Multi Sport
DA
Still a pussy...
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
August 31, 2019
Rejection of Moral Absolutes Plagues the Modern Left
By Trevor Thomas
If death — anyone's death — brings you joy, you should intently re-examine your worldview. Even the just execution of a mass murderer — which I support in every case — should not bring anyone joy. As a Christian, I often find myself opposed — spiritually, politically, and otherwise — to those outside my faith. However, I take no joy in anyone's death, especially those outside of my faith. Christianity teaches that "each one of us will give an account of himself to God." Any death that results in eternal separation from God is always particularly tragic.
However, for those who have put their faith in the things of this world, who are determined to rule their own world, death usually has no such significance. Thus, for such people, like the death of an "inconvenient" child, the death of an enemy is often something to celebrate. The most recent case in point is the death of the wealthy philanthropist David Koch. After Mr. Koch died, many on the Left again found themselves in a celebratory mood. We shouldn't be surprised that those who engage in or promote the evil "shout your abortion!" movement would celebrate the death of a political enemy.
Nor should we be surprised that the hate-filled American Left would promise political — and perhaps other forms of — apocalypse if President Trump gets the opportunity to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will actually follow the Constitution. Liberals dancing with joy over the death of Mr. Koch were soon brought back to Earth with the same-day news that Justice Ginsburg underwent a fresh round of treatment for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas.
Despite our political, legal, and moral differences, I admire Justice Ginsburg for her strength and determination to do her job. As another recently noted, she has survived pancreatic cancer twice, lung cancer once, and colon cancer once. And she's 86 years old. Many Americans — no matter their political stripes — would be very interested in getting the names of her oncologists.
In an interesting bit of irony probably lost on Justice Ginsburg and her like-minded ideologues, if the U.S. had Medicare for All, or some other version of single-payer health care — a dream of the American Left — almost certainly, Mrs. Ginsburg would've long ago departed this world. Thank God for the U.S. medical industry, right, libs? (The U.S. has the world's best cancer survival rates.)
In their foolish efforts to create "heaven on earth" — Utopia — modern liberals have often relied on the courts to give them what they could not otherwise gain by winning elections and passing legislation. This is why the Left in the mainstream media — I repeat myself — and the U.S. Senate engaged in media malpractice and political treachery in their evil efforts to derail the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Many have implied that if President Trump has the opportunity to name Ginsburg's replacement, the battle that will erupt will make the Kavanaugh confirmation look like the Mayberry City Council debate on whether to hold a Founder's Day parade. This shouldn't be the case — because, as long as Senate republicans have his back, there is simply nothing Democrats can do to stop President Trump from nominating and having confirmed any judge he wishes.
However, today's Democratic Party is as far from rational as it is from moral. Even more than the vengeful tweets over a dead philanthropist or the angry threats over a potential Supreme Court vacancy, few things illustrate this as well as the gender debate the modern Left insists we have.
After (frequently) pointing out — and being far from alone — that the stupid, evil notion of "gender fluidity" most harms females — including young girls — I keep thinking the Left will soon abandon this wickedness. Silly me. I forget how blindly stupid those corrupted by evil can be.
Recently, the GOP candidate in Louisiana's governor's race, Ralph Abraham, made headlines — headlines! — because he ran a 30-second ad that included the phrase "as a doctor, I can assure you, there are only two genders." They were so aghast at MSNBC that host Chris Jansing declared that Abraham's comments were "incendiary." According to NewsBusters, Jansing's guest — because the Left must have its "experts" explain to us why there are not only two genders — went even farther and said that to declare that there are only two genders is now "despicable" and "un-American."
In other words, a statement that, just a few years ago, the vast majority of us would've considered so obvious that it was patronizing is now "incendiary" and "despicable." Orwell was indeed a prophet.
Thus, it should come as little surprise that those who can't tell the difference between who is a male and who is a female would choose to fight crime with euphemisms; still believe that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" really happened; still think man-made climate change is a real problem with a political solution; believe that widespread institutional racism still exists in America; and would conclude that "Seattle Has Figured Out How to End the War on Drugs."
That last bit of editorial "brilliance" was recently proffered by The New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff. I guess Kristoff missed the fact that Seattle Is Dying largely because of rampant drug abuse (and because "liberalism is killing it"). If he truly didn't know this before, he does now, because many of the 1,300-plus comments following his piece told him as much. Many of the comments were from Seattle residents.
