• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      The home team fans are at home, these games no longer matter, and it’s probably better for the team to lose than it is to win.  It must be December in Washington.  Welcome to week 15!
       
      Redskins Inactive: 
      Colt McCoy  
      Trey Quinn 
      Quinton Dunbar  
      Josh Harvey-Clemons  
      Ross Pierschbacher  
      Brandon Scherff  
      Caleb Wilson  
       
      Eagles Inactive: 
      Nate Sudfeld  
      Nelson Agholor 
      Jordan Howard  
      Shareef Miller 
      Lane Johnson  
      Sua Opeta  
      Derek Barnet
       
      There are two camps for Redskins fans at this time of year.  Those that want to tank and those that want to win.  If this describes you, I want you to know something important. You’re wrong.  You should probably feel bad about it too, but that’s your business.  The right way to go about this, is simply to embrace the doublethink.  
       
      Before and after the game it’s perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that losing has its advantages.  It does and it is undeniable.  Afterall we could be talking about the difference between Chase Young being in a Redskins uniform, or not.  What we need for that to happen is simple.  Redskins lose out.  Giants beat the Dolphins and Redskins.  Dolphins beat the Bengals.  All of these things are perfectly reasonable outcomes.  We’re that close to having an elite pass rusher.   
       
      Before that happens, we have a game to play.  It is in this moment that we should embrace the other side of our demented doublethink.  While the game is being played, especially against a division opponent, fans should want their team to do well.  Assuming they have a soul and any decency.  There is just no way that I can root for the Eagles to beat the Redskins during a game.  If you are the type of fan that does this, I hope you find someone that can fix what has broken inside of you.   
       
      Pregame Prediction:  Redskins 23 – Eagles 30  
      More interesting game we are missing because we are still watching the Redskins:  Packers – Bears  
      Things I am snacking on:  Brownie.   
      Number of colons used:  Six.  (so far)  
       
      Check back for updates.  I’m going to wander around the room for a while and stretch my legs to get away from a certain well-known ESPN Eagle fan’s boring conversations that my ear phones aren’t blocking out entirely.
       
      1st Quarter Redskins 7 - 3 Eagles
      "The Closer" Haskins showed up for work early today and hit his former college teammate for a touchdown.  He really took the life out of this crowd in *checks notes* Fedex Field. 
       
      2nd Quarter Redskins 14 - 10 Eagles
      This quarter was defined by penalties.  The Redskins made the mistake of lightly hitting an Eagles tight end on the shoulder, and then another by tackling the Eagles QB around the waist.  Refs clearly didn't appreciate the Redskins playing football.
       
      This is the best half of football of Haskins pro career.  The Redskins passing offense as a whole has looked impressive, which... well it just shouldn't be.  Right?  Feels like a trap.  As soon as we start to feel good about it, BOOM they'll tear our hearts out. 
       
      I'll say this much though, Redskins receivers have been running around wide open throughout this first half.  The Redskins should have scored more than 14.
       
      Halftime:  If you had a choice between standing in a relatively long line for ice cream and cookies or nachos and hot dogs which would you choose?  I would go with ice cream.  Unfortunately I didn't realize there were two separate lines, and so I ended up with nachos and disappointment.  Also, I should probably mention Urban Meyer is here.  I bet he got the ice cream.   
       
      3rd Quarter Redskins 14 - 17 Eagles
      Wentz made a good throw, giving his team the lead, and it reminded me that Wentz was once a pretty good QB.  Hasn't looked like it often today.  The Eagles really haven't had a lot of open players for Wentz to throw to, but there is more to it than that.  Wentz looks slow. 
       
      Haskins has out played him through three quarters, and we haven't even reached Haskins best quarter. 
       
      4th Quarter Redskins 27 - 37 Eagles
      Some drunk Redskins fans sitting in front of the press box have recognized a Eagles fan that appears often on CNN and have started knocking on the glass to wave their hands and smile at him now the the Redskins have the lead.  These fans have apparently never learned not to tempt fate.
       
      Redskins defense played fairly well all game but picked the worst possible time to give up a long drive for a touchdown.  The Eagles offense came off the field with a four point lead and less than a minute left in the game.  The fumble return for a touchdown on the aborted hail marry attempt just added insult to injury.  Redskins come up short, for the eleventh time this season. 
       
      End of game thoughts.  Haskins actually looked like a real NFL QB for an entire NFL game.  Not just a drive here or there, but for an entire game Haskins looked like he belonged.  He looked like one of the reasons the Redskins might win the game.  He's shown flashes in the past but nothing like this.  A very encouraging sign for fans that believe he can be a part of the future here. 
       
      The Giants did their part to fall back in the draft, by absolutely dismantling the mighty Dolphins.  May the Giants be victorious, at least one more time this season.  We just need to lose to the Giants and have the Dolphins beat the Bengals, and the Redskins will be sitting alone at 3 wins.  Chase Young could happen.

