I dunno, Herzog. I think sometimes you
just have to go ahead and feel sad.
I mean, its a sad thing.

Keep us posted.

w
v
“We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do,
and more in the light of what they suffer.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Herzog wrote:

It looks great, but I dont’ get it. Open on the sides but covered on top with glass? so it’s an open air stadium with a roof that you can’t air condition? What am I missing?

Well…just picture a stadium incorporating
all that Walmart stands for and all that Disney stands for,
and you will then get it.

I bet they even screw up the ‘blue and white’ thing.
They’ll make the blue some sort of flashing neon-blue.

w
v

rfl wrote:

wv wrote:

Well, we’ll see. It could be they sign Barksdale and Wiznewski
and spend two of the first three picks on the OLine.

Indeed. And you know I’d be happy.

Remember, I’m just reacting to the comment that the franchise direction is not based on the QB. And to me, the ACTIONS of the group so far indicate that they value the OL–and a true, power running game–less than they do these other resources. Even if they do as you say, they RISKED getting no one very good in a thin FA class for OL. They’ve already risked that.

We’ll see on the draft. As you say. I would love to see us draft Scherf, though people say he’ll be gone. I’d love a true, #10-worthy OL pick.

But I have this sneaking suspicion that that won’t happen.

‘Course, I was way off in my expectations regarding Sam’s fate … so what do I know?

Well…we both know what’s gonna happen
if they ‘dont’ fix the Oline.

And It wont be pretty.

w
v

PA Ram wrote:

Well thats the number that caught my eye.
(a lot of the other points were confusing to me)

But there’s all kinds of algebra out there,
on this topic. Lots of numbers.
This site says “welfare” is nine percent.

It all depends on what you’re looking at. A lot of people will see 9 percent and think that this is only about handouts in the form of food stamps or money to welfare frauds. The truth is that they throw different things under the “welfare” umbrella including social security disability payments, unemployment and worker’s compensation. So yes–it depends on what numbers you are looking at and how they classify them.

All true.

At any rate 9 percent is still low.

Also, if you look at that pie-chart, Military spending is 21 percent,
and Education is 3 percent.
Now if we knew nothing else about a ‘nation’ what kind of society
would we ‘predict’ would emerge from a nation
that allocated money that way?

w
v

bnw wrote:

No my friend liking the team is still supporting the owner. If you have no skin in the game then perhaps the mental charade seems clear cut?…

Well, i suppose its a lot easier to support the team and not the owner
if you live in West Virginia. I mean, i dont spend any money on the team,
that would filter to the owner. Except maybe on NFL-Rewind.

We can agree to disagree, i guess.

But i still say…if you give up on the Rams,
the TERRORISTS WIN !

w
v

bnw wrote:

I understand but that is not me. When Bidwill flew the coop while bashing St. Louis fans I didn’t watch the NFL for 7 years and delighted in the news of his failure in Phoenix that lasted 20 years. I became a reluctant Rams fan as I really wanted an expansion team and believe to this day the Jags should have been the St. Louis Stallions and this crap wouldn’t be happening today. No doubt the NFL brass thinks so too.
I find it obscene that a billionaire demands the public fund their stadium again after only 20 years then says he will privately finance a much more expensive stadium elsewhere? Busch II was 40 years old and the Arena was at least 70 years old. Such huge investments shouldn’t be treated as disposable. The publicly owned Packers still play fine in Lambeau Field.

Ok, but i can tell you from personal experience,
its quite possible to loathe an Owner
and still like the ‘team.’
I loathed Carroll Rosenbloom.
And then I loathed Georgia F.
And now i loathe Kroenke.

Owners tend to be loathsome.

w
v
Honore de Balzac (1799-1850): “Behind every great fortune is a crime.”

Zooey wrote:

Artificial turf in Los Angeles.
Count me out.

Unbelievable.

Sigh.

w
v

sdram wrote:

I know it’s just business as usual. Sometimes my mood dictates I outburst in a sigh of utter disgust. And, I agree PA – it’s not one party or the other. It’s just business as usual.

I applaud your sigh
of utter disgust.

Now, think about ‘why’
American ‘citizens’ keep
voting for Dems or Reps.
They dont have to.
Why do they continue
to do it, as the Titanic
sinks…

w
v
—————————
“…In a society dominated by capitalist logics, people will generally see that
their interests are served by the election of candidates who are able to provide a
context in which business can be successful. They tend to vote this way because
of capitalism’s central conundrum: getting a job from a capitalist is the most
likely way one can get what is needed to survive in a society dominated by
capitalist processes.
Elections then serve the owning class in two powerful ways. They help
stabilize the capitalist economic structure by putting people in power who will
prioritize protecting the conditions for capital accumulation. And elections also
help to legitimate the system by showing that the majority has freely chosen
capitalist priorities. Only if anti-capitalist forces are able to transform society
such that people’s well being is not dependent upon capitalists to provide them the resources they need to survive, will working class people ever vote to get rid
of capitalism. Przeworski shows that we don’t need a functionalist theory of the state that posits an all powerful bourgeoisie which is able to always get its needs met by the state, or a complex theory of how the masses are tricked by a false
consciousness set in place by bourgeois forces, to understand why European
voters have not chosen to abolish capitalism. Instead the explanation for why
people choose capitalism is quite simple: it is in their short-term self-interest.
Przeworski’s analysis helps us to understand the real place that
challenging capitalism is difficult. The problem is not simply that capitalism is
protected by a “capitalist state.” His analysis shifts our attention from the state to
the economic dependencies created by capitalism. This analysis leaves us with an understanding of the state as an important site of contestation, but not as the
central fulcrum point for anti-capitalist action.….”
Cynthia Kaufman

— X — wrote:

I would have accepted, “I am Legion” as well.
But he answered it just fine.

Or.

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large — I contain multitudes.”
— Walt Whitman

— X — wrote:

wv wrote:

====================
VRENTAS: In 2013 you threw 27 touchdowns and two interceptions. Before you got hurt last season, you threw 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. Which of those quarterbacks is the real Nick Foles?

FOLES: Both of them. Those are all me. I don’t want to turn the ball over. I want to throw touchdowns, and I want to help our offense move the ball and get the ball in the end zone. Every single rep I have ever taken, that’s always been the guy who I want to be. I am not going to sit here and tell you that 2013 is exactly [who I am as a quarterback]. I’ve grown since both of those years. I’m a better player, a better person, a better athlete. I know everybody is going to analyze [the different stat lines] until the cows come home. But I’m not worried about that. I just want to work here and be successful here
=====================

Interesting answer.

w
v

Great answer to a set-up question.

1. I’m the first guy (to which the media touts him as an egotist)
2. I’m the second guy (to which the media touts him as a defeatist)

Dude processes ramifications quickly, I’ll say that.

He may be smarter than
i originally suspected.

That really was an unusual answer.
“I am both.”

Maybe i will like this guy.
Maybe not.
Maybe both.

w
v
“There are no others.”
Ramana Maharshi.