murra

I think in a few years you're going to have trouble justifying to me that we took this guy instead of Maualuga.

Really? I knew rookie salaries were becoming an issue, but I thought that was for the top 15 picks. Are we really financially unable to provide for 7 non-round 1 picks? I'm so out of the loop when it comes to rookie salaries.

I don't know why I was expecting to get some input from you guys. Anyways, I've finished the project with my debate partner so it turns out I didn't need to seek out any advice. Thanks though.

Yeah, but hands down the new washington capitals jersey is the funniest logo related joke I've ever seen.

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...l=sheldon+brown http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...4&hl=eagles ...and that is not to be a prick. It's just that you mentioned you didn't know if it had been mentioned before, and I figured it meant you'd be willing to check out the discussions where it has.

Alright pal, you don't have to be an as$hat. Grow up, and ignore the thread if you're not into it. I really don't see why you engaged with me at all, other than to hyper-confrontational.

You know what, I figured this was an entirely different situation, since I'm coming here looking for a lefty's perspective. I'm not really looking for someone to do my homework...

One of my political science classes has a debate that I'm preparing for with assigned roles. My assignment is to be against the following proposition: That state and local governments should have primary responsibility for economic regulation and welfare policy, and that the federal government should limit its role to international affairs, monetary policy, and inter-state relations. After 2 hours of research I'm drawing a blank. Why should state rights NOT be expanded, and why should the Government keep its powers (specifically in regards to economic regulation and welfare policy). Any help would be appreciated.

Why can't you believe that you agree with me? Maybe you're seeing the light. As they say, every blind squirrel finds a nut once and a while.

I'm fairly religious, but almost never have time to go to mass. I'm not devout or anything, more or less just follow the main beliefs of the old testament and select passages of the new, and I've decided a while ago that listening to the sermon by someone who is no more qualified than me hardly justifies receiving the body and blood of christ on sundays. I've gotten into the belief that you can still hold religious backings, and live a moral life WITHOUT wasting your time with cult-like traditions.

You wouldn't place a Pettigrew pick in juxtaposition? Of what? Or did you mean opposed. Yeah, you meant opposed. Totally different word.

We bought an identity this off-season: Terrell Owens.

That bit got me.

Your argument would have more validity, if this was obviously me searching for something to bash Peters with. Instead I have the last 12 or 13 months of evidence at which he conducted himself poorly enough for me to be happy that he's gone. In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter (this quote that is), since this was already the perception I had him labeled with. I'm just using it to support my theory that this guy, more than the rest of our team, was all about money, and it affected team chemistry, or at least had the potential to. The guy is talented and dumb, we both agree. I'm just taking it a bit further and saying he's not a class act, or a team player. This quote supports that, and I don't see how your argument that I'm searching for any little thing stands. He was all about money.

Actually Dean, the fact that he admitted to be thinking about his contract at all while playing on the field warrants me to dislike him. You've got to be way more focused than that. I don't care how you frame it, I think the quote can't be misinterpreted: He was thinking about money. That shouldn't be an issue, and because of that I have to think less of his time with the Bills. He was unproductive this past season, and the only thing he can muster up as an excuse is that his mind was on money? Really? And you think that is justifiable?

How can you be so obtuse? What? What did you call me? Obtuse. Is it deliberate? Son, you're forgetting yourself.

Yes!

Well played.

How do you do the points thing? Is there a chart you're referencing somewhere? I like that.

Why are you so confrontational?

Let it go. I hardly ever flame the F.O., I just said it wasn't a "rogering" or whatever. I know flaming people for the tiniest thing is the super cool awesome fun thing to do around here, but at some point you need to grow up.

I'm surprised you ignored mentioning his most coveted statistic, IMO according to that website: Height: 6010 Was Godzilla not available?

Fine. We're hardly debating anything legitimate here. Let's move on. I see it as a win just like you, I just don't credit the F.O. as much. Only time will tell with Peters, and that's how I should have phrased my first response to you. At the time of the first Eagles trade I was indifferent, and now at this one I am likewise indifferent. So I'll leave this one to the years to come.

Yeah, it worked out. Not the way the F.O. intended. (is luck really not a factor? really? you're not going to merit chance at all??)

I really hope we're not looking at any OLBs that can't challenge Ellison...