32 Counter Pass

Members
  • Content count

    2,789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

193 Excellent

About 32 Counter Pass

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

9,403 profile views
  1. Yea, um no. I recall Fitz being rendered pretty irrelevant by incompetent QB play back in 2012.
  2. And countless I told you so posts during his career.
  3. You are mixing what AD was doing his last decade with the stadium negotiations. Al was meddling in the on field decisions after the league had passed him by. To my knowledge MD is staying out of the on field decisions, and it is paying off. (Their first winning season in over a decade!) Who knows how sincere MD was a bout the move to Vegas. Maybe it was a ploy to leverage a better deal with Oakland (which is where they belong). Maybe folks inside the league encouraged MD to sabotage the Vegas deal in return for a better deal in Oakland. I don't know myself. I just hope they stay in the bay area because their fan base will support them win, lose or draw.
  4. The quote that struck me as odd: "You know (he's going to be compared) to Marshall Faulk, but I see him more like Brian Westbrook. He is a change-of-pace back and a returner. He will make some plays, but I don't think he can be your No. 1 guy." -- NFC area scout Westbrook was a bell cow with the eagles for multiple years. Some of these guys just speak to hear themselves heard.
  5. Seriously, what difference does that make? Unless you are suggesting she deserved to get knock out.
  6. My apologies. But woodhead could still take a big chunk of this away.
  7. I think a reasonable argument can be made that Gordon could see a regression if Woodhead returns to form. Gordon had 74 rec, 611 yds, 2 rec tds. How much do you think woodhead will cut into those figures?
  8. I am of this school of thought... but I used to have the same mind set about RBs from the big 10. That trend has definitely changed in the recent past with the likes of L. Bell, T. Coleman, and J. Howard having success.
  9. My how people gloss over some very important events that directly led to a belief that Iraq had WMDs. Remember Valerie Plame? "CIA analysts prior to the Iraq invasion were quoted by the White House as believing that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and that these aluminum tubes could be used in a centrifuge for nuclear enrichment. David Corn and Michael Isikoff argued that the undercover work being done by Plame and her CIA colleagues in the Directorate of Central Intelligence Nonproliferation Center strongly contradicted such a claim." Full story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame There is also this: http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-and-m16-spy-agencies-knew-iraq-didnt-have-wmds-before-2003-invasion-2013-3 The point is, there was contradicting info but the Bush administration outed Plame to eliminate any contradictory intell.
  10. This is about the principles of the country. You know that part at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence that reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." Or the plaque on the Statue of Liberty that reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Or the phrase in the Pledge of Allegience"...with liberty and justice for all.” What exactly do we stand for if these are just hollow words? The irony with the ban is that we are in a war of ideas with ISIS and the radical muslim extremists. Closing our borders puts us at a great disadvantage in this war. Good primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV7eVvph69Y
  11. Man, David you continue to disappoint me. The logic here is that two wrongs make a right. Is that really the position you want to take?
  12. Geez, a second ill thought out post. Trump gets one briefing a week: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-briefings-idUSKBN13X2M9 He has also impugned intelligence community since taking office. I think it is much more likely this was done willy-nilly.
  13. This seems like an ill thought post, which is surprising coming from you David. This ruling is a stay of Tramp's ban, not an open door policy to allow anyone to enter the country without proper vetting. The responsibility falls first on the government to execute the vetting process, not the courts. Second, the terrorist attack would have to be from a refugee from one of the banned country's to even have legs to blame the judiciary system.