OCinBuffalo

Looks like I was wrong....

And that's an answer how? I have yet to see anywhere where you have answered that simple question. So, I dunno. I am telling you that I agree with you that religion has been used for violence in a pattern for as long as religion has been around. And that's fine, I just don't see how pointing that out helps us with what to do about radical Islam, and you have provided nothing in this entire thread that answers that question.

What bearing does it have? What specifically are we supposed to draw on from the examples I have cited, or use any other ones that you like, that is going to instruct us on how to deal with our problems with these radical Islamic people? I.E. what relevance does the Salem witch trials have in dealing with OBL? How about this: what did we do with the Barbary Pirates?

No I do not. I view this as radical Islam is a problem that must be dealt with because it is a today problem. Clearly using religion for bad is a pattern. Or haven't you been paying attention to the last 10 posts I wrote where I specifically cite things that Christianity has done wrong. The problem is all of these examples happened over 300 years ago. When those people were confronted with their problems with misguided religious beliefs they had to deal with them. Now it is our turn to deal with misguided Islam, because that is where the problem is. What happened 300+ years ago in some other religions has no bearing on that.

Yep that's what I said...hysterical. I guess you didn't find the part about how the rules are manipulated compelling, or, is it that you don't like being confronted with questions that you have conveniently glossed over in a lame effort to kill the messenger instead of responding to the message. If I am not convincing, fine, what are you doing? Specifically what have you added to this other than bluster and pompously telling me what I can say and what I can't?

Not in a discussion about what to do about the Islamic religiosity TODAY that not only justifies violence, but specifically calls for the death of anyone who criticizes it. Again, we are are talking about what to do about it TODAY because it is a problem TODAY. When Christianity was burning witches 400 years ago, that was a problem then, and it was solved then = no more burning witches. If there were people burning witches TODAY due to misguided Judaism, or Hinduism, or whatever, then we would have to talk about how to stop that. But, in fact, that is not happening. The fact is that the ONLY religion that is causing us problems with regard to violence TODAY is Islam. And therefore something must be done about this religiosity, not necessarily destroy the religion, but destroy/disrupt those who are using it for their own ends, and break their hold on minds of the people under their influence.

Oops! Please be careful Wacka, supposedly you are a dumbass, but we are dealing with very delicate Liberal sensibilities here(not sense) so be wery, wery, carewull, they are hunting bunny wabbits!

Right but the flip-side of that is also true, you draft a choir-boy that ends up being a lame talent and you pay and pay and pay. Just sayin' Btw, my bro(goes to IU) says Hardy is the bomb and that everyone he's ever met that knows him personally says he's a good guy. Sure it's 4th? hand hearsay, but it's not negative. Also, if there's one thing we have seen is that real problem children seem to have a pattern of bad behavior, as opposed to one incident(the beer thing isn't even worth talking about). It seems that there isn't much else wrong with this guy except this one incident. So who knows? We sure as hell need a tall WR and that this guy plays two sports is the interesting thing for me.

If that's relevant to this debate, then so is the fact that the sun is going to come up tomorrow. We are talking about how Islam is supposedly being misused today, not about anything else. Trying to tell us that the Islam is not involved in this, but rather "other influences and factors" is silly. I will concede that other factors might involved, but the fact is that is Islam is definitely involved, and the fact that Islam has significant prescriptions for "justifiable" violence, and the fact that there are idiots running around right now killing strangers, and their own family, due to Islam, are all undeniable. What has happened in other religions 800 years ago has nothing to do with this.

