Mavric

Calling an event an act of terror in a speech about that event doesn't mean that he called the event an "act of terror." Do you people even listen to yourselves? Is this representative of what the present GOP is? Simply unbelievable. Well . . . given that the whole speech was about the Libya attacks . . . and the immediate words after the "No acts of terror . . ." sentence were "[t]oday we mourn four more Americans . . ." How can you not say that he was not talking about Libya? Oh, right. Because it conforms with your political beliefs. Probably about like how someone can be talking about putting things on a credit card, give two examples of deficit spending, say he voted opposite his opponent because he said we couldn't afford them but somehow the first example doesn't count? Could that have something to do with political beliefs as well?

Yeah, that was really bad. I'm guessing he was trying to allude to the debate over spontaneous vs. planned but he slaughtered it either way.

NOOOOO!!!! We're still better than the Big East, right????

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased".... Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster. The "poster" didn't give me any self-derived numbers (it was word-for-word what the RNC chairman said after the debate without a source). That was my "argument".... So we're now only accepting numbers that individual research for themselves? Things are going to dry up around here pretty quickly.

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased".... Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster. there was no argument to be had, it was just his response to a person's opinion. So you're both conceding the numbers are correct?

Did you work up those numbers or did you take them from the RNC Chairman Priebus when he gave his "expert" and "unbiased" opinion on the debate. I'm assuming you took his word for it since a)normal people don't watch a debate that closely & b) it is WORD FOR WORD his assessment!!!! Now tell us again how you are "unbiased".... Great tactic. You don't have any argument against the numbers so just attack the poster.

False. "Immediately prior" to his statement about voting against Ryan you'll see references to the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D. So immediately prior to you does not include elements of the previous sentence? What in his statement indicates he was separating the two? How so? Because he also voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit.

not sure about this, but then there is this: link Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya. why? on the second part, not sure on the first. are you saying your response is just for carl, or would i be proving a point for carl? It seemed like you were inferring that the Republicans cut funding for security which could have led to less security in Libya. If carlfense disagreed with you, he would insist you prove the cuts in funding directly resulted in denying the extra security that was requested.

not sure about this, but then there is this: link Just for carl - prove this cut the funding for Libya.

No change to the argument. I'll even post it again for you and underline the portion that you are missing: Here's your transcript. Fire away. Debate Transcript Wow. Only you can insist on showing something about two wars which includes a quote about two wars and that's not good enough. 1 - Prove that he wasn't talking about the two wars he referenced immediately prior. 2 - If, perhaps, he wasn't talking about the wars, his statement was STILL a lie.

Debate Transcript ^^^^^ (Not sure if you're really not following or if you're just acting the part. ) No. Apparently I have no idea what you're talking about. It started with you saying show he said he voted against the wars and show he did. I think I've done both. What would you like to argue now?

Really? I know we haven't been good but that's a little over-stated. Washington in the regular season the last two years. We seemed to do pretty well against Minnesota last year. We even beat some guy with a bunch of initials once ... RGIII or something like that.

I'm not sure I'd lay any points against a mobile QB until further notice. I do think - or at least really hope - having two weeks to prepare should help tremendously. I think we should win but I'm not sure it will be comfortable.

Forgot it was on any only tuned in to hear the post-game. Sounds like we made sets two and three pretty interesting. Blew big leads but held on. Nice job by the ladies.

No . . . you're still missing half of the equation. You've got the war votes down. Well done. I don't think that anyone disputed those. So you're trying to say that Biden didn't say he voted against them? Debate Transcript

According to the new AP Poll, it's #6 vs. #4! Oh, wait. Six votes vs. four votes. Sorry.

