Soxbadger

You can see him getting more comfortable as the game goes on which is obviously good news for him.

No choice. Hes not injured, hes just rusty. The only way to overcome that is to actually play the game. AP didnt eclipse 100 yards rushing until the 4th game last year. Then he went nuts. I believe hes quoted somewhere saying that while he was 100% healthy it took his mind time to get right and believe his knee could make the cuts. What sucks for RGIII is that as a QB there is just so much more pressure and the coach cant really dictate when and how he gets the ball or when the other team blitzes.

Redskins defense is just bad.

/points up Obama is already claiming this was his idea. They are putting Syria/Russia in a corner. If Russia cant deliver on getting Syria to destroy its chemicals it will be much easier to convince people to attack Syria. And Ive never said that the US has to attack Syria. Ive said that there has to be consequences for using chemical weapons. Being forced to destroy all your chemical weapons stockpiles is a consequence. {edit} http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/oba....html?hpt=hp_t1 Its hilarious, but hes saying exactly what I predicted they would say: QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike. I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game. "We have not seen these kinds of gestures up until now," the president said. "The fact that the U.S. administration and I have said we are serious about this, I think, has prompted some interesting conversations." Politics is just so pathetically boring.

I think its in his head. If you look at his footwork he isnt really planting and throwing. But when he runs he seems ok.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oba...0,6112982.story Not much in the world you can be sure on except the following: No matter what really happened, politicians are always going to claim they were the ones who came up with the idea. Until of course the idea goes bad, and then theyll claim it was someone else. Thats just politics 101.

The scariest part for RGIII is that he seems to have a problem planting and throwing, hes kind of just flicking the ball.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 07:54 PM) And only the lowest of the low human beings would take a disagreement on policy and decide that they should question another persons patriotism. lol Great part about America, you dont have to like America. But if you are just going to plain hate, expect to be called on it. Of all people I would have thought youd be cheering in the street that a possible non-military solution was on the table. But instead that option is now "a terrible loss" for the US. Its as if you wont be happy unless you can point out all the mistakes that the US makes. Yeah we make mistakes, yeah bad things happen. But we try, and thats a lot more than I can say about 99% of the world. So why not put things in perspective? Why hold the US to some unattainable standard that it will always fail at?

RGIII looking hesitant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 07:36 PM) "The last refuge of the scoundrel" summed up very well in your post. And only a person with an indefensible position would quote Samuel Johnson as if he was someone to be proud of. You know he was the guy who argued that colonists had given up their right to vote!

Sometimes the truth hurts. But I implore you to prove me wrong. How does a deal on destruction of chemical weapons = peace treaty for Assad with rebels? Or even this, what can the US do that you would think is the "biggest negotiating victory for the US". Because Im not sure youve said 1 positive thing about the United States in this thread, and thats kind of pathetic seeing as the United States (for better or worse) is one of the few countries who even remotely cares about the plight of others. There is just an irony that you have fought for days against the US striking Syria, and now that there is a peace option you call the US "losers" if they take it. What game are you even playing here? Its just berserk. I mean who cares if the US is perceived winners, losers or indifferent if the outcome is good for the world? I just dont understand what you want, besides for trashing the US and whatever it does.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 06:54 PM) The reason why the us can't accept this offer and te reason the Russians jumped at it is that the US has refused to negotiate over Syria unless Assad leaves. Refusing to negotiate does exactly what it is supposed to do, shut down negotiations entirely and force a military response. If the US accepts an offer to negotiate with Assads regime over the chemical weapons, the US will be dropping its deman that Assad leave before any negotiations take place. That's why the Russians jumped at it, it's a way to force the war-hungry us government to the negotiating table. If the US sits down and negotiates, then Assad and the Russians will have extracted the biggest negotiating victory they could have asked for. The gas attack will have been an enormous success. At this point I just am going to stop discussing. You clearly dislike America and want to make it look bad. For what reason, to what end, I dont know. The biggest negotiating victory? Talk about hyperbole. This wont end the war, thats the US demand about negotiations. They wont negotiate a PEACE unless Assad leaves. But what does that have to do with Assad destroying his chemical weapons to prevent the US from striking? Nothing, destroying the chemical weapons does not equal ending the civil war, it just takes away chemical weapons from Syria. Which would be one of the biggest negotiating victories in the history of the United States. That they were successfully able to convince an enemy to destroy its weapons, without having to directly interfere. But I guess in your anti-American world, that is some how a loss? I dont even know anymore, I just dont even know. It makes me sad that someone can hate America so much that they want to portray us as a "loser". As if somehow the US and world loses if there are less chemical weapons. Its clear that no matter what the US does, you are going to be against it. If the US removes all chemical weapons without a single shot fired = greatest negotiating victory for Russia/Syria in history of world. If US removes all chemical weapons by killing everyone = US worst country in the world. If you hate us so much, why not move? There are plenty of other countries where you can hate the US with impunity and youll be called a hero.

