iamshack

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) Then the legislators should change the law. We shouldn't rely on the Court's decision for that. Yeah, I agree. I wasn't debating the law, nor the Court's decision. Was just asking a common sense question as to the spirit of the law.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) Why require citizenship? Why require a certain age limit? The voters will figure it out, right? I certainly get your point, but the rule just seems a bit antiquated to me. In this age of information, you really don't have to live in a place to have a pulse on what the issues are there. It's not like he's riding in on his horse from some far away land with no idea what has been going on in the city of Chicago over the past several years.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:51 PM) I fail to see how this situation is one that the drafters of that legislation meant to exclude. He left town intending to work in DC for who knows how long. He might have intended to move back SOMEDAY, but clearly he moved back as soon as he heard Daley was leaving. Despite his connections and despite history, unless he was totally ignoring his responsibilities as chief of staff under Obama he missed out on a LOT of local issues that the people of the city were going through. Sorry, but this isn't some technicality, I think that's meaningful. The guy didn't step foot back in Illinois (save an Obama appearance here or there) during that time. I still maintain that such a ruling opens the door for unconnected rich folk to basically gamble at future political office depending on what district they think might open up (didn't Hillary do this in NY? Basically claiming that she "resided" there because they owned an apt and office?). They buy a house in X state, live in it temporarily (months), leave some "personal items" in the home, leave to work elsewhere, and then state that you had always intended to return. Can't we just trust the voters to make the correct decision then? If they are really concerned that the candidate cannot truly know their plight, can't they just vote for someone who does?

QUOTE (T R U @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 11:14 PM) This isn't just about the Packers game, no one has thought the Bears were a good team all year.. all season long, people just weren't buying on them being one of the better teams in the league Good team, yes. Great team, no.

QUOTE (T R U @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 11:06 PM) Really? Because I didn't hear one positive thing about the Bears, or anyone who thought they could win, all week leading up to that game.. there was literally no one that was backing the Bears for this game, it was pretty much a given GB was gonna be in the Super Bowl.. The only people who I heard give the Bears a chance, were Bears fans.. whether they were call ins on ESPNRadio or my mom, but no one else.. that's why I said what I said, and I don't think it was an inaccurate statement nor was it meant to start some fight.. Well, I deliberately did not pay any attention to predictions leading up to the game because honestly, the media does dislike Jay Cutler, they love the Packers, and we were 3.5 point underdogs. By definition, the Packers are supposed to win the game, so you should not be shocked that most people predicted them to. I did however hear John Clayton pick the Bears. But your argument wasn't that the Packers were the better team. Your argument was that no one thought the Bears were a "good" team, outside of Bears fans. That's a pretty huge distinction, don't you think?

QUOTE (T R U @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 12:00 AM) Because that's true, do you not agree with that? I do not agree with that. For one, the oddsmakers didn't agree with that either. I can certainly concede that the Bears were the underdogs in the NFC Championship game, but that certainly does not equate to them not being "good." That is a testament to the way the Packers have been playing.

QUOTE (T R U @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 11:58 PM) Its not to incite anything, you don't have to agree with me but I didn't think the Bears were that good of a team.. and guess what, im not the only person who thought that as well.. they beat like 3 third string QBs during the season and got a gift of the Seahawks at home in the playoffs.. the Bears were very fortunate this year If you wanted to say that you should have said that. Instead, you said the only people who thought the Bears were good were Bears fans.

