DrunkBomber

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 09:14 PM) Drunkbomber, The real problem is that Im not saying anything in your post at all. From the beginning Ive clearly said that I thought PSU was firing Paterno and putting him the spotlight as an attempt to appease the masses with blood. I dont know Paterno's power on PSU campus, I assume its substantial, but like every other coach, has its limits (that being extreme illegal activity). Do I think Paterno had the power to stop an investigation in 1998? No Do I think Paterno or PSU had the power to call someone in 1998 and stop the investigation? Yes Would I be tearing apart every file from 1998 until I got to the bottom? Yes Did you even see the context of the post? here is why I posted: So it was anything but a told you so post. I had stopped posting here for over a week, and had no intention of returning to the thread because I dont care if I was right. If you think that I care about these online arguments, you really have not read a lot of my posts. Half the time I just completely forget about them once I get home from work and am not just killing time. Fair enough

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 08:40 PM) Drunkbomber. Points up. but while their positions are literally above Paterno, nobody was "above" Paterno. Still to this moment, people believe that Joe Paterno had the ability to cover this up. Paterno was not the most powerful man in the state of Pennsylvania, my guess is that there are even a few people in the Govt. who dont like PSU, maybe they went to Pitt, Temple or Penn. The Governor in 1998 was Tom Ridge, who I assume was also more powerful than Joe Paterno. Seriously, you clearly added "the whole state of Pennsylvania" to try to make your point sound better. How much power JoePa had at PSU is something that can be argued forever but as you are aware of youre arguing with people that think he possessed a lot of power on campus. Out of curiosity how much power do you believe he had? Do you think if he wanted to put an end to Sanduskys shenanigans that he wouldnt be able to? If thats what youre arguing then even though I think its ridiculous at least youd be making a stance that opposes what people in here are saying. You seem to be taking what people are saying to the furthest extreme possible to prove a point. If someone says that JoePa had enough power to put a stop to it if he wanted to it turns into JoePa is the most powerful man in PA and he is single handidly trying to cover it up. I dont think there are many people who will try to say that JoePa orchestrated an enormous cover up by himself, but at the same time Im sure a lot of people would claim that JoePa certainly played his part in it. It still doesnt change the fact that all the stuff you quoted yourself saying from November are the most obvious statements that most people here didnt think needed to even be said, let alone quoted months later in an "I told you so" attempt.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 07:29 PM) And I already addressed that statement was merely: It was hyperbole, maybe 10% were saying it, maybe 50% were saying it, it didnt matter to the point of the post. The point was, that I from the beginning said that it was likely a cover up that went above Joe Paterno. If everyone in this thread now wants to agree with that, so be it. But if you go back through my posts, you will constantly see that I do nothing more than respond to other people, who continually are arguing with me. It stands to reason if they are arguing against me, that they disagree with my point. Since I can only recall a handful of people agreeing with me, it is logical that the most disagreed. Maybe thats wrong, and people were arguing with me because they agreed with me, either way, I dont care. Can you find some examples of people arguing that Paterno should be the only one receiving blame or that he is the most guilty party here? You blatantly keep avoiding the most obvious point everyone is trying to make. EVERYONE realizes that there are people much more at fault here then Paterno. People arent saying there is no cover up and that this all starts and finishes with Paterno. The point you are trying to drive home by quoting yourself from November so you can try to say I told you all so is hilarious. Your entire argument is predicated on something that is so painfully obvious to everyone that there is no need to even debate it. Everyone knows that there are multiple people at fault here and that there is more than likely a cover up that stems past Paterno. A lot of the outrage in this thread is due to things like flags being drawn to half staff and a halo being put over JoePas head. Right now Im going to proclaim that the sky is blue because I dont see anyone else talking about it. In a few months you should all fully expect to see me quote this so I can say I told you all and prove how smart I think I am.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) If you have trouble with the cone, you can buy a more reasonable and comfortable one at Petco or Petsmart, which is basically a soft ring pillow that goes around her neck. These cheap plastic cones are ridiculous. Ugh I wish I would have known that earlier lol. Thanks for the tip though, hopefully I never have to deal with something like this again but if I do I will definitely look into that. I felt so bad for her having to wear that thing, but it was only for a couple days and she just got her stitches out 2 days ago and is doing much better.

Bunny after having to get some stitches under her eye after being attacked by another dog. Dont laugh at her cone, she is sensitive.

