MSNBC isn't really left-wing, but at least they have better actual information than FOX, or Rush, or Glen Beck, or G.Gordon Liddy, or Hannity, or O'Reilly, or anyone on the right-wing talk noise machine.

Thom Hartmann is great, is historically accurate, and is the smartest guy I've listened to.

Chicago's Progressive Talk

Well "Record government spending" is also propaganda.

The country struggles because we've cut government collection from the rich. The answer is in one of my posts above.

Everything you've heard on the MSM is probably wrong, to one degree or another.

The Rich own all of the media, including MSNBC. Certain things are not allowed, and one of them is talking about tax rates for the richest being much, much higher.

We're in debt because we stopped making the rich pay.

The Tea Party is just a name for the rebranded Republican Party--Bush managed to pretty much trash "Republican." I don't believe they are substantially different, as they don't act differently.

The only way back is to vote to go a little more LEFT in each election. At some point maybe Democrats will be in large enough numbers to go for "campaign finance reform."

Big companies and the rich buy our elections. They get what THEY want from the population. They are not humans, but huge profit driven megaliths, who really minimally consider human wants and needs. With them in power, why would you expect us to be anywhere but in a hole of their making?

i knew i was out of my realm when i posted here Mike, youb are way more informed than me and admittedly i did just regurgitate a lot of garbage ive heard on Fox News and i was nearly a six pack in so i was way more mouthy than i should have been but if big government spending is good why is the country struggling so much right now after record government spending? i do admit that the Tea Party has completely lost relavance because it is precisely just the Republican Party now but it wasnt supposed to be that way, i also agree that the top one percent controls nearly all of the $ but since Obama has been in office that trend has gotten even worse.

Yea, Sproles for whatever reason, perhaps the stunning hits he was getting, really fell off toward the end of the year.

Ingram I think has the potential. I feel a lot of self-doubt in him, that probably shouldn't be there. The ones who are great, don't think much about it at all, they just get out there and knock people down, and run over them.

I'm looking for, hoping for a good year--glad it's about to crank back up! WhoDat!

In other times of war, the top margin was from 91-94 percent, on the rich. The top tax bracket started at 2 million a year--this was maintained until Kennedy Johnson, when they dropped it to around 74%, which most economists who are serious about cutting the debt, and bringing wealth inequity into check, want to return to.

The rich have never been richer. IF them having money actually created jobs, they'd be dragging homeless guys in off the street, to do work.

I should just point out that 90% of taxes are NOT paid by the top ten percent of the people.

Taxes, I assume to mean all types, sales, gas, utility, property, toll roads, fees of all kinds, fines levied, cigarette, liquor, social security (alone is 15% with medicaid medicare), state, AND federal (what republicans mean when they say "taxes" is this one).

What IS true, however, is that the top 10% do own 90 percent of the wealth and income. It is true that the top one percent have managed to cop 90 percent of the gains in the last few decades, while the rest of us have stagnated in income, and fallen further and further behind. This is mostly due to Republicans conning people into voting for them, largely due to social issues, that really don't influence them at all. I mean, no one is forcing anyone to get an abortion, guns are widely available, and you don't have to shack up with a same gender person. It's all up to you. So many are voting against themselves, for things that influence OTHERS.

Vote to move left.

You should watch this:

I'm completely serious. This may be a new bit of information for you, but all of news networks, television, movies, radio, and newspapers are owned by very, very rich people. What you see, from the most left on television (MSNBC) through the most rabid right in radio (radio networks are far more idiotically right than FOX, even) represents the ideological range allowed by the rich, for you to see, and be influenced by. There is no law since 1987 to require the media to air all views (Fairness Doctrine), nor is there a law to even require them to be honest.

There are about 6 that own roughly 90 percent. Rupert Murdoch himself owns over 40 percent of the WORLD's media--remember, he owns FOX, all right-wing, all the time. Political radio talk shows are 97% right-wing, completely biased.

Tea Party, is the same as Republican Party--Bush had trashed "republican" so badly, they had to rebrand. There is nothing new in their platform, cut taxes, mostly given to the rich, then in various ways, they levy debt on the lower classes. Unless you earn more than $370,000 a year, you received very little of the tax cut. I think even the second to top rate, that kicks it on dollars earned over around $170,000 a year probably doesn't affect you. If you don't have 5 million a year in wealth as a single man, or double that for a married person, the Inheritance Tax doesn't affect you. I suspect interest income does, which poor and middle class people pay more of.

Rich people and corporations don't give a crap if you hate gay people, or black people, or immigrants (if you do), or love guns and want one in the hands of every literally diagnosed psychopath or criminal, or if they advocate for the freedom of choice. Corporations are legal agreements, so why would they care. All these things, of course, don't really influence you in particular--but they will figure out a way to take money from you, by driving you wages down, or charging you interest, or raising a tax you pay, to finance things once paid for by those top income groups, you probably aren't even close to being in.

