birdog1960

if anyone questions the primary motivation of this organization, winning vs profit, look no further than this yearly game. all other things being equal (and with the bills that's far from a valid assumption) home teams win more often than away. for a team that needs every possible advantage, this is like waving the white flag.

one of the best, most truthful posts i've seen here. if byrd walks, your last point is carved in stone. well, it really already is but that would carve it in granite.

well, if you're right then there's only one man to blame...

chandler is just not good enough. it's that simple. i'm sure he's a good athlete but he's no where near a good or even average nfl tight end athlete. a good the improves the offense immensely. and yup, steve johnson is not a legit #1 nfl receiver but he's closer than chandler to what is needed at the position. that's not saying much.

late to the party but if not already mentioned, burl ives was named a communist and testified in front of the huac so he could go back to work. maybe "red nose" had a deeper meaning.

i'm a cradle Catholic. if the hstory of the world didn't get in the way, it wouldn't be so sexist. costantine ain't my favorite. but you look past the failings and look towards the future, things liook pretty bright right about now

uncommonly common. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html. stay tuned for further updates.

two words: "common good". Francis seems to like them.

good strategy. lose about 1/3 to 1/4th of the party (depending on the definition of bible thumper)and strengthen the most extreme and polarizing portion of the party. no, he doesn't need to take anyones view into account. his mandate is to advance the agenda of Jesus, as he sees it.

i'm delighted as well. the discussions he's already precipitated are important in their own right. i find little to disagree with in the piece. but i find it puzzling to find his stance on life and marriage described as "clear" (which it certainly is) and his statements on politics and economics described as "challenging" ( an entirely relative characterization). are these not similar labels to those of "republicans" and "democrats" that she derides later in the same sentence? i agree. his statements require no label or classification. they should be read and considered as the carefully chosen words and thoughts that they are. they're enough to contemplate independently.

profound.

the thread regards the pope. one would expect someone not interested in discussing religion would post elsewhere.

oops, first estate...the point is that the church has had influence on gov'ts worldwide for many centuries. no, Jesus never gave worldly governing advice that i'm aware of. He did define the ideal, however. much as Francis is. no, it appears the author has not been converted. yes, he's cherry picking. but i'll bet more thoughts about spiritual questions have entered his consciousness. even if dismissed, they've likely been more often considered. maybe not....could be completely wrong here but reading comments after his public response to an athiest writer, it's certainly been true for some nonbelievres.

oops, first estate...the point is that the church has had influence on gov'ts worldwide for many centuries. no, Jesus never gave worldly governing advice that i'm aware of. He did define the ideal, however. much as Francis is.

any thoughts on why the church, throughout most of history, has been known as the second estate? do you think the writer from "slate" has considered theological and spiritual questions more or less frequently since this papacy began? how bout people in general? from the churches perspective, that alone is a good thing and Francis has already acheived a measure of success. as far as govt vs corporate, i'm not sure it can be said more concisely than it was in the mentioned piece.

for a jesuit, he couldn't be more plain in his writing. if others need to spin his words to rationalize what he says, then so be it. "liberals" come in all shapes, sizes and beliefs. many are christians and are actually opposed to abortion and some even to contraception. interestingly, this pope has commissioned a poll of catholics on social and especially sexual issues. that's a paradigm shift and an implicit recognition, i believe, that you can be part of the church and not agree with all doctrine.

the more i read, the more i like: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/11/26/evangelii_gauddium_pope_francis_vs_libertarian_economics.html. "when the earnings of a minority is growing exponentially, so is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by the happy few. this imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute asutonomy of the marketplace and financial growth. consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. a new tyranny is thus born, invisiblle and often virtual, which unilateraly imposes its own rules." not much wiggle room for interpretation there.

if you want to be a bit unconventional how bout samosas with mango chutney (which you can buy in a bottle, kinda late to make your own).

i think that's exactly what Francis is asking. and he's calling for radical change in the church, especially the us church. he's practicing what he preaches, too. lives humbly and avoids pomp and extravagance. now, whether the us bishops will ignore him is another question. i've yet to see many of his unfiltered words in the weekly "Catholic Virginian" newspaper for example. there's even a previously appointed fox news correspondent acting as papal press sec to the us (appointed before Francis). reading about him he seems a reasonable guy but still not much coverage on the controversial stuff Francis has simply and overtly stated, in the us mainstream Catholic press. perhaps he'll see the light.

Yes, lets go back to some things he said: http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-25102720. he also warns the rising global economic inequality is bound to explode in conflict. "Today we also have to say "i shalt not" to an economy of exclusion and inequality. such any economy kills". couldn't agree more. rock on Frank!

never thought of that. and then they can talk business strategy in the cart while throwing the round to some influential politician and repeating "nice shot' a lot. i'll bet lots of big opportunities would result from that.

this. networking? are the poor to network on the bus or subway on the commute to one of their part time jobs? perhaps someone will lend them the money for dues to a country club so they can meet important contacts there. this survey is as ridiculous as chef's comment.

i loved it but i loved the books and the first movie, too. i think it's much deeper than other recent movies in the genre. i keep thinking of the older tributes in the context of retired football players with post concussion syndrome and the themes of materialism, wealth inequality and propaganda are pretty appropriate right about now. jennifer lawrence is her generation's greatest movie actress, imo. the fact that she looks to me like a greek goddess doesn't hurt.

when i take the tree apart, i'll give the remaining two sections a closer look. the gun has a beeping voltage detector that you can run the lines with and see where the "block" is. but when the tree is together, it's difficult because there are so many other lines nearby causing interference. pretty cool how this worked for the 4/5th of the strings, though. supposedly, a burnt out shunt is the cause of 90+% of string failure. the filament goes and theres a shunt at the bottom of the bulb that's supposed to conduct electricity along the string but often doesn't. the gun plugs into any socket along the string and fuses any bad shunt via a piezo shock it produces. i suspect you could build one yourself from a grill lighter. i think the lighting mechanism is the same thing.

so, we put up the tree early. seems lots of other folks are eager for the season, too. and about 1/5 of the lights were out. the tree's about 5 years old but it's a big one and i don't want the trouble or expense of replacing it or taking it down and putting up another.. so, i'm in target looking for replacement bulbs and find this http://lightkeeperpro.com. and no, i've got no interest in the company and am skeptical by nature, but for $20 vs the cost of a new tree, i bought it. and in 20 minutes, i've got 4/5 of the bad lights back on. moved the remaining dark boughs to a less visible side by adjusting the tree and it's just fine. if i were more obsessive compulsive, i'd map the remaining bad strings with the beeping voltage detector but the wife's happy so i'm done. pretty neat fix for a common and annoying problem. plus, i'm not filling up the landfill with a huge tree and lights. if you find yourself in the same situation, i highly recommend it.