It's not required reading. I was referring to my Gifted and Talented class. For a while in high school I thought I might want to do foreign service, CIA, State something like that and G&T is all about doing things that are outside the curriculum. Yes I was a nerd, and no, I'm not trying to say I am smarter than anyone. I didn't bring it up, I was responding to those who had, in a thread about Islamic Fascism. I did use Christianity in an effort to provide context and comparison to Islam, since it had already been brought up. Thanks for the giving me your leave to proceed Is there any thing else his lordship requires? Again, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...it's probably a f'ing duck! Or Occam's Razor. Take your pick. To be as specific as I can be, there is a concept called a Hadd, similar but not the same to a capital crime, but Hadd includes the judgment AND the punishment. There is so such thing a judge ruling that they only cut off your pinky if cutting off your hand is the punishment. If this was a Muslim country, there would be no Liberals, since all of them that deny Allah or his laws/punishments(or even question them) are subject to Hadd, and therefore would be as good as dead. Liberals that argue for judicial restraint would have to be killed for going against the proscribed punishments set by Allah. In essence, there is no debate, you either are guilty or you aren't and if you are you get the punishment. Question the punishment and you die. Adultery is a Hadd-punishable offense. In fact is specifically states that no judge can give the sentence of Hadd for adultery unless there are 4 witnesses. That's why when a woman gets raped, and nobody sees it or only 3 people see it, but somebody finds out she's not a virgin anymore, she goes to jail and the rapist walks. So the rules are what they are. The problem is that any Muslim can choose to say that there are 4 witnesses, and they can define adultery however they want. You take the worst of both conditions, and the fact that the punishment is always death, and bam, there's your justification for an honor killing, by the book. The bottom line is: who is going to argue with their Imam about whether honor killings are ok in Islam, especially when doing so may cost you your life? And, the most telling thing is: you don't see Muslim Imams STOPPING people from honor killing, which is strange if they are supposedly following Islam, since there is no specific wording for honor killings, yet 5000 of them occur every year. Wait a college professor(80% of whom are Liberals) cherry picking is only a possibility? Um dude, more like a probability. Of course there are plenty of noble things in both the Bible and the Koran. That's not the point. The point is what is in the Koran that is not in the Bible? The point is that there is a hell of a lot of specific laws/punishments in the Koran that do not point to forgiveness, brotherhood, and letting God determine judgment, as in the entire theme of the New Testament, and instead point to revenge, killing one's own family, killing unbelievers, and man passing final judgment on his brother, as in the "us v them", "righteous v the sinner" theme of the Koran. That's the blatantly obvious difference. "Take care of the poor, as long as they are Muslim" vs. "anything you do unto my brother, you do unto me". Notice that there is no specification for Christians only in the second quote. Don't you think there might be a problem with the class you took when it clearly missed this difference? Did they bother to tell you that Mohamed used a lot of the Bible to create the Koran? Did they tell you that supposedly Jesus and Moses visited Mohamed and told him that we didn't have it right, and that's why he needed to start Islam? Of course it wasn't because Mohamed wanted to invent a new religion and use it to conquer? Nah, of course not. Yep. And perhaps this is may be instructive: don't take a class in college and assume that you now know the difference between religions. All you did was show up 2-3 times a week and listen to somebody tell you their potentially biased interpretation of the difference. Moreover, they gave you only small parts of each book, and somehow you bought it that these small parts were indicative of the whole thing, "because they said so". Hey I did it too, we've probably all done it, the important thing is not to keep doing it.

Which AGAIN, has nothing to do with the premise of the original poster, or the fact that we are talking about the Koran here, terrorism here, and this century here. If you want to do an historical analysis of the Bible's use for violence, for example in the 11th century, start your own thread! What people did with the Bible 1000 years ago has nothing to do with what people are doing with the Koran TODAY. It's people like you who keep trying to equate the 2, that allow the terrorist's BS to propagate. IT's BS! That's all there is to it, utter crap, based on ridiculous argument that somehow what happened 8-900 years ago somehow matters today. Deal with it already. There is no justification for these terror attacks and the minute you realize that, you might just be able to start contributing something useful to the solution, or at least to the debate. I guarantee you that talking about the Thirty Years War, or another ridiculous historical misuse of the Bible, offers absolutely no substantive counsel or basis for how to solve the problems that are in front of us. So please, quit wasting everyone's time. You are probably much smarter than this.

