LeSean McCoy: The Running Back Who Cried Wolf

LeSean McCoy: The Running Back Who Cried Wolf

How LeSean McCoy, Tra Thomas and Stephen A. Smith Confuse Capism With Racism

I was in the middle of a great addition to my chapter on the 2014 Patriots for Caponomics, but then I had to get drawn into a bit of a rant on this because LeSean McCoy and Stephen A Smith are in the news again for saying absolute nonsense.

Let’s preface this being fair and saying, I was never in the Eagles locker room, therefore, I can never say I know what happened in that locker room or what LeSean McCoy may have experienced, so we all must keep that in mind. We have never walked a mile in his shoes, nor know what caused him to feel this way, but with that in mind, I still think he’s overstepped his boundaries and has made himself out to be a fool.

We also must keep in mind that, like any industry, racism exists in football and it’s for both black and white players. Brandan Schaub from The Fighter and the Kid podcast is a UFC fighter now, but during his football playing days at the University of Colorado, he had a racist running backs coach. While watching film of Nebraska’s white running back, his coach said, “I don’t know why white guys play football, they just can’t do the same things that us black guys can do.” This was while white Brendan Schaub was in the meeting room. Not exactly how you make one of your players feel welcome.

What really kind of set me off to write this was an article by Phil Sheridan, ESPN’s Philadelphia Eagles reporter, titled: “LeSean McCoy’s comments are a sign that Chip Kelly is caught in a trap.” What trap Phil? Are we talking about the trap of 2015 where everything that you do that someone can disagree with can be seen as racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or whatever the name is for the group that is involved in the situation? It’s gross that Mr. Sheridan would even play into this nonsense.

By the end of his article, Sheridan even makes some counter points against McCoy’s statement with the following facts, so I don’t understand what trap Kelly is in:

  • “Kelly traded quarterback Nick Foles, who is white.”
  • “In free agency, Kelly replaced McCoy with another African-American running back,DeMarco Murray (on a five-year, $42 million contract). Kelly also signed cornerback Byron Maxwell to a six-year, $63 million deal — the largest contract of Kelly’s tenure.”
  • “In the NFL, if you trade or release a Pro Bowl-level player like McCoy or Jackson, there is a good chance he’ll be black. A 2014 study showed that 68 percent of NFL players are African-American.”
  • “Kelly tried to sign Maclin to a new contract, but dropped out when Kansas City went to $11 million per year. To replace Maclin, Kelly draftedNelson Agholor in the first round last week.”
  • “Five of the Eagles’ six draft choices are African-American. Only seventh-round pickBrian Mihalik is white.”
  • “Finally, when Kelly became head coach of the Eagles, he inherited Foles and Michael Vickas his candidates for starting quarterback. Vick won the competition. At Oregon, Kelly’s starting quarterbacks included African-Americans Darron Thomas and Dennis Dixon before Tongan Marcus Mariota took over.”

Sheridan noted that the Eagles had 21 non-black players on their 53-man roster at the end of the 2014 season or about 40% of the team, which is slightly higher than the 32% league-wide. Of those 21 players, Cooper is one of the seven who were originally signed or drafted under Andy Reid.

Former Eagles assistant coach Tra Thomas says that he feels “like there is a hint of racism,” but he doesn’t want to “put that tag on someone,” because “you’ve got to be careful with that, but there are some of the players that kind of feel like that’s what it is.” Strong words from a man of strong convictions.

Thomas then goes on to cite “a report that came out last year” regarding the Eagles being “one of the whitest teams in the NFL.” All very serious allegations and something that we should certainly get the Justice Department to investigate. I mean seriously, what can we do when a staggering 40% of the people you work with are white? How can we fight this injustice?

Another point from Thomas regarding Kelly’s perceived racism is that the Eagles have only one African-American position coach, Duce Staley, their running back coach. Tre Williams is now on the scouting staff after being the tight ends coach. Both players were with the Eagles before Kelly was hired.

Sheridan states that out of 23 assistant coaches for the Eagles, seven are African American, that’s just over 30%.

The only real trap that Sheridan speaks to is that since Kelly didn’t release Cooper after that racial episode in 2013, it has given Thomas, Smith and McCoy some firepower to make these charges of racism. Kelly has declined to comment on this and to that Sheridan says, “that might be easier than trying to challenge the perception that’s out there, but silence only seems to make the trap sticker and harder to escape.”

Now the question is, does anyone who should be taken seriously actually think that Chip Kelly is racist?

First, how do we keep giving Stephen A. Smith a voice? There are times in the past where I have applauded him for raising issues that I think should be raised and speaking his mind, but the last few months have raised only one issue for me with Stephen A. Smith, one question for him: are you the racist?

When Tom Brady skipped going to the White House, Stephen A. went on this ten to fifteen minute rant about how Brady was disrespecting the president and even suggested that this man who has made a career out of playing with and leading black and white men might be a racist…Tom Brady might be a racist for not going to the White House…because it was his parents 50th Anniversary…what planet are Smith on?

Smith went on a rant a couple months ago about how Kelly got rid of McCoy, Jeremy Maclin and DeSean Jackson, but still kept Riley Cooper. What Smith is doing is showing his ignorance to the NFL’s salary cap, he’s mistaken racism with capism!

So let’s dive into this!!

In 2015, LeSean McCoy was set to have a cap hit of $11.95 million for the Eagles, while earning $10.25 million in salary. As Jason says, “neither number shoule ever occur for a running back in today’s NFL and it is possible that McCoy would have been released had he refused a pay cut.” His cap hit would have taken up 8.34% of the cap. Instead, he counts as $3.4 million in dead money, which is only 2.37% AND the Eagles got one of the best young linebackers in the NFL, a position they needed to upgrade going into this season in Kiko Alonso, who will take up a mere 0.56% of the cap.

So the Eagles got rid of a guy who’s cap hit was out of line with what a running back should be paid in today’s NFL and who was Pro Football Focus’ 55th rated running back…out of 57 running backs. Something that very few people realize is that the Eagles offensive line was one of the best in the NFL last season, they were rated by PFF as the #1 run blocking offense in the NFL. Their rating of 85.7 was 30 points higher than the Cowboys who were #2, but their rush rating was 22nd at -3.1, largely because LeSean McCoy had a -1.4 rushing rating behind the best blocking in the NFL.

And, to top it off, McCoy signed his overpriced extension the year before Kelly was named the Eagles head coach, so it wasn’t like he was “Kelly’s guy.” From a team building standpoint or looking for players that fit what Kelly wants in a running back, who knows if McCoy fits the mold of what he even wants.

Again, they also got a great player, Kiko Alonso, in the trade at a low-cost and at a position they needed help at. That can’t be forgotten, it wasn’t like he trade McCoy for a bucket of Rex Ryan’s favorite buffalo wings.

Anyway, what happened with the 5.41% of the cap that the Eagles saved by trading McCoy for Alonso? They spent 4.89% of it on two running backs who aren’t white: Ryan Mathews and DeMarco Murray. I think it would be hilarious if a reporter asked McCoy where Chip Kelly could find some white running backs?

