Injun Summer lol

[QUOTE=Matt?;14081832]ROFL, what was he suppose to be all cheerey? Grossman is completely full of himself and so unaware of the fact that he actually ISN'T a great quaterback.

it's completely different to be upset after losing a big game, but to be a dick after winning a game leaves a bad taste in my mouth[/QUOTE]

I don't expect him to be cheery, I expect him to act like a damn professional. This whole season has made him look like an 8 year old, first where he wouldn't even refer to Eric Mangini by name because he was so pissed the dude took an offer to be a head coach. Bellicheck if he didn't have Tom Brady in my opinion wouldn't be s[size="2"]h[/size]it, compare the two's playoff records.

He wasn't full of himself, he was f[size="2"]uc[/size]king happy because [B]everybody[/B] sh[SIZE="2"]i[/SIZE]ts on the Bears. If you think that he was "trying to avoid making mistakes" as being full of himself then dream on dude, he realizes that when he get's under pressure he has a lot of trouble. One thing though Grossman did lead the league for games in the regular season with a 100+ QB rating, granted he also lead it with ratings under 50 I believe, but if you think about it this way, Grossman had no playing time his first or second season (rookie and injury) and about 3 games last year because of injury so this experience wise is his second year and if you look at stats and such he's doing a fu[SIZE="2"]c[/SIZE]king phenomenal job for his experience.

he openly said that he didn't play well one game because he partied the night before.

that isn't the performance of a good quaterback

[QUOTE=srt-4;14083791]ya, i don't think its the government's job to legislate morality either, but subject to mill's harm principle. this isn’t simply an issue of morality; this is an issue of harm to society. violent video games act as operant conditioning in the same manner as military training methods that very successfully turn civilians into killers. that’s scary. the same goes for violence in movies, and to a lesser extent music, except that its classical conditioning instead of operant. the government very much has a role in dealing with dangers to society. another way to look at it is in terms of free market economics. to save me the writing and to provide what is, i’m sure, a better explanation, i’ll just post a link to this decent explanation: [url]http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/externalities/what_are_externalities.htm[/url]. the case of violent material is one of an externality, as the cost to society of the increased violence is not taken into account in the price of the material. its like free market economics 101 that the role of the government is to take specific action to correct market failures.

also, i really don’t see how preventing minors from purchasing mature-rated materials is interfering with parents raising their children. parents could still purchase the material for their children if they wanted the children to have it.

as far as politicians go, i think he is a pretty good one, and i agree with many of his positions. he seems to be a pretty legit guy. he follows his beliefs and appears to be above much of the partisan pettiness and corruption of washington. i personally haven’t read him say his main reason for taking the stand against violence in the media is because its against his personal beliefs. i've read him say that it is because he believes it is doing harm to kids. but if what you said is indeed the case, then i would disagree with that reasoning. hell, at the end of the day, you might be right. maybe he is a tight ***, but i still think he would be a good president.[/QUOTE]

Look at how many copies of the main scapegoat of the violent video game debate (Grand Theft Auto) have been sold then look at the number of violent youth acts. They're so small they can be known as anomalies, it's up to parents to teach their children that shooting people is f[size="2']u[/size]cked. The games have those damn ratings for a reason to indicate that these games have some violent material, that being said I've been playing the GTA series since I was about 10 when my older brother bought number 2 for the Dreamcast and COMMON SENSE told me that killing people is wrong and I never thought of re-enacting what I saw. Parents need to stop blaming entertainment products and start stepping up their main job as a person for the 18 years that child lives with them BEING A PARENT. Blaming a video game for making someone's little Jonny go psycho is like blaming McDonald's for making you obese; take some god damn responsibility for your own actions.

[QUOTE=Matt?;14085680]he openly said that he didn't play well one game because he partied the night before.[/QUOTE]

Yes he did, but at least he accepted that he made a f[SIZE="2"]u[/SIZE]cking error.

Matt I'm not saying he is some great quarterback but right now he is doing just fine. Let me put it this way I like Rex Grossman but I know there are better quarterbacks out there.

Also in response to your edit, Rex was dumb enough to admit it. If you think there are quarterbacks who have had off days because they partied the night before or looking forward to a party that night then you are delusional.

it's not good sportsmanship. sure the game didn't matter but it sure made him look like a fool to everyone who already isn't a fan of the bears.

it doesn't matter qb's can party all they want but the night before a game really gives you no shred of humility at all

Well it wasn't before the game, that game was played on New Year's eve.

ughh that's even worse

[QUOTE=pixiesfanyo;14083780]Gav, Bright Eyes suck.

Quit putting them in your AIM profile and acting like you're profound.[/QUOTE]

No, I just like Bright Eyes.

Tool.

i thought that video was kinda boring tbh.

never could get into his voice

[QUOTE=I0Played0Bass;14085869]No, I just like Bright Eyes.

Tool.[/QUOTE]

What's wrong with liking Bright Eyes these days?

It's not hardcore.

Jared is just a loser.

Matt: I like the video. I think the ending result is a really cool picture if you look into it.

[QUOTE=whiteminority;14085959]What's wrong with liking Bright Eyes these days?[/QUOTE]

Sucks?

[QUOTE=whiteminority;14085959]What's wrong with liking Bright Eyes these days?[/QUOTE]

I like me some Bright Eyes.

I like a couple Bright Eyes songs.

I dont really like Bright Eyes at all.

i want a cobert i don't hafta luv

RO[size=2]F[/size]L

[QUOTE=Luxor;14086037]Sucks?[/QUOTE]

Nah man.

[QUOTE=cobert;14086823]I dont really like Bright Eyes at all.[/QUOTE]

Cobabe...

Cobhate.

