Rob's House

I don't think she meant anything by it. It looks like a bad joke meant to spoof disrespect rather than demonstrate it. I hope she doesn't lose her job.

I don't get this concept of dictating number of touches. The game situations should be the biggest factor. Each man is better suited for particular plays. If you're running a HB dive up the middle you probably want to give that to Fred. A sweep you'd give to CJ. If the situation calls for plays that Fred runs, that's the call. If it's a CJ play you make that call. That's how we ran the NE game, the offense was fine, and the RBs carried the offense.

No ****. That's kind of the point. Increased employment is a result, not a cause, of recovery. But all theobjective respected media types would look into the camera with their stern, serious faces on, and talk about this "jobless recovery" like it was novel, mysterious, & terrifying. Why? Because they're a bunch of frauds. And Brian Williams is a pu$$y.

The only thing Flacco has on Fitz is arm strength. I've watched a few Ravens games, and sometimes he's on, but he has a lot of games where he's missing open receivers just like Fitz was when he was slumping earlier in the year. That's the damn truth. Our last game v Pats proves that. You'd think the 2 min drill is a given for other QBs. Maybe it just feels that way b/c that's how it's been for the QBs facing our Swiss cheese D for the last few years.

Just poking a little fun at the anyone but Fitz crowd. Campbell's not bad, just a grass is greener option.

Is anyone else wishing we'd taken a flier on Campbell?

Birddog would rather have Cameron doing his diagnosis than House. And he wants to make that decision for you too.

The cheating does a lot to explain why they're as good as they are now. First, it gave Brady the opportunity to master the game with training wheels on. By the time they were caught he'd had several years to play with the knowledge of what was coming, which gives you an understanding of the game, and how to dissect it in real time, that you don't unlearn. It also helped b/c they were able to trade off mid-level players for high draft picks for years, and attract top FAs to build a perennial juggernaut. It's not surprising that they've stayed good. It's also no surprising they haven't won another SB.

While that's true, the odds of more than one of those teams winning out is all but nill. If we go 10-6 is almost certain we'll get in. 9-7 is where it gets really iffy.

Rivers isn't going anywhere. For whatever faults he may have he's still a very solid QB. They've had a lot of issues with their O-line this year, and Gates is their only real offensive weapon, and he always seems to be dealing with nagging injuries. Basically, Rivers is better than whoever they could replace him with.

Jusus's game wouldn't translate to today's NFL.

He's not very polished, but he's got as good an arm as I've ever seen. If he can learn to harness it he could be amazing. If he doesn't, well, we've all seen how that story plays out.

Come on, man. That's the most bull **** answer to an honest question I've seen in some time. Changing people's perception of the poor = poor people eating healthy? GTFO. Seriously, 1. what are these more affordable, less healthy alternatives that poor people are turning to? And 2. What, other than rubbing our vaginas and feeling sooo good about feeling so bad, can be done to remedy this perceived problem? You should write a song called "I left my Humanity in San Francisco." Hope you like the view from the suburbs, you scumbag POS.

What are the more affordable and less healthy alternatives they're turning to? And were you looking to offer solutions or are we just feeling good about feeling bad?

You keep repeating this like it somehow makes your argument logical. Granted, it shifts the ratio to where what you're suggesting is less harmful, and theoretically could in very limited instances be feasible. The problem still is that you're highly unlikely to get output that is greater than the input EVEN IF you're operating at low capacity with high unemployment. Why? Because you still have to pay the unemployed and pay for the materials and the energy that you're using, and that has to be paid with real tangible wealth, and that wealth is almost certain to have a higher value than this other thing you're producing that the market didn't demand. I get what you're saying, you just don't see the bigger picture. For illustrative purposes I'll use an example. Say I've got a 50 year old manual generator that is powered by a man peddling bike peddles to create electricity. That machine isn't being used, and my neighbor is unemployed. So I pay him $50 a day to come over and peddle my generator to create more electricity, and he produces $30 of electricity/day. He's now working, where before he was idle, and my machine is producing utility, where before it was idle, but the net return is -$20. I'm better off leaving him idle. The only way your scenario is different is that in yours the money is just printed out of thin air. That doesn't change the value ratio, it just hides it so that the cost isn't felt up front, but rather on the back end where it's taken out of the overall economy. The loss is just as real, it's just spread out across hundreds of millions of people. And when you're doing that with a few hundred or few thousand dollars it doesn't really matter, you're just scooping cupfulls out of the ocean. But when you're Taking trillions of dollars out the back door, it becomes a very real problem that is felt by everyone.

Did you ever wonder why grocery stores tend to avoid these areas, and why those brave enough to venture in to high crime areas have higher prices? And for the record, whether you live in the city or suburbs, grocery stores are easily accessible for those who drive, and of limited accessibility to those who don't.

RB? OL? DT? FS?

I'd also like to see all 6 of these guys brought back. I always worry about cap space, but if the money's there I'd make that a priority over any outside FAs

I wouldn't really have a problem with the label, but I don't know that it's really necessary. I have a lot of friends that are big on this wheat grass eating hippie movement who only shop at organic grocery stores where they advertise not having GMOs. So people who are concerned about this have options. And why do you lay this off on Monsantos? Plenty of white people are involved as well.

I find your attack on the Monsantos to be racially motivated & highly offensive. Monsanto's are people too, damn it.

I'm stealing this.

What you're describing is often referred to as "priming the pump." I used to agree with this line of thought until faced with examples of its failures & I had to look deeper into it. The only way I can really explain it is in terms of the value of what you're producing. Input > output. All the workers you're employing and materials & energy you're using are being paid for, not with the money produced out of thin air, but with real labor & production of others. And even though you're creating something of value, in the process you're consuming more than you're producing.

This is an area where it helps to have Fred.

You can even eat cheap and healthy on the run http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHIo4VruGZY As someone who's done a fair amount of camping, (& I don't mean the kind where you park your car, walk 20 ft, set up your state of the art outdoor luxury set-up, and plug in the generator) I can personally attest to the fact, and it is a fact, that most of the concerns you just reeled off are overblown or unfounded.

I disagree