While Mathews was injured for much of last season, he’s a player who can do a lot of good things when healthy and fits into Kelly’s offense. Murray has some of those injury issues as well, but most people say he fits Kelly’s scheme better than McCoy and he was the 5th best running back according to PFF, not the 55th.

So they went and got themselves TWO running backs with the money they saved with the trade and they had 0.52% of the cap left over to spend elsewhere.

So there is one case where the salary cap and good management supersedes the cry of racism. One down, two to go.

So with Jeremy Maclin, why did Lyndon Baines Kelly get rid of him? Oh, because Maclin got offered a five-year contract worth $55 million, with a $12 million signing bonus, from the coach who drafted him, Andy Reid. So what did LBK do after that? Did he go sign Brian Hartline, Wes Welker, and Dane Sanzenbacher? Nope. He signed Miles Austin and Seyi Ajirotutu, then he went and drafted Maclin’s replacement, African American wide receiver Nelson Agholor in the first round, Maclin 2.0.

As I wrote in my last piece, Agholor couldn’t be more similar to Maclin:

Maclin: 6’/198, 4.48, 10’ broad jump, 35 ½” vert, 7.06 3 cone

Agholor: 6’/198, 4.42, 10’5” broad jump, 36 ½” vert, 6.83 3 cone

Maclin turns 27 this year, white Agholor turns 22 and adds a punt return dimension that Maclin doesn’t have.

While Maclin’s 2015 cap hit is low due to his signing bonus, in 2016, Maclin’s number is $12.4 million, while Agholor will only cost $2 million.If the salary cap goes up to $153 million in 2016, Maclin will take up 8.10% of the cap, while Agholor will take up 1.31% of the cap.

Through the first four seasons of these contracts, it is projected that the Eagles will save $32,703,526 by having Agholor instead of Maclin. That is $32.7 million that the Eagles will have to spend on other positions and needs over the next four years, while still having a player in Agholor who should produce at a similar level to Maclin fairly quickly because his attributes, measurables and talents are so similar to Maclin’s.

(History Lesson: Lyndon Baines Johnson was one of the most racist men to ever occupy the White House, he helped dismantle President Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957 when he was in the Senate, only to push it through in 1964 for purely political reasons and the quotes attributed at the time will make you shudder. I feel it’s important for people to research and understand this because history has been rewritten regarding this man. Plus, saying Lyndon Baines Kelly in a serious voice made me chuckle, what can I say, I’ve been writing all day and only talking to my dog.)

Lastly, with Jackson, I did not like the way rumors were bandied about regarding his gang affiliations and things of that nature, he has reportedly been a good citizen throughout his career, but according to NJ.com, that was only part of the issue for why they cut ties. Keep in mind, with what happened with Aaron Hernandez only two years before the Eagles traded Jackson, their concerns that “his friends were becoming a more powerful – and negative – influence in his life” is a legitimate cause for worry.

Sources told NJ.com that he had “a bad attitude, an inconsistent work ethic, missed meetings and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly” and that those “were the original reasons for his fall from grace.”

I fully supported Jackson’s side of this story when it happened on the personal level, I thought it was gross the way the media portrayed the issue. Do you think Jackson should just give up hanging out with the people he grew up with because society is going to judge him? Most of our society doesn’t even know how to judge him and has no right to because it’s not their life. Again, by all accounts, Jackson is a good man.

But hey, let’s look at the salary cap again! Jackson, like McCoy, signed an extension in the 2012 offseason, the year before Kelly came on board. He also was grumbling that he hoped the Eagles would re-do his contract heading into the 2014 offseason, something that Kelly obviously did not want to do. Jackson had a cap hit of $12.75 million in 2014, which was 9.59% of the salary cap. By trading him, they cleared 4.89% of the cap, which isn’t a lot, but was probably the right move for a guy who wasn’t going to be happy playing on that contract in 2014 and because they could easily draft some replacements for him in the draft or sign someone in free agency.

They signed Darren Sproles who helped in Kelly’s pass catching running back role and as a punt return, then drafted Jordan Matthews and Josh Huff to solve the loss of Jackson long-term.

Jackson went to Washington and signed a contract that he could be happy with, he also had 1169 yards on 56 catches (20.9 ypc) and six touchdowns, a great season for a player who has a lot left and who I sure wish the best.

Matthews had 67 catches for 872 yards (13.0 ypc) and eight touchdowns, while taking up only 0.68% of the salary cap as a second round pick. Huff only had 8 catches for 98 yards (12.3 ypc), but did have a 107 kickoff return for a touchdown along with his 14 returns for 415 yards, while taking up 0.42% of the cap.

So I’m sorry Mr. McCoy, is the salary cap racist? Is Chip Kelly racist for getting the best return on his investment that he can possibly make? Is he racist for trying to do the best job he can, so that he doesn’t get fired?

This is like the third time this offseason that McCoy has brought up this charge of racism against Kelly and it’s just wrong. Relax LeSean! He’s not judging you by the color of your skin; he’s judging you by your cap number and your performance on the field!

Meanwhile, Riley Cooper got resigned after the 2013 season because he had just had a great season with 47 catches for 835 yards (17.8 ypc) and eight touchdowns. He was pretty bad last season, but that just means that resigning him to a five-year, $22.5 million deal might have been a mistake. His cap hits through 2018 are still incredibly low for someone who’s supposed to be a WR2. In 2015, he’s only taking up 3.35% of the cap and makes him the 11th highest paid Eagle. This means the Eagles don’t have a WR in their Top 10 cap hits, which is very unusual, but also shows the value that they’re getting out of the position because they have one of the best receiver groups in the league with Zach Ertz and Brent Celek at tight end and pass catching running backs as well.

Cooper was the 110th rated receiver…out of 110 receivers last year according to PFF, but all that means is that they made a big mistake signing him to an extension. What does McCoy want though? Does he want Kelly to cut Cooper this year with $6.2 million in dead money cap hit if the Eagles cut him, but a $4.8 million cap hit if Cooper’s on the team? So McCoy wants them to waste $1.4 million to what? Prove that Chip Kelly is not only not a racist, but also a moronic businessman?
I remember when the word racism used to have meaning, when people used to cringe at the idea of being called racist. Today, being called a racist just means that someone disagrees with you. Being called a sexist on Twitter means that you just made fun of the people who are offended at what Jeremy Renner called a fictional movie character or the people outraged at what Bud Light put on their bottles.

Apparently, all being called a racist takes today is trading or not resigning some black players in a sport that’s 68% black.

The only thing I hate as much as racism are false cries of racism.

Tweet me: @ZackMooreNFL

If you liked the kind of cap analysis that went into this article, please e-mail me at Caponomics@gmail.com, so that you are added to our e-mail list and get some bonus finished chapters as they become available. Last week, I sent out our chapter analyzing the 2000 Ravens. 

Caponomics is a book that analyzes the Super Bowl champions from the last 21 seasons, creates theories based on this analysis and then uses those theories to discuss why 2014 teams were or were not successful.

  • pjcostello

    GREAT, thoughtful article. Hat’s off.

  • humboltblue

    Well done.