Do yourself and us a favor. If you levy for tax cuts, cite for people under $100,000, or for payroll taxes on everyone for the first $20,000 in income, or cuts to sales, or gas, or property taxes for cheaper homes. At least we all get those.

Vague lamentations about "taxes" (non-specific) being too high?--that gets you nothing, they're talking about federal taxes on the rich, but you think it actually involves you, so you vote for it, and you end up getting financially screwed. That is all about the deception--call for cuts in taxes we all pay.

Just a quick description of regressive--most people under $50,000 a year, pay sales taxes on everything they make--here it's ten percent. If you make 50 million a year, and buy 2 million's worth of goods, you only pay sales taxes on that 2 million, a 25th of your income. See how much more that plays in your life, in everybody's lives? And the best thing about it?--if we cut them, it gets spent, they hire more servers, mechanics, and other service sector jobs to handle the increased business, creating jobs. Give it to the rich, and they'll figure out how to invest it in a corporation, that exports its money to some foreign account, pays no taxes, and generates no demand.

One more thing Mike27 who are these millionaires who get off so easily on taxes? Someone mentioned the importance of facts. Here's one. 90% of taxes collected are paid by 10% of the country. How much more can you expect to squeeze out of the top 10%? Democrats always complain that the Republicans give so much to the rich and eventually people start buying it. America now has one of the highest tax rates in the world. Right up there with China. Now I'm gonna end this whole argument right now. The liberal media dogged Bush relentlessly. Counting how many jobs he lost and how much money he spent. The reality is that unemployment never rose above 5% during the Bush years. Now as a fiscal conservative I hated Bush but Bushs spending was minuscule compared to Obamas Administration. Obama has spent more money than every other president combined. Supposedly this was to create jobs but the more he spends the higher unemployment gets. 9% last I checked and I've stopped paying attention to the news a whole lot because it doesn't take a political analyst to realize this is the worst economy in my lifetime. I'm 39 yrs old. And I don't know if you realize it or not but you made fun of a previous post who complained about Obama Phones saying they were a myth created by Fox News but they are very real and I know plenty of people who have Obama phones. Fill out the form and it arrives in 3 days. Create government dependency and stay in power. Why give free phones to people who are not disabled or sick? Take money from people who work to give those who won't a free phone. Really? Give em food. Ok. Give em healthcare. Good. Give em free cell phones. Heck no. Who Dat Y'all! I appreciate everyone's opinion and their right to it. I enjoy political debate and discussion. And honestly I believe the Federal Reserve is the true culprit in keeping wealth from the average American. If you don't understand read the blog on this forum about it.

Ok WHODATINCA, why do you hate the Tea Party so much? It's only common theme is a belief that the government has become too big and too expensive. The Liberal media has demonized the Tea Party calling it's members racists, terrorists and radicals but all the Tea Party has done is to assemble peacefully and try to steer the Republican Party away from the big spending policies of the Bush Administration. Any other allegation made about the Tea Party is Liberal Media propaganda because the Tea Party does not actually exist. It is just a group of people who believe that government spending should be curtailed because at it's current rate our own government will bankrupt our nation. There is no social agreement or any other philosophy that defines the Tea Party. There are pro-lifers, pro-choicers, supporters of gay marriage as well as opponents to it. There are Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Agnostics. I challenge you to attach any other philosophy to the Tea Party other than a belief that our government has become too big. And Mike27 you are quite the conedian. Were you serious when you claimed that MSNBC is a right wing network? I haven't heard anyone try to deny every news network other than Fox is a tool and a voice of the Democratic Party. Conservative Right Wing views are heard exclusively on Fox and on talk radio. C'mon Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC. Next you'll be telling me that she is not a liberal. I mean the only non Republican speaker on Fox, who reports the news fairly without an agenda is Mr Fair and Balanced himself Sean Hannity.........just kidding! For the record I am not a Republican. I support gay marriage. I believe every American citizen should have access to the best healthcare. I believe immigration may be our nations biggest problem. I think marijuana should be legal. Colorado is having tremendous success with the recent legalization of marijuana. And yes I consider myself a Tea Party member and I think taxes are too high and the government is too big.

The rule changes prohibiting defenders from hitting the QB or even receivers catching the football or from jamming receivers at all past 5 yds have all contributed to offenses being able to pass far more effectively than ever before. QBs now regularly complete 60% or more of their passes. A strong running game is great but is no longer necessary to win a SuperBowl. This is the trend now but who knows, Seattle won the Bowl by running the ball and the 49ers also play old school football constantly trying to pound the rock. We even recently saw a resurgence of the option in the NFL. No one actually ran the option for probably 20 years in the NFL before that. Offenses have become more and more pass oriented but running and stopping the run will probably always be the main ingredients needed to win consistently in the NFL or any league for that matter. I think if a team actually implemented a true wishbone option offense that it could present real problems for today's defenses that are not built to stop a true ground and pound offense. Of course you'd need at least one if not two very athletic QBs to run this style because your QB is essentially a running back in this style of offense. But if you truly committed to it just think you could easily sign the three best option QBs from college football because most teams don't want em. The 49ers ran a ton of option two years ago and it was very effective and they nearly won the SuperBowl doing that and Seattle ran a little option and ran a lot en route to winning the SuperBowl last year.

