... Who are the guys in the suits coming up to the porch?

I saw you earlier putting up signs on telephone poles. I waved, but you must not have seen me.

http://img48.echo.cx/img48/1726/jihadlovin7ys.jpg

*snicker*........

... Who are the guys in the suits coming up to the porch?

I saw you earlier putting up signs on telephone poles. I waved, but you must not have seen me.

http://img48.echo.cx/img48/1726/jihadlovin7ys.jpg


...You feeling alright Neils?? You must be bored as hell

That's a fine poster that would grace any neighbourhood.

Lol

...You feeling alright Neils?? You must be bored as hell

I'm sure he's fine. It's just getting to him that it's about 1250 more days before his political opinion means anything. Even then, it's questionable. :)


Oh....... hi Niels.

I'm sure he's fine. It's just getting to him that it's about 1250 more days before his political opinion means anything. Even then, it's questionable. :)


Oh....... hi Niels.
don't be naive, Torino, none of our political opinions mean anything, ever

don't be naive, Torino, none of our political opinions mean anything, ever

Ain't that the truth...

so did u actually move LOL?

don't be naive, Torino, none of our political opinions mean anything, ever

Your right, my mistake. What I meant to say was "have any meaning"

Your right, my mistake. What I meant to say was "have any meaning"
I stand by the same statement, with your new wording.

I stand by the same statement, with your new wording.

You are clever Niels, You can quote me in any light you see fit for your agenda, you understood my point none the less.

That's all that matters to me.

don't be naive, Torino, none of our political opinions mean anything, ever

I disagree. Read your history. Empires are overthrown when enough people get pissed off. Just look at the USSR in 1991. Who saw that coming?

*Sigh*

Ya'll are too much damn fun ya know that?

The political discussions that occur between this group alone make this site worth visiting.

Hmmmmmmm. It is time for a change.....

I disagree. Read your history. Empires are overthrown when enough people get pissed off. Just look at the USSR in 1991. Who saw that coming?

Well, sorry to dissapoint you son but neither your statement nor your example are completly true.

In fact you show a pretty naive understanding of politics. I'd be the first to be happy if it was that way though.

Well, sorry to dissapoint you son but neither your statement nor your example are completly true.

In fact you show a pretty naive understanding of politics. I'd be the first to be happy if it was that way though.

Can you provide a counter-example?

Can you provide a counter-example?

Of course I can. In fact I'd have a much harder time to search for examples that'd underline his statement.

What about toady's China for example? Lots of people over there are unhappy about the political leaders and the(ir) main party. The latest example is the lack of help provided by the state for the victims of the high tide. Or what about Taiwan or Tibet that are still looked upon as "provinces" by the chinese governement. Yet nothing changes.

A better, clearer counter-example would be the Iraq dictated by Saddam Hussein or the spanish dictation of Franco.

Of course I can. In fact I'd have a much harder time to search for examples that'd underline his statement.

What about toady's China for example? Lots of people over there are unhappy about the political leaders and the(ir) main party. The latest example is the lack of help provided by the state for the victims of the high tide. Or what about Taiwan or Tibet that are still looked upon as "provinces" by the chinese governement. Yet nothing changes.

A better, clearer counter-example would be the Iraq dictated by Saddam Hussein or the spanish dictation of Franco.

The back bone of the Iraqi resistance was crushed when the US pulled out of the Persian Gulf War. If left to their own devices the rebellion may have been more successful.

What about Iran when the Shah was deposed? Not even the US's backing could keep him alive when the people turned on him.

China is a poor example because it is beginning to progress. We haven't really seen any real "movements" over there since Tianemin Square.

Well, sorry to dissapoint you son but neither your statement nor your example are completly true.

In fact you show a pretty naive understanding of politics. I'd be the first to be happy if it was that way though.

Who you calling son you little Nazi Youth.

Guess what dickface, the USA came into being because of people's political beliefs.

China is a poor example because it is beginning to progress. We haven't really seen any real "movements" over there since Tianemin Square.

