birdog1960

interesting and well stated post. it's in keeping with the build through the draft philosophy but that will ultimately fail the bills if your points are fully accepted because all the type 2 stars will leave at the end of their contracts. the only way to win then is to pay the type 1 stars. not bloody likely. here's hoping for more greedy players and less bills frugality.

agree in principle but drastically increasing retirement age in this economy will only worsen unemployment and result in more who really need medicare. older workers are now often the first to go partly due to the cost of their heath insurance and other benefits. i agree totally about eliminating graft. i'd trade the current health care bill for that assurance.

, oh wait

no, generally it appears preconcieved. you start with that assumption. but back on point, doesn't it bother anyone else except frenkle that this "think tank" rationilizes not disclosing funding on the basis that these facts might be used against them? this is likely an "astroturf" organization trying to appear grass roots and as evidenced here, succeeding at fooling the general public to advance their donors (oil companies, tobacco co's, finance industry etc) agendas. i've jousted with these clowns before. there's an astroturf propaganda co run by an exFDA official, then pharma exec. now pr pharma man. doesn't publicly disclose funding either but it's available. ....and sheeple eat up their garbage without a second thought.

the most obvious, annoying and blatantly false is that you know more on any subject being discussed than anyone else involved in the discussion

you're joking...look in the mirror

this piece wasn't from that journal. it's an interpretation of a paper published in that journal from an author with ties that should invoke skepticism.

i'm not an expert on climate change. are you? as in medicine, i often rely on position papers in well respected, peer reviewed journals for information and interpretation of vast and sometimes equivocal data. this piece clearly doesn't meet those criteria.

atlanta aint really many folks idea of paradise but i also take exception to the idea that fa's won't sign solely for money. weak teams in less attractive cities have lured bigtime fa's with money....bears and vikings come to mind.

um, has anybody looked at where the author of this piece works? doesn't seem a real objective source. not making a judgement on the articles conclusions , just sayin... the "why doesn't Heartland disclose the identities of donors?" section of this page is particularly interesting.

takes one to know one :nana:

was just about to post that tonights newshour guests were rather unimpressive and then.... an interview with new imf chief lagarde. must see interview. listen to what she says about the us reserve currency status if the debt ceiling problem isn't addressed. very scary stuff. she's quite impressive.

pbs newshour. almost always has respected experts on both sides on big issues. watch it a few times before you call me an idiot.

well that too

well, i did use the word "yet"

cameltoe? where?

maybe i scanned the threads too quickly...reaction seemed positive overall, especially given that there are positions of greater need not yet filled. does making that point alone qualify someone as a whiner? never mind, i can anticipate the answer and i disagree.

haven't seen it but would like to. sounds like you found it fair?

yeah, but what about the REDSKINS????

life is good!...it's the bills that suck but i agree: in regards to the bills, "if that's all there is, then lets keep dancing"

point by point without the inflammatory rhetoric: a. the bills have overpaid for existing players. i haven't seen anyone here argue against that point in the case of kelsey. haven't seen too much grumbling about other players. i think many wouldn't mind the bills overpaying if it translated into wins. b.this is well documented. how many ex bills did you see in the playoffs in recent years making significant contributions? part of the equation for building through the draft is keeping your good players. does anyone seriously argue that they have done well at this? c. this is a strawman argument. most realize that we have to overpay to get top free agents. i haven't seen many argue that we shouldn't if it will help the team win. why are you and so many others so worried about wilson's money? he worries plenty for all of us. d. legitimate question as stated minus the ending disparaging remark.

they are...and the same teams are always bad it says it all

want the grumbling to stop? all it would take is a winner. Do you see a winner in the current bills? do the oddsmakers? didn't think so. and nix and wilson don't either but they don't care. the grumbling is appropriate. the average forumer has been more patient than is reasonable.

please explain how a team builds through the draft when they can't resign their players. that's supposedly been part of nix' formula but he isn't even keeping that promise.