2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Amazing!! He conquered this feat without ever playing in OT too! 

If the Eagles were actually in tight games in the 4th quarter it would be impressive.

3 minutes ago, 315Eagles said:

I think Toney is just trying to say that Ruggs is f'ed and he knows it, everyone knows it.  He messed up big time.  There really isn't much more to be said.  He'll have to deal with the consequences and they will be severe.  No need to pile on.

Don't worry guys, I can translate because I speak jive......

I think Toney should just stfu because it has nothing to do with him and there’s no reason for him to put his neck on the line for this. Making excuses is dumb. Ruggs should be dragged harder than he has, maybe it will finally be a lesson to idiots who keep doing things like this (well aware it won’t though) 

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

If the Eagles were actually in tight games in the 4th quarter it would be impressive.

 

Cowboys and Raiders games the ones that the Eagles really weren't in it in the 4th.

24 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Impressed with Carr here. 

Good for him. He’s a better man than me.

 I wouldn’t be able to do it. Seeing Tina and her dog plastered all over Twitter now and on the news, i could never do what carr is doing. I’m sorry I could not forgive somebody or be there for them when he is given a free pick up car service to drive you anywhere you want to go when you are wasted. Years ago I could still couldn’t comprehend making that decision but now it’s even more as an Uber or a lyft cost literally at most $25. This was 150,000,000% preventable except for a selfish ahole athlete thinking he could do whatever he wanted because his entire life he’s been able to do whatever without minimal consequences and thought he was invincible 

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Didn't realize was cherries.  Not worth the effort, imo.  

Got three Romas and two Beefsteak today plus a handful of cherry tomatoes.  Only lost one beefsteak to the splits while I was in Texas dealing with my sister, who is now in a rehab facility. Leg and foot wounds are a real issue for her. 

4 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Cowboys and Raiders games the ones that the Eagles really weren't in it in the 4th.

And Chiefs down by 19 with 2:30 left in the game. And arguably the 49ers being down two scores and only scoring 3 with less than 5 mins to go. 

8 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

And Chiefs down by 19 with 2:30 left in the game. And arguably the 49ers being down two scores and only scoring 3 with less than 5 mins to go. 

Or in the Carolina game the ST giving him the ball inside the 30 after a punt block. I’d also add atlanta they got multiple turnovers on down in the fourth when up by a lot that accounted for 10 points 

11 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

And Chiefs down by 19 with 2:30 left in the game. And arguably the 49ers being down two scores and only scoring 3 with less than 5 mins to go. 

 

Chiefs game got out of hand in the 4th but the Eagles still made it a 5 point game 28-23 with just under 13 minutes left. 

49ers game the Eagles didn't only score 3 with less than 5 to go. Eagles got a TD and 2 point conversion with 4 minutes left to make it a 6 point game. 

13 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Good for him. He’s a better man than me.

 I wouldn’t be able to do it. Seeing Tina and her dog plastered all over Twitter now and on the news, i could never do what carr is doing. I’m sorry I could not forgive somebody or be there for them when he is given a free pick up car service to drive you anywhere you want to go when you are wasted. Years ago I could still couldn’t comprehend making that decision but now it’s even more as an Uber or a lyft cost literally at most $25. This was 150,000,000% preventable except for a selfish ahole athlete thinking he could do whatever he wanted because his entire life he’s been able to do whatever without minimal consequences and thought he was invincible 

Nothing about what Ruggs did is defendable, or even forgivable. It’s as stupid of a decision as it gets & he deserves to face time as a consequence for his actions. I think you can recognize those things and still show him, and this is POV from Carr’s side, that you still care about them and will show support. Ruggs will face his consequences, and hopefully after he can try and redeem himself. Only reason I feel this way is cause I can relate to Carr. I Had something similar happen in my life to someone I care about, and I stayed by their side. I wasn’t defending this persons actions & wanted them to be held accountable, but still made sure they knew someone loved em & they weren’t alone. You never know how you’ll react or feel until you’re in that kind of situation where someone you care about does something awful, and perhaps unforgivable. 
 

But I do understand where you’re coming from also. 