You keep predicting the future... Its interesting, instead of actually discussing the topic, you just fixate on something that hasnt happened and may never happen. I cant imagine you actually have a copy of the exact text of Obama's speech tomrorow. So how can you be so sure what he is going to say? Why not wait for the facts?

In what world is the US getting Syria to sign the CWC and not having to kill anyone, bad? How is the US bad with that result? Im just not understanding this line of reasoning. Do you just hate the US that much that you want it to look bad? Its a damn tricky situation with lots of lives at stake. And you care more about how we look than getting a good solution? Is that really the case? Just hard to imagine.

Youre basically arguing that a case never settles the day before trial because lawyers wouldnt prepare for a big trial just to settle at the 11th hour. If the President of the United States doesnt have multiple contingency speeches based on what events transpire, then I really am overestimating the office. I just cant imagine a world where they have 1 plan. But maybe so, itd be terrifying but maybe its true. But if I was the President, Id have multiple speeches and one of them would be written about how I did this amazing thing of getting Syria to sign the CWC, something that no other President could accomplish. Id pat myself on the back and call it a day. Its really not that difficult to play all sides and make yourself look good. Just like its not hard to play all sides and make someone look bad.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) He could have led with that instead of threatening to bomb them. He could have, he might have, I dont know, Im not privy to any of the information. But I do know that no matter what happens, there will be some people who write that it was a masterful plan and others will write that it was the worst plan ever. Generally speaking I think most people negotiate from an extreme position and then settle on a middle position. It rarely works where you offer a middle position, then move to an extreme position, to finally settle on middle position. Not how Id play the game, but I guess its a possibility. My preference is to start with the extreme and then move towards middle. But really thats just personal preference.

So what does it say when the UN allows a member to flagrantly break its rules? http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml Article 1 Act 1 And based on Article 2, Act 2: Once Syria failed to fulfill its obligations under the UN charter, it no longer is entitled to the rights and benefits of the UN. Therefore it can be argued the US action would be legal, as Syria is no longer fulfilling its obligations. Simply put, any authority is only as legitimate as its actions. And if the UN will allow a member to use chemical weapons without reprisal, then the UN isnt worth anything anymore. Might as well call it the League of Nations.

Without the US does the UN have any ability to enforce any of its laws? You can call something illegal, but if you have no police, you have no law. (edit) And Im not up on the UN rules etc, but Im thinking that in order for any US action to be declared illegal it would have to be voted on by the UN Security Council, which means the US can veto it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) I see. So you'd agree that since an eye for an eye is a terrible thing, illegally bombing a country as punishment for using chemical weapons is a ridiculous idea. After all, an eye for an eye and the entire world goes... I dont believe that its illegal for the US to attack Syria. And If the entire world is going to start using chemical weapons, being blind is the least of our concerns. But then again, ive never proposed an eye for an eye. I dont believe Ive ever proposed killing 1 person, I dont believe Ive proposed the use of chemical weapons. Ive merely stated there have to be consequences, if you dont think so, thats fine, but you gotta live with it, not me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) Because unless the U.S. is going to overthrow Assad, Assad isn't leaving any time soon. Got the winning lottery numbers? Because as Im sure your aware, Assad wasnt ever supposed to run Syria. But due to freak unpredictable chance...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:30 PM) Because Syria doesn't have nuclear weapons and they have a nuclear weapons armed country sitting next to them that has a substantial army and has attacked them previously? Syria doesn't have the resources to build the bomb, but enough gas to leave Israel half vacant is a pretty fair deterrent to the threat from Israels nuclear capacity. lol Because Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons and they have a nuclear weapons armed country sitting next to them that has a substantial army and has attacked them previously? Its not a good argument. Just because someone else does something bad or wrong, doesnt mean you should as well. Eye for an eye and the entire world goes ...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 9, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) Our war hungry President just got blind sided by Putin. Impressive. Or he correctly played the game and got Syria to make a major concession in the face of a military strike. What I dont understand is what does it matter if Syria signs the CWC at this point? Isnt the entire point of the civil war that the govt is illegally holding power and no longer represents the people of Syria? What would it matter if King George signed a treaty that governed the US during the revolutionary war... I have no clue if this was really the end game. But I can predict that irregardless of outcome that people will claim it was Obama's end game.

Oh so are you now saying that Syria's "Well join the CWC is hollow?" and why in the world does it matter what Israel is doing? Basically Syria hasnt signed the CWC but has signed the NPT. Israel has signed the CWC (not ratified) but hasnt signed the NPT. That has 0 relevance. Its just red herring nonsense.

I guess I used the wrong 3 letters, thought I pulled it from the article but guess not. The US is part of the CWC, which is the chemical weapons convention. Syria is 1 of 7 countries not a part of it.

His lawyers earned every penny during the proceeding year for keeping the moron out of the news.