BigRedBuster

I REALLY like his attitude of..."This place isn't broke". He understands that this already is a great place and he just needs to build on that. At least from the beginning, he sounds like he doesn't have such a big ego that he thinks he needs to make it all about him.

I think it has more to do with a truck needing power along with the emissions standards. You can decrease the power in a car and most people don't notice it or care as much. But, when you are buying a truck and it has a job to do, then you notice it. What I have always thought the problem is, is that fuel efficiency and power come so much from air in and air out of an engine. That is why a turbo charger gives you more power. It pushes more air into the engine. Well, if you do anything to restrict that with emissions cleaning equipment, then you decrease efficiency. You can do what is called "chipping" it. Basically you buy a gizmo that you plug into the computer of the truck and it changes the programing of the truck. I did that on my truck that just got wrecked. The problem is, GM has made the new trucks so that doing that doesn't benefit you as much and if you do it, it is marked in the computer permanently and the warranty is void on the truck. All that said, my biggest reason for starting this thread is a discussion between fuel economy and emissions. Which is worse, burning more fuel or putting out a little more emissions? I say burning fuel is worse unless you live in an area like LA where smog is a major concern.

Agree. And, at the same time, it is misguided for religious people to dismiss science.

I'm going to miss my 22-24 MPG. I pull a three horse (steal) goose neck trailer with three horses and loaded with everything else and I was averaging 18 going through the hills. Going down the interstate in flat Nebraska it wasn't anything for me to get 28-30 without a trailer.

OK, I, all of a sudden, am in the market to buy a new (different) vehicle. I was driving a Chevy heavy 3/4 ton diesel pick up. I need that for what I do with the truck. I pull lots of trailers...etc. So, I had a 2003 model and was getting an average of 22-23 MPG. I am very sad to say that an idiot ran a stop sign in front of me yesterday and I no longer have this truck. Now, I am told by the dealership that I will never get that fuel mileage again due to governmental emissions standards. Basically, GM had to put certain technology on the truck to meet these standards and so now, if I buy a truck that is 2005 or later that my mileage will go down to around 15-16 MPG. So, what leaves me banging my head against the wall is, which is worse, burning 30% more fuel or a little more exhaust being put out? Now, I consider myself an environmentalist within reason. It has to make sense. This is frustrating with Diesel now well over $4. It seems to me that burning more fuel is causing us one hell of a lot more problems than the emissions. Emissions are important and we need to cut them. BUT, at what cost? This seems to me like someone in Washington sat there and said....this sounds great!!!! But, didn't realize what these companies like GM will need to do to meet those standards.

When science can show me how life is formed from a sterile rock and prove to me where the first mass of matter came from that exploded and formed the Universe, then I can start to question an intelligent higher power being involved. Until then, in my mind, there has to be a higher power involved. I believe that science simply is uncovering the physical evidence of how all of this happened. I believe that this entire issue is railroaded by people who take the bible literally for every single word that is in it. Even though I believe god exists and Christ is his son and that entire story, many of the other stories in the bible are put there as lessons to be learned, not necessarily for their every specific detail being exactly how it happened. Also, you can believe in God but not in organized religion as it is practiced by Humans. Organized religion is a matter of humans taking the bible and doing what THEY believe is the right thing to do. That doesn't necessarily mean it IS the right thing to do. Every person has choices. If you choose to not believe in any higher power, then that's your choice. If you choose to believe and follow say the Catholic Church's version of Christianity, that is your choice. If you choose to believe but also choose to not follow a human version of Christianity then that is your choice. I am not going to sit here and judge you and hopefully you don't judge me for my faith. When I start getting testy is when ANYONE from any of these groups starts acting like a jackass and acting like they know everything. There have been people from the beginning of time that have taken Christianity and bastardized it for their own benefit no matter if that is for business purposes or political power or keeping control over another person. The fact is, none of us know the entire truth. Now, those same principles are true in my mind with other religions also. For instance, Muslims have their own version of these problems (0bviously). There are people who take that religion and bastardize it for their own goals. They use it to justify terrorism and many other horrible things. That doesn't mean the basis of the religion is violent or bad. It doesn't meant that if you walk down the street and meet a Muslim that he instantly wants to kill you if you are a Christian. I have known many Muslims who simply want to live in peace just like the rest of us. So, to answer your question, it varies for me. I really haven't found anything to where I am pulled one way or the other as far as science or my faith. I grew up Protestant but now practice the Catholic faith. BUT, that doesn't mean I support every single thing the Catholic faith believes or does. 99.9% of all of that was made up by man.

There is no reason why science and religion can not co-exist. I believe in both.

I don't think it's a specific record. I think it is the attitude with the players and the program that will put him there. If the players give up on him like the defense did with Cozgrove then he is on the hot seat.