  • eddiea

    As a blackman, it’s things like this that makes me mad. Using race as a reason for you, McCoy,being traded is stupid. Yes he was traded from team he loved, but he kept his pay and ended up with more money. Now, one could question releasing D. Jackson, while keeping Cooper who yelled a racist word. Anyway, this is another case of a black person mad at “boss” and stupidly using race as a reason. If there is a problem, I’d listen more to a current player than one that’s been traded or released sincr a current player would have more to loose, imo. Sorry for mini rant

    • McGeorge

      I think it may have been a mistake getting rid of DeSean Jackson.
      Maybe Kelly felt he wasn’t cooperating and was difficult to manage?
      Maybe there was a tinge of racism?

      I don’t think what Riley Cooper did should have got him cut. Just give him a talking too.

    • Greg

      I don’t think people should question the fact that we kept Cooper and let go of Jackson. I strongly dislike Riley Cooper, he played well for his contract year and then disappeared the next year. He seems like an arrogant and ignorant ass. He blocks well but has bad hands and runs poor routes. His incident with the racial slurs was pretty disgusting.

      But in the end since he’s still on the team and because of that I can safely assume he listens to authority and does what he is told without question.

      Desean on the other hand seemed to have a problem with Chip from the start. He refused to run routes in practice (which is so egotistical, ridiculous and detrimental to a football team that is trying to surprise their opponents with creative schemes) that were not the “primary receiver” routes so he ended up practicing with the 2nd and 3rd teams for awhile. Later in the season he got in an altercation with his WR coach and had to be restrained by multiple players and later chewed out by veteran Jason Avant. He just seemed to be overall insubordinate and that is not what you want in a football player as a coach.

      So I don’t think you could throw racism into the question about why he released Desean and not Riley

      • stizzy35

        Andy had nooo problems with these guys for years so why does Chip? Riley Pooper is absolute garbage he should have no room for error in any way so yes his racist rant was more than cause for release! Just because they are young black guys EXCELLENT fball players a little flashy with wit fancy cars who don’t necessarily kiss arse don’t mean they should be let go in Djax case for nothing! Chip has an ego too a big one lets hope we don’t have to let his arse go

        • Jernst

          I remember Andy failing to control DeSean and eventually having to bench him because DeSean quit on his team and wasn’t giving full effort.

          Second…Andy hasn’t won a playoff game in 6 years. At the time, Jackson was a rookie roll player. With Jackson, Maclin and McCoy as the top three playmakers on offense, Andy won 12 games…in his last TWO YEARS. He went 8-8 and 4-12 the last two years with those guys.

          So, it seems like Andy was having some problems to me.

          • Tracey Lee

            Thank you. Well said.

        • Did you read the part of the article where I said how much cheaper Jackson’s replacements are than Jackson? I mean you might like Jackson, but these coaches don’t get rid of players for nothing. Jackson was already grumbling about his contract and had some other issues.

          Also, to the point I made above, these weren’t Kelly’s guys, they had signed extensions under Reid and, this is something that happens a lot when new coaches come in, Kelly was okay with getting rid of them and finding younger players who fit the system and cost less money.

          • McGeorge

            I’m ok with replacing an expensive player with a cheap one, provided the cheap one gives a certain level of production.
            Did that happen?
            What did the Eagles do with the saved money?
            (I don’t follow the Eagles – that’s why I’m asking)

        • Also, LeSean McCoy once set his Twitter army on one of his baby mamas. I would argue that’s as bad as saying a really bad word once.

        • McGeorge

          Chip has an ego.
          Maybe Chip is abrasive.
          Maybe he came in with a chip on his shoulder “I’m going to show these so and so’s whose boss”.
          If you are a professional sports player, put up with it. It sucks but can come with the territory. A player making many millions may not like the new coach, but make a major effort to play his way. That’s part of playing team sports.

          Maybe LeBron James is a dick. Pass him the ball.

          Maybe Tom Brady or Peyton Manning is a dick. He wants you to stay late and practice with him because there was a missed route or a pick. Stay late.

          Herb Brooks was a dick. He thought he could get an edge on the Russians by conditioning his players to a higher level. He was abrasive and worked them extremely hard.
          He won the gold medal.

        • Tracey Lee

          Yes, Andy did have a problems with Desean. I recall Andy suspending him for a game. From what I understand, Andy put up with “Djax” nonsense for a while before he decided to do that.

  • Reef215

    Spot on bro

  • Lang Jones

    I could not agree more about McCoy, and not disagree more about LBJ. Every meaningful piece of Civil Rights legislation passed in the 20th Century was passed under the Johnson administration.

    Was he a man of his time, absolutely. A racist? Sure. But the man deserves credit for passing all that legislation.

    • ICDogg

      He was for a long time trying to walk a tightrope between keeping the Democratic coalition together (which was an unlikely combination of Southern racists and Northern liberals) considering his own position as a Democrat in Texas. Eventually he had to side with one group or the other, and he chose the right side. This did indeed fracture the coalition and the South has been pretty solid Republican since. But once he chose to support civil rights he used his political might and know-how to ensure that the legislation wasn’t held up in Congress. Ultimately that is his legacy.

    • ICDogg

      I also have a problem with “history has been rewritten regarding this man.”

      Who gets to “rewrite history”? I have to imagine it’s someone with an agenda to tear down his legacy, most likely someone who is also still carrying on about Benghazi.

    • Here’s a fun exercise, Google this: Lyndon Baines Johnson (n-word, but spell it out) quote. Then look at the Google image to see the quote with a nice photo of him, so you can look at his face and image those nasty ass lips saying it.

      • Lang Jones

        You are right about Johnson’s years in the legislative branch. You’re also right about his foul mouth.

        You are entirely wrong about his presidency. If you want to Google something, then try the list of Great Society legislation he got through as President. If you’re going to cite Caro then please cite what he wrote about Johnson as President.

        You might also want to cite Dallek, Unger, Kotz, Woods, and Zarefsky all of whom have written extensively about LBJ’s commitment to Civil Rights.

        And before you write it off as nothing but a response to political pressure, please explain why he used some of the last bits of his political capital to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1968 with its unpopular fair housing provisions.

        You also might want to check out Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ or Reagan’s thinly veiled racial appeals, or Willie Horton before you lay everything on the doorstep of the Democrats.

        There is enough ugliness around race for everyone.

        That said, I’m glad Shady is gone. One less me-first guy in the locker room.

        • ICDogg

          Yeah… once Johnson did change sides on the issue he went whole hog behind it and pushed ambitious “Great Society” measures far beyond what he needed to do to be politically expedient.

          I was around then. I remember. Things were changing quickly, attitudes about race were changing for a lot of people. It’s a lot like gay marriage today, many supporters once thought the idea to be absurd. Politicians do sometimes change based on what they think their constituents want. It’s always happened, and always will. LBJ for political reasons along with other Southern Democrats undermined the 1957 Civil Rights act. And it’s also likely it was for political reasons that he changed his position.

          But that really shouldn’t matter. Look at Lincoln’s record on the slavery issue prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, which was also done for “political reasons”. Does it matter that he was perfectly willing to keep slave states if it would keep the Union together? Does it matter that a lot of the things he said in the Lincoln-Douglas debates sound very racist today? You have to look at things in the context of when they occurred and where they occurred.

          • Like I said above, Great Society destroyed the progress being made by African Americans. Our country would be in a much better place without those programs.

