Ol Dirty B

Ok my apologies. I thought you agreed with the premise. I personally don't think it's a big deal anyways. You have to pay or have a guy like Brady or Rodgers that people want to play with. And even with a great qb, players want their money most of the time.

Yea that article was awful. So landing 1 top 20-30 FA constitutes becoming a prime landing spot. I agree most top dogs don't take discounts. That's why being a "prime" landing spot is rare. By your metrics almost every team is a prime landing spot for FA's. How many teams land a top 20-30 FA?

That's your definition of it. Being a prime destination for FA's is getting the big names and having them come there for less. But operate in your own world if you want.

I'm surprised by that too. I would have never guessed theirs 15 in Monroe county either. I grew up and still mainly do everything in Webster. That one closed down years ago and I've honestly never missed it. I can see it as convenience thing, but tops has just never been my store. I'll just go to wegmans, people tell me they are more expensive than other stores but I just like how they are ran.

So are you going to say you're wrong or that you have no clue what you're talking about? Syracuse has had some down years. Before this year they haven't had any McDonald's all Americans since Malachi Richardson and their one and dones have been weak. The Fab Melo, and the previous issues are nothing close to what is going on here. Fab Melo was never paid, and the other NCAA sanctions came from Boeheim not abiding by a university rule. Not an NCAA rule regarding informing people of failed drug tests. Because after all that has came out today, it sounds like you're completely wrong. Actually a week ago your post sounded like bs, I just didn't read it until today. UNC doesn't have anything to worry about because they always get off. That program should be buried, but because of its importance, it never will. Rashad McCants has said enough.

I agree with this. I was just giving you my experience. I completely agree, if you're getting a new tv it might as well be 4k. I did the same thing as what you're talking about here. Back in 08 I bought a nice Sony for like 1500 and it's still kicking ok.

This is how I read it too.... She kind of came across as an ass.

I've been looking at TV's lately too and all of these are way out of my price range. I also like to hold out until the technology I feel is really sorted out, which has it positives and negatives. I've learned from it in my opinion, especially at this point, it's better to be a little bit behind than ahead. I've had the PS2 and the HDTV as a teenager, back when their was like 6 games to play as a PS2 and I only wanted 2. And the 2 just had terrible bugs, or I bought the HDTV before everyone was broadcasting in HD before it was worth it. It's almost better to be late I've learned. To the OP, Most channels don't broadcast in 4k I believe. The refresh rates are not fast enough, and in most of the TV's, even though the one's you are researching are beyond my price point, they don't really give you the full quality of 4k. I think if you can hold off a year or two, and buy a new TV then you'll get better value. Especially if your next move is 4k, which is mine. I could be completely wrong, I'm pretty tech savvy but no expert. I've talked to a couple people who know more than me, and as recent as 6 months they agreed with me. Even though they have both bought 4k TV's since then....

They also gave citizens the right to own people, and for those owned non-voting populous to count as 3/5's of the population in the actual Constitution. Just for the sake of even getting the document to the states, then they had to add on to the document with the Bill of Rights. So I guess the Bill of Rights wouldn't exist without the "founders" dictating to people what they could or couldn't do. You are totally try to caste my post, and this debate in a way to save face. The documents were written where they needed to expressly demonstrate to people that these rights would be protected, it was a showcase to an extent. Do you know anything about history? You do know that this country probably would have not existed with out the Bill of Rights? Why did they even bother making 10 of them when the 9th Amendment protects negative rights, it could have all been so much simpler then. Or do you feel that you can just say the "founders" and whatever !@#$ will think you know what you are talking about? It's really not even worth it. You've shown you don't know what you're talking about. I'm done. It had nothing to do with them wanting more restrictive gun laws, that was never my point and you know it. The point was that it is a living document, it's hard to change, but it is not impossible. So the 2nd Amendment should not be looked at in such a way. They made it that way because they hoped the country would grow out of the state they were in, and situations would change. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for that time, and they were self aware enough to know that it might need changing. I don't think any specific Amendment was thought of as the one they wish they could change. You are mis--characterizing and being unfair to my post. Or.. You're really dumb. I don't care own whichever you want.

Eh... We aren't resigning the DB either because of injury concerns.... What's to say they would have felt compelled to resign him? And why would it be a good decision for them to resign him, and for us to not resign him?

Which, honestly could make a world of difference. Tyrod can't see over the middle. I'm not saying it's a guarantee it's all a crap shoot. But Tyrod is the best this team has probably had since Bledsoe or even kelly. Give him 3 inches, and the same playmaking ability, he could be great. I know it's not a popular opinion, but him with some more height could be huge... It also could mean he'd have some effed up knees by now though, so it's a risk either way. Not that I want Jackson, but I don't think he's the worst risk to take.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. It's actually a joke that you would make my post out to be that. What my post is saying, is that they were in a place where they were all thinking that they needed to give citizen's the right to arm themselves or the Constitution would have never passed. It's actually pretty simple history, and why it was such a tough debate for Washington on how to handle Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. Their was a general paranoia and lack of trust. I'm not even going to go off further on it, because you are trying to make me get off my point and I won't be taken into the weeds by some pseudo historian simpleton. Be insulted, because the way you took my post and twisted it into something is to me. It's really a joke, and I don't throw people on ignore. But if you're going to misconstrue what I'm saying to that extent, I'm just going to put you on ignore. Instead of saying something to me, why don't you answer the question Doc Brown posed to you? Your political commentary is as bad as your namesakes Football.

