4 hours ago, Original Sin said:

I could care less about a woman’s body , I just don’t believe I should have to pay for her poor choices . She made the mistake now carry to term and put up for adoption , plenty of people looking to adopt a new born .

That’s just wrong.  Many children don’t get adopted.  So the woman pays for her "poor choice” but it takes sperm and an egg to conceive.  The bottom line is that the the right to decide as to one’s own body is an unalienable right and preserved to the people under the 10th amendment.  Strictly from a cost/benefit analysis, I would rather fund an abortion than 12 years of SNAP, CHIP or education for an unwanted child.  I have really tried to stay out of this argument but the ignorance of your statement that plenty of people are looking to adopt is just unbearable to me.  It simply isn’t true for all children. Women don’t have a lot of choice on birth control.  A pill that adversely affects their health or an IUD which can also cause health issues. So "poor” choices should punish the woman only.  That’s so f’in sexist and moronic. I would never condemn my daughter to loss of health or death that can result from female birth control.  I bought my son condoms when he and his girlfriend got to a level where it might matter.  But condoms break, IUDs fail and passion gets away from you.  I did experience a condom breaking with a girlfriend and sweating out the result.  If only we had the morning after pill back then. And you should care about a woman’s body as much as your own. You truly lived up to Beast with that post.

3 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Well i did the MBA in economics too.

 

BS.  MBA and a PhD in an unrelated subject.   

3 hours ago, Green_Guinness said:

Backup keeper came on in the 2nd half due to the starter getting injured. Match was tied 2-2 after full time so went to extra time (two 15 minutes 'halves').  US got awarded a penalty and Pulisic scored.  Minutes later Mexico was awarded a penalty and the backup keeper pulled a 'Foles' and saved it.  US wins, 3-2.

 

A blind nut finds an acorn. The USMNT has genuinely failed so much, I find it hard to celebrate. 

8 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

BGN was just quote tweeting, the article was from, you guessed it, Jeff "The Axe Man" McLane

Of course it was McLane. That guy is the most critical/negative Eagles writer I swear. I wonder why we haven’t seen more Eagles execs/coaches/players snap back or call out McLane in pressers. I think Howie did it several months ago or maybe longer, but that’s the only one

So much stupid crap in here lately. 

13 hours ago, Utebird said:

If one wants to limit abortion get a vasectomy.

The simplest way to decrease abortion and save taxes would be to regulate men's bodies not women's 

 A women during a 10 month period of time can get pregnant exactly 1 time, during that same amount of time 1 man can potentially impregnate 100s of women.

It's simple math, want to decrease abortions shift the responsibility the gender with the potential to lead to more abortions, men, and regulate their bodies.

Of course that would never happen because the majority of law makers are Men.

 

I don't want to get into this discussion in here, but this might be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read. I had a vasectomy it has not stopped one person from having an abortion. If you want to "limit abortion" you limit it. If you don't want to (seemingly the way the world thinks) then use words like "fetus". 

This is my only statement on this. I believe abortion is murder and would be happy if everyone would stop discussing it in here.

6 hours ago, BigEFly said:

That’s just wrong.  Many children don’t get adopted.  So the woman pays for her "poor choice” but it takes sperm and an egg to conceive.  The bottom line is that the the right to decide as to one’s own body is an unalienable right and preserved to the people under the 10th amendment.  Strictly from a cost/benefit analysis, I would rather fund an abortion than 12 years of SNAP, CHIP or education for an unwanted child.  I have really tried to stay out of this argument but the ignorance of your statement that plenty of people are looking to adopt is just unbearable to me.  It simply isn’t true for all children. Women don’t have a lot of choice on birth control.  A pill that adversely affects their health or an IUD which can also cause health issues. So "poor” choices should punish the woman only.  That’s so f’in sexist and moronic. I would never condemn my daughter to loss of health or death that can result from female birth control.  I bought my son condoms when he and his girlfriend got to a level where it might matter.  But condoms break, IUDs fail and passion gets away from you.  I did experience a condom breaking with a girlfriend and sweating out the result.  If only we had the morning after pill back then. And you should care about a woman’s body as much as your own. You truly lived up to Beast with that post.

