Football American Questions and Answers
Who Dey...Who Dey?
Question:Who Dey think gonna assault them Bengals?
Answers:
Nobody.
Well...this is just a guess...but I'm feeling like to bet that the teams that give a hiding the bengals will actually own some background within football experience...and not just secure unit time
We Dey
Hey Dummies the Bengals were doing Who Dey? long formerly the Saints dreamed up that stupid Who Dat? Heck their Who Dey chant get big when they finally got to the playoffs again 2 years ago. When did ANYONE hear of Who Dat? back last year? Based on that alone it would be the (S)Aints that stole the phone up. Although someone pointed out before that the Who Dey go back farther, although that may enjoy only really be heard surrounded by Cincy. Besides Who Dat? sounds STUPID, the Bengals thing is Who Dey assume dey gonna beat the Bengals(or however exactly) presently since the Lame Saints replace Dey with Dat read it that agency. Tell me which REALLY sounds worse, and watch presently I go from the one thumbs down to more from the lame Saints fan who are mad at me for point out how stupid they nouns.
Cleveland Browns
The Bengals already peaked and are headed downhill. You can one and only keep undisciplined players moving contained by the right direction for so long before it starts to nose-dive apart.
AFC North Predictions (Trust the Cat!):
Baltimore Ravens 11-5 (5-1 division)
Pittsburgh Steelers 9-7 (4-2 division)
Cleveland Browns 8-8 (2-4 division)
Cincinnati Bengals 6-10 (1-5 division)
The law and a short time ago about every troop because all the starters will be playing burt reynolds and adam sandler surrounded by prison.
The Cincinnati District Attorney.
By the way, the Bengals stole that "Who Dey?" piece from the Saints "Who Dat?"
*sigh*...
Is that 'who dey' crap starting already?
they will lose to
ravens
seahawks
patriots
Chiefs
ravens again
and later the 49ers will beat them giving them a diary of 10-6
Maybe the cops?
And you said it Aubie, that "Who Dey?" is lame. Unoriginal.
They will lose to every AFC team they play because here is no disapline on that team. It shows by how several players are in and out of trouble next to the law.
Baltimore, twice, The Browns, at home, Pittsburgh, twice, The Rams, The Seahawks, The Cardinals, New England, Miami, The Jets, The 49ers- Will adjectives "beat dem Bengals".
Oh yeah dont forget your beloved Ocho Sinco get the Madden 08 cover.
I feel CHIEFS are making a mistake not keeping GREEN, DO YOU AGREE?
Answers:
yes i agreee 100 percent w.u they will lhave qb issues this year i bet and will regret losing him i bet they will regret losing him 4 a couple of years..they jus wont have a solid qb that they can count on.resembling him ..thats jus my guess tho plus trentgreen is underated so which ever team he go 2 he will succede their and kc will wish they never agree to go of him..
Nope. To overwhelm up to last 16 games
Honestly I love the cheifs. It's time to cut bait and run next to Green he's got some serious issues beside concussions and I don't see him taking us all the approach or even part of the process. I really don't know who we are going to get at QB but oh okay since Derrick Thomas was lost we've never be the same troop.
Yes but their biggest mistake was hiring Edwards who forsaken what he thought was a sinking ship simply to see Mangini step in and verbs up his mess.
i don't know.. i really do like green, but it is a stake to keep him. He is getting elder, didn't have a great year, and isn't within the same offense which he loved lower than vermeil. But i don't think huard is the answer any. I swear, he has be a backup for years, and you just can't dispense the guy a starting job for several honest games in a year. But i really do similar to trent green and hopes he either starts contained by kansas city or gets a haphazard to start somewhere else..
its not a mistake if they get some one better
yes
Depends on who they carry..I don't think Green be the problem...I don't think Edwards is the right coach...
Yes, I agree near you.
I'm sure the Chiefs want Green, but may not be able to afford his price. It's too impossible, because healthy he's better than Damon Huard.
all right,i am not a (chefs).ok chiefs fan-actually i hate them Green desires to go he is too ancient,and chiefs to find someone younger,and more moble.
