Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wonder why the bad blood betweeen Mike D and Champ, or are you saying the University as a whole?Probably not happy with the university or going to have much of a relationship with Muschamp here. Some real bad blood between the two of them.
Probably not happy with the university or going to have much of a relationship with Muschamp here. Some real bad blood between the two of them.
Hopkins does it. A lot of guys do it, but that said GOD HATES THE GAMECOCKS AND WILL NOT STOP UNTIL HE HAS UNLEASHED A FURY UPON THE UNIVERSITY THE LIKES OF WHICH NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN.Why don’t Clemson players say their high school?
Why don’t Clemson players say their high school?
I've seen a few Clem-tech players say their High School namely Deandre Hopkins. He never says Clemson, he always credit Danial High and Clem-tech fans hate it!Why don’t Clemson players say their high school?
Who gives a ****
Probably everyone. What NFL players say and tell others about their college coaches and being a student at the schools themselves is
really important.
Not true. Hopkins recently spoke out about why he intentionally doesn't give Clem credit during intros. Compared college to a ponzi scheme. BTW, he's an idiot.I think a few of our guys have done that. Not necessarily bad blood.
The reason Mike D. was here was because of a fallout with Muschamp during that recruiting cycle. Like I said, it was a marriage of convenience where we were the lucky recipient, and I forgot that Muschamp was the guy on the other side of the equation.
GOD HATES THE GAMECOCKS AND WILL NOT STOP UNTIL HE HAS UNLEASHED A FURY UPON THE UNIVERSITY THE LIKES OF WHICH NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN.
Hopkins does it because he has a bad relationship with Dabo, who told the press he wasn’t ready for the NFL... and made similar comments behind closed doors to coaches and scouts. Costing Hopkins draft position and money.
WHAT?????He was commited to UF and was pretty much told he would be the man . I think it was FSU had a 5 Star guy decommit ( Thinking it was Matt Jones), UF offered him and he commited and it rubbed Mike the wrong way . That’s the story I got from my UF buddy .
He used social media to catch WM in a lie. According to MD, WM told him he was not recruiting any more RBs, then went after another. That kid posted a pic on social media and WM was busted. I thin it was one that eventually committed to UGA.Wonder why the bad blood betweeen Mike D and Champ, or are you saying the University as a whole?
Well, it puts me in mind of the women who keep their maiden names after they get married. They eschew the use of their husbands' last names as being overly submissive to men, but keep the last names of their fathers - who are also men. They exercise a right in order to not really prove anything.He said his high school, probably. A lot of guys do it. I believe his stint here was just a marriage of convenience, and that's okay. Not every player will eat, sleep and shit their alma mater. People are made differently.
Pretty damn funny.Well, it puts me in mind of the women who keep their maiden names after they get married. They eschew the use of their husbands' last names as being overly submissive to men, but keep the last names of their fathers - who are also men. They exercise a right in order to not really prove anything.
Wonder why the bad blood betweeen Mike D and Champ, or are you saying the University as a whole?
Not true. Hopkins recently spoke out about why he intentionally doesn't give Clem credit during intros. Compared college to a ponzi scheme. BTW, he's an idiot.
Does not bother me one bit nor are they exercising a "right." They just want to keep their name like you wanted to keep your name. It's pretty simple.Well, it puts me in mind of the women who keep their maiden names after they get married. They eschew the use of their husbands' last names as being overly submissive to men, but keep the last names of their fathers - who are also men. They exercise a right in order to not really prove anything.
Anytime you make a lawful choice you are exercising a right. Doesn't "bother" me, either. I've never even thought about my name. But if declining to take a man's surname is a choice, why is one man's surname any more preferred than another? Just make up a name of your own.Does not bother me one bit nor are they exercising a "right." They just want to keep their name like you wanted to keep your name. It's pretty simple.
I'm not following you. Are you saying a woman, when she gets married, should make up a new last name instead of keeping the name she was given at birth? So, you never thought about your name. You just kept it, because it was your name, correct? In fact, it wasn't even really a choice, correct? You just didn't do anything and kept your name.Anytime you make a lawful choice you are exercising a right. Doesn't "bother" me, either. I've never even thought about my name. But if declining to take a man's surname is a choice, why is one man's surname any more preferred than another? Just make up a name of your own.
Because marriage/civil unions are contracts - express or implied, and someone has to referee. Property and child custody issues alone dictate that. In case of dissolution, who is responsible for which financial obligations? People can't govern themselves in these matters.I'm not following you. Are you saying a woman, when she gets married, should make up a new last name instead of keeping the name she was given at birth? So, you never thought about your name. You just kept it, because it was your name, correct? In fact, it wasn't even really a choice, correct? You just didn't do anything and kept your name.
In my opinion the government shouldn't be in the marriage/civil union business, at all. Why are they?
Because marriage/civil unions are contracts - express or implied, and someone has to referee. Property and child custody issues alone dictate that. In case of dissolution, who is responsible for which financial obligations? People can't govern themselves in these matters.
As for names, once a person is 18, he/she can choose any name he/she wishes as long as that person has it legally recognized. So, in the case of impending marriage, and for the sake of harmony - or disharmony - don't alienate either father or husband by choosing either name. Just alienate them both, or neither of them, by coming up with another name altogether. As I see it, a woman marrying a man stands to be that man's wife many years longer than she was the ward of the other man. Her name isn't really her name after all, it's the name he gave her - HIS name. If it's that big a deal for her to go by "her" name, adopt another one completely that is "her" name..
So, if they split up, what becomes of the kids or the house? Those aren't just annoying technicalities, they are questions than have to be settled. Hence, the involvement of some exogenous entity, probably a government entity. Even arbitration must be sanctioned by some ruling legal authority.People have children all the time and don't get married. You can buy a house with somebody else and not be married.
Why is it HIS name? What happens if it stops being HIS name. What happens if women start keeping their names from birth then passing that name onto children? Does the complete fabric of society break down and the earth falls into ruin and despair? Does God smite our entire civilization? Does mankind become so confused and disheveled that society falls into complete gridlock? I don't know the answer to those questions. I do know that I have married friends where the woman has kept her name and married friends where the woman has taken her husband's name. Other than those facts there is no discernible difference between the couples. I respect either choice. Hyphenated names kind or irk me, but I'm looking forward to the day I can laugh at people with hyphenated hyphenated names, etc.
Bob Rodgers-Cromartie-Sefarian-Jenkins
What happens now? Probably that.So, if they split up, what becomes of the kids or the house? Those aren't just annoying technicalities, they are questions than have to be settled. Hence, the involvement of some exogenous entity, probably a government entity. Even arbitration must be sanctioned by some ruling legal authority.
I agree. And although I am apparently more traditionally inclined than you are, I have no problem with married women keeping their surnames given at birth. I don't understand the point based upon what I've said, but I recognize the legality.What happens now? Probably that.
I will say that two things I'd like to see in society is men have more equal footing in custody and divorce battles. In 2017 there is no reason that a woman should just up and get half a man's worth during a divorce and no reason to think a man isn't equally capable of raising and making decisions about a child.