Ok. First off, if you are staying in Center City, the best way to get to the game is the Broad Street line(subway) = $2.50 each way and you are there in 20 minutes at the most. Broad Street and Market Street form a + that divides Center city(essentially a box). Broad goes N/S. Market, E/W. Depending on where you are staying, you may want to catch the Market Line to City Hall(the intersection of the +), and then get on Broad street train to Pattison = the end of the line. When you emerge from the escalator, you won't be able to miss the field, because it will be right in front of you. The train stops running around midnight(might be later). It is plenty safe. There is a decent bar at the field, and it's not too expensive = $4 bottles(IIRC). Back in Center City. There are a ton of great bars, dive and otherwise. I would suggest the following based on price and good places to hang out in general: In the middle of the city, i.e. city hall, dive or at least hard drinking bars: 1. A little expensive but the best beer selection in the country = Monks @ 16th and Spruce. (On the way back on the train, get off @ the Walnut or the Lombard stop, in each case you have to walk 2 blocks south, or north respectively, and 2 blocks west) 2. Real dive bar and full of Dbag liberals like yourself you should get along fine, cheap Guiness = Fergie's @ 12th and Sansom (On the way back on the train, get off @ the Walnut stop, one block north and almost 3 blocks east) 3. If you are looking for more of a sports bar = Fox and Hound @ 15th and Spruce (same as Monks just walk 1 block west instead of 2) 4. Another cool place kinda sports bar but a little classier(lots of women) and hands down the best bar service I have ever seen = Irish Pub @ 20th and Walnut (get off @ Walnut an walk 5 blocks west) 5. If you want to add some historical significance to getting wasted, as in the oldest continually operating bar in Philly(since 1860. Prohibition? what's that?) and a real dive = McGillans @ 13th and Sansom-->just a little north of Sansom, actually on an alley called Drury or Downey or something like that, begins with a D. (same as Fergie's excpet 2 blocks east and a little north and back down the alley west a bit) Every one of those have some kind of food as well. If you are staying more towards Old City(2nd-5th street) then I suggest you go to 2nd and South or 2nd and Market. There are too many good places to name, Plough and Stars at 2nd and Market and Kildare's or Artful Dodger at 2nd and South are just a few. This is a good one: There is a Johnny Cash bar = real dive = that primarily serves cans of beer. You can get yourself a fine Genny Cream ale there as well as the Beast, PBR and everything else you drank in college/high school. It's easy to miss as it's a walk-down bar. It's on 3rd South of Market, in the middle of the block on the left hand side from Market. I always forget the name, but it's something to do with Johnny Cash or one of his songs. Of course, from 9th to 2nd on South Street is what it is = when people say partying on South Street, that's what they mean. There are all kinds of bars and taverns from nice to utter sh!tholes. If you don't like a place, just walk out and head 20 feet down the road to the next one. No place there is worth paying a cover charge. Finally, if you want to see where the Founding Fathers supposedly went after they signed the Declaration of Independence and proceeded to get hammered, I think they still have the bar bill = The City Tavern @ 2nd and Walnut. It's not much of a bar and is quite nice, but it's kinda cool to hang out where the country was basically founded, in a bar of all places . From what I understand, they spent a lot of time there. The other place to go like that is the Dark Horse on 2nd just up from South, it's supposedly where Ben Franklin used to hang out a lot.

Nah, I bet it's that he simply doesn't interact with people in Florida. When I was working there, I was proofed for buying a 12 of Coke(not that) twice in the same week by the same guy. And then it happened again at another store a week later. I was almost killed daily by people who didn't seem to understand the concept of a red light. I was told on multiple occasions by both Democrats and Republicans there that the "President makes all the laws". Do I need to continue? Because I have more, unfortunately much more. For the usual "extrapolate everything non-liberals do" suspects here: Education should never be denied anyone for any reason while they are a minor. And, there are ample examples of the religious providing eduction, usually the finest, all over this country, unless you aren't familiar with people like the Jesuits, or aren't aware of institutions like Notre Dame and Georgetown. So please, spare us the extrapolation that ALL religious people deny education. Moreover, spare us the extrapolation that somehow we should vote for candidates because of what a couple of hicks do--> as though what happens in Florida is important. More than half those people have bartender, stripper, Disney employee, or something similar, stamped on their forehead from birth. If their state wants to continue to be silly and superficial, who are we to stand in their way? Besides, I likes my strippers dumb, and me hooters waitresses even dumber! And, somebody's got to get me a beer when I am down there, I'm on f'ing vacation, and I sure as hell ain't getting it myself. If these religious nuts in this case are so firm in their beliefs then they should not fear what a teacher tells their kids. This insecurity about sex ed betrays either a pseudo faith, or, that their faith is more about control than grace. Most importantly! Hey dummies! This is a state issue! Or do you think that if we were to throw more money at this problem from the Federal level that somehow these hicks will stop being stupid? If I paid that Coke proofing bastard more, does that mean he suddenly turns smart?