       
       
       
Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You sound extremely sexually frustrated. Try playing all of the lowest keys on a piano at the same time.

 

That’s cute, but you didn’t answer my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

You sound extremely sexually frustrated. Try playing all of the lowest keys on a piano at the same time.

 

This comment in no way adds to the discussion. It’s tiptoeing around a rule 5 violation. Cut it out.

 

General instruction - debate and respond to points and arguments made. Do not go down the road the post above points to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yes, you and millions of other people have mindlessly recited the mantra that the fact that some people will break laws means that the laws shouldn't exist at all.   

 

It didn't make sense the first million times, either.  

 

 

Failing to face the reality of the situation because you fear evil doesn’t make sense either Larry...even though millions of you have bought into that as well.  I don’t believe the answer to our violence problem is restricting our rights.  We did not get here overnight and a few laws passed to make some people “feel” better won’t stop our murder problem.  

 

Too many people have forgotten what it takes to get and keep the kind of liberties we enjoy in this country.  They would happily sacrifice their rights for a false sense of security.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Painkiller said:

Failing to face the reality of the situation because you fear evil doesn’t make sense either Larry

 

Stick to reciting mindless talking points, and leave inventing things that you want to pretend I'm thinking out.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Stick to reciting mindless talking points, and leave inventing things that you want to pretend I'm thinking out.  

 

 

if it’s a “mindless talking point” as you say...where is the counter argument that is so mindful?  Post the obvious logical and rational response that shows me I’m wrong on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

if it’s a “mindless talking point” as you say...where is the counter argument that is so mindful?

 

Every single law on our books, gets broken.  I suspect that every single law in history has been broken.  

 

This does not in any way imply that every one of them should be repealed, simply because some times it gets broken.  

 

And I'm pretty sure that virtually none of them did some moron demand that people explain why people are trying to pass a law when they know that some people will break it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try making my point another way.

 

Why do some people feel that preventing a good person from legally carrying/owning/possessing a particular gun is more likely to prevent murders, burglaries, and robberies from the bad people who can still get them?  Where is the tangible benefit to the good people in disarming and announcing to the world that they have disarmed?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And I'm pretty sure that virtually none of them did some moron demand that people explain why people are trying to pass a law when they know that some people will break it.  

 

 

Because our right to own a gun in this country guarantees all the other rights we enjoy.  When seconds count the Government cannot do a better job of protecting me than I can myself.  I don’t want my ability to do so pointlessly hindered when evil doers will just have another law to ignore.  

 

Also, unlike all other people’s that came before us we are free to an extent the world has never seen before and we cannot simply be trampled over by an oppressive government.  Too many assume our American government is incapable of that kind of tyranny and they take the way we live for granted everyday.  Blind faith in any system is dangerous.  

Edited by Painkiller
Separate points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Let me try making my point another way.

 

Why do some people feel that preventing a good person from legally carrying/owning/possessing a particular gun is more likely to prevent murders, burglaries, and robberies from the bad people who can still get them?

 

1)  You're ushing a blatantly untrue claim with your next untrue talking point.  Specifically, that banning firearms (a plan which, I'll point out, very few people propose), will make absolutely no difference in bad guys getting guns.  There's lots of ways to look at it, right now, that demonstrate that that's not true.  

 

Just to pick one example, back when Bonnie and Clyde were robbing banks, a lot of criminals use machine guns.  Now days, it's really rare for a full-auto weapon to be used in a crime.  The reason?  Gun control didn't quite ban full auto weapons, but it almost did.  And that, in turn, made them a lot tougher to get.  Yeah, organized criminals still know how to get one when they need it.  But Joe Sixpack who feels like shooting up a Walmart doesn't.  And the organized criminals only use them for special occasions, because they don;t want to get caught with one, unless they're planning to need one.  

 

2)  But, to respond to your new talking point - Why do people think that less guns will result in less gun deaths?  You mean "other than the fact that it's true on every single country on Earth"?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Because our right to own a gun in this country guarantees all the other rights we enjoy.

 

Another untrue talking point.  

 

This right you're claiming?  Didn't even exist for the first 150 years of our country.  

 

Wyatt Earp needed to get his brother to pull political strings, to get appointed town Marshall, so he could deputize Wyatt, so Wyatt could cary a gun.  Because the Sheriff of Tombstone had forbidden all firearms in town.  Guess what?  In Tombstone, this right you're claiming, where any citizen had the constitutional right to walk around armed?  It didn't exist.  

 

The NRA invented it, 50 years ago.  

 

And no, Texas Pete and his six shooter is not defending the rights of American citizens to free speech.  The ACLU and their lawsuits does that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

2)  But, to respond to your new talking point - Why do people think that less guns will result in less gun deaths?  You mean "other than the fact that it's true on every single country on Earth"?  

