Mr. WEO
-
Posts
47,098 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. WEO
-
-
San Jose will have an NFL stadium before LA.
-
Absurd argument. Call the team SF when they are essentially are hqed and play 50 miles away in San Jose?
Conceptually, I get the whole Bay Area vibe thing, but it would be like the Bills moving to Hamilton and retaining the Buffalo place-name.
As preposterous it is for the Jets and Giants to call themselves NY, NYC is 12 miles away and still by far the most populous city in that region.
The 49ers haven't moved to another state, let alone another country.
-
I am not a USC fan at all. Actually, I can't stand them! But how could you possibly call them overhyped? Since '02, they have 2 National Championships and played in another NC game (VY's performance was the greatest in NC history and they lost on what was basically the last play). Since '02 USC finished no worse than #4 in the final poll (besides last year when they had a TF QB). From 02-08 they played in 7 straight BCS games (3 of them NC games) and went 6-1 destroying every team that they played. 3 Heisman trophy winners and a ton of All Americans.
USC of the 2000's were one of the greatest teams in the history of college football and there is really no argument. And if you think they were the only team commiting recruiting violations you're crazy.
So I guess my question is, how were they overhyped?
Beat me to it.
-
How can I disagree with a strawman argument made by a dimwit? I don't know.
It's not a straw argument. These are your arguments.
Is it your belief that they don't receive any benefits from being born wealthy before their 50's and 60's? It is possible that Paris Hilton could survive that long.Our fundamental difference here is that it seems you believe that being born wealthy gives someone little advantage over the rest of society and I believe it gives them a great advantage. You are for an Aristocracy and I'm for a Meritocracy. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Answer the question, or just say "I don't know".
-
Do people understand the whole purpose of this thread or not?
That it's a thread devoted to not enouraging trolls by responding to them in threads? Yeah, I think we all got that.
-
Thanks.
One would have to assume some degree of 'writing on the wall' with respect to the Spiller pick, in Lynch's mind.
Can Lynch read?
-
Rob Johnson became less of a QB from being here, so did Edwards. At least Johnson had a #1 WR in Moulds and a real defense to take pressure off him.
Buffalo is nothing but a graveyard for coaches and QB's and is so full of bitter fans.
Please let me know when wins and losses are a QB stat. As of now, they aren't.
Says who?
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JohnRo00.htm
PassingGlossary · CSV · PRE · Hide Partial Seasons · Game Log · Splits · TD Log · Passing TD Log · Big Games · Comebacks and game-winning drives
Year Age Tm Pos No. G GS QBrec Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Int% Lng Y/A AY/A Y/C Y/G Rate Sk Yds NY/A ANY/A Sk% AV
Career 48 29 12-17-0 494 806 61.3 5795 30 3.7 23 2.9 74 7.2 6.7 11.7 120.7 83.6 140 817 5.3 4.8 14.8 21
4 yrs BUF 30 26 9-17-0 401 663 60.5 4798 27 4.1 17 2.6 74 7.2 6.9 12.0 159.9 85.5 110 660 5.4 5.1 14.2 17
3 yrs JAX 8 1 1-0-0 25 35 71.4 368 2 5.7 3 8.6 40 10.5 7.8 14.7 46.0 88.8 7 42 7.8 5.5 16.7 2
1 yr OAK 2 0 6 13 46.2 54 0 0.0 1 7.7 15 4.2 0.7 9.0 27.0 25.8 1 6 3.4 0.2 7.1 0
1 yr TAM 6 2 2-0-0 57 88 64.8 536 1 1.1 2 2.3 23 6.1 5.3 9.4 89.3 75.8 19 94 4.1 3.5 17.8 2
1 yr WAS 2 0
-
No I wouldn't have to agree to that idiotic misinterpretation. Do the math dude it's not the same.
How can you disagree?? You clearly said you are against the advantages afforded to those who are born into money. How should you have the government fix this? How is the inheritance tax going to change this?
