The Case For Bringing Alex Brown Back

The Case For Bringing Alex Brown Back

So Alex Brown is back on the open market, after being released by the New Orleans Saints.  Is he finished as a serious NFL player?  I don't know.  To be honest, I didn't follow much of what he did down in Louisiana.

But he's still Alex Brown.  Still one of my favorite Chicago Bears of the modern era.  And he seems the perfect option to fill the void at third defensive end.

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • Well Wootton has looked good, so hopefully it's only a temporary void.

    If AB was released then I'm guessing he may not have enough juice to be the 3rd end. They'll take a look I'm sure, and despite the not-so-successful Bears track record of trying to recapture glory days via 2nd stints... if they brought him back I would not mind.

    Alex Brown was a definitely favorite of mine too, although a 2nd tier of favs. He was always a hard-working, straightforward guy who never failed to put the team first.

  • really? Don't see angelo pulling a redo

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    Well keep in mind, he was let go because of his salary. He was going to make $5m/year for each of the next 2 years (last season and this season), so when they brought in Peppers that was too much money to be spending on one position.

    That said, he might be inclined not to bring him back simply because of the criticism it would inevitably elicit -- like when they brought back C.Harris. But if the coaches insisted, I'd presume he'd do it.

  • In reply to Michael L:

    I was aware of the point made in your first paragraph Mike, and my point was based on the point made in your second.

  • He's a band aid until Corey gets back.

  • In reply to Jeff Hughes:

    We'd have to place Corey on IR then?


  • Jack, you still around:!

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    He's still over with Jenny.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    that was a very diff jack... I think that jack was actually #16

  • So anyone setting up a fantasy team on here this year?

  • There are two leagues going to my knowledge, and one that was abandoned due to draft date issues.

    The two are full, the abandoned one could potentially be reset and redrafted.

  • In reply to gpldan:

  • In reply to gpldan:

    Actually here's the original. Great movie and great social commentary on the Regan era.

  • Reagan* before i get flagged for insulting the mhyth of uncle dippy.

  • I don't care who you are, this here is funny...

    Reagan was, by a really, really, really long ways, the best president of my lifetime. Hands down better than the dhimmi we have now.

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    You either know what "dhimmi" means and you're being racist, or you don't know what "dhimmi" means and are trying to be racist.

    I'm guessing the latter, because you're probably trying to make a pun on "dummy," not realizing that the "dh" in "dhimmi" is pronounced like the "th" in "those."

  • I think you need to look that up Navy, not sure what you are getting at but it's not the same thing SC is talking about.

  • In reply to #76 Mongo Murph:

    I'm dying to know wtf SC is talking about then.

  • Navy, either you really are a dimwit, or you're just trying to be one.

    The state of being a dhimmi has nothing to do with race, hence your accusation of racism is patently false.

    It is sad that so many Obama supporters have no card to play other than racism. But I suppose I should be encouraged that they at least realize that's all they have left.

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    Given that I speak Arabic, I think I know a good deal more about the language, Arabic history, and Islamic theology & history than you.

    So why did you call Obama a dhimmi? You were explicitly referencing his "foreign" name, and implicitly highlighting the myth of him being a secret Muslim and passing in American society.

    As I said, you either knew what a dhimmi is, or you didn't. A dhimmi, for those of you who don't speak Arabic and/or aren't adept at Google-fu, was a protected "client" of a larger, more powerful tribe (pre-Islam). During the Islamic era, the term came to be used for non-Muslim minorities within the larger Muslim society, or non-Muslim tribes on the geographic fringes of Muslim territory. The long and the short of it was that dhimmis had protected status, but often had to pay a special tax, and sometimes (not very often) had restricted property and political rights. It's not quite a second-class citizen status, but that's often what it's assumed to be, as a perjorative.

    So, if you know what a dhimmi is, you could be attempting to make a clever/ironic point--implying that Obama is a Muslim himself, and thus a second-class "client" to a powerful non-Muslim entity like the United States. Or, you might be saying that Obama is a "client" of more powerful/insidious Muslim powers. Either way, 1) you're making unwarranted assumptions about Obama's loyalties; 2) you're doing that, and casting aspersions at Muslims on the whole, because (in your logic) Obama is a Muslim--or puppet of Muslims.

    Either way, that's racist--you're making (derogatory) generalizations about a group (or individual) based on their identity. Maybe you don't like the term "racist" because you argue that "Muslim" isn't a race. OK, I'll go with you there... then you're a bigot.

