Uggg, damn it, I hate it when you humanize yourself to me. It makes me want to stab you less. STOP IT!

Collins did do a good job filling in for RG3. Depth is a really hard thing in the league today, but when you have it and the  back ups are as good as the starters you do well.

Yea, but he is getting up there. I'd say any aged Hall of Fame QB can do well injury free. But his neck, even though the docs oked him, still scares the shit out of me. My X named our prior cat after Manning, but when we went to the vet we gave the vet the girl's spelling "Payton". What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, do you care, no.

I am sorry, but I see nothing about Fleebow that says he will be anything but a back up, and out of the league in 3 or 4 years. I can remember the hype over Heath Shuller and all he did was flip teams more than a place kicker.

I thought that teebow whatever guy was good. He was all you guys could talk about a year ago.

You could put the crappiest QB behind a Hall of Fame line with Hall of Fame receivers and a Hall of Fame running back and make him look good. That might win you a couple of games, but it wont make you a consistent team.

I often wonder how well Montana could have done in the NFC EAST back in the 80s, which was the toughest division. The 9ers back then were playing in a very weak division. I think Montana would have done well even as a QB in the NFC EAST back then. But Fleebow from the start was inconsistent and whatever success he had was more because of the team around him. I have seen players of every position hyped when drafted only to fizzle or remain back ups. Fleebow will never rise to the level of a Montana or Manning. He'll be lucky if he stays on any team, from what I have seen of him so far.

I have been watching this game since I was a kid. And the players that make a difference are not always the ones hyped . They are the ones that can be surrounded by a young inexperienced team and build from there. Bret Farve and Joe Theisman come to mind.

That was about everyone pining after his god crap, not his actual lack of talent.

Miami will fail miserably with no QB.

Eagles will be fighting for wild card spot.

Houston will make it to the Super Bowl and they will defeat San Fransisco 24-23.

Exactly, and have seen stuff like this since I was a kid, not just with my team, but it is part of the history of college and the draft, and with every position as well. The truth is most players drafted wont end up starters and have an average of 3-5 year career. Heath Shuller was supposed to be the Skins next Theisman. What a waste of money that was. Heath started with other teams but never rose to top QB status.

Well as a prediction... every expert who makes a claim that X and Y teams will play in the Super Bowl before even the first game of pre-season, are making a bold statement.

At risk of derailing the thread, you accept here that what may work in one instance may not in another. Superstar players can carry a team, but I have also seen a bunch of no name players gel over a couple of seasons and dominate over time. So if everything is case by case and one size does not fit all, which is the reality of life, then why should economics be treated any differently?

I can remember as a kid in the 70s the Skins spotty at best and only 1 Superbowl which they lost to the Dolphins. Lots of hyped players during that time, but no absolute dominance. Then Gibbs comes in and builds a team from nothing with a bunch of no names, two years later they beat the same Dolphins in the Superbowl. The same could be said with the Packers and Farve. Before that staff and players were shook up, they had been a doormat for most of the 80s.

Life really is a crap shoot, and while work matters, luck has a part to play too. There are probably many people in your life if a day here or conversation there, or not meeting certain people, your life could be completely different.

There are good principles in just about every economic ideology, just like you can pick good things about a team that runs on a passing game, vs another that has a running game, then still other teams that dominate through defense. I have seen all styles of play both win and fail, and long term what I see isn't one size fits all, but balance and depth.

I like my economics like my football, GENERALLY SPEAKING, not left not right but center and balanced. Usually you can go with a trick pony for a while (star player) or (play scheme), but just like going to prison young, you can lift weights and dominate, but eventually if you have a life sentence, you get old and someone else knocks you off your perch.

And just like football, if a Star player can affect the team, so can lopsided economies. And right now we have a global economy that is great at making money for the few, but the cost is at the workers expense where they end up in sweat shops for slave wages.

Which is ironic because for you, a fan like me, of the NFL, it is totally lost on you the salary cap, and the fact that the profits are shared with the less fortunate teams. So socialism does work, you simply are stuck in Stalin's vision of it which is not what the founders set up which WAS, in the form of a Constitution, an ANTI MONOPOLY LAW.

