RI Bills Fan
-
Posts
1,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RI Bills Fan
-
-
Hardly. What I oppose, quite strenuously, is the government enforcing unjust laws.
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...
-
EVERY YEAR. WHETHER THEY EXIST OR NOT!
That seems to be the position a few of the posters in this thread are taking.
-
I'm comparing a project 1st rounder QB to Rodgers actually. It's well-documented that Favre did nothing for Rodgers, it could have been Chad Pennington starting and Rodgers would still be Rodgers.
If we draft another 1st round QB this year, we definitely can do it next year too.
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"?
-
Getting started on another project, who can just hold the clipboard for awhile while EJ tries to prove himself, wouldn't be detrimental. Was Aaron Rodgers' "development" stunted by holding the clipboard and not getting reps behind Favre? Or was their QB of the future already on the roster when he left? I have no issues with taking a QB at #9 who doesn't see the field. Maybe EJ "needs more weapons" but we drafted two WR's and overhauled the defense for him. Weapons and O-line will be available in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The odds of us getting a Jimmy Graham/Anquan Boldin at 9 is low anyway,
I don't want a QB to start over Manuel. That would be a pleasant surprise. I want a potential QB who is ready to take over if Manuel is garbage/gets hurt and the season is ruined. Instead of having a rookie start in 2015 if Manuel busts.
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
-
I've been trying to get an answer to this very question. For whatever reason, Rogers was removed from the game in the second quarter and wasn't seen again until the game was out of hand. That doesn't reflect well at all.
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.
-
Nice breakdown here from Guy Benson.
I urge anyone who did not get a chance to watch the hearings to see them, if for no other reason that it becomes undeniably clear that the WH and State Dept. intentionally left Stevens and his crew for dead, and then lied about it for weeks.
http://townhall.com/...arings-n1591336
Oh, and even Politico is asking: Why is the film maker still in prison?
Okay Class, all together now... and reach and stretch and twist and bend...
-
Partisan bickering aside, why is no one asking the basic question that if Pentagon felt it was necessary to establish an emergency response team, why was that team based in the US? I'm reading that since Bengazi, Pentagon has stepped up the quick strike teams in Africa & Europe, but why wasn't it obvious to them 2 years ago? 10 years ago?
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.
-
Depends on how you define "left in PPP". When was their last post? Today? A week ago? A month ago?
I'll start a list and others can add to it if they so desire:
1. Birdog
2. TPS
3. The Old Bills
4. The New Bills
5. Numbnutz (BFBF)
6. The toll collector (EiI)
7. Pasta Joe (he showed up today)
8. Adam (but he also counts as a righty 50% of the time)
9. Juan Guzman--somebodies alias
10. Fan in SD (the one who wanted Romney killed before the election)
There are many more of the Connors, PBrains, Duck Dodgers, RI guy but why elevate them?
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!I expect them to win Superbowl XLVIII on February 2, 2014...
GO BILLSSS!!!!
19 and 0 baby!!!!!
.
-
We took Gragg with the Rams choice. We didnt have one ourselves. Maybe the Graham trade? I can't recall.
We sent it to Seattle for TJax.
-
-
You're kidding right? Don't be arrogant. You have no idea who you are "lecturing" about this subject.
And you do?
-
...my veracity should be questioned.
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?
-
I'll answer you with a question. Is it better to put things in context or take them out of context?
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.
-
Check my edit of the post you are responding to.
It doesn't change the question I asked you.
-
When you don't give the whole picture, your figures can be misleading. It is easy to bend or twist statistics. From the end of 2008 until the fall of 2012 gas prices have doubled. Is that an honest statement?
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?
-
I wasn't trying to bash Obama or praise Bush. I was simply telling Rhode Island Red that the way he presented the statistics from that link gave a dishonest and incomplete picture of unemployment figures. He could have just posted what I did from his link, but went out of his way to come up with his own way to post the information.
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).
I claimed that the picture you presented was less honest. Let's say a president comes in to office and the unemployment rate is 5% and leaves it 8 years later with a rate of 4%, but in the 7 years in between it was 10%. The way you presented the figures it would appear that he/she had a very good presidency unemployment wise. On the other hand, the way I presented the info gives a much better picture of unemployment throughout his/her presidency.
By your logic. Obama's first four years are more successful than Reagan's (on employment).
And this doesn't even take into account the fact that many people have left the workforce, which artificially lowers the unemployment rate. Nevermind those who are under-employed (part-timers, which will increase significantly because of Obamacare).
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. Trickle down isn't an economic theory. Its a term successfully used by the libs and dems to dismiss and marginalize supply side economic theory. Can we please stop using their bull **** lexicon?
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].
-
You know, people here were spouting off about trickle down economics and acted as if they knew something about it. They were asked to explain it (and also "middle out economics") to prove a point. You jumped in and did a copy and paste for them because you didn't get what was going on.
No I got what was going on. I just decided to derail a BS talking point.
-
Please don't.
What and deprive you of the opportunity to prove my point?
Bundy Ranch
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
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"?