BigRedBuster

No, The surest way for Clinton to get elected would be if Trump stayed a Republican and won the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee any Democrat candidate would win. I would love for a third party candidate to run that is actually viable. The problem is, they tend to be the extremes on both sides. I firmly believe there is a place for a moderate conservative candidate (party) in this country and if one really did run and form a really good campaign with talented people around him/her, I believe they would win easily. Disagree completely. Trump running third party and siphoning off votes from a candidate like Bush, Walker, or Rubio would be a disaster for the Republican party. There is no situation in politics that is better for one party than to have the other party get outflanked by an ex-whatever they are (in this case Republican). One more reason I'm a Sanders guy is that his top priority––or one of them––is campaign finance reform. I am with you 1000% that it's high time we had viable third-party alternatives. Some of the ideas I've heard Sanders put out there would almost certainly lead to the greatest chance of that happening we're likely to see in our lifetimes. I think as a third party candidate, both of the other candidates would make him look so stupid by the time the general election came around that the number of votes he would siphon off would be minimal.

At one time I put out a proposal that, with some tweaking, I think could be a good tax policy. First off, you have to have a balanced budget amendment. Now, that wouldn't be a hard core line in the sand. There would be situations where the government would be allowed to go over budget and those situations can be debated. Then, there would be an amendment that you can not tax income of anyone over a certain level. That might be 30% or 40% or whatever. Personally, I think that should definitely be below 45% and probably in the 30s%. No loop holes. Anyway. Now, Obviously, the higher income people will all be paying the maximum amount. Let's say you can fund the government taxing everyone over $95,000 at the maximum amount. Great. Everyone below that doesn't pay income tax. Let's say some great big government program is proposed. Well, either the masses need to find something to cut or that level of income that is taxed is going to go down to include more people being taxed to fund it. Maybe, that level would be everyone from $50,000 to 95,000 needs to be taxed at only 20% to fund the program. What this does is makes more people a consumer of government programs instead of demanding more and more and more only to expect everyone else to fund it. No matter what, there has to be a better way of taxing than what we have now. It is so overwhelming that absolutely nobody fully understands it. What that allows (and I believe is the goal) is politicians on both sides can play politics with the numbers and nobody can fact check most of what they say. Simplify it so most people can easily understand it and more of the politics over the issue goes away.

One thing that might throw off our team in Miami is that they just aren't used to playing in an empty stadium.

OK, his offer list according to 247 is: Iowa ISU Nebraska Vanderbilt Buffalo California Liberty SDSU UCLA Wyoming The bolded ones are the ones I would be most concerned about. in particular, I'm actually mostly concerned about UCLA in that he could get out there and be wowed by the bright lights of LA...etc. If he comes back from the trip out west still seriously looking at us, then I will feel pretty good about our chances. Hopefully he can start a little momentum recruiting on the D line.

This season is nuts. The Cubs are now on a 6 game winning streak. They have the 7th best record on all of baseball (not just NL) and they are still in a battle to even make the wild card as the second team. Hopefully Haren can be the answer we need as the 5th starting pitcher. We need San Fran to go on a major losing stretch and get the hell out of the race. We are clearly in the toughest division in baseball. In any other division we would either be leading it or only two games out battling for actually winning the division.

In general, I am happy with our recruiting. However, our D line recruiting has baffled me. We need a couple in this class and I just never even hear about us going strong after any.

So someone who makes $41,000 would take home $32,800 after your "fair tax" . . . while someone making $39,000 would take home $39,000? Might want to work on your proposal. That or come up with a new name. who the f*ck are you? Imposter....call the FBI.

God help us all if Trump wins the nomination. But, maybe that is what is needed to get a moderate conservative in a third party.

No, The surest way for Clinton to get elected would be if Trump stayed a Republican and won the nomination. That would pretty much guarantee any Democrat candidate would win. I would love for a third party candidate to run that is actually viable. The problem is, they tend to be the extremes on both sides. I firmly believe there is a place for a moderate conservative candidate (party) in this country and if one really did run and form a really good campaign with talented people around him/her, I believe they would win easily.

WTF???? Who is this???

I view these hidden videos just like I view hidden videos PETA people take on livestock farms. They are taken way out of context and blown up to be way bigger of an issue than they are and paints the facilities in a light that they don't deserve. Now, I am anti-abortion and I am all for humane treatment of animals. But, groups have taken both of these issues to the extreme and it's a "the ends justify the means" in their minds. As for PP, I agree with Knapplc. Fine, defund it, as long as there is a viable source for all the other services women use these facilities for in place and ready to go. Like pointed out, abortion is an extremely small part of what PP does. As for abortion itself, if people on BOTH sides spent their time educating and supporting young women to either not find themselves in these situations or letting them know there are alternatives to abortion, abortion wouldn't even be needed. The problem is, neither political side wants the issue to go away simply because it solidifies their bases. They are laughing all the way to the bank on this.