So abortion is your solution to a choice to engage in sex ?

again , I stated reasons when I would find abortion acceptable , and a broken Trojan wasn’t one of them , you did the deed now man and woman up 

and finally , for the last time , not one of my tax dollars should be subsidizing , other people’s bad decisions or choices when it comes to abortions

all I have to say on the subject 

9 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

But why did you quote me with your response about a topic I’m not involved in?  🤪

It wasn't intentional- I was going to quote you and then got distracted and when I returned to the board quoted someone else and both were in my response.

Proactive prevention is the key.

Colorado reduced unwanted pregnancies via access to free birth control.

Did Free Birth Control in Colorado Drop Unplanned Pregnancies by 40 Percent? - Truth or Fiction?

 

Can we please take this crap to CVON? Nobody will convince the other side, and frankly, Roe V Wade will likely never be overturned. It's a stupid issue that politicians use to distract from real issues that should be discussed. Like will K'Von Wallace actually produce something this year?

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

Level 42 or he's a bust

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

Top 10 overall pick — 85 catches and 1,100+ yards with 10+ TDs as the normal.

Reagor needs to get to 60+ catches and 800+ yards as the normal 

8 hours ago, Utebird said:

So if someone tells me 2+2=5 I should listen to them because they have a PHD in math???

 

 

No you stop pretending that you understand this linear algebra and listen to someone with a PHD in mathematics...because thats what you are trying to present as child level math

7 hours ago, BigEFly said:

BS.  MBA and a PhD in an unrelated subject.   

Yup. Funny how things happen. And they arent unrelated at all. R&D decisions are business decisions. Health economic outcomes are complex. I realized early on in drug development teams that this isnt just science and if i wanted to be really good at it i needed to understand more. Did B school at night on my company’s dime. Think of me as a renaissance man 🤪

12 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

Desean

i think he can be marvin harrison

35 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

Jerry Rice 

41 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

As a baseline, I guess I'd say Maclin. Talking level here, not style. But that's the minimum. I'd consider Maclin to have been a good receiver, but not great. If Smith is good, well, that's another good player on the roster, so it would help.

But I am hoping for -- and actually expecting -- something better than that. Someone more dynamic.

42 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

Absolute baseline like his lowest floor, T.Y. Hilton (prime T.Y.). 1,000+ yards but under 10 TDs most seasons.

57 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

 

Are you talking career wise or for rookie season? 

I'll go with rookie season.  17 games.  60+ receptions, 850+ yards and 5+ TDs would be the baseline for me.  I think he's capable for more though.  I think he has a really good year from the start though.  Seems like a guy who is coming in with a chip on his shoulder being the 3rd WR taken despite his all time great senior season.  He seems all business, all football and a straight up cold blooded killer's mentality.  Beyond that baseline I think he's capable of 80+ receptions, 1,200+ yards and 8+ TDs as a rookie. 

 

For his career if Smith can put up Maclin (2014) numbers on average, I'd be happy.

I really wanted Rochell in RD4 over McPhearson. The Rams know how to scout CBs so this is concerning.

1 hour ago, ManuManu said:

I ask this every year of our first round picks: What level of player would you be happy with Devonta Smith reaching as a baseline?

By baseline do you mean minimum? I'd like to see 800 yards and 60 catches at a minimum.  I will be disappointed if he's under 1,000 and 70 catches. 

13 minutes ago, RLC said:

I really wanted Rochell in RD4 over McPhearson. The Rams know how to scout CBs so this is concerning.

If the Rams know how to scout CBs then why do they keep trading for them or signing them in FA instead of drafting successful CBs? 

This is the first DB they drafted since 2014 which were safeties. Only decent CB drafted in the last 10 years was Janoris Jenkins in 2012 . So not sure where you are getting the thought they know how to scout based off that? 

Nothing against Rochell, I liked him as well. But I would not say the Rams know how to scout/Draft CBs based off their past.