OCinBuffalo

Actually? During the little details/many months, many in the MSM during Watergate were quick to denigrate Woodward and Bernstein's work. The reason back then was: good old fashioned competition. They all jumped in once it became clear which way the needle was pointing. But, yeah, I see your point, the reason today is new: indoctrination. But, even with this, you saw the MSM have to drag themselves into dealing with this.

Did anybody happen to catch the John Murphy show last night? Murph specifically asked Dan Crossman(ST coach) about Stahovich. Crossman compimented him and said he was doing a good job. To cut him the next day? That's cold. Or, that might mean Murph had some inside info, and wanted to see if the Crossman would confirm it on his show. I thought it was weird, asking specifically about this guy, sorta out of the blue, and out of the stream of the conversation they'd been having.

Hmm. It would be hilarious if this ends of following the same pattern as busting the mob. Because, busting Lois, and threatening her with hard time, could easily get her to roll over on the WH Consel's office, the WH Political office, and whoever else is involved. It's also hilarious that so far? The Watergate pattern of events is also being followed. It's uncanny. The activity happens before the election, the POTUS wins, the story breaks, the initial shock happens, then settles a little, then the President has the temerity to call it nothing, then little details keep coming out, over a period of many months.... ....that's where we are right now. The only thing that remains is for the big stuff to start dropping from the sky. Also: if I was in charge of the investigation? If I had some big stuff, I wouldn't bring it out now. I'd wait until school starts, and everybody is back from vacation, so that I maximize the effect of everybody paying attention when I rolled it out. Turns up the heat on a whole bunch of people who know something, but also know that it won't ruin their careers if they tell, and get it over with. A clear conscience is a priceless thing.

Dude...warren sapp had this past game being highly dependent on if Steve Johnson and "that TE" were going to be able to help EJ out. He said on 3 seperate occasions. Sorry, but anybody can read what other people have prepared and regurgitate. This is the one thing that makes print journalism superior. Each print reporter has to write it out themselves, and if they don't know WTF they are talking about, you know it: instantly. They can't use the same video everybody else does, and, if they copy other people, you know it: instantly.

"EJ did that 2 minute drive against 2nd teamers" Douchebag! Does it even matter to any of these tools who have said that(not limited to Bayless) today, that we had: 1. CJ 2. FJ 3. SJ 4. Chandler Either sitting on the sidelines, or sitting at home, for that drive? We had our rookie WRs, 3rd string RB, and 2nd/3rd string TE in there for that drive, and yes, they beat the Colts 2nd teamers. That's even up. Jesus. If you are going to offer analysis? Understand that proper analysis is done with ALL the facts.

Yep. The philosophy has the potential for a whole lot of good, if its in the right hands, and a whole lot of bad, if in the wrong ones. Book of Eli, and all. How exactly like: a weapon, or, an internet message board. Interesting, isn't it? The reason they shy away from the philosophy? They don't want to be reminded that they are fallible, and, don't want to have a consistent code against which they have to compare their behavior. That's unsettling. It's much easier to make morality a relative thing, that they can adjust and amplify, so as to use it against those who don't share their values. It's much more convenient that way, and it helps them with their arguments. Wow, 3 pages in before the Flying Spaghetti Monster gets raised? I am impressed with the attempt at reasonable dialogue here. And you are right, sorta. My 2 cents: If you are secure in your beliefs, and your beliefs rooted in grace, and not power/control, you don't feel the need to be a dick about them to others. (Unless you just like to rile people up) If you aren't secure, it ain't about grace, and it is about power/control, you tend to be dick more often. If your beliefs have nothing to do with grace, involve getting more $ for you personally via your cause, and your cause is about making $ and has little to do with truly helping people, you take every opportunity to be a dick. I should know, I've had the unfortunate circumstance to live near Scientologists, in 2 different cities. Before you say "what about LDS/Jehova's witnesses"...try living where I did for 6 months, and then come back and talk to me. The difference in approach, and certainly the difference in tactics and behavior, is nowhere near "the same". There is more than enough phoniness, hypocrisy, and insecurity coming from non-believers as there is coming from believers. The only difference is: non-believers tend try to hide their phoniness, hypocrisy, and insecurity behind what they call "reason". It isn't reason at all. Actual reason: Given what we know about the universe, which in reality, is practically nothing(talk to any physicist), any statement that includes the phrase "I know there is no" God...or Flying Spaghetti Monster, is patently retarded. Man spent 10s of thousands of years "knowing" all sorts of things that were simply: untrue. It's just as likely that God is a supernatural or multidimensional overlord/caretaker, as he is a myth, as he is an alien that just happened to be in the neighborhood, and wanted to get us started on the right moral footing, as he is something that, for all our hubris to the contrary, we simply cannot comprehend. There is no evidence that supports any of these notions over any of the others. We "know" nothing.

Weak. Oh well, let's have fun with it: "Even before you start, this is a a pre-emptive 'No Reply At All' ". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI0fk_gCdzE "Just know that I have a whole bag of 'No Reply At All', with your name on it".