            “LBJ for political reasons along with other Southern Democrats undermined the 1957 Civil Rights act. And it’s also likely it was for political reasons that he changed his position.”

            So essentially being a liar is okay? That’s what’s wrong with politics. Like I said above, agree to disagree, no need to have this debate really.

        • Great Society legislation is an example of Johnson’s “mission accomplished” as it has destroyed the fabric of the American black community. As with almost every major piece of leftist legislation, it goes back to the quote that “the road to hell was paved with good intentions,” or at least intentions that claim toe be good. At the time it was passed, by almost every economic indicator, African Americans were progressing to the same levels as whites.

          Just one statistic that I love to cite on this topic is that out-of-wedlock births in 1964 were almost identical, in 2011, 72% of black babies were born out of wedlock. I listened to this hilarious comedienne named Ms Pat who discussed the way that you could only get welfare or other forms of assistance if there was not a man in the home. What kind of perverse incentives does that create?

          HILARIOUS that you bring up the Great Society programs like they’re some kind of game changer that prove he’s not racist. In the opinion of many, you could look at the results of the program as say that it was set up to destroy the progress of black Americans and the statistics would show that.

          Intentions don’t matter because politicians are liars, results matter.

          Agree to disagree, no need to have this debate really.

          • McGeorge

            Welfare was around way before 1964.
            Was the increase in illegitimate babies due to government changes in the 60’s? 70’s?
            Did society change?
            Its also high in Native American communities.
            And Hispanic communities.
            I don’t see how Johnson can be blamed for that one.

            I think affirmative action is detrimental. It may have had good intentions, but doesn’t work.

          • I agree there is more to it than that, it’s just one stat that I think is telling. The new forms of welfare had the perverse incentives like having to not have the father in the home type stuff. I had a much better knowledge of this during college when I had too much time to read about it lol

          • McGeorge

            I dont know if this is accurate but:


            This is contrary to what you wrote:

            >>The trend in the illegitimacy rate over the past four and a half decades has been startling. Out-of-wedlock births comprised 5.3 percent of total births in 1960, including 2.3 percent of white births and 23 percent of black births.

          • Like I said, it was 72% in 2011. It’s gone through the roof.

          • McGeorge

            It has, but it’s gone up for all groups.
            For white’s its around 29%, which is 12 fold increase.

            My point is since welfare was around before that, has something else caused that?

            Why would the Civil Rights act cause it for whites and blacks?

            I’m speculating but maybe its from couples living together, havng kids, and splitting up?

          • It’s not the Civil Rights Act, it’s the Great Society programs that came after it that caused all of this. The War on Poverty that’s spent trillions, but done nothing for poverty. It’s just a sad state where the government thinks that spending all this money is a better idea than just doing what Texas does and leave the economy to itself and let business boom.

            That’s the main issue with the programs, it’s this idea that govt can do things better than the people who are on the ground, who are doing it. This kind of attitude is what has destroyed our cities. Look at places like Baltimore where they’ve had one party rule for 50 years and no opportunities for the people living there.

            Our country is wasting millions of people’s human potential in our cities and it’s too bad. Millions of people who will never get to do something they love for a living, what they were born to do, get the pride of bringing home a paycheck for something they’d do for free. We need capitalism!

            “Indeed, between 2007 and 2014 — the period covering the recession and the slow recovery that followed — Texas created 1.4 million net new jobs. During the same period, the rest of the nation wound up losing 400,000 jobs. The falling nationwide unemployment rate is largely the function of people’s exiting the work force entirely.”
            Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/413499/texas-crazy-or-it-real-america-john-fund

          • McGeorge

            Texas has 2 advantages.
            1 – its an oil state, and that gives it a leg up on creating jobs. Take oil away and how would it do?
            2 – if a state guts worker protection laws, the cost to business decreases at the cost to the injured workers. The burden is shifted from one group to another.

            I don’t know the numbers, but I don’t think it’s as black and white as you make it out to be.

            As for the War on Poverty (WOP), weren’t 2 pillars increasing education and health spending on the poor? I don’t think that’s a bad thing. But you can’t convince poor people to take advantage of educational opportunities, that has to come from within, and the government can’t do that.
            Other aspects of the WOP may not have worked out.
            I’m not knowledgeable about the details so I can’t really argue it in any depth.

            I do think for a group to be successful, it has to come form inside that group. That’s not the governments job.

          • I repeat…Texas has created 1.4 million jobs, while the rest of the country lost 400,000…That’s pretty black and white.

            “increasing education and health spending on the poor?”

            All this is about is spending money on friends of Democrats in those industries and making it look like you’re making a difference. I say that because of education mostly, because the facts are clear, Baltimore has the highest per capita spending in the country at over $15,000 and the schools are horrific and there are no opportunities.

            Crazy Chris Mathews even blamed right to work states for why there are no jobs in Baltimore,which is one of the most ironic and hilarious statements in the history of MSNBC, quite the feat. So he, essentially, blamed red states for creating a good climate for business, which then took jobs from states that make it hard for business to succeed.

            Also, it’s been creating jobs across the spectrum, Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are four of the 15 fastest growing cities in the country with Austin still at #1 I think. Austin isn’t a place where oil is the leading industry. Companies like Onnit.com and so many others are selling goods like supplements, clothing, and many other things in Austin because it’s such a great place to do business, but also has the same kind of cool liberal attitude that they love from the states they leave, like California where about half of the entire Onnit staff comes from.

          • McGeorge

            >>I repeat…Texas has created 1.4 million jobs, while the rest of the country lost 400,000…That’s pretty black and white.

            Was is due to the oil industry? If so, thats due to a resource that has great value being added , not because Texas did anything especially good.

            Also, Texas has bad worker safety laws. That’s one way China can compete. They have a mistreated (almost slave labor) force. If Texas screws the poor, it’s shifting the economic benefits from one group to another.
            Also – are those “new jobs” good jobs? Maybe Texas absorbed a lot of immigrants and people moving from Louisiana, and the jobs are very low paying kinds.

            My point is i’t not so easy to compare things, especially based on an article that may be biased or poorly researched, even if the author thought the data was ok.

          • This is a very good article on the topic: http://www.chron.com/life/mom-houston/article/72-of-black-babies-born-to-unwed-moms-data-1709669.php

            Something worth mentioning is the War on Drugs, another racist program, that has imprisoned black American men at a silly rate, while giving lesser punishments to whites. In places like DC, black men are arrested at 8 times the rate of whites for drug crimes and it’s not like white people in DC aren’t use drugs lol

            Another shocking stat from this great documentary, The Culture High, said something like 1 in 25 or 1 in 30 (my mind says 1 in 28 was the correct number, but I’m not positive) kids grow up with their father in prison at some point.

            We’ve gotta end the War on Drugs, which is why I also think Roger Goodell should take a stand for marijuana because a) players should be smoking weed or taking edibles rather than taking pain pills and b) the NFL is 68% black and young African Americans are the groups most affected by the drug laws.

          • McGeorge

            The War on Drugs hasn’t worked out, that’s for sure. And the sentencing for different drugs is unfair.

            My concern for legalizing drugs is:

            1 – young kids would get hooked. There would be more high schoolers getting high, and probably middle schoolers too.