I think what Helmet is trying to say is: "There is no direct causation between poverty and/or oppression and terrorism" And, "There must be some other contributing factor besides poverty and oppression, in this case religion, for terrorism to occur". I would add that when you have the Koran as a playbook, it's a hell of a lot easier to call the "behead the infidel" play, and get your brainwashed, fully bought in to Islam, economically and militarily oppressed, people to run the play.

Funny how you believe the exact opposite of reality. The Factor has more viewers, including me sometimes, than all the other cable news shows COMBINED, I don't know about the Times, but the Tribune Review is also well-read by many in that town, regardless of whether I think it's not a good paper. That is the reality The fact is that the filthy rich LIBERALS such as George Soros and Harold Ickes fund raising is the only reason Air America hasn't completely failed. They have never made a profit. In fact, their name isn't even accurate, its should be Air San Franciso, LA, and NYC, and a couple of places down south, because those are the only place you will find them. They have failed financially only to be bailed out by Soros 3 TIMES. Talk about corporate welfare. "Yes, let's proceed with an asset buyout and a re-branding of our crappy product, followed by another traunch of funding from our wonderful liberal investors. Once complete we will re-launch the newly formed organization and..." it will still suck the sweat off a dead man's balls. That is the reality. So what you are complaining about is essentially the polar opposite of what is actually happening. Time to shake yourself loose of that delusion. Look I actually used to listen/watch Air America, in an effort to balance out O'Reilly, but I stopped. Not because I didn't agree, but because they spent most of their time saying the same bumper sticker phrases over and over every day. It was worse than WGR commercials. Even with Limbaugh, as silly as he can be, he explores the point and I have half a chance of learning something, if nothing else WHY he says what he says. I listened to Al Franken's show for 5 months and I think he actually said something that could be looked at as a rational argument maybe 10 times. The rest was gay sound effects and the lowest form of gotcha games = it reminded my of riding the bus in 7th grade.

Here here! F-Mama Pecararo right in the a.....God I hate those commercials. Not only are they lame, but apparently WGR can't sell air time to anybody else, with of course the only exceptions being Dr. Dweebs' back-straightening rack and Satellite Sol-douche-ons, so we get to hear all 3 in a never ending rotation. Annoying as hell.

"What could I possibly do to this guy that life hasn't done already?" "Don't upset the henchman!"

Wow. I wonder how the environtologists will try to explain that it's getting only slightly warmer in the northern hemisphere, but staying the same in the southern hemisphere, at the same time, if this is a "global" problem? And, that coral reef thing is hysterical = environtologists somehow believe that coral reefs that formed when there was 10 times the CO2 in the atmosphere, will be damaged by less than 1 time increase in CO2. That's just silly. The summary is a whole new take as well: 1. The Sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2.0 degrees centigrade. 2. The anthropogenic carbon dioxide effect is real, minuscule and too small to be measured. 3. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will boost agricultural production. 4. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is wholly beneficial. I suggest anybody here who calls themselves a reasonable person actually read this paper, and then ask yourself whether it's still a reasonable position to say global warming is supported by a "consensus". I am not a climate scientist, but I know how to read a f'ing graph. The only question I have is: if 2 is true, then does that mean that the gains described in 3 and 4 will be minuscule as well?

What are you surprised that once again we see a liberal trying to bring up the old "yeah but look at somebody else" when it's obvious that the liberal in question's candidate/party is failing? When are they ever gonna learn that what somebody else does has nothing to do with what (insert liberal here) does? I wonder if it's even a conscious response anymore??? It's also as if they don't understand that by constantly turning to cliche as their "argument" they, by definition, rend whatever argument they may have had meaningless.

Why in God's name do you think the citizens of the People's Republic of San Francisco are going to give the People's Republic of China's flame a hard time? Those Communist wanna-bes giving real Communists a hard time? Can't wait for the rationalizations of why human rights abuses are ok as long as socialists are doing them, since they are smarter than the rest of us anyway. In fact, I don't expect the people of SF to do much at all....and that's a shame. But who knows, maybe this time they will be able to see past their ideology far enough not to put themselves in another blatant state of hypocrisy. There's always hope...

