RI Bills Fan

So am I correct in assuming that you believe each citizen has the right to choose which laws apply to them based on their individual perception of that law's "justness"?

So do you also oppose the government enforcing laws which other people consider to be unjust or is it only the laws that you consider to be unjust?

RIP Mr Wilson and thank you for many, many fond memories...

That seems to be the position a few of the posters in this thread are taking.

So which of the QB's in this draft is the next "Rodgers"? And how many 1st round QB's do we line up in our attempts to find the next "Rodgers"?

Do you really want to compare EJ to Farve? How does that help your arguement?

ROTFLMFAO!!! I forgot how much fun it is to have a few and read this forum! I haven't laughed this much in ages!

1 - Otto Graham 2 - Johnny Unitas 3 - Joe Montana 4 - Dan Marino 5 - Sammy Baugh 6 - Payton Manning 7 - Roger Staubach 8 - Tom Brady 9 - John Elway 10 - Archie Manning

He was thrown to twice in the 1st Qtr. Two very catch-able balls that would have extended drives. He dropped both passes. After the 2nd drop he was replaced by Whalen... End Thread.

While I don't remember the specifics, it was the same thing that has driven many, many good posters away from this (and many other) board. Internet tough guys pushed her to the point where participation was no longer worth the aggravation.

The entire premise of this thread is just plain silly. And the debate about whether or not Stevie is or is not a #1 receiver is also silly. The facts are simple: 1. Stevie is the best receiver currently on the Bills roster. His ranking vs receivers on other teams means nothing to the current make-up of the Buffalo Bills. 2. At the end of this season one or more of the rookies may have proven themselves to be equal to or better than Stevie but as of today none of them have played a down in the NFL. 3. Today, Stevie is the #1 receiver on the Bills Team. In the future that may change.

Okay Class, all together now... and reach and stretch and twist and bend...

This is actually a good question and I don't want it to get lost in the beatdown I'm going to put on 3rdloser later, when I have 30 seconds or so to waste. P.S. The answer is lack of understanding of the political ramifications at the JCS level and money.

Just a thought, 3rdloser, but since I OWN you, why would you be dumb enough to call me out? Oh, wait... I forgot for a moment just how lame-brained you actually are. Carry on, I'll go back to laughing at the endless right-wing circle jerk that is PPP. (You really should clean some of that... stuff... off of you.)

This!

We sent it to Seattle for TJax.

+1

And you do?

Well, that's a step in the right direction. And can you please point out where and when I said that what I posted proved anything?

Of course it's better to put things in context. But the question remains, which version of the whole picture will you accept as valid? Because that determines what you'll accept as a valid context.

It doesn't change the question I asked you.

It is an honest statement. So? Which version of the whole picture will you accept? There are four different equally valid versions (depending on an individual's subjective point of view), the R Version, the D version, the L/I version, and the truth (which can be found buried somewhere in the middle of the other three). Which of those do you believe my original post reflected?

Like I said, I understand why you don't like how I posted the figures. What I don't understand is how I'm being dishonest (according to you). By your logic. Obama's first four years are more successful than Reagan's (on employment). Why do Republicans only bring this up during Democratic Administrations? And the Obamacare rant is just a little premature. Let's at least wait until ACA is fully implemented. Kind of like how Romneycare was supposed to tank the Massachusetts economy, but didn't. A non-partisan explanation of "Trickle Down Economic Theory" In a nu­tshell, trickle-down theory is based on the premise that within an economy, giving tax breaks to the top earners makes them more likely to earn more. Top earners invest that extra money in productive economic activities or spend more of their time at the high-paying trade they do best (whether that be creating inventions or performing heart surgeries). Either way, these activities will be productive, reinvigorate economic growth and, in the end, generate more tax revenue from these earners and the people they've helped. According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well. Although trickle-down economics is often associated with the policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, the theory dates back to the 1920s. The name also has roots in the '20s, when humorist Will Rogers coined the term, saying, "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy" [source: Shafritz]. http://money.howstuf...n-economics.htm

No I got what was going on. I just decided to derail a BS talking point.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to prove my point?