There may be faster teams than us, but we are not a team without speed. We have enough speed on this team so that we SHOULD NOT be giving up 63 points. Heck, take 21 points away and put that blame on the offense and we STILL lose this game.

I personally think it is scheme. Players look slow if they are out of position to make a play. Against UCLA, we had players in position to make a play and they simply wiffed on tackles. This game it appears to me that we simply didn't have anyone in the area code of Miller when he was running. That is scheme not physical speed. There are teams that have the same or slower speed than what we have on defense and they are are not getting 63 points put on them by OSU. Something is fundamentally wrong with our defense. UCLA found it and OSU built upon it. Bo has got to get it figured out because other teams are going to watch film and scheme the same way. Honestly, I can not believe Bo defenses are the way they are right now.

I reserve the word hate for people more important than a football coach. And if you break windows because of a football game, you should reconsider your priorities.

I reserve the word hate for people more important than a football coach.

I think we win this. I think the loss at UCLA propels this team to a win today. The team knows they could have won that game and they know why they lost. We have seem steady improvement in tackling since that game. We contain Miller and win by 10 - 20. How is that for reasoning and optimism?

And people wonder why coaches limit player's access to these sites.

I really don't see a need to add sports. Right now, we have some major construction projects going on between the East Stadium (and the marketing to fill those seats and suites), basketball arena (moving the team there and the marketing around it), switching Devaney over to VB (and the marketing around that). Right now, I think that needs to be his major focus. He needs to be acclimated to our state and culture. I don't see any major coaching changes or major changes in direction of programs. He needs to get up to speed at the direction TO has the department moving in and build on that.

How about if instead of no parties, we would have 10-15 different parties? Wonder what difference that would make.

California schools have strange names.

There is a lot of humor in that post.

Here are my thoughts on specifics in campaigns. A) They are so easily forgotten. For instance, Obama claimed he would sit down with Iran and talk. That was a specific. He never has. Bush I claimed..."no new taxes". Obviously he forgot that. B) Things change. Cirumstances change. Bush II came into office and less than a year later 9/11 hit and totally changed the world for Americans for the forseeable future. No way can he then be expected to stick with certain "specifics" he said in his campaign. C) A candidate doesn't have the vast information on certain topics like national security that the President does. So, sometimes things happen or are happening behind the scenes and the public doesn't know about it along with the challenging candidate. To us it looks like in certain situations certain things need to be done and in reality, that isn't possible. I believe this happened to Obama on some national security issues. I believe he got into office and said..."OH sh#t" about some things he found out about reality in this world. So, yes, specifics in campaigns are nice. BUT, I look more at the direction the candidate wants to take the country. I don't believe more government right now is the right thing for America. I don't believe that having a President with absolutely no business experience running anything is a good thing right now. In that case, it is obvious to me that Obama is the opposite of what I want. Romney isn't perfect. But, at least he has the back ground of someone I think we need right now. So, we can sit here and argue specifics all we want. But, no matter who is elected, the world can be totally different 12 months from now and cause all of it to be thrown out the window.

I linked that same article up above.

I think the ruling is "no post season", isn't it? That's why they can't go to the CCG either.

Gee thanks.... I think Fact is, I'm enjoying it here because there are liberal people here to debate. The last board I was on was filled with nothing but conservatives and the kind of conservatives I really don't match up with. SO...I actually found myself being one of the more liberal people on the board.....I was there for a long time and just lost interest in the board. Now if I could just get people to get my sense of humor. I guess my stand up comedy career needs to be put on hold.

ACORN never was disbanded. Just rebranded. http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-acorn-network-still-active-under-new-names/article/2505629#.UG8rG2K2ZA4

And how many fraudulent votes were cast as a result? Ahhhhh....I love it when a thread comes full circle. How do we know if fraudulent votes were cast? We know fruadulent registrations were filled out. We don't know how many. They can guess but no way of knowing for sure. No voter ID is required. So, once that registration is on the books, it can be used to vote and nobody knows.

To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes? You assume I supported it back in the 90s. Sometimes the assumptions you jump to make me laugh out loud.... Where does it say I believe you supported it? I asked if you were aware of this. Don't be in such a mad dash to one-up me that you say something ridiculous like this. If you want to talk about this stuff, fine, but if you're just going to try to start a pissing contest, take it to the Woodshed. You responded to my post by stating that it's a Republican idea...etc. What else was I supposed to think? Something I hope people will realize with me here over time. I don't tow the party line with Republicans. I don't listen to Rush, Hannity or Beck. Those people disgust me. I am very fiscally conservative and socially more liberal. That doesn't jive with many things the Republicans have done over the last 20 years even though I am tied to those actions many times since I tend to vote Republican. So, I tend to be a little sensitive when I'm tied to things I have not supported.