Submissions: This user has upvoted 2908 and downvoted 367 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 25227 and downvoted 1216 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
Game Thread: New Orleans Saints (0 - 0) @ Baltimore Ravens (0 - 0), submitted: 8/13/2015 4:49:35 PM, 6 points (+6|-0)
Lardarius Webb Confident Despite Missing Preseason , submitted: 9/11/2015 9:10:15 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)
Ravens vs. Bengals | Week 17 Highlights | NFL, submitted: 1/4/2016 5:20:45 PM, 5 points (+5|-0)
Preseason Week 2: Ravens vs. Colts highlights, submitted: 8/24/2016 7:03:16 PM, 4 points (+4|-0)
4 Billion Years, submitted: 10/22/2015 11:17:37 PM, 4 points (+5|-1)
5 lowest rated submissions:
5 Things To Watch At Jacksonville Jaguars, submitted: 9/25/2016 11:39:58 AM, 0 points (+1|-1)
Redskins vs. Ravens (Week 5 Preview) | Around the NFL Podcast, submitted: 10/9/2016 12:06:38 PM, 0 points (+1|-1)
5 Things To Watch vs. Washington Redskins, submitted: 10/9/2016 12:08:28 PM, 0 points (+1|-1)
Ravens vs. Jets (Week 7 Preview) | Around the NFL Podcast, submitted: 10/23/2016 3:44:10 PM, 0 points (+1|-1)
Ravens owner says NFL games need to have fewer commercials (Cross-post from v/NFL), submitted: 1/21/2017 8:49:43 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
3 highest rated comments:
Pogogunner 1 points 13 points 14 points (+14|-1) ago
You're calling someone an ass and downvoted it because you're too lazy to google something yourself and they called you out on it? Go fuck yourself.
EDIT: Lol, you downvoted all of my posts. The butthurt is real.
Pogogunner 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
less than 2 weeks later I get a jury duty summons (which you can only get if you're registered to vote).
This is factually incorrect. So few people register to vote that they now select people from practically any government list (Drivers license, welfare, etc.) to go on jury duty.
Pogogunner 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
Not a constitutional right. A human right. The right to effective self-defense.
3 lowest rated comments:
Pogogunner 6 points -5 points 1 points (+1|-6) ago
but she's entitled to a decent payout.
Because someone took her picture without her consent? What they used it for is irrelevant. They have the right to videotape and photograph everyone who enters any building they own.
With the amount of editing in this photo, they might as well just blurred out her head. She has no case. Not even for removal of the photos.
Pogogunner 3 points -3 points 0 points (+0|-3) ago
She didn't consent, so they didn't use her likeness. Chipotle can show that they clearly edited the image so that she would be unrecognizable.
Pogogunner 1 points 0 points 1 points (+1|-1) ago
(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.