AKC

Translation: "My methylphenidate is wearing down and I need another pop just to maintain myself at a remedial level".

Be careful or I won't let you sleep in there any longer ;-)

Reality is hardly an argument- the world is and has been a complicated place throughout history with meandering power centers and alliances. To somehow try and make the recent past some "high mark" moment in this natural and historically recorded tide shows an absolute lack of understanding world history. Does the author have any idea who the Ottomans were and the impact of their Muslim control of much of the modern world, including all of the Arab nations until early in the 20th Century- does he acknowledge the effect of their collapse on the balance of the world or does he show no signs of intelligent life by stating ignorantly that today, and only today are there dynamics which make our approach to solutions impossible to structure based upon other actions in history to quell movements like the radical Islamist movement of current times. One need not go back too far, as I've outlined in no timid way in my previous posts, that what was required of the last major movement put on us by the Nazis was to face it down with force. Once again and has happened thoughout history, the movement eventually required that the whimps stand aside while the courageous took over. I'm good with the whimps who haven't figured this one out yet to stand aside- I'm merely asking that this current whimp movement shut the %$#@ up so that the recruitment for the Islamists is made more difficult and our most courageous can get it over with in the most expedient manner.

Harts used to dress my deer. I presume it's their famed Ring Bologna? PBR? I figured your family was well off but you've now proven it to me ;-)

I'm sure you'll have the proper items to fully enjoy it: 2 dozen Texas Hots 1/2 Keg Genny Cream Ale A ride to the dam above the Sinclair Sleeping Bag 8 dozen ears of Simon's Corn 10 spent tires A young thing from State Street to keep you warm tonight

You can look back a little- for instance the greatest value of Nazr Hakeem to the Super Bowl Rams and the Rams in general at the turn of the Century was the respect safeties had to give him right off the line and the room that gave Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt underneath. Their offense did a great job exploiting the advantage by checking down to quick slants to Hakeem all season long and killing opponents with his RAC. If you back a safety up even a couple of yards his lessened effectiveness down low in both the run game and on your 1 and 2 wideouts is substantial.

I'd consider offering you English lessons if it wasn't so painfully obvious how poorly those before me had failed!

It's surprising that you would give any merit to the windy, vacuous and ultimately ignorant post by BIB. You don't have to go far to realize that he doesn't understand a thing about history- let's take his opening premise: the world has become a pretty complicated place. He who wields influence, one way or the other has shifted dramatically over the last 15 years. We're about the only ones left from back then who still does. People forget, for example, that not only we and the USSR but the entire world was aligned in some form or fashion according to the cold war. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it created many voids and opportunities - and also made the world tremendously more complex. Sounds more like somebody skipped history class here- starting in about the 3rd Grade. So his premise, the whole foundation of his argument, is that it's only since the fall of the Soviet Union that the world has become "aligned", "complex" and rich in "voids and opportunities". That’s all real nice to say- if you completely ignore all of written history from the moment the very first common border between two sovereign nations was established. The author goes on to build his opinion around this wrongheaded and wholly innacurate massive delusion, making his opinion mertiless- you know- you can't build a house out of donut holes. His is the kind of speculation that might attract flies, but it won't attract anyone who considers the lack of historical understanding of the author.

Actually I'm 11, which would make me the the intellectual equivalent of you and BIB combined were it not for the intercalary dynamic of my delivery.

Is there an echo in here- or is that just your head?

I didn't realize this board attracted such a large number of abaya salesmen who hope to breath some serious life into their businesses by licking a little Al Queda butt ;-)

The best teams in the league agree with you- NE plays a 3-4 and has more quality down linemen on their roster today than we do, yet we're supposed to be going into '05 playing a 4-3. Philly just played in the Super Bowl and spent their 1st round pick on a DT. AJ Smith is considered by many to have the hottest hand for personell in the league right now- and with a team in the bottom of the league in passing D he used a first-rounder for an interior D Lineman. The other side of your point is that you CAN have too few quality linemen and right now that's the status of our roster. Entering this season with the unproven Tim Anderson as part of a 3 man front that already includes another lineman who has failed to display good run stopping skills over his career is teetering on disaster in a division with the league's #1 rusher from last season PLUS Corey Dillon and Rickey Williams. In my dreams we end up with Corey Simon- if the Eagles allow their off-field distractions to end up sending him our way we will immediately graduate from a "less than convincing" DLine to one of the best in the league. If we enter the regular season with the roster we have today I'd be surprised to break .500 based upon the quality of running backs/offenses our schedule is throwing at us. Corey would change that dramatically because unlike Ron Edwards he plays with a center of gravity around his beltline and he consequently forces runners to move away from him. Edwards plays way too high and gets pushed all over the field by guards who get low on him.

It's quite simple if you have an honest desire to understand it: A) The welfare states of the Middle East have been breeding idle youth for many years, few of whom even consider a "career" or "vocation". Instead these oil welfare states bring in foreigners who do most of the actual work performed in these countries.The idle instead sit around listening to the radical Wahabi brainwashing that says they have forever been the red-headed stepchildren o fthe world and only through a strictly Wahabi interpretation of Islam can they ever rise to the level of grreatness they deserve. B) The Wahabs are able to play out their fantasy world in much of Saudi Arabia and after the Soviet abandonment of Afghanistan they get to play Wahabi full time and subjugate all women in a return to the 7th Century, wiping out the huge gains even Afghani women had made against the Koran over the course of history. C) Gaining full control of Saudi Arabia would require getting rid of other military presence in the region, hence the Wahabs adopt the "all infidels must leave or soil", simply a necessity in their quest to conquer the Saudi Royal family. D) Wahabs attack us on our own soil in order to convince the weakest members of our society that we should "leave the Middle East" to appease the Wahabs. E) Our administration moves the fight from our soil and citizens to the Middle East. F) The weakest in our society buy into the Wahabi con. And history repeats itself just as it did when Hitler conned the weakest in the West before his run at the same goal the Wahabs have- imposing their rule upon their neighbors and then beyond.

