MarlinAddict

No, it's called pulling your own weight and not putting other people at risk in the name of being politically correct. You show me a 5'3" 110 pound women who can hump a 120 pound ruck sack 30 kilometers under combat stress, and mabye you would have a case. At MCT, nearly ALL the woman fall out of the humps because they can't hack it, and you want to put them in combat units? Please. For those reasons, they would also more likely elect not to wear all their available body armour, and the media could misplace the blame/responsibility saying certain parties never made the body armour available.

f*** him. Although, I must say that I do believe that they haven't carried out attacks for three reasons. First, they've been on their heels. Second, they've resorted to killing our troops in Iraq. And, third, they carefully plan each of their major attacks, so that takes time. The first two reasons are because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This could be a sub-part of reason 1, or perhaps a 4th reason. I truncated the article after the relative point is made (the rest is political opinion about why the US media hasn't been all over the story and available at the link provided). January 19, 2006 The Peoples' (Conditional) Right to Know By Jack Kelly Last month Italian authorities arrested three Algerians who were members of the al Qaida -linked terror group GSPC. The three were plotting attacks on ships, railway stations and stadiums in the United States in a bid to outdo the casualties caused on 9/11, said Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu. The arrests made front page news in newspapers in Italy, Britain and France. But apparently the only U.S. newspaper to mention them was the Philadelphia Inquirer, in a short AP dispatch on page A-6. The AP did not mention that the principal targets of the plotters were in the U.S. The incuriosity of our news media about the plotters and their plots is curious, especially in light of the mysterious death of Joel Hinrichs, 21, a Muslim convert who, wearing a suicide vest, blew himself up Oct. 1 on a park bench outside the stadium in Norman where the university of Oklahoma football team was playing Kansas State. When Hinrichs' apartment was searched after his death, the FBI found a plane ticket to Algeria. Perhaps the Algerian plotters went unmentioned because describing how they were caught -- the Italian authorities were listening in on their telephone conversations -- would interfere with a current journalistic meme. .... RCP

I meant the market, it has nearly everything a post-1980 baseball team needs. The financing doesn't seem to be even off the ground floor yet. I agree with that - the demographics are there.

Very feasible. This is a $700 million project. If all 6000 homes are all small (1,500 sq ft) condo's, that's about $100 million. The shopping mall, even if modest, will run about $200 - $300 million. That leaves a maximum $400 million for the stadium - which is an extremely conservative (and unrealistic) amount. Either the plans are going to be cut back, or there is going to be some huge cost overruns. Since he isn't foolish enough to invest in this himself, he wants the public to to invest the $700 million. They'll get a decent return in the short term on the $100 million for the condos. The mall will take 15 years to get any return - and then only if Internet retail has zero growth. The stadium, in and of itself, cannot provide any return at all unless the Marlins sign a lease much worse than the one they have now. Assume that the stadium is built for the ridiculously low $400 million, there is no interest, and ignoring inflation, maintenance, etc.. Further, assume the investors only desire a modest 10% annual return is desired along with the recovery of the initial investment evenly over 30 years. The annual cost recovery is $13.33 million ($400 million / 30 years). The desired return is $40 million ($400 million * 10%). That's a total of $53.33 million that must be returned to the investors in the first year. If the attendance averaged 30,000 per game for each of the 81 games, the investors would have to make $21.95 off each ticket. I don't know what they are now, but in 2003 the Yankees had an average ticket price of $24.86. Even at Yankee prices, that allows for the team to keep a whopping 12% of the gate receipts - and the Marlins thought the current lease sucked. If you think it's feasible, go for it.

I wonder if we won't see more serious consideration being given to scrapping income taxes altogether & instead going with some form of national sales tax or consumption tax... I've seen some pretty interesting versions of them. I have my doubts over whether they'd be any better in the long run, but the current system is such a mess that we may eventually just see change for the sake of change. Current system is a mess, but I don't think we'll see the national sales tax any time soon. That's actually a regressive tax system and will probably never be approved. Perhaps a flat tax rate. That was my problem with a federal sales tax, too. However, if you look at S. 25 (or H.R. 25 in the House), there is a bill that actually makes some sense for a national sales tax to replace the current system. Between both houses, it has over 50 co-sponsors. It give a sales tax pre-bate (paid at the beginning of each month) to the lower income groups to cover the sales taxes. They, for all intents, come completely off the tax rolls. Actually, everybody gets the prebate, so only those who consume above poverty level pay any taxes at all. It's not perfect, but very very good, the best I've seen, and immensely better than what we have now. I don't like the flat tax because its also an income tax, and the top earners can easily exclude their income. As a percentage of total income, the lower and middle classes would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy - just as they do today. Odds are you and I already pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes in various taxes than Warren Buffett, whose income is exempt from all payroll taxes.