SKM from Seattle wrote:
I live here and you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Downtown Seattle is a classic example of when inmates run the asylum. Downtown Seattle frequently feels like "Night of the Living Dead." Quality of life issues here are outright dismissed, all in an effort to help drug addicted zombies that walk our streets. Sleeping in doorways, public defecation/urination, shooting up right in the open, blatant drug dealing w/ out any fear of incrimination, verbal abuse, etc. I can more easily get a summons for jaywalking here than dealing Fentanyl.
Another Seattle resident, "robofaust," added:
As a 26 year resident of Seattle (and a x2 time voter for Ralph Nader and Obama), I couldn't disagree more. This city is littered with homeless drug addicts. Seattle's choice to "decriminalize homelessness" is just another term for enabling the self-destruction of thousands of people[.] ...
Every few days I come across people who are passed out, or worse yet, who are actively shooting up, at the foot of my home. Petty crime is rampant, and it is no longer possible to get the police to respond to a stolen bicycle or smashed car windows[.] ...
Rejection of Moral Absolutes Plagues the Modern Left
By Trevor Thomas
If death — anyone's death — brings you joy, you should intently re-examine your worldview. Even the just execution of a mass murderer — which I support in every case — should not bring anyone joy. As a Christian, I often find myself opposed — spiritually, politically, and otherwise — to those outside my faith. However, I take no joy in anyone's death, especially those outside of my faith. Christianity teaches that "each one of us will give an account of himself to God." Any death that results in eternal separation from God is always particularly tragic.
However, for those who have put their faith in the things of this world, who are determined to rule their own world, death usually has no such significance. Thus, for such people, like the death of an "inconvenient" child, the death of an enemy is often something to celebrate. The most recent case in point is the death of the wealthy philanthropist David Koch. After Mr. Koch died, many on the Left again found themselves in a celebratory mood. We shouldn't be surprised that those who engage in or promote the evil "shout your abortion!" movement would celebrate the death of a political enemy.
Nor should we be surprised that the hate-filled American Left would promise political — and perhaps other forms of — apocalypse if President Trump gets the opportunity to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will actually follow the Constitution. Liberals dancing with joy over the death of Mr. Koch were soon brought back to Earth with the same-day news that Justice Ginsburg underwent a fresh round of treatment for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas.
Despite our political, legal, and moral differences, I admire Justice Ginsburg for her strength and determination to do her job. As another recently noted, she has survived pancreatic cancer twice, lung cancer once, and colon cancer once. And she's 86 years old. Many Americans — no matter their political stripes — would be very interested in getting the names of her oncologists.
In an interesting bit of irony probably lost on Justice Ginsburg and her like-minded ideologues, if the U.S. had Medicare for All, or some other version of single-payer health care — a dream of the American Left — almost certainly, Mrs. Ginsburg would've long ago departed this world. Thank God for the U.S. medical industry, right, libs? (The U.S. has the world's best cancer survival rates.)
In their foolish efforts to create "heaven on earth" — Utopia — modern liberals have often relied on the courts to give them what they could not otherwise gain by winning elections and passing legislation. This is why the Left in the mainstream media — I repeat myself — and the U.S. Senate engaged in media malpractice and political treachery in their evil efforts to derail the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
Many have implied that if President Trump has the opportunity to name Ginsburg's replacement, the battle that will erupt will make the Kavanaugh confirmation look like the Mayberry City Council debate on whether to hold a Founder's Day parade. This shouldn't be the case — because, as long as Senate republicans have his back, there is simply nothing Democrats can do to stop President Trump from nominating and having confirmed any judge he wishes.
However, today's Democratic Party is as far from rational as it is from moral. Even more than the vengeful tweets over a dead philanthropist or the angry threats over a potential Supreme Court vacancy, few things illustrate this as well as the gender debate the modern Left insists we have.
After (frequently) pointing out — and being far from alone — that the stupid, evil notion of "gender fluidity" most harms females — including young girls — I keep thinking the Left will soon abandon this wickedness. Silly me. I forget how blindly stupid those corrupted by evil can be.
