First!!!!!!!

And i love that idea

i love the idea of one last game there... but not of the old skins playing... who would they even play? that would be horribly lame. maybe as a pregame event they could do that or something, but i'd love to play dallas in the regular season in RFK one last time... that would be beyond awesome.

Seems appropriate to give the old place a good send-off if it does get torn down.

How about a Redskins/Dallas game in RFK?

So no more rants on ST or whatnot. BTW for the closing of Miami's Orange Bowl they still had Marino playing so I don't buy the age issue much.

Abso. Friggin. Lutely.

I love the idea of seeing the seats at RFK rock up and down again with skins fans cheering their team on. What a way to send off a stadium that is entrenched in Redskin history forever!!!!

The Danny will NEVER go for another game in RFK. Only seats about 55,000 if I remember correctly......he'd lose too much money unless he charged $300 per seat and another $150 to park.

I forgot to mention that we are getting a College Bowl Game there now in my article. But as its to be Navy vs (Random ACC team) I think that will = Bust.

And if we will come back to DC, maybe keep a significant portion of something from RFK to incorporate into the new DC stadium, which will have a retractable roof so DS can get a SB

'Skins/'Boys game would be sweet.

Tickets would only be $2k+ a piece to make up for the difference of seating....lol

BONG!

Great idea!

As for the game itself, the Redskins (1961-1996-era players) could square off against an all-star team of alumni of all the other teams that called RFK home: the old Senators, the Nationals, DC United, the Freedom, Riddick Bowe, and the surviving members of the Beatles and the Grateful Dead.

-Nate in the PDX

great diversion Zeese

I still think as a non regular season game it can be done. I did not even think of the idea of Pre-season games there or maybe a scrimmage with the fightin' hon's?

come again, slap nuts

Anybody going to the Skins' Beach Blitz this weekend?

I know a few of our peeps went last year, including (I think) E in VB, who I haven't seen up here in a while.

-Nate in the PDX

NO DANNY '08! Sounds delightful.

Who covers it for the post?

The real question is:

Can Riggo play flag football liquored up at the same level he played real football liquored up?

Can Riggo play flag football liquored up at the same level he played real football liquored up?
-Dorf

LMAO

This is the best idea.. wish i had thought of it.

The Danny will NEVER go for another game in RFK. Only seats about 55,000 if I remember correctly......he'd lose too much money unless he charged $300 per seat and another $150 to park.

Posted by: dlhaze | May 15, 2008 2:02 PM

Why not a pre-season game? They wouldn't even have 55,000 show up so the capacity is adequate.

I think the answer is that it would take too much to get the stadium and field into shape to play a game there.

Sounds great as long as Jerry gets to play guitar. So many memories in that place...

Tibetan Freedom Concert '98. the closest I've ever been to a lightning strike.

Brokedown Palace one more time WD!

If Danny can't forsake his bank account just one time to honor the history and tradition of RFK and the rivalry, then he really is a putz.

WARNING - NON_FOOTBALL RELATED

I know this type of post sometimes frowned upon but I can't help it.

YEAH CALIFORNIA!!
YEAH
YEAH
YEAH

CA Supreme Court overturned ban on same sex marriages. I realize that this may be offensive to some folks here but personally it is huge because it means that my sister and a lot of my friends now have the same right as me and that is a good day in my book.

Okay back to fubol and RFK.

so what if he's a putz, though?

He could charge double current ticket prices and he'd still fill RFK for a real-season Dallas game.

I honestly don't think the current players would go for it. None of them ever played there and have no connection to the stadium. I imagine we'd get some pretty interesting sound bytes from CP that week.

A game at RFK would be so mint. I would do whatever I had to in order to attend this contest. I think there are those out there who feel the same. Demand.

Even the Danny can understand that.

Can't wait for the next story about how everyone's favorite equipment manager gets fired because he wasn't originally hired by Cerradoh.

Why not a pre-season game? They wouldn't even have 55,000 show up so the capacity is adequate.
I think the answer is that it would take too much to get the stadium and field into shape to play a game there.
Posted by: talent evaluator | May 15, 2008 2:21 PM

I beleive that literally every seat in fedex is held by season ticket holders albeit with yearly turnover. But my point is that every season ticket holder has to pay full price for both home preseason games......there would still be the revenue "loss" because he wouldn't be able to charge 90,000 people for one of the pre-season games, only 55,000 people. And there's no way the skins are playing a 6th pre-season game this year.