No, you unmitigated moron, that quote says everything about budget neutrality, you are simply too ignorant to know that(now, if you think that me, specifically, using that sig, that way, is an accident, you have a lot to learn) : My sig is the confirmation, by the guy in charge of this HHS program, that the funding mechanism of Obamacare...didn't work on a small scale. Given that it doesn't work on a small scale, how the F is it going to work on a large one? Busted? Yes, you've busted me...being able to think in the abstract. Speaking of busted...are you still working on that evidence of "they need to pretend they can(lynch black men)"? Or, should I start singing the "No reply, there's no reply at all" song right now? Do not fret, I have the youtube link all fired up and ready to go....

Yes...and all of that boils down to: "The "Obamacare will be budget-neutral" promise that every dopey Democrat has been making, since day 1, is utter horseshit. The ONLY way they can fund this thing? Raise taxes on the middle class." as I said. Back on topic: we are talking about the behavior of clowns. Clowns. Clowns have been making fun of the leader of the...tribe, village, city-state, satrapy, province, country, nation, and empire....since the beginning ot fime. That's what clowns do. We are having a discussion about whether the behavior of clowns is contemptible or not? Well, I suppose we could discuss how Obama care got passed, but that isn't really the subject of this thread.

I am not offended by anyone using the word "crisp". I see no reason why anybody else should be either. Man, this board isn't as good as it used to be. Now we have mods telling us what words we can use on certain days? I'm seriously considering a move to Bleacher Report. EDIT:..Ok, Ok, My word for the D? Unrelenting. Even when they gave up a big play, they stayed with it, and forced a fumble. Brooks made up for his "taunting"(if this was the regular season, I'd want a full report on that. The WGR guys were right this morning: "nobody in the world knows what he did"), and, Searcy made up for missing the tackle by recovering the fumble. Neither guy quit after they made a bad play. A few years ago? Players in the same situation probably would have. Unrelenting also describes Kiko Alonso's TD breakup on Fleener as well. My word for the ST? What else? Dominant. Need I explain? That was domination, especially against a Colts team who made ST a priority in the offseason, with a new coach, players, etc.

Hehe...so the answer is: no, you don't have any evidence. Exactly. You want to get into a name calling contest? That's amusing. Btw, you will lose. Quit now. I'm glad that my Obamacare post got to you. Get used to it. You'll be crying big tears every day you come here. I will get into your head and start throwing things around. It won't even be hard, given the level of intelligence you've displayed with your posts, you window-licking buffoon. Now, either produce the evidence you used to level your charge of "they need to pretend they can(lynch black men)", or STFU. Edit: You edited. Out of context? Hehehehe...as I said, this isn't going to be hard. Do really think I would use that sig if I didn't know, exactly, what it meant, in every way imaginable, you silly little nitwit? I'll make it as simple as I can: the failure of that program, which was deployed using the EXACT SAME FUNDING MODEL AS OBAMACARE, the big progam, clearly indicates 2 things: 1. That, as the man who only does this for his only job at HHS said: "This is really not a sensible way..." 2. That the "Obamacare will be budget-neutral" promise that every dopey Democrat has been making, since day 1, is utter horseshit. The ONLY way they can fund this thing? Raise taxes on the middle class. Now, do you really want to continue this? (Hint: quit while you are behind)

You're damn right. It shows that I won't tolerate douchebaggery, from anyone. Do you have evidence that shows that anybody involved is doing this, because they can't lynch black people anymore? Can you prove that anyone involved has that mentality? (Which would be awesome, because then? We will have discovered the first bona fide mind reader, right here at PPP. We'll all be famous!) You attacked these people, and attributed hateful behavior to them, based on nothing. Nothing at all. You know what I am saying and why. Make the correction. Spare me the phony nonsense. We always expose phonies like you here for exactly what YOU are.

I will say the same thing to you that I said to B-Man, when he posted a cartoon that used lynching as a vehicle. This isn't funny, in any way. The notion that you would casually attribute lynching to "they"(of course) in the rodeo? Classless. Get some class, a clue, and a real sense of humor. "They" aren't lynching anybody. Nor have they given you one shred of evidence that says they wish they could be. You comment here is patently retarded, Chris Mattews-esque...but really?...Father Coughlin-esque, douchebaggery. Link on Coughlin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin Get a F'ing grip.

Any more on this, and the cryng will commence. Big Tears. Understand, I can prove this, or I wouldn't have said it. But, I will get accused of all sorts of things when I prove it. None of them true, and most of it will = "I don't like the fact that I can't argue with you, so I will B word and whine, and try to use whatever little power I have to come after you". I see no reason to engage in any of that. The FACT remains: the Eagles owner and wife subscribe to a lot of the same fairly tale/magical thinking solutions that we have seen fail, and create unintended consequences, over and over.

