OCinBuffalo

The smart Republicans. This is probably going to happen because Roe vs. Wade doesn't do a very good job of setting a legal precedent for things like cloning or stem cell research. It's really a lawyer thing. Ask any objective lawyer and they will tell you it's simply bad law in terms of its functional capability to tell people what's cool and what isn't. It was a bad case to set a precedent on to begin with, and it's so old and goofy that nobody(legislatures) can use it to make good laws today. It's exactly like needing an "upgrade" for your software, because it's not compatible with new things. Now, I will grant you that the Republicans will try to get things like late-term abortions and ice-picking live babies in the neck out of what's "legal", but, the Democrats will probably take that in trade for keeping the birth control, morning after pill, and about 5 billion in sex ed and condoms. Well, that's how I would do it. Everybody gets something, we get a good law we can actually use, and we put this thing to bed forever and get on to the important stuff. Of course, politicians will probably do the opposite and find a way to f it up. I give my plan about one chance in 4 of actually happening.

Great, I'm sure none of us can wait. I wish my brother was awake because I would have bet him all the money in his wallet that you would "start another thread".

As you know, I will always stipulate the truth. But, as I know, you will always try to obfuscate or change the subject. My point was and is: the Democrats lost the Congress because the Republicans put forward a FISCAL, not SOCIAL, conservative set of policies and implemented many of them. Abortion had nothing to do with it. It wasn't until later that they realized there was no money in it, and starting backing off their plan in trade for campaign and personal $$$

Once again, even if there were 9 Scalia's on the court, there's no way they overturn Roe Vs. Wade without a follow up law that makes sense right behind it, that....allows for abortion. I didn't think it was possible, and hey, how are you? btw, but it appears we have found somebody on this board even sillier than you are Molson. Or, you are doing your 3 identity thing again. Either way, how's the surge doing? Obama just admitted it worked "beyond our wildest dreams". So, by your definition, both he and I are "delusional" and "divorced from reality". So I guess you are voting for McCain, huh?

Complete crap. Perhaps you aren't familiar with this little document-->Contract with America Which was specifically predicated on NOT being about dumbass issues like abortion and school prayer. Buddy, do me a favor, before your next post, go to google, type in anything you are about to say, and read the first three links. This is like Molson_Retard version 3

