Joe Miner

I haven't seen the games, but have read around here that we are basically using a 4-3 at this point. My thoughts were more geared to what was the problem in the 3-4 and what we would need to actually achieve a decent set of 3-4 LB's. I also wasn't aware that Moats was really manning the SAM LB. So that could change a few things.

I've seen a lot of complaints about our LB's. So if you all don't mind, I'd like for you to help me out with some of my thoughts. According to the Depth Chart here's our LB SLB Chris Kelsay Aaron Maybin MLB Akin Ayodele Mike Balogun WLB Paul Posluszny JLB Arthur Moats Pierre Woods From my understanding about 3-4 LB positions, I'm a bit confused. SLB - Strong side LB. Should likely be the strongest LB and capable of taking on and defeating blocks from a TE and used to set the edge on rushing plays. - So my question is, why is Maybin, who is possibly the weakest LB on the team second string at this position? MLB - Middle LB. Usually the one to make the calls, and tends to be more responsible for getting to the RB and stopping the run. - I thought Poz was making the calls? Which I guess doesn't have to be the MLB specifically. Usually this LB is one of the tops, if not the leader of the team in tackles. To me we seem to be using Poz in this roll, but that's apparently not his official roll. WLB - Weak Side LB. This tends to be the fastest LB and the one used the most in coverage. - My question would be, is this Poz's role because he's good at it, or because we have no one else? JLB - Jack LB. This is the guy that rushes the passer. This is where I thought Maybin would be listed. Hopefully we've found a fit for this one in Moats. From the looks of it, we have a potential fit at JLB, and one other LB that might be playing out of position. It seems like we really need at least 2 more LB's in this lineup. One with good coverage skills, and one strong enough to be the SAM and help stop the run. I'm not a 3-4 expert, but this is how it seems to me.

That's the kind of "hunting" a lot of people that make special trips to places like Alaska do. With the amount of money you are paying to get there, get licensed and shoot at something, you definitely want to be bringing something home. Now, most people can actually work a gun, but those guides are paid to make sure you have a successful hunt. And if you don't happen to own a .300 Win Mag or something similar (not everyone here is Jack O'Connor), or want to transport your own firearms, then those guides will be more than happy to provide you with one. Is it realistic? It's a reality TV show. The answer should be obvious. Is it that far from the truth? There's a lot of money spent on big game hunting in certain places. Guided hunts are there for a reason and might not be all that different to what was in the video.

Mrs. Clinton at least had the duty of First Lady. Although I think Monica helped her take on a lot of that load...

By the way. On the topic of this proposal: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40640284/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Why do I sense an idiotic comparison to car insurance coming?

You're an idiot. That's not what I said. I said why do they deserve to have their money taken from them. If you can't figure out the difference, you're too stupid for this conversation.

Other people don't pay that tax at all. Only 1 segment of the population pays that tax. How are they getting a break over people that don't pay it at all if that tax is reduced? The people receiving the tax break are the ones not paying it at all. You used the word "deserve". Please explain why someone deserves to have any of their money taken from them.

You are seriously asking why a person "deserves" to have less of their money TAKEN from them? Why does a person deserve to have any of their money taken from them?

Give? Give them their own money? Why take it in the first place?

Why should there be an estate tax at all?

How about an Ewok? The only one that would intellectually bring a stone spear to a blaster fight.

It's a show that's improved on the basic SNL news skit, and you find it to be the best place for political commentary? You also think Chucky Cheese makes a damn good pizza don't you?

You watched it with your pants off didn't you?

Really? People are fearful and mistrust those that are different from them based on stereotypes and ignorance. That was caused by terrorists? I think that was around long before our concept of terrorism.

You're a lot of woman, you know that? Wanna make 14 dollars the hard way?

Awesome

You do realize that the article talked little of global warming, and mostly focused on the actions of APS right? You do realize that the link you provided about APS's defense didn't actaully refute any of the claims about the practices and the actions of the organization that this guy was upset with. I'm sure you also realize that the only thing the link you provided defended the APS about was the clearly stated "conjecture" at the end of the resignation letter. You read all this and knew what what was being said here before you started talking right?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39507182/ns/business-media_biz/ Obviously this is the network that keeps a good perspective on the issues.

You write this with mocking sarcasm. What's incredibly sad are the left-wing pundits bashing the democrats for not proudly standing up for these very same accomplishments. 60+% of the country doesn't/didn't want it to pass. It's so bad none of the people that passed it are talking about it, but these bozos in front of various TV cameras feel that it's really the linchpin for the success of the democratic party in a month.

You seem to be alluding to the notion that you think accountants and, "investors" perform very similar functions that can easily overlap. That they're two sides of the same coin. This tells people that you have no idea what you're talking about on either the subject of accounting or "investing". Not that they needed more data for your stupidity trend.

Not surprising that you don't know what ad-hominem means. I wouldn't call you an idiot to refute your arguments. I'd call you an idiot because you are an idiot. Now put your cork back on your fork before you hurt yourself.

Easy there .

What's to argue? You don't like relgion or religious people. You think religion has fostered more bad than good in the world. You think people that are religious have less ability to self-examine their feelings and beliefs. These aren't topics for debate. These are your narcistic bigoted feelings. The only thing that could be "argued" is whether religion has done more good or bad. But that's a retarded issue, because it's completely subjective, and in no way provable either way. It's just a conduit for you to troll up an argument and continue your anti-religion crusade. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself." So, no, I'll not argue with you. Just wanted to point out your self-love and sense of superiority along with your bitter dislike of those with differing views from yourself. Have fun crusading.

Quite the narcistic bigot aren't you?