Steely Dan

Jason Brown-C- Ravens Feb. 27 - 1:01 am et ESPN's John Clayton reports that free agent G/C Jason Brown has set up a formal visit with the Rams. He figures to be in St. Louis on Friday. Brown is seeking a deal paying $8M annually after turning down the Ravens' $6 million-per-year proposal.

That bastard!! Bronco's RB's won't be high on my draft board.

Whosyourmama interested in Bucs The Bucs have reportedly "entered the mix" for free agent T.J. Houshmandzadeh. The alleged deal between Housh and the Bengals was never finalized and he looks poised to break the bank. Housh still isn't known to have set up a visit.

How can they afford all of this? Look for several cap casualties. Hopefully somebody Buffalo can snatch. OL Hangartner to visit Bills Friday Posted: February 27th, 2009 | Adam Schefter | Tags: Buffalo Bills, Carolina Panthers, Geoff Hangartner Panthers free agent guard/center Geoff Hangartner is scheduled to visit Buffalo on Friday. Hangertner has a good market as both a center and guard but Panthers offensive tackle Jordan Gross has been pushing to keep his buddy in Carolina. But Buffalo, which cut guard Derrick Dockery on Thursday, will get first crack.

Damn!!! [/sarcasm]

I apologize for calling you selfish.

Fine be that way. I didn't know if they had a special FA section or something I didn't want to waste my time finding. So thanks very little. Here's the link Oneonta was to selfish to post. This is funny. ESPN's John Clayton reports that Albert Haynesworth's cellphone "blew up" when the free agent market opened early Friday. I know he doesn't mean that literally but it's still funny. More on Haynesworth: The Redskins appear to be focusing on Chris Canty, who will be cheaper, after locking up DeAngelo Hall. The Bucs may have emerged to the forefront here.

Link please!

Obviously the FO doesn't care about winning.

Hopefully, something about the Bills will pop up soon. Linkage

Yikes, that was fast.

So who used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" first? I guess when you said "lipstick on a pig" I mistakenly read it as "lipstick on a pig". Who is whining more the guy crying about a gun he won't be able to buy anymore or a guy saying that certain guns aren't necessary in our society. Think about it Boss Hogg it may come to you. Ohhh, another stinging rebuke. Says the guy who can't discern a reason for owning an AK-47. Thank you. I'm glad someone else sees how ridiculous he's being. I've said enough here. We aren't going to convince each other and AD will make up his own interpretations of my words anyway. I'm confident that when rational people read this they'll understand that I'm far more rational and honest in my posts. 'Nuff said.

Yeah that sure sounded sarcastic. Yep. Excuse me? I'm talking in circles.? I've asked the same question over and over. That's not talking in circles. Coming up with several answers is talking in circles. Once again it's obvious but not to you? Take care of the stiffy you've gotten from thinking about your guns gun stroker. Explain to me oh wise one what really happened. If you talk to five mechanics about car trouble and then you tell someone else what they said when they encounter a similar problem it strengthens your point. Trust me. Fact: You don't get sarcasm about stupid statements you make. Fact: You believe that people who feel the need for multiple guns to protect themselves aren't cowards. Fact: You believe that people are coming to take your guns away and that the U.S.A. could be attacked by a foreign country and that the people who own guns will rise up and win the war for us. Fact: You're a paranoid delusional.

If you'd read AD's posts you'll see I took it from him and in fact it's just above the comment I made. So I guess that comment is really meant for AD. I didn't say people who own guns are cowardly. I said people who own a lot of guns are cowardly. There is nothing wrong with owning a handgun if you feel you need protection. Some people have a legitimate reason for believing that and some are cowardly. Your comment about calling people cowardly from behind a screen name needs to be aimed at AD. I didn't start the cowardly argument until he called those who favor sane gun control laws cowards. As I stated above some people have a legitimate reason for wanting a gun and some don't. Pro gun control doesn't mean that someone wants to ban all guns just the guns they feel are bad for society as a whole. If I come to a point in my life where I feel I need one I'll get a handgun and not an AK-47.

Guess who said this earlier in this thread: Every job I've had has banned guns in the work place and I've never seen anyone carry one. Are there people who shoot up work despite that. Yes, but the ban is far more effective than if there wasn't one. Still ducking the question. Ok, I get it you're incapable of providing an answer, only a snide remark about how I don't have a clue and that the answer is obvious. It's obvious but you can't answer the question? Nice logic there. I guess you have no understanding of the obvious. (ooh here comes the stinging rebuke of "No you don't have a clue") Vietnam was lost because too many restrictions were placed on the ground troops. All of my friends who were there say the same thing. Phht. I don't have to overtly say it. So my not saying it means I've said it?! Once again great logic. According to you I've said that I believe nobody should own a gun despite the fact I've said repeatedly in this thread that I don't believe that. Keep taking the facts and twisting them til they support your twisted logic. Maybe someone will think you're a rational person but I don't think anyone with half a mind reading this thread will ever think that.