He should go to Houston to really stick it to Indy. Hed probably be able to win a SB in Houston with their current roster and its not like you can count on Schaubb to stay healthy. Houston with a QB of that caliber would be really scary.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) Wow, I hope it somehow gets released. Certainly looks really suspicious.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) Can we have a Bears thread in addition to an NFL thread? It's tough for people who aren't Bears fans to weed through 75% of posts related to them, especially once the season gets closer to beginning There is an entire Bears forum, which does get pretty good traffic. However, the majority of the Sox fan base are Bears fans so it kind of comes with the territory. I actually think posters here do a pretty good job of being open to discussing other teams when people bring them up but if nobody is interested in a team then nobody will care to spend too much time discussing it no matter which thread its on.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Feb 5, 2012 -> 09:46 PM) If you're on defense near the end there, and the penalty is only 5 yards with no time coming back on the clock, why not put your entire roster out on the field? I know the game cannot end like that, but atleast down to 1 second. Id imagine if it was obvious that they would never even let the offense snap the ball.

The board is the only place it seems the majority thinks the Patriots will win. I know theyre favorites but it seems everyone is picking the Giants.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) I liked it, but it definitely had a few things going against it. Besides it being saccharine during the last half, almost all of the fights were ridiculously fake. They should have just modeled the fights after real MMA fights (like punch for punch). There was just way too many power bombs, suplexes, and over-the-top take downs for me to really take it seriously. Plus, it really didn't need the school teacher to beat the universally agreed-upon greatest fighter in history that's also undefeated. A guy like that simply winning a professional MMA tournament is plenty. I agree. It kept my attention and was entertaining but as I was watching it I just kept thinking how unlikely the whole thing was.

The documentary Exit through the gift shop is an interesting look into street art. There is speculation that whether the premise of the movie is mocking people, which I think it is, but basically a guy who called himself Mr. Brainwash made slight variations on all kinds of different famous art work and sold it for insane prices. You get an idea that alot of people who make comments about art are completely talking out of their ass. You like what you like and what someone is willing to pay is its value.

To me the NFL has the best division structure in sports. 4 divisions of 4 teams in each conference seems perfect. The playoff structure is good too. Id hope theyd relocate before they expand. I think they should move to a city that has never had a team though. Florida and California will always struggle with new franchises because a large portion of the population are transplants and they will never get the fan support like a city that has been starved for an NFL team forever, even if the population is smaller.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2012 -> 07:06 PM) Again, if he's cleared to play by 2 doctors right now, I can't believe he's untradeable. Did you see the cap info I posted the other day? He isnt untradeable because of his perceived value. The easiest way to explain why trading him is virtually impossible is because in order to trade him theyd have to pay him his roster bonus of 28 million and then that money is added on to his guaranteed money to make his cap hit, which if they traded him would be 44 million over 2 seasons. You cant eat that much dead cap space, especially considering they dont have that good of a cap situation to begin with. If they cut him the cap hit is only 16 million (80% of his 20 million guaranteed) over the next 2 seasons. Its also worth noting these arent JUST cap numbers, they would also have to actually give him this money. They have 3 options. 1. Cut him, lose 8 million of cap space each of the next 2 seasons. 2. Keep him, have his cap number go down per season while he retained. 3. Trade him, hand him a check for 28 million dollars to go play for another team and have 44 million of dead cap space over the next 2 seasons in exchange for whatever he is traded for.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 2, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) I was speaking to why we raised the age to 21 from 18 back in the 1970s and early 1980s. IIRC states would be denied federal road doallars if their drinking age was under 21. But you confirm my point. But to your point, are you suggesting that 18-20 year olds are forced into irrespossible behavior? If they are getting drunk and driving because they can't get into a bar they will then drink less at a bar and not drive drunk? They have to get home from the bar. The best argument I have heard from university presidents for a return to 18 is it drives the drinking underground where there is less supervision. They believe with a lower drinking age they can better monitor kids drinking and when they have a problem they will be more willing to seek out help. Ya I actually do think that 18-20 year olds who have already made the decision to drink, legal or not, are forced into irresponsible behavior. This is of course if you completely separate underage drinking and dwi. If kids choose to drink, and there is nowhere legal for them to do it, they will be forced to put themselves into riskier situations then if they were able to hang out at a bar and have one of their friends DD or even call someones parents to pick them up (lol) I know the obvious answer is kids shouldnt be underage drinking but like it or not theyre gonna do it so it couldnt hurt to give them a safer means to do it.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 08:23 PM) We don't mind the 18 year old killing people in other countries, we do mind the 18 year old killing people in this country drunk driving. One thing has nothing to do with the other. The main reason 18 year olds are driving around drunk is because they cant legally hang out at a bar or drink at home a lot of the time because theyre underage. So instead if they want to drink, which a lot of 18-20 year olds do and will regardless of the law, they will drive around trying to find something to do or try to find some shady party.

