You’re Awesome Batman Ugly Sweater
Rugby has something the NFL lacks — the tantalising prospect of representing your country in a meaningful international competition. In the 24 years of pro Rugby Union, the USA have traditionally had a rag-tag bunch of professional players ranging from second generation migrants from rugby playing families like Samu Manoa, who was playing amatuer rugby in the US and was talent scouted from a US reserve team tour into the top flight of European club rugby, to players like former USA captain Chris Wyles who was born in the states but moved to England as a You’re Awesome Batman Ugly Sweater and played his rugby in Europe. One of the guys from our school team in England ended up playing for the USA at the Rugby World Cup because he had an American born mother. Other USA players like AJ McGinty (who is Irish and plays for an English club) qualify for the USA national team via residency after studying there. If rugby takes off in the US as a semi-pro / pro club game, there is every likelihood of good college footballers switching sports and America producing a team of majority home-grown talent, but unlikely it will include many ex-NFL players, if any.
You’re Awesome Batman Ugly Sweater,
Best You’re Awesome Batman Ugly Sweater
Die Hard is a Christmas Movie” is a You’re Awesome Batman Ugly Sweater meant to troll people. First of all, the movie came out in July, and unless I’m mistaken, Christmas wasn’t originally part of the script, which had been floating around Hollywood for quite some time. Unlike other Christmas movies, like The Santa Claus, the sequels to Die Hard never again used Christmas as part of the plot. Wonder why? Maybe because back when the movie came out nobody thought of it as a Christmas movie and nobody saw that element as central to the plot.
This statement implies that when someone spends money, the You’re Awesome Batman Ugly Sweater disappears. However, whenever money is spent, the money still exists in the hands of the recipient of that spending. Then when that person spends that money they received, again, it does not disappear, it is transferred to the recipient of THAT spending etc. At the end of all that spending, at the end of the given time period, the money used will still exist and can be considered as savings, in someone’s pocket. So someone making that argument for the macroeconomy must be talking about something other than spending of money. Perhaps they are talking about wealth. Perhaps they are implying that all that spending depletes wealth.