You seem to missunderstand me. We're talking about political leaders who rule the country without a majority of people supporting them. If there were lots "real movements" as you liked to call it a political change would be an realistic option and the example wouldn't fit anymore. It is no secret though that lots of Chinese don't agree with their leaders anymore. However the system is still powerfull enough to stay alive and quite its "enemies".

And if you talk about China progressing you mainly talk about the big cities and the economicly modern areas while you forget about the underdeveloped and undereducated majority.

It took the inhabitants of the DDR nearly 40 years to organize mass protests and I can assure you that the potential already had been there for 40 years.

Most of the times people are to afraid to voice their opinion if they ever get the chance to. Revolutionary acts that caused a change of the political enviroment with the support of a majority are an example.

You seem to missunderstand me. We're talking about political leaders who rule the country without a majority of people supporting them. If there were lots "real movements" as you liked to call it a political change would be an realistic option and the example wouldn't fit anymore. It is no secret though that lots of Chinese don't agree with their leaders anymore. However the system is still powerfull enough to stay alive and quite its "enemies".

And if you talk about China progressing you mainly talk about the big cities and the economicly modern areas while you forget about the underdeveloped and undereducated majority.

It took the inhabitants of the DDR nearly 40 years to organize mass protests and I can assure you that the potential already had been there for 40 years.

Most of the times people are to afraid to voice their opinion if they ever get the chance to. Revolutionary acts that caused a change of the political enviroment with the support of a majority are an example.

So are you agreeing that if the majority of people in a country want change then it happens? Or disagreeing?

Anybody ever notice how Torino somehow incorporates the word "agenda" into every one of his posts when someone disagrees with him? He also uses "twist" a lot. Just an observation. I suppose that I'm just twisting this post to serve my own agenda about Torino's posts though. :D

Who you calling son you little Nazi Youth.

Guess what dickface, the USA came into being because of people's political beliefs.

Now that is exactly the kind of educated and civil answer I expected. Should I be ambarassed now?

And just to clearify some things. The USA came into being because the Indians were robbed and afro-americans were slaved. Do you think they supported the way of freedom that they were granted up until 50 years ago?

Of course the USA was built upon political beliefs but it certainly wasn't a majorty backing them. The Nazi Regime was also built on peoples political beliefs and so was the Soviet-Union.

Indians were robbed
how do you know how it all started?

how do you know it was the european pilgrim who first fired the shot? some indian couldve shot a flaming arrow through some pilgrims cart to start the war


everyone always acts like its the white man who ****ed everyone up the ass because we were the one with the guns

Anybody ever notice how Torino somehow incorporates the word "agenda" into every one of his posts when someone disagrees with him? He also uses "twist" a lot. Just an observation. I suppose that I'm just twisting this post to serve my own agenda about Torino's posts though. :D

That's what MOST Bush/New GOP apologists do. It is the "liberal media". Those people in the East and West coast have the "Rich Hollywood agenda".

Nah, we are just trying to protect what is sacred to us. We Moderates, Libertarians and Liberals are live and let live. It is the Neo Cons that are not.

So are you agreeing that if the majority of people in a country want change then it happens? Or disagreeing?

All I'm saying is that the majority of people in a country are very rarely asked if they want a change or not. If changes occure it's rarley because of a majorty protresting against the old regime.

For example Russia didn't have to open up because of its unhappy inhabitants (which have become even unhappier by now) but because it was bankrupt and isolated. The change of their political system was forced by other countries not by their own people. The same goes for Germany after WW1. There are lots of examples.

All I'm saying is that the majority of people in a country are very rarely asked if they want a change or not. If changes occure it's rarley because of a majorty protresting against the old regime.

For example Russia didn't have to open up because of its unhappy inhabitants (which have become even unhappier by now) but because it was bankrupt and isolated. The change of their political system was forced by other countries not by their own people. The same goes for Germany after WW1. There are lots of examples.

What about the rise of Hitler, overthrowing the Government that was in place after WWI? That caught on with the majority. THough in a negative way.

