Magox

This post was filled with so much poppycock, Don't even know where to begin. So I'm going to dismantle this pile of garbage point by point. Really? huh, that's funny, considering that I am a citizen of Bolivia, not a resident but citizen. We receive more news coming out of Venezuela than any other country in Latin America, aside from Venezuela of course, and most of the news is sympathetic to Chavez, never mind the fact that the president of our country is Evo Morales. I'm not opposed to amending the constitution, I question his motive. He amended the constitution to end term limits, to gain full autonomy of the central bank, to facilitate the removal of supreme court justices and name his own election board. Why would he do this? I know why, and so do many other rational, knowledgeable thinking people, which is to retain control and power. No free thinking person would disagree that this was an utter and perverse abuse of power that was solely driven by his desire to retain control. I'd love to hear your spin as to his motives for this. bull ****! You are talking out of your ass again. http://www.reuters.c...146551720090801 Everyone that is from Latin America that has any interest in politics that isn't a kool aid drinking sympathizer of Chavez knows that he coerced, intimidated and jailed voices of opposition. When you intimidate the opposition, and effectively have state run media on your side, the ability to control message becomes much easier. You'd have to be a moron to deny that. Also, it is a well-known fact that Chavez and his family has been involved in charges of corruption and nepotism. You disputing that? http://www.guardian....rruption-claims And to this: Hold on, So their CEO Jerry Brewer is an exile? huh http://www.linkedin....er-sr/8/829/25b http://www.cjiausa.org/ The notion that they are a bunch of "exiles" is yet again, another fabrication on your part. Read more at http://www.inquisitr...6YsSVkuKz9T6.99 http://www.hrw.org/n...ritarian-legacy Now that we've established that you were wrong on just about every count and that you resort to fabrications to make your points, you have no more credibility on this subject, and most likely on anything else that you opine on. Also, I would suggest the next time you decide to engage in a conversation, that you make sure you come with facts, because if you don't someone like myself who is much more knowledgeable than you (in this particular topic) will come along and embarrass you.

You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves. So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests. Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all.

I'm not vouching that he should or will play LB, just that I doubt he will play Safety based on the things I mentioned.

Because he was recently changed and listed on the team's depth chart as a LB... Plus he made a reference to playing LB on a tweet of his and now Tim Grahm just made mention of him as a LB

Good points.

Doubt it

So I suppose you would also agree and support Paul Ryan's Premium support ("voucher") plan as well?

Well, the ingenuity of corporate America and their ability to cut costs and increase efficiency and productivity has a lot to do with it as well. Lets not deny facts, corporate profits are at record highs and soaring. Having said that there is a huge disconnect between Main Street and corporate America. Fortune 500 companies are reducing costs due to more global labor competition and increased technologies that reduces the need for human capital, which of course leads to an even larger income disparity between the white and blue collars. There is no sinister culprit in this development, it's just economic evolution, and to be honest, the U.S middle class blue collar worker may be the victim of this occurrence, but globally speaking, it has increased the standard of living for many people outside the U.S, specially in the BRIC nations. So rather than trying to find a boogie man, which many liberals incessantly do and come up with faux "solutions" such as policies aimed at "evening the playing field" or tax policies designed in the name of "fairness", which is all code for wealth distribution, meant to attempt to solve their perceived inequities by skimming money from those that have and transferring it to those that don't, which of course does nothing to solve our economic woes. We should be concentrating our efforts on true economic reform. Something that will encourage all these displaced workers into more training in future areas where human capital will be in more demand. The best way to do this is by tying unemployment and welfare benefits to job retraining programs. If you don't want to participate and become a more productive member of society, then your benefits get reduced. Simple as that. I think that is fair.

Unless of course you are from la izquierda...

Is Dead

John Podhoretz tweeted that “Paul Krugman says it’s ad hominem to quote columns of his back at him. I agree."

They've been going at it for the past few months now, and it makes for good national debate.