Super, he's a great guy who runs a good company. My question I guess is he one of these guys, or is he compensated relative to employees at a more, uh, equitable rate? I have absolutely no clue what he makes and quite frankly, I don't give a flying rip and neither do the people that I know that work there.

Well, I don't believe the title of the thread simply because there is no way all these players love their jerseys since they don't have a swoosh on them. So, I simply wasn't taking the thread seriously and I'm sure all the pictures are photoshopped.

Whoa...... I didn't mean to imply he doesn't do anything of value to the company. I meant in the day to day operations. He took over a failing family business and risked everything he had to turn it around. On top of that, his business relies very heavily on community and customer support. I said that he spends most of his time doing those activities along with making sure the general goals of the business is met. That's a major contribution to the company. He makes quite a bit more and I have no problem with that and neither does my wife. She makes very similar to the men in the company at a similar level. He also is very generous with his personal money.

If we win the CCG, we should be in the playoffs. Especially if it's over an undefeated reigning champ.

That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life. It might not control 100% of our lives but when $ buys policy it most certainly affects our lives. People with enough money can have safety standards eroded which directly affects public health. That's just one example. That's not to say "all rich people are evil." But the ones who buy off politicians so they can have laws passed just to increase their bottom line and care sh#t all for how those laws will negatively affect people, those are evil. Money should not have the power that it does in politics/policy. I agree. That large amounts of money that buys influence comes from individuals, corporations, unions, AARP, environmental groups, foreign interests, NAACP, NRA...etc. I don't want any of those groups having major influence on our government above what the public in general has. But, these groups have even more influence than just the money they spend on campaigns directly. These groups have an agenda. They always do. They all spend huge amounts of money "educating" people to believe what they want them to believe. Let's take environmental groups. Someone like Green Peace spends huge amounts of money trying to influence the public into believing their garbage. Now, every small individual that believes that crap is now more likely to donate small amounts to the candidate that Green Peace wants in office. Make people believe that the world is coming to an end and any candidate that panders to that gets paid. NRA is the same way. Make people fear that Obama is going to take their guns away and any candidate that panders to that gets paid. It goes back to my statements I have said for a very long time. The media and what is in the media is a much bigger threat to our country than any individual candidate or politician can be.

That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life. I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'. As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote. A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions. Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how. Correct, if you become the owner/employer, then you can be the dictator, you just confirmed my whole point. Of course, there are more worker run enterprises cropping up these days that are more democratic. I never denied that when you work for someone else, they pretty much make the decisions. I have no problem with that and I always kind of chuckle and roll my eyes when someone does have a problem with it. If you don't like it, go work for yourself. Like I said, there are tons of opportunity to do so. Basically what you just said is that you hate working for someone else but you won't go and do that. You just want to sit back and complain that you are working for someone else. Yeah, you kinda did attempt to deny it, but then I blew up your argument, LOL! Self employment has it's pluses and minuses, but it piggy backs on the thrust of the industrial economic situation, which is where most people are and what my point centers around. Ummm...no, and if you think that then you need reading comprehension lessons. I said the smaller the company the more say you have in what happens. That is totally different than what you are claiming. (if that is even the statement you are talking about.) Oh....so now you are saying owning a business has it's minuses. I thought they had all the power and rule the earth in all it's glory with no worries. Now you're obfuscating. Oh, give me a clear example of alleged 'smaller company' that allows the employee to have a say in on what good or service is produced, how it's produced, and how the good/service and profits and are distributed. Obfuscating....that's funny. Fine.... I have a Sales manager, VP of Production, VP of finance and a board of directors that has employees on it. My sales team, through my Sales Manager gives our management team input into what products are needed on the market. We work with many outside suppliers and sources to develop those products and determine the best way to produce them. VP of production and and his team have a lot of input into how it is produced. The VP of finance has a lot of say into how it is all financed. Like most companies my size, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company in the form of equipment, advertising, labor...etc. Those decisions are made within my management team that almost all of them are not owners of the company. Going on down the chain, my maintenance manager has a lot of say into what equipment is purchased, how it is used and where it goes. Shift managers have a say in how their team is managed and they give feedback as to changes that need to be made. Very very few hiring and firing decisions are even done by ownership in this company. A common question that is constantly asked to people that are being managed..."What do you need to be able to do your job better?" Heck, come to think of it, even my house keeper has complete control over how she does her job. When she does it and what products and equipment she uses to do that job. Any major (macro) decisions that need to be made go through the board of directors (with employees on it). This includes investments, profit distribution and even employee benefits...etc. My wife works for a company that has 5 departments. Those departments work basically as independent businesses. The owner of the company really doesn't do much because he has a great management team under him. He basically spends his time in public relations and doing things outside the company. Those departments have many managers that determine what work is going to be bid on, how it's bid on and how it is ultimately accomplished. They have control over their own budgets, and what income they bring in and what their departments spend it on. If a new facility is to be built or purchased in a department, that decision is done within that department with input from many people down the chain of command. Again, even in that company, most of the profits are reinvested back into the company with the department heads and their teams making the decisions as to what to do with it. Now, I know people who didn't like working for her company and they went out and started their own company and they are very happy. Heck, they even subcontract back to her company and still have a relationship.