            2 – there would be more DWI and more auto related deaths from stoned drivers.

            3 – there would be a social cost to society as there would be many more addicts. Not recreational weekend users, but those who get high daily, just as there are alcoholics. The result could be an effect on business, lost jobs, leading to damaged families.

            I don’t have the answers, but I agree the current situation is not good.

          • 1) Young kids can already get hooked on pills and booze.

            2) Colorado has seen a decrease in DUIs and traffic fatalities are near historic lows: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/

            3) We already have a ton of addicts. The main issue with the War on Drugs is the crackdown on marijuana, because 85% of drug arrests are for marijuana, we legalize that and the whole system falls apart because it wont produce enough revenue to sustain itself. Marijuana is the most non-addictive of all drugs and it’s side effects are so low that there’s very little cost to society and very little harm in smoking every single day.

            Plus, the impact of not wasting money on enforcement and imprisonment, plus the revenue generated with legal weed far outweighs any negative affect on business that you could be talking about.

          • McGeorge

            I agree that there would be a big law enforcement savings, and you would put the drug dealers and gangs out of business. Both are huge wins.

            I wonder if longer term the “high drivers” would increase.

            As a business I would require drug tests for new employees. If you test positive for “legal” drugs (like Pot), I wouldn’t hire you.

          • You going to not hire anyone who drinks alcohol too or just the drugs you don’t use?

          • McGeorge

            I have never taken a puff of a cigarette or even tried any drug.
            I would not accept drug users as an employer.
            No exceptions.

          • Then you’re not gonna have a very creative workforce.

          • McGeorge

            I disagree.
            I’ll have a workforce that shows up to work and does their job.
            Maybe some “good employees” wont get hired. No problem, there are plenty of other good employees to choose from.

          • You disagree with my comment about creativity? A comic has a joke about that, “90% of comics smoke weed, the other 10% aren’t very good.”

            Until you’ve smoked weed, you have no idea what you’re talking about in that department. I’m just saying McGeorge, there’s no point of being anti-weed, would you rather your kids take Vicodin and Oxycontin?

          • McGeorge

            I’ll be happy to “miss out” on the “creative drug users”.
            Let my competitors hire the Crystal Meth users, be my guest.

          • Again, a really silly comment. Going from my argument defending marijuana to crystal meth is just silly talk.

          • McGeorge

            This entire conversation , across 6 threads, started as a discussion on the “War on Drugs”.
            While it’s not been effective, drugs do damage people. I wouldn’t want to hire a drug user.

          • Here’s Michele Leonhart, she’s more your speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFgrB2Wmh5s

          • McGeorge

            She is obviously not a good public speaker.
            In fairness, it’s harder to perform under pressure.

          • She sounds like the dumbest person on earth. No excuse for that as head of DEA.

          • McGeorge

            She did sound clueless. I didn’t bother researching her back ground, but maybe she is an unqualified public hack?

          • Your arguments are easily dismissed man, come on. Alcohol damages people just as much as drugs do, if not more. You can’t have a serious conversation, while saying you enjoy your alcohol. I don’t drink alcohol anymore, I don’t like how it makes me feel the next morning, but should I not be able to smoke weed?

            What if I like taking MDMA and going to a dance club as some form of outlet?

            What if I like to take mushrooms or LSD and go on a psychedelic trip in the comfort of my own home?

            You just can’t have these conversations without being completely informed on the issues man. You’re a smart dude. While we don’t want people doing crystal meth or heroin, it’s very strange to hear someone say that people can’t do something on their own time, while they do enjoy a drink alcohol, which was prohibited at one time.

          • McGeorge

            >>Alcohol damages people just as much as drugs do, if not more.

            Alcohol causes damage, no question about that.

            If drug laws were repealed, and some people shifted to using drugs, would that be true? I don’t know.
            Maybe it would be worth it, maybe the total damage to society would be the same, but the law enforcement cost would go down, drug gangs/lords would be out of business, and fewer people would be jailed. It might work. On the other hand, kids might get hooked on drugs and ruin their lives. What we need is a test case.
            Legalize all drugs in Texas, for consumption there only.

            (I’d still stick with my IPAs)

          • Kids are getting hooked on drugs no matter if they’re legal or not. Legalizing them means there’s a societal avenue for them to get help without being arrested.

          • McGeorge

            Would there be a societal avenue to get them off drugs? Would it be well funded? I wouldn’t want anyone under 2 using drugs if they were legalized.

          • I have no idea where I said “crystal meth” that’s now made it a point you’ve made three times.

          • McGeorge

            I keep saying drugs, and you keep on saying pot. I’m referring to all illegal drugs, under the “War on Drugs”. Pot is among the least bad of them. That doesn’t mean it’s good.
            If someone can’t stay clean for an interview, they have a problem.
            In every job I’ve had I’ve had to take a drug test.

          • If someone can’t stay clean for an interview? They don’t know the drug test is coming….

          • McGeorge

            If a companies hiring practice includes a drug test, then how can prospective employees coming for an interview claim not to know that? That is usually on their website.

          • AND alcohol is a drug.

          • McGeorge

            Yes it is. I don’t abuse it either. I like a beer now and then, one of my own, or a nice IPA from Stone Brewing.

          • So…you can have a beer every now and then, but they can’t have a puff every now and then because you said so? Weed is in your system for 7-30 days depending on your level of activity, which essentially means they can never smoke because they’re always going to be threatened with testing.

          • McGeorge

            I don’t want them taking Heroin or LSD or Ecstasy or Crack or …

          • Per what I said about, again, repeating this kind of statement is proof you’re not educated on the topic. I do hope you read what I said above and do some research if you’re going to have such strong views on it. This kind of lumping all of these together and misinformation that is out there is something that’s very damaging for children. The fact that my generation was told marijuana was so bad was a large reason why the prescription pill epidemic is so bad because kids rationalized that they were legal, so they must not be that bad.

          • McGeorge

            Pot is much less bad than the drugs I’ve mentions.
            But it’s not good either.
            Having 3 drinks a day is unhealthy. But it’s a lot better than having 6 drinks a day.

          • So people who don’t abuse marijuana will be forced to take your drug tests and then get fired because it will be in their system?

          • McGeorge

            No, I wouldn’t give continuous drug tests.
            Taking a drug test is standard at all the companies I’ve worked for.
            When you accept the job, you fill the cup. After you pass, you start work. I wouldn’t give continuous drug tests. That only makes sense for … pro athletes. (And the Secret Service, and Railroad Engineers, and Pilots, …)

          • Also worth noting, 88,000 alcohol related deaths occur each year, making it the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the US.

            ZERO people die from marijuana each year. You can die from alcohol poisoning, but you can not die from marijuana poisoning.

          • McGeorge

            I’m not saying pot is as bad as Alcohol, I never said that. But it’s not like pot is good for you either. And it’s probably a gateway drug for some people.

          • POT IS NOT A GATEWAY DRUG!! That is literally the biggest piece of propaganda in the entire War on Drugs!! ALCOHOL is a gateway drug if you want to play that game because everyone drinks alcohol before they smoke pot.