These are simple questions that derive from your posts.
Go on....
-
I'd like to see Brown light it up, Edwards gone, Brohm be the 2, and Fitz if he stays be the 3, I agree that Fitz is the more agressive QB so far, but he seems to be better coming off the bench, or to support 1 and 2 with a clipboard. Brown has a chip on his shoulder since his hometown team ( Titans ) didnt pick him, he's got something to prove,......... let's just hope this competition provides this team with a competent QB.......!
Brown must have 31 chips on his shoulder then.
-
What type of wealthy person goes into a bar and sneaks in his own booze? What type of person hits a person with his car (accident) and keeps going?
An alcoholic?
-
Is it your belief that they don't receive any benefits from being born wealthy before their 50's and 60's? It is possible that Paris Hilton could survive that long.
Our fundamental difference here is that it seems you believe that being born wealthy gives someone little advantage over the rest of society and I believe it gives them a great advantage. You are for an Aristocracy and I'm for a Meritocracy. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Coming from you I take that as a complement. Cheers masochistic egomaniac.
How is the inheritance tax going to alter the fact that some people are born rich?
If not, why not advocate for the gov't just taking more money BEFORE daddy dies--like a marginal rate of 80-90%, for instance? That would eliminate the advantage those kids have and would make them work for their money. In fact, it would eliminate the entire advantage of being rich.
You would have to agree to this given your logic displayed to this point.
-
The players were smart enough to get a billion (give or take several million) from the owners over the past 5 years with that last CBA. I think it's safe to say that they realize the windfall they got, and that when the owners opted-out of it just 2 years after signing it, the gravy train was going to end. What you're seeing out of them is every attempt to gain leverage in negotiations, by claiming the TV contracts were rigged in their favor, or putting the TV money in escrow. Kind if like how the SCOTUS NFL versus ANI case helped the players immensely. If it works, it's a huge win for them. If it doesn't, it's no change from before.
And the players have no reason to agree to the owners' demands until the 11th hour. While a lockout might hurt the owners less, it's still far from an ideal situation for them since it will hurt viewership, ratings will go down, and ad revenue will go down, which the networks can recoup from the owners later-on. Ultimately I see the players accepting a deal somewhere between the first CBA and the last one, again close to the deadline of getting something done.
Most players are likely disappointed in the last CBA because the vast majority of them never realized/are still waiting for this "windfall" to appear in their contracts.
The fact that the union is just now deciding the TV contracts are "rigged" shows how far behind their leadership is compared to that of the owners. This issue of guaranteed TV money for the league even if a strike/lockout was "news" long ago. The special master will likely chuckle at this lame motion.
There won't be a lockout.
-
I agree with some of what you said, but have also run into many, many upper middle class and wealthy people who were basically "born on third base and thought they hit a triple" to quote Ann Richards many moons ago. Policy arguments for an inheitance tax include that large inheritances lessen the impetus to be productive and work in offspring of the wealthy and that we want to avoid having a rigid/static class structure, where status and wealth are simply passed down from one generation to the next.
That said, I, too, have seen rich kids work their butts off to make something on their own (I recall finding out after graduation that a law school friend of mine was the daughter of folks who are probably billionaires and you would never have guessed that for a second knowing her), but I've also seen more than my share of rich kids acting more like a James Spader character in a John Hughes movie--unfortunately, in real life, folks like that don't often get their comeuppances, but instead get coveted internships and jobs and other connections that help insure success care of mommy and daddy, whether they work hard for them or not.....
Your claim that this tax is some sort of social engineering to alter the behavior of rich kids is laughable. Where do you come up with these ideas?
Look, the tax is a cudgel used to club votes out of the less informed. The amount of money involved is pretty small compared to the national fisc. What money it does bring in goes into the pile to obtain the vote of some special interest or another.
Maybe we can further mimic Europe by replacing the GDP with the GNH ("Gross National Happiness" Index)! That's what countries which produce no income or product resort to to justify their unsustainable welfare state in the face of economic reality.