The problem with the theory that these tax cuts will stimulate the economy, is that it assumes that Americans will put the money right back into the economy through spending, rather than saving. If we go into a period of economic decline, people will be more likely to save that money, according to basic economic theory. Thats a good point. The effect of one of Reagan's tax cuts was not too great if I recall. Although Reagan's dramatic increase in spending in the 1980's may have helped us beat the USSR, it may have caused the economic downturn in 1991/1992 that hurt George HW Bush's chances of reelection. Actually, rather than the consumption of goods and services, a tax cut is indeed intended to stimulate the economy through savings and investments. The savings and investments are invested in capital, which then expands the economy. That's supply-side economics. One can easily argue that our economy is demand driven. This means that you can give investors all the tax cuts that you want but that won't do a thing if there is no demand for goods and services. Even if you give millionaires tax cuts why would they invest that money in capital if there isn't enough demand for the goods and services they are investing in? That's like asking them to throw away their money. On the flip side, one can argue that the tax cuts make investment costs cheaper and in turn that increases demand by reducing the costs of goods and services. A more balanced and realistic approach is to give tax cuts to both the middle and investor classes - this will simultaneously reduce the costs of investment and increase demand. If I had to choose between supply-side economics or demand-driven economics I would choose the demand-driven economics. But realistically our economy depends on both. I believe in supply side as the catalyst to start the ecomonic expansion, and the demand side to join the supply side to sustain the expansion (pretty much exactly as you said). Demand side is incapable of starting an expansion (unless everybody wins the lottery), and, in and of itself, is inflationary. Also, in and of itself (which is taking it out of context as supply and demand cannot exist without one another), the demand side will actually slow down an economy. In short, demand cannot create supply, but supply can (not will) create demand. The biggest problem with supply side it that there is a relatively small optimum area for the marginal tax rates to expand an economy and simultaneous generate an increase in tax revenue (if the tax rates go too low, althought the economy expands, tax revenues could decline). As, in the late 1990's, for the first time in history, the average American spend more than half their income on our wide variety of taxes, and we had an enormous outflow from our economy to offshore financial centers, there is no question that tax cuts are necessary. I just don't think the styles of tax cuts that are being implemented are cutting the right taxes. The cuts we've seen have had some measurable impact on the supply side, but have only a minimal impact on the demand side. What most people don't realize is that for most Americans, their payroll taxes exceed their income taxes. If the payroll taxes were eliminated, the cost of labor would decline dramatically, and the American consumer would have more funds available to fulfill the "and able" requirement to create the demand side. Then, the economic growth could create additional revenues in order to fund the social security and medicare taxes that were associated with payroll. Thus the idea of a tax overhaul. The problem with the current payroll tax system right now it that it take 3.2 workers to pay for 1 retiree's annual social security. However, at today's payroll tax rates anything less than 7.1 workers/retiree is a deficit. From today's payroll tax rates, it will take a 92% increase in payroll taxes in order to make them balance. The rate of worker/retiree is dropping rapidly, and will drop will accelerate once the baby boomers retire. If the current systems stays in place, with the baby boomers retiring, by 2015, the rate will be 2.9 workers per retiree - which would require about a 107% increase in payroll taxes from today's rates in order to balance. The only way we can sustain the current system is to dramatically raise payroll taxes, which will move even more of our jobs out of the country, reduce our supply, and with more Americans out of work, reduce our demand. Our economy will collapse in our livetimes if the tax system isn't fixed. While the original ideas of social security and medicare may have been sound in their orignal intent, their implementation is a dismal failure. We've been hearing a lot of talk, and seen no action for decades. We have squandered a lot of valueable time. These deficits are gonna bite our collective @ss if we don't get a tax overhaul in the very near future.