Next time you see RG3 on TV notice how many times he licks his lips.  Guy thinks he's LL Cool J or something. 

25 minutes ago, Dwide Schrude said:

Nothing about what Ruggs did is defendable, or even forgivable. It’s as stupid of a decision as it gets & he deserves to face time as a consequence for his actions. I think you can recognize those things and still show him, and this is POV from Carr’s side, that you still care about them and will show support. Ruggs will face his consequences, and hopefully after he can try and redeem himself. Only reason I feel this way is cause I can relate to Carr. I Had something similar happen in my life to someone I care about, and I stayed by their side. I wasn’t defending this persons actions & wanted them to be held accountable, but still made sure they knew someone loved em & they weren’t alone. You never know how you’ll react or feel until you’re in that kind of situation where someone you care about does something awful, and perhaps unforgivable. 
 

But I do understand where you’re coming from also. 

I’ve been on both sides of the coin. My brother when he was younger got a DUI and was overturned on a technicality. He didn’t kill anyone but i told him every time he went out if he’s drunk call me and I’ll come from wherever and pick him up. No questions asked. He did it anyway to impress a girl none of our family liked. I was the one who had to go pick him up from the DUI and drove him home. I told him that night you deserve the punishment that is going to be handed out to you. That was the dumbest decision you’ve ever made.

He got off but i didn’t talk to my brother for over a year after that night because he saw how devastated our friends parents and family were when they lost their only son to a drunk driver. my mind always goes to those parents and the funeral as to why it’s never acceptable or tolerated. More so today with Uber and Lyft there is no reason that a person should ever get in a car above the limit. If you can afford to drink $30 or more of alcohol you can afford an Uber or Lyft. Heck I’ve walked 2 miles before instead of driving when i couldn’t get an Uber. In this case not only did he have those opportunities, the Raiders provide him with a car service for instances like this. So even more so than a normal person he had even more opportunities to him. 

Ruggs understands the gravity of the situation and feels bad about it but no one is ever going to feel as bad as that family that never got to say goodbye and never going to see their family member again. Their life is never going to be the same again on something that was not their decision and out of their control. He had every ability to make a good decision and not wreck his and a family’s life. Thanksgiving is coming up. that’s a huge hole in everyone’s heart and at that table that’s not filled or replaceable.  I’m sorry I just can’t feeling anything towards ruggs or trying to make him feel better knowing that young lady and her dog were scared, trapped and yelling for someone to save them and no one could do anything cause of a selfish a-hole driving 156 mph and wasted trying to be cool with his gf 

that’s why I said Derek Carr is a better person than me. I couldn’t do what he saying. It’s commendable and hats off to him. I personally could never do that

50 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Chiefs game got out of hand in the 4th but the Eagles still made it a 5 point game 28-23 with just under 13 minutes left. 

49ers game the Eagles didn't only score 3 with less than 5 to go. Eagles got a TD and 2 point conversion with 4 minutes left to make it a 6 point game. 

So what about the Chiefs. Chiefs immediately scored after that then scored again. It’s garbage time from then on when Eagles scored again. When they has the ball and we’re down by 12 they turned it over on downs after 8 plays.
 

And uhhh if they scored to make it a 6 point game with 4 minutes left that means at some point they only scored 3 with less than 5 to go. 

1 hour ago, Ipiggles said:

I am a Constitutionalist. It stands by itself in its contents alone. The words are all I need. You are making interpretations based on other inputs, and writings. The constitution is clear. It does not need an instruction manual on how to interperet it or they would have been included in it!

ANd no I am not making a political argument, I am standing behind the constitution in and of itself. 

I mean the people that wrote it didn’t think it could stand by itself. That’s why they wrote the Federalist papers. There’s 85 essays. Then consider the Constitution wasn’t passed without the first 10 Amendments. So it didn’t get ratified without changes. Then less than 15 years after it’s ratification you have the Marbury decision where the Supreme Court made explicit their right of judicial review which they inferred from the Constitution. So I am not sure how you can be so certain as to the meaning when the people that wrote and tons of jurists since have long since looked to sources outside of the text to determine its meaning and application. 

