3 minutes ago, RLC said:

We can definitely score 30 against the Bucs

51-30 final?

10 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

Lol "racists" like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington

Youre a fool, thats the last Ill say on it

 

I don't mean to pick on you in particular but I will use your post to try to make a point.

History is not a stagnant thing wherein everything is frozen into an absolute. History is a combination of events and perspectives. Perspectives change. How we view the world and our, um, history, was not always as it is now. Hell, even now no two people view history in exactly the same way. By their writings and in their time, I am sure Jefferson and Washington did not perceive blacks as equals. As regards slavery, Jefferson described slavery as a moral depravity; he favored gradual emancipation but only freed seven of his slaves. Washington decreed that all his slaves be freed upon the death of his wife, Martha, whom he predeceased. But not before. Lincoln several times expressed what today can only be described as racist views regarding blacks.

Does that make them racists? It's a matter of perspective and perspectives change. In today's society what they said can only be described as racist but in their own time I would argue that they were well to the left of prevailing societal views.

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

51-30 finale?

Sounds about right.

If I were to put a number on it... @LeanMeanGM

Bucs 48

Birds 31

Bonus: Eagles are down by 4 TDs or more at some point in the game.

4 minutes ago, RLC said:

We can definitely score 30 against the Bucs

Maybe in garbage time. 

I have no problem removing statues of those who did things that were acceptable in the past, but we find abhorrent today. The problem I have with canceling history, or removing it, is that it's removal is because of a lack of context.  I would rather we keep the history and tell the story as it was.  That is how I learned it.

food for thought:

the constitution was written in a time when Slavery was prevalent. No where in the constitution is there anything racist or oppressive, the document stands the test of time. The sins of those who wrote the document do not. You need context to understand, it is really hard for someone in todays society to relate to people who literally killed and prepared or grown their own food, built their own homes, made their own clothes etc. 

Someone in here once stated (forget who posted it), but that in the future, (say 200 years from now) abortion may be held in the same light as slavery,  as a crime against humanity itself. Yet in todays world it is accepted as a womans right.   But 200 years from now, they could be canceling everyone who was on the side of abortion, no matter what other gifts they may have offered society

Now I am not here to debate, just offer an opinion. These debates should be in CVON. 

 

Back to football. 

 

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Maybe in garbage time. 

We scored 30+ twice in 5 games.

2 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Jesus Christ. 

Randy moss cried on air when discussing Grudens first email leak,  and when Jason Whitlock made fun of him, he threatened Jason Whitlock. LOL. 

 cries over an email not about him that some white guy wrote 10 years ago, then a black man Jason Whitlock calls him a pansy, and he threatens him with physical violence. 

Optics. 

11 minutes ago, RLC said:

We scored 30+ twice in 5 games.

Yup and one of them was in garbage time. 

We also scored 11 points playing against a team with a banged up DL and no CB's

5 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Jesus Christ. 

This country is an embarrassment. Used to be great now it's just a bunch of soft, easily triggered/offended morons running around crying wolf. End rant.

I can't believe it's looking like Ben Simmons is going to play for the Sixers.  If he thought the fans were bad before...boy oh boy he better be ready for one hell of a crowd reaction this year.  I have a feeling WFC will be relentless every time he misses a foul shot, passes up on an easy J or makes any other mistake.

5 minutes ago, eaglesflyers#1 said:

This country is an embarrassment. Used to be great now it's just a bunch of soft, easily triggered/offended morons running around crying wolf. End rant.

Empathy is not weakness.

26 minutes ago, RLC said:

We can definitely score 30 against the Bucs

2 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I can't believe it's looking like Ben Simmons is going to play for the Sixers.  If he thought the fans were bad before...boy oh boy he better be ready for one hell of a crowd reaction this year.  I have a feeling WFC will be relentless every time he misses a foul shot, passes up on an easy J or makes any other mistake.

It should be entertaining in the stands.  There will be fights because there's still a ton of Benablers in Philly.  There will be people insulted that Philly fans are heckling their own player. 

When everything is offense nothing is offensive. 

1 hour ago, 315Eagles said:

If it was a family member he'd probably not be with the team.

Might be having some kind of mental, anxiety issue like what Brooks went thru.

 

This has been my leading theory as well. Probably leaning towards retirement but the team is trying to help him through whatever he is going through to avoid him from making that choice. 

24 minutes ago, justrelax said:

 

I don't mean to pick on you in particular but I will use your post to try to make a point.

History is not a stagnant thing wherein everything is frozen into an absolute. History is a combination of events and perspectives. Perspectives change. How we view the world and our, um, history, was not always as it is now. Hell, even now no two people view history in exactly the same way. By their writings and in their time, I am sure Jefferson and Washington did not perceive blacks as equals. As regards slavery, Jefferson described slavery as a moral depravity; he favored gradual emancipation but only freed seven of his slaves. Washington decreed that all his slaves be freed upon the death of his wife, Martha, whom he predeceased. But not before. Lincoln several times expressed what today can only be described as racist views regarding blacks.