The problem with the theory that these tax cuts will stimulate the economy, is that it assumes that Americans will put the money right back into the economy through spending, rather than saving. If we go into a period of economic decline, people will be more likely to save that money, according to basic economic theory. Thats a good point. The effect of one of Reagan's tax cuts was not too great if I recall. Although Reagan's dramatic increase in spending in the 1980's may have helped us beat the USSR, it may have caused the economic downturn in 1991/1992 that hurt George HW Bush's chances of reelection. Actually, rather than the consumption of goods and services, a tax cut is indeed intended to stimulate the economy through savings and investments. The savings and investments are invested in capital, which then expands the economy. So far as meeting the needs of stimulating the economy, the aforementioned tax cuts were like taking a cup of water out of the ocean. Our current tax code is stifling. In 2000, Merrill Lynch's World Wealth Report found that even then were there was $11 trillion dollars in US wealth sitting in foreign bank eurodollar (not to be confused with euros) accounts, not doing squat to help our economy. That number is probably quite a bit higher now, but I haven't yet seen the 2005 update. Those funds were legally moved offshore to avoid the our assinine tax code. What we need is a tax overhaul in order to get those funds (and the same overhaul would likely bring massive foreign investment) into our economy. Further, that $11 trillion would turn over several times each year (you spend a dollar today at Wal-Mart, they spend it in 2 weeks purchasing something, that purchaser spends it in another 2 weeks, etc.) resulting in sevaral time that amount to our economy. Even at a minimal tax rate, the economic growth would result in a huge surplus. Unfortunately, such a tax overhaul would entail eliminating the ability for Congress to offer tax breaks to the highest bidders, and eliminate its ability to manipulate the tax code (and falsely alledge opponents of altering the code unfavorably) as it does now in order to buy votes and maintain power.

Foremost, the Nats have to get a stadium lease. The "new" proposal by Cropp & Co is just the same ol' same ol' - let DC have control of all parameters of the construction, but MLB has to cover all over-runs caused by the DC govt incompetence. It's looking more and more like arbitration will have DC pay a penalty, and MLB moves the team elsewhere and starts all over. At it stands today, DC is more likely to lose a franchise than we are.

If NASCAR is going to be racing there, the track will undoubtedly be owner by the France family through International Speedway Corp. I searched all over and found no hints whatsoever that they are thinking of building a track anywhere in Texas.

Let the judge be his cell mate for the 60 days.

Doesn't this whole stadium deal remind you of the Cleveland Browns when Art Modell owned them and over night took them to Baltimore? I mean both cities took the teams lightly in giving them a stadium. Cleveland instead opted to build a stadium for the Indians, and an arena for the Cavaliers. Now, Miami is going to build some Arts theater crap and might give the UM a new stadium from what I heard. Hopefully, history doesnt repeat itself because he moved the Browns ,but, later they made the new Browns in Cleveland.What do you think? The Browns sold out every game. So, no. Plus, Baltimore bribed Art Modell something like $50 million to relocate.

Beinfest would be low on my list of those responsible. There wasn't much available in June, or even at the no-waiver deadline in July.

I think Marlon Brando knew Polanco's mama

Here is a link to an article regarding the FDUTPA. It states that packaging (perhaps such as certain players on the season ticket ads/forms), silence on certain matters (perhaps such as on the Delgado not being traded), have all been found to be violations of the FDUTPA. Further, and perhaps most importantly, a "practice that misleads a significant minority of reasonable consumers is deceptive, and the existence of some satisfied consumers does not constitute a defense." I don't know anyone who expected anything less than a $50 million payroll until Samson's disclosures. I think the majority of people felt deceived. I'm a CPA, not an attorney. But it sounds to me like you have a case. With those precedents, and from what I've seen/read/heard - if I'm on the jury, you win.

It also turns out Florida has its own little Federal Trade Commission Act, the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It covers deceptive or misleading adverstising, such as was shown on the commercials during the push for 2006 season tickets, etc. It may be an avenue. If you Google "Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act" you will find a lot of interesting stuff. Also, it won't hurt to have the Florida Attorney General have a look into it. The inquiry is free.