I can only work with what you give me. If you write in a substandard fashion, you are going to hear it from this entire board, not just me. We place a high standard on grammar here, not so much spelling. If we didn't, how in the hell else would we know what each other meant? I had no idea you have dyslexia, and I still don't, you could be BSing me. But, I will keep it in mind. The other thing is: unfortunately all you get is the written page, not my expressions, my goofy delivery, or the genuine smile that's always on my face. So, yeah, I can see where this comes off harsh, but without the whole thing it's kinda hard. Based on your "profile" so far, I doubt it, but it's always good to keep an open mind, until it's not. Whiff. Strike one. I stipulate what you are saying but it has nothing to do with what I am saying. I have always found that the further to the left my friends, family an co-workers are, they less likely they are to help out. OR, they come up with an idea, and I end up doing it while they find a way out at the last minute. This was especially true for me in college. In all cases, the data is the data, and it says that most volunteers consider themselves to be "conservative". I will grant you that that concept can mean about 30 different things, and whether we are talking social conservative vs. fiscal conservative is up in the air, so let's simply take it for what it is. The point is, they don't call themselves: liberal. Define "liberal" church. The only one I know of that can even be slightly considered "liberal" is the Catholic church. But then again, you will find a whole lot more conservatives there as well. See above, we really have no idea of the context of the question. If there are little protestant churches here and there that let gay people worship, for example, that's fine, but I guarantee you that they don't expend anywhere near the resources, or the time in terms of man hours that the Catholics, Methodists, etc. do, nor do they have anywhere near the membership. Hence, this is why the "conservative" # makes sense. Right? Oh, BS. I have said on multiple occasions that Sean Hannity is completely in the tank. It's his friggin job, he is good at it, and that is the point of the show he is on. What I can't understand is why liberals insist on giving him easy target after easy target. Seems pretty stupid to me-->Rev. Wright. Savage is more nuts than Hannity<--and that's why he isn't on TV. The more nuts they are, the less likely they are to be on TV. It's a simple rule really, just ask Dan Rather. You can be on TV for 20 years, but if you act like a real idiot once, it's bye-bye time... But, Obama went on O'Reilly's show, in case you missed it. Why do you think that is? You can try to denigrate O'Reilly all you want, but the fact is he will always be different than the rest of the turds, because...he has always been a real news guy, and he is all about being the best. You simply cannot be the best if you are in the tank. He wants/needs/demands that everybody in the world watches his show. He's not going to get that to happen unless he is truly "fair and balanced". The fact is: weakling liberals don't like it when they are asked tough questions. They'd rather do the Oprah, bobble-head thing. So, to them, O'Reilly looks like he is against them, when the fact is: he is going to confront everyone if it means more ratings. I simply don't see why that is hard to understand, or why it's hard for you to differentiate from one show from another. Is there another learning disability I should know about? Yeah, but we are talking humans here, not Jesus. And even he wasn't right all the time, and he said so. I will take the 90 points of helping others and ignore the 10 points of self-serving crap. Why not? It beat the F out of nothing, or sitting around bitching. Whiff. Strike two. I do math, every day all the time. I simply don't to BS, and you'd have to check with the ladies on this, but the last time I checked you can't be pregnant for 2 f'ing years. The only thing it gets back to...BS, non sequitur logic, or circular reasoning, that is the friend of the far-left and is rapidly becoming their entire argument regarding this issue. Save it. This isn't going anywhere and the only place this is "getting back to" for you is "jackassville". Well what else would you call it besides "forcing it"? Nobody in Mass. wanted it, or else their legislature would have passed a law. They found the weakest of cases to bring it up the ladder to the state court. In fact there's speculation that the whole thing was a setup. There is no finer example of "legislating from the bench". I look at it as I look at everything else: objectively. And, objectively, if the agenda was to make gay marriage legal, they failed miserably. Doubly so because they tried to sneak it through the courts, on the way to the US Supreme Court, instead for letting "the people", through their elected reps., decide on the matter. All that did was piss everybody off, even people like me, who have no problem with gay marriage, but every problem with aholes trying to play games. Honestly I really don't see a problem with it. I have a problem with little bitches who aren't man enough to put their issue before the entire government and try to convince people of what they are saying, and instead try to sneak schit by us. And again, if I was gay, I'd be pissed as hell that the "help" I got from liberals has turned into constitutional amendments against me in 37 states and counting. Please explain how that is "help", because that is the current situation. This looks like dumbass, liberal hubris once again serving to hurt those it intends to help. How else can you possibly define this? Ha! Angst. I am at peace just fine buddy, but thanks for your condescension. Boy, I really wasn't sure if you were a self-righteous bible thumper before, but now this has me convinced. Perhaps you aren't one now, but the judgmental crap is still bleeding through. How about this for a plan: you worry about your stuff, and I will worry about mine? In other words, I didn't ask for your "help"(judgment) or "advice". I will let you know when I need it Until then, why don't you start with being able to defend your position reasonably and not whining, or playing phony condescension games, or acting "morally superior"(I know that's a tall order, but give it a try), when somebody throws a BS flag on you?

Easy. I know how to set priorities properly because I am a grown-up. I understand that I often have to pick the "wrong" that's more "right", because I am a grown-up. I can also think about more than one thing at a time, because I am a grown-up. Terrorism, the economy, and how this country gets run going forward, in general are all far and away more important issues than abortion. And, again, because I am a grown-up, I know that making abortion truly illegal = the eventual end of the Republican party, and they know it too. Finally, because I am a grown-up, I know how to tell the difference between the fantasy world and the real world. In the fantasy world, abortion is a real issue, in the real world, 10,000 degree sun-tans from nuclear weapons are a real issue.