    And if you didn't know what a dhimmi was, you were using the term as a pun on "dummy." But why not just say "dummy?" Could it be because you want to imply that Obama is a Muslim, and therefore it's safe/OK to insult him based on that (supposed) affiliation? Or maybe it's "just because he's got a Muslim name"? Guess what--that's the same thing!

    So, SC Dave... which is it? Were you implying that Obama is a protected client of Muslims? Or were you implying that he himself is a Muslim? Or were you just being flat-out racist?

    Because yeah, call a spade a spade: if you're going to insult someone on the basis of their (supposed) religion or heritage, that's racism. I don't care what color he is or what color you are.

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    Obama bowed to Abdullah bin Saud. Although in fairness, he did so in Japan and China too. So I stand corrected - dhimmi only covers a portion of his submissive behavior.

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    How did that whole trickle down economics thing work out? And all of his neo-con proteges .. Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bushes. Yeah his legacy speaks for itsself. I honor his stance on non proliferation and thats about it.

  • Just watched the Pat Tillman documentary last night.

    All those disgusting mother fuckers should be in jail rotting for the rest of their miserable lying cheating stealing lives right now. Disgusting.

    I don't care what party you affiliate with... what all those bastards did for 8 years was criminal over and over again in many ways.

    Yes, I know… they all do it, but that stint was just… wow.

  • Reagans legacy does speak for itself Sac.
    Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush 2 's legacy is completely different.
    Comparing the economic policies/fed policies of the Reagan administration to the Military Policies and handling of the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars of Bush and company may just be the dumbest thing i have ever read on the internet.
    I'm actually impressed.

  • Reagan's legacy = de-regulation of the banks. Look how that's worked out. And what was done to curb the possibility of the credit crunch happening again? Absolutely nothing. The banks have Obama in their pocket - the first 100% Wall Street owned Prez, the diametric opposite to JFK. Red/blue, left/right, Rep/Dem ... it's just the illusion of choice to keep the masses thinking they're free.

  • You're right, Waffle - his administration had its own unique way of fucking things up, as do they all.

    On the bright side, he only invaded Grenada and his bombing campaign in Libya was pretty short and ineffectual.

    On the down-side for tea partiers that blow his effigy, he understood you can talk a good game but compromise gets things done in Washington.

    He was the Republican Bill Clinton.

  • Hey, and don't forget the tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

    Those have been helpful.

  • MBHP - you do realize that his strategic tax cuts were followed by tax increases in like 6 consecutive years based on budgetary needs. you also know that his fed chief was Paul Volcker right? the same Paul Volcker that Obama relies on for financial advice?

  • Waffle, I heartily agree on the stupidity of Sac's comparison to the Bush 2 dimwits. The latter, with the overwhelming support of Congress, embroiled us in a war against a noun (Terror) for which victory conditions cannot be stated and hence defeat is inevitable. Reagan, on the other hand, managed to leverage Soviet paranoia and large Pentagon budgets to *destroy a nuclear superpower without ever firing a shot* (of course, Bin Laden helped with that during the "Soviet Vietnam" in Afghanistan). The most brilliant military victory in US history. Granted it created a lot of debt, but that is just a small percentage of the zero benefit debt Obama has added.

    Irish, check which president actually signed the partial roll-back the Glass-Stigel Act. That legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) was, incidentally, overwhelming supported by both parties. That led to most of this mess, along with to other words that commonly dribbled off the lips of the progressives - "affordable housing".

    Posse, you could say Clinton was the Democratic Reagan, but you'd have to add a semen-stained dress (looks like MB alluded to that already).

  • In reply to gpldan:

    Well thats whack.

  • replying to MB P's post above here because this blog tech sucks assholes. Anyway...

    ...without the blow jobs.

  • In reply to MB30SD:

    Two comments.

    1) That we know of.
    2) Billy played the sax.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    Billy also rode a tech boom wave the size of the 100 year storm like fucking Bodhi.

  • And so on, and so on..

  • Below is the league we had discussed a few days back...

    10 Team Auction League:

    Password: ditka

    Draft is on the 7th... 9pm ET.

    If we fill it, great.. If not, so goes.

    But I HIGHLY suggest you guys trying out the auction method, I am a huge fan.