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I remember Kobe doing that in his apology interview for banging some chick in Colorado.  

 That girl certainly didn’t help her case by showing up for the rape exam, with someone’s else’s yogurt in her underpants and pubes from a white dude. The prosecution in tbe criminal case said Kobe’s lawyers were attacking her credibility, hmmm.   

2 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Good for him. He’s a better man than me.

 I wouldn’t be able to do it. Seeing Tina and her dog plastered all over Twitter now and on the news, i could never do what carr is doing. I’m sorry I could not forgive somebody or be there for them when he is given a free pick up car service to drive you anywhere you want to go when you are wasted. Years ago I could still couldn’t comprehend making that decision but now it’s even more as an Uber or a lyft cost literally at most $25. This was 150,000,000% preventable except for a selfish ahole athlete thinking he could do whatever he wanted because his entire life he’s been able to do whatever without minimal consequences and thought he was invincible 

I think we all agree with what you said in a lot of ways. It is inexcusable and he must pay for what he did. Justice demands it.

That doesn't mean mercy for someone who may not deserve it right now can't be present. He is human and has the chance to change. We all do when we make mistakes and getting people to change starts with giving them compassion when they don't deserve it. That isn't the same as excusing what they did or letting them off the hook. It's saying you are going to pay for this, but you have people who care as you do. I lost a friend to a drunk driver and still respect Carr for saying that. 

6 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

And Chiefs down by 19 with 2:30 left in the game. And arguably the 49ers being down two scores and only scoring 3 with less than 5 mins to go. 

And Tampa was actually practicing for their next game after going up three scores against us 

11 hours ago, justrelax said:

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.

It may have been the "prime purpose" at the time, but it wasn't the only purpose and also it has purpose today.

6 hours ago, 315Eagles said:

Next time you see RG3 on TV notice how many times he licks his lips.  Guy thinks he's LL Cool J or something. 

Rather not, thanks

7 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Got three Romas and two Beefsteak today plus a handful of cherry tomatoes.  Only lost one beefsteak to the splits while I was in Texas dealing with my sister, who is now in a rehab facility. Leg and foot wounds are a real issue for her. 

Sorry to hear that

8 hours ago, NCiggles said:

I mean the people that wrote it didn’t think it could stand by itself. That’s why they wrote the Federalist papers. There’s 85 essays. Then consider the Constitution wasn’t passed without the first 10 Amendments. So it didn’t get ratified without changes. Then less than 15 years after it’s ratification you have the Marbury decision where the Supreme Court made explicit their right of judicial review which they inferred from the Constitution. So I am not sure how you can be so certain as to the meaning when the people that wrote and tons of jurists since have long since looked to sources outside of the text to determine its meaning and application. 

 

The people that wrote the constitution were very dileberate in their choice of words. What they included and what they did not include.  And this would include the 2nd Amendment.

And yet I cannot find anywhere in the constitution and more importantly the 2nd amendment, where it refers to, or suggests that we reference other outside documents for interpretations. 

The Federalist Papers were written to influence voters and gain public favor in order to ratify the constitution. They were not written as an adendum to the constitution. They are not law. 

 

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.

 

 

10 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

I am a Constitutionalist. It stands by itself in its contents alone. The words are all I need. You are making interpretations based on other inputs, and writings. The constitution is clear. It does not need an instruction manual on how to interperet it or they would have been included in it!

ANd no I am not making a political argument, I am standing behind the constitution in and of itself. 

What you are saying, as you eschew the Federalist Papers, is that you understand the meaning and purpose of the Constitution better than those who wrote it.

26 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

 

The people that wrote the constitution were very dileberate in their choice of words. What they included and what they did not include.  And this would include the 2nd Amendment.

And yet I cannot find anywhere in the constitution and more importantly the 2nd amendment, where it refers to, or suggests that we reference other outside documents for interpretations. 

The Federalist Papers were written to influence voters and gain public favor in order to ratify the constitution. They were not written as an adendum to the constitution. They are not law. 

 

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.

