17to85

You realize that you're being stupid about this right? Ed Tait puts it in print that the rumours are there, that's one of the most respected and plugged in football reporters in the country hearing things about it why on earth are you still arguing this when you've been proven wrong? There is a time and a place to just accept that you were mistaken and move on you know.

That's because it IS giving up too much on Torontos part. Toronto would probably like to get a replacement D in return for Phaneuf so you're probably looking at Phaneuf for Bogosian + (yes Phaneuf is a better player than Bogosian right now)

Hard to care about American politics that much, ultimately the guy who winds up in the white house doesn't really matter since everyone in Washington is bought and paid for and if the lobby groups don't like something it doesn't get passed and if they want something passed it gets passed. Their system IMO is horribly broken.

wouldn't shock me actually. would depend on Burke's views on him. well Burke ******* raved about the guy when they signed him and in training camp and then in typical Burke fashion tossed him under the bus to try and absolve himself of the blame for that shitty shitty team he put on the field. What Burke thinks of a player matters very little to me at this point in time because he lost all credibility in that field last season.

The problem with Phaneuf is that he is a top pairing guy and is paid like it and the leafs will expect that kind of return for him. He is a flawed player but he does have talent. Leafs paid him too much but I don't see him being traded for a small price either.

No one had patience for Etienne but you guys want to sign Bauman? Come on now.

And they're OK. They sleep all night and work all day..... They wear high heels, and black lace too, suspendies and a bra...

Da fuh? thought Parker looked good in his couple games last year, would have liked to see him get another chance.

I don't believe that's a cliche... There's a reason the guy can't keep a job for long. Trying to re-invent the wheel is a giant red flag. If those ideas were so good other teams would copy them, the CFL is a copy cat league. If something works everyone does it, I don't see anyone copying Etchevary

see there you go again, falling into the fallacy that because you have an uncommon opinion you're open minded. It doesn't work that way. I've read the whole thread, I know what's going on, trouble is when people close their minds they tend to do a lot of self affirmation as well. You see things as you want to see them.

Atomic's? Cause my argument isnt my argument. Its the argument of many doctor's, scientists and nutritionists. Although it does suck that milk is unhealthy. No you're argument for why you are right. It's a terrible argument which basically boils do to you screaming "NUH UH!!!!! USE COMMON SENSE *******!!!1111!!!!one!!!" You aren't interested in hearing opposing viewpoints you're convinced you are correct and will shout down anything contrary to your opinion. That's what makes it a terrible argument. Again, I'm not taking sides in this, I don't care enough about it to bother, but I know when an argument is bullshit and when it isn't and you are too closed minded to ever have a proper debate on the topic.

because 'murica

You will be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of Wild than me, but I dunno just seems he's pretty small, if it works great but I hope he's not put in a position to fail. He was so good where he was last year I'd have left him there.

I'm not taking any position, I'm just saying your argument sucks.

isn't wild a bit small for a MLB though?

Honestly the unknown posters entire argument here sounds to me a lot like the anti-vaccination peoples argument. "I read this study that links vaccines to autism, use some common sense here people, these guys are doctors!" Seriously buddy I'm not going to get into the validity of the study or not but if you can't see how closed minded your position is then I don't know what to say. You are claiming the common sense ground but you are so convinced that yours is the only possible position to have that you don't even acknowledge that another position might have merit. That's not common sense, that is simply being closed to other opinions. You made up your mind and everyone who doesn't agree is just an idiot.

There are several people on this site that have been aware of CIS happenings and players for a while too. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Forde is just lucky enough that people pay him to talk about his opinions on air.

Nothing like embarassing the refs to make em do the job better.