Recently, the GOP candidate in Louisiana's governor's race, Ralph Abraham, made headlines — headlines! — because he ran a 30-second ad that included the phrase "as a doctor, I can assure you, there are only two genders." They were so aghast at MSNBC that host Chris Jansing declared that Abraham's comments were "incendiary." According to NewsBusters, Jansing's guest — because the Left must have its "experts" explain to us why there are not only two genders — went even farther and said that to declare that there are only two genders is now "despicable" and "un-American."
In other words, a statement that, just a few years ago, the vast majority of us would've considered so obvious that it was patronizing is now "incendiary" and "despicable." Orwell was indeed a prophet.
Thus, it should come as little surprise that those who can't tell the difference between who is a male and who is a female would choose to fight crime with euphemisms; still believe that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" really happened; still think man-made climate change is a real problem with a political solution; believe that widespread institutional racism still exists in America; and would conclude that "Seattle Has Figured Out How to End the War on Drugs."
That last bit of editorial "brilliance" was recently proffered by The New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff. I guess Kristoff missed the fact that Seattle Is Dying largely because of rampant drug abuse (and because "liberalism is killing it"). If he truly didn't know this before, he does now, because many of the 1,300-plus comments following his piece told him as much. Many of the comments were from Seattle residents.
SKM from Seattle wrote:
I live here and you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Downtown Seattle is a classic example of when inmates run the asylum. Downtown Seattle frequently feels like "Night of the Living Dead." Quality of life issues here are outright dismissed, all in an effort to help drug addicted zombies that walk our streets. Sleeping in doorways, public defecation/urination, shooting up right in the open, blatant drug dealing w/ out any fear of incrimination, verbal abuse, etc. I can more easily get a summons for jaywalking here than dealing Fentanyl.
Another Seattle resident, "robofaust," added:
As a 26 year resident of Seattle (and a x2 time voter for Ralph Nader and Obama), I couldn't disagree more. This city is littered with homeless drug addicts. Seattle's choice to "decriminalize homelessness" is just another term for enabling the self-destruction of thousands of people[.] ...
Every few days I come across people who are passed out, or worse yet, who are actively shooting up, at the foot of my home. Petty crime is rampant, and it is no longer possible to get the police to respond to a stolen bicycle or smashed car windows[.] ...
Sheriff Joe
DA
August 31, 2019
The Lies of the 1619 Project
By Marc A. Scaringi
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/the_lies_of_the_1619_project.html
The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America -- that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it?
First, it’s hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites. The Project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times. She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. She’s doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America. And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.
Second, Hannah-Jones had dedicated her career to writing about racial inequality. She had previously stated that whites are as racist today as our forefathers, but that we’ve adapted over time to cover our racism with a “sheen of deniability,” and that from Jamestown to today, racial inequality is an intentional act by whites against blacks. So, Hannah-Jones came to this Project with a particular point of view. By reading her prior work, one can easily surmise the conclusion of the Project without reading a word.
Third, the major premise of the Project is based upon a lie. It claims America was birthed in slavery in 1619 when the first 20 African slaves disembarked at Jamestown. It claims America was not a nation, “conceived in liberty,” as Abraham Lincoln intoned, but instead a white, racist state begat through the original sin of slavery. However, Jamestown was founded by a British company over a decade before the introduction of slaves; its purpose was to search for gold and establish trade to enrich its owners, not give freedom to anyone. America was born in 1776 when we declared our independence to free the American people, including blacks, from British rule.
Even the Project’s claim that the blacks at Jamestown were enslaved by whites is based upon a half-truth. It states, “The pirates had stolen [the slaves] from a Portuguese slave ship that had forcibly taken them from what is now the country of Angola.” But these Africans were likely captured and enslaved with considerable assistance from blacks. In 1619, the Portuguese allied themselves with the Imbangala, a fierce African tribe that lived by marauding other villages and enslaving other Africans. The Portuguese used the Imbangala to attack, defeat, and enslave the neighboring Ndongo tribe. The Portuguese then sold the enslaved Ndongo to the Americas.
Concerning the African slaves disembarked in Jamestown, Hannah-Jones writes, “They were no longer Mbundu or Akan or Fulani. These men and women… Just a few months earlier… [t]hey were free.” Yet, it’s highly unlikely that they had been free. The Mbundu were part of the Ndongo kingdom, which had a large slave population. About a third of the population of the Akan states were slaves or serfs. By the late 19th century, slaves still constituted about 50 percent of the Fulani Emirate. In African society, which was based upon the caste system, the upper castes did not sell their sons and daughters to the Portuguese, they sold their slaves.