I don't know if this will qualify as a precedent, and haven't yet found the results of the suit (but did find that three times the courts - I assume Canadian) refused to throw out the suit. Maybe there is an implied contract with the fans. A group of season-ticket holders is suing the player (for $13 million) and his agent (for $14.5 million) for forcing the club to breach its implied contract with the fans. The lawyer for the class-action suit (for up to 10,000 season ticket holders) is doing it pro bono, and all winnings will go to charity. Link

I hope they do steriods testing there. So folks can say one way or the other if he is using to end the posturing. Oddly enough, ESPN left out the part of the story that Bonds will have lost 30 pounds by the 1st of March. Of course, he says it has nothing to do with steroids - his body frame/knees just couldn't handle all the steroid enhanced bulk. TSN And when he still posts .300/.600/.700 stats, will you keep hating? He won't. No matter what, yeah, I'll always despise him for being a World Class A-Hole, liar, piece of cr@p as a teammate, and cheating to set personal records.

I hope they do steriods testing there. So folks can say one way or the other if he is using to end the posturing. Oddly enough, ESPN left out the part of the story that Bonds will have lost 30 pounds by the 1st of March. Of course, he says it has nothing to do with steroids - his body frame/knees just couldn't handle all the steroid enhanced bulk. TSN

The casinos owners have made it known that they will not be happy with any public funds, which were generated by the casinos, being permitted to be used on business that want to take 30,000 potential customers out of the casinos 81 nights a year.

1. White Phosphorus is a tactical weapon, not a chemical weapon 2. It is not banned under any treaty But who would every expect the press to check the facts?

Bump went on the DL in July with a torn labrum - the same thing than ended Nen's career. Odds are his career is done. Labrum, It Nearly Killed Him Why the torn labrum is baseball's most fearsome injury. By Will Carroll Posted Thursday, May 20, 2004, at 2:02 PM PT The San Francisco Giants' Robb Nen, one of the best relief pitchers in baseball, had off-season surgery in 2002 to "clean up loose particles" in his shoulder. What Nen didn't know is that he had a torn labrum, the fearsome modern baseball injury that strikes down pitchers quickly, stealthily, and painfully. Eighteen months and three surgeries later, Nen is still waiting to throw his next major-league pitch. The leading minds in baseball medicine are flummoxed by the labrum. Doctors can't agree on how to detect a tear, don't know the best way to fix one, and aren't sure why, almost without fail, a torn labrum will destroy a pitcher's career. Leading baseball surgeon Dr. James Andrews estimates that 85 percent of pitchers make a full recovery after an ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction, aka the once risky Tommy John surgery. (USA Today has even called the surgery the "pitcher's best friend.") But if pitchers with torn labrums were horses, they'd be destroyed. Of the 36 major-league hurlers diagnosed with labrum tears in the last five years, only midlevel reliever Rocky Biddle has returned to his previous level. Think about that when your favorite pitcher comes down with labrum trouble: He has a 3 percent chance of becoming Rocky Biddle. More likely, he'll turn into Mike Harkey, Robert Person, or Jim Parque, pitchers who lost stamina and velocity?and a major-league career?when their labrums began to fray.... Link

During the Marlins' playoff run in 2003 a horde of fans could be seen standing around two TV sets watching a Dolphins game. He must be a Cubs fan. The only game that was possible is the Oct 12 game when Beckett shut the Cubs down. He's still crying. Also, if I've ever left my seat to go to concessions, the only game on the TVs is the Marlins. Being a Cubs fan inherently makes it impossible for Chen to tell the truth. As for Loria, baseball's least wealthy owner has put up more money than any other owner for the stadium, and is the only owner whose MLB payroll approaches 40%-50% of his wealth.

Yeah wow he was in rare form today. Talking about how he would've kept D-Lee and Pudge in the offseason (with the millions he has in the bank, I'm sure) and how Penny was the best of the righty starters we had. Then he says that nobody thought that this year's team was good enough to win the World Series coming into the season, but people thought we could go to the World Series. Here's a hint: if you picked a team to go to the WS coming into the season, that means you think they have a chance of winning it. Izzy Berardino?

Bringing McKeon and Robinson back to destroy this season.

Enc showed us in 2003 that you can avoid errors by making no effort at all. 847629[/snapback] That's what got Ryne Sandberg into the HOF.