jjamie12

Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness / necessity of the stimulus and whether or not we would be worse or better off in the long run with or without it. What, in his quote, is objectionable, though? Everybody who feels like you do about fiscal restraint should be praising the hell out of a President talking about being fiscally responsible, right?

What, specifically, in his quote do you disagree with? Do you think Congress is/has been acting responsibly? Why aren't you standing up and applauding him for this, rather than complaining about it?

Just for the record: President Obama was saying that the GOVERNMENT needs to act more responsibly. Read the quote again. He wasn't lecturing anyone except Washington.

You understand that natural disasters happen in the US, and to Christians, right? But, let's go with this anyway; don't want to put words in your mouth. So... your God "allows" children to starve because years and years ago their ancestors decided to believe in something other than Christ? Which church to you go to, again?

So, just so I get this right: Your God (on purpose, with menace) starves children? Which church do you go to?

It really is not. These two things are not even remotely the same. Please do some research on this for your own information; I think you will change your mind (somewhat) if/when you find out how a credit score is actually derived.

And this is, of course, absolutely true. So: Government does something, it sounds good, people love them ("yay populism!!!!!11!!!"). Nothing actually really changes... Sound about right?

Wait a second, though. The way that I understand Carried Interest is that it is essentially their 'bonus' on top of their management fee, no?

Carried Interest taxed as Ordinary Income I don't find the arguments against this to be very persuasive. Of course the income derived from this is 'no sure thing'. Same as any end of year bonus, and those are taxed... The only thing I can think of is possible hurdle rates on potential investments being higher? Thoughts?

This editorial seems to be right. Journal editorial Most relevant piece (in my mind): This seems to run parallel to the work that Magox has done on this. KTFABD -- Can you comment on why you believe this not to be the case? It really seems to me that this bill did (will do) the opposite of its intention. Namely, it will actually INCREASE costs of insurance, not decrease them, but it will appear to be cheaper for some because taxpayers will be footing a large chunk of the bill. Are you in agreement with that?

Agreed. I understand your larger point, Lori, but here is something to consider, as well: I took a quick glance thru the Top 25 of FCS and their schedules. The only Thursday game I saw was Temple-Villanova on 9/3. Everyone else played on Saturdays. No Tuesday games, no Thursday games, no Friday games. Saturdays. All of them. In addition, those Saturday games are usually played (relatively) locally. I would be very surprised if these teams did anything other than leave on a bus late Friday afternoon, stay over Friday night and be back on campus on Saturday night. These guys don't miss class (maybe the rare late friday afternoon class) for football, unlike just about every single FBS school.

That's a problem. Football players don't need to study? How can you take your English Lit final on Thursday, or your Calc I Final on Friday when you're playing Friday night in Las Vegas or wherever the playoff game is held? That's a problem. I do. And it's a problem. All of that is a problem. And all of that is EXACTLY why I would be against making it any harder on these guys as 'student-athletes' (such as they are). You know what, Ramius? I met you in 2005 in Tallahassee at the Bills Backer bar down there. We sat at the same table and watched the Steelers-Bills game in Week 17 (when we couldn't beat their backups). We had a nice time there, you told me about your PhD work (biology? microbiology? Something like that, right?), about how hot the FSU girls were, yada, yada, yada. If there's one thing I'm sure of it is this: You would never, in a million years call me (or anyone, for that matter) 'laughably pathetic' to their face. That's not your style. Save the internet tough guy routine, OK? It doesn't suit you.

Can't help but notice that not a single person in this thread opining that there should be a 16 or 24 team playoff has mentioned anything about the players. Like how four more weeks of football games starting in December affects the kids' ability to take finals, for example. Or why those same kids should risk injury (and subsequent paydays) four more times a year just so people can B word about which teams got screwed out of the 'playoff' instead of getting screwed out of the BCS.

I don't remember all the details, but wasn't that essentially the Bush Administration's argument, as well?

Agree completely with the first paragraph. Hadn't thought about it as a bureaucratic dynamic vs. political, but that certainly makes sense when you think about the fact that projects get done because there's 'extra money' this year, and if you don't use it, you'll lose it for next year...

NY Times OpEd The most salient point (imo): Has any Democrat stopped to ask themselves this very important question? I realize that this board isn't a big "I'm smart enough to understand that there are things I don't know" place (nor is it meant to be... it's not a philosophy board, afterall) but: This is a thought-provoking piece from a: 'Wait a tick, we won't ALWAYS be in power' perspective, and that is certainly political in nature...

It astounds me that people who make decisions, in any capacity, would look at a blog and go "Wow. I guess I shouldn't buy that product." without doing any other research. People are insane.

No. I'm (quite literally) asking for the reasons behind the action: How does a 'good' coach become a coach who deserves to be fired? Literally, how does it happen? I only see a few possibilities: 1- Coaches 'slump' 2- Specific coaches work well with only specific teams 3- Talent level overwhelms coaching 'ability' 4- Some combination of 1 and 2. (If talent level overwhelms coaching ability, then 3, by definition, isn't lumped in with 1 and 2.)