If I could force Dumbby Snothead to sell the Team to Nick Hanour, I don't know how he'd be as a winning owner. But I would certainly trust him more to pay the field crew and beer sellers and hot dog sellers much better than most rich people.

So basically when everyone has a say, everyone does better, just like minority NFL team owners who have crappy teams for decades.

It shouldn't be treated any differently. My entire argument in economics is based on the idea that one size does not fit all and everything is a case by case basis. Furthermore, that the people best suited to make a decision about the best course of action are the people who run a company. That is precisely why I oppose regulations. Regulations, by definition, attempt to make things "regular", in other words, to make things the same among several companies. One recent example we have discussed is Walmart vs. Costco. Walmart pays their employees little, Costco pays their employees more. The two companies have different approaches to selling more or less the same items. I oppose regulations that would force Walmart to be like Costco and pay their employees more. You are the one who wants Walmart to be the same because you have a moral cause you think government should force. 

Any regulation forces companies to do the same action or remove the ability to choose to do a certain action. I think companies (and people) should be generally free to make whatever choices they want, good or bad. Government should only intervene in the extreme situation of a company doing something like hiring hitmen or vandals to destroy their competitors.

I never said that there were not positives to socialism, communism, RBE or any other economic system. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as just picking out the positive effects as attempts at mixed economies have demonstrated many negatives. In many ways, I think it would be better to go straight up socialist than attempt to mix a socialist and capitalist system. One good example is healthcare. The attempt to mix the two is a complete disaster, we would be better off with a single payer system. With the mix, we get many negatives of both systems and few of the positives from either.  

Going down the middle of the road is the surest way to make sure you get hit. The middle for the sake of the middle is absurd, especially since the "middle" is an evolving definition and more often than not simply a phrase used by people afraid of taking a stand or too ignorant to have an informed opinion on a topic. There is no "middle" between Keynes and Hayek, they have two completely different and opposing theories on how a capitalist economy works. At least one is wrong, possibly both.

To some extent you can have a capitalist system mixed with socialist elements, however you don't have real socialism, certainly nothing like what was imagined by Marx. That is why me and iwbiek can agree on so many small issues, even though we are about as far apart ideologically as is possible. You can have a well balanced football team, but if the QB is playing a pass play and the receivers are playing a rush play you have a disaster. Balance can work, but it has to be well thought out and intentional. The middle for the sake of the middle or compromise is a disaster.  

I don't support the current global economy. I oppose nearly ever economic law in existence around the world. If you don't like the current economy, you should support me rather than the people who created it. Or support a real Marxist, RBEer (is it RBEer or RBEist?), Fascist (by which I mean fascist economics-not Nazi's), or someone who has a cohesive idea of an economic system. What we have now in our country and pretty much everywhere in the world is middle of the road compromise that you say you support. Countries vary on which side of the middle they are on, but none follow a complete economic theory. Most of that is simply political reality that people have opposing positions and are willing to compromise, so compromise is often the road to political power. Unfortunately, the road to political power has nothing to do with what is best for a country or the best way to run things.

Especially when you talk about the global economy, my side has no political force at all. Even our "free trade agreements" do not have free trade. The global economy is more highly regulated, taxed and less free than our local economy. Ever try to ship an item across the border? It is much harder than crossing a state line. Yet despite my side losing every election for over 100 years, you still blame my economic ideology for the problems we have. It is laughable. You blame laissez-faire capitalism and people on the right wing blame Marx. You are both wrong in different ways for the same reason.  

I never said socialism doesn't work. I have no problem with socialism, I have a problem with coercion. If you want to voluntarily join a socialist organization, good for you. I wouldn't describe the salary cap as socialist, there is still a gigantic paygap in the NFL- it really is no different than what every corporation does when they assign a set budget to a particular department head for hiring. But semantics aside the NFL instituted the rule with the goal of making the NFL more competitive across the board. As an organization it works well for them because it makes the games closer scoring which attracts fans and makes everyone in it more money. That is a decision they came to as a private organization and the employees of the organization are free to accept it or go somewhere else. I would have a huge problem with the government telling all sports organizations that they have to implement a salary cap.

I wonder how you justify your support of the NFL when you are so opposed to MONOPOLIES!!!! The NFL is probably the closest thing to a MONOPOLY that has ever existed in this country. I'm surprised you haven't come out in support of the government breaking up the NFC and AFC into separate leagues. 