 

 

But times have changed. There isn't colonization anymore, and the threat of a foreign army invading is basically nil. Again, with the standing army the US has, nobody is invading the States. If the government decides to use the army (which, I'm pretty sure the army is sworn to protect the constitution, not the government in power) then citizens won't match the firepower. They just won't and can't. 

I don't want to take guns away from hunters or anything of the sort. I think if you're concerned with self-defense, a handgun is just fine. You should have to get licensed, and there should be strict laws about how/when/where you can actually use the gun. Every other civilized nation has figured out methods of some gun control, because allowing it to go unchecked results in the mass shootings we've seen become commonplace in the States. The unfettered access to guns, combined with insanely poor mental health supports, equals big problems. 

What common person needs the assault rifles, with bump stocks? What use do you have for that at all? Hunters/farmers/rural folk using rifles, shotguns etc is fine, but those too should be licensed.

6 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

But times have changed. There isn't colonization anymore, and the threat of a foreign army invading is basically nil. Again, with the standing army the US has, nobody is invading the States. If the government decides to use the army (which, I'm pretty sure the army is sworn to protect the constitution, not the government in power) then citizens won't match the firepower. They just won't and can't. 

I don't want to take guns away from hunters or anything of the sort. I think if you're concerned with self-defense, a handgun is just fine. You should have to get licensed, and there should be strict laws about how/when/where you can actually use the gun. Every other civilized nation has figured out methods of some gun control, because allowing it to go unchecked results in the mass shootings we've seen become commonplace in the States. The unfettered access to guns, combined with insanely poor mental health supports, equals big problems. 

What common person needs the assault rifles, with bump stocks? What use do you have for that at all? Hunters/farmers/rural folk using rifles, shotguns etc is fine, but those too should be licensed.

You've never bought a gun in America have you? As far as need, nobody "needs" alcohol either and I would bet that more people are killed by drunk drivers than mass shooters. It only matters what people "need" if you're one of the ones that doesn't want it. 

6 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

The Redcoats are coming.....The Redcoats are coming........get me my AR.  

Lol, an old teacher of mine had a quote to deal with racist teenagers in his class..."Stop talking out of your father's mouth". I thought it was great. I think it also applies to a lot of the 2A folks, in terms of being so resistant to change. We can't live in the past, we gotta always be moving forward. We can look at the past to guide our future, but the world is anything but stagnant. 

2 minutes ago, greend said:

You've never bought a gun in America have you? As far as need, nobody "needs" alcohol either and I would bet that more people are killed by drunk drivers than mass shooters. It only matters what people "need" if you're one of the ones that doesn't want it. 

I've never bought a gun anywhere. No interest and no need for it. I have shot guns numerous times, here at friends rural properties or at the shooting ranges in Vegas. I'll say, hell yeah it's fun to shoot those things. 

Believe me, I'm all for tougher drunk driving laws as well. It doesn't absolve the mass shootings that occur at an alarming rate in the States. But I don't recall any drunk driver killing 20 6 and 7 year old kids who were just enjoying a day at school. That nothing changed after Sandy Hook broke all faith I had in America in changing anything about the 2A. 

52 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

 

The people that wrote the constitution were very dileberate in their choice of words. What they included and what they did not include.  And this would include the 2nd Amendment.

And yet I cannot find anywhere in the constitution and more importantly the 2nd amendment, where it refers to, or suggests that we reference other outside documents for interpretations. 

The Federalist Papers were written to influence voters and gain public favor in order to ratify the constitution. They were not written as an adendum to the constitution. They are not law. 

 

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.

 

 

Of course what you're quoting here is NOT the second amendment but an interpretation of it but, whatever.

For 221 years, the second amendment was taken to mean what Hamilton laid out in the Federalist Paper No. 29. That changed with District of Columbia V. Heller in 2008, which is where we are today. My view, probably not yours, is that Heller is loaded with unintended consequences, and now the worms are out of that can.

I do urge you to read Federalist 29. You will find much to comfort you in it. There is much Hamilton says that supports your interpretation of the second amendment. Much, but not everything. The purpose is discussed in greater depth and boils down to support of the common defense in lieu of an army. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186