Dang ! Romeo !

I dont know much about the new owner, but i do know that the case for Shurmur to be fired is much higher than the case for Shurmur to stay. The only thing we gain by losing is getting a higher draft pick, and if that is our consolation prize then so be it.

@browns149 said:

I second that motion. The guy OBVIOUSLY can't call the plays and be head coach. Just watching this team have no urgency to start the game, have too many communication problems, and calling screens and draws on 3rd and long............FIRE HIM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and miss our opportunity to get the #1 Draft pick? No way! There is a reason Haslam still has Shurmur coaching.

When you are 1 - 5 and Cassell's play has really regressed. So I see no harm in starting BQ who many are saying has improved. What do they have to lose? If BQ fails then they draft a new QB next year. 2007 was a fluke only cos DA was lucky. We did have legit WR and TE threats that year. Had we gone into 2008 with a more stable QB who knew what he was doing we would have been better than 4 - 12 and with something to build on for next year.

Dont we have some injuries in the D and the players we are starting are not exactly our regular starters?

How was the Colds D with Angerer hurt last year?

@harry-buffalo said:

I like the AFC North the way it is because there a ties between all the other 3 teams with the Browns. Paul Brown was fired from Cleveland and started the Bengals giving us the battle for Ohio, Ravens are the old Browns, and while the rivalry between the Steelers and Browns hasn't been great the past decade it is one of the richest rivalries in the NFL next to the Cowboys and Redskins.

I also don't want to move to a weaker division. I'll use the example of my high school team. Parkway Panther play in the toughest small school conference in Ohio, the MAC. We have had 1 winning season in the past decade and got screwed out of the playoffs after a 8-2 season and being ranked 3rd overall in Div 5. Everyone says they want us to move to a neighboring conference called the NWC. The conference holds weaker opponents and would allow us to easily at least go 5-5 ever season and make the playoffs more often. I am against this cause what is the point of playing weaker teams just so we can go to the playoffs and lose to a MAC school. Might as well play the toughest teams in Ohio (some years the MAC sends 3 teams to state titles in Div 4, 5, and 6) and beat them to prove that we deserve to be there. Same thing with the Browns. Why move to an easier division and make it to the playoffs more often to only then have to face both the Ravens and Steeler's in the playoffs most seasons.

Because an easier division means easier playoff chance. It is more difficult to get to the playoffs then get through the playoffs. To win the AFC/NFC championship, u just need to get lucky for 2 games. Not the same when u need to win 10 games right?

chillax. Even if Haden was there we lose the game. AS much as I enjoyed watching our offense score touchdowns, let us not forget that we dont have anywhere near the same talent level as the Giants. Patterson was not doing anything impressive either. We need to deal with the fact that we got trashed by a better team.

@hurricane said:

Period

That is right. You must be having Periods, else you wont be saying this. Now take some Advil for the PMS and relax.

Romney - Very composed. Answered very well and did not stutter or stammer. He was confident well poised, sharp precise and came out on top. He attacked Obama from the start and defended himself well. His biggest issue was lack of details on his plans to help the middle class or replace ObamaCare. He needs to give more specifics and not rhetoric.

Obama - Not the same guy we say 4 years ago. His ability to impress people with his speech seems to have gone missing. He was on the defense, taking long pauses and seemed unconvincing. He is not defending himself very well and did not seem confident and seemed more reticent. HE definitely lost ground among independents.

So what do you guys think about the first debate?

Saw it. AS a documentary it is good and not offensive as the democrats say. As a pro-right documentary it is not strong in its message. It attempts to provide insight into Obama's past and thought process. It says that Obama was deeply affected by his fathers thoughts and goes in depth to cover the fathers past in Kenya in depth. Obama did not spend much time with his father. He did spend more time with other people who were pro-socialistic and not enough light is shed on that. The film maker obsesses about Obama's father and his ideals - when he should have focused more on Obama's mother considering she was with him more than his father. The film tangents about Obama's half brother with whom Obama hardly ever met and hence did not help. The author is trying to make this a big deal. The author has many ammunition but chooses not to shoot( The movie has a plot but lacks the details and the punch.)

The more glaring problems are:

1. Towards the beginning when the host tries to explain India to the viewers he does a poor job. You destiny is handed to you in India he says. That sounds like a sweet deal but unfortunately that is not true.

2. The host tries to show clips of many articles attacking his book and then tries to promote himself by saying - look im from DArthmouth an Ivy league college and I know what is going on. Ideally one should use your own movie to promote yourself. Your views- sure, but not yourself.

