No Sale On Coin. Not To Say I Told You So...

From Ezra Kelin's Wonkblog, the death jingle of the Trillion Dollar idea that never quite arrived:

The Treasury Department will not mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin to get around the debt ceiling. If they did, the Federal Reserve would not accept it.

That’s the bottom line of the statement that Anthony Coley, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, gave me today. “Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve believes that the law can or should be used to facilitate the production of platinum coins for the purpose of avoiding an increase in the debt limit,” he said.

The inclusion of the Federal Reserve is significant. For the platinum coin idea to work, the Federal Reserve would have to treat it as a legal way for the Treasury Department to create currency. If they don’t believe it’s legal and would not credit the Treasury Department’s deposit, the platinum coin would be worthless.

The notion that the Fed, as buyer, might actually be entitled to an opinion is news? From Just One Gloat a few days back:

[E]ven if the Treasury can find lawyers willing to sign an opinion blessing their sale of the coin, the Fed will not want to find lawyers blessing their purchase of it. The Fed will want to protect their turf, duck an obvious Executive-Legislative struggle, and stay away from a coin the legality of which is far from obvious. No Sale.

Ezra Klein provides a summary of the history of the coin idea but is not feeling sufficiently wonky to tackle the legal issue. We can help.

As to the legality, an informed reading of the controversial text makes it pretty clear that this idea was implausible. Here we go, my emphasis, starting with the relevant passage of the law on coins:

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

"Bullion coin" has a specific meaning in the world of coins; here is the US Mint definition:

A bullion coin is a coin that is valued by its weight in a specific precious metal.

A bullion coin is valued by the weight of its metal, not its face amount. For example, the Gold American Eagle contains one ounce of gold, making it worth over $1,600 at current prices. But its face amount is a mere $50, so there is no seigniorage.

By this criteria, a trillion dollar platinum coin would need to contain a trillion dollar's worth of platinum (which doesn't exist) and would weigh roughly 18,000 tons.

And a proof platinum coin? Well, proof coins are simply specially produced, cosmetically enhanced strikings of conventional circulating, commemorative or bullion coins produced for the collecting market. This concise definition comes from a coin site:

Proof Coins are specially made examples of regular issue coins historically used as gifts or for presentation.

In over 200 years of operation there are many examples of coins the US Mint has struck only in conventional form. However, they have never (as best I can glean from paging through two coin guides at my local library) struck a proof coin that does not have a conventional counterpart.

So this law authorizes the Secretary to (hypothetically) strike a Proof Platinum Quarter, as a beautiful collector's piece with a face value of $0.25. Or they could strike a beautiful proof version of their one ounce Platinum Bullion coin, with a face value of $100.

But since there is no Trillion Dollar Platinum coin, an enhanced version of that coin can't be called into being without violating the conventional meaning of "proof coin" and 200 years of Mint practice.

Well - that was my sense of the legal landscape, although Laurence Tribe of Harvard disagreed. I infer that Treasury and Fed lawyers came out closer to my view.

I should note that Coiner Paul Krugman remains in denial despite the Treasury statement and his presumed ability to read a one-sentence law and consult a reference or two to pin down the meanings of "bullion coin" and "proof coin":

The thing is, the coin option sounds silly, but it clearly obeys the letter of the law. As far as I can tell, none of the other options — other than outright surrender — has the same virtue.

Krugman's critique of the Administration's negotiating strategy would stagger off in a very different direction if he took the trouble to figure out whether the Trillion Dollar coin is likely to be deemed to be legal. Oh, well, I guess even Obama-bashing is more fun than researching - Laurence Tribe didn't do the homework, and now Krugman won't pause and check Tribe's work. Did I say "Echo chamber", Echo chamber, echo chamber... Yes I did, did, did...

IN AN UNCHARACTERISTIC MOMENT OF HUMILITY... Kevin Drum has been an ardent coin skeptic from day one; his post pointed the way to the bullion and proof problem. And Edmund Moy, a former director of the Mint, buried the bullion coin concept in this guest piece at CNBC but spent less time on the 'proof' question.

Comments

[Buford Gooch]

Now, there's a surprise. An idiot idea from the left that didn't get implemented.

[Tom Maguire]

There is that. But I'm just loving the smell of napalm in the (small of the) morning...

