murra

Check here throughout as 1 o'clock approaches. You might need to do research and figure out if you need a program like sopcast to view the stream provided. Until I found my bar here at school, I lived by that website.

Unless of course the allegations are false.

This is a great thing that you're doing Hammer. I won last week, and I must say, if you have not met this guy, he is the real deal. Hammer and his lot, its good people.

That's it? that's how you respond to my post? Wow. I'm upset, and insulted. I really thought you'd have more in you. Guess you really are just a stupid troll.

I thought potheads could take a joke...I guess not.

Yes...legalize marijuana because it would save athletes from social scrutiny. Shall we also allow gay marriage to save Billie Jean King from social scrutiny? Or should we legalize murder so Ray Lewis and OJ could be saved the social scrutiny?

I don't know if anyone will agree with me... But when I see Trent, from a strictly QB standpoint, I see Aikman, Blanda, Bradshaw, Dawson, Elway, Fouts, Graham, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Montana, Moon, Namath, Starr, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Unitas, Van Brocklin, Waterfield, and Young.

We lost the first superbowl because of our defense. They couldn't get off the field and missed tackles. Reed dropped a clutch ball, and Kelly still managed to march all the way from his ten to the opponents 30 with his 2 minute offense, leaving it up to the kicker and special teams. While I think our team blew a big one, you CAN NOT continue your little logical message board warfare if you think that there was a lot to be desired from Kelly in superbowl 1. He made no mistakes and threw for remarkable yardage despite not being on the field for almost an hour and a half. They called you a troll, and you said they were lame, but you're honestly the first person on the message boards I've seen who is intentionally starting incoherent rambling to the extent of ripping on our franchise face, and possibly one of the greatest ever to play the game. You're saying how you're ahead of the curve and all that nonsense, but you're probably one of the idiots calling for Frank Reich.

HAHAHA

It's David Fincher. And yeah, that guy is unbelievable. If you like those two movies check out The Curious Case of Benjamin Button this summer. It's not dark like them, but it's going to be just as epic cinematically.

eh, quit your whining...some of us drafted Brady. At least you still have a solid back-up.

No. .............................I................still hate this guy.......................His comments are un-be-liveable..........unnnnn-called for.....annnnd irrrrrritating.

That's been out all season I think.

HELL YEAH!

Okay, the word franchise was much. I used it to mean that he was supported and the franchise deemed him a capable starter. I didn't mean he was a franchise player. I stand by my claim that we're not going that way in round 1.

What makes you think otherwise? Maybe "Franchise" was too strong, but he's more than proven himself as the starter. He didn't play last week because of his injury coupled with the youboty injury, and our attempt to move Whitner to the Nickle spot. Instead, Scott had to see the field, and when they put in Wilson it just showed that a) Simpson was hurt, and/or b) they have enough faith in Wilson to play FS over Simpson, which proves my point that we wont draft FS even greater.

Why would we address the secondary in the first round? We handled CB last year, we Have a top rated SS, and we have a lot of depth at FS, including a proven starter and franchise S in Simpson. This is very flawed. We're definitely approaching LB, DE, or DT before we think about secondary.

I'm happy you responded the way you did. You sound upset that people keep using experience as a campaign tactic. Too bad that's one of history's longest tactics. And personally if Obama's lack of experience shies people away from him that seems more valid and legitimate to me than when people stay clear of McCain because he's republican.

Obama is running for the Presidency and I'm able to compare his experience and leadership with the VP candidate across the table. Wake up and smell the hot coffee. That's a sign bad enough to indicate that Obama's experience is lacking. Being a State Legislator is all well and good...if you're intention is to be a house of representative of course... ...oh wait, that was his goal. And in 2000 he lost a bid in the Democratic Primaries for a House spot. In 2000 Obama was losing in the primaries for a seat in the house, and McCain was losing in the primaries for the President of the United States with 13 years of Senatorial work behind him already. I'm not saying experience is really all that important...but please refrain from pretending that Obama is experienced. And I'm sure you'll say that he is more experienced than Palin and that was your claim, but to that, I'll say I guess my point is proven...That you need to compare Obama to the VP candidate in order to express how experienced he is. Next you'll say something like...experience means nothing, and thus goes on the cycle of ignorance and retorts that is the liberal basis for hope and change or whatever nonsense you're all parading about now.

I'm not so sure about that. I think you have a greater chance for the market to bounce back with Obama than McCain, for mostly the reasons you gave. Regardless, the Market perhaps will not be affected as greatly as you expect by the President, whomever it may be.

My point was you can't complain about a VP's experience when your chosen candidate has less. It wasn't "put the person with the most experience in the white house".

Palin is more experienced than Obama. Why are you letting experience of the VP affect your decision when you're siding with a candidate who pretty much has displayed only his intentions for running for presidency while in office thus far.

Why would a rich !@#$ not buy his own drink? You're generalizing far too much if you think that most rich people aren't willing to lay down money (I'm not saying you think this, but I'm saying your post implies so). It just happens that some people are rich because they are stingy, these people make you sick? Why? Because they're careful with their money? They often make wise economic decisions and are weary of lessons learned where they made poor decisions? No one likes a rich guy who doesn't tip. That guy is a real !@#$. I don't know too many, however, and think its a rare exception. Honestly, should all wealthy people take the rap because of this rare bird? After all, I don't think all poor people abuse the social programs available to them just because a few do.

I usually don't care about these things, but that truly is a disgrace. Cassel wasn't even the player of the game.

I know you were joking about Fowler, but I think we should let McGee rest another week, no need to rush things if we're going to make a push for a late playoff game.