There is a fundamental difference between a private voluntary organization implementing rules and a government using legal force to make them implement a rule. I fully support the right of any private organization to implement any rules they want, even if I don't agree with the rules. Starbucks recently implemented a rule that they don't want smokers smoking in front of their stores. I oppose government ordinances that ban smoking in certain areas, but if Starbucks wants to, fine. I used to play chess on the patio at a local Starbucks with a group of guys and sometimes smoke a cigar or two. They implemented the rule, so I will no longer give them my business. Maybe they will pick up more business to replace mine, maybe they wont. It is their choice, their property. That is very different from the government fining my local hole in the wall bar for letting people smoke inside even though everyone who works at the bar smokes and the owners want to allow smoking.

It might surprise you to learn that I am a big fan of credit unions. I do almost all of my banking exclusively at credit unions, which *gasp* are non-profit. I don't know why, but apparently a lot of people are still fans of commercial banks. Whatever. You bank where you want, I will bank where I want. How many times have I suggested to you that if you are so worried about the pay gap, start a restaurant that doesn't have a paygap? If you, or anyone else wants to start a company that pays every employee the exact same amount or whatever method you want to use to determine pay, more power to you. I am not going to stop you. Your business will either make money or not and there will be no law I support that will stop you from doing as you see fit.

My problem comes in when you get on your high horse and come along and tell me or some other business owner how they should run their business. If it is just advice, fine, I will take it or leave it. What bugs me is when you come along and demand that there be a law telling me to do this or do that, or don't do this and you use the weight of the government to force me to comply as a condition of being in business. My employees want to form a voluntary union? No problem go ahead. But don't tell me that I can't fire every person in the union if we fail to come to an agreement I find acceptable. And don't tell people I want to hire that they must join the union as a condition of working for me.

Yes, because all you worry about is what people say while you ignore what they do. 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Amazon-com-Salaries-E6036.htm

Note that Amazon has a huge PAY GAP! The tech people make salaries in the $75-100k+ range, meanwhile the warehouse and customer service workers get paid $11-$14 an hour. Eeeeeeeeeevil Walmart pays $8-$19/hour with the average being a little over $15/hr. 

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/warehouse-worker-salary-SRCH_KO0,16.htm

Of course, to be fair, Nick probably has nothing to do with setting workers wages in Amazon, he only made billions off of it. Let us take a look at the company he owns completely, Pacific Coast Feather.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Pacific-Coast-Feather-Salaries-E8320.htm?sort.sortType=BP&sort.ascending=true

Now we don't have a lot of information from Pacific Coast, it is a small company, and nothing for their low entry level workers, but we do have a few comparable positions. Look at "junior buyer" an entry level management position. Rich generous Nick with his billions and billions pays....... $31-34k. Fair enough. My first management job paid $26k but with inflation and all, that is probably a pretty fair rate. An eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Walmart that screws all its workers over pays.....$34-44k. The difference is even larger for the higher up buyer positions. 

http://www.glassdoor.com/GD/Salary/Walmart-Stores-Salaries-E715.htm?sort.sortType=BP&sort.ascending=true&filter.jobTitleFTS=buyer 

Are you sure that Nick would pay the low level workers so much better? The evidence suggests that he pays right around the prevailing wage in all of the businesses he owns. 

Where have I ever said I am not a libertarian? I am not a member of the party, but I identify closely with the movement, vote and give money almost exclusively to libertarian candidates. 

Why should I aspire to be like Warren Buffett, Suze Orman or Nick Hanauer? They lead lives that I decided long ago are nothing like what I want. Remember "one size does not fit all"? Yet you keep insisting that I should be just like those people? 

I have an entitlement attitude? lol Perhaps you ought to get a job doing stand up comedy. I don't think we have ever discussed noise ordinances before, but your assumption that I am against them is incorrect. As per your usual, you attempt to fit me into the caricature you have created in your head that has no basis in reality.

I am completely missing what playing loud music has to do with taxes at all. If anything, taxes are like loud music in that they are unwelcome and annoying and imposed on you by selfish people that think you should pay so they can live the lifestyle they want. 

So do you want to go up and read the rest of my post above, or did you just stop at the first sentence?