[daddy]

To paraphrase Lincoln's comment about General Grant:

I don't care if General Grant Tom Maguire drinks while fighting blogging. Find out what he's drinking and send a case of it to my other Commanders Bloggers!

On a fine roll TM!

[Melinda Romanoff on Kindle]

Well stated, TM!

[daddy]

You mean it wasn't the Video?

Italian consul in Benghazi shot at in car

American officials say militants with ties to al Qaeda affiliates were most likely involved in that attack.

Wow, that's going out on a limb.

[Jane on Ipad]

Great Pieces Clarice. It's Kim Strassel, not Hillary. Your editor screwed up.

[squaredance]

Perhaps someone finally got around to catching a Fellini flick or somethin'?

Bertolucci?

Maybe they even had to pay for it?

One comes close to thinking that it might not be all that an unreasonable impulse in these cases.

[daddy]

A Kalispell paper's headline about Enviro Al Gore collecting his 30 pieces of silver from Al Jazeera (The two Als and a national shame), made me think that Rush Limbaugh needs to get his music parody guy to do a takeoff on Paul Simon's catchy old Tune, "You Can Call Me Al".

If you'll be my moneybags,
I can be your long lost pal!
I can call you Sheiky,
And Sheiky, when you call me,
You can call me Al!
Call me Al-Jazeera ......

Pretty much writes itself. G'nite.

[Jim Eagle]

Hard to believe I am the first commenter since daddy's 6:49. Where the hell is everyone? At church, I'll bet.

Excellent pieces Clarice. I can't wait until next Sunday since Uncle Joe tells the petulant one on Tuesday how to take guns away without losing any Senate democrats seats. Should provide a tragi-comedic narrative for you write itself.

[narciso]

Kelin, he sounds like that other twit, Klein, there is still hope in some corners of the Sinestro sphere, though;

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-it-comes-to-politics-krugman-is.html?spref=tw

[Thomas Collins]

Gun control zealots have made many ludicrous assertions. One of the most ludicrous, if not the most, is that firearms in the hands of the citizenry is not necessary as a protection against tyranny. See LUN via Instapundit for an excellent short post on this issue.

Of course it could happen here. And of course guns in the hands of the citizenry are a crucial protection against tyranny. The post-modern virus must really have taken hold in an individual for him or her not to understand this.

[narciso]

Here it is,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/america_the_kardashian_years.html

[Jim Eagle]

Jane is in Florida just as "Python Challenge gets under way as hundreds hit the Everglades"

Video at link if you like big snakes and I mean BIG SNAKES!

[Clarice]

Yhanks, Jane. I wrote him about the error.

[Thomas Collins]

As far as platinum coins go, that was always a distraction. The issue that merits serious discussion is whether the public debt clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the Federal Government from stiffing a bondholder who has purchased a Treasury security or securities issued after the debt limit has been reached (or issued in an aggregate principal amount that, even after subtracting the aggregate principal amount of Treasury securities paid off by the new ones, pushes the United States over the debt limit).

My view is that the public debt clause does provide the bondholder this protection. Congress must find ways, such as through the appropriations process or impeachment proceedings, to deal with a POTUS who violates the debt limit. If Congress doesn't do its job, it would nonetheless be unconstitutional for a court to allow the bondholders to be stiffed.

[Thomas Collins]

Great Pieces this week. Among other matters, Clarice takes a bite out of the supposedly well educated prog who is a mindless low info voter.

[william foster]

Quibbles:

Is it not true that, taking a fiat coin as legal, the Fed would not have to buy it formally, outright, but merely accept deposit on account, the treasury then writing checks up to the face value? Those getting government checks would then have credited into their bank accounts regular digital dollars rather than a claim on a share of The Coin, money being fungible and all that. In effect, the Fed would own The Coin on its balance sheet, which could be converted into paper money from the treasury in dribs and drabs. And, again supposing that this were a standard fiat money token, I assume it would also be "legal tender" - and so wouldn't the Fed have to accept it?

Anyway, the fiat Coin of Coins is not legal, yet. The political class still has to do a formal debt dance before debasing the currency further.

[narciso]

Thanks for the mention, Clarice, the problem is Prog script, like the defective Java, prevents logical thinking from enabling,

[Cecil Turner]

. . . money being fungible and all that.

Seems to me that if you have to force the only plausible recipient to take it, it ain't as fungible as all that. Which brings us back to the original question.

And TM, after all the drive-by mocking and argument-by-derision from the coiners, I'd say a little gloatage was more than warranted. Have fun.