-
Sorry Edwards fans, Rob Johnson was better...
Rob Johnson
Games 26
TDs 27
% 64
INT 17
Trent Edwards
Games 30
TDs 24
% 61
INT 25
But these Edwards fans will somehow still feel the need to ignore the obvious, ignore what they have witnessed the last two seasons and buy into the moronic thoughts of a bad ex-NFL QB turned bad NFL analyst.
The obvious, as Coach55 pointed out, is that Johnson was a loser. 9-17 record on teams better than our current.
If you don't like or have given up on TE, fine--it's understandable. But to unfavorably compare him to the worst personnel decision the Bills made in the past 20 years removes any hint at seriousness from your argument.
-
Looks like the players just had a very belated "hey.....wait a minute"
The league's television contracts for the 2011 season provide for the networks to pay the league even though there would be no games during a lockout. The union argues that this agreement was made to the detriment of the players and is, in fact, a weapon to be used against the players in the lockout.Gee, you think so?
.The union is asking Burbank to order the league to put all TV money in an escrow instead of distributing it to the owners during the lockout. This would, obviously, produce significant leverage for the unionNow? Yeah, good luck with that, Mr. Foxworth.
-
I thought maybe Madonna, Sandra (blindside) Bullock and Brangelina would be adopting some gulf kids......oops! they're just covered in oil.
This is very clever!
-
Mr. Weo--this is absoultely the best non-football post I have ever read on this website. It's succinct, brilliant, and goes directly to the heart of the issue.
The fact is that our value system as it relates to taxation is based on the old world theory of Master/Servant. In our system, the king is repalced with the government, and the government rigs the game to it's benefit. see your standard 401k. the government allows it's citizens to save their money for their future needs, giving them the most gracious and benevolent gift of tax deferral on the relatively small amount they save. in return, the goverment has the right to tax the entire value of the asset at the time when you use it. in fact, just to play it safe, the government maintains that regardless of your personal situation, come age 70 or so, you must begin to get their share. so, in theory anyways, the government creates millions of little annuity accounts for itself along the way. the king simply must get his share.
the estate tax issue is fundamentally the same. i won't argue the merits of it, i believe the citizens of a nation must pay for it's infrastructure through a moral and just tax code, but the citation of Messrs Gates and Buffet as super-rich proponents of the estate tax is laughable. tell you what---show me Warren Buffet's kids living on their own pennies when dear old dad heads to his heavenly reward and i'll be impressed. show me that bill gates has not used every legal corporate and personal tax dodge known to man to do his part for the greater good while he's alive, and has his kids set up with just a couple hundred thousand sheckles to survive and i'll be the first in line to shake his hand. the truth is the very wealthy go to great lengths to plan for the eventualities of life, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure naivete. And you know what? I respect the hell out of both of these people for their obvious intellect and business accumen. i just happe to think theya r e bit full o' crap in this regard.
The root of the problem is this theory of one's "fair share". Tom Golisano left NYS not long ago because his fair share in NY was different than his fair share in Florida. How is one's share "fair" when dealing with a corrupt and bloated infrastructure like that we live with in NY? We all complain about it---why should he be forced to bail out ANYTHING related to NY when the general populace is apparently 100% comfortable with the status quo?
as to the rest, class envy is great if you want to vent. rhetoric sells well to the simple-minded.
Thanks.
Good point that this isn't just about the Fed taking money and redistributing it to others---the states are far more outrageous in taking money. NY governance is a laughingstock---filled with criminals, crooks and craven incompetents.
