Monday, April 11, 2011

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets - 25 new messages in 2 topics - digest

Buzz It
alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Sanchez "When Obama Shows His Birth Certificate, I'll Show Mine!" - 14
messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/082083e59c3b9326?hl=en
* Randy Moss - 11 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/24cdf13c1d0456e8?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sanchez "When Obama Shows His Birth Certificate, I'll Show Mine!"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/082083e59c3b9326?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 10 2011 8:29 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 9, 8:25 am, "Papa Carl" <papa.c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:458d3235-8b5e-4b1c-b1a7-819962185d56@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 8, 5:03 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 08:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >The xenophobic Sanchez comment is not appreciated, but I am not
> > >convinced that our current chief executive was born in the United
> > >States. I d lay odds he was born in Kenya. No birth certificate and
> > >the testimony of his grandmother stating Mombasa when she was asked
> > >about Obama s birth place. Language/translation issues exclude the
> > >tape as being a slam dunk, but it leaves questions that were never
> > >resolved. The president of the United States should be able to prove
> > >as a matter of course and without any strain that he was born in the
> > >United States.
>
> > Just FYI, you do not have to be born in the US to run for President. You
> > can be born abroad to US parent(s) and you will be a natural born
> > citizen.
> > --
> > graybeard
>
> Nice of you to point that out.
>
> Obama's father was not a US Citizen by any account.
>
>  If Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his
> birth states that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born
> overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the US
> citizen parent was19 years of age or older. Obama s mother was only 18
> at the time.  So... U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed to
> him and Obama could not be registered as a natural born citizen. So
> he would be ineligible to be the presidency pursuant to Article II,
> Section 1 of the Constitution. Even if Obama could have been legally
> natural born, that citizenship was forfit on or around 1967 when he
> and his mother left for Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married
> Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
>
> Dig ????
>
> Put on your tinfoil hat Michael...they are beaming stuff down at you...it's
> a big conspiracy.  BTW...I demand you post your birth certificate to this
> group, I always suspected you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

nice ad hominem...

where did i suggest a conspiracy ??? i'm suggesting that obama was not
born in the united states.

i will not post my birth certificate in a public forum, but if you
like, I will send you a scan of my birth certificate. any way... i
think you should care less about defending liberals and worry more
about getting the government back from big business and special
interest. or do you prefer fighting in a burning house ??? obama may
be well meaning, you may like his social agenda, but he nothing but a
limp dick in ice water and a lap dog considering that the governent is
run by corporation and special interst. have fun tilling the filed
for your lordship, little surf


== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 6:14 am
From: John C TX


X-No-Archive: Yes

> I am not convinced myself. Why not just show the BC and get it over-
> with? Because they are hiding something is the logical answer.
>
> The birth certificate has been shown...along with the birth announcement in
> the freakin newspaper in Hawaii.  You could show movies of him being born on
> the beach with Diamond Head behind it and you guys would persist.


Papa, the conspiracy has been fed by Obama side to keep the nut jobs
in the spotlight. If it was truly something he wanted to go away he
would have called a press conference & showed his birth certificate or
freed up the state of Hawaii to release it to anyone who requested it.
I believe he dragged his feet on this initially --I didn't follow it
as I thought it was BS from the start--and now it just keeps the kooks
in the spotlight.

It is the same reason that Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley,
etc. were never killed by the opposition. They had far more value to
their opponents when they opened their piehole to the press.


== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 7:12 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 9:14 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > I am not convinced myself. Why not just show the BC and get it over-
> > with? Because they are hiding something is the logical answer.
>
> > The birth certificate has been shown...along with the birth announcement in
> > the freakin newspaper in Hawaii.  You could show movies of him being born on
> > the beach with Diamond Head behind it and you guys would persist.
>
> Papa, the conspiracy has been fed by Obama side to keep the nut jobs
> in the spotlight. If it was truly something he wanted to go away he
> would have called a press conference & showed his birth certificate or
> freed up the state of Hawaii to release it to anyone who requested it.
> I believe he dragged his feet on this initially --I didn't follow it
> as I thought it was BS from the start--and now it just keeps the kooks
> in the spotlight.

kooks ??? how so ??? I am not a far right winger. I am not a far left
winger. I am moderate and for the most part, a social libertarian. I
have no left vs right political agenda to push here. his mother may
have given birth to him in kenya. she was without question under 19
when she gave birth to him. i am not pointing this out because I
don't agree with his politics.

the single political agenda that i want to push is this...Put big
business and special interest in their place. Get their hands off of
capitol government. Who so ever does not understand what is going on
is content to parrot the usual household pro leftist BS or pr right
wing BS. Bush did nothing to stop the progression to neofeudalism.
Obama is doing nothing either. No black helecopter bull shit or
shadow governmet stuff. Just a matter of fact. Capitol government is
behoden to influences that are counter to the good of the American
people, the environment and democracy. Greed and self interest with
global appetites is the nature of the conspiracy. It is *a-
political*. Not a bunch of shadow figures at a secret meeting.
Obama's actual birth facts have nothing to do with it.

== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 7:17 am
From: graybeard


On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Ritchie <ritchie1965@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 10, 4:41�pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Ritchie <ritchie1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >... I trust no one that
>> >comes out of nowhere and gains such enormous popularity so quickly.
>>
>> I believe that description quite accurately describes Jesus Christ.
>> --
>> graybeard
>
>And if I was around during that time I most likely wouldn't have
>trusted him either :)

Ahh, a true cynic is such a rarity ;-)
--
graybeard


== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 8:24 am
From: graybeard


On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1966@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Apr 11, 9:14 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> > I am not convinced myself. Why not just show the BC and get it over-
>> > with? Because they are hiding something is the logical answer.
>>
>> > The birth certificate has been shown...along with the birth announcement in
>> > the freakin newspaper in Hawaii.  You could show movies of him being born on
>> > the beach with Diamond Head behind it and you guys would persist.
>>
>> Papa, the conspiracy has been fed by Obama side to keep the nut jobs
>> in the spotlight. If it was truly something he wanted to go away he
>> would have called a press conference & showed his birth certificate or
>> freed up the state of Hawaii to release it to anyone who requested it.
>> I believe he dragged his feet on this initially --I didn't follow it
>> as I thought it was BS from the start--and now it just keeps the kooks
>> in the spotlight.
>
>kooks ??? how so ??? I am not a far right winger. I am not a far left
>winger. I am moderate and for the most part, a social libertarian. I
>have no left vs right political agenda to push here. his mother may
>have given birth to him in kenya. she was without question under 19
>when she gave birth to him. i am not pointing this out because I
>don't agree with his politics.
>
>the single political agenda that i want to push is this...Put big
>business and special interest in their place. Get their hands off of
>capitol government. Who so ever does not understand what is going on
>is content to parrot the usual household pro leftist BS or pr right
>wing BS. Bush did nothing to stop the progression to neofeudalism.
>Obama is doing nothing either. No black helecopter bull shit or
>shadow governmet stuff. Just a matter of fact. Capitol government is
>behoden to influences that are counter to the good of the American
>people, the environment and democracy. Greed and self interest with
>global appetites is the nature of the conspiracy. It is *a-
>political*. Not a bunch of shadow figures at a secret meeting.
>Obama's actual birth facts have nothing to do with it.

Thus we have the recent NY Times article stating that one of America's
largest corporations, General Electric, made $14.2 BILLION in profits in
2010 and paid $0.00 in federal income tax. I wonder what percentage of
those profits is derived from US defense contracts, which of course are
paid for with tax money taken from the rest of us suckers?
--
graybeard


== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 8:58 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 11:24 am, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 9:14 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >> > I am not convinced myself. Why not just show the BC and get it over-
> >> > with? Because they are hiding something is the logical answer.
>
> >> > The birth certificate has been shown...along with the birth announcement in
> >> > the freakin newspaper in Hawaii.  You could show movies of him being born on
> >> > the beach with Diamond Head behind it and you guys would persist.
>
> >> Papa, the conspiracy has been fed by Obama side to keep the nut jobs
> >> in the spotlight. If it was truly something he wanted to go away he
> >> would have called a press conference & showed his birth certificate or
> >> freed up the state of Hawaii to release it to anyone who requested it.
> >> I believe he dragged his feet on this initially --I didn't follow it
> >> as I thought it was BS from the start--and now it just keeps the kooks
> >> in the spotlight.
>
> >kooks ??? how so ??? I am not a far right winger.  I am not a far left
> >winger.  I am moderate and for the most part, a social libertarian. I
> >have no left vs right political agenda to push here. his mother may
> >have given birth to him in kenya. she was without question under 19
> >when she gave birth to him.  i am not pointing this out because I
> >don't agree with his politics.
>
> >the single political agenda that i want to push is this...Put big
> >business and special interest in their place.  Get their hands off of
> >capitol government.  Who so ever does not understand what is going on
> >is content to parrot the usual household pro leftist BS or pr right
> >wing BS. Bush did nothing to stop the progression to neofeudalism.
> >Obama is doing nothing either.  No black helecopter bull shit or
> >shadow governmet stuff.  Just a matter of fact.  Capitol government is
> >behoden to influences that are counter to the good of the American
> >people, the environment and democracy.  Greed and self interest with
> >global appetites is the nature of the conspiracy.  It is *a-
> >political*.  Not a bunch of shadow figures at a secret meeting.
> >Obama's actual birth facts have nothing to do with it.
>
> Thus we have the recent NY Times article stating that one of America's
> largest corporations, General Electric, made $14.2 BILLION in profits in
> 2010 and paid $0.00 in federal income tax. I wonder what percentage of
> those profits is derived from US defense contracts, which of course are
> paid for with tax money taken from the rest of us suckers?
> --
> graybeard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

and that is only one example.

Consider petrochemical companies, pharmaceutical companies,
agricultural companies, aerospace companies and their defense
contracts and so on. Add on lobby/pressure/attack groups that have
foreign policy agendas that are not in the best interest of the
American people. I may or may not agree with Chris Christie's social
agenda, but if we don't get a president that will go to work on
special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
unions, double dipping and waste, IMHO, we are toast as far as being
a democracy with a relevant middle class. I'm astounded that more
people "don't get it". I shake my head when I hear people argue over
political window dressing these days.


== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 9:22 am
From: graybeard


On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:32:36 -0700 (PDT) John C TX
<johnctxjets@gmail.com> wrote:

>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> Just FYI, you do not have to be born in the US to run for President. You
>> can be born abroad to US parent(s) and you will be a natural born
>> citizen.
>
>Gray that is my understanding. Wasn't this an issue with Goldwater
>due to being born in a territory?

I do recall something like that. In light of some of today's whack jobs,
it's funny to recall that old Barry was considered an "extremist" back
in the day.

I have been intimately involved my whole life with the regulations
regarding natural born citizenship, having been born in England during
WWII to a US Army father who met my English mother while he was
stationed over there preparatory to the Normandy Invasion. In fact, at
the time of my birth, my father was fighting in France.

Several years ago, when my brother (a Vietnam Vet) was applying for a
job with the Department of Homeland Security, I received a letter saying
that his application was being held up until I could prove that I was a
US Citizen, since I was not born in the United States.