Great, so you only get to suck massively...kind of in certain areas, but suck massively everywhere else? What a great plan. Gee, what were we thinking this whole time? We should change our country and get on the "suck most of the time" plan too. Like I said, and you agreed-->socialist mediocrity. For the record, the biggest reason why your country tries to convince the naive in our country to be more like you? You guys will never beat us in anything but wine, cheese, soccer and not taking a shower after doing all three. In all honesty, you do have great docs, engineers and, finally(or once again ), some great military thinkers. But....We are the smart kid, the fast kid, the talented kid, and in general you are the jealous/political kid. The only chance you have as the other kid is trying to make us feel guilty for being the best. Unfortunately, we are also the compassionate kid, and that means that your BS works some of the time. Of course, we don't help ourselves by sending our youth out to Europe, to live like bums, and not also sending them out to an office right after to see both sides. But, the good news for us is: sooner or later our bums return home when they run out of money(as I did with the Greatful Dead). And our culture, not yours, right around the time they turn 23, says: you ain't getting schit without a job, a-hole. Chicks stop caring about how cool your bong is, and start caring about where your job is. That's it. America's secret weapon: our women don't put up with BS.

Which ones? I dare you to describe the fallacies you find in detail. For the record, I am pro-choice, for the simple reason that the pro-life position is fundamentally based on religion, and we have freedom of religion in this country. But, I want to see you actually define what exactly is wrong with the statements above, besides saying "because I said so".

I don't know about the rest, but I have seen these two in action, right in front of me. I have worked in a soup kitchen on multiple occasions, but my liberal friends/family always find a convenient excuse to get out of if at the last minute, even though it was their idea, and they "mean well". I wonder how many of the not-Democrats, phony-ass socialists here can say they actually did something useful, rather than merely running their mouths? Don't forget to add: JK2000(Molson v2.0), bluzurl, faking_importance and justnzane. They round out the list of "emote first, think never". Angst? Coming from a liberal? My how the times are a changin'. So now its the liberals complaining about the kids' "angst" and yelling "get off my lawn". Oh well, I guess even hippies have to deal with getting old sooner or later. <--The eventual downfall of the "me" generation = they try to turn it into the "us" generation when they can't do the job anymore. What a wonderful description of MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Michael Moore, and every retarded televangelist all in three sentences. Oh, the flip side of the "celibacy" argument? The fact that "fashion", MTV, and every insane a-hole in San Francisco are selling thongs for 12 year olds and hiding behind "safe sex" constructs to do it. What's more likely to get a 12 year old abducted and killed? A priest, or a thong and pasties? This is common sense, jackass. What if it is? What if it's coming from the Federal government? What if it's coming from Jesse f'ing Jackson?...which is the reason he said "off camera" that he was pissed at Obama? What if it's true and, again, you can't deal with the truth? Hint: it is true and it's an accepted fact. Sorry dude. You can get pissed all you like, but, when you are done yelling, this will still be true. Deal with it, and stop boring us with your bitching. Let's add (grammar) to your (sp) as things you need to work on. The fact is that faith-based charities do a great job, the world over, and that data is beyond question. Since you are a Mormon, you already know that. If you had a bad time with some people who use religion poorly, join the club. Our club has about 500 billion members since the beginning of recorded history, but you are special? Please. A-holes are a-holes, and I have to walk by Scientologists every day just to buy milk/smokes/lunch, so you won't get much sympathy from me. Ahh, I knew we would find some BS Protestant/Mormon hypocrisy someplace. Oh, and by the way, the facts are that it was her daughter, Mr. Holier than thou, not her having a kid. Do us a favor and get the story straight before you start spreading the church gossip. I know it's hard for Mormons to keep form being so judgmental, but why don't you give it the BYU try this time around? Perhaps that's not part of the "what Mormons do when they are out among the normal people" training? What would Jesus Do? In your case, STFU. You don't say? Try reading the sentence I quoted above one more time. Yes, I am sure that, as a Mormon, you know all about gay rights. Please explain to me how forcing a gay marriage agenda in Massachusetts, and thereby ensuring that 37 states and counting now have constitutional anti-gay marriage laws, HELPS gay people. If I was gay, I'd be pissed as hell at every liberal who "knows better" than I do how to "help" me. I ask you the exact same questions about this entire post...and the next 10 posts you make as well, just for good measure. You are a relative newbie here, prove to us that you aren't one more incarnation of Molson_Retard(or JK2000, or whatever that kid is going by these days) Do yourself the same favor, Mr. Passive-Agressive liberal(but don't want to admit it), self-hating, LDS guilt ridden....wait, with all that hanging on you it's no wonder you write stuff like this... There's one thing we can agree on = the beer...but kicking a dog in front of me gets you beat down 100% of the time.