QUOTE (juddling @ Jan 22, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) i love Papa John's pizza. It's no Aurelieo's but it's better than Pizza Hut Aurelieos thin crust and Lou's deep dish > all

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) That is something for the team that trades him to consider. The problem is if the Colts are going to trade him, they can't make the trade by the time his bonus comes due and thus, the Colts would be paying the $28M bonus vs. the acquiring team. So basically the Colts would be paying 28M for a 1st round pick (or whatever they get via trade). Its not just paying the 28 million as I said above, its also the fact that paying him that roster bonus more then doubles his cap hit.

Ive been saying for a few weeks there is no possible way they can trade Peyton. The trading window doesnt open until a week after he is owed his $28 million roster bonus. So not only would the Colts have to actually hand Peyton $28 million dollars, but by paying that bonus it includes that money in his cap hit. So if they pay him his roster bonus and then traded him theyd be taking on 44 million in dead cap space over the next 2 seasons, including I believe over 30 million this upcoming season alone and the Colts are already in relative cap trouble as it is and have a lot of UFAs they need to consider and still have to pay the $20 million whatever guaranteed to Luck. Then theres also the task of getting another team willing to take on Mannings contract that still has over 60 million in base salary over the next 4 seasons, and even if they could the Colts would still be responsible for that 28 million owed to him. However,if the Colts cut Manning before March 8th they will only have 16 million in dead cap space over 2 seasons (80% of his 20 million dollar signing bonus) which is still pretty crippling to a team with so many needs who is already hurting for cap space.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) http://www.drafttek.com/CMDRound1_17-32.asp would love to see this draft for the bears. Based on this draft I'd go with Alshon over Dwight Jones and in the 6th I'd go with Russell Wilson over the RB they had the bears taking, If the Bears wanna go with a RB in the 6th I'd rather have Herron. I'd go with 1 RD Decastro 2 RD Jeffery WR 3 RD Cam Johnson DE 3 RD Orson Charles TE 4 RD Nate Potter OT 5 RD Cliff Harris CB 6 RD Russel Wilson QB Based on this draft It never hurts to upgrade your offensive line but if the Bears are gonna address OL in the first round it simply cannot be anything except for a LT. Before we got blasted with injuries Chris Williams and Lance Louis actually looked like a solid pair of guards. We also have Edwin Williams and Garza and Spencer can also play solid enough. At OT however all we have is the hope Carimi can become an impact and then garbage. I know Tice likes to talk up Webb but it might just be because he doesnt want to single any individuals out. WR and LT absolutely have to be addressed this offseason. If theyre gonna use our first rounder to fill one of those needs they better absolutely nail the pick. I just dont see how anyone can feel good about us drafting a guard in the first when its basically the only position on offense we any semblance of depth at.

Welker is a lot better then Bennett. I agree he wouldnt be nearly as effective on almost any other roster, sans GB or NO, but that doesnt take away from all the things he does so well. He has essentially been New Englands running game. Gronkowski seems to be the real deal. I think if you put him on any team he would be good if used correctly but thats also a crapshoot. Look at Vernon Davis, hes had undeniable talent since he came in the league and until this season SF never really utilized his strengths. I will say I have been very impressed with what Eddleman has been able to give to New England. Its pretty impressive to bring in a college qb that can be an effective wr to begin with, but when he can also be a good return man AND be plugged into your secondary I think thats pretty special.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jan 28, 2012 -> 12:54 PM) I wish this guy would move to my neighborhood. We have this moron dog owner that lets his aggressive dip s*** dog run loose all the time. I would love to see the thing get shot (teach it a lesson). I hope this is a joke, Im kinda assuming it is. If it isnt then wow.

Wow at whats going on in this thread right now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) I think the Colts, Patriots, Saints, and Giants have pretty firmly established that a team can have a terrible defense but still have a defense that can win games and take advantage of opportunities given to them by the offense. The Giants defense was really banged up at times but theres no way I would ever consider them a terrible defense. Unless youre talking about a different year, but in recent history their defense has been pretty solid. I know their numbers werent always that good this season but as I said they had been banged up all season. They went into Green Bay and shut down one of the most high powered offenses in the NFL.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 28, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) Hub just reported on the Score that Tim Ruskell will be let go. Now were talking