          • McGeorge

            Pot isn’t a gateway drug?
            It may be “less” of a gateway drug than something else, but using it, and associating with others who uses it, probably increases the likelihood of going onto harder drugs.
            If you took two identical populations, one that use pot, and one that didn’t, I’d expect the pot using population to eventually have a higher use of hard drugs.

          • Because we can’t go to a drug store to buy it, we have to go to a drug dealer who is never just selling weed.

            “If you took two identical populations, one that use pot, and one that didn’t, I’d expect the pot using population to eventually have a higher use of hard drugs.”

            Very unscientific and silly study. I bet you’d find that with people who drink alcohol, actually, I bet you’d find a higher prevalence of hard drugs users with alcohol than pot, but again, a silly idea for a study when you know the issues and facts. Definitely recommend watching The Culture High.

          • McGeorge

            Not unscientific or silly, just the truth.

            Heavy users of alcohol may also be the types of people that go on to use drugs.

            Legalizing drugs could work, and it would put the drug lords out of business.
            Would the states and federal government really pay for drug programs? To get people off drugs who become addicted? That would be needed.

          • Just watch the documentary The Culture High and you’ll understand.

            There is no truth in the, again, completely unscientific claim that pot is a gateway drug. In my opinion, the only reason pot could even be considered a gateway drug is because young kids are completely misinformed with the typical drug programs now. These drug programs put all the drugs into one category and demonize all of them, so when they do try marijuana, they then say, “well what else were they lying to me about?”

            With that said, the only way to stop kids from trying the other drugs is to actually be honest and educate them that they shouldn’t smoke pot while their brain is developing and if they choose to, it shouldn’t be something they do frequently.

            Even with that point, it’s still not a gateway drug as that’s not scientific, and, like I said, most kids try alcohol first, so that’s the real gateway drug if you want to have that argument.

          • McGeorge

            Clone a population. One group uses pot, the other doesn’t. I’ll bet you the drug use of the pot group is higher. It’s not just the pot, its the people who use pot and go on to harder drugs, then exposing their friends to the harder drugs.

          • Again, you’re just making up these unscientific ideas that can never be proven. Sure, they might use more drugs, but you’re not telling me what the other group is using either. They might drink and then use more drugs. Seriously, you’re grasping at straws because you’ve proven you really don’t know much about this area.

          • McGeorge

            I’m not grasping at straws, I honestly believe that using drugs, or associating with drug users is detrimental.

          • Associating with people who drink is detrimental too, by your hypocritical analysis. By your logic, my vice is worse than your vice. I don’t drink, it makes me feel like crap, but weed is a much better drug and is 100 times more enjoyable.

            You are 100% grasping at straws because you really have no idea what you’re talking about. Everything you’ve said is easily debunked. Again, just watch The Culture High. It literally destroys everything you’re commenting on and you’ll realize how silly these comments are.

          • McGeorge

            Associating with alcoholics is probably detrimental.
            Associating with people who have 1 glass of wine or 1 beer is .. the norm, and not harmful.

            I’m a home brewer, the fellow home brewers I associate with don’t drink that much. They have careers and families and are a good group of people.
            Unlike the pot heads I knew when growing up.

          • Do you think everyone who smokes weed just sits around and smokes all day? So the people who smoke a joint every once in awhile are lower on your list of people than the 1 beer people? For what reason?

            Oh because of your little, completely unscientific case study of the pot heads you knew growing up, now you still think no one should smoke pot? Here, let’s go over some of the most successful pot smokers in the world: Joe Rogan, Steve Jobs,Bill Gates, Barack Obama (even though he sucks), Phil Jackson (admitted to using it DURING his playing days), Snoop Dogg, Martha Stewart, Michael Phelps, Gary Johnson, Paul McCartney, Oliver Stone, Madonna, Johnny Depp (“Im not a great pothead or anything like that..but weed is much, much less dangerous than alcohol”), Graham Hancock, MAYA ANGELOU, Susan Surandon, Seth McFarlane, Morgan Freeman, David Letterman, Ted Turner (“CNN anchor Gwen Scott claimed it is common knowledge that Turner sits in his office and smokes marijuana.”), Lady Gaga, Michael Bloomberg, Rush Limbaugh, Sanjay Gupta, Jay-Z, Clarence Thomas, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Oprah, and the list could go on and on if it was legal and people were willing to step out into the light about it.

            Seriously, you gotta stop trying to rationalize a seriously silly position on your part, your logic on this is embarrassing.

          • McGeorge

            Well if it’s good enough for such upstanding citizens as Snoop Dogg then it much be OK :-)

            Rush Limbaugh? Wasn’t he the guy with the OxyContin addiction?

          • Just watch the documentary The Culture High and you’ll understand.

          • McGeorge

            I can’t die from alcohol poisoning because I only drink 1-2 beers.


            I agree that alcohol causes a lot of damage.
            What bothers me more than the 88,000 alcohol related deaths is the > 10,000 people who die in alcohol related auto accidents.
            If someone wants to poison themselves, fine, but don’t drive into me.

          • McGeorge

            Alcohol is legal. If someone abuses it and misses work, they will get fired.
            I would not test for it.

            If drugs were legalized I would test job applicants. If they can’t stay clean, knowing they will be tested, they have a problem, and I don’t want them.

          • They wouldn’t have a problem if they’re smoking weed. The only problem would be taking a job with someone who thinks they own their employees and won’t let them smoke weed during their time off.

          • McGeorge

            I’m not as concerned about weed. I am concerned about employees who use LSD, Crystal Meth, Heroin, ecstasy , etc.

          • LSD and ecstasy shouldn’t be in the same conversation as those other two.

            Come on McGeorge, do your research, the only reason I’m entertaining this convo right now is because you’re a really smart guy, these ideas are so far below your capabilities that I have to continue with this. Lumping all four of these together is silly, you might as well just lump alcohol in there too.

            Crystal Meth is in a class of it’s own. Heroin is horrific as well, but Crystal Meth might be the worst thing on earth. The heroin epidemic right now is because so many kids in my generation started taking prescription pills and had no idea it was synthetic heroin essentially because it’s an opiate. Surprisingly, heroin does have medicinal benefits, hence why our society has opiate pills.

            They’re both in a class so far on the other side of the spectrum as LSD and ecstasy that your mere mention of them is further proof you’re not well read on the topic. And that’s okay, but I can’t let someone as smart as you continue to go through life with these ideas.

            LSD, first off, do you like the Beatles? Do you like all that incredible music that came out of the 1970s? The complete shift in the music was largely due to psychedelics like LSD. I’ve never taken it, but it’s definitely nowhere near crystal meth and heroin.

            Ecstasy, or MDMA, has so many positive benefits that I’m sure you’ve never heard of. It’s actually something that they’re studying as a treatment for PTSD and other mental issues. While people can die while under the influence of MDMA, it’s essentially because of either what it was cut with or because they got dehydrated. Again, it’s so far outside of crystal meth and heroin.

            Yes, I probably wouldn’t want someone who takes crystal meth or heroin working for me, but I’m not gonna have some randomized drug testing system in place so that I can try to dictate what my employees are doing outside of work. My employees work for me, I do not own them. Trust me, if they’re using crystal meth or heroin, you’ll know and they’ll probably be out the door before you even need to test them.