3. Later on he predicts 3 results for USA if Obama wins (less nuclear warheads in US, more debt and third I dont remember.) The sad part is this was already predicted by many people much before the author. The host is trying to take credits for a prediction that has not occurred and is really not his own.

I wish the host tried to showcase more about Obama's falling's than promote himself. This document is not going to have the Michael Moore effect that one would wish sadly.

I have no idea why this guy wants to give away American money as aid to countries that dont deserve it.

So you are going to vote for the Green party or Ron Paul if he runs as an independent?

Getting back to the topic,

This article is wrong. There is a contrarian opinion provided by the author with no proof submitted what ever. Also, the person states that the history books lie as if the Republicans who also had a strong presence and still do and going to let history teachers concoct their own imagination and write is as text books.

The next problem is that references to the OJ Simpson case. She declares that the mostly black jury sets the black man free, thereby making it sound like it was a black helping black thing which is not proven. What was evident in hindsight was the lack of preparation by the prosecution. Not only could they not put forth a solid case but they also failed in-fact to present evidence that could have solidified their case. They thought they had it under wraps, but were wrong.

The only firm evidence that there are any actual racists left in America is the fact that so many whites voted for Obama as some sort of racial penance.

The other problem is her assumption that Obama got elected simply he was black and white people feel the need to vote for him and the fact that no other forms of racism exist. Racism still exists. Also, It is foolish to assume that Obama was voted for because he was black - If that was possible then we should have black leaning folks voting for Al Sharpton before or Herman Cain as the GOP nominee.

She completely overlooks the ability that Barack Obama's silver tongue and the campaign strategy and the people whom it targeted - The youth and immigrants. Just like the Simpson case the author too has not taken the time to carefully prepare the case.

@chicopee-john said:

Ok, we've seen and heard about the All-Time Browns team and just about any other professional team's All Time Team. The Red Sox just announced their's, for example.

Who, in your opinion, are the 3 best players to wear a Browns uniform since the new Cleveland Browns were born?

With som many draft picks, FA signings, etc., there have been - perhaps as many as 500+ players to wear the uniform.

It might be a touch question to separate any wheat from the chaff but, give it a shot.

Joe Thomas would be one. Who else. Any difference-makers?

Terry Kirby?

Joe Jervicius. If not for the staph infection he would have had a nice career here.

@westside-steve said:

Call it what you like.

Progress is not an inherently positive term.

Cirrhosis of the liver progresses so does cancer.

I just don't see the country moving toward more and more Liberty.

And of course he backpedals.

Here's an example for you to agree or disagree.

In a free society someone who owns a business or a property or provide a service should be allowed to decide for himself to whom he sells or provide that service, correct?

Even if you, I or anyone else found it offensive.

Do you think he should sugar coat that in public interviews?

WSS

Here is the problem - If one tells the truth as is (being brutally honest), the no bullshitters will like it but common men will be offended by the crudeness. If you sugar coat it to make it more presentable, the common men will perhaps like it but the no-bullshitters will sniff out the sugar and will be offended and call it as they see it. You just cannot win, that is the nature of the beast. One has to be the most eloquent speaker to be able to have the masses swaying to your words.

@westside-steve said:

First and foremost he looks and sounds like the Purdue chicken guy.

Second is fiscal policies are unrealistic.

We are never going to abolish the fed nor adopt a fair tax plan.

We as a nation are too squeamish to admit that with freedom will come some people doing things we don't like.

He backpedals when confronted with those issues.

Isolation in today's world just isn't a realistic approach.

Finally even if he won members of both parties would do everything they could to get him out.

Freedom is a catch phrase, not a reality.

WSS

He doesnt back paddle. People cannot take the truth when it is laid out hard and cold. Everybody needs to hear that there is a politician who is a hero who will make all the problems go away. Unfortunately not only does that guy not exist but even if he existed such a solution is not possible. The truth is the govt and the people together need to make sacrifices if we want to get out of the debt situation.

So when PAul makes a cold statement (which sadly is true), the public cannot stand the truth and they think that he is the problem, not the debt and that by electing for someone else who promises them better things they are making the right choice.

@westside-steve said:

True enough hooker, but I think as a nation at our age we are heading away from libertarian ideas.

Not a particularly pleasant thought but inevitable I think.

WSS

It is called progress Steve. People now have the option of choosing to live how they want without the govt/society telling them how they have to live and that is the way it should be. It is something that old timers will have a tough time adjusting to but that is the inevitability.

Why isnt he stupid ? Cos Americans - when it comes to politics are stupid. They think that any attack on the policies that the govt decides is unfair and people who attack those policies no matter how terrible it is, Is unpatriotic and if you are unpatriotic then you are evil. We have more to fear from ourselves than others.

good luck RavenNation123