B1G Red

Get your head down on the stock or your gonna shoot over it!!!

If he wants to stay, he needs to suck it up before spring ball and take his knocks, get over any hard feelings with the team now. If he waits until after spring, the more likely he is still in the penalty box with the coaches entering fall camp, maybe limiting playing time. (which everyone presumes is the reason he wanted to transfer in the first place) My assumption is that he did not do winter conditioning with the team, so would he even be able to join for spring practices?

Pure speculation, but I think he thought he wanted to go to Kentucky, but won't be allowed to, and now he is stuck in neutral. He has to decide if he wants to eat some pride and ask to stay, or find somewhere else. Bo left the door open for a reason.

Quote from a 2011 article in the Washington Post. "Over the past 30 years, it’s happened only four times — in 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997. Every other year, Congress has depended on short-term stopgaps and omnibus bills to keep the government running" The last Omnibus spending bill passed was April 2009. So really nothing in last 4 years.

Quote A Pew poll released on 21 February found 49% of respondents would blame "Republicans in Congress" if the two sides can't strike a deal, while 31% would blame the president and 11% would blame both. Put me in the 11% who blame both.

knapp, I was channel surfing and ran across it for about 30 seconds, might have been CNN, but not sure, I just kept flipping to something else. The jist of what the pundit (who I wouldn't know if I walked by on the street) had just finished saying that if the president wanted a deal he would have to try to work with the House, and if he just kept backing the Republicans into a corner, then there was no chance of a deal. The next puindit started spinning that into the presidents "opportunity" to show leadership, then they all started sounding like the voices on a Charlie Brown cartoon, and I flipped the remote to something else. As I watched it for only a very short time, there was probably a lot more discussion about who we should blame. Just struck me that some talking head actually muttered something about the presidents responsibility to move this forward.

Today? Ht: 6'2" Wt: 260 Reps: 1/2, then spotter lifts it off my neck 40 yds: Depends on how close the ambulance is parked so they can drive me the last 17 yards. Vertical: I can fall all the way to the ground in 13 beers.

fwiw, I was watching one of those talking-heads program that is usually reasonably friendly towards the presidents initiatives, and the talking heads were saying some of the same, the president needs to stop being polarizing, and talked about how the real problem in the economy isn't about taxes or spending, but the inability to deal with the national budget. The CEO of any organization is the one responsible for making sure a budget gets done, shouldn't be any different for the fed govt than for anyone else.

I don't know why this Administration needs to take the brunt of this since the fiscal debacle started when President Bush passed programs to cut taxes by 1.2 billion in 2001. In my opinion the Repubs need to get off thier high horse and fix this. Also, on AFN this morning 100 detained immigrants had to be let loose due to no Federal Funding to send them back. So yes the borders are open. USS HARRY S TRUMAN did not deploy due to no funding. The Joint Chief signed off a 1.0 Carrier presence in fifth fleet(Iraq and Afghanistan) Less aerial support for troops on ground. So to try and question combat readiness won't be affected is ridiculous. Combat effectiveness and readiness will be affected. Troops are not going to to get proper training before deployments. The Army has to cut back on troops. If the Federal Government does this all the National Parks may not open on time(that's your recreation). State funding gets cut out of the Federal budget. I see this affecting a wider range than most people even realize. The GOP coming out and saying this won't be as bad as it is being spun seems to be a big smoke blanket to me to make people feel better and not worry as much. So we will see what happens. Because they are driving the proverbial bus from which we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars already, always with some bogus plan to capture savings sometime in the future. This "sequester" was built into the spending deals, and was supposed to force budget control and spending cuts, because neither side would let the automatic cuts take place. Now, I'm pretty cynical that politicians on either side know what they are doing, and trust none of them, But, as far as I can tell, congressmen are still in DC, but the President is out hitting the "campaign trail" (I thought the election was over) politicing on the subject. So long as sound bites and speeches are more important to the president, and he continues to be inflexible on spending, he is the current stumbling block. He needs to stop dumping gas on the fire. Letting the automatic cuts happen is a baby step dollar-wise, but it could be an important step if future congresses recognize that their deals with "projected" cuts, savings, or revenue will eventually come home to roost.

So do I have this right, Buffoons in DC couple of years back, cut a deal to spend a few trillion dollars the gov't doesn't have, so they agree to cut spending later, and agree to do the cuts AFTER the '12 election. If cuts aren't made then automatic cuts kick in. So they did nothing about cuts til the last minute, created big scary names for the self created crisis, first "fiscal cliff", then delayed it a couple months and called it a "sequester". Then they pick the most crucial program/expenditure, have a press conference trying to scare the hell out of everybody that is what will be cut. Blame the other guy for "ignoring" the crisis, do nothing, and I predict, extend it again. My question: In my business experience, when you hand a manager a budget cut he/she will cry and scream about all the crucial things that won't get done, but when implementing the cuts will prioritize what is important and will cut in discresionary areas. So what is wrong with that? Putting aside the fear mongering, why not just let the cuts kick in?