Tax money doesn't grease the palms of politicians??? Government workers make up the biggest group of union employees in the nation. Auto workers (many who have "gold plated" health benefits that will be exempt from new taxes Obama has planned for everyone else in his country with such plans) form the next largest group. $65 billion dollar bailout for GM--a company so poorly run and so bogged down in ridiculous retirement benefits that they cannot afford to honor? A bailout of Chrysler with billions and also by simply giving the union a huge chunk of the equity in the company while stiffing actual creditors (investors) who had loaned the company billions more? Why were those companies allowed to survive? Nobody wanted to buy their cars! And there were plenty of other cars being made in this country by better run companies. I'm not a fan of the banking bailout, but at least there was some economic risk in failure there to be considered.
How can you say that tax dollars aren't used to buy votes? How old are you?
Rfeyneman, before you comment on the factual content of other posts, you should make sure your own are a lot tighter than they are now in that regard.
-
I thought this was the best part of your post, so I hope you dont mind I cut the other part out.
I thought the first sentence was the best part!
-
A few points:
I'm not a "conservative" (only voted for one ever). I do have reservations concerning wealth redistribution to a degree more significant than already exists. Labelling an opposing view or the person espousing it only exposes you as having not much of depth to say about your own position.
The discussion of the merits or faults of a huge inheritence tax has morphed into a "soak the rich" discussion. OK. As someone already pointed out, the top income earners pay the vast amount of the sum the government charges its citizens. The top 25% pay 83% of the Fed tax bill. The top 1% pay almost 35% of all income taxes. Those Forbes 400 paid 1.6% of federal income tax in 2000. 400 people in a country of 300 million. The bottom 50% percent of wage earners pay 4% of the federal tab. That doesn't include, obviously, the number of people who earn nothing. So about half the country pays almost nothing in taxes yet has the same (or more) benefits than those in the top half of earners. With Obama's tax increase to pay for his heatlh care plan, individuals making over 250,000 living in NYC will be paying 60% of their income to (all) taxes.
The country is going broke--mainly because of out of control expansion of government entitlement programs and, under GW Bush and now Obama, a massive increase in federal employees. History has shown that simply taking more from those earning a lot of money does not necessarily raise federal income. Obama has committed to vast increases in federal entitlements that cannot be paid for. "soaking the rich" will not make up the difference.
States like California and NY, who have the highest concentration of "the rich", are nearly bankrupt due mainly to the cost of public employee benefits--particularly retirement benefits. When those of us who don't work for the government lost half or more of the value of our retirement funds, the public employees lost not a penny. Why do you want to pay for that if you are not a government employee?
Its quite magnanimous of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to argue for a "death tax". When your net worth is 30-50 billion, you're not going to miss giving all but 1 or 2 billion away. But the inheritence tax begins at a $3.5 million for dad's estate. So count his house, his small business that he built from scratch over years and you really wanted to take over for him, and his life insurance policy....well, you better have a few million laying around or you're going to have to sell the family business.
Maybe some of the posters here are envious of the European Union, where margianl tax rates are high to fund a very generous entitlement state. No class warfare there. In fact the only rioting takes place when "austerity measures" (cutbacks on entitlements) are annouced. Witness the counry of Greece, which just went bankrupt, where people were in the streets lighting cops on fire when told that government largess would be less available to them.
Perhaps that fiscal model appeals to some here. Not me.
-
Well, I put this in the wrong thread and moved it here but somebody deleted it. So I'll post it here and delete it from the other thread.
A long Mercedes stretch limo pulls up outside of Sheeple's house. A man exits the drivers door wearing a black hat with a highly polished brim. He is wearing a black jacket and black bowtie over a starched white shirt. His crisp black pants hide the upper portions of highly polished black shoes. He walks around to the back passenger door and opens it up. Loud sounds of partying can be heard with raucous laughter.
A man emerges in disheveled business dress. He stumbles out of the car holding a glass of champagne. He takes a minute to gain his balance with the help of his Chauffeur. He stumbles up to Sheeple's door and rings the bell.
Sheeple: "Can I help you?"
Bobby Richass: "Yeah, you sure can. My name is Bobby Richass and my dad died last year."
Sheeple: "I'm sorry to hear that. It must have been devastating."
