Danny Bateman

I don't know, but personally, that is extremely cringe-worthy regardless of whether he comes to play at my school. I'm glad that we generally don't get caught up in the mess with all of the biggest prima donna hat ceremony ESPN spotlight type of recruits year in and year out. In one sense they're a product of the environment they're surrounded by, but in another those types of kids bust just as often as they succeed (Jordan Stephenson). I was thinking about this earlier. I wonder if the fanfare that comes along with a highly publicized recruitment capped off with an announcement video leads to a sense of entitlement once on campus? I think it's a legitimate possibility that it does. Not saying that Des is that way, but I'd be very interested to see some data as to what percentage of high-pub recruits flamed out.

Bummer. I had a really bad feeling when they swooped in late. Really stinks to lose a kid that way. Oh well. Life goes on.

If true, that's some f'd up sh#t. Wouldn't surprise me from Ted Rafael The Canadian Cruz. Pretty bad. This primary season is getting more depressing every day by the antics. Maybe Trump and Cruz can neutralize each other for one of the more moderate guys to move up. Both Cruz and Trump will be the ruin of the party. Cruz because he won't get elected in the GC and Trump if he gets elected will be a self absorbed, thin skin, despot who will issue more executive orders than any of the past in order to 'win' - the constitution be damned. I disagree. I think people who say this will be surprised. One of his main objectives is to secure the borders, which I firmly believe he will. I guarantee he won't issue half the executive orders that Obama has. Obama has actually issued the fewest executive orders of any two-term President in US history: The counter I'd use to corn's "Not a big enough base" argument for Trump is that I think he's proven he'll pander on any given issue that he doesn't have a specific hardline policy for (i.e., immigration) in order to secure more votes. I think you'd see a massive shift left for Trump if he wins the primary to try and pander some more and appeal to moderates. That's the beauty of having a skin-and-bones platform-- you haven't really declared your position concretely on a lot of issues. Let's just hope America isn't dumb enough to buy the crap he tries to peddle in the general election.

Let's put a kibosh on the personal attacks on Fitz or his dad. Thinking the kid made a poor choice or hurt our team is one thing. There's no need to start mud-slinging over his or his family's motivations for doing so. Let's have some class, folks.

Sorry to break up the back and forth, but I figured this was worth posting. Pretty underhanded tactic used here by Cruz as he clings to life trying to pull off an upset.

That's an obscene amount of pay for position coaches. Good for them. They deserve it.

Meh. Honestly I've kind of been expecting this and I'm not too let down. WR is one position we're sitting pretty well at, and it's one that we've had some pretty dang good successes come through in the form of walk-ons. Best of luck to ya, Dez. Not too worried about this.

I'm wondering if Iowa got in his ear about taking visits this late in the cycle.They have been. But as of Monday he didn't care. I still wish we could have gotten him. But really, it seems like he is more interested in him than a team mentality. Maybe I'm wrong and he will really dedicate himself to them once he signs. No, that ego is there, and it is readily apparent. As to whether he flourishes, who knows? But I'm glad we avoid the headaches.

Pretty cool that Matt's HS coach surmised that perhaps the deciding factor was Matt's relationship with Coach Cav. For somebody we got shaky returns on from OSU fans, he's certainly returning great dividends thus far. Great video. I laughed at the guy in the background at 3:46. WTF?

I wonder if they will try and recruit another QB in the '17 class. I think any way you look at it, Tanner Lee is an important add. It doesn't mean he or anybody else will pan out, but they needed to address the QB room in a big way, I think. Exactly. Nobody said Lee is transferring in to be handed the reigns. He's coming to a place he thinks he has a legitimate shot to compete to win the job. By the same token, POB is not handed anything. Regardless of who wins the starting nod, we needed depth BIG TIME. It would be very unwise to go into 2017 with nothing behind POB.