Ha! And we wonder why UCSB is the best MIS school in the world..... . Nothing like our job training us to see the BS, on all sides, for what it really is.

There was a point...middle/late 80's, early 90's, where the NFL stood for the "No Fun League". This was because so many teams followed the Bears, Giants, Redskins, Eagles and to a lesser degree, Cowboys, Saints, and 49ers(on defense) form of boring-ass, run and stop the run, "the whole game comes down to the lineman", "bore us to tears" thing. Literally, games were being won by scores of 9-6. It was the best display of defense I have ever seen. But it was, massively conservative, Bill Parcells/Phil Simms "throw a pass once a quarter" football. Please understand, this was AFTER or WHILE teams like the 49ers, Bengals, Browns and Dolphins had had their offensive heyday. In fact, the only teams playing big time offense were the Dolphins, Bengals, and Browns, with the 49ers as the elite. 5 teams that were fun to watch, the rest was Madden talking to Pat Summerall about fat-ass dudes grabbing each other, or, once in a while, a TE like Dwight Clark actually making a play. Why do you think Jerry Rice/Joe Montana were such stars? Because they were the only thing that was worth a "highlight". ESPN made their bones(highlights) on those guys, Warren Moon, and the Buffalo Bills. But, for a while there, football became the most boring sport on the planet. Hence the N.F.L. moniker as described above. I guarantee that there are still tools everywhere that are upset because the No Fun League had to get rid of Pat Summerall and let FOX start running things. I was one of the tools, so I know. But, the man announces...golf...and does hardware commercials...when he's not doing football, and you wonder why it was called the No Fun League? Like everything else, every damn time the pendulum swings too far one way = Pat Summerall, it is sure as hell has to swing WAY TOO FAR the other way = why Deion, Faulk, and Sharpe were allowed to call the Colts vs. Bills game recently. But, back in 88-91, lo and behold, some teams came along. These teams were all about "crazy" offensive ideas. These teams were AFC teams(what a surprise), and the boring-ass, 2-3 yards and a cloud of dust teams suddenly started to get beat by 4 TDs. These teams were: to a lesser degree, the Chiefs and the Raiders, but the big time was the Houston Oilers, the Miami Dolphins, and the greatest = the Buffalo Bills. Nobody had ever seen offenses like the ones that played in the AFC. The problem? The NFL officials, the league, and every supposed "football fan" wasn't ready for it. In fact, for a while there, the boring-ass people were in charge. The NFC was considered "superior" to the AFC. But, every time that one of these AFC teams played against an NFC team in the regular season, the AFC team would destroy them. See: us, the Oilers, Chiefs or Raiders....against the Giants, Bears, 49ers or Dallas the entire late 80's to early 90's. The Bills spanked every team that they ever lost a SB to, and the 49ers, within 1 or 2 years of losing to them... in the regular season. The point? ==== the marketing people took over and changed the rules, the draft, and everything, and said: Pat Summerall and the rest of you boring-ass, offensive line loving, Pepto Bismol people, STFU and GTFOut. And the NFL has NOT been the No Fun League ever since. Madden is the only guy who was able to survive the change. Why? Because they had to throw the boring-ass crowd something...so that's where the Dallas Cowboys "sweat meter" comes from. In any transition, you have to allow some of the old-school a chance to keep themselves relevant, productive, and therefore....still around. Madden personifies this concept better than anyone. Yeah, we had to trade better football for Lowest Common Denominator = FOX coverage and Terry Bradshaw. But, we got better football games in the bargain. Nobody can say that the last 10 SBs were anywhere near as boring as the 10 before. So, the answer to your question? Football is way, way, way more interesting now than it has ever been. Proof? Somebody started a new thread about how much the Giants/Redskins game sucked.....Like I said, nobody wants to watch NFC East teams' 3 yards and cloud of dust BS football regardless of everthing.

