ARod's future

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:15:43 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>
>"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1cbj93pih7ulfc23u9ojnrti55546orrge@4ax.com...

>>
>> Anyway, anyone who follows football even casually knows that the NFL
>> salary cap is primarly designed to make owners, even terrible owners
>> like the Fords, extremely rich, at the expense of the players. It has
>> some useful effects on competitive balance, but that is not central to
>> its design.
>>
>>>
>
>Bullshit. The Lions have as good a chance to win as anyone else.
>What is holding them back isn't competitive impalance nor a lack of
>resources. It's bad management. They have the exact same resouces
>as any other team. The Lions can't win because the Lions ownership
>has no committment to winning, not any lack of resources and revenues.

You really believe that the owners of the Lions do not want to win? In
the old days, when the team did win under the same ownership, was that
because they did have a commitment to winning but somehow lost it?

Okay, so you don't follow football. No complaint from me. You were the
one saying that one had to know something about football to have
credibility on baseball economics.

>
>> "Anyway, anyone who follows football even casually knows that the NFL
>> salary cap is primarly designed to make owners, even terrible owners
>> like the Fords, extremely rich, at the expense of the players. "
>
>What a pantload of leftist, anti-capitalist bullcrap!!! There's just
>nothing
>more to say about this ridiculous and idiotic statement. Leftist
>bullcrap!!!
>
>
Well one thing --- the "cap" is not a tool of capitalism, so why are
accurate comments about the effeects of the cap "anti-capitalist
bullcrap"? and what is this about leftists? Do you think leftists are
apologists for rich, mostl right-wing, football players?

Fine to be angry, but geez, at least try to make some political sense
with your angry outbursts.

By the way, what would you think if the Lions tried to prevent
touchdowns by mining the end zone? Is that idea nutty enough to catch
your fancy? Or are you going to give me a pant full of leftist
bullcrap about people getting hurt?

BadgerBC wrote:
> On Jul 15, 10:44 am, gclark <gcl....TakeThisOut@noneya.net> wrote:
>> BadgerBC wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 10:30 am, gclark <gcl....TakeThisOut@noneya.net> wrote:
>>>> BadgerBC wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 15, 6:11 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it would
>>>>>> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>>>>> You really are a blithering idiot, aren't you? We're still digging up
>>>>> anti-personnel mines all along the Iron Triangle 54 years after the
>>>>> Korean War. I'd personally evacuated a nine year old Korean boy back
>>>>> in 1977 who'd stepped on one near Sungwon. Generals James
>>>>> Hollingsworth, Hank "Gunfighter" Emerson, Douglas Kinnard, and David
>>>>> Palmer (and the list goes on and on) who had fought in three wars
>>>>> (WWII, Korea and Vietnam) currently head an overwhelming number of
>>>>> flag officers who have begged the United States government to sign the
>>>>> Ottawa Protocol banning landmines.
>>>>> Since you probably know less about military matters than you do about
>>>>> economics, let me explain why this is an idiotic proposal of
>>>>> unparalleled magnitude. First, the ones who'd get maimed or worse
>>>>> killed are mostly women and children. Do you have any frigging idea
>>>>> how many mines would be needed to cover the border? There are
>>>>> estimated *2million* mines along the DMZ that stretches out 155miles.
>>>>> Even if you don't strive for the same level of saturation, do you have
>>>>> any clue the quantity that would be required to effectively cover
>>>>> 1900miles?
>>>>> As for properly marking them and keeping a master list, guess what?
>>>>> The Army studies have concluded that *more* American casualties in
>>>>> Korea were caused by US *defensive minefields* than enemy mines.
>>>>> Finally, if you're concerned about al-Qaeda penetrating the US from
>>>>> our southern border, just use your brain and think whether it's a good
>>>>> idea to make about 5000 tons of military grade explosives available to
>>>>> them. An al-Qaeda operative who survived Iraq against US forces (it's
>>>>> a rite of passage for the current generation) and underwent rigorous
>>>>> training in Pakistan isn't going to have a problem navigating a
>>>>> minefield as these people would have the skills to identify and disarm
>>>>> them (In fact 90 percent of all component parts of mines used against
>>>>> US forces in Vietnam were US-made). And what they could do with
>>>>> salvaged explosives would make Main Street USA resemble the Triangle
>>>>> of Death.
>>>> Great post Neil.
>>> Thanks Glen. How have you been?
>> Very well thanks.
>>
>> Hope all is well with your son. I was having an IM exchange with
>> my son the other day when they were under a mortar attack. Did not faze
>> him a bit, can't say the same for me. I'm sure you understand.
>>
>
>
> Thank you very much. Owen had deployed as a replacement PL with 15MEU
> in al-Anbar last December. They rotated out two months ago (They have
> a 6mos deployment cycle unlike the Army), but he's still in the
> sandbox as he just became an aide-de-camp in I MEF (Forward). He's in
> a much better situation now, but yeah I can't relax until he comes
> home. Did they extend your son's outfit after the surge? I hope and
> pray all our kids come home safe and sound.
>


I don't believe his tour has been extended. He as well as his entire
squadron volunteered. Not sure if that will make a difference.
Due back stateside in December, then off to Guam to be part of an RDF
unit.

Great talking to you, hope you and yours stay safe.

--
Glen