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again. The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"? Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today. Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it. I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings. I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal! Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings. What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited? Weak Wow, you are stupid enough to continue this quote after I tried to dismiss you with a one word reply, your ignorance and insensitivity towards victims of sexual assult? Maybe I should have used the word pathetic. or disgusting. or ask the mods to move this to the woodshed so I can tell you exactly what kind of a man you aren't. So ok, I will capitulate, I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, but your cavalier attitude towards sexual assault say you shouldn't be allowed to have a penis. Please excuse if from now on I don't acknowledge your presence with a reply, you don't deserve it.

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again. The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"? Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today. Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it. I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings. I think you are onto something here. We could completely get rid of criminals if we made any and all activity legal! Get rid of laws banning murder! I mean, talk about a futile attempt to correct for societal failings. What about laws against rape? If the woman can't stop it herself, why should the man's liberty be limited? Weak

Well, I've already explicitly stated it, but I will do so again. The government already limits what kinds of arms an individual can have. Why would banning the AR-15 and other assault type weapons be "an all out assault on the 2nd amendment"? Hey Harry, see you're fighting the good fight again today. Junior, the devil is in the details. The list I saw circulated recently concerning banning "assault" weapons included a list of specific arms, PLUS the definition that it contain ONE of a long list of features, (which is the criteria to expand the list). A lawyer friend once explained to me that it would take an act of congress to create the list, but once created, would take only policy changes by a mindless bureaucrat to add to it. I'm not a proponent of limiting the liberty of law abiding citizens, in a (futile) attempt to correct our societal failings.

Oh, my favorite waste of time,, winning again.

Harry, it's all yours now man, gotta run.

do you realize how substantially drunk driving fatalities have decreased in just a few decades? just because of a few changes in the law that no one now would ever doubt unless you just want to seem like a raging alcoholic? But aren't drunk driving fatalities still higher than gun related fatalities? so what if they are? the point is that traffic fatalities from drunk driving are less because of actions society took. why would i comparing the number of traffic fatalities cause by drunk driving to the number of gun fatalities? that makes no sense? then you would compare the same actions to reduce drunk driving fatalities to gun fatalities and that makes even less sense. So I guess I haven't see the statistics that gun related fatalities are way up then they were in the past. You care to share that info? We don't want to confuse this issue with facts now!!!!!!

Smoking and Guns are NOT THE SAME THING. Not remotely even close. this is absurd. every point i make is instantly misconstrued into something totally nonsensically and then never addressed. i did not bring up smoking, but they are both inherently dangerous acts that cause greater risk. owning a gun and smoking both make you a greater liability to an insurer. so that was my point that you responded to by emphatically stating something that made no sense. no it is not. one is a ban, the other is a tax. Sure it is, a high dollar tax is as surely a ban on average joe as anything. Then only the uber rich would afford a gun, kinda like Europe. Hmmmm. Now it all makes sense.

that is great. a real comfort. never said that you were a risk to me or my family. i think it is great that you own guns for whatever reason you do, but can you assure that everyone else who owns guns is as responsible as you? I have no problem restricting guns from felons or the mentally ill. FWIW, i have very little heartache with the prohibition of fully automatic class 3 stuff either, but cringe at the last line of every "list" of prohibited weapons that reads something like "or any other weapon that xxx bureaucrat deems un-necessary" or something like that.

that is great. a real comfort. never said that you were a risk to me or my family. i think it is great that you own guns for whatever reason you do, but can you assure that everyone else who owns guns is as responsible as you? I have no problem restricting guns from felons or the mentally ill.

sd'sker, you and your family are 100% safe from any gun I own, provided you don't accidentally break down my back door in the middle of the night sometime. Probably a lot more at risk from the drunk drivers out there.

prohibitive tax is the same as a ban, already a $200 stamp on "prohibited" class 3 firearms.

Harry, my guess is your could put sd'sker in the "non - owner" category.

Knapp, Don't fool yourself, the government keeps lists of cars and homes cuz they want to tax the crap out of you for them.

Life NRA member, avid shooter of clay targets, paper, metal plates, and assorted edible critters, shooting instructor, strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, personally never put more than 5 rounds in a 30 round clip. personally would tolerate some restrictions on transfers or even magazine limits, but have ZERO faith that those restrictions don't become the seeds that grow into more bans. Semiauto "assault" rifles, becomes semiauto rifle, becomes semiauto anything, becomes goodbye semiauto skeet gun. People may think I'm nuts, but I don't trust a federal agency with a list of who has what for firearms. If the federal government has it, then so does the rest of the world. 10 years from now, you won't be able to get homeowners insurance becasue they know you have firearms or ammunition in your home, or you are denied/pay more for health insurance because the CDC calls gun ownership a disease. I don't smoke but ask a smoker what insurance companies are like. So I support those who resist any 2nd amendment restriction, because I don't trust the outcome.

how are you equating drinking with drunk driving? No, I think it was your post that tried to connect drunk driving with gun murder. I was just commenting on Harry's earlier post that reducing murder by banning guns equates to banning alcohol to control drunk driving. Oh, and tried to insert a shot of humor about the pursuit of happiness by drinking, but it obviously didn't work.