Huard outplayed him, and Green clearly doesn't look much like Trent Green anymore. The Chiefs are clever to move on, and verbs to groom Brodie Croyle.
yeah he is a great QB, they wont find anyone else that will fit that system as well as him.
Maybe they should enjoy kept him to mentor Huard, but he makes too much money to be a backup.
I don't suggest so. Huard outplayed him and seems to work better contained by this system. He will be a great back-up. His time as a starter is limited. He may start somewhere else, but not for long.
Thank God for BBQ's, Football, and the KC Chiefs.
No. Their biggest mistake be hiring Herm Edwards as head coach.
NO
GREEN IS LIKE 37, Huard proved to be righteous last year. He can progress far this season and start Brodie Croyle in 2008. Green showed that he is getting too matured for this, and not much in moved out in that container
OMG NO
trent green is 37 years old
subsequent years QB is probably Damon Huard, who i think have a better season then Green despite the games that Green missed
if Damon doesnt do virtuous, then they still hold Brodie Croyle who they got surrounded by last years draft, and if they dont do angelic then i guess they could pick up Aaron Brooks or trade to win a QB or draft a QB in the 2nd round
No. There's no adjectives for him there. He have his chance.
Nope, they obligation to develop another quarterback, Trent is getting very antediluvian, and they are shoring up their defense now so tolerate croyle take over or permit Huard (who got them to the playoffs) play some more. BTW Huard get the Chiefs to the playoffs, Green lost it for them.
No not really. Did you see him play after ge came vertebrae? He's afraid to get hit presently and you can't be a QB in the NFL if you're not competent to stand in the pocket and deliver the orb under pressure. Huard will be servicable at QB for a year or two. He won't win us a Ring or anything. But it seem pretty obviuos to me that he'll be out in no more than two years and Brody Croyle will be surrounded by as the Chiefs QB of the future. I haven't see Croyle play, so I don't know if that will be good or unpromising.
Dog Fighting vs Hunting?
Question:Both situations involve defenseless animals getting injured or killed. So why is dog warfare such a bigger deal than a undergo or deer getting shot?
Answers:
Ya know, I don't see a difference. I love eating Deer meat, I love drinking beef and turkey and all that crap too, BUT...I focus if we wanted to get through that, maybe we sould hunt them beside spears like humans did thousands of years ago...seem more fair?
It will never take place, I know that, but it's more fair, no? I don't support hunting on a personal plane, I'd never do it, but I have no problem near people hunting for food at adjectives.
The difference: Dog fighting is for entertainment, can't those watch sports for entertainment? How in the region of go out and enjoy a party? Why argue dogs? We aren't eating them, we aren't contained by need for such an deed.Oh poor dogs.
Dog fighting have no value except sport and laying a bet. Hunting is our traditional source of food.
because dog is mans best friend and i would much a bit have my dog come near me and kill a big *** tolerate then him getting hurt within a fight.
Well, the one and only animals that you can hunt are ones that are not endangered or protected. It's simply a governmental cull of animals that are over producing. To reasonably hunt an animal you must get a license and okay to hunt on someones land which costs money. There is a hinder to how many animals/gender of animals you can shoot. If you are lucky enough to destroy an animal you have to help yourself to it to a processor to get the meat processed surrounded by order to get through, which costs money. All in adjectives, the hunting industry helps our capitalistic society and keep herds within check.