Bobby: "Thank you it was. I've heard you're one of the few people who truly understand the plight of the uber rich and so I've come to talk to you. You see the government took half of my fathers estate in taxes last year."
Sheeple: "I know I'm working to make people understand how wrong that is."
Bobby: "I know dude but, that doesn't help me NOW! !@#$ing dad died at 11:59 December 31st 2009. We kept that bastard alive as long as we could and just one minute shy of no estate taxes the !@#$ dies. Do you have any idea what a six month hospital stay costs!!"(He turns his champagne glass up and drains it and wipes his mouth with the back of his hand.) "So knowing you are a compassionate conservative I'm hoping you'll help me out. I already had to sell the fourth home in Barbados to pay those overtaxing bastards and now I'm very close to not being able to afford the renovation on the third house in Hawaii. Anyway I'm in a hurry."
(A young buxom woman rolls down the back window and shouts at him.)
Buxom chick: Baaahhbbbbeeee, we're gonna miss the plane!!
Bobby: Relax I own the damn plane it isn't going anywhere without us. (He turns back to Sheeple) Look, I need a half a billion dollars to keep my head above water. I know you can't afford that right now but send me a hundred bucks a month and we'll be cool man. I already stopped by another Sheeples house and they agreed to it."
Sheeple: "Well sir, I'm not a hypocrite. Let me get my checkbook."
Bobby: "Look man I can't wait. I've got people to do places to go." (He snickers at his own joke and flicks a business card into the house.) "Send it to my accountant he'll take care of it. Oh by the way can you just sign this commitment contract first."
Sheeple: "Yes sir!" (Smiling he signs the contract) "Hey maybe some time I can come down and see the house in Hawaii."
Bobby: "Look guy I'm gonna be honest with you. That's not gonna happen." (He puts the contract in his coat and walks away. He stops and turns around) "Hey are there any other idio..compassionate conservatives in this neighborhood? I don't have time to talk to them but if you could go around to your friend's houses and give them my accountants address I'd really appreciate it."
Sheeple: "Yes sir, I'd be happy to do that for you!" (He gives him the thumbs up and smiles.)
Buxom chick: "Baaaaahhhbeee!"
Bobby: "Jesus Christ can't you wait a minute." (The chauffeur opens the back door, lets Bobby in and then speeds away.)
(Sheeple's wife comes up behind him. He tells her what just happened.)
Wife: "WHAT THE !@#$ DID YOU JUST DO!! WE HAVE THE MORTGAGE DUE THIS WEEK!!!"
Sheeple: (Rolling eyes) "Relax, I'm not writing the check from our savings account it's coming from Jimmy's college fund. Someday Jimmy is gonna make it big through hard work and he'll thank me for it." (Sheeple's wife runs upstairs and grabs a pistol. She runs downstairs and while Sheeple stares blankly into space admiring the great work he's just done she puts the gun against the back of his head and pulls the trigger.)
(Cue "Don't stop believing" by Journey)
It's almost difficult to imagine that this is the level of debate that some folks are working on in a discussion such as this.
-
Have you considered what might have been Montana's fate had he been drafted by a team that used a vertical passing game, and didn't have a back as friendly to the passing game as Roger Craig, and WRs as adept as Rice, John Taylor, Dwight Clark, etc? Or played for a lesser offensive coach than Bill Walsh?
Can you imagine if Joe played for the Saints teams Archie Manning had the displeasure to have lead?
It isn't simply about the player. It is also about the context and the player.
Well....you could pose the same question of any HOF QB. Also, it's hard to make the argument that the 49ers didn't "use a vertical passing game" from 81-90.
-
How much the tax is has nothing to do with whether or not the Bills stay in Buffalo. That decision will be made by the new owners. Ralph's family is selling the team when he dies and nothing will change that.