  • Not sure about Brown. Was sad to see him go but Izzy has filled in well opposite Pep. Hey, its not out of the question considering the move to get C. Harris after his prime...

  • Is it ok to wear my #54 for a preseason game? Its been starin @ me from the hanger since the lockout ended and I'm feeling like its time...what ya'll think?
    Also...looking at schedules start and noticed that the biggest games for the opener are our Beloved vs. The birds and Who Dat vs. to me I know our start to the season looks like a tough road but potentialy GB and us could be 0-1 for our first tangle.

    What does everyone think?

  • In reply to Darrek:

    I think it would be hard to both be 0-1 when we play the third game of the season.

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    Shit my bad Dave...1-1...thats all you have to say? What about the rest on SC!!

  • In reply to Darrek:

    Sorry... couldn't help it. I say REPRESENT.

    So far as big games go, there are only 16 this year before the playoffs. And there are all right here, baby!

  • I'm all in on brown..for the following foolish reasons
    1. he's a gator gators are prehistoric creatures; but they are still around, and can pose a threat.

    2. depending on who's stats you use he has averaged tackle numbers in the high 50's for his career

    with the saints last year he had 39 tackles and 2 sacks
    not bad after 9 years

    3, 1 month off of a leg weakens it significantly....use this as an opportunity to afford yourself the luxury of not having to rush corey back too soon. I would rather have him close to 100% in the second half going into the playoffs rather than using him too quickly and end up with 65% all year.

    the word at espn was that the saints were comfortable playing the rookie cameraon jordan,,,,apparently he has been good enough
    that's $3mill. off the cap for the holy ones.

    4. why break the longest current consecutive games streak for an NFL defensive end. the steak for the end could end at 143.....

    how much do we give him?
    angelino better stay in his office for a few days and get some of this sht worked out....maybe jer should call olin and ask him if mr. brown still has some ability......i am sure olin would tell him what he thinks.

  • I would be verrry surprised to see the Bears re-sign Alex. He has to still be able to play and I would love to see what he could do with Peppers in the lineup. He's a class act and if the money was right I'm sure the Bears would consider bringing him in for depth.

    As long as we're on the subject of bringing players back, how bout giving Ditka a job as our tight end coach.

  • In reply to BigDaddy:

    Richard Dent summed up EXACTLY where I've been since 1986:

    "“Ditka was the reason we won a Super Bowl, and the reason we didn't win three."

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    Ditka's a different man now Dave. I think he could be the reason we could win more. Doe's anyone seriously think the Bears can win multiple Super Bowls with our current staff and crop of players? Not a chance boys. The Bears may get lucky and win a Super Bowl this year. I personally think it's now or never with this group.

  • In reply to BigDaddy:

    You want to add _another_ former head coach to the staff? And one that's as strong-minded as Ditka to boot? Hehehe.

    I don't know... that just seems to have disaster written all over it. Besides Ditka was never really a technical coach, he was always the motivator type. I'm not sure that works well as a position coach -- HC sure. And can you really see Martz telling Ditka he wants things done _his_ way... and taking whatever guff Ditka gave him? Hahah.

  • In reply to SC Dave:

    Finks is why we won one, the McCaskeys are why we didn't win two or three. Curiously, Ditka thought McMahon was the glue that won the Lombardi.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    Not that I disagree, Irish, but Ditka did not do too badly with the drafts, at least his early ones.

    It's not clear whether these were the result of the scouting organization that Finks put in place, but the quality of the drafts declines precipitously after 1986 (although 1989 with Trace Armstrong and Donnell Woolford was not horrible). But these were better than any Finks had IMO. Especially 1983, which was pretty strong.

    1 Jimbo Covert Pittsburgh
    1 Willie Gault Tennessee
    2 Mike Richardson Arizona State
    3 Dave Duerson Notre Dame
    4 Tom Thayer Notre Dame
    8 Richard Dent Tennessee State
    8 Mark Bortz Iowa

    1 Wilber Marshall Florida
    2 Ron Rivera California
    10 Shaun Gayle Ohio State

    1 William Perry Clemson
    4 Kevin Butler Georgia

    1 Neal Anderson Florida
    2 Vestee Jackson Washington

    A point of interest is that Finks resigned specifically because Halas did not consult him when hiring Ditka.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    I guess the point of my last comment is that HALAS, not the McCaskey's, caused Finks to quit.