[rse]

TC--

There is no question that we have active tyranny afoot. It is simply relying on sufficient low info voters plus the active connivance of the media not to cover it while the ongoing junta in K-12 and higher ed continues the mind arson.

I had one of my epiphanies early this morning and did what should have been a simple search to verify I was dealing with 2 names for the same concept. All while trying not to name the UN as the intermediary. What it pulled up was a very graphic UN report that should not have been on an open database.

It is clearly the guidebook for so much but it was a bit like reading how to eliminate gravity. Over and over again it was policies and practices to be implemented that were based on false premises. The worst had to be reading that the murderous tragedies of the 20th were struggles over markets and the importance of freedom vs equality. Well, yes, but the side doing the murdering was taking same positions this report advocated.

And that link Rick put up yesterday has the US going to continuing assessment of climate change which means a permanent expensive bureaucracy devoted to advocating and looking for evidence of and modelling under assumptions about CAGW. So decision-makers will have the info needed.

Decision-making is apparently the 21st century euphemism for central economic and social planning.

[Jim Eagle]

Well, it seems Raylan Given's Sherrif has been heard from and he is daring the Feds to come and get the guns in his county.

Link

[Janet]

the coiners

Hah!

[narciso]

I was reading Holman Jenkins piece in the Journal, yesterday, and surprisingly he still takes the AGW scam job seriously,

[Melinda Romanoff]

No quibbles from me on your observations, Clarice. You've spoken to the disgust I'm sure most of us feel about the self-deprived low information masses.

[narciso]

The previous thread, was a showcase of simple scams, bunko artists, and high end grift, that's about the size of it;

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/former-federal-prosecutor-questions-why-d-c-atty-gen-did-not-recuse-himself-from-gregory-case/#comments

[rse]

Because it's DC and there's always the refrain from the tune "That's What Friends are For" playing somewhere in the background.

[Captain Hate]

I was reading Holman Jenkins piece in the Journal, yesterday, and surprisingly he still takes the AGW scam job seriously,

I didn't get that from my reading of it. Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?

Speaking of the WSJ did you read this yesterday? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578220063102364592.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_8

[narciso]

Yes, while I was waiting for the shot, the former is a very expensive grift, that I don't think he releases will not be easily deterred
by voters,

[sbw]

Clarice, you are what Meet the Press ought to be -- a wrap-up of the important thoughts of the week, well-referenced, simply explained, nailed to the table by labels that refuse to let bad ideas wriggle loose.

Thank you!

[narciso]

It's going to be Weekend at Hosni's before long;

http://news.yahoo.com/egyptian-court-accepts-mubarak-appeal-orders-retrial-090416097.html

[Clarice]

Thank YOU, sbw.

[Captain Hate]

Watching Richard Blumenthal on FNS, what were Connecticut voters thinking when they voted for this dolt?

[narciso]

Well you let their own words and actions, hang themselves, unlike the Post which should leave
the copyright on the press releases they reprint;

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/01/center-for-american-progress-uses.html

[narciso]

Because the blanc mange party was already taken;

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/no-labels-enters-era-shedding-centrist-image-110001675--election.html

[Captain Hate]

Am I the only person who gets extremely irritated when somebody, like Bob Woodward did on FNS, says that most of the Bush tax cuts were made "permanent" by the end of the year deal? The only thing that changed was them having to be reconfirmed periodically; they can be changed by any future Congress or by this one. That isn't being "permanent".

[narciso]

Well we know from Max Holland's work on the Felt book, that Woodward 'misrepresented' or obscure
the source of many of the big scoops in ATPM, he broke confidences in the Brethren, made up whole cloth interviews in Veil, so why would one trust
him on the basics.

[henry]

Word games are what DC bobble heads are good at CH. It lets them avoid addressing actual policies.

[Threadkiller]

Great Pieces Clarice.

Would a person who bases their vote solely on the race of the candidate be a "low information voter"?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--It's going to be Weekend at Hosni's before long;--

Now that is funny.

[rse]

jimmy k 0r rick or anyone else who wants to opine on econ--

Paul Ehrlich has a new published piece up where he is pushing to supposedly avoid global civ collapse, I know gag, and suggests economists "could help set the background for avoiding collapse by designing steady-state economic systems."

I get why it is stupid but would love some additional input. Who is he likely to have been listening to?