Now I have never been known as someone who suffers fools gladly, so I'm
afraid I shot back a response (with a copy to my lawyer) pointing out:

1. When I was born my birth was registered with the US Consulate in
London as being the son of a US serviceman.

2. I have carried a US passport for over 60 years, a fact which surely
must be fairly easy to verify.

3. England, far from being a spawning ground of terrorists, was in fact
the staunchest ally of the US during the Gulf war.

4. I was amazed, but not particularly surprised, that a functionary of
the Department of Homeland Security, apparently one responsible for
vetting prospective employees, was not more familiar with the
Immigration and Naturalization statutes of the United States,
particularly as they pertain to the offspring of military personnel
stationed abroad.

I never heard back from anyone, but my brother got the job, although I
am certain that my name appears on some bureaucratic watch list
somewhere with the notation "Certified Smart Ass".
--
graybeard


== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 9:54 am
From: graybeard


On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1966@verizon.net>
wrote:

>I may or may not agree with Chris Christie�s social
>agenda, but if we don�t get a president that will go to work on
>special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
>unions, double dipping and waste, IMHO, we are toast as far as being
>a democracy with a relevant middle class. I�m astounded that more
>people �don�t get it�. I shake my head when I hear people argue over
>political window dressing these days.

Michael,

This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
coming out of your ears.
--
graybeard


== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 10:22 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I may or may not agree with Chris Christie s social
> >agenda, but if we don t get a president that will go to work on
> >special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
> >unions, double dipping and waste,  IMHO, we are toast as far as being
> >a democracy with a relevant middle class.  I m astounded that more
> >people don t get it .  I shake my head when I hear people argue over
> >political window dressing these days.
>
> Michael,
>
> This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
> wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:
>
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
> coming out of your ears.
> --
> graybeard

thanx for posting... what is hardest for me to understand is why this
is not at the forefront of public political awareness. what is also
very frustrating... i believe in a free market, private economy...
none the less... if i try to discuss what is covered in the article
above, the first words of protest I will hear is "you leftist
marxist". if i suggest that the federal government is no longer
calling the shots for the good of the people, i hear... "tea party
right wing nut case who wants to over throw the government".

the way i sum it up is this... what we have now is neo-feudalism. if
the government does divorce itself from the current lordship soon, it
never will. i'm not for over throwing the government or any far left
or far right kookology. i'm for the federal government becoming a
representative political body again. not a silent partner of the
lordship.


== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:03 am
From: MZ


On Apr 11, 1:22 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I may or may not agree with Chris Christie s social
> > >agenda, but if we don t get a president that will go to work on
> > >special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
> > >unions, double dipping and waste,  IMHO, we are toast as far as being
> > >a democracy with a relevant middle class.  I m astounded that more
> > >people don t get it .  I shake my head when I hear people argue over
> > >political window dressing these days.
>
> > Michael,
>
> > This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
> > wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:
>
> >http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> > That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
> > coming out of your ears.
> > --
> > graybeard
>
> thanx for posting... what is hardest for me to understand is why this
> is not at the forefront of public political awareness.  what is also
> very frustrating... i believe in a free market, private economy...
> none the less... if i try to discuss what is covered in the article
> above, the first words of protest I will hear is "you leftist
> marxist".  if i suggest that the federal government is no longer
> calling the shots for the good of the people, i hear... "tea party
> right wing nut case who wants to over throw the government".
>
> the way i sum it up is this... what we have now is neo-feudalism.  if
> the government does divorce itself from the current lordship soon, it
> never will.  i'm not for over throwing the government or any far left
> or far right kookology.  i'm for the federal government becoming a
> representative political body again. not a silent partner of the
> lordship.

"Again"? When were they ever? The US government has always been
controlled by (and indeed catered to, even within clauses in the
constitution) "big business". When "big business" consisted of
certain manufacturing industries instead of service industries, it
still counted as "big business." Even when local governments were
essentially run by local shops and businessmen who would own
practically everything in a town, it still counted as "big business."
I think it's the nature of the beast. When you create a power grab,
expect those who stand to profit by it to be the first in line to
shape policy. And they'll be aided by keynesians and trickle-down
corporatists. I don't see any realistic way around it.


== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:26 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 2:03 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:22 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >I may or may not agree with Chris Christie s social
> > > >agenda, but if we don t get a president that will go to work on
> > > >special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
> > > >unions, double dipping and waste,  IMHO, we are toast as far as being
> > > >a democracy with a relevant middle class.  I m astounded that more
> > > >people don t get it .  I shake my head when I hear people argue over
> > > >political window dressing these days.
>
> > > Michael,
>
> > > This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
> > > wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:
>
> > >http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> > > That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
> > > coming out of your ears.
> > > --
> > > graybeard
>
> > thanx for posting... what is hardest for me to understand is why this
> > is not at the forefront of public political awareness.  what is also
> > very frustrating... i believe in a free market, private economy...
> > none the less... if i try to discuss what is covered in the article
> > above, the first words of protest I will hear is "you leftist
> > marxist".  if i suggest that the federal government is no longer
> > calling the shots for the good of the people, i hear... "tea party
> > right wing nut case who wants to over throw the government".
>
> > the way i sum it up is this... what we have now is neo-feudalism.  if
> > the government does divorce itself from the current lordship soon, it
> > never will.  i'm not for over throwing the government or any far left
> > or far right kookology.  i'm for the federal government becoming a
> > representative political body again. not a silent partner of the
> > lordship.
>
> "Again"?  When were they ever?  The US government has always been
> controlled by (and indeed catered to, even within clauses in the
> constitution) "big business".  When "big business" consisted of
> certain manufacturing industries instead of service industries, it
> still counted as "big business."  Even when local governments were
> essentially run by local shops and businessmen who would own
> practically everything in a town, it still counted as "big business."
> I think it's the nature of the beast.  When you create a power grab,
> expect those who stand to profit by it to be the first in line to
> shape policy.  And they'll be aided by keynesians and trickle-down
> corporatists.  I don't see any realistic way around it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

many people in NJ saw little way around the 800 lb gorillas. also...
your example of local governments run by by mom and pop candy stores
and saw mills circa "little house on the prairie" does not equate
with what we have now. federal spending not representative of the
american people, foreign wars not representative of the American
people, taxation not representative of the American people. it is a
matter of extent, extremity and for lack of a better way to put it...
a good trust or a bad trust. t. Roosevelt busted up a few bad
trusts. it was done before, it can be done again. why hide your head
in the sand ???

== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 1:05 pm
From: MZ


On Apr 11, 2:26 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:03 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:22 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >I may or may not agree with Chris Christie s social
> > > > >agenda, but if we don t get a president that will go to work on
> > > > >special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
> > > > >unions, double dipping and waste,  IMHO, we are toast as far as being
> > > > >a democracy with a relevant middle class.  I m astounded that more
> > > > >people don t get it .  I shake my head when I hear people argue over
> > > > >political window dressing these days.
>
> > > > Michael,
>
> > > > This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
> > > > wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:
>
> > > >http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> > > > That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
> > > > coming out of your ears.
> > > > --
> > > > graybeard
>
> > > thanx for posting... what is hardest for me to understand is why this
> > > is not at the forefront of public political awareness.  what is also
> > > very frustrating... i believe in a free market, private economy...
> > > none the less... if i try to discuss what is covered in the article
> > > above, the first words of protest I will hear is "you leftist
> > > marxist".  if i suggest that the federal government is no longer
> > > calling the shots for the good of the people, i hear... "tea party
> > > right wing nut case who wants to over throw the government".
>
> > > the way i sum it up is this... what we have now is neo-feudalism.  if
> > > the government does divorce itself from the current lordship soon, it
> > > never will.  i'm not for over throwing the government or any far left
> > > or far right kookology.  i'm for the federal government becoming a
> > > representative political body again. not a silent partner of the
> > > lordship.
>
> > "Again"?  When were they ever?  The US government has always been
> > controlled by (and indeed catered to, even within clauses in the
> > constitution) "big business".  When "big business" consisted of
> > certain manufacturing industries instead of service industries, it
> > still counted as "big business."  Even when local governments were
> > essentially run by local shops and businessmen who would own
> > practically everything in a town, it still counted as "big business."
> > I think it's the nature of the beast.  When you create a power grab,
> > expect those who stand to profit by it to be the first in line to
> > shape policy.  And they'll be aided by keynesians and trickle-down
> > corporatists.  I don't see any realistic way around it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> many people in NJ saw little way around the 800 lb gorillas.  also...
> your example of local governments run by by mom and pop candy stores
> and saw mills circa "little  house on the prairie" does not equate
> with what we have now.  federal spending not representative of the
> american people, foreign wars not representative of the American
> people, taxation not representative of the American people.  it is a
> matter of extent, extremity and for lack of a better way to put it...
> a good trust or a bad trust.  t. Roosevelt busted up a few bad
> trusts.  it was done before, it can be done again.  why hide your head
> in the sand ???

You're right that it doesn't equate, but I don't think it's
necessarily more benign either. I'm not just talking about small
towns (although those were probably as fiefdom-like as you could
get...), but also rather large cities that were in some time periods
run by only a handful of wealthy elites. If we want to include
"church" under corporation, which in some cases might be valid, then
you have a whole other force that had much
stronger...um...representation than it does now. I'm not arguing that
there's not an elite class whose influence on the government is huge
and all-encompassing; rather, I'm arguing that this isn't exactly a
new development. I think you'd see it in even the earliest stages of
the US government, and some of these corporatist provisions were even
prompted (primarily by the federalists) to be included into the
constitution. This isn't a justification for either time period, btw.


== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 1:57 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 4:05 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:26 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 2:03 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 1:22 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >I may or may not agree with Chris Christie s social
> > > > > >agenda, but if we don t get a president that will go to work on
> > > > > >special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
> > > > > >unions, double dipping and waste,  IMHO, we are toast as far as being
> > > > > >a democracy with a relevant middle class.  I m astounded that more
> > > > > >people don t get it .  I shake my head when I hear people argue over
> > > > > >political window dressing these days.
>
> > > > > Michael,
>
> > > > > This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
> > > > > wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:
>
> > > > >http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> > > > > That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
> > > > > coming out of your ears.
> > > > > --
> > > > > graybeard
>
> > > > thanx for posting... what is hardest for me to understand is why this
> > > > is not at the forefront of public political awareness.  what is also
> > > > very frustrating... i believe in a free market, private economy...
> > > > none the less... if i try to discuss what is covered in the article
> > > > above, the first words of protest I will hear is "you leftist
> > > > marxist".  if i suggest that the federal government is no longer
> > > > calling the shots for the good of the people, i hear... "tea party
> > > > right wing nut case who wants to over throw the government".
>
> > > > the way i sum it up is this... what we have now is neo-feudalism.  if
> > > > the government does divorce itself from the current lordship soon, it
> > > > never will.  i'm not for over throwing the government or any far left
> > > > or far right kookology.  i'm for the federal government becoming a
> > > > representative political body again. not a silent partner of the
> > > > lordship.
>
> > > "Again"?  When were they ever?  The US government has always been
> > > controlled by (and indeed catered to, even within clauses in the
> > > constitution) "big business".  When "big business" consisted of
> > > certain manufacturing industries instead of service industries, it
> > > still counted as "big business."  Even when local governments were
> > > essentially run by local shops and businessmen who would own
> > > practically everything in a town, it still counted as "big business."
> > > I think it's the nature of the beast.  When you create a power grab,
> > > expect those who stand to profit by it to be the first in line to
> > > shape policy.  And they'll be aided by keynesians and trickle-down
> > > corporatists.  I don't see any realistic way around it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > many people in NJ saw little way around the 800 lb gorillas.  also...
> > your example of local governments run by by mom and pop candy stores
> > and saw mills circa "little  house on the prairie" does not equate
> > with what we have now.  federal spending not representative of the
> > american people, foreign wars not representative of the American
> > people, taxation not representative of the American people.  it is a
> > matter of extent, extremity and for lack of a better way to put it...
> > a good trust or a bad trust.  t. Roosevelt busted up a few bad
> > trusts.  it was done before, it can be done again.  why hide your head
> > in the sand ???
>
> You're right that it doesn't equate, but I don't think it's
> necessarily more benign either.  I'm not just talking about small
> towns (although those were probably as fiefdom-like as you could
> get...), but also rather large cities that were in some time periods
> run by only a handful of wealthy elites.  If we want to include
> "church" under corporation, which in some cases might be valid, then
> you have a whole other force that had much
> stronger...um...representation than it does now.  I'm not arguing that
> there's not an elite class whose influence on the government is huge
> and all-encompassing; rather, I'm arguing that this isn't exactly a
> new development.  I think you'd see it in even the earliest stages of
> the US government, and some of these corporatist provisions were even
> prompted (primarily by the federalists) to be included into the
> constitution.  This isn't a justification for either time period, btw.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