Slavery was not introduced to “America” by whites at Jamestown. The Native American tribes here had a long history of enslaving each other and once blacks arrived, they enslaved them too. Some American blacks owned slaves. In some parts of the south, a greater percentage of free blacks owned slaves than whites. Only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Slavery was not unique to America; it has existed throughout the world since before recorded history. In 1619, although slavery had been banned in Europe, it flourished in Africa.
Although America abolished slavery over 150 years ago, it still thrives in Africa. Africa has the highest rate of enslavement in the world with nearly 10 million enslaved today. There are more than three times as many people in forced servitude today as were captured and sold during the 350-year span of the transatlantic slave trade. The truth is America’s short-lived experience with slavery pales in comparison to that which has existed for millennia around the world and particularly in Africa. Slavery is “endemic” to Africa and is a part of its DNA -- not America’s.
Contrary to what the 1619 Project would have you believe, slavery and racism do not define what America was in 1619 or what it is today. America was born in freedom in 1776 for most and then born again with a new birth of freedom in 1865 for all. After segregation was ended and the full panoply of civil rights ensured to all black Americans, America has fulfilled the promise of its original charter -- that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” God Bless America!
Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi
The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America -- that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it?
First, it’s hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites. The Project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times. She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. She’s doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America. And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.
Second, Hannah-Jones had dedicated her career to writing about racial inequality. She had previously stated that whites are as racist today as our forefathers, but that we’ve adapted over time to cover our racism with a “sheen of deniability,” and that from Jamestown to today, racial inequality is an intentional act by whites against blacks. So, Hannah-Jones came to this Project with a particular point of view. By reading her prior work, one can easily surmise the conclusion of the Project without reading a word.
Third, the major premise of the Project is based upon a lie. It claims America was birthed in slavery in 1619 when the first 20 African slaves disembarked at Jamestown. It claims America was not a nation, “conceived in liberty,” as Abraham Lincoln intoned, but instead a white, racist state begat through the original sin of slavery. However, Jamestown was founded by a British company over a decade before the introduction of slaves; its purpose was to search for gold and establish trade to enrich its owners, not give freedom to anyone. America was born in 1776 when we declared our independence to free the American people, including blacks, from British rule.
The Lies of the 1619 Project
By Marc A. Scaringi
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/the_lies_of_the_1619_project.html
The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America -- that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it?
First, it’s hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites. The Project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times. She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. She’s doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America. And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.
Second, Hannah-Jones had dedicated her career to writing about racial inequality. She had previously stated that whites are as racist today as our forefathers, but that we’ve adapted over time to cover our racism with a “sheen of deniability,” and that from Jamestown to today, racial inequality is an intentional act by whites against blacks. So, Hannah-Jones came to this Project with a particular point of view. By reading her prior work, one can easily surmise the conclusion of the Project without reading a word.
Even the Project’s claim that the blacks at Jamestown were enslaved by whites is based upon a half-truth. It states, “The pirates had stolen [the slaves] from a Portuguese slave ship that had forcibly taken them from what is now the country of Angola.” But these Africans were likely captured and enslaved with considerable assistance from blacks. In 1619, the Portuguese allied themselves with the Imbangala, a fierce African tribe that lived by marauding other villages and enslaving other Africans. The Portuguese used the Imbangala to attack, defeat, and enslave the neighboring Ndongo tribe. The Portuguese then sold the enslaved Ndongo to the Americas.
Concerning the African slaves disembarked in Jamestown, Hannah-Jones writes, “They were no longer Mbundu or Akan or Fulani. These men and women… Just a few months earlier… [t]hey were free.” Yet, it’s highly unlikely that they had been free. The Mbundu were part of the Ndongo kingdom, which had a large slave population. About a third of the population of the Akan states were slaves or serfs. By the late 19th century, slaves still constituted about 50 percent of the Fulani Emirate. In African society, which was based upon the caste system, the upper castes did not sell their sons and daughters to the Portuguese, they sold their slaves.
