Rob's House

All day and all night! Okay, actually only for about two and a half minutes. But yes, most definitely.

The first time I heard this I cringed because I never liked the original, but this song is absolutely awesome. Cake - I Will Survive (Official Video) HQ:

Too many to narrow down. I even have trouble making a top 5, but here it goes (in no particular order): The Big Lebowski The English Patient Suburbia The Shawshank Redemption Ok, it's a top 4. I can't settle on #5. Too many great movies.

And?

I'd hate to see him go, but if I'm Spiller I'm looking for a team that spreads out the defense with a diverse passing attack, and a QB/OC who can effectively set up screens and put the ball where it needs to go. If we see that this year I imagine he stays. But if our QBs keep leading him into tackles for a loss I imagine he'll move on to greener pastures.

If you only count one side of the equation you'll always get your desired answer. If you only count innocent gunshot victims and fail to weigh that figure against the protection guns offer (not the easiest thing to accurately quantify, I admit) you'll always end up with a rhetorically useful, but analytically useless figure. Using your same logic I could make a case for disbanding the prison system entirely. There are, and will always be wrongfully convicted prisoners. You're happy to let those people pay the price for your security.

Aside from risking suspension I'm not sure what it is he needs to take accountability for. He wasn't hurting anyone.

Pears might be the best option at RT to start the season. I know conventional wisdom is that we've upgraded the position, and that may be true, but rookies don't always acclimate quickly to OT, and Pears was decent in pass protection.

You just hatched a new conspiracy theory in the mind of gatorboy. Funny you tell him to quit straw-manning and he comes back with an even bigger straw man. Apparently you have strict comprehensive regulation or you have anarchy; there is no in between.

Fact: The Indians did a rain dance, after which it rained. Therefore ...

"Sammy"

Again, I can't tell if you're a very clever troll or a very stupid liberal. If that's all you need for cause and effect we could draw all kinds of nonsensical conclusions, and anyone with an IQ north of room temperature knows that without needing to be told. But if you're up to an analysis that runs deeper than "See Spot Run", share with us the part of that article that explains what regulations were relaxed and how that contributed to the spill. Or even a vague idea about what those regulations covered and how the spill occurred. Also, a libertarian is not an anarchist, dipshit.

When you're trying to establish a theory, which the author is trying to do, you have the burden of establishing your case. There isn't enough information in that article to draw any logical conclusions, yet with your response you've essentially admitted that you're going to accept an unsubstantiated theory as truth for no other reason than it fits your bias. It is comical to watch someone trash a philosophy, and in the next breath demonstrate his total lack of understanding of that philosophy.

I have a friend whose brother tried that in Houston. Then winter came and he got a $6k gas bill. But hell, if I had Jack Rousch money I'd do it too.

From before that post:

I just asked you if you could explain if there was any logical reason why anyone should share your opinion since you seemed awfully derogatory of anyone who didn't. (How's that for irony - Any time some liberal pu$$yhole from the main board wanders into a PPP thread talking ****, you can start counting the minutes until he's going to start crying foul.)

That was a political op ed presented as a news story. The only connection drawn between the spill and the new regulations were the vague allegations of politicians who were opposed to the changes from the outset. No details about the spill, such as how/why it happened were given, nor was the damage in any way quantified. But hey, if it fits your agenda...

I thought this was going to be an Obama thread.

I thought we were on a first name basis with the WRs? No?

I'm just curious to see how we use him. He has the ability to run deep & intermediate routes, but his bread & butter in college was short passes w/ YAC. It's curious because if they use him like he was used in college it will require EJ to make a lot of the short throws he struggles with.

That's fukking priceless! I had no idea you were an autograph hound when I said that; it just fit. FWIW, although I don't share you celebrity idolization, at least it's a consistent theme for you and not just an opportunity to take a mouthful of Obama under the guise of monumental respect for an abstract concept. Actually, maybe that's exactly what it is. BTW, "Internet tough guy" normally refers to someone talking a whole lot of **** from behind a computer that they'd be afraid to say in person. I doubt anyone here would be afraid to tell you to your face that they don't give a !@#$ about meeting Obama.

Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention that I'm impressed?

http://news.yahoo.com/tearful-plea-victims-dad-deadly-rampage-233719408.html A more appropriate headline would be "Father's Grief Exploited by Opportunistic Media to Further Political Agenda".

As much as I dislike Irsay, I think it would be an injustice to" bring the hammer down", so to speak. Of course, I've never subscribed to the theory that you hold the owner to a higher standard either. It's a couple of misdemeanors. I fear for the future of our society when every minor mistake is met with calls for the proverbial guillotine (pronounced gee-ya-teen) by the peanut gallery.

I've already been to that place, so the only perk to "cream" myself over would be the great honor of meeting a celebrity. I used to get star struck by celebrities, but then I turned 12 year's old. Apparently you still do. Are you the grown man who gets athletes' autographs for himself?