I'm psyched about the CA thing too, I'm going to marry my dog, and a buddy of mine is going to marry a tree....WAHOOOOOOO

Brokedown Palace one more time WD!
If Danny can't forsake his bank account just one time to honor the history and tradition of RFK and the rivalry, then he really is a putz.
Posted by: SMACK | May 15, 2008 2:28 PM

Maybe Snyder would agree to it if we all got together and said "you'd do it for Randolph Scott!"
Randolph Scott!
Raaandolph Scottttttttt!

A half hour in and I have not been ripped for a guest blog... I am worried something bad is going to happen now...

I love the idea of seeing the seats at RFK rock up and down again with skins fans cheering their team on. What a way to send off a stadium that is entrenched in Redskin history forever!!!!

Posted by: skinsfan | May 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Ummm...didn't this already happen?!

The team's first win in the stadium was over the Dallas Cowboys on December 17, 1961. This was the only win in a 1-12-1 season, and it came on the final weekend of the regular season.

The Redskins' last win at RFK was a 37-10 victory over the Cowboys on December 22, 1996.

I don't think we should do another thing in regards to the history of RFK. It is already perfect.

worst idea ever.

Breaking news:
The grass at fed ex field has just been fired. it will be replaced by bermuda grass. bermuda grass has no experience in being football grass but the orginization is confident that it can get the job done.

I think it is a great idea. Plus what better way to push for new stadium and Skins return.

I know there is a lease blah blah blah but what the hey.

Too bad Thxgvg games are always home for the Cowpaddies cause that would be awesome.

Bermuda grass came highly recommended by John Kent Cooke.

Thanks Comic book guy now I feel safe that I won't be hit by a bus.

I bought the Dave Butz ring of fame sign at a charity auction and dont have anywhere to put it... any offers?

I'll take it in exchange for allowing you to use my name for the next five posts.

The reduction of "marriage" to its lowest common denominator, a "type of friendship recognized by the police"

Bermuda grass?

"This is a hybrid. This is a cross, ah, of Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent, and Northern California Sensemilia. The amazing stuff about this is, that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff."

A half hour in and I have not been ripped for a guest blog... I am worried something bad is going to happen now...
Posted by: Alex35332 | May 15, 2008 2:41 PM

Why all the negativity towards Fedex Field? You got some kind of axe to grind? Who's your source on the Miami thing? You're making that up! Go back to baltimore!

RIP 21

California should become a new country.

No. From now on the Redskins will be the first team to have a football field made of sand. In his press conference VC said: " We are a run first team, you know it, I know it, and the opponent knows it. By switching to sand we are slowing the game down to our own speed, it just made sense to me when Danny came to me with the idea."

Ummm...didn't this already happen?!

The team's first win in the stadium was over the Dallas Cowboys on December 17, 1961. This was the only win in a 1-12-1 season, and it came on the final weekend of the regular season.

The Redskins' last win at RFK was a 37-10 victory over the Cowboys on December 22, 1996.

I don't think we should do another thing in regards to the history of RFK. It is already perfect.

Posted by: drbatchelor | May 15, 2008 2:42 PM

Wow. Didn't realize that, drbatchelor.

You are right! No way we should tarnish that history by playing another game there.

Alex, Now that's funny

anon bigot = barno

Alex, Now that's funny

Posted by: Great One | May 15, 2008 3:01 PM

Thanks Mr Bradshaw.

California should become a new country.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 2:52 PM

Before it is demoted from being a state of the great United States, it should be renamed...

Sodom and Gomorrah

The potential danger/downside of a final game is the upper level actually collapses down because of the the rockin'!

The Danny could sell ad space for crazy money for tha last game too. That might off set some of the 40,000 loss.

leave RFK alone. If they have a game there and they lose then it is tarnished forever. you cant relive history. the best that we can do is create new history at fed ex until we get a new stadium. I have been to some of the games at fed ex and I understatnd that it is not the best place to produce noise, but it is hard to produce noise when everone is sitting in their seat watching the sunday NFL ticket. stand up and cheer for the team that you came to watch.

In my opinion, and you knew I would give it eventually, we have millions of people joining into the sacrament of marriage to only jump out when it is not convenient.

Why should we restrict people who are in love to not be married? It shouldnt be based upon if you like guys or girls, it should be based upon whether you know what love is.

If you really want to gripe about a policed marriage ability, you should be griping for the gov to not give benefit to those who are married, since it is a religious sacrament, with the whole separation of church and state and whatnot.

That would reduce the gripe that gays and lesbians have in the first place about receiving the same benny's. They have a right to gripe that one group has a right to get more incentives from taxes, benefits for their loved ones etc than another group. Remeber the 3/5ths law? Suffrage?