Just curious, where are you getting this info from? I'd like to read that link if you have it.

I don't believe it's a sinister plot contrived from the fed, but i do agree that for the most part the end result is what you suggested. I just think it's a failed economic model that continues to be administered in large doses of the only policy prescription that they know of, which is to prime the pumps, make money cheaper and inflate their way back to prosperity.

I think it would be fair to wait until the beginning of FA to pass complete judgement. This is a busy time of the year for NFL teams, and they may be getting to this soon. Hopefully.

I think there are some developments that have occurred on a corporate level that have been very advantageous to their well-being along with the stock market. However, the disconnect on a macro level to corporate earnings is alarming to say the least. I don't believe it's sustainable, that's just my personal view. I read an editorial in the USA TODAY, and it mirrors many of my same thoughts, even some that I've spoken about here on this site. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/04/federal-reserve--quantitative-easing/1963539/ I can't help but think we just went through one bubble that was partially created through easy money policies, and now looking to solve it with another bubble inflator. I don't know, but that's the feeling I am getting.

I wouldn't. Levitre from my perspective is a much better player than Loadholt. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Is it there on solid fundamentals? Do the Fed's easy money policies have a large role? Is it sustainable? Does the divergence between the macro economy and corporate profits matter and if so, should we worry? Thoughts

Why draft a guard this high? I mean if we aren't willing to pay Levitre for living up to his expectations, then why draft Warmack? Doesn't make sense.

Can you imagine? Fisher-Levitre-Wood-Urbik-Glenn

So Krugman and Scarborough had a debate yesterday on PBS. One fascinating gem from Krugman was that in a depressed economy, Krugman suggested that "spending is spending". In other words, even if it is wasteful spending, that it is better to have it then not to have it. That is utterly absurd. To not take into account the "return on your money" factor is obscenely irresponsible. That money is real money, it is money that will eventually have to be paid back WITH INTEREST! That right there shows you that Keynesianism is a religion for Krugman and his cult followers. It's a blind faith that he places on spending, and make no bones about it, it is a blind faith. To not take into account the effectiveness and efficiency of the money that is being borrowed in order to restore the economy is extremely dangerous. When confronted by Scarborough if we should just throw money (spending) at the wall and see what sticks? Krugman basically said yes. The stimulus bill of 2009 fell well short of all expectations, which would include from independent economists, the W.H's team of economists and CBO's projections. The reason being is for various reasons, but mainly for two reasons. One, is that Washington isn't capable of implementing a plan that passes the "return on your money" test. There are too many constituencies, lobbying groups and special interest groups that control where the money will flow that creates wasteful spending. And two, which is what I've been saying for years now, where Krugman and others fail to realize is that this economy requires structural reforms. This economy has structural issues, the notion of just spending more money, any money in any way is a serious flaw that some of these economists have. What doesn't get much play is that when people point to the stimulus bill as proof that Keynesianism wasn't the solution for this downturn, Krugman proudly scoffs " I advocated for double the original amount". Well guess what? When you take into account the original stimulus and the two following stimulus along with the other spending packages we had, it came close to totaling the amount he advocated for. Krugman has been Wrong about a lot, and yesterday his philosophy of unbridled spending was on full display for everyone to say. oh and he got his ass handed to him by Scarborough. Scarborough basically used krugmans own words against himself, and somehow in Krugmans view, those retorts were somehow considered "ad hominem" attacks.

Fine, we'll just throw in Lithuania and Estonia while we're at it.

You guys are something else. We had a sucky ass line for close to a decade, couldn't run or pass block for ****, and now when we finally can do some of both, we want to let our best blocker go.

All this talk of cutting off foreign aid (yes, even to Egypt....Muslim brotherhood...ooh shudder shudder) very short-sighted

You never know. I would think that these sort of changes could maximize long-term shareholder value and sustainability. If the case could be demonstrably made, the power of the shareholder could demand change of culture.