Seeing that it takes you three years to come up with these replies, I am flattered, yet disappointed. Google couldn't do any better than this?

In a single post, you manage to admit that you don't have an argument at all, convert from flip-flopper to Centrist Democrat, and remind me why I call you the "five-tool bitch ass nigga."

>Nigga please. You said "So, yes, Aaron Brooks might actually
>make a trillion worse decisons than Drew Bledsoe. I just
>happen to find those hard to focus on when:", and then listed
>your "evidence" for his awareness; that is recognizing that he
>makes tons of mistakes, and then making excuses for why you
>don't think they matter. So stop lying already.

Err.

No.

That is a sarcastic pun at your inability to provide me actual evidence that Aaron Brooks is relatively unaware. Again, he could, in theory, be half as unaware as Drew Bledsoe. Problem is, nothing in the actual game of football backs that up, at least in the evidence that you have provided.

But this gets better....

>But is all that evidence of "awareness" specifically, or
>rather overall effectiveness? See, I could make the same
>argument for Favre - over the last 4 seasons Favre threw less
>picks per TD, threw for more yards, threw at a significantly
>higher completion percentage, was sacked half as much, and won
>alot more games than Brooks. Yet you said that Favre having
>higher awareness numbers doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at
>all, when according to the very criteria you cited it does.

Aha.

But here is where you are wrong.

Brett Favre does not have an awareness rating in the 90s.

Aaron Brooks does.

Brett Favre does not have an awareness rating lower than Patrick Ramsey. Or Eli Manning. Aaron Brooks, does.

Brett Favre's awareness rating was held to a different standard than Aaron Brooks'.

That was actually part of the point.

>And therein lies the problem with relying on those statistics
>for judging "awareness"; Favre still puts up great numbers
>across the board, but does that mean he's been showing great
>"awareness" as of late? I think we can all agree that is not
>the case. Which means that those numbers you're basing your
>argument on don't necessarily make a compelling assessment of
>"awareness."

Oh?

Recall for me where I said that statistics were the only way to judge "awareness?"

I'm listening.

You can't?

Oh, so you're lying?

What else is new.

Lol.

>For the millionth time: my argument was not to prove that
>Brooks is unaware, it was to prove that your evidence was
>unconvincing.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are the biggest PUSSY ON EARTH!!!

MOTHAFUCKA, GIVE ME A REAL WAY...A REAL WAY...ONE THAT I HAVEN'T SUGGESTED ALREADY, TO GAUGE "AWARENESS???"

YOUR BITCH ASS CONJURED *TWO* plays to argue for why Brooks was unaware.

Amazing, because NEITHER PLAY was as dumb as HALF OF BRETT FAVRE'S INTERCEPTIONS, or the ERRANT LAUCH WHICH COST THEM A SUPERBOWL BIRTH A FEW YEARS AGO!!!Amazing, because Tom Brady SINGLE HANDEDLY LOST A GAME with a single play LAST YEAR.

But that is besides the POINT: SINGLE PLAYS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

"Awareness" is to be judged COMPREHENSIVELY.

And your bitch, pussy ass hasn't provided a motherfucking GRAIN OF EVIDENCE AT ALL.

You simply don't like me, and felt the need to try and hate, even though you admittedly don't have an argument at all.


>THAT IS ALL.

You got damn right it is.

Non-argument having motherfucker.

You mean to tell me, your entire presence in this thread is to remind me that my awareness criteria is less than perfect? Odd because your awareness criteria or NON EXISTENT. You haven't argued AT ALL. I've at least ATTEMPTED to have discourse about it.

You see, YOU AGREE that the rankings are racist.

Problem is, in order to AGREE WITH THAT you must provide EVIDENCE FOR WHY the rankings are OFF BALANCE.

*I* have attempted to do that.

*YOU* havent.

>See, you didn't merely argue against the 17% difference, you
>said Brooks is *no less aware* than Bledsoe. THAT IS ALL I WAS
>FUCKING TALKING ABOUT. Jesus Christ you are a dense
>motherfucker.

Oh?

So Bledsoe is more aware than Brooks? I'm open to that interpretation.

Good.

Fresh, clean slate.

Now provide me some evidence for the claim.

If you cannot, than you are still a bitch ass nigga.

>'Twan, you seem to be dwelling on thoughts of suicide alot.
>Call the hotline - please. They have some very nice people
>there who can help you with your emotional problems.

Stole my joke and lame-i-fied it.

*shrugs*

If you notice, I'm keeping my clowning relegated to your (non) arguments. I'll try to leave personal shit out of it...prolly won't last long, but I'll try.

>And I can point to the fact that Simms played on a FAR
>superior team, had a FAR better offensive line protecting him
>than O'Brien, and played behind a DOMINATING defense that
>allowed him to play in a smart ball-control offense, while
>O'Brien played behind a shitty defense where he was
>continually forced to try to make things happen offensively.

