Jump to content

Davidson Deac II

Member Since 24 Nov 2008
Last Active Yesterday, 07:10 PM

#3299678 Falkland islands war is brewing... Argentina vs. UK

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 25 March 2015 - 09:42 PM

Oh, Putin won't attack Falkland directly but he can sponsor invasion by Argentina who indeed have a claim to this land.  UK will not go into all out war with Argentina, they will just sanction them and refuse to do business with em, exactly what Russia wants in a way.  All Argentina have to do is send 2,000 troops and 20 tanks against 40 UK troops and UK troops will surrender.  They will take over the land with no shots fired... Just like in Crimea.  Putin invaded Crimea with 3,000 soldiers against Ukrainian military that had 120 troops... 120 troops surrendered and were sent home.  No one got hurt. 


Putin then can sign a lease agreement with Argentina and make Falklands his for a small fee. 


The UK would absolutely fight to keep the Falklands.  Any UK government that allowed them to fall would face a vote of no confidence in a matter of days.  And UK defenses are far more robust than they were in 1982.  A full strength regiment of well trained and equipped British infantry, along with a squad of Typhoon fighters, and SAMS.  They can be reinforced quickly, and the Royal Navy can have nuclear subs there in a matter of days.


The most advanced fighter in the Argentinian AF is basically the same fighter they used in 1982.  The British would be able to control the air and sea around the Falkland's.  With no land border, you can't win a war if you can't control the air and sea. 

#3299156 Patriots ineligible receiver play is out

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 25 March 2015 - 05:22 PM

Its illegal as of today.  Ill use sufferage as an analogy here.  It used to be legal to tell a woman or a black person they cant vote until the constitution was amended.  Does it mean it was right before the amendment?  Thats up to you, but it was "legal"


This is not going to end well. 


That analogy only works if the Patriots were allowed to do it, but no one else was. 

#3298429 WalterFootball's Mock for the Panthers: March 24, 2015

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 25 March 2015 - 09:38 AM

I doubt we are taking a tackle with our first pick now that G-Man has stated he views Oher as the teams starting LT. He may draft one but it won't be until later and he will likely compete for a job at RT his rookie season.


I think if there is a OT available that G-Man feels is worth a first round pick, then we probably will  grab him regardless of how the team feels about Oher. 


Unless of course there is some other player available that G-Man thinks is even more worthy of a first round pick.  Could be a DE, WR, Safety, etc...  :)





“I’m not going to discuss about what we’re going to do with Byron,” general manager Dave Gettleman said last week at the NFL scouting combine. “Again, we’re going to draft the best guy. And if we’ve got five stud guys at that position and we’re sitting there and that position has the best guy, I’m taking him. You can look at me like I’ve got brain damage, but I’m going to do it.”


#3297689 Thomas Davis will get an extension, plus more not mentioned in tweets

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 24 March 2015 - 04:01 PM

Man Gman really thinks Oher is the answer to our LT problem....idk how I feel about that


Saying that he expects Oher to be the starter doesn't necessarily mean he thinks Oher is the answer at left tackle.   Unless the question is, who are we going to give a shot to prove himself.  We could pickup someone in the draft as insurance, or even to groom in case Oher doesn't show us much more than Bell did. 


I wouldn't expect him to say Oher is a temp replacement until we find our real lt, even if he is thinking it.



#3296069 How many time do you wear jeans before washing them?

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 23 March 2015 - 03:34 PM

I wash them before I wear them for the first time.  Don't have any idea where they have been or who has tried them own before I put me inside of them. 

#3295755 NCGOP Wants to Eliminate Zoning Protest Petitions

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 23 March 2015 - 01:26 PM

Anyone seeking to usurp private property via governmental coercion should automatically be charged with theft and tried, accordingly.  Of course, this comes with the same issues of anyone seeking to sue the state for whatever reason... the state has to first allow it.  So, we are well beyond that line of ethical relativism.  Only now, it's for the good of the collective for the "generation of tax revenue" rather than public right-of-ways.


If you read the legislation, this is not about eminent domain, or government usurpation of property rights I think. Its more of a private property business owner vs private property residential owner and the role the state and local governments play between the two. 


If I understand it correctly, the rule as it currently reads, allows property owners with property within 100 yards of a property that is being rezoned for business to submit a petition which requires the city or county boards to hold up the request.  The legislature wants to eliminate that part of the process.  The request would still have to be approved by the zoning board.  At least that is what I got from a brief reading of it.  I may be wrong with some of the details.    


As it stands now, If you decide to open a wine tasting and selling business on your own property and you request a zoning change, and your neighbors don't believe in allowing the consumption of alcohol, then the simple act of submitting a petition can hold up your petition for a undetermined length of time. 


Not sure how I feel about it actually.  But its not about property usurpation. 

#3295419 Ted Cruz Becomes First Major Contender to Announce He is Running for Presiden...

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 23 March 2015 - 09:41 AM

I would think he said that a bit tongue in cheek


Perhaps, but that does seem to be what people demand from politicians.  Which is why we see comments about how there are no good ones running.   To be admired, a politician needs to be forthright, straightforward and honest.  But to be elected (usually), a politician needs to be circumspect and indirect.  Those qualities don't go together, which is why we see very few admired and successful politicians. 

#3295388 Ted Cruz Becomes First Major Contender to Announce He is Running for Presiden...

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 23 March 2015 - 09:21 AM

We need candidates that can raise money and say ALL of the right things. Ted Cruz is not that guy.