And this is where your wrong..the law has the limit for drunk driving set so low that I think you are wrong. I can drink 4 beers feel 100% fine but if I had to take a test I'd blow over, get someone baked you think they're ok to drive compared to having a couple beers? The people who go get themselves completely **** faced and drive are pretty much the biggest pieces of garbage on the planet, but impaired is impaired and if I'm too impaired to drive after a few beers then you better believe that people who drive stoned are too impaired to drive.U fail to see the difference. Drinking alchol and drivinging and smoking pot and driving are normally completely different.Here's why. When u get shitfaced it takes hours for someone to sober up, some wake up drunk the next day. Get stoned provides a rush, followed by giggles or paranoia and then subsides within an hour or so. No aren't sober but u aren't blasted out of your head like a drunk. You could smoke a whole joint and be pretty normal hours later. If you get **** face drunk you are going to be drunk for a fairly long time. That being said driving while under the influence puts everyone at risk and losing a life over it isn,t worth it. Walking around stoned or shitfaced is okay. Normally u are only harming yourself. I'm totally for legalizing pot and taxing it like we do alchol and tobacco. It's used by a large portion of society and because of such it should be allowed. It does cause issues when trying determine if someone is sober enough to drive, but DUI can still be determined via field tests. As for pro athletes, the majority of the players I lived with ( apartment complex) smoked, and smoked often. Didn't seem to effect their on filed production. This isn't about legalizing or not, this is about if you are impaired in any way shape or form do ME a favour and stay the **** off the roads because I don't want to get in an accident because you're altering your state or mind. Quite frankly I am not interested in having the pot vs. alcohol debate because pot sympathizers like to bang that drum long and loud but that's not the point here. Pot alters your mind that is a fact, if your mind is altered don't drive.

what a ridiculous argument.... how many other animals have the means to actually pull that off?

Oh God don't be so naive.University educated man intent on playing in the CFL & he claims he didn't know that what he was taking (Stanozolol) was a steroid? Who is being naive here? I think it's you Atomic. You misunderstood. I don't believe that Quinn Smith didn't know exactly what he was doing. My comment was referring to Duressler47's apparent shock at the fact that some athletes use steroids and other drugs. It is incredibly widespread. Duressler (to me) was stating that it seems like more athletes today are using illegal drugs like marijuana or performance enhancing drugs like Stanozolol. I think his comments are directed towards them either not being very bright or that they are cheaters. Hence the integrity comment. Some will get caught & others won't but why take the chance? It's a naive belief that sports are pure and he was called out for it. Performance enhancing drugs have been common place in sports for years and years, at this point it's all about simply not getting caught because the pressures to perform and keep your job are too much guys are looking for any edge they can get.

old people have slower reaction times and that makes them dangerous behind the wheel. It's not that they are driving slow (though in high speed traffic situations it's more dangerous to drive slower than it is the posted speed) Old people often have an over inflated self confidence as well "well I've been driving for 50 years I'm a good driver" plus their lowered reaction times they are a menace on the roads. I'm going to fall back on the fact that a good driver is a good driver and a bad one..a bad one. Although you would assume old drivers have slower reaction times, recognizing collision situations, through experience, could mitigate that. You have to bear in mind it's certainly not only old people who have an over inflated self confidence in their ability to handle any bad driving situation that arise. Simple things like hydro-planing causes drivers to over react. I'm not excluding elderly drivers from the menace group but it is not an exclusive club…it certainly has a wide open membership that doesn't have age nor gender bias. I don't know what the current numbers look like, but it's very interesting to see how many accidents are caused by various demographics. One thing that always stands out to me is that women cause more accidents than men do, but do you know why it's under 25 males that have to pay higher insurance rates regardless of driving record? It's because when under 25s get into an accident it is a severe one whereas the more numerous ones women cause are minor. There are very good scientific reasons that men are better drivers than women when they have that right mix of youth and experience... the problem is that they're also more prone to driving recklessly so the natural advantages can get thrown right out the window.

old people have slower reaction times and that makes them dangerous behind the wheel. It's not that they are driving slow (though in high speed traffic situations it's more dangerous to drive slower than it is the posted speed) Old people often have an over inflated self confidence as well "well I've been driving for 50 years I'm a good driver" plus their lowered reaction times they are a menace on the roads.

And this is where your wrong.. the law has the limit for drunk driving set so low that I think you are wrong. I can drink 4 beers feel 100% fine but if I had to take a test I'd blow over, get someone baked you think they're ok to drive compared to having a couple beers? The people who go get themselves completely **** faced and drive are pretty much the biggest pieces of garbage on the planet, but impaired is impaired and if I'm too impaired to drive after a few beers then you better believe that people who drive stoned are too impaired to drive. See, heres the thing.. Are we arguing a few drinks or hammer assed drunk? Cuz im looking at it as a drunk driver, not a wee bit buzzed driver and a totally baked driver as opposed to a guy who had a joint with 5 friends.. I'm going by what the law calls impaired driving because obviously the guys who are driving while totally hammered the best we can hope for out of them is that they only kill themselves and not an innocent person.

You know who are worse drivers than the elderly? no one.