I have a theory

you're not using numbers, you're using a snide approach to get your point accross, it isnt apreciated, I'm not dogging you bro, I'm just tryin to shed some light for ya so you wont look like a bigger *** than you already do.
 
jdub2k4 said:
23
YES

Also, to say that someone is a moron or lacks morals just because of their age or because they think Owens will make the Cowboys a more complete team is totally unfair and a poor judgement of character. In fact, it is my morals that makes me believe in Owens, because I believe in 2nd chances, even 3rd chances if the circumstances are right.
There were no generalizations made about the answers in this poll.

The "moronic" term was used to describe the poll itself.
 
mschmidt64 said:
The case has no constitutional support at all. It's a sham.

Any other interpretation is simple usurpation.

Ahh, so that is what your Con Law professor taught you. Which law school are you at, by the way?

And I'm really not going to waste my time arguing the case with some posturing 1L when I'm quite certain your understanding of any of the words you said goes about an inch deep.

Out of all the cases in this world that you would complain about and use as a signature on football forum, that you would choose that one is very telling. It smacks of a desperate attempt to show bona fides from some kid. "Come hear my opinions about a trivial and vestigial case in Con law!"
 
Qwickdraw said:
There were no generalizations made about the answers in this poll.

The "moronic" term was used to describe the poll itself.

I am not talking about in this poll. I am talking in general about comments others have previously made.
 
cobra said:
Ahh, so that is what your Con Law professor taught you. Which law school are you at, by the way?

And I'm really not going to waste my time arguing the case with some posturing 1L when I'm quite certain your understanding of any of the words you said goes about an inch deep.

Out of all the cases in this world that you would complain about and use as a signature on football forum, that you would choose that one is very telling. It smacks of a desperate attempt to show bona fides from some kid. "Come hear my opinions about a trivial and vestigial case in Con law!"

Now you are just baiting him. IF he walks into your trap I will have to reconsider my already low opinion of him!
 
mschmidt64 said:
Feel free to suggest another word that conveys the idea, "Mind-numbingly inaccurate."

How about waiting to see the end product.

It would appear by this threads responses that there are younger people who don't want him and older people that do.

So why not say it is just wrong?
 
HeavyHitta31 said:
IMO, TO is a loser, and always will be. I dont want him, however I have accepted the fact that TO likely will be a Cowboy, and if he is, I will hope the best for him. If he dominates like he did in Philly and leads us to a SB, I will still hate him, but it will hav ebeen worth it.


Your 20. You can post again when your 25. Its either that or its off to your room young man. Now let the adults talk.


35 yrs

Yes to T.O

I cant stand the guy and his past but I know for a fact he can get this team over the hump its been in since Michael retired. We have to have the weapons and what better weapon to have than him. You cant argue his game. You just hate the player.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Sure I have.


Produce the evidence to support you statements. At that point, we can all agree that you have done your due diligence.
 
36 years

wanted Key to stay, since he is gone, now i would hope for TO to come here, though i wont be upset if it doersnt happen
 
Qwickdraw said:
PLease post

1) your age

and

2) yes or no to T.O.


1) 27
2) NO FREAKIN WAY

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love theory.

1.) 32
2.) Sí
 
1)30+
2) no to T.O.(his age and attitude and worse, he would make Bledsoe look better than he is)
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
465,291
Messages
13,863,814
Members
23,788
Latest member
mattyice
Back
Top