bnw wrote:

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

People are just as tired losing loved ones to auto accidents. Don’t expect autos to be legislated away any time soon. The spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written definitely includes the semi-automatic AR-15 as it does the fully automatic weapons of today. When it was written the intent was to allow the citizen to arm himself with the technology of the day. Those militias were comprised of citizens. Some of whom owned cannons and gunships.

If you wish to surrender your 2nd Amendment right that is your personal choice.

But who is a member of a “well-regulated militia?”

Only National Guard members, as far as I know.

I don’t see where the right to bear arms extends beyond that framework. In other words, if you aren’t part of a well-regulated militia, I don’t see where the 2nd amendment protects your right to “keep and bear arms.”

If someone is interested in who is a well regulated militia it is obvious the founding fathers meant citizen soldiers who comprised the militia at that time. Citizens who brought their weapons with them to join the militia. Citizens who as members of the militia were free to leave whenever they wanted. Militia that proved vital to the war effort. Provisions for hunting and personal protection were not written in to the amendment because it never occurred to them that it would ever be questioned. Much like not writing that someone should brush their teeth at least once every day would be for today. Or cautioning against licking an energized circuit. The National Guard is not an appropriate example of a militia since those who serve can not leave at will.

How do you feel about some kind of compulsory training, some kind of license. You have to have a license to drive a car. And a different license for a motorcycle. How do you feel about licensing/training as a prerequisite for various firearms?

He is Dracula. I loved those movies as a kid. They are still the best of the genre, imo.

I don’t know, man. Wouldn’t you think one would have to be brain damaged to play for the 49ers in the first place?

Agamemnon wrote:

LT Brandon Washington; LG Garrett Reynold, C Barrett Jones, RG Jamon Brown, RT Rob Havenstein.

Oh…YES!!!!!!!!

Oh, praise Jesus, yes!

Edit: that would have worked better if it had worked better.

That’s the JT tweet of the starting 5 OL.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Zooey.

wv wrote:

Not really. I’m tired of the “vets-coming-off-injury” approach.

I like the idea of an infusion of young, healthy, nasty, conrad-doblers.

w
v

\

Oh, we ALL like that idea, wv.

We are all in LOVE with that idea.

The thing is…as the honorable delegate from New Vermontavania has stated…many of us are not 100% confident that that is what the Rams have.

That’s all.

I shouldn’t put this here.

It has no relevance whatsoever, and…well, it’s a Posting Crime, actually. But the school year is over in three days, so I’ll do whatever I want.

I like the lists here.

I will add Sean Mannion.

And the equipment manager. I think he can be elite.

Who said PEDs?

Could be heroin.

I find that quote interesting.

I have wondered about that kind of thing a lot.

I look at a guy like Tom Hanks who wins an Oscar for Forrest Gump, and…he was great. He was.

But I have to think that there’s a thousand actors out there who could have given a performance as good as that. Maybe not better. But as good. 1,000 actors you never heard of.

Kurt Vonnegut once said something along the lines of, “It’s a great tragedy we have mass media because it makes the pool of ‘greatness’ so much smaller. If we didn’t have recordings, the best singer in your village would be the equivalent of Elvis Presley. But because we have recordings and video, one person serves as Elvis Presley for the whole country. So instead of 2 million singers highly revered, each in their communities, we get one guy revered by all the communities, and all those other people live their lives not mattering.”

That is a verrrrry loose paraphrase of what he said. But, you know, I think about that a lot.

wv wrote:

I’d have put the Legion of Boom at the top of the list,
myself.

Pats won the Ring,
and have no ‘scary units’ ?
Really?

w
v

Their film unit. And their equipment managers.

wv wrote:

Shouldn’t we burn sage,
or light candles,
or somethin.

“No new Injuries” — I dunno.
Is that the Patriots battle-cry?
Seattle?

I hope Fisher knows what
he’s a-doin.

w
v

I will not know what to say if the Rams do not become a serious team in the next two years.

The drafts have all looked good. The RGIII trade got us a bounty.

There is Fisher, and a staff of highly rated coaches.

They have been the youngest team two years in a row (or close to it), and it’s time they started maturing. There is consistency now in philosophy. It is time to move up the ladder.

Listen, I know this is going to be difficult for you guys to hear, but I’m afraid I just have to say this. The Lakers are the only team that matters. Other teams can win a championship once every 50 years, or whatever, but the Lakers have won 1 out of every 3 championships over the past 35 years, and with all the cap space in the world, and the #2 pick overall, they are a couple of years away from reasserting their Lakerdom.

So…enjoy it while you can.

InvaderRam wrote:

goldman sachs somehow finances it. don’t ask me how. there’s a rumor floating around that spanos with the help of goldman sachs would be able to do the move himself. but then why include oakland in the first place? sounds fishy.

What I gather from those articles is that the Goldman Sachs route has considerably more muscle than the hurriedly-unveiled nebulous project the Chargers originally announced. They have got some real money on board now (though it does not appear to be finalized yet), and the stadium renderings are a step up from the ugly cruise ship they originally unveiled. So they are gaining momentum it would appear. A better stadium, and proven financing once it gets all worked out.

As for why the Raiders, I can only speculate.

The one market survey I read had the Rams, then the Chargers, and in a distant third the Raiders, as the most desirable team in Los Angeles. So the Chargers would presumably be better off with the Raiders as a co-tenant in LA. The Rams would be team 1A, the Chargers team 1B. If it is Chargers and Raiders, the Chargers are likely to emerge as team 1A.

You know – Lakers, Dodgers, Kings.

As opposed to the other tenants – Clippers, Angels, Ducks. Those teams are profitable and doing well, but they aren’t the Lakers, Dodgers, and Kings.

Spanos wants badly to be in LA. He would be better off with the Raiders than the Rams. If Kroenke rolls in and builds Inglewoodland, he’s the man.

It could also be that Spanos – originally lacking financing – needed a partner, and the Raiders were the natural fit for a couple of reasons. Could have been a desperation move. Nevertheless, if there are going to be two teams there, the Carson project is better for him for the reasons I mentioned above.

Happy birthday, PA.

It has been estimated that the relocation fee for a Rams move back to LA could be in excess of $500 million for team owner Stan Kroenke.

So…JT is using the passive voice here because he doesn’t know WHO made the $500 million estimate.

That number is insane. That is more than half the value of the Rams, Raiders, and probably Chargers. And there is no way that the Raiders or Chargers could afford anything like that number. Kroenke has that kind of money, but that doesn’t make the number sensible.

I don’t know how they can fairly ask more of the Rams than of the other two teams, and clearly that number shuts out Davis and Spanos from the market. Hell, they don’t even have enough money yet to go halvsies on a stadium, never mind a relocation fee of any size at all. I just don’t see how Spanos and Davis come out on top, in spite of what JT wrote.

When it comes to decision time, Kroenke’s project is more glamorous, it’s ready to go right now, and he’s got the money. If money is the language of the NFL, Kroenke is the one who speaks that language best.