connoisseur series500

Colts are down 23-6, but the Chargers are so awful! I really think a dispirited and undermanned Colts might still be better than San Diego.

I'm rooting for San Diego, but I am seriousy wondering "why?" San Diego players are classless assholes. Rivers absolutely sucks and he's always in the face of the umps as if he is a great quarterback. They are a very arrogant team; and they aren't very good to be honest. go Colts? I'm Conn-fused!

Peyton's favorite receiver tonight is Warren Cromartie.

Not necessarily. Those whistles were screaming. Defense didn't try to tackle the guy with the ball. That's D-E-F-E-N-S-E. okay, Free? (dick)

San Diego is laying a good licking on the Colts so far. Yes, the Colts are injured, but NE damaged their psyche as well. They now know that they are not the best team in football. Yes, Hoots, I have taken note of Green Bay's accomplishments. They are a damned good football team. With what the Cowboys and Packers are doing, it is quite clear that the league is about more than just the NE Patriots right now. There are some darn fine teams out there. Brett Favre is one of the scariest quarterbacks for an opponent to face. In his prime, he was totally unpredictable and you couldn't prepare a game plan to deal with him. Looks like he's playing like the Favre of old right now. And that defence....

Watch yo mouth!

It is so funny that it is worth reposting. Up.

I get a kick out of Emmitt Smith and I hope he sticks around in his current position. He truly is an awful announcer, but he is so funny as a result. FUN WITH EMMITT, WEEK TEN Our pal Emmitt Smith, donning an Adrian Peterson jersey for a segment on how the Vikings rookie performs like Emmitt never did, provided his first verbal gem of the weekend. Said Emmitt regarding the possibility of holding Peterson to 70 or 80 yards, "That would be a definitely slow down."

Media is not letting this die. I don't think they should. We should expect that such a lousy botched job doesn't happen to any team in the future. POSTED 1:22 p.m. EST, November 11, 2007 COMMISH TOOK KEEN INTEREST IN PATS-COLTS OFFICIATING Jay Glazer of FOX reports that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had a closed-door one-on-one with NFL director of officiating Mike Pereira to review all of the calls from last weekend's greatest . . . game . . . ever. The Patriots-Colts contest featured numerous bad calls against New England. Curiously, however, there has been little mention of the horrendous calls in the media. (Some Internet hack who also writes for SportingNews.com mentioned it last Sunday.) Among other things, Pats receiver Randy Moss was called for offensive pass interference on a play in which he apparently didn't even touch the defender. Also, New England cornerback Ellis Hobbs was flagged for defensive pass interference after he was tackled by Colts wideout Reggie Wayne. League insiders have attributed the phenomenon to one of three dynamics. First, the zebras simply got the calls wrong. Second, the officials were subconsciously influenced by the reputation of Colts G.M. Bill Polian for going bonkos when calls don't go his team's way. Third, the guys in black and white were subconsciously influenced by all of the criticism of the Pats for cheating and running up the score. If the real explanation is the last one, the Pats might want to be ready for more bad calls moving forward. Their recent actions and decisions are making the Patriots into a team that is perceived by some as "bad guys," and the end result could be a chronic case of some of the same bad calls that teams like the Raiders have seen over the years. You know, like the tuck rule play, from the game that arguably spawned the Patriots' dynasty. Still, the point here is that the Commish seems to be intent on keeping factors like that from influencing the outcome of games. I suspect that a greater stink would have been made if the Patriots had lost the game. It shrinks to virtual irrelevance now, but it shouldn't as any team could be similarly victimized.

Great news! Nice post!

damn, I've got to get my picks in! Workin' on them now!

I'll have a bottle of Belgian wheat in honor of your birthday, Weizy!

I read his book on the Ali-Foreman fight. It was very interesting. I've always wanted to read "Executioner's Song." He was labelled as a Hemingway acolyte. Was that a fair label? Hope Guy quotes the Economist obit. They are usually pretty good.

This is funny!

Your posts have been marvellously eloquent on the issue, Edward, but I should clarify some facts. As a former financial planner, I learned a little about this stuff. 1. The stepped up basis doesn't mean that taxes had not been paid along the way. Dan is correct in saying that these assets are essentially taxed twice. Mutual Funds and stocks receive "stepped up value" upon death, but taxes were paid on dividends and mutual fund capital gain disbursements along the way. Qualified assets do not qualify for stepped up calculations. There's no way to avoid paying income tax on IRAs and 401ks. 2. The gift tax exclusion is a virtually insignificant sum for wealthy people. I haven't kept up on it, but it people were allowed to give their kids $11,000/yr a couple of years ago. That's per kid, by the way. It isn't very much when you are talking about millions. 3. Charitable trusts allow people to tie up their money into an account which allows them to receive the income from the money tax free so long as they are alive. Upon death, the assets go to the charity. That means that the wealthy person is able to avoid paying taxes while they are alive. I guess you know this already. You'd be surprised how few people are willing to do this. They don't like to give up control of their money. When you are rich; you are your money! Such people find it difficult obtaining any kind of identity independent of their money. It's pretty sad. 4. The Unified Credit moves up and down in an unpredictable fashion. The Bush Administration moved it to a very high level, but it was only $600,000 a few years ago. That's not very high at all. Please note that there are State Estate taxes as well. Those percentages can be very high as well. Anyway, it is very possible that the Unified Credit will get reduced again. Right now, it's at a pretty high level which would exclude quite a few from estate taxes. 5. Amazing figure that the effective tax rate worked out to an average of 12.4%. It would then appear that it is because most of the estates being taxed (back in 1999 when the study was done) didn't amount to a significant figure beyond the excludable amount. On the one hand, it represents a reasonable tax rate. On the other hand, people who were taxed weren't quite so "rich" in the first place! Loved the other arguments you made regarding avoiding a plutocracy and stuff. I won't argue anything there. In fact, I learned some things.

This is very true, and I agree all the way. Very effective argument.

Yeah we do. I still manage to get some reading in. I'm hammering away at a book on the Black Panther movement by David Hilliard. He's got a very interesting writing style.

As a student, I have Vet day off. Chess tournament for me tomorrow: not sure whether I'll play, but I'm helping out directing the things. I hope to get a few games in as well. Will get a drink after the tournament ends and hopefully can join some of you guys on live chat Sat. evening. Pats are off this weekend, so I can relax. I get too nervous for games.

It hurts when the tax starts biting into farmer's assets. They are often asset-rich, cash-modest.

Didn't like to hear that she required an operation, but I know from my studies that kids' bones heal very easily. She'll be alright, Jim. Big scare, I bet. Hang in there!

Buzz will be my first patient! Oh, noooooooooooooooooooooooooo .... Only $8.95 for such a fine figurine? What's wrong with this world?

yup!

Buzz will be my first patient!