Meathead

other than that hes a good guy

personally id go with bullough myself. i really think the guy was borderline mentally retarded. if he, mckelvin, and roscoe parrish mind melded youd still end up with the intellect of honey boo boo but its hard to argue with johnsons record. stephenson was bad but he wasnt bullough bad, which to me means he wasnt johnson bad

all politics will eventually implode????

yeah that was my recollection too, whereas euhus was drafted as more of a pass catcher and never worked out at that. but if someone remembers otherwise pls point it out

oh yeah a blinding omission in hindsight

¶

then they shoulda called it occams bic

shaud never started

well in his defense he certainly did really need that $4600 michael j fox fedora

jeez no wonder he was depressed

um mcfly, what was humiliating is that obama had no business winning that election. he was a poor president, i certainly didnt vote for him, and the country was clearly ready for someone else. but the gop trotted such a ridiculous parade of clown car candidates that there really was little choice but to retain him. i voted for huntsman bc he was the only non-crazy republican but he had no chance because, well, he wasnt insane or filthy rich. romney was the best of the cartoon character main candidates, but he was still so horribly flawed that he couldnt close what should have been an easy deal considering how ineffectively obama had governed it was indeed deeply humiliating to lose that election. it points to severe and obvious problems in the gop. and since it looks like hillary is going to run we will have twelve more years of democrats in the white house hopefully the gop can get their sh together by then, but i aint holding my breath. that is one seriously fubared party

well it depends on who you are talking about, where they are at that particular time in their political views, and how their show is doing for example, chris matthews used to be a lot better at covering the spectrum but its clear he has become more and more liberal as time has gone on. but he still has more conservative guests than just about anybody else on that network and to me hasnt jumped the shark like so often happens with that genre. olbermann was really good when he first started but he deteriorated badly as time went on, to the point that i couldnt even watch him anymore and was glad to see him go. same thing with oreilly, who i used to watch regularly but he turned into the same kind of annoying blowhard. maddow started off great and hasnt quite gone off the cliff yet but im worried shes running out of topics and is starting to show those signs, too then there are the ones like hannity and schultz and odonnell that are pretty much just all bad. they are essentially shock jock attack dogs of political commentary and to me very rarely make any points of substance worth paying attention to. i dont think its any coincidence that style tends to be the most popular bc partisans cant get enough of their fresh meat, but it doesnt do the country muh good imo all i reallywant is intelligent debate that makes points worth considering. but thats not what generally sells well so the pressure is always on for those hosts to shift to less cerebral approaches, namely the jerry springer style B word slap fights, and homey just dont got no time for that crap

thats awesome man. thanks for the link

true enough considering that msnbc is now at least as far left as fox is far right, and that fox appears to have racheted back their overt extreme right wing mantra after their humiliating defeat, i really see no reason to exclude fox i wouldnt say it was always like this. fox started the hyper partisan 'news' style and were way out in front for a long time. but a few years ago msnbc made the obvious decision to become the left version of that and after some early struggles have finally caught up. but the election debacle really has shined a light on the perils of the echo chamber phenomenon and fox appears to have learned that lesson first. excluding them now really makes no sense

so youre saying youve got a lotta free time on your hands then

"The syllabus tells students in a West Liberty University political science course what sources they can and cannot use. Among those students are asked not to use are The Onion, an openly fictitious parody of real-life news, and Fox News, a professional news organization." thats very insulting to the onion

all those white defensive linemen look the same to me

im afraid its too late for that. darraghs name has already been officially besmirchified he and marangi are in a class of suck all by themselves. stephenson and dufek are a couple levels above. and losman really would be close to a relative hall of famer compared to them youboty couldnt hold watson or hills wall of shame jocks. derek fine is a very good candidate but just barely exceeds euhus in total mass suckitude

all those irish people look the same to me

well we do use expectations as a tie breaker, but using that as a criteria ahead of just pure sucking would be a different discussion. and while i agree that would be a more interesting approach, it would also dramatically increase the complexity of the effort. once we did that we could (and would) literally debate this forever with no resolution anticipating that problem, i made the rules simple to minimize the potential for endless debate. i suppose you could call that the quick and dirty approach - inferior in regards to depth but at least we would get it done within five years lol wow 1960 good memory. but according to pfr he did not start

as i recall corp was arguably the best of the udfa qbs certainly its a serious longshot that someone like that could become the guy in the nfl but its not impossible. but even if he were to simply become a reliable long term backup that still would have nice value. heres hoping

so are we done? is this the lineup we are going with?

ginger?

im still ok with the jive turkey honkey crackers

ralph should stop being cheap and throw money at the two best available pass rushers. oh wait