1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

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

Davion Taylor runs a 4.3

25 minutes ago, rrfierce said:

I imagine that’s going to hit devonta smith pretty hard. Sounds like him and ruggs were pretty close 

 

That's what I was thinking yesterday. 

a good twitter account to follow if some of you dont already know

1 hour ago, austinfan said:

The 3/5ths clause?  Trying reading some American history by real historians.

Slavery was the primary controversy at the Constitutional Convention.

Though I have problems with both the Left wanting to indoctrinate and the Right wanting to deny.

Just teach the facts, that slavery was universal in the 18th century when the compromises over slavery were incorporated in the Constitution, that abolition didn't become widespread until the 1820s and 1830s worldwide (England banned the slave trade in 1807, but allowed slavery in its colonies until 1833).

That the Civil War was about slavery, not states rights, as the Southern states supported the Fugitive Slave Act, and southern leaders explicitly referenced the preservation of slavery as their justification for succession.

That the Black Codes tried to legally re-institute quasi-slavery in the South after the Civil War, and Reconstruction tried to preserve the rights of the ex-slaves. The carpetbagger myth was part of the Southern mythology (there was corruption, but no more than usual in America, see NJ, LA). Reconstruction ended with a political compromise in the election of 1876, to be followed by the implementation of Jim Crow laws, blessed by the Supreme Court in Plessy v Ferguson.

That discrimination against blacks continued well into the 1960s, not just in the South, but through red lining in the North, the judicious placement of interstate highways through cities isolating Black and Hispanic neighborhoods, segregation of the Armed Forces until after WWII, discrimination in the provision of GI benefits.

These are all facts, you don't have to talk about critical race theory, you just teach facts, including the Chinese exclusion acts, the Japanese internment camps, etc. You teach about the slaughter and displacement of the Indians.

You also teach about the positive facts of American history, the good intentions even if they went awry, the dynamic economy, the gradual embrace of freedom (the 1st amendment as we know it is really an invention of the 20th century Supreme Court), the positive side of immigration (and its demise with the red scare of the 1920s) and so on. But you don't teach fantasies of the "good old days." Because they weren't that good.

Real history requires honesty, present the good and the bad without judgement, and let students think for themselves.

But you don't censor the bad in order to create "patriots," it shouldn't be "My country right or wrong" but "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

Without acknowledging the sins of the past, we can't build a better future based on a foundation of lies.

I have no issue acknowledging the sins of the past, just the facts. 

In refernece to my post, defending the Constitution itself? It is in no way a racist document. Sure it was penned by some people who were racist, the document itself, bears no witness to their sins. In fact reading it literally, it says just the opposite. Sp yes by all means bring historical context into it, does not change one bit what is on paper.  

so the point about the sins of those who wrote it is completely moot. It is irrellevant to its contents

2 hours 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.  

The purpose precedes the right in the Constitution. You ignore that. It’s a critical distinction. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the country from having to maintain a standing army. You are making a political argument. I am not. I am making a historical argument. I recommend the Federalist Papers and, again, Jack Rakove’s Original Meanings. The political argument is a modern one; the historical argument is not.

@4for4EaglesNest hows this Grayson McCall kid? You watch Coastal Carolina, right?

53 minutes ago, rrfierce said:

I imagine that’s going to hit devonta smith pretty hard. Sounds like him and ruggs were pretty close 

I hope Devonta makes better choices than Ruggs.  I thought I heard Devonta is not much of a drinker.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/crime/woman-killed-in-crash-with-henry-ruggs-identified-2471162/amp/
 

The details are just awful. 

 

 

The red flags on Toney, man.

I see Desean got cut.  If anyone needs one big play downfield prior to IR, he’s your guy.

2 minutes ago, RLC said:

The red flags on Toney, man.

What a boneheaded thing to tweet. Ruggs can now polish his route running running from Bubba. I have no remorse for someone making such a selfish thoughtless choice to drive a car drunk.

4 minutes ago, RLC said:

The red flags on Toney, man.

Did he graduate from Florida?

Toney is a moron , that poor girl and her dog burned to death and aware of her situation , just awful 

giants should cut him for being a insensitive jack ass 

15 minutes ago, RLC said:

The red flags on Toney, man.

Everyone doesn't end up driving drunk and killing someone and their dog...

18 minutes ago, RLC said:

The red flags on Toney, man.

Yikes

2 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE!! 

Says who? Did Russell say that? If he didn’t then it’s something to discuss. Mort basically stated that the appeal is Ciara being close to NY and the big market. 

18 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Did he graduate from Florida?

probably a northern state,

I'm more interested in Carson Wentz vs. Mike White than any human being should be

7 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Says who? Did Russell say that? If he didn’t then it’s something to discuss. Mort basically stated that the appeal is Ciara being close to NY and the big market. 

Yes he has. Like Watson he has presented a wish list and Philly isn’t on it.  Did so when he was slamming Seattle for not putting resources towards protecting him. 

40 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/crime/woman-killed-in-crash-with-henry-ruggs-identified-2471162/amp/
 

The details are just awful. 

MF’er deserves to rot in prison.

1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

Yes he has. Like Watson he has presented a wish list and Philly isn’t on it.  Did so when he was slamming Seattle for not putting resources towards protecting him. 

Good to know. Idk how I missed that this offseason. 

If you want to track the Wentz snap count, someone made a website to do just that- https://carsonsnaptracker.com/

17 minutes ago, MillerTime said:

Says who? Did Russell say that? If he didn’t then it’s something to discuss. Mort basically stated that the appeal is Ciara being close to NY and the big market. 

 

There was a list of teams this past summer where Wilson wanted to be traded and Eagles weren't on it.