Any politician that says ALL the right things is the last one I would trust. Can't imagine that I would ever agree with everything any politician says, and if I did, then I would begin to suspect his sincerity, or my own objectivity. 

#3295336 Ted Cruz Becomes First Major Contender to Announce He is Running for Presiden...

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 23 March 2015 - 08:33 AM

How can a dude born in Canada be a naturalized US citizen eligible to run for President?





While the constitution says that only a "natural born citizen" can be president, it doesn't define what is meant by "natural born citizen".  So the definition of natural born is left up to federal law and the courts.  And according to most legal scholars, Cruz meets the requirements as they are defined by law and past SC decisions. 


The meaning of natural born citizen - Harvard Law review



The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”




#3289156 Someone explain the: Iran/USA Agreement/Treaty issue.

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 18 March 2015 - 09:46 AM

You know, America pretty much fits the bill of "thinks he or she has god on their side and will use one".  We are no better.  Pakistan gets foreign aid and keeps harboring terrorists, but no one is trying to take down their nukes.  


The creators of the nuclear bomb regreted creating them I believe but it was bound to happen by someone, sadly.


I think you misunderstand the difference between using god in a political campaign, and truly believing god will help your side win a war in which nuclear weapons are being used.  We used them to end a war started by the other side when no one knew exactly what they would do.  We knew so little about them, that we actually had a plan to use them to clear concentrations of Japanese troops during an assault on Japan, then send our own troops through with no protection (because we didn't understand the impact of radiation).   Since that time, we have refrained from using them.    Do you think that ISIS would show the same restraint if they obtained Nukes, or managed to get one of their own people in power somewhere? 


I am not claiming our own leaders are saints, but certainly they are more sensible than those folks. 



#3288211 Someone explain the: Iran/USA Agreement/Treaty issue.

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 17 March 2015 - 02:02 PM

How many of you know the United States has not been able to verify whether or not Israel has nukes?


Yet we're going to attempt to dictate to other countries, not always considered friendlies, whether or not they can have a couple? 


Answer to the first is yes we know they have nukes.  Verification is unneeded. 


Answer to the second is yes, we are.  In the technical sense, its probably not fair, and if we were talking about rifles, tanks, carriers, etc... we wouldn't dictate as much. When discussing nukes, imo playing fair is for fools.  The more nations that have them, the more likely they are to be used. 

#3287667 John Oliver on the NCAA

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 17 March 2015 - 09:50 AM

I'm totally okay with NCAA athletes being paid if athlete scholarships for those athletes are dissolved, and they instead have to compete in the pool of merit scholarships. (actually this would be fuged up, but I'm feeling argumentative today :P)


It annoys me that academic institutions have become minor leagues for certain professions.



The NBA would probably be ok with it.  The D league would get a lot more popular.  :)







Wake Forest AD Ron Wellman says based on a Wake scholarship that cost close to $60,000 annually, student-athletes get paid about $120 for every hour directly tied to athletics.

"That's not a bad wage," Wellman said.



Wish I could have been taken advantage of in this fashion.  I would likely be much better off financially. 

#3287586 Someone explain the: Iran/USA Agreement/Treaty issue.

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 17 March 2015 - 08:24 AM

I'm much to lazy to search.



Most of what you hear is political yammering from the extremist or opportunist on both sides.   In truth, Congress and the tinderbox have a lot in common.  :)   Although I have to admit I think Congress is overstepping its bounds on foreign policy issues right now.



Of course, there are some serious questions about the potential treaty. 


Can it be verified? 

This is usually a issue with treaties of this sort.


Will the Senate approve? 

Not a chance right now, although maybe in a couple of years, the makeup of the Senate will change. 


And how will our current allies in the region feel about it? 

The Saudi's in particular are concerned about growing Iranian influence.  If they feel the Iranians are still working on an atomic program, they may decide to start working on their own. Given their wealth, its likely they could have one quickly if they decided to pursue such a program.  And the last thing any sane person wants is a nuclear arms race in the powderkeg that is the middle east.  Religious fanatics and nuclear weapons are not a good combination. 

#3286349 Deangelo is a steeler now

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 16 March 2015 - 12:05 PM

Williams has definitely been overpaid, but that is not his fault, its the fault of the front office.  Lets face it, we haven't used him very much.  He has been splitting carries with Stewart, Tolbert, and Newton.  But until this last season, he ypc has been pretty solid.  He did struggle this year, but injuries and poor offensive line play were a big part of that.  Its certainly not his fault that we were supposedly a running team that didn't use its running backs effectively.   Its been a cause of frustration to me over the last few years that we paid a ton of money to Stewart and Williams, but we used both of them sparingly either by design or due to injury. 


I think DW could still have some gas in the tank, perhaps enough for Pitt to get some decent use out of him.   I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Williams get 400-500 yards at about 4.5 a carry for Pitt next year if he stays healthy. 



#3277769 Bill Voth dropping knowledge, perspective and some clarity for the cliff jumpers

Posted by Davidson Deac II on 11 March 2015 - 03:17 PM

part of what makes draft picks what they are is the value.  you can potentially net somebody who plays at a high value on a cheap contract.


brandon marshall has a reported $7.7 million cap figure on the jets' roster this year.  you're not giving up a draft pick and getting a free stud skill position player in return.


Yep.  Giving up a fifth and a 7th for Marshall, no big deal.  Taking a 7.7 mil cap hit this year, along with 8 plus for the next two years, definitely a big deal, especially when we need help in other places besides WR.