SageAgainstTheMachine

Then it really is incredible that a professional football team comprised of a bunch of sad and feeble wusses has somehow managed to make it to 5-3. If a sad and feeble bunch of wusses makes the playoffs, now that's the makings of a Disney movie right there.

Winslow had a couple mistakes but when your TE has 111 yards receiving and 2 touchdowns, you can't exactly blame the loss on him. This one falls on the shoulders of the shameful effort by Brandon McDonald and the rest of the Browns' secondary.

btw, it's Hank Baskett

I think Randy Marsh's finest hour was when he sh*t the biggest sh*t in history.

Umm, the way we both spelled it? Is there a joke here I'm not getting?

Someone's splitting hairs.

There's something markedly counterintuitive about calling professional football players wusses. Think they could kick your ass?

Are you a scout for the Lions?

He had a good game against the worst defense in the NFL, I don't think that we can glean very much from this first performance. Personally, I'm no more intimidated by him at this point than I'd be of Derek Anderson.

Centers are notorious for not going until the later rounds. Why would we waste 2 of our first 4 picks on a commodity we could get in rounds on the second day of the draft? And why exactly do we need 2 more of them?

Why would any NFL team want this guy? The only reason he gets INTs is because offenses throw at him so often. Yet if you were to ask the casual fan "Who is better? DeAngelo Hall or Nnamdi Asommugha?", they'd probably say Hall. Where did this guy ever get the reputation for being good? He is sooooo awful.

Add Brandon Marshall to the list of extremely talented, yet stupid/selfish wide receivers. Moss, Owens, Johnson, Marshall, Steve Smith. Of course, the media is fascinated with those guys, while equally talented receivers such as Torry Holt, Reggie Wayne, Lee Evans, Santana Moss, and Donald Driver get no love from said media. And why is that? Because they don't do idiotic endzone dances. Here's my question. When a QB throws a perfect pass to a WR in the end zone, why is it the WR that gets to celebrate and act like he just made the most amazing play of all time, while the QB is relegated to a classy fist pump then a celebration with his teammates on the sidelines? In the words of Marv, "Act like you've been there before." If a WR catches a TD, politely tosses the ball to the referee and quietly returns to the sidelines, that shows a lot more about him as a player.

It really makes no difference what happened in these archaic civilizations because everybody knows that the Earth will cease to exist in a few weeks when the gastric acids of the giant crocodile that swallowed the planet in 1764 begin to take effect. What? You think I'm wrong? Do some research and disprove me.

I do remember that, but it just happened to be that the microphones caught him saying it. How many of our favorite Bills have said those kind of things in the heat of the moment? And it's better than cheap-shotting a guy. I always kind of had a soft spot for Welker when he was on the Dolphins, and that carried over to the Pats. I guess I like the "little engine that could" sort of guys.

Jabari Greer will be responsible for the primary coverage of Moss, just like last year. I'd bet my life on it. He is our better corner.

Uh, why?

Hahaha, understatement of the century? I love RJ though, he is one of the most talented play by play guys I've ever listened to in any sport and he adds a whole other level of excitement to the game. I feel bad for the guy who has to replace him some day down the road.

Well, I don't know how you can possibly say that. We have absolutely no historical perspective on Obama as a leader, he could turn out to be one of the greatest Americans in our history.

Like, paying taxes for example? Making sure your children get an education? Those kind of requirements?

haha, i'll admit that made me laugh.

But laws do evolve through necessitation. Society would be pretty screwed up if we still went by the Code of Hammurabi. After all, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. And I believe there are sections in the code which make sure to regard slaves as less than human. And new laws have to be created due to evolving circumstances. We certainly have laws against child pornography, insurance fraud, and doing LSD. None of those things had much relevance in the ancient days, so it is incorrect to say that "most laws, if not all laws" have their basis in the ten commandments.

But that's just thing, I don't like the labels. See, I didn't register with a party, and I consider myself to be a pragmatist more than a liberal or a conservative. If a certain side of an issue makes sense to me, I'll support it regardless of whether its traditionally "liberal" or "conservative". Gay marriage? Makes sense. Welfare checks for single mothers who work 50 hours a week and still can't feed their 3 kids? Makes sense. Invading Iraq? Doesn't make sense. A troop surge? Makes sense. Abortion? DEFINITELY doesn't make sense. I've always thought it's better to examine your own political leanings on a case-by-case basis.

Ok here's my point. Obviously, we have a law that states a person cannot kill another person. Also, the ten commandments state "thou shall not kill". That doesn't mean the law exists BECAUSE of the commandment. Had the Bible never been written, all societies would still hand down punishments for things like murder, stealing, rape, etc. That's why countries that aren't predominately Christian have largely the same types of violations deemed illegal. And I'm not really sure where you're going with the Constitution. I'm going through the amendments in my head and I can't think of one that's even remotely religious. Illegal search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Free speech? Cruel and unusual punishment? Direct election of senators? While the ten commandments are an instruction for morality, the Constiution doesn't really project morality on the population, it gives rights to the masses.

Besides, nobody is FORCING kids to recite the pledge of allegiance in school. When the Iraq War first started, some kids in my class didn't want to recite the pledge out of protest, so they didn't have to. It's the same principle for "under god". Kids can recite the pledge in class and just not include "under god" if they don't like it. That's what I used to do. Or they can choose not to recite it. It's called free will. There's no reason that people with faith should have it taken away from them just because some parents think their kids are too big of pu*sies to deal with it. Though pragmatically, the religious kids wouldn't exactly suffer either, it would just be a minor inconvenience, and that's why I think it's a dumb issue to begin with.

If you've never played a game of midnight basketball, try it sometime cuz it's pretty fun. And when would you prefer him to play? When he's supposed to be working?