Devil Doc

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

If they find the stuff that's being alleged believable (especially the parts about him forcing a kiss, forcing oral sex and trying to force someone to touch his penis) then I'd say a suspension is likely. Might even be a pretty significant one.

Exactly, it could be the whole season. 

1 minute ago, Mage said:

Almost certainly.  No matter how the rest of this plays out, unless literally every single detail is false, then Watson is gonna get suspended.  Look at what they did to Zeke who had far, far less going against him.  NFL always suspends if not doing so will make them look bad.

So is betting the farm... on a possible 3-8 game suspension worth the reward?

2 minutes ago, Monrowed said:

My guess is that he has a pattern of blurring the lines between massage and consensual...affairs.
In my opinion it borders on coercion with unethical behavior between a masseuse and a client.
For this reason it may not criminal, but a violation of ethics and speaks to his character. 
When the lawyer went in social media and queried for other instances these women felt that they experienced the same thing. 
Unless there are criminal charges that are brought forth by the police, then I still see the result being restitution and different perspective on his character that is questionable.

But... will it lead to an NFL Suspension..

We might as well sign Breon Borders if we gunna Sign Rashaan Melvin..

How about we get  Adoree Jackson and Kenny  Vaccaro from Titans? 

2 minutes ago, MVPccaffrey said:

That's the price for 10+ years of elite QB play.  And six non-QB draft picks don't make or break a franchise over TEN years, if we fail to compete at the highest levels with Watson by the end of 2030 it won't be because of draft picks that we didn't have seven to ten years earlier 

I think your putting too much stock into Watson..

So we getting Watson or Na?

3 minutes ago, MVPccaffrey said:

Tepper will give them whatever they want eventually, maybe after talking them down a pick and a player, but we will do it, a lot of fans will whine about it, but they'll pretend they were FOR it the whole time as we're winning the division year after year

He doesn't need too.. Texans do not want him anyway by the looks of it. Give them our 1st this year, our first next year, throw in some other tier drafts.. and maybe Samuel. 

10 minutes ago, Panthercougar68 said:

Ha...no. I’d give YGM and Jackson if it came to that.

Are they High? Watson is good, but he is not that good. Give them the 8th this year, a second and third next year, and a coupon to Bojangles. 

Has anyone ever had this concussion test? Is there a way to "fake" answers to pass? I've been diagnosed with a TBI, just not sure if it is the same test. 

1 hour ago, Anybodyhome said:

And the public health is the responsibility of the NIH and CDC.

And the remainder of your post is political, and I won't engage in a political discussion with you about something that is a health concern, not a reelection concern.

I never said public health wasn't the responsibility on the NIH and CDC. However, the CDC nor NIH can tell states what to do, they can only provide guidance and offer incentives or expertise. A Public Health concern does not override authorities or responsibilities or the system. The Stafford Act, the Defense Production Act, the Public Health Service Act, and the various statutes triggered by a declaration under the National Emergencies Act—none of these come close to authorizing a national social distancing act, or mask mandate. 

Our constitutional order has a federal structure, meaning that (a) federal powers are supreme, yes, but limited in scope and (b) the state governments are independent entities, not mere subordinate layers under and within the federal government (that is, the federal-state relationship is not similar to the way that counties and cities are subordinate layers under the state governments).

What follows from this? The federal government cannot commandeer the machinery of the state governments (or, by extension, of local governments). That is, the federal government cannot coerce the states into taking actions to suit federal policy preference. See, e.g., New York v. United States and Printz v. United States. And so, the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to promulgate different rules on social distancing and the like. 

Congress places conditions on state receipt of federal funds, those conditions are unconstitutional if they are sufficiently compelling to be deemed coercive. In such instances, the federal condition is tantamount to forbidden commandeering. Just where that line lies, of course, is not at all clear. But that’s not really our current situation, is it? There is no federal spending provision that came with strings attached in the form of conditions requiring states to move away from shelter-in-place in order to receive the funding, nor is there likely to be one.

Yes, these are copy and paste, the article explains it better than I do. So, again from the top. When Biden said he would have done a mandatory mask mandate, or mandatory social distancing, or closures etc. It couldn't have been done, regardless if he said it could have. The best thing for the Government to do is listen to ALL experts, regardless of political affiliation, and make a consistent plan. 

3 hours ago, Anybodyhome said:

It's not set up to handle a pandemic of this magnitude in any way shape or form because it was politicized from day 1 and that's why the response was a failure. Here we are 6 months into it and still have not reached a consensus that this is a healthcare crisis, not a political debate.