QUOTE (T R U @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 10:52 PM) cant we just all agree the Bears are who we thought they were and the only people who thought they were any good were Bears fans? No, we can't. You seriously can't recognize how well the Bears defense has played against the Packers, especially when compared against the rest of the league? This post is just trying to incite anger.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 11:30 PM) first of all, holy s***. this is what's called a witch hunt or cult of personality take a fan, who already has a pre-existing dislike or hatred towards a player, give them a situation where they can easily rationalize it in their mind into something that in reality doesn't make sense. give this person fellow supporters who share the same dislike of player, and then give them the same dysfunctional ammunition (twitter posts from former players, camera footage of Cutler standing on sideline, poor "body language" that somehow insinuates to this hysterical mob he doesn't care about his team),to come to similar conclusions. the infection has spread, it's unstoppable now if it's fair for you to make wild accusations that bears staff is lying about his injury, it's fair for me to accuse you for lying through your teeth that you're not a Cutler hater. it's so f***ing apparent from your post it's ridiculous i'll leave this discussion with this Contrasting story with similarities to the Cutler injury: Boxers Miguel Cotto and Yuri Foreman squared off at New Yankee Stadium in June of 2010. In the 7th round, Foreman sustained a knee injury (it was apparent that his knee was already lame as it was wrapped in a brace before the fight). Referee Arthur Mercante Jr. told Foreman, "Suck it up champ", and asked him if he could continue. Of course, Foreman acknowledged Mercante's request and continued. Foreman's knee would give out twice more, along with Mercante ignoring a towel throw by Foreman's corner, before succumbing to a vicious body shot by Cotto. Mercante has received intense scrutiny by the national media and fans for allowing Foreman to continue. Foreman had surgery on his knee after the fight, and had torn ACL ligaments and a damaged meniscus. "Rub some dirt on it, Jay!" Oh for the love of Pete... Let me repeat. I WAS WEARING THE GUY'S JERSEY DURING THE GAME. I don't hate the guy, and I defended him against the idiotic media all year long. Just go back and read the NFL thread for proof. I wanted the guy to play well as badly as anyone. I wanted the Bears to make the Super Bowl as badly as anyone. I made money betting the Bears in the second half while Jay was out even, so it's not like this is some crazy money-motivated thing. I have not accused the Bears staff of lying. The fact that some of you are just dying for me to admit to some irrational hatred of the guy is absolutely precious. Regardless, we lost the game. Luckily it does not appear that Jay is seriously injured, and hopefully we can make another run at it next season. I hope the guy can recover from this and move on and it makes him a better football player. Can we just leave it at that?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:43 PM) They are supposed to admit something that didn't happen? There are also several players not playing with the same injury (anyone remember Jim McMahon's injury? Oops.). Peers questioning him? Not his team, who know the situation. Any jackass with a twitter account can post a "CUTLER'S A p**** GET BACK IN THERE" in about 30 seconds. WTF does that prove? We already explained that work was done on him and that he was able to walk around, and that just because you can walk, doesn't mean you can play. We have evidence of him going back in after he was basically deemed out. Your "history of failure in the face of adversity" applies to his first half of play, not the injury. What does moping and sulking have to do with anything injury related here? Which he didn't do on the sideline afterwards, contrary to what you want to believe in your 3 second snippets from Fox. Whatever, have fun thinking Cutler's a p**** or quit on his team, when all facts point to that being completely untrue. Just not being fair. I'm not being fair now? Come on... Jay Cutler is a warrior of massive proportions. He is the toughest man to ever put on the uniform. He is beyond criticism, beyond questioning, and anyone who dares to do so shall be told to retract such opinions.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:26 PM) Explain how my argument was not civilized? You say the Bears defense without Briggs cost them to lose to the Redskins. I say the Bears defense only gave up 10 points in that game and your argument is not valid. The reason your argument is invalid is blaming the defense for giving up 10 points in a game the Bears offense gave up 6 turnovers is utterly insane. The defense tried it's best and kept us in that one, generating 3 turnovers of it's own and scoring a touchdown as well. We didn't lose that game because Briggs didn't play... not even close. The defense dominated. Stop trying to play the victim. When you make outrageously incorrect points while shooting from the hip, they will be replied to in kind. There's no way you could have watched that Bears/Redskins game, because if you did you wouldn't be making such ridiculous comments. Honestly, I never stated most of the things you are claiming I did. I pointed out the fact that we happened to lose two games, at home, to two inferior teams, when Briggs was not playing. Every defense in the NFL is predicated on stopping the opponents' running game first, and stopping the passing game second. When Briggs does not play, we have a much more difficult time stopping the opponents' running game. This makes it more difficult to win the game. It is my opinion that Briggs is every bit as important to our success as Urlacher is. Apparently most people disagree with me. I admitted my argument was overstated. I am not offended that people choose to disagree with me. So disagree with me, fine. You just seem very angry about it, that's all.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:15 PM) The Bears gave up 10 points. TEN POINTS on defense. You make zero sense. What on earth have I done to you to make you so angry? I fought and complained to have this thread re-opened, so please try and stay civil in your argument, would you? I admitted my argument was overstated. Can you calm down now?

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:09 PM) This defense is geared towards Briggs making the tackle. You remember Tampa with this defense?? Briggs plays Brooks' spot....the WILL. He should be leading this team in tackles every year. Any idea off the top of your head who the MIKE was in Tampa?? Doubtful, because the MIKE is not the star in this scheme. Yet Urlacher who has to drop back in coverage and run all over the field still leads the team in tackles. The Defense is garbage when he isn't there. The only time he hasn't played at a probowl level was when he was playing hurt. I like Briggs...he's a solid player, but Urlacher is the MVP of this defense and easily one of the greatest LB's to ever play the game. That stupid f***in poll. Other players who were labeled as overrated in the poll included Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Eli Manning, Terrell Owens and Ray Lewis. Point conceded.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:03 PM) Good call, because giving up 21 points and 10 points screams "defense's fault". Jesus, in the game against Washington Cutler had 4 picks including a pick 6. And here I thought you were done arguing with me. The Seattle game the Seahawks won for the first time on the road in like 2 years. It was the first time in forever they had to travel east and play in the early time slot and actually won. They rushed for 111 yards against us, and they pretty much have no running game whatsoever. No way that should have happened. In Week 7 against Washington, the Redskins rushed for 125 yards on us without Briggs. Those were two teams we would have dominated with him on the field.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:01 PM) Just read the last 30 pages. I will now go thrust my head viciously into a brick wall. That is not an injury I would expect you to return to the game from.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:59 PM) It wasn't a coincidence. Both of them matter. Urlacher, probably moreso though. When he is not in the whole thing totally falls apart. Well, perhaps I am wrong about Briggs being the "heart of the defense" then. I still think Urlacher is overrated. And part of that is because of who the media wants him to be.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:39 PM) To burn your Cutler jersey, because that's about where you're at now So now questioning the guy is equating to burning his jersey. Jeesh.