Its not that I dislike him, Im just not interested in his music. It kind of bores me.

it's something vague that cob's not seeing

[QUOTE=cobert;14086959]Its not that I dislike him, Im just not interested in his music. It kind of bores me.[/QUOTE]

I understand.

[QUOTE=srt-4;14083886]i’m not saying that you [I]are[/I], but you kind of come off as a little blinded by party politics.

i’m pretty sure the guy responsible for the cole bombing was killed after 9/11 by the bush administration as part of the war on terror. and i think i remember there being a fuss from some on the left about it being “illegal.”

and as far as not entangling us in places we shouldn’t be. well, i am going to "throw black hawk down in your face", but not because he pulled our forces out, but because we should have never been there. i really don’t understand “the islamist extremists were more formidable than we could have imagined.” the operation in somalia was a humanitarian mission. we were there to stop interference with aid deliveries to starving somalis. it had nothing to do with fighting islamists. our national interest was not concerned there, and therefore there was no reason to put our troops in harms way. the same goes for kosovo and bosnia. we should have never been there. the exact opposite of him not entangling us in places we shouldn’t have been. also, under clinton’s presidency, we had forces in iraq. so, if you say iraq (maybe the middle east as a whole? you haven’t really been clear on this) is some place we shouldn’t be, and clinton ordered operations there, how can you say he didn’t put us in places we shouldn’t have been?

i really don’t understand how you can say iraq is some place we shouldn’t have been, though. by what criteria are you determining that? by realpolitik, it most certainly is. our national well-being is very concerned in iraq. by humanitarian standards (which i reject, but you seem to embrace by your approval of kosovo, which i’ll add was undertaken without UN approval) we also should have been there, considering the actions of hussein’s regime. the fact of the matter is that the middle east was, and is, perhaps the most critical area of the world concerning our national interest, and iraq was one of the biggest issues in the region. however, i can certainly understand, and agree in some points, with criticism of and disagreement with the actions that were taken regarding iraq. but saying it is somewhere we should never have been entangled is way off base in my opinion.

you laid out a defense of clinton from an attack which you seem to have expected, but i never made. i don’t blame clinton for what happened. there is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 would have happened with any likely president instead serving clinton or bush’s term(s). the entire nation neglected terrorism. it was seen as a minor threat by civilian agencies, by the military, by elected leaders, and by the population as a whole. 9/11 is what it took for us to wake up to the threat. similarly, i think it is ridiculous to try to lay the blame on the bush administration. the idea that the bush administration was handed some perfect plan to deal with terrorism and briefed to the imminent danger that was posed to this nation and completely disregarded this and allowed 9/11 to happen is silly. neither party deserves the majority blame for what happened. there is more than enough blame to go around to everyone. what is important is moving forward and learning from and correcting our mistakes. there is more than enough work to be done in that area to keep us occupied without wasting so much effort at endless finger pointing.[/QUOTE]

My mistake, he was killed by the Bush Administration.

I don't know, it seems like we're going to get into an argument of semantics, when do we interfere and when do we not, you know? Having troops in Iraq during Clinton's administration isn't the same as what is going on now. In Kosovo, Clinton was working behind NATO, which is a lot different than defying the UN blatantly like we did in Iraq. Again, it's semantics, sure it they both defied the UN but at least by acting as part of the NATO force, there was less chance of long term and large scale commitment. Hey, maybe it was just luck that we went in and out of Kosovo so fast and Bush is stuck in Iraq, but being a Democrat, I gotta point more effective military strategy. As far as humanitarian cause, again, it all goes back to semantics. Humanitarian doesn't mean supporting every thing, risk and the seriousness of the event must be assessed. Darfur, 400,000 dead, 2 million displaced, Kosovo, 850,000 displaced. These things are pretty imminent humanitarian conflicts to me. And similarly, both of these regions are in political disarray. Now, I've never been able to establish a real number for how many people Saddam supposedly killed. Sure he suppressed but the government was stable and suppression exists everywhere. I simply don't see Iraq as a serious enough conflict for us to be involved, an the UN didn't think so either (I know, they didn't think Kosovo was either). Sure, their were the reasons of WMDs and the harboring of Al Qaeda but time has proven both of these accusations to be false. The War In Iraq is a big mess but the hypocrisy that goes on within foreign policy just makes it all the more upsetting. North Korea is clearly a more imminent threat, Darfur is clearly more imminent (UN think so on this one), even Iran is more imminent. The reason we're in Iraq is for oil. George W. Bush lied to the American public from day one. There were no WMDs, Saddam was not harboring Al Qaeda, and the mission sure as hell wasn't accomplished in 2003.

As far as the Clinton thing, I didn't mean to attack you man (preemptive strike heheh). You're the smartest guy on here in regards to politics and you definitely have me on a couple of those points. I definitely need to think this stuff over. In the mean time, I wait for your response.

So, anyone else like [I]Reds[/I]?

um dropping by here for the first time... i cant wait for funeral for a friend's new album.

cant say im a fan of ffaf, seen them a few times as they are local. they dont belong in this forum though, try the pop punk forum mate.

[QUOTE=Spiritofmosa;14092169]um dropping by here for the first time... i cant wait for funeral for a friend's new album.[/QUOTE]

Talk about them in the pop-punk forum. They are neither hardcore nor emo.

FFAF is OK, though. Some of their songs are SO BORING but every once in a while there's a pretty cool song in there.

love the riff at the beginning of the art of american football by ffaf. just finished watching the fugazi dvd. pretty damn good.

[QUOTE=Spiritofmosa;14092169]um dropping by here for the first time... i cant wait for funeral for a friend's new album.[/QUOTE]

They aren't emo, n00b. lol j/k they suck, though.