Cool. Ken O'Brien did have it rough.

>Oh, so Simms *did* have a great reciever who put up big
>numbers after all? I thought he was throwing to a bunch of
>scrubs.

Actually, he had a great tight end. And not a big play tight end. But a guy who could catch the 8 yard dump pattern and drag tacklers.

Not a guy who could stretch a defense(Wesley Walker) or go over the middle and snag anything(AL Toon).

Admit it, I'm nice.

>(And btw, are you related to the Winslows or something? Cuz
>you jock them like they bought you a house and a Benz and
>shit)

Uh.

Winslow Sr is by far the most talented receiving Tight End in league history(with all due respect to Shannon Sharpe and Ozzie Newsome).

He actually *deserves* the respect.

>But I thought that I "pigeonhole everyone with politics left
>of yours as a "radical" and fling sappy, commercial,
>publically approved commentary with regularity"?

Oh yeah, you do that regularly.

You just made the mistake of openly agreeing with me in this thread.

You didn't even mean to. You just couldn't find anything to disagree with, and were backing down like a bitch early in this exchange. I caught it.

>I'm picturing the DeNiro talking to himself in the mirror
>scene from Taxi Driver right now. Except your acting is much,
>much, much less believable.

That wasn't funny. Just a note.

>For someone who decries pidgeonholeing people, you certainly
>do it a heck of alot.

Difference:

I summarize regions of the country based on actual events and history.

You pigeonhole based on your inability to effectively counter anything I argue.

Just like in this thread.

>Funny, I don't recall saying you claimed race was the sole
>factor. But you did think race was a factor, right? You simply
>forgot the part where Boggs hit almost 20 points higher in
>that decade, which obviates any further need to explain the
>discrepancy. But its more fun when you lie AND make retarded
>arguments at the same time.

Er.

I didn't say race was a factor.

On Tillman....

>And once again, he was on the Afghan-Pakistani border - are
>you saying there were never any terrorists there? And if not,
>then what the fuck are you even saying, bitch?

Don't semi-lie.

Lie.

Say that I said there were no terrorists on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

>Uh, no, you are pissing on WWII Veteran graves by belittling
>being KIA by friendly fire - approximately 21,000 WWII
>Veterans' graves in fact (probably more). Not to mention WWI,
>Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc.

Good. Back to lying.

When did I specifically belittle the act of being Killed in Action?

I'm talking about Tillman's decision to drop work, his family, and vollunteer for a military operation where the intentions of the US involvement were far less than pristine.

This is a *little* bit different than 18 year old kids being shipped out there because they've enlisted with the hope of getting doe for college.

And a *little bit* different than thousands of Americans being drafted to fight a military power that swallows European nations.

And a *little bit* different than kids drafted to fight in a "skirmish" to quell the spread of communism.

And you are a *lot bit* of a fucking pansy bitch with political views worse than your sports views.


I'm nice.


>Thanks for the history lesson, professor. But Hirohito was the
>one dangerously close to conquering Asia, and we didn't go to
>war with Germany to stop Hitler from killing the Jews. Try
>getting your history lessons from more reliable sources than
>Speilberg movies.

Wow.

You're an idiot.

So I guess the whole 'Stalingrad' battle wasn't that big of a deal then.

Just a note:
Stalingrad was such an important battle, a tide-turner, because it halted Hitler's eastward advance. If Hitler had captured Stalingrad, Russia would have fallen much easier, and with Russian under Nazi Germany, most of the rest of Asia would have been far easier to conquer. Far easier. Its not even up for debate. Russia was the portal to Asia.

Asshole.

Oh, and you lied again. I actually didn't say that we went to war specifically because Hitler was killing Jews. I only pointed that detail out to remind you that an 18 year old kid being drafted to fight hilter and being KIA is different than a rich guy vollunteering to invade Afghanistan under the Bush administration. The two situations aren't comparable.

But that is almost irrelevant because I actually *said* I mourned for Tillman.

What I said was I'm not buying the whole "American hero"..."SI Sportsman of the Year" bullshit.

That is what I actually said.

But let's not start telling the truth now.

>LOL @ this emo-hoe ass nigga trying to get his e-thug on.
>Straight comedy.

No, I'm actually quite serious. All this homo shit talking has got to lead to somewhere. I say we box or something.

>"Ramboesque machismo stunt" is pissing on his grave.

No, it isn't. Pointing out a bad decision and calling what it is does not mean that Tillman *deserved* to die. He didn't. Not at all.

I'm merely calling bad behavior, bad behavior.

The outcome of that behavior shouldn't change how we perceive the behavior.

You see, this is why Orbit_Established is so difficult to dupe politically--he stays consistent.