 

While other countries have less guns and less gun deaths many do have per capita a far higher murder rate regardless of their gun laws.  The U.S. doesn’t even enter into the top ten for homicides...is that because of our guns or in spite of them?

DA26E9A0-37E0-4A14-8664-F788AC693106.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

While other countries have less guns and less gun deaths many do have per capita a far higher murder rate regardless of their gun laws.  The U.S. doesn’t even enter into the top ten for homicides...is that because of our guns or in spite of them?

 

"But if you ignore most gun deaths in the US, then you can find several banana republics that rank higher."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Larry said:

 This right you're claiming?  Didn't even exist for the first 150 years of our country.  

 

The NRA invented it, 50 years ago.  

 

And no, Texas Pete and his six shooter is not defending the rights of American citizens to free speech.  The ACLU and their lawsuits does that.  

 

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified long before the NRA begs to differ.  The founders always intended for the people to be armed and not helpless.  

 

What happens if the government decides to ban particular speech they don’t like and the ACLU’s lawsuits are tossed out and ignored?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified long before the NRA begs to differ.

 

And for 200 years, it gave the states the right to form militias.  

 

But if you wanted to carry a pistol around town, you needed a handwritten note from the Chief of Police.  

 

Now, FWIW?  I think carrying some forms or firearms really ought to be a right.  I even like the system of concealed carry permits that the NRA has pushed.  Didn't like them when they first started pushing them.  But I've changed my mind.  I think they actually did something that made society better, and I approve of it.  My reasonong is that I want citizens to have the ability to resist a crime in progress.  Maybe some tweeks here and there, but I want them to still exist, and be pretty open.  

 

I simply have a problem with monumentally stupid arguments  And as near as I can tell, every argument you've made in the last hour or two fits in the category of "monumentally stupid".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Painkiller said:

 

That’s cute, but you didn’t answer my questions.

 

8 hours ago, Painkiller said:

 

if it’s a “mindless talking point” as you say...where is the counter argument that is so mindful?  Post the obvious logical and rational response that shows me I’m wrong on this issue.

 

The discussion has been had already.  Read the thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

The discussion has been had already.  Read the thread.  

Well if the discussion has been had what are we here for?  Why does the thread keep popping up?  If you read the thread, you will find that I have posted numerous times in this thread over it's lifespan....and I still remain unconvinced that law-abiding citizens voluntarily restricting their rights because "criminals" is the way to go. 

 

I have to pop in every once in a while to remind some of you that an opposing opinion does exist in this Country.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

Well if the discussion has been had what are we here for?  Why does the thread keep popping up?  If you read the thread, you will find that I have posted numerous times in this thread over it's lifespan....and I still remain unconvinced that law-abiding citizens voluntarily restricting their rights because "criminals" is the way to go. 

   

 

To discuss any new thoughts or ideas.  Your aren't bringing anything new.

 

Quote

I have to pop in every once in a while to remind some of you that an opposing opinion does exist in this Country. 

 

Don't know who your are trying to remind.  There is already plenty of opposing opinions in all the threads.  We all know they exist in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

At least we’re not El Salvador! ~ Wayne LaPierre...probably

 

Think of all the people out there in our country just itching to murder people but thinking "nah someone might be carrying a gun nearby, probably not a good idea." 

 

Guns save lives! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Painkiller said:

 

While other countries have less guns and less gun deaths many do have per capita a far higher murder rate regardless of their gun laws.  The U.S. doesn’t even enter into the top ten for homicides...is that because of our guns or in spite of them?

 

 

There have been more Americans killed in Chicago since 2001 then the Afganistan and Iraq war combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

To discuss any new thoughts or ideas.  Your aren't bringing anything new.

 

 

 

 

Who is?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There have been more Americans killed in Chicago since 2001 then the Afganistan and Iraq war combined.

 

Correct, in a place where handguns are already banned. 

2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

At least we’re not El Salvador! ~ Wayne LaPierre...probably

 

Well, would he be wrong in that statement? 

9 hours ago, Larry said:

I simply have a problem with monumentally stupid arguments  And as near as I can tell, every argument you've made in the last hour or two fits in the category of "monumentally stupid".  

 

If you thought that your neighbors were having too many kids...would you have yourself castrated to stop them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

Think of all the people out there in our country just itching to murder people but thinking "nah someone might be carrying a gun nearby, probably not a good idea." 

 

Guns save lives! 

 

There are probably a few. 

 

There are also more than a few who need institutionalized treatment and can't get it because the mental health system was gutted and shuttered when reform should have been the order of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Correct, in a place where handguns are already banned. 

 

And therefore . . . ?

 

6 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

If you thought that your neighbors were having too many kids...would you have yourself castrated to stop them?

 

If you thought your points made sense, would you actually state your points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Larry said:

 

And therefore . . . ?

 

 

If you thought your points made sense, would you actually state your points?

 

I think my points are obvious if you open your mind to alternative views, instead of continuing to insult me in a passive aggressive manner as you normally do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.