I think you're confusing my conversation with you and the one I'm having with Cornographic.

That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life. I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'. As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote. A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions. Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how. Correct, if you become the owner/employer, then you can be the dictator, you just confirmed my whole point. Of course, there are more worker run enterprises cropping up these days that are more democratic. I never denied that when you work for someone else, they pretty much make the decisions. I have no problem with that and I always kind of chuckle and roll my eyes when someone does have a problem with it. If you don't like it, go work for yourself. Like I said, there are tons of opportunity to do so. Basically what you just said is that you hate working for someone else but you won't go and do that. You just want to sit back and complain that you are working for someone else. Yeah, you kinda did attempt to deny it, but then I blew up your argument, LOL! Self employment has it's pluses and minuses, but it piggy backs on the thrust of the industrial economic situation, which is where most people are and what my point centers around. Ummm...no, and if you think that then you need reading comprehension lessons. I said the smaller the company the more say you have in what happens. That is totally different than what you are claiming. (if that is even the statement you are talking about.) Oh....so now you are saying owning a business has it's minuses. I thought they had all the power and rule the earth in all it's glory with no worries.

My vote that we lose the CCG has nothing to do with my faith in the coaching staff. I am guessing OSU will be in the CCG and I don't expect any first year staff to go against Meyer in their first year and beat him the year after winning an NC. Now, if we get there and if we play OSU, my koolaid glasses will be on in full glory the week of the game.

That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life. I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'. As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote. A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions. Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how. Correct, if you become the owner/employer, then you can be the dictator, you just confirmed my whole point. Of course, there are more worker run enterprises cropping up these days that are more democratic. I never denied that when you work for someone else, they pretty much make the decisions. I have no problem with that and I always kind of chuckle and roll my eyes when someone does have a problem with it. If you don't like it, go work for yourself. Like I said, there are tons of opportunity to do so. Basically what you just said is that you hate working for someone else but you won't go and do that. You just want to sit back and complain that you are working for someone else.

That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life. I--and others--have already thoroughly discussed the 'corporate welfare' system: socialize the costs and risks, privatize the profits. So you can lump Bill Gates into that pile of 'self made men'. As to your other point: economics and politics(gov'ts) are hand in glove, not separate from each other and as soon as you drive into your corporate parking lot, you by and large give most of your rights away: it's a top down dictatorship', 'my way or the highway'. Sure, you may have a say as to 'casual Fridays', or what's in the vending machine, or who's turn it is to make coffee, but not as to how the profits are utilized, etc. It's as described in the quote. A person may have stock in a company, but that person doesn't control how it's traded, you can only sell your shares. ~ 50% of U.S. workers don't have stock options or pensions. Then start your own company and be self employed. You then control what you do, who does it, when you do it and how.

That's kind of a stupid statement. One is an economic system and one is a form of government. Economic systems and governments are two different things. My problem with his way of thinking is that (it has a small class of owners that decides what is produced, where it is produced, how it is produced, and what to do with the profits.) Anytime I get deep into this discussion it boils down to someone then saying...."Oh...I'm not talking about small and midsize companies. I'm talking about mega corporations". Well, first of all to that train of thought. Most people do not work for mega corporations. They work for small and midsize companies that make things and more and more people have more say in what happens. Also, to the mega corporations. The "ownership" of those public corporations are you and me. We own those stocks in either private accounts or retirement accounts. Do rich people own more stock? Sure. But, since we own stock too, they aren't the only ones who benefit from that. Heck, I purchased Facebook at $47 right after it came out and I am happy happy happy with that mega corporation's performance. I get so tired of the story line that those evil rich people have all the money and power. Yes, I said that when it comes to politics. However, YOU control your life. Not some rich person. YOU can make it better. YOU can start a company and be self employed if you want. There are loads of opportunity out there for someone who wants to be a business owner. YOU can get educated and get a better job. Just because Bill Gates has billions, that doesn't change your life.

This and hasn't the issue there been money. They can't afford to pay Power 5 money for coaches or pay out the ones they've hired. They may not have the big boosters like other schools. But, at least their used to be some interesting laws in Colorado as far as paying coaches and their contracts. Not sure that ever got resolved.

On paper yes....I predicted a loss there simply because it's the first road game against a program that is going to want to pound us after how they were treated last year. It's going to be a very heated battle and it's early in the year.