Not to go off topic, but there are some economists that therorize that because of the widening political/social/economic divide between the 4 regions of the US there is a chance that we could see it split into 4 states some day. West Coast, South, Midwest and East.

[[ based upon whether you know what love is. ]]

I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is.

So should men be able to marry zebras too if they love them?

I will admit Gay/Lesbian weddings much more fun too. Admittedly I have only been to 1 vs 200+ same sex marriages.

Yeah,

the west is where you can be gay and smoke reefer

East is where you can have corporate piracy and aggressive driving

The south is where you can hate everything non-white

THe midwest is where you can grow crops and eat brats...

This is in jest for all those poised on the precipice waiting to jump down my throat

Not to go off topic, but there are some economists that therorize that because of the widening political/social/economic divide between the 4 regions of the US there is a chance that we could see it split into 4 states some day. West Coast, South, Midwest and East.

Posted by: Alex35332 | May 15, 2008 3:12 PM

Hopefully California (aka Sodom and Gomorrah) will be the only representative of the West Coast.

There you go Barno, I mean anon. Let out all that homophobia and bigotry.

So should men be able to marry zebras too if they love them?

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Anon, only if that is the half-man/half-zebra breed known as Human-zee (bra)

So should men be able to marry zebras too if they love them?

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Does the Zebra have the intelligence to sign the marriage certificate? If its smart enough to do that and can pick a wedding decorator go for it.

So should men be able to marry zebras too if they love them?

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:15 PM

Does the Zebra have the intelligence to sign the marriage certificate? If its smart enough to do that and can pick a wedding decorator go for it.

Zeb, I've already got the aggressive driving thing down.....where can I sign up for some corporate privacy?

What makes you think that Barno is the only one on this blog who speaks the Truth?

Along with my rant earlier.. isay you create civil unions for ALL, if you want a tax break etc.. that is currently afforded to married persons, you sign up here.

If you want to be married by what your religion says, go right ahead. They have a right to refuse people... no matter how a$$backwards that is.

Those who are married would still have to apply for their civil union stuff for tax bennys et5c..

Tax break?! It's a marriage penalty. My wife and I would be much better off if we could file individually.

corporate privacy?

Posted by: Greg | May 15, 2008 3:19 PM

Piracy... not privacy... silly goose, you should know there is no such thing as corporate privacy

I'm not a big barno fan, but from what I've seen he pretty much is not afraid to put his signature on everything he posts......don't think that some of these anon words can be put on him (or her).....

Tax break?! It's a marriage penalty. My wife and I would be much better off if we could file individually.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM

Thats a myth

when is the straight-pride parade?

I call president of the west, I know I am not a native but I do love everything about what Zebra posted.

Zebra, I am not going to argue your point because you have every right to beleive what you want. but seperation of church and state was meant to have a single form of govermet, rather than a monoarchy, or county ruled by church. seperation of church and state did not mean seperation of ideas( ie- christian values)

Hooray for California from me as well. Excited that my sister and her partner can get married now. Not so excited at yet another SJKing wedding to attend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

Oh....piracy....gotcha....do I need an eye patch?

Tax break?! It's a marriage penalty. My wife and I would be much better off if we could file individually.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM

Thats a myth

Posted by: Zebra | May 15, 2008 3:25 PM

That's the problem with this country. Uneducated people people trying to convince others of their flawed logic.

Maybe you guys should stay out of politics until you are better informed.

when is the straight-pride parade?

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:25 PM

top of the Grand Canyon, July 2nd. Walk towards the Canyon and dont stop till you hit the other side.

I don't even know why I am arguing with this anon. I am technically against all marriage anyway, especially when it comes to government recognition of it.

then get bent

GO;

So was the 2nd ammendment.

Point being you have a right to believe in what you want. And Im not saying to take the word god out of our country or our hymns... but the idea that christians believe only a man and a woman can be married is as arcane as the idea or adam and eve.

But while the church has the right to disallow those unions, the government should not. Its descrimination.

I am a semi-practicing cathoholic, i think there is need for sweeping changes first of which would be allowing priests to marry. Look, they stopped making eunuchs out of boys. Why cant they see that certain things may need to be changed.

Alex...no need to worry. Your argument was irrelevant, therefore ignored.

My conversation was with the zebra.

Not so excited at yet another SJKing wedding to attend.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 15, 2008 3:27 PM

Diddy,

You always know how to do things the classy way. Or at least, you know how to talk a good game. What is your standard wedding gift? (I realize your sister's entitled to a non-standard gift).