agree 100 % it is nothing new... it is a matter of course... where
there are people, there is self interest. the extent of it now is
what has to be considered. our next president needs to be an honest
to goodness trust buster.


== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 3:29 pm
From: Ritchie


On Apr 11, 4:57 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:05 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 2:26 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 2:03 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 1:22 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, graybeard <graybe...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >I may or may not agree with Chris Christie s social
> > > > > > >agenda, but if we don t get a president that will go to work on
> > > > > > >special interest and big business the way Christie went to work on
> > > > > > >unions, double dipping and waste,  IMHO, we are toast as far as being
> > > > > > >a democracy with a relevant middle class.  I m astounded that more
> > > > > > >people don t get it .  I shake my head when I hear people argue over
> > > > > > >political window dressing these days.
>
> > > > > > Michael,
>
> > > > > > This is one of the best articles I've read on the distribution of
> > > > > > wealth, and how it's maintained, in the US:
>
> > > > > >http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> > > > > > That warm fuzzy feeling you will get while reading it is just the steam
> > > > > > coming out of your ears.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > graybeard
>
> > > > > thanx for posting... what is hardest for me to understand is why this
> > > > > is not at the forefront of public political awareness.  what is also
> > > > > very frustrating... i believe in a free market, private economy...
> > > > > none the less... if i try to discuss what is covered in the article
> > > > > above, the first words of protest I will hear is "you leftist
> > > > > marxist".  if i suggest that the federal government is no longer
> > > > > calling the shots for the good of the people, i hear... "tea party
> > > > > right wing nut case who wants to over throw the government".
>
> > > > > the way i sum it up is this... what we have now is neo-feudalism.  if
> > > > > the government does divorce itself from the current lordship soon, it
> > > > > never will.  i'm not for over throwing the government or any far left
> > > > > or far right kookology.  i'm for the federal government becoming a
> > > > > representative political body again. not a silent partner of the
> > > > > lordship.
>
> > > > "Again"?  When were they ever?  The US government has always been
> > > > controlled by (and indeed catered to, even within clauses in the
> > > > constitution) "big business".  When "big business" consisted of
> > > > certain manufacturing industries instead of service industries, it
> > > > still counted as "big business."  Even when local governments were
> > > > essentially run by local shops and businessmen who would own
> > > > practically everything in a town, it still counted as "big business."
> > > > I think it's the nature of the beast.  When you create a power grab,
> > > > expect those who stand to profit by it to be the first in line to
> > > > shape policy.  And they'll be aided by keynesians and trickle-down
> > > > corporatists.  I don't see any realistic way around it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > many people in NJ saw little way around the 800 lb gorillas.  also...
> > > your example of local governments run by by mom and pop candy stores
> > > and saw mills circa "little  house on the prairie" does not equate
> > > with what we have now.  federal spending not representative of the
> > > american people, foreign wars not representative of the American
> > > people, taxation not representative of the American people.  it is a
> > > matter of extent, extremity and for lack of a better way to put it...
> > > a good trust or a bad trust.  t. Roosevelt busted up a few bad
> > > trusts.  it was done before, it can be done again.  why hide your head
> > > in the sand ???
>
> > You're right that it doesn't equate, but I don't think it's
> > necessarily more benign either.  I'm not just talking about small
> > towns (although those were probably as fiefdom-like as you could
> > get...), but also rather large cities that were in some time periods
> > run by only a handful of wealthy elites.  If we want to include
> > "church" under corporation, which in some cases might be valid, then
> > you have a whole other force that had much
> > stronger...um...representation than it does now.  I'm not arguing that
> > there's not an elite class whose influence on the government is huge
> > and all-encompassing; rather, I'm arguing that this isn't exactly a
> > new development.  I think you'd see it in even the earliest stages of
> > the US government, and some of these corporatist provisions were even
> > prompted (primarily by the federalists) to be included into the
> > constitution.  This isn't a justification for either time period, btw.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> agree 100 % it is nothing new... it is a matter of course... where
> there are people, there is self interest.  the extent of it now is
> what has to be considered.  our next president needs to be an honest
> to goodness trust buster.-

Good luck on that one. Besides our next president is already in
office, whether we/ you / us/ they like it or not. No one is unseating
the guy from mad magazine.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Randy Moss
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/t/24cdf13c1d0456e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 6:26 am
From: John C TX


X-No-Archive: Yes

Here you go. Randy Moss as a Jet. I am OK with it if is priced right
and he can still play.

http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh


== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 6:52 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> and he can still play.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh

No


== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 7:19 am
From: graybeard


On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 06:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Michael <mjd1966@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Apr 11, 9:26�am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> Here you go. �Randy Moss as a Jet. �I am OK with it if is priced right
>> and he can still play.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
>No

+999 times
--
graybeard


== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 7:56 am
From: Ritchie


On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> and he can still play.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh

Noooooooo..........................!!


== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 8:56 am
From: MZ


On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> and he can still play.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh

If he's cheap why not. Depends which Moss shows up to play. If it's
the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
defend. If it's the bad Moss, cut him. I think Rex might be a good
enough coach to get the good Moss. What's the problem?


== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 9:23 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 11:56 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> > and he can still play.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
> If he's cheap why not.  Depends which Moss shows up to play.  If it's
> the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
> defend.  If it's the bad Moss, cut him.  I think Rex might be a good
> enough coach to get the good Moss.  What's the problem?

the moss that shows up is not the worry. the moss that shows his true
colors later on is what i'd like to avoid. remember this disgusting
outburst ???

""He was waving his arms around and was very loud saying 'I wouldn't
feed this *bleep* to my dogs," Tinucci said, "and who ordered this
crap."

Tinucci said Moss' tirade continued as he walked back to his locker.
He says Moss added, "I used to have to eat *bleep* like this but now I
have money."

Tinucci was stunned. "He was waving his arms all around, and at first
I thought he was kidding. It was amazing how quiet the room got. It
was just a weird situation."

Former Vikings center Matt Birk first recommended Tinucci's food to
the team, paving the way for his first visit to Winter Park several
years ago. He says the Moss incident didn't leave him with any hard
feelings.

"He didn't even try the food to know if he would feed it to his dogs
or not," Tinucci remarked."

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 10:57 am
From: MZ


On Apr 11, 12:23 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:56 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> > > and he can still play.
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
> > If he's cheap why not.  Depends which Moss shows up to play.  If it's
> > the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
> > defend.  If it's the bad Moss, cut him.  I think Rex might be a good
> > enough coach to get the good Moss.  What's the problem?
>
> the moss that shows up is not the worry.  the moss that shows his true
> colors later on is what i'd like to avoid.  remember this disgusting
> outburst ???
>
> ""He was waving his arms around and was very loud saying 'I wouldn't
> feed this *bleep* to my dogs," Tinucci said, "and who ordered this
> crap."
>
> Tinucci said Moss' tirade continued as he walked back to his locker.
> He says Moss added, "I used to have to eat *bleep* like this but now I
> have money."
>
> Tinucci was stunned. "He was waving his arms all around, and at first
> I thought he was kidding. It was amazing how quiet the room got. It
> was just a weird situation."
>
> Former Vikings center Matt Birk first recommended Tinucci's food to
> the team, paving the way for his first visit to Winter Park several
> years ago. He says the Moss incident didn't leave him with any hard
> feelings.
>
> "He didn't even try the food to know if he would feed it to his dogs
> or not," Tinucci remarked."

This is why I said I think Rex's atmosphere might be conducive to
getting the good Moss to show up. The Vikings are a joke all the way
from the owner, to management, to the coaching staff. The Jets don't
have this problem.

Also, Moss was heartbroken and sulking because he couldn't snuggle
with Brady anymore. He's had time to get over it.

From 2007-2009, Moss was one of the best leaders in that Pats locker
room. All the players loved him. Predictably, when things started
not going his way, he threw a fit. If Tannenbaum could work the
contract to allow the team to cut him in that case, then it would be a
good signing IMO. And I think the environment that Rex has created in
the Jets locker room can keep him focused and motivated.


== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 11:54 am
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:23 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:56 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> > > > and he can still play.
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
> > > If he's cheap why not.  Depends which Moss shows up to play.  If it's
> > > the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
> > > defend.  If it's the bad Moss, cut him.  I think Rex might be a good
> > > enough coach to get the good Moss.  What's the problem?
>
> > the moss that shows up is not the worry.  the moss that shows his true
> > colors later on is what i'd like to avoid.  remember this disgusting
> > outburst ???
>
> > ""He was waving his arms around and was very loud saying 'I wouldn't
> > feed this *bleep* to my dogs," Tinucci said, "and who ordered this
> > crap."
>
> > Tinucci said Moss' tirade continued as he walked back to his locker.
> > He says Moss added, "I used to have to eat *bleep* like this but now I
> > have money."
>
> > Tinucci was stunned. "He was waving his arms all around, and at first
> > I thought he was kidding. It was amazing how quiet the room got. It
> > was just a weird situation."
>
> > Former Vikings center Matt Birk first recommended Tinucci's food to
> > the team, paving the way for his first visit to Winter Park several
> > years ago. He says the Moss incident didn't leave him with any hard
> > feelings.
>
> > "He didn't even try the food to know if he would feed it to his dogs
> > or not," Tinucci remarked."
>
> This is why I said I think Rex's atmosphere might be conducive to
> getting the good Moss to show up.  The Vikings are a joke all the way
> from the owner, to management, to the coaching staff.  The Jets don't
> have this problem.
>
> Also, Moss was heartbroken and sulking because he couldn't snuggle
> with Brady anymore.  He's had time to get over it.
>
> From 2007-2009, Moss was one of the best leaders in that Pats locker
> room.  All the players loved him.  Predictably, when things started
> not going his way, he threw a fit.  If Tannenbaum could work the
> contract to allow the team to cut him in that case, then it would be a
> good signing IMO.  And I think the environment that Rex has created in
> the Jets locker room can keep him focused and motivated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i dunno... may be.... moss appears to be the sort of guy that is bound
to implode the moment he feels he has an inch of space and an
audience. he seems compulsive and not the kind of guy that ever
changes. only acts like a good guy until he senses his chance to be
himself. i did not like the santonio deal, and he turned out to be a
value and he did not screw up. i also did not care for the jason
taylor deal, and I wound up liking him. he gave all he had to give on
the field and he is a class individual. asside from personality
issues, would the jets really need moss if they retain santonio and
edwards too ???


== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 1:18 pm
From: MZ


On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 12:23 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 11:56 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> > > > > and he can still play.
>
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
> > > > If he's cheap why not.  Depends which Moss shows up to play.  If it's
> > > > the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
> > > > defend.  If it's the bad Moss, cut him.  I think Rex might be a good
> > > > enough coach to get the good Moss.  What's the problem?
>
> > > the moss that shows up is not the worry.  the moss that shows his true
> > > colors later on is what i'd like to avoid.  remember this disgusting
> > > outburst ???
>
> > > ""He was waving his arms around and was very loud saying 'I wouldn't
> > > feed this *bleep* to my dogs," Tinucci said, "and who ordered this
> > > crap."
>
> > > Tinucci said Moss' tirade continued as he walked back to his locker.
> > > He says Moss added, "I used to have to eat *bleep* like this but now I
> > > have money."
>
> > > Tinucci was stunned. "He was waving his arms all around, and at first
> > > I thought he was kidding. It was amazing how quiet the room got. It
> > > was just a weird situation."
>
> > > Former Vikings center Matt Birk first recommended Tinucci's food to
> > > the team, paving the way for his first visit to Winter Park several
> > > years ago. He says the Moss incident didn't leave him with any hard
> > > feelings.
>
> > > "He didn't even try the food to know if he would feed it to his dogs
> > > or not," Tinucci remarked."
>
> > This is why I said I think Rex's atmosphere might be conducive to
> > getting the good Moss to show up.  The Vikings are a joke all the way
> > from the owner, to management, to the coaching staff.  The Jets don't
> > have this problem.
>
> > Also, Moss was heartbroken and sulking because he couldn't snuggle
> > with Brady anymore.  He's had time to get over it.
>
> > From 2007-2009, Moss was one of the best leaders in that Pats locker
> > room.  All the players loved him.  Predictably, when things started
> > not going his way, he threw a fit.  If Tannenbaum could work the
> > contract to allow the team to cut him in that case, then it would be a
> > good signing IMO.  And I think the environment that Rex has created in
> > the Jets locker room can keep him focused and motivated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i dunno... may be.... moss appears to be the sort of guy that is bound
> to implode the moment he feels he has an inch of space and an
> audience.  he seems compulsive and not the kind of guy that ever
> changes.  only acts like a good guy until he senses his chance to be
> himself.  i did not like the santonio deal, and he turned out to be a
> value and he did not screw up.  i also did not care for the jason
> taylor deal, and I wound up liking him. he gave all he had to give on
> the field and he is a class individual.  asside from personality
> issues, would the jets really need moss if they retain santonio and
> edwards too ???

I think (good) Moss adds something unique just because he opens up the
deep field which would open things up considerably for a guy like
Cotchery underneath. They could definitely benefit from him, ASSUMING
Sanchez can get his timing down with him and Schott would know how to
use him correctly. These are maybe not safe assumptions.

But you're right, they've already got 3 good WR and a receiving TE, so
it's hard to envision this position being an immediate need. But
aside from adding a 2nd TE, what other significant improvements could
be made to the offense right now? Maybe they draft a receiver with an
eye towards the future instead. In that case, probably no room for
Moss.


== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 1:53 pm
From: Michael


On Apr 11, 4:18 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:23 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 11:56 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> > > > > > and he can still play.
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
> > > > > If he's cheap why not.  Depends which Moss shows up to play.  If it's
> > > > > the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
> > > > > defend.  If it's the bad Moss, cut him.  I think Rex might be a good
> > > > > enough coach to get the good Moss.  What's the problem?
>
> > > > the moss that shows up is not the worry.  the moss that shows his true
> > > > colors later on is what i'd like to avoid.  remember this disgusting
> > > > outburst ???
>
> > > > ""He was waving his arms around and was very loud saying 'I wouldn't
> > > > feed this *bleep* to my dogs," Tinucci said, "and who ordered this
> > > > crap."
>
> > > > Tinucci said Moss' tirade continued as he walked back to his locker.
> > > > He says Moss added, "I used to have to eat *bleep* like this but now I
> > > > have money."
>
> > > > Tinucci was stunned. "He was waving his arms all around, and at first
> > > > I thought he was kidding. It was amazing how quiet the room got. It
> > > > was just a weird situation."
>
> > > > Former Vikings center Matt Birk first recommended Tinucci's food to
> > > > the team, paving the way for his first visit to Winter Park several
> > > > years ago. He says the Moss incident didn't leave him with any hard
> > > > feelings.
>
> > > > "He didn't even try the food to know if he would feed it to his dogs
> > > > or not," Tinucci remarked."
>
> > > This is why I said I think Rex's atmosphere might be conducive to
> > > getting the good Moss to show up.  The Vikings are a joke all the way
> > > from the owner, to management, to the coaching staff.  The Jets don't
> > > have this problem.
>
> > > Also, Moss was heartbroken and sulking because he couldn't snuggle
> > > with Brady anymore.  He's had time to get over it.
>
> > > From 2007-2009, Moss was one of the best leaders in that Pats locker
> > > room.  All the players loved him.  Predictably, when things started
> > > not going his way, he threw a fit.  If Tannenbaum could work the
> > > contract to allow the team to cut him in that case, then it would be a
> > > good signing IMO.  And I think the environment that Rex has created in
> > > the Jets locker room can keep him focused and motivated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > i dunno... may be.... moss appears to be the sort of guy that is bound
> > to implode the moment he feels he has an inch of space and an
> > audience.  he seems compulsive and not the kind of guy that ever
> > changes.  only acts like a good guy until he senses his chance to be
> > himself.  i did not like the santonio deal, and he turned out to be a
> > value and he did not screw up.  i also did not care for the jason
> > taylor deal, and I wound up liking him. he gave all he had to give on
> > the field and he is a class individual.  asside from personality
> > issues, would the jets really need moss if they retain santonio and
> > edwards too ???
>
> I think (good) Moss adds something unique just because he opens up the
> deep field which would open things up considerably for a guy like
> Cotchery underneath.  They could definitely benefit from him, ASSUMING
> Sanchez can get his timing down with him and Schott would know how to
> use him correctly.  These are maybe not safe assumptions.
>
> But you're right, they've already got 3 good WR and a receiving TE, so
> it's hard to envision this position being an immediate need.  But
> aside from adding a 2nd TE, what other significant improvements could
> be made to the offense right now?  Maybe they draft a receiver with an
> eye towards the future instead.  In that case, probably no room for
> Moss.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