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I don't mind Woodward's use of "permanent".
Their status was changed from being automatically sunsetted to remaining the same unless congress actively changes them.
By your standard, CH, no law is permanent since it can either be nullified by act of congress, the courts or a constitutional amendment.
I think the change was significant enough to warrant what he said and I think the left is aware they're not going to be touching them for awhile. That's about as permanent as it gets in DC.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

Paul Erlich doesn't listen to anybody; not even himself.
If he did he'd look back at the catastrophic stupidity of his own career and repudiate himself.

[Captain Hate]

Woodward's speaking patterns don't give me any confidence that there's much going on in his noggin. It may just be that he's not glib, in which case why go on the gab shows.

[Captain Hate]

We'll just have to disagree on that, Iggy. Words have specific meanings and I get extremely irked when people take liberties with them. It leads to the type of sloppy that holds sway now.

[Captain Hate]

sloppy THINKING which holds sway now.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--Of course it could happen here. And of course guns in the hands of the citizenry are a crucial protection against tyranny. The post-modern virus must really have taken hold in an individual for him or her not to understand this.--

Do not think for one moment they don't understand TC. They understand better than most conservatives.

When else do libs care about crime or victims of it? Only on this one issue are they law and order fanatics and its precisely because private firearms remain a serious impediment to state power.
That doesn't mean every lib is a closet Stalinist but their default mentality is to render the individual defenseless against and subject to the state.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

--We'll just have to disagree on that, Iggy.--

Strictly speaking you're correct of course, CH.

[Threadkiller]

Just finished watching the Larry Pratt v. Ms. Beyotch debate on gun control.

Wallace asked Pratt if Scalia got his interpertation of the 2nd incorrect when he said: " Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Pratt said that Scalia was indeed incorrect and that the language of the Constitution did not support Scalia.

Ms. Beyotch was horrified. "I can't believe he is saying a Supreme Court Justice is incorrect!", she exclaimed.

To Wallace's credit he said: "But, Ms. Beyotch you dissagree with the justices all the time."

Ms. Beyotch became toung-tied.

I thought it was a perfect example of the left's view that the right should be held to a different standard.

[Threadkiller]

...disagree...

...

[narciso]

Tanden, CAP, is the outfit that is running this particular scam, she's the face, now that Podesta

[Captain Hate]

I was impressed by Wallace's follow-up to the gun grabber; maybe I should give him more credit. I thought Pratt came off as the adult in the debate.

[narciso]

From this, I imagine she never believes that she can be challenged;

http://www.nriinternet.com/NRIappointments/USA/Politics/A_Z/T/Neera_Tanden/index.htm

[Captain Hate]

Yes narc; she had an air of entitlement to her. Like a Lurch in training.

[Rick Ballard]

"Who is he likely to have been listening to?"

RSE,

Himself, most likely. Ehrlich has made his fortune on the promotion of the parasitic view of the world. He has yet to generate an idea not based upon stasis as the ideal state. It's a shame he wasn't born to become a eunuch in either the Zhou dynasty or Pharaonic Egypt.

The idealization of stasis has been inherent within progressive lack of thought since its inception in the Endarkenment. I suppose one could point to Rousseau with his idiocy concerning the nobility of savagery as a starting point but I would lean towards the infatuation with ignorant rationalism which predated his excrescences by a century or so as containing the actual seeds.

The extent and duration of the OPM famine is making the eunuchcracy very nervous around the world. How can a decent parasite make a living if a productive host just won't do its bidding?

[narciso]

Well consider that his Walter Bishop like protege, holdren is the WH science adviser, he feels rather QED, my work here is done,

Tanden's C.V. not too mention the sheer arrogance indicated in the link, shows how deep down there isn't a 'dimes bit of difference' between Hillary and Obama.

[Captain Hate]

"The Republican establishment has two choices. They can act as mature party leaders of a national political party, or they can protect their own self-interest. Mature party leaders would spend a lot more time listening to Republican voters rather than further insulating themselves from those voters."

--Scott Rasmussen

[narciso]

A good question is raised;

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/slight_chronology_issue/

[Danube of Thought]

When may we expect to hear from the oaf "Timb?"

[Danube of Thought]

I like the cut of these guys' jib:

This week, Wyoming lawmakers introduced a bill banning the federal government from enforcing an assault weapons ban or a prohibition on high-capacity magazines in the state, calling the effort an attempt to “take the Second Amendment seriously.”

