birdog1960

but aren't you a paid poster here? did you get a land rover out of the deal? i'm just wondering if you were privy and aware of that seemingly ridiculous claim against you?

spending doesn't equate to winning. but again i'd say the converse is pretty sound. not spending, especially on coaches, gm's and qb's makes it much less likely to win. the 2 consecutive wins fact is just fuel for the fire under whaley.

I see the converse. when things go well, even for brief periods, it's due to whaley. when they go bad, he's absolved because it really wasn't his decision or everybody misses on picks. and should someone be praised for making things happen the way there supposed to? I don't think so. lastly winning more than losing seems a pretty low bar for a gm especially of a team with an owner willing to spend much more freely than his predecessor.

it's about the W's. not some subjective measure of talent

Watkins had a great game. that's really the first one I remember that justifies his draft status. will he continue? we'll have to wait and see. if so, it was a good move. if not, it wasn't. it was especially problematic given that the qb position was at the very least unsettled, at worst, a disaster. tyrod was brought in by ryan. without him were probably 2-6 right now. I also suspect ryan played a hand in incognito and harvin as well but who knows. don't get me wrong. i'm not a huge ryan fan either but frankly i'd rather he be making the personnel decisions and whaley making them occur than vice versa. again, the bottom line is W's. I say if they don't get 10 this year and make the playoffs then whaley was lacking as a gm. 9 and a crawl into the playoffs is borderline.

of course you wouldn't. the risk of widespread nuclear war is of no concern to you.

in essence, this is the argument. and it's possible the bills finish 12-4 and make it to the sb. but 8-8 or 9-7 look much more probable to me. even in that instance, the homers here will not concede that the season was unsuccessful and that whaley holds responsibility. the bills look to me to be well measured by their current record. if we can't agree that wins and losses are the gold standard for success or failure, then it's not worth arguing. apparently, we can't. we can all agree that we hope for the best so perhaps unicorns and rainbows should be the theme of every thread. now if we were just better fans...

I'm shocked. hell, you don't even admit when you are caught red handed lying. why would this time be any different?

there's plenty of proof, not that any amount will be deemed acceptable to you. for those with active minds there are arguments and evidence such as those documented here: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/yes_bush_lied_about_iraq_why_are_we_still_arguing_about_this/ They even earned a mention in George W. Bush’s now infamous 2003 state of the union address: This was all wrong. And they knew at the time that the intelligence regarding those tubes was nowhere near as strong as they made it out to be. A number of intelligence agencies believed that the tubes were, in fact, made for uranium enrichment. There were, however, a number of dissenting views, including from the State Department and the intelligence arm of the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for maintaining the United States’ nuclear arsenal (i.e. the people who actually know this stuff). DOE determined that the tubes were completely impractical for use in uranium enrichment, and were probably intended for use in conventional rockets. The State Department came to a similar conclusion. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

you're joking. you actually believe someone would pay gatorman to post his opinions on the political sub forum of a football website frequented mostly by knuckle dragging cons with little or no chance of ever voting liberal? sure. makes perfect sense. gator is an astroturfer for the dnc. it's money well spent! highly likely! this is actually as bad a post mortem, damage control tact as ben carson's after being caught in a lie. oh yeah. and why don't you go ahead and link to a site mentioning buying a land rover from working at home part time. never seen that particular pitch. not that i would be likely to but i'm thinking there might be better vehicle choices to sell to the intended suckers.

yes. another hand wave dismissal with no substantial argument. fully predictable.

another strong argument from the cook. perhaps you could expound. the sloan ranger reference was in answer to the range rover comments directed at liberals the salience of the wall street journal link is self evident to anyone with at least 4th grade reading comprehension. the fact that carson explained his decision not to go to west point as a result of choosing medicine makes it pretty obvious why the presence of premed program there is relevant. so what is the source of your confusion other than your intellect?

the crowd that made land rovers status symbols: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/25/travel/on-the-trail-of-london-s-sloane-rangers.html?pagewanted=all do you think they're more likely to be torries (cons) or liberals? Sloane Rangers congregate there becayse they feel safest among their own kind. Named for Sloane Street and Sloane Square, the hub of their universe, Rangers are upper-class men and women who come 'up from the country' to live in London after finishing school or university. Their object is marriage. By definition, they are young for, once married, they may stay in twon until the first little Sloane arrives, but then it's back to the country, Land Rover and Labrador. that paragon of liberalism, the wall street journal weighs in on carson: http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carsons-past-faces-deeper-questions-1446861864 and this interview where the good dr explains he chose not to go to west point because he wanted to become a doctor. tell me oc, can one not do pre med at west point? do they not have the necessary science courses offered? do they make you sign something that says you won't pursue a career in medicine after graduation? do they not need physician officers in the military? don't you trouble yourself oc. here's http://www.usma.edu/chemistry/sitepages/medical%20school%20option.aspx the answer.

except there apparently is no evidence that Westmoreland actually did this. as an aside, I went to school with his son, rip. interesting fella.

and she is being raked over the coals about it. that's fine. so is grilling carson about this statement. I agree with gator however. I hope he wins the nomination. extremist such as him often have many skeletons in their closets. they will be unearthed.

wow. that's really trying too hard. if he's as smart as he's made out to be, he knows how admission to west point works. if he doesn't then he shouldn't have written about it. the most plausible explanation is that he lied.

and then when you make a statement that black is actually black, he'll say it's not or "prove it". it's futile and juvenile. but so are most right wingers.

mm hmm..so evolution is incompatible with your definition of Christianity. fortunately, the idea is fully compatible with the official doctrine of mine. wise people, much smarter than you or I have developed the theology behind that thinking over a couple thousand years. but you and your ilk are absolutely certain that you know God's meanings. it's arrogance to the extreme.

ah, the return of the dualist thinking. it doesn't necessarily need to be "either/or". it can be both.

still waiting for your explanation of his beliefs about the pyramids. do you agree with him?

we have a Jesuit as pope. he believes, as do I, that the bible requires interpretation. reading it literally is a mistake. are you saying that one cannot be a Christian and believe this?

so what then is the definition of "old"? you really think they're asking existential questions here? I don't buy it. fundamentalism is well, fundamental. by definition, it is literal interpretation.

so you reject carbon dating and the entire field of geology? you get more ridiculous by the day. it's gets more clear that we are dealing with utterly stupid people here with almost every new post.

except that it couldn't. science renders this impossible.

so what explains his take on the pyramids or do you all agree with him?