2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yeah.  It's kind of a weird option.  And we need one that is a little more negative than the confused one.  Like a thumbs down would be cool.  

We need an eye roll option for you and I to put on each other’s posts. 

5 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yeah.  It's kind of a weird option.  And we need one that is a little more negative than the confused one.  Like a thumbs down would be cool.  

@VaBeach_Eagle can we get the thumbs down and other negative reactions added ??

4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

That wouldn't even make the top 10 of brain farts for him this week (or any week for that matter)

You only have to look at my last reply to him for something else.

2 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

As far as America needing it's citizens to defend her....Bacarty actually made a great point. In Afghan/Iraq, their hands were tied due to humanitarian concerns. If America is being invaded (which is insanely unlikely, like, even more unlikely than Hurts becoming a good QB), then there won't be humanitarian concerns when it comes to the army protecting the country. America could basically turn any country in the world into glass if it wants to. It's laughable that they could be invaded by boots on the ground, and only saved by gun toting citizens. 

This is off topic, but my attempt at an apolitical response:

We at an unprecedented point in human history where we are experiencing substantial evolution of warfare technology without large scale warfare.

Technology, AI, cyberattacks, drones…all more important than boots on the ground.  But there hasn’t been a large scale conflict to demonstrate that.  Afghanistan and Iraq were combating guerrilla warfare, which is a different tactical problem entirely.

If the US military didn’t exist, the damn Mexican army, let alone a more powerful country, could effortlessly roll through the whole country right to the Canadian border; some armed civilians wouldn’t even be meaningful resistance.  However, there is a difference between mowing down a country and maintaining control, as the US has learned the hard way multiple times.  Well armed, pissed off civilians across a large land mass are problematic to control.  

3 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@VaBeach_Eagle can we get the thumbs down and other negative reactions added ??

Lets get spicy and add a middle finger

4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Ahhh thank you.......sucker.  

6 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Ahhh thank you.......sucker.  

oh gdi 

Geez, this Raiders coach deserves the job in the long haul if they win the division after all their madness this year. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

moving goal post. good work

I did not move the goal post, explain that or how I am wrong.

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Austin Ekler against our linebackers on Sunday?   Oh boy.   Not gonna be pretty.  

Did a pretty solid job against a similar RB last week

5 hours ago, austinfan said:

Another anti-vaxxer idiot, infection with the original strains of COVID doesn't provide good protection against the Delta variant, which is why they recommend that those who have been infected get at least one vaccination shot - the combo provides a much higher level of immunity. This isn't opinion, they do studies to examine these things, then update as more studies are performed (and yes, it takes time to gather reliable data, any jackass can spout off an opinion supported by lumberjacks).

It's real easy to get legitimate information, get the f*** off Facebook, turn off Fox news, and go to Google Scholar. Or even Google, if you stick to reputable sites like Harvard Health or the Mayo clinic.

What makes people uncomfortable with "Science" is that Science doesn't often provide definitive answers, it's an ongoing dialogue where information is updated as new evidence is gathered and analyzed. The only certain things in life are death and taxes (and the rich can afford the lawyers and accountants to dodge the latter to some extent). But Science is still far more reliable than the rantings of media personalities.

Only 2-3% are re-infections 

The adjusted odds ratio of reinfection with the Delta variant was 1.46 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.05) compared to the Alpha variant. The risk of reinfection was not elevated for Delta if the primary infection was <180 days (adjusted odds ratio = 0.79, 95% CI 0.49 to1.28) but was higher for those with a prior infection ≥180 days earlier (adjusted odds ratio = 2.37, 95%CI 1.43 to 3.93). Further work to examine the risk of reinfection is being undertaken

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005517/Technical_Briefing_19.pdf

26 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

The second amendment extends to citizens of Vietnam and Afghanistan?

LOL no, He stated the Military will win out 100% over armed citizens. We failed to win Veitnam and the war on AFghanistan, due to armed natives. 

Another HOT TAKE: 

I support COVID Vaccines,  but not COVID Vaccine Mandates

 

 

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

LOL no, He stated the Military will win out 100% over armed citizens. We failed to win Veitnam and the war on AFghanistan, due to armed natives. 

I clearly showed the US military and US citizens.

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

I clearly showed the US military and US citizens.

LOL And how am I supposed to be able to tell those were US citizens?   

Go ahead make this a race thing...  

 

39 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Did I say it was written in the constitution, I said it was written at a time that was OK.

Women could not vote, the constitution had to be amended so woman and minorities could vote.  Should that not have been changed ??

 The United States Constitution did not mention women or limit any of its rights or privileges to males. The word "persons" was used, which sounds gender neutral. However, common law, inherited from British precedents, informed the interpretation of the law.

It was amended to GAURANTEE the women the right.  But it never stated in the constitution they could not. 

39 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

Hot take - I'm starting to like Aidan Hutchinson more than Thibodeaux

Thought that movie was supposedly set in Arizona?

Set in Colorado,filmed in new mexico and Vegas.

33 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Please explain how I am wrong.  The constitution had to be amended so women could vote.

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote. Achieving this milestone required a lengthy and difficult struggle; victory took decades of agitation and protest. Beginning in the mid-19th century, several generations of woman suffrage supporters lectured, wrote, marched, lobbied, and practiced civil disobedience to achieve what many Americans considered a radical change of the Constitution. Few early supporters lived to see final victory in 1920.

in short the women cut off marital favors until they got what they wanted and new births were down for years LOL

 

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

 The United States Constitution did not mention women or limit any of its rights or privileges to males. The word "persons" was used, which sounds gender neutral. However, common law, inherited from British precedents, informed the interpretation of the law.

It was amended to GAURANTEE the women the right.  But it never stated in the constitution they could not. 

Then why was it required for an amendment to specifically say that women have the right to vote ??  I thought the constitution was iron clad and could not be abridged.

Yes, it did not specifically say white men only, but countless things were done so only white male land owners could vote.

AMENDMENT XV - Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

 

 

4 minutes ago, D-Shiznit said:

 

Packers may have some hefty fines and draft pick forfeiture in their future.

38 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Again.

The right to bear arms , 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" 

 

It does not state except any we wish you not to have, nor does it state "unless times change" it's not like these guys hadn't seen progress in arms and did not know they would improve. 

 

The consitution clearly spells out SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.   Those who wrote the document were smart enough not to include anything else, that those words alone spell it out clearly.  

No need to shout nor to ignore the entire sentence that is the Second Amendment.  I was merely offering an historical perspective on the drafting of the amendment as you brought up the historical perspective initially and I love history, especially the history of the Bill of Rights. NCIggles was astutely offering a legal history perspective.

Yes, the Constitution recognizes an individual right to bear arms. I have said as much. Yes, such right suggests a role in militias comes with it. As for standing armies, the majority of colonists opposed them.  But such right has heretofore not been unfettered per Supreme Court interpretation.  The Supreme Court heard argument on the 2nd Amendment today and is probably on the verge of expanding Heller. That such expansion can occur suggests some fluidity in the interpretation of the Constitution.  But I doubt they will go full blown unfettered right to bear so that violent felons can carry guns, that children can carry guns into schools, that I can buy a grenade launcher at Walmart and arm my car with missiles to discourage slow drivers from driving in the left lane, that you can build bombs in your basement, and that everyone can build there own thermonuclear device.  I love reading Supreme Court decisions too, so I look forward to this with interest.   

Curious if Joey Porter Jr. declares for draft.  A good amount of CB talk before all the COVID crap flooded the board.  He's got a ton of potential and even more length.