          • McGeorge

            Of course I like the Beatles!

            1 for you, 19 for me, I’m the Taxman.

            Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, nah, it’s just a coincidence. Rock stars didn’t actually use drugs back then, that’s just an urban legend. Just look how well they have aged. And you never hear of rock stars ODing.

            If Ecstasy has positive benefits under the care and administration of a doctor, than I’m ok with it being used as a treatment. Same for pot as a painkiller.

            I think recreational drug use is bad. And that includes drinking a lot.

          • ROCK STARS DIDN’T USE DRUGS?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!

          • McGeorge

            Of course not.

            (I see you are humor impaired, must be from all that weed …)

          • You think smoking weed makes you less humorous?! That’s alcohol. I’ve giggled at the dumbest stuff on weed.

          • McGeorge

            Your brain is fried and you are unable to discern the sarcasm in my mocking posts about pop stars. :-)

            Obviously many pop stars have had serious drug and alcohol problems.
            Some have died. It’s well publicized and obviously I was kidding.

          • Smoking weed made me a better person and writer. So what you see on here is a direct result of marijuana use lol

          • McGeorge

            Well in that case, I retract all I said ;-)

            (My friends brother was really smart in high school, got into weed, then other stuff, and it was down hill from there)

          • I bet your friend’s brother drank alcohol first, didn’t he? So why aren’t we calling that the gateway drug? In fact, I bet he tried sugar even before that and sugar is harder to kick than heroin, so why isn’t that the gateway drug? Why are pixie stix looked at like marijuana because every drug user had to eat candy before he tried drugs?!

            When you get into the gateway drug argument, you head down a path of completely non-scientific propaganda. I definitely recommend you watch The Culture High on Netflix or Vimeo. E-mail me again at Caponomics if you’re interested.

          • McGeorge

            Sugar is a generally unhealthy additive, I’d prefer less of it in some food. But it’s also naturally occurring in some food.
            As we know more about it, parents are less likely to give crap like pixie sticks to their kids.

          • And would you be okay with a boss who did not allow you to drink alcohol on the weekends?

          • McGeorge

            1. How would they monitor that?

            2. Alcohol has been legal for many years in the USA, so this sounds like a religious restriction, which I would mind.

            3. One can have a beer or a glass of wine. That’s less harmful than a joint or an Ecstasy or Crystal Meth pill.

          • Wait…I just saw this…so your argument about a boss who wouldn’t allow you to drink is a weak, how would they monitor that? And that Alcohol has been legal for many years? You even mention that you’d have a problem with a religious restriction… So you’re against religious restrictions, but you’re okay with the same kind of ignorance used without a religious reason regarding pot?

            You can’t seriously have such hypocritical viewpoints for such a smart dude.

            It used to be illegal for blacks and white to marry, that was the legal stance on it for a long time, I mean if that’s your idea, then why change any laws? I mean information shouldn’t change things because they’ve just been like that for a long time.

          • McGeorge

            Alcohol has been legal for years. I don’t think employment drug tests check for that, though I could be mistaken, and maybe some jobs do test. It’s eliminated form your body quickly, so I don’t see how an employment test would be useful.

            If I was hiring, I would require a drug test. I’m ok with missing out on those few employees who use drugs. Even if drugs were legal, I wouldn’t hire drug users.

          • But you will be hiring drug users if they drink alcohol.

          • McGeorge

            “a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.”

            That’s true, and it’s irrelevant. If you want to interview at my company, you need to prove you can stay clean for however long it takes to rid your body of traces of your drug of choice. I’m happy to let the competition hire the drug users. Now if at some point a large percentage of the population uses drugs recreationally, I may have to loosen up the restrictions. I’ll worry about that when the time comes.

            If drugs are legalized, and a law passed that employers may not screen for them, then fine, I’d comply with the law.



            And guess what? A LARGE percentage of the population already uses drugs recreationally.

          • McGeorge

            Oh Oh – all caps. ;-)

            I have no problem with someone who drinks alcohol casually. People have consumed beer and wine for centuries. Most consumers of alcohol don’t let it impact their work (or family life). Probably a greater percentage of drug users do.

            I think drug tests look for a lot for than pot.
            Probably the drug tests look for Amphetamines, Coke, PCP, and Heroin (and related drugs).

            Not only would I not hire them, I’d force them to watch the Jets-Bills game where Geno was 2-8 with 3 picks. Then there would be a written test. If they failed that, they’d have to watch another Geno game (or a Mark Sanchez gem like when he threw several picks against the Cardinals, got pulled, and McElroy came in to win 7-6).

          • ” have no problem with someone who drinks alcohol casually. People have consumed beer and wine for centuries. Most consumers of alcohol don’t let it impact their work (or family life). Probably a greater percentage of drug users do.”

            Jesus man, you’re really just repeating the same poor lines of logic in different ways. MOST consumers of pot don’t let it impact their work lives. Here you are with another unscientific, “probably a greater percentage of drug users do.”

            If they fail the drug tests for pot, are you not gonna hire them then?

            I repeat, ALCOHOL, even just as little alcohol as you drink is more harmful than marijuana and that’s a fact.

          • McGeorge

            1>>If they fail the drug tests for pot, are you not gonna hire them then?

            Correct. No job for them here.

            2. >>I repeat, ALCOHOL, even just as little alcohol as you drink is more harmful than marijuana and that’s a fact.

            That’s plain wrong. A single glass of wine has some health benefits.
            What health benefits does a joint have compared to the damage it does? It’s not like pot is good for you, it harms you, though just a little bit, for each joint smoked.


            Jesus dude, you’re literally going on and on about something you clearly know NOTHING about. I’m not sure on what planet you’ve found medicinal alcohol, but you’re seriously so full of shit on this topic that it upsets me to see someone so intelligent speak this way.

            It’s okay to not know everything or have an opinion on everything. For example, I don’t have much of an opinion on basketball or hockey because I don’t watch them enough. Nor do I have an opinion on say engineering because I have no idea where to even begin. Just stop. You sound like I would if I was telling an engineer how to do his thing.

            Do you not realize how asinine it sounds to say “What health benefits does a joint have compared to the damage it does? It’s not like pot is good for you, it harms you, though just a little bit, for each joint smoked.” It has medical purposes for a reasons and the “damage” is so minuscule that you’d be hard pressed to find any real scientific research done to show the damage you’re talking about.

            And the fact that you won’t hire someone who smokes pot is just asinine again. As someone who has seen the benefits of marijuana in my own life and the harm of alcohol, it’s downright offensive to have someone continue to speak with absolutely no sense.

          • McGeorge

            I forgot what we were discussing. :-)

            Could you please consolidate all 5 threads into one, and list what it is we were discussing.

            1. Pot is bad for you, and I wouldn’t smoke it.

            2. If it’s used under a doctors supervision (for pain, cancer, etc) then I’m fine with that.

            3. I see nothing wrong with a drug test at employment time. It’s not like the NFL where you would be subject to continuous testing, just one time at hiring. Bill Gates would pass because he’d be c;lean at that point. Same for Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg. ;-)

          • Again, that makes ZERO sense. No one who drinks alcohol is doing it under a doctor’s supervision, but your vice is okay and theirs isn’t?