In order: 1. I'll hate whomever I like. 2. I'll splash da pot whenever da F I please. 3. Any fanbase who can see it's way clear to violently boo: the hiring of Andy Reid, the drafting of Donovan McNabb and Corey Simon? They deserve nothing but contempt, especially since, not 6 months from booing, they were cheering them. 4. Pesistent screwing the Bills Backer club over. 5. A-hole Eagle fans in general, who will turn on their own team, their friends, and you, like a mother in law, and whenever it suits them. 6. Their owner, and especially his wife, are clueless twits who need to focus on how real problems get solved, in the real world, and stop pushing an agenda based on wishful thinking 7. The town has become infested with all sorts of rats. Both Human and less than human. This is why I left. When Rendell was the Mayor? That town was good and on its way up. Ever since? Nothing but the lowest common denominator in charge, with their hand out looking for a payoff, and a REAL race to the bottom. Having their football team suck is the least they deserve, and what everybody who votes for them deserves. And these are just the big ones. It's not that I really hate them, because I don't really hate anybody, I don't think. Pity is more like it. Well, that may be the case, but, my clients really enjoy my work as well, and they pay. I can't guarantee much. What will you say, if that turns out to be the case? Are you familiar with the history of the 80s Giants D?

Nah. I'd say it's one of the things you mentioned. I just don't know how it fools anybody. If the ball stays in one place, then as a D guy, I stay in one place. What fools is the guys moving, and you not knowing who has the ball. If they are both standing, and standing next to each other? Then I know one of them has the ball, and I am standing. When they move the fake is over, and I can see who has the ball. I mean WTF is this? The only thing I can think of is: The old Hobart Lacrosse trick. Everybody stands in a circle cradling, then they all turn, run towards the goal, and shoot? That was hilarious to watch, and it worked a lot more than you would think. But, even with that, the sticks are moving, which creates the trouble, because now you don't know which stick has the ball, and if you just run in and blast one of the guys, unless you guess right, you get nothing but a penalty. I'm gonna have to see more of this...

I knew somebody wouldn't let that get by.

Sure we probably should say: We'll see, and leave it at that. But, I think I've seen enough. I'm willing to say he's not who they say he is right now. Moreover, I am definitely willing to say their O line is in trouble. For me, it's about %s. What is the % chance that Tannehill is going to be good, based on what we've seen so far? I'd say 20%. If I see something new/different? Then that number could go up.

It does depend. Would you rather have your supposed starting QB of the Future( we can only hope) ragdolled, like he was? I really think 1 was the 2nd read, and 5 was the safety valve, followed by 4. I'd certainly have taken 5 over getting sacked.

Is Aqib Talib going to magically get faster for the regular season? Look at my last. Are the Pats going to get stronger and faster on the pass rush for the regular season? Does that mean they won't lose a 6 vs. 6 rush? That's man on man, and no different than what they do in 1v1s in training camp, every day. Do you think this gets better, if they rushed 7 and went 7 vs. 7? How about 8? The ONLY thing I put stock in: my own 2 eyes, and my considerable knowledge of the fundamentals in sports.

Ok fine, don't laugh at my joke. Pats blitzed 3 times, I think. Let me see....yep 3. All three times it was contained to the point that unless you know what you're looking for? You wouldn't know it was a blitz. The Eagles used this play action thingy, it's not like a traditional ball fake. Rather, Ron Mexico would hold the ball out next to the RB, and just stand there for a sec. Then, he'd pull it away to throw, or roll out, and the RB would take off, and block or draw somebody away. The blitzer was always eaten up by the RB, or whatever O lineman had been left without somebody to block. Just imagine: a large ring of big dudes creating an empty 10 yard in diameter pocket, and Vick just standing in the middle of it. Never mind, it's Fancy Picture Time! Let's look at the Vick TD. First the weird play action-->RB blocks the LB thing: Then, see? It's like Stonehenge : There's you Pats pass rush. The white uni guy you see at the top of the screen? That is DeSean Jackson about 2 steps for beating Aqib Talib like a rented mule. So, there it is. They actually did have 1 blitzer on this. That is #3. #6 just sorta stood here. Maybe he is the Vick "spy"? In any event, he eventually decided to rush Vick as well.

That's the thing. I couldn't tell when they were blitzing. Vick couldn't either. EDIT: Ron Mexico. Just had to add that.

I admire your patience then. I was done with that 10 years ago. My architecture was partially predicated on engineering those people's power away. Consider: If it doesn't matter to you that Bob made a mistake, then how does blaming Bob matter to you? Or: "IT should never be so poorly done, that it allows one VP to get over on another, because one or more is dependent on another." I'm either an idiot, or, that quote is going to matter someday.

estrogen

Jesus. Sorry to have damanged your delicate sensibilities when it comes to the Pats, but, the same Mike Vick who we crushed 2 years ago, just made the Pats D look stupid, and was only stopped by his own undisciplined play. No amount of tears from either of you is going to make Aqib Talib faster, so you should stop crying right now. Besides, that has nothing to do with the Bills, and everything to do with the Pats. You don't like it? Take it up with them, not me. And, why are you 2 butthurt about me talking about the Pats and Eagles: objectively? And, what does me talking the Pats and Eagles have to do with the Bills? Literally every other thread on this board is for talking about the Bills. You are welcome to go there. This thread is about the Pats, Eagles, and anything we might learn from what the Eagles did, that we can use against the Pats.