BigRedBuster

But...but...but...I thought their head coach was an offensive line genius.

Some day some poor husband is going to get that look and his day isn't going to be happy.

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money. In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not. I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys. The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good. There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has. Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

Come on you're better than that. What? I am a suppression convert, if people need ID's to work, how can they afford the ID's to get jobs. We are forcing the poor to stay poor. Your sarcastic argument is flawed, the government provides social security cards to citizens. Pretty sure most people have said they don't have a problem with voter ID as long as it is cheap and didn't suddenly pop up during an election year. That's the problem. Most people may have said that but the people in charge never make it happen. They use it as a political hot potato instead of actually using voter ID to make our elections better. Put voter ID in place and make it so simple and free that literally nobody can complain about it. That is the common sense solution. Problem is, nobody in politics uses common sense.

sd and Knapp.... Here is how I view most people I disagree with politically. It is like the old story of the blind men describing the elephant by the part they happen to be touching. Everyone has experiences in their life that makes them view the world from their point of view. I think that is probably where we are.

I used to love headline news and I would have it on as background noise also. Then, they decided they needed to have shows like Nancy Grace. Now, there is a pathetic human being in my eyes. Here is how much I despise that woman. I would watch Maddow over her.

We've beat that dead horse to death 10 times. We disagree, but, we are at two levels on this. You claim there isn't any voter fraud because no charges have been filed. I ask, how much has happened that hasn't been caught. I view this like telling the police they can't patrol the roads and use radar detectors and then when no speeding tickets hit the courts you claim nobody is speeding.

I put this in the same category as many things that are done that I personally would not do. Voter fraud is a felony. Stating that in public should not be a crime. If I were to do this (for which I wouldn't ) I would have put them up everywhere. That's because I believe most voter fraud is actually caused by people who are not poor and minorities. It is by people in campaigns who have motives.

A while back you asked me where I get my news. Your response there is why I don't watch these shows. I don't want them leading me in whatever direction they want me to be lead. I used to be addicted to Fox News. That was maybe 7-10 years ago. Then....I got sick of it. I absolutely couldn't believe some of the crap they were trying to get me to believe. Soooo...I switched over and started watching MSNBC. It didn't take me long to find the exact same thing on almost all of their shows only the other direction. So, I banned all from my TV. Now, that is with one caveat. I did like Morning Joe. Why? Because I felt that they had both view points on the show and treated both with the same respect. Then I simply got tired of them and stopped watching them too. I will watch CNN in the morning when getting ready for work. I try my best to block out Solidad Obrian's obvious left lean and simply watch it to get an idea of what is happening in the world. Sometimes I'll switch over to headline news in the morning. I then spend a lot of time reading on the Internet. I would prefer to read a story. When something is written, it is obviously thought out and it is the intent of the writer to put that quote in writing. That is contrary to some statement that is just blurted out on TV or the radio and then goes viral. I will sometimes also watch Anderson 360 in the evening. That is usually to get my wife to go to sleep so I can watch Monday Night Football. Then, if I find a story that I feel is important, I will read from a number of sources. If I find a source on line that I get a feeling is obviously for one side, I don't trust their story. Then....for the most part, I sit back and say...."does this make sense"? Good Lord I wish more people would do that.

That's not why they're here. We've gone over this before. Voter ID is not a problem in this country. Vote suppression is a large and growing problem in this election. Your opinion. I believe both are important.

My main point in this thread is that it is dangerous when the population gets their "news" from these types of programs. I have stated several times that even if you are stating the facts and they are technically true but one sided, the conclusion that can come from that story can ultimately be false. Now, sd has stated that he gets his news from more than just one source. I forgot to state it earlier but I applaud him for that. The problem is, there are many people who don't. I personally choose to find people who (even though technically stating the truth) put themselves out there as a source for information when they tell one side of the story or only put out enough "facts" to lead the viewer in one direction.

For the record, I have no problem with the UN here if they verify that the people who vote are actually who they say they are. It's sad that it's come to this.

I'm curious where this picture is from. Maybe it was in another thread and I missed it, but right now I don't really understand the reference. This was a joke for this thread since some people seem to think voter fraud is always done by the "other" party. This picture was taken outside a polling place in the last Presidential election. It is of some Black Panther members who thought they needed to provide security at the polling place.

Really??? "President Bush didn't do one interview with the New York Times while he was President" He did a few. Now....how is that not a "false statement"?

And, thanks for proving my point. You defend someone because you watch that person and have come to believe they tell the truth and in the same thread you point out that she has made false statements....but, you are OK with that because she doesn't do it as much as the other side.

show your work. edit: i am only defending maddow since you singled her out. seriously, if you can not see how beck is a clown and maddow actually provides thoughtful, well cited work, than i really can not go on with this conversation. i think we are capable of more than just rationalizations through equivocation and saying everything is equivalent. That's funny. In one post you claim my problem is that I want to "lump everyone together". In another you claim I singled her out. Argue with yourself much? i only defend maddow because i watch her show and respect her. also, you did do both: it is not mutually exclusive. Ummmm....If I lump someone in a list of at least two people, that is not singling someone out. Single means one. That would imply that I only talked about that one person. In this post I talked about at least 5 people.

Great....Thank you for proving neither of them can be trusted. I don't trust either one of them. And, as I have stated. You can technically report "facts" but all one sided and the viewer comes to a completely false conclusion. (the "reporters" ultimate goal)

show your work. edit: i am only defending maddow since you singled her out. seriously, if you can not see how beck is a clown and maddow actually provides thoughtful, well cited work, than i really can not go on with this conversation. i think we are capable of more than just rationalizations through equivocation and saying everything is equivalent. That's funny. In one post you claim my problem is that I want to "lump everyone together". In another you claim I singled her out. Argue with yourself much?

Examples of what??? I watched her show and wanted to throw up. Do I need to provide samples of my stomach bile?

And, yes...I have tried to watch Maddow before. I got about half way through her program and wanted to throw up over her one sided stories.

And, here we go....the other side makes stuff up and doesn't tell the truth. The one that supports your side is honest. I get it.

The guardian????

It's not just..."whatever". I don't care if you are talking about Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Maddow, Olberman or anyone else on any of the networks that claim to just be opinion shows. People have been drawn to these people as their source for news. It is a sick phenomena in the US right now that is extremely dangerous. Beck or Maddow come out with some big story that their sheep eat up and all of a sudden it's all over the Internet as fact when it is farthest from the truth. Then you throw in people like Micheal Moore that absolutely is sick to the core with his lies. But...technically, he is telling facts. I have very little respect for anyone in the media anymore and they can all go burn for all I care.

facts do not have 'sides', perceptions do. OH....but they do. You can write an article about a certain event and paint it in a completely different picture than what reality is and still be reporting technically facts. BUT, the end conclusion of the story that the reporter leaves you to decide on your own is completely scewed because the reporter only told the facts that support one side.

Are these the UN people?