And that means he will be sacked hard = get friggin walloped, stay down, and have the medical staff scrape his ass of the turf at the Ralph? Isn't that how Montana's career ended? Edit: looks like I'm not the only one who remembered that. I'm looking for a picture.

This is what I was gonna say. Even if we knew about Crowell's stunt, the value wasn't there at our pick. We would have been accused of "reaching" had we taken a LB by Mortensen and Kiper. So, it's a no-win situation, which of course means the haters are always right no matter what we do.

Easy one. Medicare, Medicaid, and SSI are the past. They are failing. They are failing not because they weren't good ideas once. They were great ideas 40+ years ago when we were either trying to get out of the Great Depression(SSI), or living in an artificial booming economy in a world where we had no competition, because everybody else's factories/infrastructure were bombed to hell, ours were at full production coming off a war, we thought that things would "always be this way", and we had more money that we knew what to do with. All that = "why shouldn't Teamsters get paid $60/hour for doing something that's only worth $10, and with all this extra cash why not create a free health care system in case they get hurt, as well?"(Medicaid/Medicare) Um, they didn't plan for "the elderly" to turn into "the poor" because they didn't do the math, and they didn't expect people to live so long, even though the data was easily available. Medicare/Medicaid was supposed to be primarily for an injured/disabled young worker, not dominated by the entire AARP. Paraphrasing the West Wing: "When FDR was coming up with social security, he wasn't thinking about 20 years of shuffleboard." I'm not suggesting we put 90-year-old people to work, I am suggesting some common sense, and setting the age to both reflect current age averages, and keep with FDR's original intent. The problem? This isn't 40-70 years ago when these programs made sense as they were designed. They quite literally define the past. Supporting them in their current forms, and/or demanding massive tax increases to fix them(even though that won't work either, because their business processes and rules are broken, antiquated permanently, or flat out wrong)... ...is fully supporting the past. Like it or not, whenever the far-left or Pat Buchannon gets done emoting, we now live in a global economy and that is the future. Other countries depend on us economically, and we depend on them. This is good thing because: it prevents large-scale war. And yes, wars of the future will be based fully on world market/economic interests because they are the very thing that must be protected, world-wide, to prevent a big war from happening. Big War = WWII = multiple battles like Tarawa, where we lost more people in a single day than we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan so far, combined. Which one do you think is better, fighting a small war now, or a big one later? The key is getting so many economic allies lined up, that nobody wants to fight a war because it's bad for business, which it is. An "A+" would be getting every country in the world on board, and that would essentially be the end of war as we know it. This is why Bono's(U2) "forgive the debt" concept makes all the sense in the world. That debt conversion alone would cut world-wide inflation by a staggering amount which reduces the price of everything, and significantly increases the earning power of the poor. This is why free markets make infinite sense of over planned economies (socialism), because you don't ever have to stick to the plan, and, somebody is always willing to make an extra buck, or billions of them, by turning a failing economy around if you ended up with a bad plan... ...and free markets and a global economy are without doubt, the future. However, we trade no more WW II-type wars for having to be extremely competitive with multiple countries, in multiple industries. These are the rules of the future's game, again, whenever the idiots get done talking, they will still be the rules of the game. We can't un-ring the bell, and old-school, Pat Buchannon(on the right), AFL-CIO(on the left) protectionist economic policy will simply turn us into a third world country. We will not be competitive with the 2nd highest, or 5th highest(however you define it) corporate tax rate in the world<--this is where we are are at right friggin now. The future depends on competition, and we cannot afford to hamstring ourselves in any way. Especially not when you consider that we routinely hamstring ourselves for diplomatic reasons. We always allow other countries to cheat and "dump" their products on our economy in return for economic stability and, again, No large-scale, or even small-scale, War. We need to streamline our entire economy, and that includes our government, just as any entity has to do when faced with increased competition. We need to EVOLVE, not merely "change". So streamlining our government = massively reforming, removing or replacing the largest drain by far on our Federal budget = entitlement programs like Meidcare, Medicaid, SSI, making the corporate tax rate = to the average of what other countries pay, and hopefully sharing the burden of defense spending(reducing it for us), or reasonably reducing the need for it, with and because of our now even stronger economic, as well as strategic, allies.... ...is fully supporting the future. I will leave it to you to figure out which candidate favors which, but, it doesn't really matter, because if either of these guys or anybody in the future ignores these rules, we will fire them. Regardless of whenever either of the candidates, or their supporters, get done talking, these things will still be true. Why? Because these are facts, Jack, not opinions, and, like I said, they are the new rules of the game, like it or not. You can hate the game all you want, you can hate the player too, but, when you get up the next day, all the hate changes exactly nothing.... ...because this is the future. We can either B word about or deal with it. The decision comes down to: who is going to do more dealing and less bitching?