Iran was an out and out REBELLION by the majority against the Shah.

Both things happen.

Now that is exactly the kind of educated and civil answer I expected. Should I be ambarassed now?

And just to clearify some things. The USA came into being because the Indians were robbed and afro-americans were slaved. Do you think they supported the way of freedom that they were granted up until 50 years ago?

Of course the USA was built upon political beliefs but it certainly wasn't a majorty backing them. The Nazi Regime was also built on peoples political beliefs and so was the Soviet-Union.

THe USA came into being because the people who lived here were sick of being shaken down by King George. Slavery and Indian Giving, while it DID happen, had little bearing on the actual revolution of the people of this country against the British.

And the number of Rebels DID outnumber the loyalists in this country.

how do you know how it all started?

how do you know it was the european pilgrim who first fired the shot? some indian couldve shot a flaming arrow through some pilgrims cart to start the war


everyone always acts like its the white man who ****ed everyone up the ass because we were the one with the guns

Well, I'll give you a lil example that makes it easier for you to understand.

Let's say you own a big house with lots of TVs and a swimming pool. One day you wake up and some strangers sit on your couch and act like they could decide what TV programm to watch. After you have a heated argument you realize that you cant do anything against them because they are stronger than you. But because they're nice they allow you to live in the kitchen as long as you clean the bathroom twice a day and cook. Would you be happy or upset?

You try to depict decent countries as monsters or turn them into to monsters to justify what Isreal does as right and correct.

You try to depict decent countries as monsters or turn them into to monsters to justify what Isreal does as right and correct.

McKay. What is the deal with you? Were you abducted by Israeli Citizens as a child and sexually abused or something?

You go on about Israel like Walter Soabchek from "The Big Lebowski" goes on about Vietnam!

What about the rise of Hitler, overthrowing the Government that was in place after WWI? That caught on with the majority. THough in a negative way.

Iran was an out and out REBELLION by the majority against the Shah.

Both things happen.

The rise of Hitler was tolerated by a majorty but (until 1933) not supported by it. The NSDAP was not the strongest party in the Weimarer Republik. Hitler became chancelor because von Papen (the political leader of the Zentrum party) wanted to use his charisma and popularity for his purposes.

I don't know too much about the Iran so I cant debate over that example.

McKay. What is the deal with you? Were you abducted by Israeli Citizens as a child and sexually abused or something?

You go on about Israel like Walter Soabchek from "The Big Lebowski" goes on about Vietnam!

I just express things the way I percieve them. I never said anybody has to agree with the way I percieve and interpret things. However I ususally back up my assertations with logic and facts. I present my case, and my viewpoints. You can agree or disagree.

McKay. What is the deal with you? Were you abducted by Israeli Citizens as a child and sexually abused or something?

You go on about Israel like Walter Soabchek from "The Big Lebowski" goes on about Vietnam!
He seems to be more passionate about Israel than others on the board, but it's not a blind obsession...

For example, how about Israel's role in the explosive-installation that led to the destruction of the towers on 9/11? The US and Israel's state of "cahoots" often troubles me as well. And those who try to use the Bible to villify those who dare say something wrong about Israel, don't understand the whole "God's chosen people" bit thoroughly...

McKay. What is the deal with you? Were you abducted by Israeli Citizens as a child and sexually abused or something?

You go on about Israel like Walter Soabchek from "The Big Lebowski" goes on about Vietnam!



ahahahahaha thats the funniest thing i've heard all week. Props Lu on the Sobchak comparison.

Yeah McKay, shut up about Israeli people. Nobody gives a **** besides you.

I don't even know why we're talking about politics when it's been revealed that Santino drinks sperm instead of milk. That's big news on the board that we don't see every day...

I just express things the way I percieve them. I never said to has to agree with the way I percieve and interpret things. However I ususally back up my assertations with logic and facts.

The thing about Cheney is speculation on your part dude.

ahahahahaha thats the funniest thing i've heard all week. Props Lu on the Sobchak comparison.