As for the inheritance tax, Ralph bought the Bills for $25,000 and they are now worth almost a billion. He hasn't paid any tax on that gain. When he dies the family will be expected to pay taxes owed. By getting rid of the inheritance tax the country would be losing all of the tax revenue it would get at all. There is nothing wrong with that tax.
(I don't really believe that all of somebodies goods should be taken away when they die I'm illustrating a hypocrisy.)
I find it laughable how some people cry about the inheritance tax in one breath and then proclaim that only people who work hard make it. Well then, I say take it all away from their kids and let their kids work hard to make it. They'd be starting at a much higher level than the vast majority of people by having private school educations, expensive college degrees and a social networking tree that the vast majority of Americans could only wish for. Oddly though nobody seems to be for that idea. I guess working hard to get it all isn't that an attractive idea to the richest who espouse it.
BTW, I think this thread belongs in PPP. JMO
So if you didn't go to private schools or had any social networking and yet were able, thorugh hard work over a lifetime, to amass a fortune and then die---it's OK for the govt. to take half of your life savings and worth and give it to others (who are not your family) who didn't earn it?
Why is that better? Why is that more fair? Perhaps you son't see the irony of your (bolded) statement.
-
I agree with this post. There are a lot of ways that college QBs can attain success that won't necessarily translate very effectively to the NFL level. The question NFL GMs are (or should be) asking isn't just "was this guy successful in college?" but rather, "of the things I'd like my starting quarterback to be able to do, how many has this guy proven he can do in college?"
I'll buy that.
Maybe that's what you meant too, huh doc?
-
Thoner, Kingfish posted this a few days ago:
"Lynch scored more TDs because he has had far more "and goal" carries then Fred Jackson has. Over his career Marshawn has had 46 "and goal" carries and has converted 10 (21.7%) of them while Freddy has 18 "and goal" carries and converted on 3 attempts (16.7%).
He's better than Freddy around the goal line but not by that much."
I bring this up because it has suddenly become popular to state that Marshawn is a vastly superior short yardage and goal line runner than Fred is. However if you take Marshawn's 21.7% and factor that into Freddy's 18 "and goal" carries, Freddy would have only 1 more touchdown than he did (4 to 3).
Kingfish further pointed out:
"If you go to Lynch or Jackson's Yahoo profile and look under situational stats you can find it. Another interesting stat of Lynch's in 2009 was how fast he wore down after his 5th carry-
Carries 1-5, 5.0 YPC
6-10, 2.7 YPC
11-15, 2.5 YPC
16-20, 2.5 YPC
Compared to Freddy
1-5, 3.8
6-10, 4.5
11-15, 4.8
16-20, 3.1
21-25, 6.8
26-30, 10.4
31+, 2.3
And people think it's no big deal that Lynch isn't reporting to "voluntary" OTA's when conditioning clearly derailed his 2009 season?"
This last point seems to underscore the long held belief that Lynch was in bad physical condition last year and raises the legitimate concern that his non-participation in OTAs might be a recipe for again being out of shape.
Also this last point seems to be one of two points that fans disagree upon.
Some people here show no concern about Lynch's conditioning, even though it was an issue last year.
Many of these same people think that Lynch will be able to catch up on the offensive playbook without limiting the offense when he's in the game…or that he'll not screw up on audibles…and that he'll be a mentally mistake-free football player…making the same pre-snap reads as his teammates, etc.
Many of us disagree with these assumptions and are very concerned about the effect that missing all these OTAs will have on Lynch both from a conditioning standpoint and also from the standpoint of being a mental asset to the team instead of a mental liability.
Good stuff.
Does anyone really believe Lynch is bright enough to walk in and pick up the new offense? His jersey number is a multiple of his IQ.
The great Rob Johnson
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Hate to ruin it for you, given that great argument you spent all morning thinking up, but I all but gave up on TE last season.
Anyway---it's still remains that he has performed better than the disaster that was Rob Johnson. Pantywaist? I will remind you that RJ lost his starting job after an injury he sustained falling on a football.