I think this is a great idea! The old Skins flag football game that is... I can see it now, an old Jumpy Geathers soils himself because he tries to "forklift" Joe Jacoby. Kelvin Bryant turns an ankle as he tries to turn the corner, and Alvin Walton clocks him anyway because, well, he's Alvin Walton and he can hit. Babe Laufenburg glowers from the sideline and makes plans to skip next year's game for the old Cowboys flag game... Actually, I would like to see the game, even if these things didn't happen.

Also I would like to point out, you are arguing these values under an anon name. If you think you have a moral position, be proud of it and own it.

Tax break?! It's a marriage penalty. My wife and I would be much better off if we could file individually.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM

Then get a divorce, moron.

Posted by: Zebra | May 15, 2008 3:25 PM

That's the problem with this country. Uneducated people people trying to convince others of their flawed logic.

Maybe you guys should stay out of politics until you are better informed.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:28 PM

Read the link... just more sensationalism from people who get their 'knowledge' from people with agendas.

My dad is an accountant. the stat for people who married filing joint that have the marriage penalty is less than 5%. So we should all change based upon that %?

Zebra.......first of all, the wiki post that you provided only shows that the marriage penalty is not the "myth" that you stated.

Second.....if you are relying on Wikipedia to educate yourself on political issues, you are truly cheating yourself and the others that you hope to convince.

Also I would like to point out, you are arguing these values under an anon name. If you think you have a moral position, be proud of it and own it.

Posted by: Alex35332 | May 15, 2008 3:36 PM

It was by no means, a moral argument. Morals are driven by society, with no regard to Truth.

My argument was just fact based.

In terms of not providing my name, I have no reason to. You guys get too caught up in thumping your chests. It's not about you. It's not about me.

It's about the Truth.

Three things on the gay marriage thing:

1. "Marriage" is both a legal entity and a religious entity. The government cannot mandate that a Church marry a same-sex couple (see "separation of Church and State"). The government can mandate that it is illegal to forbid a same-sex couple from obtaining a marriage license. The marriage license ensures that a same-sex couple enjoys the same legal rights as an opposite-sex couple, among them visitation rights in hospitals, child custody rights, divorce rights, and so forth. A "civil union" is a sort of half-baked marriage license in that the act of creating civil union legislation will invariably omit for same-sex couples some obscure (or not obscure) rights conferred on opposite-sex couples.

2. I just finished reading the opinion and am surprised that California didn't use Brown v. Board of Ed. as the basis for its decision. I believe Massachusetts did.

3. You couldn't pay me enough to marry a man or a woman. I'm glad that California and Massachusetts make it possible for gays to lead as much a life of misery as straights.

Anon, the 'myth' was tongue in cheek... i meant to have the wiki link with it.

And wiki is not my source. But it is the easiest to link to and search on quickly.

As I said, I worked in my father firm for a number of years, and 2007's stat (which he told me b/c I asked) was

I would love to see a RFK game for charity myself.

Dont know why that cut off...

oh, okay,, apparently you cant put a less than sign... lets try again shall we?

5%. So you should stop yelling about abolishing the tax that only affects 5% of the population.

to wit

Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010. [4] Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011. [4] However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers. [4]

Zeb.....I never "yelled about abolishing" anything. I just matter of factly informed you that you were flawed in saying that marriage provides a tax break.

For me, it is in fact a marriage penalty. I am ok with that. But that has no bearings whatsoever on whether it is right for a man to marry a zebra, or another man, for that matter.

can someone get back to me on the eye patch?

See, its rare that when you get up in the tax bracket that you would have the same income, so this legislation was aimed at the lower tax brackets b/c of this instance being 42% in 1996.

That is why 5% is the number now until they re-initiate it.

Oh and I get plenty of chest thumping from my work, you think a little blogging matters at all to me? I am simply saying a man stands by his beliefs regardless.

to wit

Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010. [4] Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011. [4] However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers. [4]

Posted by: Zebra | May 15, 2008 3:48 PM

You seem to be missing the "disparate" income portion of that whole Wiki post. For married couples who incomes are fairly close to each other, the marriage penalty is alive and well.

Ok, so b/c you and your wife are one of the 5%, I cant say it is a tax break to be married, since, ya know, 95% of the peeps who are married do get a better tax break than if not?

I didnt speak in absolutes, but it is def not incorrect to state that ultimately, if you go by the numbers and averages, that it is better to be married in terms of taxes than not/.

Greg
Its corporate piracy, so take your tie and use it as an eyepatch.

Eye patches are available now for only 10,000 bonus points - THIS WEEK ONLY! Order early for best selection of size and colors.

Wow. This seemed like such a nice, well-meaning thread. I come back after some conference calls and it's like the last 5 minutes of Blazing Saddles!!