  • I don't like livin in the future, because i have been burned by it too much.
    i suck at gambling i make the wrong calls way too frequently

    i would like a 12 and 4 season'

    and i would love to beat atlanta because then we will have beaten the super bowl champs according to mr king from espn castle.

    and if those 2 bartenders are still living in delevan, wisc i hope they see my face in there dreams after both ass wippins we lay on the pack

    it's thoughts like these that make me think we could be 3-0

    this is why i stay out of the gets too emotional

  • In reply to huntinbare:

    In a sense I like the start we have to the season - the best record from last year, the previous super bowl winners and last year's champs. We go 3-0 and everybody can kiss our beehive.

    If Alex Brown wasn't deemed essential for the Bears, and then wasn't deemed worthy by the Saints, we'd re-hire him because .....?

  • This quote from Lovie spells it out boys. Alex will not be re-joining the Bears.

    "Did Alex leave on a good note here? Yes," Smith said. "Alex Brown is a lifetime friend. I pull for him, was planning on pulling for him 15 games this season [the Bears face New Orleans in Week 2]. Again, that's a part of it. Don't know enough about it to respond to it. I try not to respond unless I have all of the facts. "We've seen Alex. Alex has been here before. We like our guys we have right now. There's great competition with the guys we have on our roster right now."

  • I'm gonna go out on a limb and give my prediction for the Norris division after 4 games.

    CHEESE 2-2
    QUEENS 1-3
    LIONS 3-1
    DA BEARS 3-1

  • Peter Queen is a Douche.

  • Hey Irish, how come Roy's on the bench in our league?

  • In reply to BigDaddy:

    I wouldn't have a Bear's receiver on my roster, would you? Kellen might do very well though ....

  • .....actually Peter King is a Queen, not that there's anything wrong with it.
    How that kumquat has his job, including TV time, is beyond me.

  • In reply to GuinnessPlease:

    GuiP... because that kumquat is a douche....

  • In reply to lobotobear:

    I wish we could get rid of that PeterDouche as easy Full Throttle

  • what a few hours can do:

  • I think we need to leave Alex on the scrap pile. I am huge AB fan and admired him from his days as a Gator all through his Bear time. I'm just thinkin we need to let these young guys grow and I don't see AB as a game changer worth taking time away from another player.

  • In reply to #76 Mongo Murph:


  • In reply to #76 Mongo Murph:

    Exactly, look forwards, not backwards.

  • In reply to #76 Mongo Murph:


  • Hey Dave, glad you loved Ronnie, that makes one of us. It was under his watch that the banks were de-regulated. We all know how that turned out.

    I loved AB and I'm not really opposed to signing him but he would be a 4th DE. Not going to pay a lot for that slot. We've got a bunch of DT's on the roster and one of them would get sent down the road for AB.

    Dtika for TE's coach? Really? He'd make about $300 K for that vs millions being a TV foof. Not to mention he'd be working about 60 hours/week as a coach vs about 10/week on TV. HMMMMM. Don't think so. Also, I always thought the reason we didn't win more SB's was because The Coach didn't value the QB position and it came back to bite us in the butt repeatedly. Oh well.

    No reason to get our panties in a bunch over Peter (seems aptly named).

  • In reply to CanadaBear:

    When people keep saying "banks deregulated...look how that turned out" it totally disregards the dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of other reasons and events over the last 90 YEARS that brought us to where we are in 2011. It's too simple of a comment and i don't feel it can be used to accurately describe the financial history and climate of the country post world war 1.

  • You an't just act like an absolutely ass-tarded banking environment isn't pretty high on the list. Did you?

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    And the I think the point is whether it had a profoundly negative impact, not whether it was the only event of meaning in the last 90 years.
    You would agree? Or do you think that the banking industry manages to police itself effectively?

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    there is a fine line between complete wild west shit and the government picking the winners and losers.

    Unfortunately we here in 'Merica don't know the meaning of moderation but our politicians are more than happy to take control. These are guys that couldn't recite a haiku without a legislative analyst telling them the actual repercussions of their shit ideas. c'mon mang.

    There were positive results of policies set in motion and negative consequences when the policies hit the open air.
    Same as today.

  • The problem, as you well know, is we get both at the same time - regulatory capture. Then we pick the winners AND the winners invent their own wild west.