They also put it in there because the country was a bunch of factions, and still wanted to cling to their own militias. The country was in a much weaker state than I think most actually think can conceive of at that point. The south was weary of the north, agrarian regions were paranoid of cities. And then on top of all that, you had the Spanish and Napoleon lurking to the south, and Great Britain still in Canada. We owed money to everyone, we couldn't pay soldiers, our currency was sinking. It was inconceivable that we great into what we did. There was no way at the time of writing the Constitution that it could pass without the 2nd Amendment. No one would have believed the government had goodwill or their interests at heart, especially after what just happened with England and the oppressive measures he took. It's a great document, but it is a reactionary one.

Wow man... You're just so wrong on so many levels. In my experience, people who have served in the military have been most respectful of people displaying opposing view points. That being said, most of the people I know are under 35 or so. So Vietnam Veterans I think had a completely different experience. Secondly, I know a lot of Vets, who have gone on to be cops and currently serve in law enforcement who don't abide by all the stuff you are saying. You're clearly not educated. The Bill of Rights, first of all doesn't mean that all must go on forever. They mostly are, but they aren't more important than all the other amendments to the Constitution. Do you know about Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate and Rational Basis? The Bill of Rights is pretty much all Strict scrutiny but so are amendments that came afterwards. I don't think you really understand the Bill of Rights is a legal document subject to change when appropriate. It is not something we can never change because it deals with natural rights.

Yea I love him and his no gloves and fumbles on TNF. O'leary will be average at best. That's his ceiling.

No, the implication is that gun checks and laws don't go far enough you simpleton. Jesus... you take legal gun owners out of that post? You gun owners are a paranoid lot. It doesn't make the rest of us anymore comfortable with how you cling to your guns. You don't see mass murderer's getting out of prison, buying a gun, then go shooting again. He talks about gangs and culture, and how it's all illegal guns... The VA Tech shooter that he cites in his post, bought guns legally despite a history of mental illness. Do you know any of what you are talking about? This last shooter was certifiably nuts.

How much Glenn Beck do you listen to?

As many other liberal states have shown, gun ownership is not an inalieable right under social contract theory. I'm not advocating for all guns to be taken away or anything like that. I'm fine with concealed carry, and plenty of other things. But what you are saying is philosophically incorrect. You are taking inalienable rights to an extreme. I have plenty of rights because I exist, if I am stronger than you I could take your property. However, because we enter into a social contract by being in a society we forfeit somethings. Also, with the caps and stuff for emphasis.. You've been reading too many Trump tweets man. They make you look childish and like you've only read really simplistic literature on what you're talking about.

No I'm not being a dick at all. People correctly cite the 2nd Amendment as a way for people to defend themselves against government intrusion. It just seems odd to me that so many of these people don't come from a lineage that has been racially oppressed, stigmatized, or profiled. I'd say those people have actually experienced government intrusion into their personal lives. Now those people, whether you agree with their grievances or not, have peacefully protested. It drew a lot of venom from people, especially people who want to hold onto their guns because the government may intrude on their rights. They responded, instead of listening to those people, by dismissed their feelings, booing, swearing, ostracizing them, making shirts of the them with cross hairs over their head. Completely dismissing how those people may feel, what they may have experienced. A lot of 2nd Amendment people may have even just dismissed whatever police brutality they have seen videos of. That's government intrusion, I doubt you know the first thing of experiencing government intrusion. So many who proclaim they don't trust the government are trusting that said government over fellow citizens, but they need their AR15's because of that government, because they don't really trust that government. It's the same thing as what the issue is with the left to an extent. You want to be the judge, and the jury. You can grasp the contradictory nature that most of yourselves are in. You are dismissing another persons grievance with the government, who is going about addressing them in a way that doesn't effect you at all. Yet, you are clinging to guns as a necessary to prevent the same government from being oppressive but hold in an esteem that couldn't be oppressive. So I can't wait for these people to be the ones who decide when it becomes okay to fight fire with fire. EDIT - The grow a pair was referring to how people were so offended by a peaceful protest, yet seem to advocate for a right to start shooting government officials when they feel that it is appropriate. Their will never be a time when the latter is accepted at all. People need to understand the context of the time when the 2nd Amendment was constructed. We are not in that same development as a country anymore. Everyone who has ever raised arms against this country has been wrong. I'm not saying we should completely dismiss that point, but I do think people thinking they with their lil AR15 would stop this government from really oppressing us, are misguided, out of touch, and not the historical or Constitutional scholars they think they are.

What? That's the problem you see in this country? We have repeat offenders when it comes to shootings? I'd love to see your statistics on people who have been able to get guns legally who have used firearms to injure or terrorize.

It's weird that the one's who want to protect themselves from their government are the ones so offended by people taking knees or peacefully protesting it... I guess they have to grow a pair? I'm not sure

Yeah, vlad ducasse, dimarco, and Holmes totally put us over the hump. Those were the guys we were missing for the last 17 years.

That was an easy response to really not support your point. Support your point. I'm paying attention, perhaps I disagree with it. And I can assure you, you're no football guru, so any disagreement is reasonable. The GM hasn't even had a draft yet, and you're talking like he did a bunch of things for this franchise.

Doing things like committing to him beyond one year, or not benching him for a guy who throws five picks help value. Continually being non committal destroys it, in addition to his play. Franchising him, even if it was possible doesn't build value at all. Increasing his cap hit would increase trade value, how? Even if you could. What has beane done? It's easy to just take the negative side of the bills and stick with it like you're right.

The only thing that is almost as I'll conceived as this was a poster mentioning the Bengals are going to franchise McCarron to use him for a trade. Well, he's not a free agent. And yea, you kind of have to abide by the rule book. Otherwise, why don't we just tear up Aaron Rodgers contract and offer him 40 mil a year now. Or better yet, let's just go sign Darnold, or Rosen to a contract now for fair market value. That way we can have them and keep our picks. Imagine that, rosen/Darnold plus our two first round picks. Now that's forward thinking, best off season in years. In your world, courage is synonymous with stupidity and ignorance.