Slavery was not introduced to “America” by whites at Jamestown. The Native American tribes here had a long history of enslaving each other and once blacks arrived, they enslaved them too. Some American blacks owned slaves. In some parts of the south, a greater percentage of free blacks owned slaves than whites. Only a small percentage of whites owned slaves. Slavery was not unique to America; it has existed throughout the world since before recorded history. In 1619, although slavery had been banned in Europe, it flourished in Africa.
Although America abolished slavery over 150 years ago, it still thrives in Africa. Africa has the highest rate of enslavement in the world with nearly 10 million enslaved today. There are more than three times as many people in forced servitude today as were captured and sold during the 350-year span of the transatlantic slave trade. The truth is America’s short-lived experience with slavery pales in comparison to that which has existed for millennia around the world and particularly in Africa. Slavery is “endemic” to Africa and is a part of its DNA -- not America’s.
Contrary to what the 1619 Project would have you believe, slavery and racism do not define what America was in 1619 or what it is today. America was born in freedom in 1776 for most and then born again with a new birth of freedom in 1865 for all. After segregation was ended and the full panoply of civil rights ensured to all black Americans, America has fulfilled the promise of its original charter -- that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” God Bless America!
Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. Mr. Scaringi is an attorney in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a radio talk show host of “The Marc Scaringi Show” on WHP 580AM and I Heart Radio and a Donald J. Trump endorsed Delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention. Follow Marc on Twitter @MarcScaringi
The New York Times “1619 Project” is being lauded by the media and many Democrats for what they believe is a long overdue discovery of the hidden truth of America -- that it was founded on white racism and the enslavement of blacks, and that even today the belief in white racial supremacy is so endemic to America that it’s a part of our national DNA. The Project will likely be used to advance policies in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country that purport to remedy this alleged injustice. Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Cal.) has already called the Project a “master-piece.” But is it?
First, it’s hard to take its claims seriously when its creators and contributors are privileged blacks holding exalted positions in journalism, the media, and academia owned and controlled largely by whites. The Project’s creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, is a black reporter employed by the white-owned New York Times. She holds a 2017 fellowship with the MacArthur Foundation, which was founded and endowed by a white man, in which she received a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. She’s doing pretty well as a black woman in what she claims is a white, racist America. And, ironically, even though she condemns white America for its alleged systematic discrimination against blacks, she demanded that whites be excluded from the Project.
Second, Hannah-Jones had dedicated her career to writing about racial inequality. She had previously stated that whites are as racist today as our forefathers, but that we’ve adapted over time to cover our racism with a “sheen of deniability,” and that from Jamestown to today, racial inequality is an intentional act by whites against blacks. So, Hannah-Jones came to this Project with a particular point of view. By reading her prior work, one can easily surmise the conclusion of the Project without reading a word.
Multi Sport
DA
I believe Espola had thoughts on this. Care to repost them about Tyler Skaggs?
Nonononono
PREMIER
Care to be more specific?
Multi Sport
DA
Wow... is your memory failing you again? Wait, that's a redundant question...
q.e.d.
Multi Sport
DA
Selective memory much? You're such a fraud and a fake...
What do you "remember" me saying now?
Nothing?
Multi Sport
DA
Fake and a fraud ...
Yeah, nothing it is then.
QUOTE="Nonononono, post: 284844, member: 2987"
5nos/Tony Clifton/Nurse Rachet/Bob
Diagram Below
View attachment 5277
/QUOTE
A list of accessories Bob will need to clean up his
act...!
A.
B.
C.
D.
Remember this order ( Pressure ) or you pop
Tony Clifton's eyes out........
C, B, D then A ( low hospital PSI )....
Results may vary due to excessive consumption
of Democratic " Gunk " that adheres to intestinal
walls ......
5nos/Tony Clifton/Nurse Rachet/Bob
Diagram Below
View attachment 5277
/QUOTE
A list of accessories Bob will need to clean up his
act...!
A.
B.
C.
D.
Remember this order ( Pressure ) or you pop
Tony Clifton's eyes out........
C, B, D then A ( low hospital PSI )....
Results may vary due to excessive consumption
of Democratic " Gunk " that adheres to intestinal
walls ......
Multi Sport
DA
So you're claiming you never commented on Tyler Skaggs?
What did I say?
Multi Sport
DA
Why... you don't remember?
I never heard of him before the news of his death and he played for a team I don't care about one way or the other. Why would I have anything to say about him?