Yeah McKay, shut up about Israeli people. Nobody gives a **** besides you.

Shut up about considering yourself a connoiseurre of what people are and are not interested in.

He seems to be more passionate about Israel than others on the board, but it's not a blind obsession...

For example, how about Israel's role in the explosive-installation that led to the destruction of the towers on 9/11? The US and Israel's state of "cahoots" often troubles me as well. And those who try to use the Bible to villify those who dare say something wrong about Israel, don't understand the whole "God's chosen people" bit thoroughly...

The first thing you said about the explosive-installation that led to the twin towers discussion.....could you please clarify this?

THere are plenty of things not to like about Israel. But it isn't THEIR fault for everything.

=
. But it isn't THEIR fault for everything.

I think it is their fault for 95% of everything bad. From year 0 to year 2005.

The first thing you said about the explosive-installation that led to the twin towers discussion.....could you please clarify this?

THere are plenty of things not to like about Israel. But it isn't THEIR fault for everything.
I'll look up some article links if I have time. Otherwise, I'll have to get them up tomorrow. Gotta get ready for work...

Well, I'll give you a lil example that makes it easier for you to understand.

Let's say you own a big house with lots of TVs and a swimming pool. One day you wake up and some strangers sit on your couch and act like they could decide what TV programm to watch. After you have a heated argument you realize that you cant do anything against them because they are stronger than you. But because they're nice they allow you to live in the kitchen as long as you clean the bathroom twice a day and cook. Would you be happy or upset?


that's a totally different situation, you're trying to compare a house to a continent.

taking a **** on someone in their own house is one thing..that's an invasion of "personal privacy".. landing on a seemingly empty continent and building a settlement away from yours, is something else.

that's like saying allowing immigration to the US to this day is like eating a meal at your kitchen table and having someone take a piece of your steak while you aren't looking.

Shut up about considering yourself a connoiseurre of what people are and are not interested in.



nnnnnoooooo YOU shut up.

Neils,

Santino does what? :eek:

I'll look up some article links if I have time. Otherwise, I'll have to get them up tomorrow. Gotta get ready for work...

ARE YOU TRYING TO AVOID ME????

HA! YOU ARE ADMITTING I AM RIGHT AREN'T YOU???

PS - This is my impersonation of McKay in the Recent Bush thread that got sidetracked when Israel entered his fragile mind.

Yeah McKay, shut up about Israeli people. Nobody gives a **** besides you.

actually...other people do give a ****. only the ignorant masses don't give a ****. I always knew you were an ignorant audible cunt gringo.

props to mckay for squishing this ant with a sledgehammer

I'll look up some article links if I have time. Otherwise, I'll have to get them up tomorrow. Gotta get ready for work...
Here are some links for you, LuKahnLi. I'm sure there are people who dismiss everything contained within; I don't have time for discussion right now:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/111903Kupferberg/111903kupferberg.html

Here are some links for you, LuKahnLi. I'm sure there are people who dismiss everything contained within; I don't have time for discussion right now:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/111903Kupferberg/111903kupferberg.html


I will admit. On the surface that is interesting. I dunno about the airport ownership angle. The thing about the dudes in the van was suspicious.

If the Mossad is guilty of anything, it seems that they knew the Twin tower attacks were going to happen. And either warned the US, and the US ignored them. Or didn't warn the US.

I think the former is more likely. Because the Mossad would have been a WONDERFUL scapegoat for the right wing, to explain intelligence failures.

Also, I don't see in the articles independent confirmation that the men in the van were Mossad agents.

Anybody ever notice how Torino somehow incorporates the word "agenda" into every one of his posts when someone disagrees with him? He also uses "twist" a lot. Just an observation. I suppose that I'm just twisting this post to serve my own agenda about Torino's posts though. :D

Everyone has an agenda. Yours is still influenced by my proving your prediction about T.O. was wrong, several months ago. Let it go, you were wrong. It's ok, it happens sometimes. There is no need for you to carry this burden of sadness within yourself any longer

Everyone has an agenda. Yours is still influenced by my proving your prediction about T.O. was wrong, several months ago. Let it go, you were wrong. It's ok, it happens sometimes. There is no need for you to carry this burden of sadness within yourself any longer


What'd you really prove though? I predicted the game perfectly and said that The Pats would win a close game...and I'm a big Pats fan.

