1032004

Well at least you agree slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War

Not sure why it’s funny that you got played

I mean if you are you talking about at some point in the history of the world, sure. I thought we were talking about in America.

No, I’m saying everyone would pay if there were reparations. Which means current white people wouldn’t be being blamed.

Black, Hispanic, Asian and Indian people wouldn’t be paying?

Still weird that RAF is using their arena…

Figured we probably shouldn’t use the “Campbell is about to cut their program thread”… Any scuttlebut on who are the contenders for this job?

Only white people would pay for it?

That’s not blaming the current white people though

Who’s blaming current white people for what someone did 200 years ago?

Good to know they’re all the same

So they’re mad that people are coming to their country, working without needing government assistance and contributing to the economy. Sounds familiar.

Good to know you already know what the outcome will be! Do you have the powerball numbers too?

I disagree that this is what “liberals” think

OK back on topic. I’m confused how some people are saying Brooks could have used DHEA as a masking agent. How could it be a masking agent if it itself is banned? I guess it would help his argument for not getting a longer suspension if he was taking something “worse” that he didn’t test positive for?

Diplomats are not subject to US law, illegal immigrants are.

lol, TBH I’m kinda skeptical that whatever he did was so bad that no one would take him, or else he probably would have been in the news.

So you’re saying illegal immigrants aren’t subject to US laws? That doesn’t sound good

Based on the wording of the 14th amendment, one could certainly argue that is in fact not the “logical resolution”

A pretty important guy said “in fact it was the same date, the exact same date the end of the civil war, it was meant for the babies of slaves, so clean and so obvious” …is it your contention that the word “only” is not implied there? But if we’re going to be that literal here, then you might want to take a look at the word “all” in the actual amendment…

A poster here claims he was kicked off the team and that he’d be surprised if anyone else picked him up, but never gave specifics about what happened

Lol that seems awfully nitpicky. Or does that mean you think it should apply to anyone then?

I mean I see zero chance they try to make it retroactive other than the February date in the EO, but I guess you never know

Figured this deserved its own thread. What do we think the Supreme Court will decide on this? I’m not sure. I’m no legal expert, but the “BuT iT wAs OnLy InTeNdEd FoR sLaVeS!” argument doesn’t seem very credible to me, as the actual amendment says nothing about slaves and the way it is written is very broad: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. However, the main case considered to set the precedent for this is probably where Trump has a better argument: Wong Kim Ark. People that think the overturning of birthright citizenship is going to go through seem to be hanging onto the fact that Ark’s parents were “permanently domiciled,” even if not citizens. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ Any predictions?

We have confirmation from AJ. Carmine is not real.