not sure what they can or need to do to make the offense better... of
course better play calling, but as far as on field man-power two
things come to mind... will ducasse shape up at RT ??? will mcnight
contribute ??? those are two big questions. if ducasse does not learn
the position quickly, there could be problems. if mcknight cant help,
they could have problems. LT is old and Green has not convinced any
of us yet. also... i could be wrong, but i dont think sanchez will
change much. hot and cold schoolyard guy... it would help the jets
offense a lot if he got cleaner and more accurate. also agree that
another TE would be a huge help. a nice beefy one with leverage.


== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Apr 11 2011 8:06 pm
From: John C TX


On Apr 11, 3:18 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2:54 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 12:23 pm, Michael <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 11:56 am, MZ <for...@mdz.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 11, 9:26 am, John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > > > > > Here you go.  Randy Moss as a Jet.  I am OK with it if is priced right
> > > > > > and he can still play.
>
> > > > > >http://tinyurl.com/3knh6sh
>
> > > > > If he's cheap why not.  Depends which Moss shows up to play.  If it's
> > > > > the good Moss, the Jets offense becomes much more difficult to
> > > > > defend.  If it's the bad Moss, cut him.  I think Rex might be a good
> > > > > enough coach to get the good Moss.  What's the problem?
>
> > > > the moss that shows up is not the worry.  the moss that shows his true
> > > > colors later on is what i'd like to avoid.  remember this disgusting
> > > > outburst ???
>
> > > > ""He was waving his arms around and was very loud saying 'I wouldn't
> > > > feed this *bleep* to my dogs," Tinucci said, "and who ordered this
> > > > crap."
>
> > > > Tinucci said Moss' tirade continued as he walked back to his locker.
> > > > He says Moss added, "I used to have to eat *bleep* like this but now I
> > > > have money."
>
> > > > Tinucci was stunned. "He was waving his arms all around, and at first
> > > > I thought he was kidding. It was amazing how quiet the room got. It
> > > > was just a weird situation."
>
> > > > Former Vikings center Matt Birk first recommended Tinucci's food to
> > > > the team, paving the way for his first visit to Winter Park several
> > > > years ago. He says the Moss incident didn't leave him with any hard
> > > > feelings.
>
> > > > "He didn't even try the food to know if he would feed it to his dogs
> > > > or not," Tinucci remarked."
>
> > > This is why I said I think Rex's atmosphere might be conducive to
> > > getting the good Moss to show up.  The Vikings are a joke all the way
> > > from the owner, to management, to the coaching staff.  The Jets don't
> > > have this problem.
>
> > > Also, Moss was heartbroken and sulking because he couldn't snuggle
> > > with Brady anymore.  He's had time to get over it.
>
> > > From2007-2009, Moss was one of the best leaders in that Pats locker
> > > room.  All the players loved him.  Predictably, when things started
> > > not going his way, he threw a fit.  If Tannenbaum could work the
> > > contract to allow the team to cut him in that case, then it would be a
> > > good signing IMO.  And I think the environment that Rex has created in
> > > the Jets locker room can keep him focused and motivated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > i dunno... may be.... moss appears to be the sort of guy that is bound
> > to implode the moment he feels he has an inch of space and an
> > audience.  he seems compulsive and not the kind of guy that ever
> > changes.  only acts like a good guy until he senses his chance to be
> > himself.  i did not like the santonio deal, and he turned out to be a
> > value and he did not screw up.  i also did not care for the jason
> > taylor deal, and I wound up liking him. he gave all he had to give on
> > the field and he is a class individual.  asside from personality
> > issues, would the jets really need moss if they retain santonio and
> > edwards too ???
>
> I think (good) Moss adds something unique just because he opens up the
> deep field which would open things up considerably for a guy like
> Cotchery underneath.  They could definitely benefit from him, ASSUMING
> Sanchez can get his timing down with him and Schott would know how to
> use him correctly.  These are maybe not safe assumptions.
>
> But you're right, they've already got 3 good WR and a receiving TE, so
> it's hard to envision this position being an immediate need.  But
> aside from adding a 2nd TE, what other significant improvements could
> be made to the offense right now?  Maybe they draft a receiver with an
> eye towards the future instead.  In that case, probably no room for
> Moss.
Holmes said he won't sign the tender. Sign him to the right deal as he
is Mayonnaise, "he's got no place else to go."


==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.football.pro.ny-jets/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

No comments:

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC