Comments Posted By matt foley
Displaying 1 To 5 Of 5 Comments
oh and what #4 said.
a technical sport that you don't have to be enormous to play...in fact, it's usually a disadvantage.
Comment Posted By matt foley On 28.06.2009 @ 19:17
#3
British invented the sport and also coined the term soccer - http://www.gavinrymill.com/origin-of-the-word-soccer.html so if anyone's ignorant, it's you. Besides, there is more than one country that uses the word, see Canada, Australia, home of a few really talented players.Additionally, Schmitt is a complete dunce when speaking on the subject since nothing could be further from the truth about poor teams winning over better teams. Most "football" is played by clubs, and most clubs play in "single-table" leagues where the most valued trophy in the country is won by the team with the best record from the season, attained by playing every other team in the ENTIRE league twice. Some people call this the best team period, not the best team in the series, or the team that got "hot" in time for the playoffs, or the team without any injuries.
If you think the US is a soccer wasteland, well go screw. We just proved that we can compete with some of the best even without the depth and richness of talent due to the virtual big sports media blackout of the sport in the US, the world cup aside. To those who hate the game, the demographics are changing in this country so fast and information about the game is ever more accessible, the beautiful game, the world's sport, is not a fluke or a passing fad like the NASL. Too much has changed since the seventies, and the popularity of the sport is growing. It's tangible to this long-time fan.
Comment Posted By matt foley On 28.06.2009 @ 19:15
john has it exactly right. conservatives are conserving money and going to work every day. and why should they show up to an event which won't be covered at all by the media? if this had been some anti-war rally with a couple of hundred people, why it'd have been all over the national news, and that's not even remotely an exaggeration. sure, people are pissed off now, but they don't have the energy to make the new administration into the great satan that they think the last one was. everyone's going to be much more pissed off with double-digit inflation and a broad-based economic depression that lasts for a couple of years.
Comment Posted By matt foley On 27.02.2009 @ 18:43
THE SANTELLI RANT: A RED BULL RUSH
everyone seems pretty vindictive when it comes to bank bosses. the truth is that they were never even close to being the biggest problem, and they didn't know enough about the problem to have actually caused it. this is the infamous class envy, populist bs that has become so much a part of this administration. independent unscrupulous mortgage brokers were the problem, the community reinvestment act was the problem, the senate finance committee looking the other way was the problem, government regulator lawyers instead of industry experts were the problem, rating agencies were the problem, and fannie and freddie were the problem. fannie and freddie were buying up mortgage securities like there was no tomorrow, and their only defense was that if wall street was offering it then it must be worth buying. and nary a word about any of this will one hear from the media that isn't cnbc. you want to talk about criminal? the government more derelict in its duty than the banks ever were, and the interesting thing of it is, the bank bosses and financial derivatives quants who caused part of the problem will actually suffer for their hubris while the government will only expand its power via regulatory authority. we put sarbanes-oxley in place, ostensibly to prevent this kind of stuff. it was more government regulation, but it didn't prevent a meltdown from happening. the regulations were in place so who is to blame for them not being enforced. the previous administration? well, maybe, but most of this crap started in the mid nineties when housing prices became unhinged from the rate of inflation. and remember; the bush administration was warning us every couple of years from 2001 about the housing bubble.
Comment Posted By matt foley On 21.02.2009 @ 13:15
Thompson is a no nonsense candidate, to be sure, and maybe a little boring, but he's certainly a gifted speaker. As you said, early aimlessness and lack of focus may have killed this campaign. The problem is that any savvy media observer knows that a candidate needs to be well-spoken and snappy to energize his constituents. Sadly, a candidate must be 1 part orator 2 parts cheerleader, but any American with political ambition knows that or should.
Comment Posted By matt foley On 18.01.2008 @ 09:15