I also said that TO would have an impact on the game, you said the opposite...I think 9 catches for 120+ yards or whatever he got is an impact, you don't.

I think that's pretty close to what happened. Oh yeah and then you started harping on me for saying that the Pats secondary was small.

What'd you really prove though? I predicted the game perfectly and said that The Pats would win a close game...and I'm a big Pats fan.

I also said that TO would have an impact on the game, you said the opposite...I think 9 catches for 120+ yards or whatever he got is an impact, you don't.

I think that's pretty close to what happened. Oh yeah and then you started harping on me for saying that the Pats secondary was small.

LOLLOL!!

Wow, you do remember. :D You don't have the memory of an oldgringo.

My exact words were "T.O. won't win the game for the Eagles" and "T.O. won't have an impact on the OUTCOME of the game". After all this time your still trying to change what I said. I never said T.O. won't play well.

You said he would have an impact on the outcome of the game. The Eagles lost, and you were wrong then and you are now.

Oh, and it wasn't the Pats secondary, It was Hines Ward you said was small. :D

LOLLOL!!

Wow, you do remember. :D You don't have the memory of an oldgringo.

My exact words were "T.O. won't win the game for the Eagles" and "T.O. won't have an impact on the OUTCOME of the game". After all this time your still trying to change what I said. I never said T.O. won't play well.

You said he would have an impact on the outcome of the game. The Eagles lost, and you were wrong then and you are now.

Oh, and it wasn't the Pats secondary, It was Hines Ward you said was small. :D



I find it funny that I contradicted myself like that then...because I did predict the exact score and outcome of the game perfectly...including how the touchdowns were made and so on. Having an impact on the outcome of the game doesn't necessarily mean winning the game does it?

Deion Branch didn't score at all, and he had a lot of big catches (like TO) and in fact was the MVP of the SB. Would you say that he didn't have an impact on the outcome of the game either since he didn't score? Would TO have had an impact on the outcome of the game if he had the same numbers but the Eagles won? Answer that please.

Well, sorry to dissapoint you son but neither your statement nor your example are completly true.

In fact you show a pretty naive understanding of politics. I'd be the first to be happy if it was that way though.
I always think of this whenever this guy (Santino-NOT The Dude) submits his political views.
Imagine if PBS gave Barney the Dinosaur a couple of hours every day to offer his take on world politics and their economic impact on the average man.
Of course Barney would be more savvy and communicate his ideas with a little more clarity.

I find it funny that I contradicted myself like that then...because I did predict the exact score and outcome of the game perfectly...including how the touchdowns were made and so on. Having an impact on the outcome of the game doesn't necessarily mean winning the game does it?

Deion Branch didn't score at all, and he had a lot of big catches (like TO) and in fact was the MVP of the SB. Would you say that he didn't have an impact on the outcome of the game either since he didn't score? Would TO have had an impact on the outcome of the game if he had the same numbers but the Eagles won? Answer that please.

AGAIN the argument was...."T.O. won't win the game for the Eagles" and "T.O. won't have an impact on the OUTCOME of the game". These two sentences were used in the same Paragraph.

You replied by saying that T.O. would be the difference in the game against the Patriots smaller secondary. Which I didn't argue with you about their size, but that T.O. won't make a difference in the outcome of the game.

You disagreed.

And, I would say that all the Patriots that participated in them winning had an impact on the outcome of the game.

The Eagles lost, so it didn't matter if T.O. played or not. That was the argument.
T.O. didn't win the game for the Eagles and he didn't have an impact on the outcome of the game. The Eagles lost.

The criteria wasn't if he or Deion scored or not. It was that one man (T.O.) won't win the game for the Eagles.

Now you will reply with something else to try to deny it. At the very least, you misunderstood my post.

Man this is old, I really don't feel like going over this again.

AGAIN the argument was...."T.O. won't win the game for the Eagles" and "T.O. won't have an impact on the OUTCOME of the game". These two sentences were used in the same Paragraph.

You replied by saying that T.O. would be the difference in the game against the Patriots smaller secondary. Which I didn't argue with you about their size, but that T.O. won't make a difference in the outcome of the game.

You disagreed.

And, I would say that all the Patriots that participated in them winning had an impact on the outcome of the game.

The Eagles lost, so it didn't matter if T.O. played or not. That was the argument.
T.O. didn't win the game for the Eagles and he didn't have an impact on the outcome of the game. The Eagles lost.

The criteria wasn't if he or Deion scored or not. It was that one man (T.O.) won't win the game for the Eagles.

Now you will reply with something else to try to deny it. At the very least, you misunderstood my post.

Man this is old, I really don't feel like going over this again.

So it's all about winning and losing? Then you're saying that McNabb had no impact on the final outcome of the game either?

I guess there was just a difference of opinion on what impacting the outcome of the game is. I disagreed with you saying that TO would have no impact on the outcome game...I didn't necessarily mean final score. Why would I go so far out of my way to make the point that TO would in fact have an impact on the outcome of the game if I knew/predicted/whathaveyou that the Pats were going to win?

If TO hadn't played in that game, then the Eagles probably would have lost by a wider margin and that's all guesswork, but his catches did have an impact in the game.

And 6'0 is smallish for an NFL wideout...regardless if you're 210 or not.

AGAIN the argument was...."T.O. won't win the game for the Eagles" and "T.O. won't have an impact on the OUTCOME of the game". These two sentences were used in the same Paragraph.

You replied by saying that T.O. would be the difference in the game against the Patriots smaller secondary. Which I didn't argue with you about their size, but that T.O. won't make a difference in the outcome of the game.

You disagreed.

And, I would say that all the Patriots that participated in them winning had an impact on the outcome of the game.

The Eagles lost, so it didn't matter if T.O. played or not. That was the argument.
T.O. didn't win the game for the Eagles and he didn't have an impact on the outcome of the game. The Eagles lost.

The criteria wasn't if he or Deion scored or not. It was that one man (T.O.) won't win the game for the Eagles.

Now you will reply with something else to try to deny it. At the very least, you misunderstood my post.

Man this is old, I really don't feel like going over this again.


Yes but I didn't mean that it was going to win the game for the Eagles. Just that it would put them in a position to win, which they had, and McNabb couldn't convert.

...You feeling alright Neils?? You must be bored as hell




yeah really. it seems
like this website is all
that he has in life.

So it's all about winning and losing? Then you're saying that McNabb had no impact on the final outcome of the game either?

I guess there was just a difference of opinion on what impacting the outcome of the game is. I disagreed with you saying that TO would have no impact on the outcome game...I didn't necessarily mean final score. Why would I go so far out of my way to make the point that TO would in fact have an impact on the outcome of the game if I knew/predicted/whathaveyou that the Pats were going to win?

If TO hadn't played in that game, then the Eagles probably would have lost by a wider margin and that's all guesswork, but his catches did have an impact in the game.

And 6'0 is smallish for an NFL wideout...regardless if you're 210 or not.

Deion Branch 5'9", Troy Brown 5'10", David Patten 5'10" .... That's a "smallish" NFL wideout.

Hines Ward at 6' is, at the very least, average.

I really don't want to continue talking about that game, even though you still refuse to admit you were wrong, it's over.

How about next year, Dallas/Atlanta in the NFC championship? New England/San Diego in the AFC?

TO was the reason the eagles were even in the game by the 4th quarter

THe USA came into being because the people who lived here were sick of being shaken down by King George. Slavery and Indian Giving, while it DID happen, had little bearing on the actual revolution of the people of this country against the British.