    I think you meant there were positive intentions for policies, or lack thereof, and then things went to shit? I tend to believe they were meant to go to shit in the first place. You may think the legislators are stupid but the guys on K-street that are writing the legislation for them are not.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    Ironically 2 of our greatest economists mention that Reagans policies pretty much allowed the 90's tech boom to happen or at least helped it move forward.
    Ironically the tech bust, subsequent fed easing policy and subsequent 9/11 attacks set into motion the fucking kill stroke that would become the sub prime mortgage crisis which ironically had it's roots in the push to deregulate the derivatives market in the mid to late 90's by dudes that were then owners of banks like Citi but first were private advisors to Clinton, etc which ironically resulted in the gangbang abuse of CDO's SIV's, MBS, Ratings Agency malfeasance which ironically was fueled by cheap borrowing rates necessitated by the events that happened prior.
    You see what i'm saying? The banking environment also ended up coinciding with the most ass-tarded mindset by the population of the country. People abused the system because they wanted to get rich quick and everyone thought employment and profits were going to continue into perpetuity. we had a NEGATIVE savings rate in late 2004 through early 2006. negative dude.
    You can blame banks all you want. Hardees has a burger with 4,000 calories but you still can buy a grilled chicken sandwich...even though it's gross.

  • The roots are more in the '70's, you would agree? Tracing mortgage derivatives to the 90's is at least as disingenuous as blaming it on Bush.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at, Waffle. Do you think the banking industry does or does not have a history of behaving in a way that is healthy for our economic prosperity?

    People acted like assholes because everyone, the industry, the government, their neighbors, was telling them -it was OK-...and most of us aren't bright enough to say, wait a minute, fast money is usually a path to disaster.

    I couldn't respond to your earlier comment but Volcker sure as shit isn't the only guy that either one of them listened or is listening to.
    Too bad it's not Krugman.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    And why do you think we suddenly had a negative savings rate?
    That's not a cause, that's a symptom.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    the savings rate comment was in direct reference to the combination of a relaxed global lending environment and a overly exuberant and unrealistic attitude towards debt, assets, what constituted
    an asset, what true leverage was, etc.
    It's a mindset and it helped cause the sub prime shit to accelerate.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    I am curious as to who you are referring to in regards to the tech boom. I would like to read those comments - maybe I'm missing something.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    i'll find them, one was Friedman i believe. i will do some digging.

  • Friedman -

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    My main point is that it is unfortunate that people have such concrete beliefs about why things happen and who is to blame for everything from wars to recessions to employment to abortion to etc and i just subscribe to the belief that every cause has an effect but every effect is not just from one cause. it's just not that black and white.

    i love talking about money and finance and economics mang. When it comes to money knowledge is power.

    I once asked a senator why legislature wasn't more focused on giving current financial players more help in their efforts to educate the public rather than passing more restrictive legislation.
    I was told that "they have been given enough chances to learn and now it's our turn to do it for them". I asked him who "they" were and he told me the conversation was over and off the record.
    A certain degree of regulation is needed but when is enough enough?

  • Knowledge certainly is power and citizens don't have any when it comes to where their money comes from. Every single congressman/woman should be hung from their genitals for selling out the American public to the moneylenders.

    Long live the revolution.

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    Just what evidence do you cite to trace any of this to the 1970s?

    The smokiest gun I know of is the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, as I cited in an earlier response.

  • I love this blog.

  • Bankers cause depressions and wars in order to profit from them. They're scumbags. To let them at it and give them free rein to bleed nations of their cash is slow suicide.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    But how does all this, Irish, reflect negatively on Reagan's presidency? I don't get the connection.

  • Those tax increases btw, unlike the '03 cuts, targeted small businesses, vets, lower income brackets. etc.

    Do I have that wrong?

  • In reply to MikeBrownhadaPosse:

    i believe the first cuts that everyone pretty much agreed with were the top bracket and the bottom bracket in 1981 when the great cleanup started. Volcker had to pretty much restart the economy by jacking up the fed funds rate to stave off any further inflation and then Reagan initiated the tax cutst to spur growth and investment. it worked and passed a jobs bill that started the Job Corps, helped veterans with job training, etc
    Later onthe tax act of 86 he raised the minimum bracket back up to where it was and reduced the top bracket down to 28% and made only 4 brackets instead of like 15. i think everyone liked that one too. people didn't like that he made you put your kids social security number down in order to take a deduction, lots of fraud eliminated with a stroke of the pen.