            I do see something wrong with it because you’re a hypocrite. You can’t tell people they can’t smoke pot, while you have your own “vices” that you enjoy.

          • McGeorge

            Having a drink a day is fine. There may be some benefits and some damage.

            Having a joint a day may or may not do more damage, without any medical benefit.

            If 70% of the population becomes regular pot users, I may have to revise my hypothetical employment policy. I’ll consider it when the time comes.

          • Seriously, this stance on marijuana is so far outside of the realm of the logic we all know you have.

          • McGeorge

            I think Pot is far less damaging than other drugs, but it’s not good for you either.

            Have one of my home brews instead.

          • Also hilarious that that you think Crystal Meth comes in a pill.

          • McGeorge

            I thought Crystal meth is snorted or smoked. But other drugs like Ecstasy are usually in pill form.

          • Driving high isn’t even in the same area code as driving under the influence of alcohol. Not even close. Sorry McGeorge, but every argument you’ve brought up is really erroneous.

          • McGeorge

            >.Driving high isn’t even in the same area code as driving under the influence of alcohol.

            Since when? Why would alcohol impair a driver more or less than various drugs? I think it depends on the drug.
            Driving while high is lethal – to other people.

          • Dude…again…driving high isn’t in the same area code as driving drunk. I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation at this point. It’s also clear you don’t know what you’re talking about on the topic. You shouldn’t say that driving high is the same as driving drunk if you’ve never even smoked pot.

            Would you ask a nun what sex is like?

          • McGeorge

            >>Dude…again…driving high isn’t in the same area code as driving drunk.

            “High” doesn’t cover just pot, I’m using it as a generic term for “under the influence of drugs”.
            Would you prefer the term “Driving while under the influence of drugs” instead?
            Does a person on Heroin or LSD drive well?

            If a person is under the “influence” they are a danger to others and shouldn’t be allowed to drive. Doesn’t make a difference if it’s booze or drugs.
            Even if booze was worse (not saying it it) driving impaired by drugs is unacceptable.

          • Who here is talking about heroin or LSD? We are talking about pot.

          • McGeorge

            No, we were talking about legalizing drugs and the war on drugs.
            You are assuming pot, and I never said that.
            Legalizing drugs may have some benefits, but there are costs as well.
            Driving while impaired is one of them.

            I’m not super concerned about pot smokers, it’s teh other drugs I worry about.
            But smoking pot is damaging to your body and I don’t want kids doing it.

          • And booze is worse. You’re the one saying about an increase in “high drivers.” Then I showed you the decrease in fatalities. Marijuana is not the drug you’re pretending it is.

          • McGeorge

            Why is booze worse?
            People don’t get addicted to drugs?
            Crystal meth, or Heroin isn’t harmful?

          • McGeorge

            Driving while under the influence of drugs is dangerous and unacceptable. It doesn’t matter if X is more dangerous than Y, both are unacceptable while driving (or operating machinery).

          • And now one is saying it’s acceptable. I’m just saying that your basic premise is inaccurate. Again, your comments on marijuana are like a nun commenting on sex. You can’t have these ideas you think are fact without doing your research. It’s 2015, just watch a documentary like The Culture High on Netflix or Vimeo. We’ve been lied to about marijuana. It’s the best drug on earth.

          • McGeorge

            My premise is not inaccurate.
            Driving while impaired by drugs is deadly, and I’m concerned it would go up with wider use of drugs.
            On the other hand, maybe drunk driving would go down so it would be a wash. Or maybe not.

    • And again, the man picked apart the Civil Rights Act of 1957, essentially dismantled it. So black Americans had to wait 7 more years for that bill to be passed. He’s a Democrat, what can we expect, he did something horrible in 1957, but now gets lauded for a purely political move 7 years later. One could say he was playing the long-game as Democrats frequently do, make sure the legislation doesn’t go through, then push it through under you so “those “folks” will be voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” It’s funny how the party that started the KKK and voted against everything in terms of civil rights gets lauded today, when they’ve never done anything unless it was a positive political move for them.

      Even PolitiFiction agrees with the statement that LBJ opposed every piece of Civil Rights legislation that came up for a vote: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/

    • “The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was opposed to civil rights, while northern members were more favorable toward them. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who proceeded to drastically alter the bill. Senator Richard Russell of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, WHILE ALSO RECEIVING RECOGNITION FROM THE MOSTLY SOUTHERN ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS DEMOCRATS FOR REDUCING IT SO MUCH AS TO KILL IT.”

  • Kirk Vollmer

    One has to wonder if terms like racist and sexist are becoming so overused and as you said being used just because you disagree with someone that at some point they are going to become meaningless. Kind of reminds me of the word Nazi. Back right after WW2 I’m guessing Nazi had some real meaning. But these days it’s just used to refer to someone who likes to have control of something or if you disagree with them and view them as being extremist. What might have been one of the worst insults one could deliver to our grandparents generation is now a word that can be used in a joke. Honestly if we’re not careful racist, sexist, etc is going to lose all meaning.

    • McGeorge

      They already have lost their meaning, at least to me.
      When people make exaggerated claims, they lose my respect and I discount what they say.

      I think Chip Kelly wants to win, and it’s unlikely he’d get rid of black players that would help him win. If he wins a super bowl he will make a ton of $$$.

  • DickieThong

    I’m more outraged by what Bud Light puts IN their bottles.

    • McGeorge

      I drink craft beer and have never been outraged at bad beer.

      I just don’t drink it.
      I’m more outraged what ImBev did to the employees when they took over. They greatly reduced their pay (I read 20% below the prevailing wage), and paid the senior ImBev management a ton of money in bonuses. They did things like reducing the amount of card board in the containers by 12%.

      • McGeorge, relax my man. A guy named Dickie Thong was making a joke lol

        • McGeorge

          But Zack, IPAs are serious!

          I’m a Home Brewer.
          I made a 10 gallon batch last week (a Blonde Ale split into 2 fermentors – Cherry puree in one, Boisenberry in the other). I have 5 gallons of hard apple cider to bottle.
          I’m going to brew a 10 gallon Citra IPA.
          And I recently bottled 5 gallons of Bourbon Barrel Old Ale.

          I have $100 of hops for the IPAs I’ll be brewing, and 100 pounds of Maris otter malted Barley ready for use.


  • Rick H

    Great article and well researched! McCoy is so immature and his malicious comments are deplorable. I really liked him and Thomas but both are covertly and overtly walking a fine line legally. They aren’t there yet but could be sued if this continues as for Smith he is a low life racist that I have had the unfortunate experience seeing as far back as Allen Iverson’s rookie year. He is a incompetent coward that hides behind his free get out of any trouble “I am black card “. As for Jackson he quit on the team before Kelly got there. It wasn’t the first time the guy quit either. Jelly saw this act at the end of his first head coaching season. He got rid of him or Roseman did as well. 4 & 12 was Thr Redskins record last year. Really a difference maker Jackson. I don’t want to play with or root for a quitter.

  • justinhis

    The difference of white people between the eagles and the second whitest team was 5 players. 5. FIVE. Houston is the 2nd most racist team in the league.