So a well regulated militia defends our right to free speech? I respect your intelligence but you must know that one law can cover a multitude of limits. So you really believe that people are coming to take your guns away? Use more smilies. You just said the same damn thing in this post!? Right, paranoia about an invasion is much better than people who think there should be mild restrictions on weapons. That's what AD just said. The military is there to defend all of our rights. They protect our country and political system which includes the most important document, The Constitution of the United States. Get it now. Your inability to discern that is something that boggles the mind.

Do they carry the same ability when it comes to the number of bullets they can fire in a 30 second period? Then why do you care?! Some bans do work. Making a categorical statement like that is absurd. Translation: I don't have an answer and I'm squirming and attempting to weasel away from the question. Keep trying. You honestly believe the military may be unnecessary in this day and age and that 200,000,000 plus guns would protect us from bombers and tanks and chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and highly trained armies vs. Cletis? Once again another distortion. Where did I say that people shouldn't own a gun? You're good at ignoring the questions I pose about where I said things you accuse me of. Well I don't agree with you saying that all women should be subservient to men. Ohhh, a stinging rebuke ! You, you big bully. A coward? I'm not the one who owns a lot of guns. Those who do are the cowardly people. You can put lipstick on that pig all you want but it's still a pig. Now go back to checking your night lite to make sure the bulb will last til morning.

Yes, another stupid exaggeration in order to make a foolish point. I guess you don't understand the difference between "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State... " vs. the right to free speech and I can't help you with that. Ruminate on it long enough and You'll get it. Anyway there are limits to free speech. Just like there are limits to the second amendment. I'd love for the people on TV to speak the same way the vast majority of us do but they can't and those words are a lot less lethal than any gun. In fact I believe the rights of free speech are far more limited than the limits legally binding the second amendment. You guys don't get it. Nobody is coming for your guns. Nobody is illegalizing your right to own an already purchased gun that falls under the law. Nobody is taking away your right to own a hunting rifle or a handgun. This uber paranoia is funny. The facts are twisted by you guys into something that is far more sinister than it is. They're only illegalizing a type of gun. Not all guns. Not the guns you currently own. Why are you acting like jack booted thugs will kick your doors down and grab your guns? I assure they won't so there is no need to be ascared of the dark. You'll still have your guns to protect you. The military defends our right to free speech and the military needs guns to defend the country. If you're under the belief that you'll need your gun to ward off an invading army then you're beyond paranoid.

I remember that. I was amazed they could get all of those guys together for one short skit.

You're the one who compared them, I didn't. You should keep distorting the facts because you don't need smilies. I'm laughing already and if the smiley comment is the best you can do then that's really lame. (there's another one, oooohhhh!) I understand you love your big long, hard steel, powerful weapon and don't want to lose it but you're not going to. You're only not going to be buying another one legally. (waiting for a comment about them not being made of steel. ) Once again: I can't answer that so I'll insult. If you'd come up with an answer it would be really cool to see but you're to afraid to say what you think because it will come out making you look like a lunatic. dee da dee, I like the taste of poop. Have you really sunk that low. Well obviously you have. So I guess Da Doo Doo Doo, Da Da Da Da. That's all I have to say to you. But we do have a standing military whether they wanted it or not. So do you see how that changes things and how that changes what their ideas on it would be? Do you think our military is unnecessary and we could defend our country with only home owned guns? Another lame attempt at avoiding the question. You really can't think of an answer can you? I knew you wouldn't have an answer other than it's my right. Still waiting and I'm giving you a week. That is freaking funny. Isn't the true coward somebody who needs a gun? Where did I say that people shouldn't be able to defend their homes or selves? Find it. Once again an exaggeration is needed because the truth makes you look bad. Are you cowardly about the big bad marauders who will come to kill you and your family?

I guess somebody like you would find that funny. Others who can separate character from on field play don't. Frisco is not a bad answer. I could see him out there.

I just don't think 6'3" is all that undersized.

Once again you take an argument to it's stupidest conclusion. Nobody is saying a common hunting rifle isn't ok and so a bb gun isn't going to be the only choice. I have the utmost respect for the military. They need the guns. Average Americans don't. Another exaggeration because reasonable responses make you look silly. I never said hunting rifles should be illegal. I said that particular rifle should be illegal. Translation: I have no freaking idea what to say and so I'll try to turn it back on you. An answer would be nice but I bet you can spend the next week and not come up with something other than "It's my right under the second amendment." Just tell what they serve in terms of protection that other guns can't? So you think Jefferson would believe that the rules should be the same now as they were then? I doubt it. His comment on having a gun for a farmhouse is that grocery stores didn't exist and hunting was necessary in order to eat. He said the second quote when there wasn't a strong independent military. It's not necessary now. He also didn't forsee the power of modern day weapons. Explain to me how the British, or any other country are going to invade us and start a firefight with the strength of our military? Once again you take it to the most ridiculous level because a rational post would make your point look stupid. Show me where Obama has said anything about taking peoples guns or illegalizing all guns. Stick to the facts even if they don't help you. Yeah, that's only a "liberal" tactic. How many conservative comments have been made in this thread vs. rational posts or what you call "liberal" posts?

Which founding father did you talk to? Thanks for pointing that out. They should be illegal then too. Just tell me why they are necessary for the average Americans to own?

Ewwwww!!