Right since war has never been won based on intimidating the enemy into submission with guaranteed physical and/or economic harm. And apparently winning war isn't also about making the choice to just shut up and color infinitely more attractive to the enemy than taking up arms again. War is a stupid device started by idiots that throughout history only achieves the stated goals about 30% of the time. The problem is: just like a bar fight, once you find yourself in a war, if you act like it's still time to talk and/or don't respond accordingly, you're gonna get f'ed up every time. They, and I don't mean "brown people", I mean Hamas, OBL and his crew, and certain Saudi princes who fund both, started this war in Somalia/the first Trade center attack, continued it with the Cole, and are fighting it right now. The question for us is: is anyone one still thinking we can talk our way out of it while the enemy is throwing punches? Anybody who thinks that is the case is either ignorant or delusional.

Nope. This is the fundamental concept you are missing: the instructions to kill/maim/torture believers and non-believers are clearly stated, in multiple ways, over and over, in the Koran. There is no where near the amount of rules, punishments, and pre-ordained judgments in the Bible. In an effort to quantify: for every 1 instruction that prescribes violent behavior in the Bible, there are around 50 in the Koran. This is not subject to interpretation and is a matter of fact. Also: would you classify a father who kills his daughter for being too forward, as I posted above, a terrorist? I wouldn't, since a terrorist is generally about killing strangers for political purposes. How do you resolve the prescription for killing one's daughter, clearly stated rules, in the Koran? Moreover, when a man follows these rules as clearly detailed, in this country, this year, how do resolve that behavior as merely an interpretation? Sure there are definite causal differences for why one guy kills innocent people, as defined clearly in the Koran, and why one guy chooses not to. I would suggest that politics, economics, and culture all are significant factors. However, my point continues to be that the rules are stated clearly in the Koran that provide the nut every "justification" he needs to make the choices he does. There are nowhere near the same instructions in Christianity. Again, this is a matter of fact. OBL and the rest of his tools have clearly stated their objective on multiple occasions: To establish an Islamic, theocratic, caliphate similar to where the borders were drawn around 1300 AD. In fact they want to control everything from Spain to Indonesia. That is what we are fighting against. The simple fact is that you cannot separate the religion from the political when your enemy is using the religion as justification and more importantly as a weapon itself. As long as they are choosing to bastardize Islam, that forces our hand to suppress, or at the very least keep in check, the spread of that weapon. We had to do the very same thing with Communism and Nazism, because our enemies were hiding their base grabs for power and wealth behind an "ideal" = "the only reason we have to kill people is that they don't subscribe to the ideal and therefore will do harm to us all". Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Idi Amin, all used that same "I'm fighting for an IDEAL, not personal gain" BS. In order win the wars of the 20th century, we had to separate those "believers" from the average joe, or cause the average joe to declare himself a "non-believer", and annihilate the nuts. I don't remember dismissing it. I do remember saying that terror in general fails miserably, so what does his analysis, valid as it may be, change about what I am saying? I think we agree that most of this is an vain attempt at grabbing power, hiding behind a religious "cause". IF that is the model that we use for determining what is strictly religiously motivated vs. what is motivated by religion AND OTHER THINGS, then sure, I bet that 3% is very accurate. In all cases, this work does not detract from my basic point that Islam is clearly not the "religion of peace" to the degree it is being spun as, compared with other religions. It is clearly the least "peaceful" religion, save Satanism and Scientology, because of the rules contained in the book. Clearly it has been stated over and over by every terror expert that if a guy wants to do a terrorist act, and is suicidally committed to it beyond all doubt, he has a decent chance to succeed. There is no defense for that brand of crazy. The only thing you can do is: go find the bastard on his ground and stop him there, at his house, before he gets here. That is not defense, that is offense. It's as simple as that. Diffuse means go get them, not try to stop them during the act or punish them after the fact. This is why this is a war and not the crime prevention activity Clinton characterized it as = you don't have to check with the Attorney General before you kill a guy, as Clinton did with OBL, if you are looking at this as a war. IF only he had looked at this as the war that had been declared on us since Somalia, things might have been better. But, it's not like anybody thought any differently than he did. I didn't see it for what it was, that's for sure. If I had, I might still be in the Army. Agreed. Instead of doing something useful, all we heard was "what did he know, when did he know it" quotes from Democrats over and over, which did nothing but provoke the overreaction that is now the Iraq war. In essence, it's pretty clear that in hindsight, the Bush administration was so unfairly vilified by the Democrats, who apparently had their reason and sensibility take a vacation after 9/11, that they went so far the other way as to have their reason and sensibility take a vacation. This is what happens when ideology is allowed to supplant common sense and reason. This is also what happens when you have the level of incompetence and/or bias, take your pick, that is rampant in the media today. As long as we are fighting them on their ground, then yes. Look the Vietnam War was going terribly for the North, to the point that they were talking about quitting, and the Tet OFFENSIVE was basically their last hope. It worked because of one thing: They were fighting us on our ground for the first time--> the U.S. embassy and/or our bases that supposedly were impregnable. Once again, you don't win war on defense, ever. Edit: Before anybody brings up the Revolutionary War, please understand that we went on offense: Canada, the Iroquois, trapping Cornwallis, all the time. We took the ground the enemy was defending, and that's why we won. Great question. I would say the latter. Why? Because terrorists come from the terrorism ideology. You aren't going to win until you kill the idea, and the masters of the idea, just like killing Hitler essentially killed the Nazi ideal, but getting Germans to openly state that they are not Nazis was what ultimately ended the conflict. There will always be a few nuts that remain, but they won't do anything because they know that their activity will gain nothing, once a large majority of the people have rejected their ideology as false. My problem with what you are posting is this: by that very definition, and since terrorist attacks continue, clearly the ideology is still supported by many Muslims. As such, clearly a large population of Muslims HAVE NOT rejected this Islamic Fascism ideal as false. As long as that remains to be the case, then those who do not publicly state and behave in a manner that demonstrates that rejection, must be looked at as enemies. Most importantly, as long as they derive their moral basis for support of terror from Islam, and not something else, then Islam is a weapon that must be neutralized. The trick is to get the reasonable Muslims to use their own book: in essence to use the very rules for non-believers against the terrorists, since they keep saying that terrorists are non-believers. I covered the rest of this above.