    I was a history and finance major so i love talking and learning about this shit.

    Plus i'm just watching NFL network replays of games all night but it's time for bed. Later mainge.

  • It's a corporate world, corporations are protected by capitalist societies, valued over people. Capitalism/corporatism has replaced democracy. Viva la revolucion ....

    The last president to stand up to them was JFK. Nothing but corporate whores since.

    Bring on Atlanta so we can think about something other than how we're being herded to the slaughter like so many cattle.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    Oh please. Marxism has failed worldwide. Socialism is in the process of implosion worldwide.

  • Screw it - where is the regular season???

  • Johnny as I'm sure you know, Canada didn't go down the drain with the US because they DO regulate the banking industry. The banking industry up here was crying tears the size of moose turds about being so handcuffed with the regulations. The only beating any banks took up here were the ones that invested in bad mortgages in the US. Once things went to shit in the US the banking industry here STFU. You say it's too simplistic to blame it on one thing. I say BS.

    One last nugget about Ronnie. James Watt as the Sec of the Interior. They sold off millions of acres of the National Forest for less than $1/tree, tried to bulldoze any efforts to protect the environment and pretty much were willing to let big business pollute at will. Maybe not as much fun as talking about money but certainly worth noting.

  • In reply to CanadaBear:

    Word. The world's problems are not complex, they're very simple and directly attributable to banks. If you do not control your own money supply you cannot control your country, and very few countries do control their money supply. Australia is a workers' paradise - it's people before corporations there. Heart surgeons live in nice houses, but the plumbers' house next door is the showpiece. Private banks - or cartels of them e.g. The Fed are running the show and milking us dry. It's unconstitutional yet it's happening.

    Go Bears.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    That's because Australia is a capitalist country, not the pseudo-collectivist miasma that the US has become.

  • Back in the world of football .... could the Lance Louis haters please step forward and repeat their calls for him to be cut please. OBR had him graded out as our best lineman.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    Replace CW with Levi Horn for the final pre-season game? We may have had your two guards on the bench all along as suspected, Lobo ....

    We use CW as a swing tackle and let the games begin .....

    Atlanta. Dead.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    For one game! I'm not changing my mind; he did fine pulling but I want to see him hold up against some of the D-tackles in our division.


  • In reply to gpldan:

    Does the death penalty still exist for treason? Offing a few rich old white guys might send the necessary message ... don't fk with the people.

  • In reply to IrishSweetness:

    After 4 years of Carter and the botched Iran hostage thing, stagflation and Carter's bad timing, having this happen months before his election:

    He had no shot.

    And, once Ronnie was shot, as long as he could get healthy enough to run again, he was assured a 2nd term. The ghosts of Kennedy were still prevalent in the American electorate in 84.

    The tax code restructuring in those eight years, and GW's massive tax cut - broke the government. Two wars and billions and billions wasted on the wars, while still less than 10% of GDP, was enough to tip it.

  • In reply to gpldan:

    It's the spending!

    Why this evades people so comprehensively never ceases to amaze me. I can only attribute it to watching too much network television, or to self-interest from those that slop the trough of public largesse instead of working for a living.

  • If the Bears play Chester, and Chester has a season ending injury - the Bears will have to keep him, and pay his 1.2M salary and use up a IR spot for him.

    The Bears management is indefensible if that happens. We'd have to go with the Chewbacca defense

  • I liked Alex Brown as much as the next guy. Do i see him coming back? Hell no. Being realistic what benefit would he be? he would want good $$$$ but wont even start. CMON SON!

  • truly enjoyed reading your guys government posts.

  • So far we have 3/10 teams signed up for the FF Auction league.

    I will continue to pepper this blog with fantasy football spam for the next week, just in case people don't catch the message!

    Password: ditka

    Standard Auction - $200 salary to spend on 16 players. You want Matt Forte? Spend enough and you get 'em. Want AP, Vick, and Jamaal Charles? Spend enough and you get 'em.

    Once you go auction... you purchase a dachsund? You approach snake drafts with caution? You realize it's awesome? Help me out here.

    Let it be known that this $200 isn't REAL money. The league is free, but you can donate $200 to an offshore account if need be.

    Also, we can use the auction method setup to analyze Reaganomics, the Federal Reserve, laissez-faire economical approaches, and the communist manifesto.

    Blogfather - hop in one! Let's see the skills.

  • new thread

Leave a comment