That's why it's been a failure, not because we're not set up that way.

We didn't wait for each state to act when responding to 9/11. Airports across the country were shut down immediately and public transportation systems across the country went on high alert- none of that occurred on an individual state-by-state basis.

Airlines are the responsibility of the FAA. Transportation systems are the responsibility of the entity in charge rather DOT, State, Local, Tribal, etc. Yes, the Pandemic was political, which is why no one did anything. You had both poltical spectrums using the Pandemic against each other when it came to passing funding, what to shut down, what not to shut down. When you have entities playing off emotions, fear, and blaming one another, and  times like we have now of course nothing was done. There also hasn't been proof yet that the things we have done, or havn't done actually done anything. Both political parties played themselves, and wouldn't listen to experts because of their political enterprises. So again, Biden couldn't have done poo, nor could have anyone else. There is proof everyday from both sides no one is following the supposed mandates, social distancing, or any other hygiene. Old people get sick and more susceptible, that is a given. They should have been isolated from the beginning. NO ONE had said this is what they would have done. You have Governors, Mayors enforcing things causing mistrust, then they turn around and don't follow their own rules. 

22 hours ago, Anybodyhome said:

Perhaps read this, for starters.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-south-korea

S. Korea has a way more advanced Healthcare and a means to do it. Did you see how much they had the Government do things? Our country is set up to where States make decisions, then Federal provide guidance and few resources and limited funding. Federal Government does not take over hospitals, facilities etc nor can they tell these facilities what to do. Also, there was already a Federal Decleration called in March, which meant many Federal Deparrments were activated in providing supplies, resources etc. So, what else could America have done?  Saying that America could have done what S.Korea did, is not how our country is set up. 

16 hours ago, R0CKnR0LLA said:

it's amazing to see so much stupid crammed into one post

wow just wow

 

190k deaths isn't bad?

250k deaths is good?

why focus on deaths like its a bad thing?

no proof anything can be done?

 

just for starters SKorea had their first case the same day as the US and their death toll is around 300

not 300k, 300

but yeah nothing can be done! it's all speculation!

 

good grief

Stupid?

explain?

Explain how keeping deaths below 250K is a bad thing? There is around 330 Million in America. The original estimates was a million deaths. Explain how something could have been done? A Mask mandate( Which legally cannot be done), Arresting people for not wearing a mask? Punishing people for not following Quarantine or lock down procedures?  Honestly, I want to know what YOU think could have been done, or in fact anything that supposedly Biden would have done, that would have changed the outcome. Also, what is the number of deaths that would have made it not so bad? 50K? 100? 25K 

51 minutes ago, kass said:

I don't understand this latest scandal with Trump. What's the big deal I am missing? What's "new"?

I mean, he did say in the beginning, March/April something, that millions could die if no actions was taken. And if they could keep the death tolls as low as 250k, they would have done a good job. 

I dont see why 190K deaths is considered bad? 250K is still good for a Pandemic.. which is why I am confused on the focus of deaths as a bad thing, when there is no proof of any other thing being done would have made the deaths less? It is all speculation. 

18 hours ago, 4Corners said:

Feb. 7: Trump tells Woodward he knows of airborne risks and covid is worse than worst flus

Feb 10-Mar 2, 2020: Trump holds five MAGA rallies each attracting thousands of people in confined spaces
 

taken from coronavirus timeline.....yikes. More evidence Trump doesn’t care about his supporters 

Or maybe the people knew the risk going to the indoor rallies? There is already evidence of people from both political spectrum's doing things that are risky and in confined spaces. Why should you political views determine which risk you take? 

4 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

First line of the paper:

Thanks Steve...

I say fug Covid all the time.. just like fug Cancer.

32 minutes ago, Paintballr said:

You shouldn’t be able to compare our response and approach on this virus to how we did in 1918. 
 

They got information by mail, telegraph, or newspapers. It would take days at times to spread word. The population density was much less, and science and knowledge and schooling isn’t what it is today. We should have, and have the expectation that we would respond better than in 1918 when it comes to knowledge, masks etc 

Well, not exactly. There was still Public Health experts, and leaders that would not follow what other experts did either. "The Social climate was one of insecurity and fear, as the population questioned the effectiveness of the control measures that were undertaken. Including the school and church closures, banning of public events and hospital visits" This was written in 1918. It is eerily similar to today. 

5 minutes ago, stirs said:

Yep.

As the Covid world turns.

Seems like the biggest thing was N95 masks, then ventilators, and on and on.  With each crisis comes the realization that maybe it was not a big a crisis as stated.  Toilet paper seemed like a crisis 5 years ago.  Sooo much info has come and gone since all this started.  But it still goes back to what we knew.

Keep the old and sick/health issues isolated, and 90% of your problem solved.  For some reason, we have taken the approach that everyone had to isolated, which meant nobody got isolated.  It might have been cruel to lock up the elderly, so to speak, but because we did not, the virus seemed to ravage senior homes as expected.  It happened in other countries too.  UK and Italy had same issues.  But yeah, Biden could have fixed all that, haha.  Actually, I doubt any politician could have fixed it.  They could have talked about it better, made us think they "cared" haha, but doubt the actual responses would have been a lot more effective

The scary thing is.. is people think the disagreements on lock-downs, mask, response, treatments etc... is only because of Trump, or certain people. Back in 1918, there was the same uncertainties and disagreements on treatments and response during a Pandemic.. I wonder what was going on during that time...

7 minutes ago, stirs said:

True

Because Trump talks like a spoiled teenager, or worse, people automatically dismiss what he does because of what he says.  It's like they would rather a politician lie to their face with grace and poise, than to listen to someone lie like a spoiled brat, haha.

And it does not matter what the law is, people will believe what they want to believe.  Biden can say anything now and will not be questioned, so most don't care whether it would do any good or can be done by law.  It is just that is something different than Trump, so it has to be good.

I do not get focused too much on what Trump says, I look at the actions. I have had numerous people say, the federal government isn't helping.. blah blah. I have personally been on PPE missions for the Federal/State Governments, my first mission was back in March. 

24 minutes ago, stirs said:

Some are ultra political in nature and find that their favorite pol has had a hand in all good and that the opposition has a hand in all that is bad.

Basically, from the beginning, our country, from the bottom to the top, left and right, have made what we now know as mistakes.  If no vaccine comes into view by January, then the next administration will have to deal with it.  And then, everyone will change their story.  Trump folks will say Biden could have had this thing whipped if he were Trump and ABH will say, "you fugging idiot, he is doing everything he can".

It's just the same push button response we get from most TBox guys.

Never do they detail what is good, just that the opposite of Trump, is apparently the only good they see.  Whether Trump or Biden is in office in late January, without a vaccine, we will still struggle through this mess for awhile longer

Oh, I never said mistakes weren't made they definitely were. I question the plan, because for some reason people seem to think Biden could have handled it differently. It is anecdotal evidence that Biden could have handled it differently. People are too focused on what Trump said "It will go away", "Hoax" etc.. which did not change the outcome on response from Federal and local governments. I do not see this Virus as political.. however, a lot of people do. FYI, Biden said in one of his ads that he would do a  nationwide mandatory mask mandate, he can't. It cannot even be approved directly through congress, has to be put under an already existing clause. Now, congress can use the Spending Clause and the Commerce Clause to impose a mandate, but again, it has to go through Congress. This means depending on the scope, and the outcome of Congress, there may not be an existing Federal mechanism suitable to enforce a nationwide mask mandate. 

8 hours ago, Anybodyhome said:

It's not an all or nothing proposition, you fugging idiot. But, while he's at it, why not go ahead and approve hydroxychloroquine, too? That's shown as much efficacy as the blood plasma treatment. Not to worry, though, I'm sure Trump's medical expert (you know her- she believes in alien sperm, lizard people among other things) will have some great news for us when she speaks at the convention next week.

Again, there's no indication this will save 3-400 people, but if it proves itself as a therapeutic recovery at some point, then I'm good with that. But while you want to get pissy with me because, according to your feeble mind, I'd "rather let folks die," let's not forget your president has, as of today, still not come up with a plan to combat the virus and 176,000 people are dead on Sunday, August 23, 2020.

Just a question, what "Plan" do you want to combat the Virus? There is many plans in place, and many behind the scenes work already going on. The Government is already doing what they are meant to do....funding, mitigation and facilitation.. that is all they can legally do.

On 8/16/2020 at 3:42 PM, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

If Duke really came up with that, it may as well close shop and everyone there go work at the mall.

It was a Duke study though. Why would they close from a study. Are you saying it is wrong, or have a rebuttal? 

2 minutes ago, Paa Langfart said:

Yeah, must be h ell with FOUR new cases in your country in over 3 months.

Meh, It is typical Virus behavior, it does not just go away. It can mutate, and come in waves. 

33 minutes ago, stirs said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-is-back-in-new-zealand-after-102-days-11597143065

This is my Shocked Face...