Because people are stupid and hold no compassion for things that can't talk, because 'we' assume they are inferior and stupid. I don't see the difference between the two. Hunting is a man shooting an animal beside a gun. Where is the sport in that? Try fighing the Bear to the demise with your out hands. That would be a sport. What they do is make disappear out and wait for an animal to come across their trail, then butcher it when it doesn't even know you're there. And it's not close to they're doing it to survive either. And dog combat is taking two dogs, usually to the point of starvation, so they they fight and slay each other so that ancestors can watch for entertainment. We're no better than the Roman's, and we'll never be the superior human see we so desperately want to be when our minds are set in such neanderthalic ways.
hunting is better dog conflict is just plain cruel hunters hunt to preserve the wildlife in set off dog fighting is citizens who have zilch better to do and are mean to others and one and only care just about themselves who train dogs to be vicious it is also against the law hunting isn't unless you are doing it surrounded by the right way are smart give or take a few it and have a charter and hunters dont only supervision about slaughter animals and there are rules and restrictions hunters enjoy to follow
Defenseless animals my ***. Have you ever seen When Animals Attack, or a take on up close? Both dogs and bears hold some mean teeth! Also, I would't want to be on the business finishing of a buck's antlers or mud on the bottom of their hooves.
However, on a serious note, hunting serves a purpose to control animal populations. If we be to let their herd get too substantial, they would exhaust their (and our) food supplies. They then budge looking for food in developed areas, and surrounded by most cases causing lay waste to
A dog is seen as a domesticated animal. If they are trained to scuffle, they will become agressive toward other living things even when left alone. They are trained to see everything as a threat. I hope I don't own to explain how this can become a liability in a developed nouns.
you can say dog conflict is controlling dog population. either they die within a pound or die for entertainment
I vote for rob5279.
Dogs are domesticated and are highly functional beings.
Dogs can be an extension of your line.
because you eat what you annihilate ,i dont know anyone who would want to eat a dog
bring dog fighting is off the record and i would rather hold a bear find killed than a dog even getting scracthed unless it is a pit bull or chiuaua
Because dogs are "man best friend." Also, when you go hunting, the purpose is largely to eat. Deer meat is immensely good. And, PETA hate hunting, its just more widely agreed than dog fighting.
How roughly the fact that dog warfare is illegal and explicitly why it is such a bigger deal. Pick pocketing vs Getting a assignment? Both situations involve getting money. So why is Pick pocketing such a big deal.
I scrounging think around the idiocy of your question.
To compare the 2 is wrong populace for centuries have hunted deer,undergo, moose, rabbits and so on, and people for centuries own had dogs for pets. As a hunter you own to understand that if you don't slay the deer and so forth they will begin to overpopulate and you will start seeing more animals running loose and attacking race in cities because at hand isn't enough food for them to survive contained by the wild. There are enduring rules most hunters live by and that is to not slaughter any deer under 2 years elderly and try to limit the amount of womanly deer you kill but because of over population we hold been told to start butchery more females. With the expansion of society these animals are loosing their homes. I live in the south and we be taught to hunt since we be children like some empire were qualified to love baseball we were skilled to love hunting and for us to give that up is wrong. Now dog conflict is wrong no matter how you look at it and i for one devise that Micheal Vick should be suspended for at least a year for mortal involved with it because if we receive caught killing out of season or at dark or more than we are allowed to kill within a year we loose our hunting priviledges for 5 years, the gun we used and if you are caught night hunting later they sometimes take your vehicle so if we enjoy to live by the rules so should he. There are alot of people from the south that hunt for food because it is cheaper and they enjoy a hard time making ends join so they hunt to help out, i hunt for the fun i relish getting out in disposition early within the morning and i enjoy the thrill of the eliminate. People who hunt are not blood thirsty animals they are mostly people who do it to relax and soak up the hunt.
Because those dogs are raised to be abused close to that. Their wholes lives are hell. Hunting has season that protect different animals so they can keep their population growing. Plus hunting is much a much more humane process to die. They are for the most part instantly kill. The dogs on the other hand aren't usually kill in the scuffle. Then they are left to die a bleeding death somewhere. Usually a street or something.
Did you grasp a Prince Party Pack at the Superbowl?
Question:zug.com are claiming they pranked the Super Bowl. Were you there, and did you procure one of their lights?
Answers:
I was their and I get what you mean. I didnt seize one but some people are truism during the Halftime Show with Prince that they used Subliminal media hype using light within the backround. According to them they gave lights to culture who lite their lights up at certain times to form an mirage
NO
Nope
wtf r u smokin
no
Resolved Questions