The bill, which is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives and two state senators, calls for federal agents who attempt to enforce those measures to be imprisoned for at least one year and up to five years, and fined a maximum of $5,000.

[Captain Hate]

Some Peyton Manning odd playoff facts:

Peyton Manning has now lost 6 games in which his team had the lead in the 4th Quarter. No other QB has more than 2.

In fact, Peyton has now given his team the lead in the 4th quarter in 11 straight playoff games.

Peyton has lost 5 games when he didn't throw an INT. Nobody has more than 3.

[narciso]

That seems like an odd combination of facts, there Captain,

[narciso]

See, they never realize when they've dialed to eleven, because that's the only setting;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/lib-senator-chris-murphy-the-nra-must-come-to-table-on-gun-control-theyve-lost-their-backers-video/#comments

[narciso]

Btw, this is the tripe, that rse was referring about;

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

[Jim Eagle]

CH,

I think I also read or heard that he has never one a game where the temperature was below freezing. Can't remember the exact number but it was something like 0-11.

As I said yesterday, at least Tebow (the evil stupid Christian QB) has won more playoff games in Mile HIgh Stadium than the magnificent, infalliable Peyton Manning.

[Thomas Collins]

In fairness to Peyton's performance in yesterday's game, CH, it should be noted that, in the Broncos' next to last drive in the fourth quarter, Fox, instead of giving Peyton a chance to close it out with a pass for a first down, had the Broncos run on second and long and third and long. In addition, after the Ravens tied the score, Fox, despite having two timeouts, didn't give Peyton a chance to put the Broncos in range for a winning field goal attempt. It was as if Fox thought he had Tim Tebow as his QB.

[Danube of Thought]

I believe Peyton is now 0-4 in games where the temp was below 40.

[Captain Hate]

That seems like an odd combination of facts, there Captain,

Not having watched the game, I didn't realize that Flacco tossed up a glorified punt that the DB completely muffed on breaking up *or* intercepting that led to the tying TD.

[Danube of Thought]

TK, on another thread you asked whether the Second Amendment derived from English Common Law. This is from Scalia's Heller opinion:

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment . See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) , cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.

[Captain Hate]

I believe Peyton is now 0-4 in games where the temp was below 40.

Before yesterday's game he was with the Colts who play in a dome; hence he was on the road playing a higher seeded team.

[Thomas Collins]

JiB, Peyton's troubles in cold weather is the main reason I think the Patriots will have as difficult or more difficult a game against the Ravens, even though the game will be in Foxboro.

Yes, Texans fans, I realize you think the Pats are ending their season today. What I said above is based on the Pats winning today. But I'm not taking the Housteners for granted, hell no, not with that George Blanda slinging passes for Houston.

Oh, that's right. Wrong era, different franchise. Matt Schaub is your QB. Well . . . .

[Danube of Thought]

The key for Houston is not to wear those letterman's jackets.

[Danube of Thought]

CH, I'm not sure that 0-4 stat was for playoff games, although it seems to me he must have played more than four total games in sub-40 temps.

[Captain Hate]

As I said yesterday, at least Tebow (the evil stupid Christian QB) has won more playoff games in Mile HIgh Stadium than the magnificent, infalliable Peyton Manning.

I don't think anybody got more enjoyment out of Tebow's successes last year than I did but even I won't use it to jab Manning. The only reason the Colts were able to draft Luck was they fell off so badly when Manning missed the entire season.

I think the rest of the league is made up of idiots who won't at least give Tebow a chance; the same idiots who drafted Ryan Leaf and had Kurt Warner bagging groceries.

[NKonIPAD]

Congrats TomM take a well- deserved bow for smacking down the Lefty One Coin To RuleThem All narrative with style class brievityand clarityin a couple of posts. BTW where's that little wanker Jo ordering TomM to leave it to the lawyers -- like that Lefty whore Tribe. Great job TomM. As Daddy said-- give all Righty bloggers whatever Tom drinks. Connecticut Moonshine?

[Rick Ballard]

Narciso,

I had not been exposed to this instance of Ehrlich gibberish prior to replying to RSE. It was very entertaining to note his comments on the Zhou Dynasty and Pharaonic Egypt as being models for success regarding suppression of creativity in pursuit of stasis.

The progressive dream always involves enslaving or making serfs of those who cannot be exterminated in the womb so that the court eunuchs may continue to generate shallow soliloquy.