Does that make them racists? It's a matter of perspective and perspectives change. In today's society what they said can only be described as racist but in their own time I would argue that they were well to the left of prevailing societal views.

Well said, but that doesn't surprise me.

3 minutes ago, DawkinsOwnage03 said:

When everything is offense nothing is offensive. 

This offends me

29 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Crazy thought, but maybe let Goedert run more routes…

 

 

No, no, no.  We need to keep splitting his reps with a mentally checked out Ertz. 

1 minute ago, greend said:

This offends me

Good

6 hours ago, greend said:

wanna here a weird prediction. On Thursday if every talking head on the show picks the Bucs to win we will win. If even one goes Eagles count it as a loss

53 minutes ago, Utebird said:

I find it difficult to believe that the founders were misrepresented.

The guy Implies that many of the founders were against slavery yet everyone of them including the 1st 9 president owned slaves.

At one point Jefferson enslaved over 600 people. 

Even Ben Franklin had a few slaves before changing his tune 

Washington was the only president to ever free all his slaves 

While many of the founders may have changed their tunes or their views not many if them changed their actions as many still maintained slaves.

I realize back then it was a socially acceptable practice and there are those out there that would like to wipe the face of America clean of any monument of anyone that ever owned a slave and I'm not one of those and I'm not also of the crowd that thinks the founders should be immortalized in the annals of time, they were men who did the best with what they had and knew at the time and like us all were not perfect or above reproach.

  

Really need to expand your reading beyond a poorly researched and conclusion driven NY Times project. There is accuracy in much of the information but slanted towards the writer’s thesis.  

Let’s try that Washington freed his slaves.  Kind of.  His will called for the slaves he owned to be freed on the death of Martha Washington, not his death.  But the reality of it was that the majority of their slaves were Curstis slaves.  Owned by or progeny of slaves of her first husband or descendants of mixed Curstis and Washington slave families and thus Curstis by the property rights of the time.  

Remember earlier when I responded to DesertBirds and talked about women having little property rights at the time of our nation’s founding. Well, Martha as a young widow with four children had dower inheritance rights   In other words lifetime use of her husband’s estate but the inheritance rights went to her children, in truth, her son.  Curstis was richer than Washington and owned several plantations and slaves to run them.  Martha couldn’t have freed those slaves if she wanted because the inheritance really flowed to Curstis’ children.  

Now, George and Martha had no children  In other words, no direct heirs.  Martha’s son was her only child to live to adulthood   His son lived with Martha and George.  So George knew that step grandson was cared for from his Curstis inheritance.  So those Curstis slaves and their offspring and the Curstis properties passed to that step grandson.  Martha had use of both the Washington and Curstis slaves until her death  

Kind of changes the picture from your presentation a bit.  

Might read up a bit on John Adams and John Quincy Adams before talking about the first nine presidents   Suggest you delve into Abigail Adams a bit too. The letters between the two clearly identify that Abigail and her wisdom deserve the title of Mother of our Country.  (When I discovered ancestors back in Braintree, my daughter was thrilled to find out that John and especially Abigail were cousins of both my wife and my families.) 

 

22 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yup and one of them was in garbage time. 

We also scored 11 points playing against a team with a banged up DL and no CB's

Fair.

Depends on the Hurts we get. I just hope we don't run it at all. Make them cover us and we'll hit big plays.

2 minutes ago, hputenis said:

good catch!!!!

3 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

  

Really need to expand your reading beyond a poorly researched and conclusion driven NY Times project. There is accuracy in much of the information but slanted towards the writer’s thesis.  

Let’s try that Washington freed his slaves.  Kind of.  His will called for the slaves he owned to be freed on the death of Martha Washington, not his death.  But the reality of it was that the majority of their slaves were Curstis slaves.  Owned by or progeny of slaves of her first husband or descendants of mixed Curstis and Washington slave families and thus Curstis by the property rights of the time.  

Remember earlier when I responded to DesertBirds and talked about women having little property rights at the time of our nation’s founding. Well, Martha as a young widow with four children had dower inheritance rights   In other words lifetime use of her husband’s estate but the inheritance rights went to her children, in truth, her son.  Curstis was richer than Washington and owned several plantations and slaves to run them.  Martha couldn’t have freed those slaves if she wanted because the inheritance really flowed to Curstis’ children.  

Now, George and Martha had no children  In other words, no direct heirs.  Martha’s son was her only child to live to adulthood   His son lived with Martha and George.  So George knew that step grandson was cared for from his Curstis inheritance.  So those Curstis slaves and their offspring and the Curstis properties passed to that step grandson.  Martha had use of both the Washington and Curstis slaves until her death  

Kind of changes the picture from your presentation a bit.  

Might read up a bit on John Adams and John Quincy Adams before talking about the first nine presidents   Suggest you delve into Abigail Adams a bit too. The letters between the two clearly identify that Abigail and her wisdom deserve the title of Mother of our Country.  (When I discovered ancestors back in Braintree, my daughter was thrilled to find out that John and especially Abigail were cousins of both my wife and my families.) 

 

Custis.