formermav43

Won’t someone think of the poor severs slaving away for $120k/year?

Meh. That’s a bunch of guys who have yet to play much or any and/or who have been chronically injured. And Moore, who is...fine. Im not saying you’re necessarily wrong, just that there’s a lot of wishful thinking there, and I like Smith as much as any of those guys.

I think you have your symbols backwards. That’s the only explanation for preferring IHOP to anything short of starvation.

The main thing I remember about that game is Justin Tucker deciding to run with it on the rugby punt inside our own 10 was a good idea.

I think some of you are underestimating Louisiana. That’s a very losable game-they’re returning basically everyone from a good team, first game with a new staff, etc. I think we win, but a loss wouldn’t surprise me. Either way, I don’t see worse than 9-3.

I basically do that by choice.

Maybe, but that’s offset by the fact that there’s no chance of running into you.

X2

That was my exact thought. The waffles, not the coffee. I seem to be immune to its effects. But a waffle/hour seems easily doable.

Yep. This is precisely why Christians were persecuted by the Romans, for instance. They were suspected of disloyalty because they wouldn't sacrifice to the Emperor and declared that Jesus - not Caesar - was Lord (a guy that was crucified as a suspected seditionist!). The Romans didn't really care about whatever gods any culture had in general - they were masters at co-opting them as part of their propaganda and were content to let people hold onto their beliefs because it made them more docile - but a religion that played by completely different rules was subversive and needed to be stamped out. See the Empire post-Constantine, when he decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And then the entire Middle Ages etc. Not a good alternative for the militant atheists on this thread if it comes to that - and not good for anyone who is serious about Christianity either, for that matter. It's probably the worst of all worlds.

What penalty do you propose for violating that?

You'd be surprised. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say in his autobiography regarding the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (which was a precursor to the First Amendment): "The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

Yeah it’ll be a lot more successful discussion here.

I have yet to read anyone on this thread claim this is a big deal despite the need some have to vociferously argue that this is not a big deal.

Some revisionism to the myth is needed-I’ve posted on here before on some thread about how the “revolution” should rightly be linked to slavery as a contributing factor. But just trying to grind your ideological ax leads to silly statements like this: ”Tomlinson says the idea that Santa Anna, the Mexican general against which the Texans are said to have fought courageously, was “evil or dastardly” is plain wrong. He says the general was determined to end slavery in Texas, and had a right to do so. “This was a government defending its rightful territory from invaders who had brought slaves and slavery into a post-colonial nation founded on egalitarian principles,” he said.” Come on.

That’s Chappell Hill.

Your obedient servant

The problem with calling Mexico a failed state is that implies it was stable at some point. But has that ever really been the case since independence? Maybe for about a quarter century or so post WW2, but otherwise it’s been one period of instability after another. “Things not going well in Mexico” could have been a thread at just about any time.

In the good old days you could just declare the whole family attainted, strip their property, offices, even execute them.

Precisely the point. There’s no winners in this, including you.

Invoking Nuremberg as a deterrent and then proposing mass murder as a solution is...interesting.

One is potentially life-threatening. The other calls for a light jacket. Good luck with that.

Eh he’s neither old nor white. Only 1/3.

The reactions are because your posts are nonsensical.