I dunno. I guess it's a coincidence we lost to Seattle and Washington when Briggs was out with his injury.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:36 PM) How'd the D look in 2009? Seriously, man, what's the f***ing point? Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. If you think Lance Briggs is the key to our defense, over the much more important Brian Urlacher and Julius Peppers, then arguing with you is moot. Hell, you still think Cutler should have played, when 95% of the rest of the world has come around and realized they were fools. How'd the defense look when Briggs doesn't play? Again, simply because Urlacher has a large role in the scheme does not make him impossible to overrate. The fact that he was replaced by Hunter Hillenmeyer and Nick Roach is not proof that Urlacher is brilliant. It just means the dropoff from Urlacher to them was huge.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:34 PM) I guess I'm looking to see if there's anything ever that would change your mind on this. Sworn affidavits from the AT's saying they didn't want him to play? Statements from doctors saying "yeah, probably not going to be a good QB with a Grade II MCL Sprain"? It seems like you've entrenched yourself in this position that there's nothing that can ever change your mind that Cutler pussed out. Well unfortunately my opinion on what actually happened will never be substantiated because Cutler or the Bears will never admit that the guy quit, because it would ruin his career here in Chicago, and damage his reputation more throughout the league. You and others are acting as though there is some mountain of evidence on your side. But there simply is not. You've got an injury report that says he has an MCL tear and a history of getting up and playing after taking a pounding. I've got evidence of players in his same position playing several games with the same injury. I've got several of his peers questioning him. I've got a training staff that was sooo incredibly concerned about his injury, yet they would allow him to walk around with his incredibly damaged knee merely for the sake of making the Packers believe he could possibly return? I've got a guy who has a history of failure in the face of adversity. I've got a guy who mopes and sulks and then ultimately seems to underperform when the pressure gets dialed up. I mean maybe he cracked...I don't know. Either way, it's what I took away from things, and I am by no means some Cutler hater or someone who was "predisposed" to dislike Cutler. It's my interpretation of things. I stand by that. You've shown me nothing other than some MRI which shows there was an injury, which was stipulated to in the first place.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:32 PM) Not to sound like a dick, but really it's because you keep posting and people are going to reply. Hah. I'm not asking anyone to side with me here. And it's certainly not just me that has this opinion. It's Fathom, it's Sqwert, it DA...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:31 PM) Time to retire from the thread. Another great rebuttal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 07:27 PM) But he says and what Phillip Rivers actually did in a similar situation are two different things. What more do you want? We have an injury report telling you exactly what was wrong with his knee. We know it effects lateral stability, and that's something a mobile QB playing behind that Bears O-line is going to need. Everything we've heard is that the medical staff didn't even want him playing in the 2nd half, but Cutler insisted on giving it a shot. It didn't work. Granted, that's coming from the Bears, but what else do we have to go on here? What are you basing your doubts on? It's not what anyone remotely close to the situation has said. It's not the actual injury. It's not Jay's history, because he's always been one to play through stuff in the past. Jay Cutler the person seems like a douche. Jay Cutler the player has been somewhat of a disappointment here in Chicago. He can get rattled after taking hits and try to force things. But one thing he's never done is quit or play soft. I just don't understand where this is coming from at all. I told you exactly what I wanted. Why is it so important to you that you change my mind on this? I am doubtful that the injury is such that, had things been going a little differently, he would have been sitting out the second half. I have explained my reasoning for this in every possible manner I can think of. What more do you want?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 07:22 PM) Rivers is a first class prick. I've never seen him called a class guy before. That's simply not true. He is competitive as anyone on the field, and likes to talk trash, but of the two, he is miiiiilllllleeessss ahead of Cutler in terms of respect by his peers.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 07:17 PM) Wow, it's like you enjoy being wrong about the Bears today. Then make an argument to the contrary. Look at any game Briggs was out and our defense failed to stop the run. He's absolutely instrumental in our run defense. When he's not out there, Urlacher is running around getting beat all over the field. I concede that maybe they are both equally important, but considering the press Urlacher gets, it's my opinion that he is overrated. He was even voted as most as one of the most overrated players in the league, by the players, several years ago.