stevenaa

Members
  • Content Count

    4,437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stevenaa

  • Rank
    The Bruiser
  • Birthday 07/24/1968

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
    1975
  • Favorite Redskin
    too hard to pick
  • Location
    Texas
  • Interests
    Boatbuilding, Woodworking, Playing with my kids
  • Occupation
    IT professional

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If it's contractual, he needs to shut up and finish his current deal. I don't see underperforming players giving money back. Why should a player who out performs his contract be able to renegotiate. Though I don't think he's outperformed it. I certainly wouldn't give him any kind of expensive extension. I don't understand the angle related to the handling of his growth. Who the hell would trust a football teams medical staff with that. They're sports doctors. At the absolute minimum, you go get an opinion elsewhere. In either case, i'm a fan of the team not any individual player. I don't care if he's here or not other than how that impacts the team. Which it obviously would given the lack of depth and the difficulty in finding talent at the position. Could be he's milking the medical angle as contract leverage.
  2. stevenaa

    A Needs-based draft

    I was thinking about this very thing as I was watching the recaps of last two days. Without fail, as they talk about who they think are the winners so far, how much the pics fit the teams needs are a huge factor. How often does a team pick the absolute, uncontested BPA just cause he's the BPA. I think you determine what players fill your needs and you move around to get them. If that move happens to be down and you gain more picks, all the better.
  3. stevenaa

    HapHaszard's Passing

    So sorry for your loss. His presence will be missed.
  4. stevenaa

    Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

    Kirk had no plans to sign a long term deal here. That seems abundantly clear. He was clearly sucking the guaranteed franchise teet as long as possible and then hitting the market. Thoughts of tagging and trading are wasted. There's no leverage there. Every team knows you aren't going to franchise him a 3rd year. No team was gonna give us anything for him. We'll get a 3rd as a compensatory pick, so the third we're giving is a wash. Losing Fuller sucks, but any team in need of a qb would have traded a player like him for Smith. That's a no brainer, much as it sucks. Running Colt out is a joke. He's a backup. Having Smith gives us the best chance to win of all the available QB options. Nothing changes with the need to draft a QB to develop. At our draft position, that's what will be available unless we luck into that rare gem in the lower rounds that nobody expects to excel. You have to remove any thoughts that signing Kirk was ever an option. It was never gonna happen, and not because the team didn't make reasonable offers. The funny thing is, the team just set the Free agent QB market. It will be interesting to see if any team will pony what KC is wanting, or if he'll be forced to take a lower offer.
  5. stevenaa

    Random Thought Thread

    Holy crap. I started this thread 10 years ago. Where does the time go. I still want to move to Florida so I can enjoy the water. Fishing, skiing and the beach. Or at least some beach somewhere. Somewhere where it is perpetually 5 O'clock!!
  6. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I don't think its murder, but I don't want to necessarily encourage vigilantism. It worked out ok in this case assuming the facts are accurate. But it could have been a disaster if the AK had been fired indiscriminately.
  7. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    No problem with that whatsoever. Don't want to get yourself shot, don't go into a waffle house with an AK and rob people. If my wife was expected to show up I'd be freaked as well. As I've said repeatedly. Nothing is going to stop crazy. At least 30 dead. Horrifying. The human race is becoming so desensitized to violence. We have to make ourselves better than this. Truck attacker kills dozens in Nice http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/truck-plows-into-crowd-in-nice-france-many-dead-paper/ar-BBulpVJ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
  8. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    You need to recheck your very recent history to know this is absolutely not true.
  9. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I'm fine with that. I think restricting hunting rifles to internal magazines of 3-5 bullets is fine. Background checks should be required. 30 day waiting period for cool down and time to do background checks is fine. None of that infringes on my ownership rights. We place limits on our constitutional rights all the time. There's room for compromise IMO.
  10. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    Ah, except in the very post you clearly didn't fully read, and several others I've posted lately I've stated clearly I support more restrictions and regulations. And it's awful convenient of you to lay the blame for all our social ills at the feet of the gun rights folks. America is not those places and frankly we have very unique social issues that those countries have no familiarity with. My post made it clear I'm for more regulation and restrictions. I fully agree with you there. But I won't ever support restrictions that prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm within a reasonable period of time. 30 days is more than enough time to do a completely thorough background check. But any substantive effort to actually correct the problem of violence needs to include working on our social condition.
  11. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    No. What is threatening "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are a plethora of problems that lead people to do these sort of things. Gun violence is a symptom and no one really wants to make any attempt at addressing the underlying issues. They just want to strip the rights away from many millions of law abiding citizens. You can be assured that if there is no access to a gun for these nuts, they'll spend five minutes on the internet and then walk into a crowded environment and set off the bomb they just learned how to make. Or drive their car on a rampage a crowd, or any other method easily available to cause carnage and get the notoriety they crave. I think tighter restrictions and regulations are needed. Keep guns out the hands of potential terrorists, mentally ill, felons, anyone involved in a violent crime etc....... There are things that can and should be done. Once you start removing freedoms , where does it stop? Back to prohibition to stop drunk driving? I'm sure the families of loved ones killed by drunk drivers would be ok with those drivers never having access to alcohol. We should give the government unfettered access to our personal internet activity so they can catch anyone involved in activities deemed unacceptable.
  12. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I don't think we should change the meaning of an amendment just because we've changed the meaning of a word it contains. While difficult, there are constitutionally correct ways to modify it, and that's how it should be done IMO. I do believe the amendment gives room for regulation, just not up to the point of preventing ownership to law abiding citizens. I've no problem with reasonable regulation. My right to be armed is not infringed by having to have a background check, or wait 2 weeks and so on. I don't support the NRA's insistence that there are no restrictions that are reasonable. Frankly I see that as the most likely cause of my loss of freedom as things get pushed to a breaking point where drastic measures are furthered that will infringe on my right to ownership. Something that could be avoided with reasonable compromise.
  13. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    He may still have been stupid enough to fight a duel today.
  14. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    Uh no. The principal authors of the Bill of rights clearly defined what militia meant at the time it was written. We can argue the semantics of what it means now, or what it was defined to mean in 1903, but that has nothing to do with the meaning at the time it was written, or the clear intent from the words of those involved in writing it. It was absolutely meant to provide an armed populace as a deterrent against the government. How can Masons own words be construed to mean anything else? How about Madison's words? He had a little something to do with the penning of the Bill of Rights. “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ― James Madison “The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ― Alexander Hamilton The words of the authors themselves make the intent and reason of the 2nd amendment crystal clear. Making it out to be anything other than what they themselves stated is revisionist.
  15. stevenaa

    The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    You all are quick to dismiss "the people". It does not limit "the People" to the group belonging to the militia. It is clear the intent is that the militia is "the people" As in "We, the people" There is no ambiguity in that statement. "the people" as a phrase is only used a couple times and each time in the context of individual rights. The amendment in no way implies that a militia of select people will be formed, and just those people will not have their right to arms infringed. Mason makes this quite clear, and as a key person to the Bill of Rights, I think I'll trust his opinion. "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 This is from Mason draft: 17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power. You can read the Amendment in a vacuum and assign any meaning that fits your agenda. But the framers intention is quite clear. The People are to be armed as the best defense against governmental power. I do think the argument can be made regarding the training and discipline of said militia(The People) I think it's well within the governments right(arguably at the state level) to enforce training as a requirement of ownership and really that should be done to fulfill the spirit of the amendment IMO I find it interesting that the "trained to arms" qualifier was left out of the final amendment.