OPM withdrawal appears to be causing increasing hallucinations among the credentialed moron branch of the eunuchracy.

[Cecil Turner]

Both games yesterday were what playoffs should look like. But the takeaway for me was that the 49ers looked extremely tough.

[Jim Eagle]

....and Mark Brunell is now the head coach at The Episcopal High School in Jacksonville.

Also, the Jags with new GM Caldwell has already passed on Tebow. He may be a man without a team next year. But knowing him he will do more good building and running his mission in the Philiphines than what he could do even if perfect in the NFL.

That tells me that Shad Khan has already made up his mind to move the team - most likely Los Angeles or heaven forbid, London. If they had Tebow, even as the PA announcer, they'd fill the stadium. Now days their lucky if they sell 80% ons a Sunday.

[Jim Eagle]

their = they're [damn spell check]

[narciso]

The Packs, left too many gaps, and the 'Niners'
just rolled through, that last touchdown had it been repeated more often, might have balanced.

[narciso]

One is struck by the systemic category error, that is rife throughout the entire Ehrlich presentation, it's as if the bet with Julian Simon taught him nothing, except to double down,

[Captain Hate]

I think it's pretty clear that Tebow will win at the game of life, which is all that really matters.

[Captain Hate]

Los Angeles or heaven forbid, London.

How many times do they have to fail at the former to realize it's a bad idea. And the second is just insane, which they keep pushing.

[Porchlight]

Ehrlich simply is not teachable, narciso. Simon was casting pearls before swine - but it was a valiant effort nonetheless.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

It's my understanding that Caldwell made it a condition of taking the job that Khan not make him acquire Tebow.

[jor]

I propose when the republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling --- all districts of congressmen that voted against, have the federal govt completely shut down. Or maybe, we just cut social security by 50% to those districts, and include in letter -- your congressman decided to shut down the government, please call him, if you would like to restore service.

The rest of the country can continue functioning as is.

Again -- you morons lost 5/6 last presidential elections. Lost popular vote in congress by over a million votes. You are on the way to becoming a regional party

[narciso]

So which crack team did they select in lieu of Tebow, and others yet to be named.

[sbw]

Basking in ChaCo's glow.

You go, ChaCo!

[sbw]

Oops! Wrong thread.

[Threadkiller]

If I read that correctly, DoT, the ECL version of the 2nd has Protestants Subjects and non-Protestant Subjects.

Was there some sort of jus sanguinis or allegiance test?

[Janet]

Madeleine 'disgusting Serbs' Albright defends Hagel.

'I own a lot of brooches, don't doubt me!'

[Danube of Thought iPad]

"you morons lost 5/6 last presidential elections."

Hard to do when you've won two of the last four, moron.

But otherwise your proposals are eminently sensible and very likely to be implemented. Of course the president has the power to direct the social security administration to cut off payments on a district-by-district basis--no problem.

(We see here the workings of the fascist mind. Hugo Chavez would be proud.)

[narciso]

Well she's a business partner with Berger, janet, I'm surprised she'd know if the silverware is missing, in the commissary.

[narciso]

'Forget it, he's rolling,' Danube, I'd say send better trolls, but the best of them, are the likes of Yglesias, Kelin, et al, and the president of Soros's Regressives.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

"If I read that correctly, DoT, the ECL version of the 2nd has Protestants Subjects and non-Protestant Subjects."

You don't read it correctly.

[Danube of Thought iPad]

Seattle appears dazed and confused.

[narciso]

Well Bandar's tennis pal, comes through in a pinch, in the LUN

[maryrose]

I hate that Baltimore won. However I don't think they can go the distance.
I want Tebow in Cleveland. Now our new head coach just has to listen to me.
TM: You are the man on Coins and congrats Chaco!
clarice: It is so great to have your article to read each Sunday to start off the week on a high note.
Erhlich:
I read "Population Explosion." He was wrong about that. I guess he didn't know how many aborted babies would change the overall picture. Also the 1 child policy in China played havoc with the results.

[maryrose]

I don't know anything about Seattle.What are their chances? We never see their games in Ohio.

[Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki]

I wonder, if Mitt had won the popular vote but lost the electoral college leading to Barry still being reelected, would jor count that as a win for Barry or Mitt?

[narciso]

Well circumstances might change, but this is not a promising start.