birdog1960

yes, they've played stupid but that doesn't necessarily remove the possibility of game fixing. I've seen multiple blatantly incorrect calls in the last couple years that greatly effected game outcomes. the lions seem to be the poster children. but "manning up" has nothing to do with the discussion. the op presented a reasonable theory. he could be right or you could be right I doubt anyone here will be able to definitively prove or disprove either of you. but his or anyone elses masculinity is not in question because they disagrees with you.

you seem to be confusing machismo and intellect. game fixing is a reasonable discussion. it's happened many times in the history of sports.

really? what do you think the pats* record would have been without brady the first 3 games. i'd say his loss at least equals the loss of watkins and mccoy. yet they've won in the past when he went down - with matt cassell no less. i'd wager a lot that they'd have still beat the bills week 2 without him. and yes it's a fair comparison. you expect to be the best, you need to compare to the best. very good teams just win.

the most recent one looks more Nehru inspired but papal inspired is in the realm of possibility. just out of curiosity, what was the temp in Buffalo yesterday? from the tv coverage it would seem he'd be sweating in that suit.

this. i hope we are both wrong but this is what i see as well.

yeah. it's that bad. but are the officials to blame, the players or the coaches? you fix things that you can relatively easily fix. are there people with better coaching pedigrees or higher upside than crossman available? no idea but if there aren't then the field of ST coaching is wide open for mildly talented humans.

which would be a reasonable argument if there were any other NFL team close in penalties: http://www.nflpenalties.com. since the ST penalties have been disproportionally high it follows that we're near or at the worst there as well.

there were six scores today. not sure how many punts. maybe 12? so about 20 plays and 4 or 5 penalties in those plays. the average game has what, 120 total offense and defensive plays.? (perhaps they can task the analytics department with researching this) and the bills were penalized 12 or 13 times. a penalty every ten plays sucks. a penalty every 4 or 5 plays? beyond ridiculous. yeah, i say he should be fired. and as i said at the outset, if i were this bad at my job, i'd quit before i embarrassed myself further.

b.s. ST had 6 penalties in the pats* loss and at least 4 in today's, possibly 5. it was so bad and i was fast forwarding so much, i'm not sure. yes, the players make the plays. but you build special teams with fringe guys. didn't they cut some guys to keep the right ST guys? if that's true (and i believe it is) then it's on the coach. and if he's got the wrong players, make some changes.

totally outplayed all season. as a percentage of plays they must be the most penalized. it cost us momentum and points on both offense and defense. if he has any pride he falls on his sword tomorrow. plenty of blame to go around but this is a consistent area of suckitude.

so two drug reps show up yesterday peddling this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/28/cholesterol/71284944/. besides it costing $14000/year, they lied to me about a study that they felt supports it use. fortunately, i was familiar with it and, um, set them straight. but there's absolutely no outcomes data on this product. no direct evidence it accomplishes what we want cholesterol drugs to accomplish -lower stroke and heart risk- and yet it's approved and if widely used could cost the system billions! the FDA and big pharma are out of control. and we're all paying through the nose for it. a national discussion needs to be started and the prez debates seem a good place to start. i can guess what the dems will say but what will the republican candidates say?

really? is it self serving to advocate for and support candidates within a democracy whose policies would cost one a large percentage of their income (e.g. bernie sanders)? many liberals do exactly that.

no idea where you get the overhead figure but even that number is lower than many ngo's.

wow. author is economics prof at u of m at flint. didn't even know it existed. never used the word charity. we were discussing feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter etc. is doing it through taxes somehow less beneficial to the recipient? do you judge it less virtuous if it's done open handedly? does God? Do you pretend to know?

you like this one better from a Catholic bible? 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, 36 lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." 37 Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?" 40 And the King will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." to you literalists I guess a few stylistic words make all the difference. I assume you know what it goes on to say. to your other point, perhaps charitable on their own terms. to be fair, we should look at total taxes paid by liberals versus conservatives and the amounts going to the needy. I won't concede even the notion that voluntary giving as a percentage or absolute number among cons is higher as this is nearly impossible to measure unless the irs opens the book on deductions. even then, when the poor give its generally not deductible since they don't make enough. you do remember that story of the widow's mite, don't you? finally, you once again change a question with another options into an either/or question. it's not only a question of giving a fish or teaching to fish. one can do both and should.

it's an example. the argument began as a proof of the timeless and universal relevance of the popes teachings. the fact that we now have as ruthless and evil regimes as in biblical times makes the point more salient. a systematic rather than piecemeal approach to the problem is required. 2000+ years of failure is enough proof.

nice short piece that nails it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/28/opinion/paul-krugman-the-blackmail-caucus-aka-the-republican-party.html?action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&moduleDetail=most-emailed-1&pgtype=undefined

yes. it's working so well for the Syrian refugees.

yes, because we still have a powerful occupying government in the middle east that shows outright contempt for those under it's control….oh,wait. lets try that again. yes, because in 2000 years we haven't advanced enough as a species to systematically incorporate these wise ideas.

not that it will likely have any effect on you but what i've got is the basis for much of the pope's social justice message. you won't find a mention of fishing classes. do you think this aligns more with liberal or conservative philosophy? Matthew 25:35-40New International Version (NIV)35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

then to crystalize your stance: impoverished people have no real reason to be poor other than liberals holding them down. got it. that's almost as good as "just say no". that worked out so well.

sorry "do unto others" seems more in line with liberal values to me. dog eat dog and every man for himself seems to better define modern American conservatism. many conservatives favor the death penalty while many liberals favor choice so that's a wash. emphasizing families is not unique to either side. all in all, I like his positions better than either groups on these issues..

he speaks universal and timeless truths: emphasize families, the golden rule, respect for all life. these apply everywhere and all the time. they are what differentiate us from wild animals (sometimes).

1991 AFC championship game. I had to look it up but I do remember that game. let's hope it's not another 24 years til it happens again.

me too. i'd be getting more than a few smacks for my grammar and punctuation right about now. I hated that they were under attack recently by a few American bishops. I expect that will cease for at least a little while.