To say Jimmy needs to show up when it matters is not accurate or sound football analysis. If a team puts 5 guys on JG should he still show up? Seattle for instance played man to man bump and run single coverage on all of the Saints WR on every down last year daring any of them to beAt them deep. This should be exactly what a WR wants. Last years Saints receiving core had no one who could get open vs tough man coverage. Jam Jimmy at the line and give help over the top at least doubling and often triple teaming him. Crowd the line of scrimmage with 8 in the box and dare the Saints WR to beat you. This was a great gameplan vs last years Saints. I believe the addition of Cooks will defeat this strategy as I hope I get to watch Richard Sherman try to cover Cooks one on one. I bet he wouldn't try to jam him unless he had safety help.

I know this and watched a documentary on it like 20 years ago. Great now I know the mechanism that my government which I never doubted was crooked corrupt and immoral is using to rob me my family and my fellow countrymen. What could possibly be done? This money ensures that the people could never elect a man who'd change the system and if they did he'd be either bribed or assassinated.

I understand your point Stunna and I believe I know what you're thinking. Graham does not block or break tackles like a 260lb man should. Someone should show him some film of Mike Ditka playing TE. Maybe our inept running game is all Graham's fault.
In regards to your desire to trade Jimmy Graham I could only agree if the other team was offering something like what Minnesota gave Dallas for Herschel Walker or what we gave up to draft Ricky Williams. Before injuring his foot last year, Graham was putting up NFL MVP type numbers and yes I believe he could one day earn that title. First of all I want to clarify my position completely on Graham. I believe he is a WR. And I believe he is the best WR in the NFL. He lined up in a three point stance about a third of the time last year. He also caught more fade routes than anyone else in the league and almost always against the opposing teams best cover corner. I would take Jimmy Graham over Calvin Johnson. Even if I'm wrong here it's not by much. If Graham is not the best WR in the league he's definetely in the top 5. Before the injury he was completely unstoppable. Graham is 6"6 260 lbs and runs a 4.4 40 yd dash(he repeatedly claims this). If you don't believe he's that fast, ask yourself how he led the league in fade route catches. And height will not get you open deep consistently. Colston doesn't catch many fade routes. Also use your eyes. Have you ever seen a linebacker run with him? He is big tall and fast. A matchup nightmare. I would love to see the Saints go all in and plAy him at WR full time. He's way faster than Colston ever was. What can Colston do that Graham can't? Besides BLOCK! Sorry I couldn't resist. But seriously I believe his talents would be best utilized as a WR full time. That is unless he decided to get nasty and was actually able to effectively run block. I actually believed the same thing about Reggie Bush when he was a Saint. Reggie is a good tailback but could've been the best WR in the league. Bush ran a 4.3 40 yd dash and like Graham caught a lot of fade routes. Bush had in my opinion the best hands on the team catching 90 passes as a rookie tailback. Bush was a polished route runner and most importantly could break tackles, make people miss and had the rare ability to turn a 5 yd curl into an 80 yd TD catch. One year Reggie was in New Orleans, Pittsburgh won the SuperBowl. The SuperBowl MVP was Santonio Holmes, a comparable athlete to Reggie except smaller weaker slower and less dependable hands. Like Graham, Reggie often lined up as a WR and also like Jimmy was also almost always covered by the opposing defenses best cover corner. I promise you Reggie would've been a better WR than Lance Moore or Devery Henderson. The beauty of Jimmy Graham is that it doesn't matter where you play him because virtually no one can match up with him. I don't think anyone can when he's healthy and when he is from now on I predict Graham will draw constant double teams. Finally if Graham does stAy at TE even as a poor run blocker he still bolsters your run game. Defenses cover Jimmy with corners not LB so most defenses are playing the Saints with a nickle package to try and cover Jimmy. I am still hoping that Jimmy Graham will one day completely shed the image of a basketball player and become a mean and nasty football player. If he could run block and steamroll corners like others his size have before, with his pass catching ability, I believe he could become one of the best football players ever and even potentially threaten some of Jerry Rices receiving records.

