BILLS WIN THE SUPERBOWL

[The Senator]

I see you're still insisting on losing the argument by throwing around insults. When people complain about the decline of discussion on this board, that is exactly what they are talking about.

 

At least those guys made the NFL. Leach hasn't and didn't. You're exactly right, Vick is better than all of those guys. Again, Vick made the NFL and they didn't, and there's a reason for that.

 

It's much easier to succeed in college than the NFL. Not everyone can make it in the pros, and it's been proven so far that Leach can't. Some team would have signed him already if he could.

 

I expect you'll follow this up with another insult-laden, losing argument, since it seems like that's the only way you can defend your ridiculous position.

If Leach has yet to coach in the pros, how is it that 'it's been proven' that he can't????

[Chilly]

If Leach has yet to coach in the pros, how is it that 'it's been proven' that he can't????

 

Because no NFL team wants him, proving that no one thinks he's good enough to make it in the pros. Kinda like players who go undrafted and aren't brought into training camp.

[The Senator]

Because no NFL team wants him, proving that no one thinks he's good enough to make it in the pros. Kinda like players who go undrafted and aren't brought into training camp.

I see. You mean like former Hy Vee grocery store bag boy and future HOF QB Kurt Warner.

 

Let me see if I follow your logic...

 

Michael Vick is not a starting QB on any NFL roster. Therefore, he is not good enough to be a starting NFL QB on any NFL team because, quite obviously, no one wants him as the starting QB on their roster - otherwise he'd be starting for someone. The former #1 overall pick and convicted criminal is now only good enough to 'warm the pine' and hopefully get some garbage-time reps as a backup.

 

Got it.

 

(I was wrong - 10-year-olds form much more sound arguments than you!)

[gobills28]

How many times did the announcers laugh while doing this speech? I want to see the blooper outakes!

 

 

 

F' em all...I Billieve!!!

 

Go Bills!!!!

[dpberr]

Thanks for posting the video. That was a lot of fun to watch.

 

For me, witnessing a Bills Super Bowl win would be tantamount to finding out I have a $150 million dollar winning lottery ticket, or the birth of a child. It'd be right up there.

[Chilly]

I see. You mean like former Hy Vee grocery store bag boy and future HOF QB Kurt Warner.

 

Let me see if I follow your logic...

 

Michael Vick is not a starting QB on any NFL roster. Therefore, he is not good enough to be a starting NFL QB on any NFL team because, quite obviously, no one wants him as the starting QB on their roster - otherwise he'd be starting for someone. The former #1 overall pick and convicted criminal is now only good enough to 'warm the pine' and hopefully get some garbage-time reps as a backup.

 

Got it.

 

(I was wrong - 10-year-olds form much more sound arguments than you!)

 

Incorrect. It doesn't apply to starter vs non-starter. Those spots are too limited. We're simply talking roster spots & coaching spots.

 

No one even wants Leach as a QB coach.

 

BTW, good job continuing to undermine your argument with insults.

[Kevin]

Ok who cried?? Who cried when old yeller died?? I cried when old yeller died.

 

I cried. Still crying

[yungmack]

WTF is Obama doing in the White House?

The majority of voters elected him, unlike GW Bush in 2000. Funny, I didn't hear a lot of the fascist right wingers screaming about conspiracies and "wanting THEIR country back" in those days. Bunch of sore loser nitwits. Remind of Red Sox fans.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

damn I am all choked up

[The Senator]

Incorrect. It doesn't apply to starter vs non-starter. Those spots are too limited. We're simply talking roster spots & coaching spots.

 

No one even wants Leach as a QB coach.

 

BTW, good job continuing to undermine your argument with insults.

Oh, are those the criteria you've decided upon to best support your specious position?

 

You're just making yourself look dumber by the moment

[WotAGuy]

Thanks for posting the video. That was a lot of fun to watch.

 

For me, witnessing a Bills Super Bowl win would be tantamount to finding out I have a $150 million dollar winning lottery ticket, or the birth of a child. It'd be right up there.

 

Whoa! It'd be waaaay better than the birth of a child; trust me, I have three girls and once they became teenagers, I was searching for retroactive birth control!

[Chef Jim]

The majority of voters elected him, unlike GW Bush in 2000. Funny, I didn't hear a lot of the fascist right wingers screaming about conspiracies and "wanting THEIR country back" in those days. Bunch of sore loser nitwits. Remind of Red Sox fans.

 

You belong over on PPP. You'd fit in just fine. We need more intelligent posters like you over there.

[Chilly]

Oh, are those the criteria you've decided upon to best support your specious position?

 

You're just making yourself look dumber by the moment

 

I don't think you know what specious means.

 

For your reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spe...=ref&ch=dic

 

 

spe·cious   [spee-shuhs] Show IPA

–adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

[Glass To The Arson]

Thanks for posting the video. That was a lot of fun to watch.

 

For me, witnessing a Bills Super Bowl win would be tantamount to finding out I have a $150 million dollar winning lottery ticket, or the birth of a child. It'd be right up there.

 

Love it

[The Senator]

I don't think you know what specious means.

 

For your reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spe...=ref&ch=dic

 

 

spe·cious   [spee-shuhs] Show IPA

–adjective

1.

apparently good or right though lacking real merit; superficially pleasing or plausible: specious arguments.

2.

pleasing to the eye but deceptive.

3.

Obsolete . pleasing to the eye; fair.

BINGO!!!!! Give the man a cheroot!!!!! (Sorry to send you scrambling for your dictionary, but glad you took the time to look it up!)

 

For the learning-impaired, this may further clarify...

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious

 

spe·cious (spshs)

adj.

1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

2. Deceptively attractive.

 

specious [ˈspiːʃəs]

adj

1. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false

2. deceptively attractive in appearance

 

 

Your position is both specious AND spurious, and I'm an idiot for continuing this argument with an ignorant child.

[Chilly]

BINGO!!!!! Give the man a cheroot!!!!! (Sorry to send you scrambling for your dictionary, but glad you took the time to look it up!)

 

For the learning-impaired, this may further clarify...

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious

 

spe·cious (spshs)

adj.

1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.

2. Deceptively attractive.

 

specious [ˈspiːʃəs]

adj

1. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false

2. deceptively attractive in appearance

 

 

Your position is both specious AND spurious, and I'm an idiot for continuing this argument with an ignorant child.

 

Ah, I think you finally got it. My argument *is* quite attractive, because it's correct. I'm glad you finally found the definition of the word that fits.

 

I also see you're still resorting to insults, which, as I pointed out earlier, people only use when their argument is so terrible it can't stand on its own.