You, on the otherhand, have the backbone of a Jellyfish. You don't call shit how it is, unless white America informs you that its the right way to go. Like the Tillman case -- there is NO REASON ON EARTH that he should get SI Sportsman of the year.

NONE.

NONE.

Even if your respect the act of one striving to achieve something outside the realm of monetary gain or fame(which I openly have), that is no excuse to behave as if Tillman's acts went on in a political vacuum.

Admit it. I'm right.

> Other
>people were able to make much more eloquent and compelling
>criticisms of the situation without resorting to juvenile
>pejoratives.

"Juvenile pejoratives."

So its my wording that's wrong now, not my argument?

I get it.

Continue to change your argument as you observe mine strengthening.

>Wait, so did or did not Al Qaeda in fact carry out the 9/11
>attacks? Did or did not Afghanistan harbor Bin Laden and Al
>Qaeda? Did or did not the Taliban refuse to hand them over?
>This isn't concocting non-existant WMD in Iraq, there were in
>fact very logical reasons to go into Afghanistan.

*applause*

Okay. We're getting somewhere now.

I disagree, but I can at least disagree with a run-of-the-mill centrist Democrat, not the flip-flopper that you've been in the past.

Cool.

>Wow, you actually admit that there's a terror network now!
>Good, that's a start.

Lie.

This is what I mean.

When you are unable to actually debate me, you've got to resort to this.

O_E never said there was not a terrorist network, faggot.

>The CIA intelligence itself is actually
>pretty good (what's done with that intelligence is another
>story),

Uh.

That all fits under the umbrella of "intelligence."

"Intelligence" ain't "Intelligent" if the information is fumbled around and allowed to sit and go bad on a kitchen counter, you dumb hooker.

>and it understood that Afghanistan was in fact the
>nerve center of the terror network. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan
>was in fact a valid strategic target.

I could have told you that 8 years ago.

>Now, the way the war in Afghanistan has been conducted is
>problematic to say the least,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

YOU.ARE.THE.FLIP.FLOPPIEST.POLITICAL.BACKBONELESS.HOOKER.I.HAVE.EVER.
SEEN.EVER.

Motherfucker, "the way the war in Afghanistan has been conducted" IS PART OF THE PROBLEM YOU FUCKING IMBECILE. THAT IS THE MAJOR POINT OF CONTENTION.

ANYONE CAN MAKE THE BLANKET STATEMENT:


Al-Qaeda did 9/11.
Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.
Let's go into Afghanistan.


But unfortunately for simplistic dickheads like you, the story ISN'T THAT FUCKING SIMPLE.

There is that little problem called:

*HOW* the operation was carried out, and WHAT THE *HOW* communicates
ABOUT THE INTENTIONS OF THE INVASION, THE THINKING OF THE ADMINISTRATION WHO PLANNED THE INVASION.

Its really not different than the Iraq war in that sense.

Sadaam Hussein is a homicidal, diabolical tyrant and the world is better off without him running any country, let alone a huge, oil-rich country in a strategic location.

Going by those FACTS there *WAS* a reason to go into Iraq.

The problem was not only the *REASONS* but the *WAY* the Iraq was was STARTED, the lies used to rationalize it, etc.

The *HOW* communicates A LOT about the event.

>but people saying that there
>were no valid reasons to go into Afghanistan are either true
>pacifists (which I can respect) or incredibly naive (which
>doesn't particularly bother me either, unless they're of the
>obnoxious self-righteous variety like you)

No, most people recognize that Afghanistan is a less than great place, and the Taliban was a less-than-great government that none of us would miss.

What most opponents understand is that a *REASON* to go into Afghanistan was the *BEGINNNING*. The *HOW* is often just as important. And according to you, there were problems with the *HOW*

>Yes, and not a one of them got drafted. They all enlisted
>willingly with the understanding that they could be sent to
>war.

Unbelievable.

>But they knew that the purpose of the military is to fight
>wars, right? They understood that's what all the guns and
>tanks and bullets and stuff was for, right? I mean they didn't
>exactly join the Peace Corps, now did they?

Unbelievable.

>And they were willing to take those things in exchange for
>agreeing to fight where the US government tells them to
>fight. If they wanted nothing to do with war the US military
>probably wasn't the best career choice for them.

Wow.

>I'm not the one crying about his childhood and defending Aaron
>Brooks' awareness.

Ah.

My childhood again. Pull that card...PULL IT.

Lol.

>LOL - yeah right. You certainly knew and cared when you went
>cyberstalking me to dig it up and speculated on its effect on
>my sex life, you pervert stalker hoe.

You don't have a sex life, but even if you did, I wouldn't talk about it, because your Pat Tillman arguments and Aaron Brooks non-arguments have more than enough material for me to clown.