I think it's a commentary on a larger issue: it seems the far-left can't defend its ideas and they know it, once again. Even the least educated American knows that socialism = failure, because they know who won the cold war, and they know that we have a long term undefeated record of beating socialist economies. So the only choice the far-left has is to try and stop others from saying anything. It's simple really, they can't convince anyone to vote for their nonsense, and haven't been able to for 30 years. So, they use rude, sometimes fascist, tactics to try to shut everyone else up. The fact is that we haven't had a true far-left guys as President since Jimmy Carter and LBJ, and we all know how well they worked out. Bush II's failures don't remove the fact that far-left policies have been tried the world over, failed miserably, and any that are still in place(Medicaid, Medicare, SSI) are on the brink of massive collapse unless they are fully reformed, or replaced by safety nets that are actuarially viable. I.E., it's not that Medicare/Medicaid wasn't an idealistic, noble goal. It's that LBJ didn't bother to hire insurance actuaries, like real insurance companies do, before he set up his government insurance "companies" and "policies". So yes, these and SSI, are going to fail, for the simple reason that: they didn't do the math and/or get people who are familiar with the material, before they set them up. It was all just political hubris/expediency anyway. Nobody really cares what the far-left says, because its not like either party is going to do what they say ever again anyway. Even if Obama wins, the far-left is dreaming(and I am laughing at them already) if they think he will do anything about any of their core issues if it means he might not get re-elected. Obama would be a fool to repeat Clinton's mistakes in 1992-3 and piss off moderates in his first 2 years, because he'll lose Congress. And, he doesn't have a Dick Morris to help him act like a Republican, which means he loses the White House as well. He's smart to be sure, but not as smart as Clinton, and I'd bet his ego would not be outdone by his ambition to stay in power like Clinton either. The point is: we need to listen politely to the far-left, because unlike them, we aren't rude or immature, and we certainly don't want to lower ourselves to their level. Perhaps by setting the example they will learn how to behave properly. Perhaps they will learn the tenets of logical discussion, and use it instead of their endless circular emoting. They might even learn how to convince people, instead of having to try and mute them, or run up on a stage and attack them. How funny is it that they think it's necessary to get our attention by hanging out in the rafters with a gay little sign? Pathetic, 8th grade boy behavior. I bet that guy thinks he's a "hero". He's probably hanging out with the other 30 tools at Barnes and Noble congratulating themselves on "bringing back '68"(as if) and on demonstrating their intellectual "superiority" based on what amounts to a fraternity prank. What a bunch of tools.

Yeah, but you won't care if we are 4-1 at the bye week. Or, 9-5 going into the last 2 games of the season. I'm just sayin'. This isn't great, but we clearly don't know for sure what's happening here. There are 52(+1) other guys that have to play well this Sunday, and Crowell won't have a large effect on that(IMO). Besides, all we can do is wait and see anyway. I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I am saying that if it wasn't this, it would be something else that we'd be tweeked out about.