I'm talking about guys who get fired. Gruden. Belichick. Shanahan. These guys got fired. Joe Gibbs came back and was awful, just as an example. Jon Fox is under heavy fire in Charlotte... why is that? Isn't he a 'good' coach? What of Jimmie Johnson in Miami? Why couldn't he get them to win there? Did he lose some of his 'good coach' ability? I'm not arguing with you, I'm asking the question: What makes a 'good' coach seemingly lose his ability to be a 'good' coach? How does a 'good coach' get fired? You're answering a question I'm not asking...

[Desperately trying to not make this thread about Jauron, specifically...] Lee Evans has NEVER been a Pro-Bowler. Marshawn Lynch has never made a Pro-Bowl. TO was a pro-bowler 2 years ago, and is now 35. It is pretty obvious he isn't a pro-bowler anymore (just watch corners jam him at the line. He's having trouble getting a good release). Which isn't to say that he's not talented, he's just not a pro-bowler. Fred Jackson would make the pro-bowl if he played all year? Really? Since the guy ahead of him hasn't made a pro-bowl, ever, I just don't get that comment. (If these guys have been to the pro-bowl and I don't know about it, I apologize, and I'll be wrong, and I'll say I'm wrong and I give you guys permission to horsewhip me through the inter-tubes) [Phew... done with Jauron] Leaving aside the Jauron question (it is not my intention to defend him here) Please see the posts above this of mine. If coaching is so important, how have the following guys ever gotten fired: Dick Vermeil Joe Gibbs Jon Gruden Bill Belichick etc... If Jon Fox (the speculation at the beginning of this thread) is such a good coach, how is it possible that Carolina is even considering firing him? How is it that Jon Gruden got fired last year? Did Jimmie Johnson just become a worse coach in Miami? What is it that makes a 'good' coach turn into a guy who deserves to get fired?

But let's put Jauron aside for the moment... What happened to Belichick in Cleveland? Why did he fail miserably? If John Fox is such a great coach, why are the Panthers even considering firing him? If Gruden is such a great coach, why did he get fired last year? I know why I think those things happen, but I am genuniely interested in hearing others' takes on it. There are countless examples of this. Here are a few things I can think of: Do Coaches 'slump'? Do talent differences overwhelm coaching differences? Do Coaches only work well with one particlular kind of team?

From the relevant section of the rulebook (I think). Isn't this pretty cut and dried? If Moen's (or Gionta's, not sure who they gave it to) goal is completely legal: Why wouldn't this be the strategy from now on? Barrel into the goalie and hope to push the puck into the net before it comes off its moorings? That HAS to be a higher percentage play than any of the other options, no?

What if the thought in the organization (or around the league at the time) is that the underlying talent level of that particular team was ACTUALLY 15-36?* Would you still be baffled? Are you baffled that Bill Belichick was a colossal failure in Cleveland? What about Jimmie Johnson's years in Miami? How about Joe Gibbs' awful return? Three years ago, John Fox and Marvin Williams were geniuses. Today? What about Tom Coughlin? New Yorkers wanted to string him up by his testicles. Today? Why do you think that is? How is it that a guy is a ManGENIUS when Brett Favre's bicep isn't about to fall off but an idiot and fireable when it finally does? If John Fox is such a great coach, (and I want you to think about this) how is it even POSSIBLE that Carolina is considering firing him? *I make no claim that the Bills were actually a 15-36 team over the past three years. Simply making an observation. Edit: Eh... this post came off harder than I wanted it to. I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm genuinely interested in answers from everybody on this. Why don't people think that talent level overwhelms coaching ability? I mean, isn't the evidence there for everyone to see every year in the league?

I just want to make sure I understand your larger point in this thread. You think it is/was in the best interests of the US that President Obama fly to Copenhagen and have Chicago lose the Olympic bid because: 1- It's like the Yankees (US being the Yankees). Nobody likes them winning all the time, so it's good that we lost. In other words - People around the world will like us better, or hate us less by virtue of this. 2- Further, it's better that he went and we still lost out, because it shows the world that they don't need to be cynical about everything i.e. "See, we can beat out a U.S. city, even when the President shows up to lobby for the games!" 3- By flying to Copenhagen and lobbying for the games, this helps us to repair past image problems. Is that about right? I want to make sure I understand.

I'm definitely biased, because I lived in Manhattan for 4 years, but I disagree with the first line. There is nothing like New York... everywhere else just seems like a big town in comparison (for me). That being said, we moved out of New York and didn't go back because of family life. I loved it there, but I like seeing my kids for more than 20 minutes a day a lot better, and I imagine Chicago has to be better than New York in that regard, too... I'd definitely live in Chicago, too... I can't imagine the winters sucking any more than they do here in WNY!!! I've got 25 WNY winters under my belt, so I think I'd be OK.