Yes, of course, and of course. I unlike some here, always do the reading and get familiar with the material before I randomly post whatever comes into my head. I actually read the Koran in High School, as part of my G&T stuff. Before I give examples, please familiarize me with your knowledge of the Koran so I know how detailed I should be. The key element I am pointing out is that clearly the life of Jesus = serve mankind the whole time, and the life of Mohammed = serve himself exclusively, gain power, suddenly have an epiphany, use that to form an army, use that army to conquer, later in life try to say that Islam is about peace, well, only an idiot couldn't see the difference between the two men. I assume you are not an idiot. Further, only an idiot can't see the difference between what I am saying and that "an ideology can contain elements of destruction and violence without actually advocating it". The fact that historical details and anecdotes are contained in the bible has ZERO bearing on the fact that there are entire sets of detailed instructions on how to kill, main, torture and subjugate non-believers in the Koran. Again, only an idiot cannot see the difference between the two things in terms of degree. Many, many Muslims believe in these rules and that's why we have documented evidence of "honor"(the worst bastardization of a word ever) killings in the thousands worldwide each year, even here in the USA. So here's my questions for you: Is a father killing his daughters as in here an example of not following the rules clearly stated in the Koran? Or are you saying that even though the rules regarding honor killings exist in the Koran, in detail, somehow this guy wasn't following them, or following them properly? Incidentally, apparently the son in that article isn't aware of the time-tested axiom "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, ...". Also, where is the similar example of those specific rules in the Bible? Also, this is a matter of rule vs exception. Their points are based on finding a few exceptional quotes and phrases = cherry picking, and trying to use that as a basis of comparison. In contrast, the entire theme of the Koran is "us vs. them". Whole sections are devoted to the handling of non-believers as opposed to a couple of quotes here and there, cherry picked from the Old Testament. So, again, I am merely pointing out to them and you the sheer weakness of their argument. I have apologized for my earlier screed. Perhaps saying sorry once is not enough for you? Ok, I'll do it again. What I posted was uncalled for and it actually detracted from what I was trying to say, and I am sorry. In all cases, I highly doubt I will be taking what you say as instructive any time soon.

Sorry but The Notebook is closed. There's an ExpertOpinion on this....

Only if he wants us to draft a Center in the first round, since none of them grade higher than the third. Since drafting lineman above their grade is never a reach It's only a reach when you do that with DBs who win Rookie of the month their first month playing in the NFL.