Like I said in the other thread, we shouldn't hold anybody to anything they say here for the next couple of days...until the game thread of course. There are so many nervous expectations, we are bound to see posts like this and we should see these for what they are. Everybody's on edge and while this Crowell thing doesn't help, it certainly doesn't allow one to call into question the entire FO and every decision they have made for the last 3 years.

Agreed. Ladies and gentlemen, this season is just beginning. We have 4.5(maybe 5) months of this ahead. All this nervous energy, because we might actually be good, is making everyone including me, a little more on edge than normal at this time of the year. With that said, we need to go out and kick the crap out of the Seahawks. "There is no substitute for victory". Bring your nervous energy to the game, and let it out when we are on D.

This might sound nuts and I am aware of the players union, the current culture of the NFL, and everything else...save it. They just named the captains of this team. Again, this might sound hoky, but the one thing that makes it work is: Jason Peters is still a very young guy... in serious need of mentoring. And the concept of a real captain isn't too far away from him. I think it might be a good idea for the captains to get together and contact him in some form. I agree that this is a terrible waste of talent, and your "friends" aren't friends, unless they can, and will, honestly tell you that you are screwing up, when you are honestly screwing up. Who are Peters' friends besides his teammates? I look at it this way: what possible harm can it do? Clearly this guy is getting bad advice from his agent. If he is cut off from his peers, who the heck else does he have to talk to/get advice from, who actually understands his position and has no selfish agenda? In a sense I feel sorry for him, because it's quite possible he doesn't know what to do now. He bought into a BS line from one a-hole agent, meanwhile, even the other agents are saying this is a bad idea. And, this is a no win situation for this low-life agent. It seems clear right now that he'd rather burn the player, than admit his mistake, or show that he can be "broken". What a fine example of putting the client first. I am aware that teammates don't want to get involved in each others' business. However, I think this is a special case.

You're going to stand there, straight faced, and tell me Obama's entire candidacy isn't one giant show? At least Hillary has somewhat of a record of accomplishment. If you are going to call one thing a show, you have to call the other, far bigger show, a show as well. Besides, this is a Presidential race. Is there a bigger show in the world? It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but please, unless this is unintentional, can you spare us the galactic hypocrisy for one day?

Read the stats and weep, buddy. I would spot you Chambers as a concern against any team in the league. He's a new starter. That's what we do with every new starter, in general. But I'm still waiting for you to tell me why a guy who sacks the Rams/49ers/Cards 9 times is suddenly "awesome". What would Schobel do to them? He'd probably set a single season record. Kerney didn't get a sack on a team with a winning record last year, except that other NFC powerhouse, Tampa Bay. Is he unlucky? Or are his stats padded by playing in a crap division/conference?

You mean exactly like Lynch did against against the Steelers? I will spot you Chambers, but nothing accounts for Edwards' ability to get rid of the ball. And, nothing accounts for our WRs getting open quickly, which they are certain to do against their DBs. If the ball is out in 2-3 seconds, no pass rusher in the league matters. And, somehow I don't feel that scared about a guy who led the league in sacks but who also plays in a candy-ass division, in a candy-ass conference. Kerney got 9 of his 14.5 sacks against his own sorry division. Only 1 against an AFC team = Baltimore. And only 4 sacks total on the road. Read it here So, it looks like the Seattle fans are on target now, doesn't it?

Reading what I could find, they seem convinced that they won't run the ball the same as before. In fact, they seem to think they will do more in terms of throwing to their backs than running them. I dunno, this seems like making excuses for not having an elite running game to me.

Your comparison doesn't work. Their fans are saying that they don't get a good pass rush in general, and it's even worse on the road. That's their fans being negative but realistic on their own team, or they are just negative tools who have nothing good to say.... Of course we don't have any of those types here, do we? Our fans being overly optimistic has nothing to do with this. And I don't see how their fans admitting they have a pass rush problem = they are wrong and Seattle has the most dominating pass rush in the league. You need to do a better job filling in the gap there, buddy.