions. If you get drunk you can still be found guilty of drunk driving. If you get drunk you can still be found guilty of murder. If you get drunk you can still be found guilty of basically every crime that exists. Which by definition means that if you're drunk you can fricking consent. But women want it both ways. Which is funny because basically the feminist position on this is that men are superior to women. Think about it. They're basically saying that men should be held to a higher standard if they get themselves drunk then we're going to hold women too. If a man gets drunk he still needs to be able to decipher if the woman really really wants to have sex. He still needs to be able to decipher if she's crossed the legally drunk threshold or not even though he's not walking around with a breathalyzer in his pocket. And if he gets any of that wrong feminist want his arse in jail. Meanwhile once the woman starts drinking it's literally an accountability free zone