Gonna be a good battle between Robinson and Ingram. Ingram is a step faster in the open field but I think Robinson has a little better balance and may be the back who has the best chance of breaking off some 30+ yd runs which the Saints offense has been missing dearly. I prayed for us to draft Ingram and so far like everyone else I've been disappointed. The problem is that since Ingrams arrival no one else has found much running room either. I think the past receiving core of Colston Moore was so slow that teams crowded the box on us. With Cooks Stills and Graham I think some more holes will open for our backs. Who will exploit them the best is yet to be seen. I'm gonna predict that Robinson leads the team in rushing this year and maybe even gets 1000 yds.

Khiry will probably have a better season, but you never know. Ingram is certainly capable of doing good things. But remember: The Saints DID NOT extend Ingram's contract. That, to me, sent a clear signal that the Saints don't see Ingram as the face of its running game. Just my humble opinion...

not a bad idea but isn't he injury prone. I think they drafted cooks for a replacement for sproles

I'm hoping for it! Geaux Ingram!!!!!!!!!!!

As I believe I've pointed out in other posts the ship of JG being gone has sailed. There are only three possible outcomes and one is virtually impossible:

1. Long term contract
2. JG plays under the 1 year tender.
3. JG holds out the entire season (this is the virtually impossibility)

It's just not possible to separate a player from the context they play in. Stating that JG would be a lesser player on another team is a moot point. The point is over the last 3 years JG has had close to historic production for a TE in the system he's in. To let that production get away for nothing would be foolish on the team's part.

As for the money, we all know that all NFL contracts are barely worth the paper they are written on. The only money that counts is the guaranteed money. Everything else is subject to restructure or if necessary releasing the player on the back end of the contract. As you can see from the last 4-5 QB contracts, that Brees' $60 million guaranteed is almost a bargain. And he will restructure when the times comes and if he wants to continue playing.

And Dave, it's not possible to trade a player that you do not have under contract. As of this moment JG is a free agent. The Saints only rights to him are under the franchise tender. They have no rights to trade.

And once again I just have to wonder about everyone's frustration about someone trying to get paid a fair wage to do their job. Despite the fact that the discussion is about 10s of millions of dollars, I'd bet a dime to a dollar that we would all operate under the same principles if we were in a similar situation.

1. If you were doing a job for a training wage and you were doing the job better than anyone has ever done it, when it was time to sign for the contract, would you not want to get as much as you could?

2. If you had an opportunity to reclassify your job position and get a 20% raise, would you not put in the paperwork?

3. If other companies were offering you top dollar for your services, would you not go back to the company you were working for and ask for a raise that's close the offers you are getting from others?

4. Would you expect your family and friends to get mad with you because you are trying to get paid?

5. Finally if the offer wasn't as good as the outside offers would you stay with your current company and give them "the hometown discount" out of loyalty?

I know we are all passionate about the Saints. But this is business and making a living for the players, staff, and organizations. I fully expect that top rated players are going ask for, and are often given, close to fair market value for their services. To expect otherwise is nonsensical.

I still shake my head at fans that thought that we needed to let Brees go during his last contract negotiation.

Let me give you some prospective on this. There are currently 8 tight ends in the NFL HOF (with Gonzales and Gates to be locks). With 41 TDs over 4 years Graham has already passed 3 of them on the all time TD list. With 15 more (not an unreasonable goal for 2014), he will have passed everyone except for Shannon Sharpe. He will have more TDs than Jason Witten (currently at 52) in half the time.

Just think about it a bit...

SFIAH

POSTED THIS ABOUT A WEEK AGO

I'm so tired of this bull with Graham...U know u r not a wide receiver...U even was elected to the Pro Bowl as a Tight End... The Saints were willing to make u the highest paid tight end which u rightfully deserved... I don't know if Graham is taking this approach himself or listening to his agent or what but it needs to come to an end... Like I've stated before, we won a ring without him, even though it would be very nice to have him for this run, we've shown we can do it without him... And now with the pieces we've added I feel this team is just as good if not better than the '09 team... So if he can't get his mind right, Mickey should go ahead and pull the trigger for a trade and take a 1st and two 3s ... We wouldn't have the burden of his contract and we can sign a Jermicheal Finley if he is physically fit...


Talk to a team of our liking, preferably Tennessee or Buffalo (AFC)
Seattle, New England and San Francisco can offer all they want but no dice...

JUST MY THOUGHTS

Not quite sure how you would want to let go of a 6'6 270 pound TE who runs like a deer when healthy. The guy was having a MONSTER season until his injury week 6. He tore his Plantar Fascia man, this causes some serious pain. Still, his play only suffered in a few games against teams who had good game plans to take him out of the game. He finished the season with 86 grabs for 1,215 yards with 16 TDs(league leading) with a 14.1 average. Including six 100+ yard games. Some one else has to step up in games against teams that have an effective game plan, Jimmy can't do everything. With Cooks being the threat he is I think the pressure will be taken back off a Graham and he will have another monster season. Not trying to bash you. I just feel like he's worth it.