And the number of Rebels DID outnumber the loyalists in this country.

Sorry to take the discussion away from football, but I was reading the dicussion between Santino, LuKahnLi and Dude and it seems like you guys missed one obvious point: political change is usually enacted usually only when the rich and powerful make it happen.

Look the American Revolution. The political, military and philospohical underpinnings of it were developed a group of elite landowners. As for the 1917 Russian Revolution, well all of the key communist party members belonged to the upper classes. And the 1991 downfall of communism was supported by burgeoning capitalists in Russia.

In China change can't happen because there are no elites that are so unsatisfied that they want to see the government overthrown. In the Spanish civil war the rich were mostly on Franco's side, so they won.

I'm not saying that regular people can't change things, but if they do they better get some rich people on their side.

Deion Branch 5'9", Troy Brown 5'10", David Patten 5'10" .... That's a "smallish" NFL wideout.

Hines Ward at 6' is, at the very least, average.

I really don't want to continue talking about that game, even though you still refuse to admit you were wrong, it's over.

How about next year, Dallas/Atlanta in the NFC championship? New England/San Diego in the AFC?


Eagles/Vikings - NFC

Pats/Colts or Chargers - AFC

The Chargers really haven't upped their defense all that much and that could still be their achilles heel. However I do like that they will be able to have LaDanian, Brees, Gates, and McCardell all together meshing for an entire season. Gates is going to draw a lot more attention now and that'll open up the outsides where McCardell and Caldwell can do more damage. I also expect LaDanian to have more successful runs to the outside.

I think that the Pats and the Eagles are still locks for the AFC/NFC championship games.

The Vikings are the other best team in the NFC ON PAPER this year. I might be kicking myself later on because I've said this stuff about the Seahawks and the Bills in the past couple of years. Their defense is now VERY solid and they have a good mix of speed and toughness at all positions.

Front 4 on defense is a good mix of speed/power with the two Williams' in the middle plugging the gaps (both pro-bowlers), young star Udeze in the making who provides speed, and a vet in Lance Johnstone who can play the left and right ends in case Scott doesn't work out.

The Vikes have about 5 linebackers who can really play. Cowart will hold down the middle so long as he's healthy, Harris could be a potential pro-bowl linebacker, Dontarrious Thomas is extremely athletic and provides speed on the outside. Newman and Henderson provide a lot of depth and could come in for 3-4 situations.

The Secondary is where they are the best though. Fred Smoot and Antoine Winfield at the corners provide a mix of good man up coverage and strong tackling on outside leaks in the open field.
I'd go so far as to say that Winfield is the best tackling corner in the league right now. Sharper is a probowler who needs very little discussion and Chavous has had a few good 80+ tackle years. Their nickleback is a good player in Brian Williams who had a great year in 2003.

Of course they still have a good offense. Bennett and Williams will get it done in the backfield and Jermaine Wiggins proved he can be a reliable target at the TE spot. I think they'll still put up nice numbers with Burleson, Williamson, and Taylor at the wideouts.

I'll probably be very wrong but hey who knows.

yeah really. it seems
like this website is all
that he has in life.

What am I, a troll magnet? I turn this guy down for my lounge, and all of a sudden I've got Bad K from him, profanity-filled PMs - who are all of these people that just show up and cause trouble directed at me? I've never had a conversation with this guy in my life... johnny swift, techn9ne, automatik, slickhook, (V)anny P, Anorak, now this guy...lol

What am I, a troll magnet? I turn this guy down for my lounge, and all of a sudden I've got Bad K from him, profanity-filled PMs - who are all of these people that just show up and cause trouble directed at me? I've never had a conversation with this guy in my life... johnny swift, techn9ne, automatik, slickhook, (V)anny P, Anorak, now this guy...lol


i aint got a problem with you dog.
i was just sayin you gotta put more
thought into threads, come on dog
this thread was just cus you was bored.
you know its true just put more thought
into it. aint no beef comin from here
dog.