Shouldn't be too hard. Show that he was talking specifically about the two wars . . . and then show that he said that he voted against them. Not nearly as ridiculous as arguing the meaning of "is." You mean where he didn't object to the Military Force against Iraq once and voted for it once and voted for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding three times? Well done. Now you're halfway there. Keep going . . . So no one has to show he voted against it but I have to show he voted for it? Guess that shouldn't be so surprising. Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/14/01) - Passed by Unanimous Consent, i.e., no one objected Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (10/11/02) - Voted in Favor Emergency Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan (10/17/03) - Voted in Favor Funding for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (5/22/08) - Voted in Favor of and sponsored the bill Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding ... (6/26/08) - Voted in Favor So far, I haven't actually found any time he voted against war funding.

That's fair. I just didn't get the highly capable and skilled VP angle from that debate at all. I was somewhat impressed that he seemed to know a little bit about some of the foreign policy matters. If I recall that was supposed to be his strong suit and was one of the major reasons Obama originally tabbed him as his running mate. In retrospect, I guess that could be construed as capable. The skilled part must be when he was perpetuating the administrations lies about not receiving requests for additional security at the Libyan embassy. [citation needed] [and apostrophe] [citation still needed] I think it's pretty plain by now that the requests went to the state department and were denied. Supposedly they didn't get to the White House. So basically Biden was just throwing the State Department under the bus.

Saying we won't be NW is a stretch. We'll probably struggle to stop them but I'm not sure how well they'll stop us, especially with two weeks to prepare. Michigan has me really scared right now. Unless the line is about 125 points, I'd take the over.

And Romney's in the first debate. Not saying it was right either but some of that goes on by basically everyone in many debates. Pretty sure the amount that went on were not really comparable.

Shouldn't be too hard. Show that he was talking specifically about the two wars . . . and then show that he said that he voted against them. Not nearly as ridiculous as arguing the meaning of "is." You mean where he didn't object to the Military Force against Iraq once and voted for it once and voted for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq and Afghanistan War Funding three times?

They are competing against teams under the same rules at their times but not equal across generations. Before the 85 scholarship limit, vastly expanded recruiting and everyone wanting to play from day 1, the best 15-20 teams in the country could stockpile all the talent. Now there is talent everywhere you look.

The number 1 ranked defense in the Big 10 (Michigan State) doesn't have a defense? Interesting analysis. The other 3 I would agree don't have much in the way of defense but that isn't MSU's problem. Not exactly. But if the team ranked 105 in scoring offense and **cough**cough** has a QB with minus-68 yards rushing in his career **cough** can score 35 against us, HB will spontaneously combust.

I have my gripes about CamStache just like you, but I don't know if the answer is a Freshman. Frankly, I don't know that we have a better DE on the team. Watch the other guys when they're in - they all have glaring issues. Ankrah, EMart, Joe Carter... they all miss tackles, blow assignments, etc. Cam is slow but he's solid. I wish we had someone better, but we don't. And Baker Steinkuhler has played quite well this year. He's been a non-factor most of his career, but this year he's been a man possessed. Watch the second half of Wisconsin if you don't believe me. He was unstoppable. And this logical fallacy that "You don't know the Freshmen aren't better... so they are" is fun and all, but it doesn't mean anything. Watching the Wiscy game with my in-laws. Father-in-law makes a comment about about Steinkuhler not making a lot of plays. We both enjoy plenty of good laughs as he makes about every-other play the rest of the game.

Meh ... interesting stats but they really don't mean anything. Obviously we aren't as good as we'd like but it's a totally different world. Comparing teams across different eras is really hard. Anyone who hasn't figured out that college football has changed drastically in the last 20 years - let alone the last 60 - really doesn't know anything about the game. They were trying to run Osborne out of town because he'd lose one or two games a year - because those were the only couple games we were really in any danger of losing. By the way, in case anyone hasn't noticed, we're not the only "good" team to get blown out in the last couple weeks: #5 Georgia was getting blown out by 35 (@ #6 So. Carolina) before a meaningless late TD. #5 West Virginia gets blown out 49-14 @ unranked Texas Tech - WVU put up nearly 60 ppg the previous two weeks before 14 today #15 Texas was getting pounded 56-8 before taking on a couple late scores against OU Doesn't make our losses any better but just goes to show that bad things happen all over, not just to us.