Not that I can't appreciate the Village Idiot approach, but to come into a string without a single fact and spouting off a completely unsupported opinion is a lot easier to digest if the topic is something inane like football- it's a lot less palatable when it's about our country, something others of us still respect.

And adopting that incredibly naive conclusion requires that you completely overlook what Bin Laden and Co. did once they gained control of Afghanistan. Now if you've already decided to play Bin Laden Lap Dog you can try to ignore the fact that his mission is all about imposing Sharia Law throughout the region first and then exporting it, but the facts are the facts and it's obvious to anyone who wants to understand the overall picture regarding the Wahabi movement EXACTLY what they intend to do. And it has ZERO to do with the presence of "infidels", that's merely an obstructon to their obvious goal. But it's a nice little fantasy for whimps to adopt in their zeal for grasping at anything the terrorists feed them. Hitler did a real good snow job on whimps too- cehck out Neville Chamberlain.

Real point of pride for the #2 Dem in the Country Teddy Kennedy- the same shamefull embarrasment who allowed a woman to drown in his car by swimming away in an attempt to save his political life, something not one of his three brothers would have ever contemplated (instead I believe any of them would have died instead trying to save her): "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." Here's a group responsible for disrupting recruitment It's amazing you need anyone to offer you examples. You should get out more.

Thanks Rock- Gates sounds like he'll end up our pre-season phenom with lots of yards against second string Ds. The jump will be from there to being a game day producer-something few of the pre-season phenoms ever do. Sounds like his hands would make him valuable if he can make the step up. As the level of competition heats up I hope we hear that he's breaking some tackles.

How dare you paint the hundreds of thousands of patriotic citizens of this country who held their tongues during WWI and WWII and those who are doing it today, so that they do not hurt the efforts of those who ARE doing the fighting, as cowards. They prove their courage and willingness to sacrifice through their decision to control their feelings and every one of them is far more courageous than the whole body of big mouths who run down our troops and country at a time of war.

And once again you find yourself on a baseless and unsupportable end of an argument: My family has been represented in every action in the history of this nation. My father was granted a waiver to join at 17 years old to fight during WWII and my Uncle flew over 120 bombing missions during the war- all dropped on your buddies the Nazis. I've served my country as well and I realize how important the qualifications and skills of those in your unit can mean to your own well-being during wartime. And I'm disgusted by those who hurt recruiting- but I figure I've probably earned the right for that disgust. Please don't thank me for wearing the uniform to protect your right to do something disgusting, I'd rather kick somone's ass for burning an American flag than accept that as a appropriate expression of free speech. But then, I'm kinda' old fashioned that way ;-)

Why would he agree with something I never said? I stated very clearly that there are good and bad Americans, with the worst being almost exclusively cowards. You can be a great American and oppose the war, but the moment you take actions that hurt recruitment of the best to fight the war you become a bad American. And I find little in the life more cowardly than to hurt those who have chosen to fight by denying them the best to fight at their sides.

Hearst a right winger! I hope for the sake of the nation's children you're not teaching history! Hearst and Lindy Partying You're comletely lost on the Lincoln reference and continue defending your attempt to change the fact reported to some way to keep from drowning in your own lack of sustainable argument- In war historically the "absolutes" of reasoning the war virtually always evolve. Perhaps that's why the current administration offered 22 different reasons for going to Iraq- they knew they could confuse those of you who can only focus on one thing at a time ;-)

Ah- Reality! Try it on! Hearst, who served as a Democratic in the House of Representatives and ran for the Democratic nomination for President represents (in my analogy) the liberal press of today. Like today's press, there was then in his papers outright opposition to any attempt to contain Hitler and the plea to his reader's to understand that "Hitler is no threat". Lindbergh was possibly the major celebrity of his day, and with that celebrity he insisted Hitler wasn't a bad guy- in fact dining with Hitler in his travels. You may not sense the Deja Vu in that with our current celebrity meltdowns, I think others may find it interesting that the parallels between the foolish celebrities of both eras are so obvious. You might find this of value: Lindbergh's role in bringing Hitler to power Since there's no reference in my post to George Bush at all I'll simply assume you were so flummoxed trying to find a logical way to support your position that you simply fabricated that fantasy. You used to be better at this ;-)

They've only seen how easily the most cowardly and politically opportunistic of us scare- but then again it is the weakest among us that the terrorists hope to convince that we should simply allow them to have their way first in the Middle East and then beyond. Thank God for the brave Americans who recognize the enemy and are willing to fight for us, and may there be a viscious penalty for those who would hurt their mission by interfering with our ability to offer the best of our youth an opportunity to sacrifice as others have before them. May the best of us also truly support them by controlling our tongues back here so we can avoid what happened to the poor unfortunate heros of Vietnam who continue to be scorned because of the hateful tone of that anti-war movement.

Yes. Contrary to the sniveling cowards who constantly berate our government and troops in this time war, the reality is that there are better and lesser Americans. The best are in uniform overseas. The worst are interfering with the free speech rights of our military recruiters. And based upon your lack of respect for our country it's hard to imagine that your kids would make very good soldiers anyway- better for them to sit back here and merely enjoy the freedoms won for us by those brave enough to stand up and fight in our name.

I recall multiple incidents within my own division while I served of others being crushed, drowned, electrocuted and poisoned. Apparently his number is low- Military Mortality Report