Can't agree with you on the marriage = misery equation Diddy, because for me it simply isn't true. Version 1 sometimes yes, but I'm 8 years into v2 now and very, very happy. Each to their own.

beep beep (out go the lights - for Mathis)

beep beep (out go the lights - for Mathis)

can someone get back to me on the eye patch?

Posted by: Greg | May 15, 2008 3:49 PM

Use your points Greg, it's what they're for.

Beep beep;

anon, you seem to be missing the [2] note.

So if you are one of the 5% of the upper tax brackets and you and your wife make the same amount, then you will get the penalty.

But the issue remains the same. More peeps benefit from that break than get the penalty.

So we could argue til we are blue in the face, but I didnt say in all situations, which would have helped, and you didnt say 'in my situation' which would have helped.

There? Done

I have a hard time believing that 95% of the married couples in this country have disparate income. But hey, if your daddy says it, it must be true.

Been real, Zebra.

Watch out with the piracy thing Greg. Like what happened to you w/those bonus points, you may end up with a peg leg.

What is marriage but a cultural institution? It has existed in many different forms, in many different cultures, and many many years before the Judeo-Christian tradition even began. There are ethnic groups even to day that do not have marriage, or that practice it as it was for many years, as a method of tribal unity rather than a "sacred" union of man and wife. Polygamy is still legal and is encouraged in some cultures. I remember reading in The Golden Bough about an African tribe where young men without fortune first married other young men if they could not afford, or have the status to deserve, a female wife. In some cases, they continued to live together even when they reached the cultural requirements for getting a female partner. For them, that was marriage. There is evidence that same sex civil unions were accepted in France in the Middle Ages... Of course this argument begs the question, if it is up to each culture to define marriage, then it can be anything: Americans want it only between a man and woman. The problem then, as so many people have pointed out, is that our Constitution demands equal rights when we are conferring rights. If you confer special rights with the institution of marriage, then, you must confer those rights to all who want to be married.

Thanks, Newman. Your thesis on cultural humanism and relativism shed a new light on things.

Hopefully, you have convinced the easily influenced.

Translation: I have no argument against your points, so I will use sarcasm.

Got it!

Tax break?! It's a marriage penalty. My wife and I would be much better off if we could file individually.

Posted by: | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM

It depends on how much money each spouse makes and there are economies of scale if you live in a household with two, rather than one person, so your income should be taxed the way they do now - otherwise there would be a "single person penalty"

So....our society here in the US has resorted to benefiting homosexuals so that they can get tax breaks (to be "fair"), but penalizing hard working married couples because they make too much money.

What a country!

I dont know if anybody mentioned this, but how about a pre-season game there. kind of what the dodgers did at the LA Coloseum

you know, anon or blank or whatever you want to call yourself or not, if you don't like same sex marriage, then don't marry the same sex...

I would be there in a second! I always regretted never being old enough to go on a road trip to RFK. I had to watch them play the Patriots in Shaffer Stadium. It was almost like a home game.

I would be there in a second! I always regretted never being old enough to go on a road trip to RFK. I had to watch them play the Patriots in Shaffer Stadium. It was almost like a home game.

you know, anon or blank or whatever you want to call yourself or not, if you don't like same sex marriage, then don't marry the same sex...

Posted by: John D in Houston | May 15, 2008 6:49 PM

Thanks for the advice, John D. I'll be putting that to good use.

Lame...Hate to jump on but damn, this blog is really starting to suck.

If you are going to have a guest blog at least have Inside Information on the topic.

Jeez.

I have attended a couple flag football games at RFK in the 90's that had Redskin Greats playing it...name them, they were there.

Been there done that. Snooze, lose.

So, tear down the old house, and build a new one next to the ballpark on the river.

Going to go surf other Skins blogs...this just isnt doing the job these days.

How about a damn story about Wilbur Marshalls tough life after football Jason LaCanfora? Not good enough of a plot for you?? Or do you need to involve Snyder to type on a keyboard?

I would pay 20-30 bucks to see just a handful of ex-skins play a flag football game.

$50 if Art, Gary, Doug, and BMitch were there. Donate it all to charity. It's a no-brainer.

I would pay 20-30 bucks to see just a handful of ex-skins play a flag football game.

$50 if Art, Gary, Doug, and BMitch were there. Donate it all to charity. It's a no-brainer.

When did this blog become totally gay? First uniforms, now this?

But seriously, live and let live.

On RFK, that'd be OK but no touch or flag. Joe needs to try that broken stick back out.

to see Sonny throw a pass - I'll pay danny any number he wants.