I agree it's going to be a struggle making this better, no matter the route. But I take issue with the last sentence. I feel like that is a very common fallacy that a lot of Sanders supporters point to as support for Medicare-for-all. It's true that other countries utilize single payer. The most common single-payer comparisons I've heard bandied about are the UK, Canada, and even France, who utilizes a two-tier system where private supplemental is also available in addition to the gov't provided public coverage. But they started doing so LONG ago: UK in 1948, Canada in 1966, and France in 1974. Their total healthcare expenditure was MUCH lower than ours at the time they implemented single-payer-- smaller countries and they haven't soaked up the inflation that the US has since then. The problem comes when you try and slap a single-payer system on a country that spends the outlandish amount we do today, far outstripping any other country per capita, and expect it to fix things. A lot of economists think it just won't happen. To make it work, you need to increase taxes a WHOLE lot more than Bernie's proposing, as the Vox article points out. If you want another example, look to the Bloomberg article about Vermont's proposal and the math in the OP. Essentially, Medicare-for-all may not be the cure-all we think it is, as our spending may just be "TOO DAMN HIGH!" Furthermore, the Sanders response to Thorpe's work is reprehensible. They tried to discredit him by saying he "worked for BC/BS," despite that fact he's a respected academic and a single-payer advocate. I want to believe this could work, but looking at the math, I just don't. Not with the numbers he's proposing. Very real possibility it ends up being a neutral move, or, as the article stated, ends up costing a lot of people even more.

Meh, Megyn Kelly is quite alright. I like the new hair, personally. Her jaw looks a little pointy in that photo above. She'd better not talk, if anything were to be going on... her verbalizing much of anything is a turn off for me. Saw that Berg chick on CNN yesterday. Googled her, couldn't decide if I thought she was hot or not. Pictures seemed to vary a bit too me... but I'm gonna say yes! Third chick isn't bad at all either! I've always thought Robin Meade and Brooke Baldwin on CNN and HLN are pretty smokin, personally. Anywho, now that I've sufficiently re-bogged the thread down (damnit, it's a politics thread, it needed livening up!), here's my read on the debate: Everyone seemed more relaxed with Trump off the stage last night. Particularly, Bush seemed more relaxed since he wasn't getting hammered every other question by Trump. He actually seemed like he was on last night, not that it is going to matter much now. Carson once again looked like he was barely conscious onstage. I swear he talks like my dad when he's trying to explain something to me whilst falling asleep. He got roasted on foreign policy again. It's evident how much the rest of the field hates Cruz. That's pretty much my read on him based on everything I've read, heard, or seen-- everyone at every level he's worked/studied has hated him because he's fiercely smart but an arrogant prick Rubio and Christie just LOVE to appeal to the base by laying into Obama and Hillary. I laugh whenever Rubio declares she's "disqualified." Once again, Rand Paul seemed like the most level-headed guy up there that would probably appeal to most moderates. I thought Ted's attempt at a joke was OK, it was clear that crowd disliked him. I wish he would've included Megyn Kelly in his Trump impression. If I had to vote Pub, I'd probably go for Paul. Jeb or Rubio would be options too, but I disagree with some of their other policies pretty strongly.

I can't believe any of the evangelicals actually buy that Trump is a devout, God-fearing man. He may well be, and it's not really on me to pass judgment, but at this point, everything just seems so phony and concocted, so I seriously doubt it. Good thing Ted Cruz is so damn unlikable. Anyway, I found the AC360 segment featuring the ex-Naval officer, who's also an adviser for a vets group. Fun starts at about 17:10. http://podcast.cnn.com/anderson-cooper-360/episode/all/0CrI2N9lR8znM7/ac360-2016-01-28.html

Jeez BRB. I didn't know you were into bimbos.

I will take a rumor.

Holy cow, they have an ex-Naval officer on Anderson Cooper 360 right now SHREDDING Trump for using vets. He is KILLING it, and the Trump counterpoint has no response. It's staggering.

Plot twist. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html The irony is delicious.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858644/bernie-sanders-kenneth-thorpe-single-payer I knew I was skeptical for a reason. It's a bit alarming the way the Sanders campaign changed established figures on the spot as they were questioned. Color me still unimpressed.

NICE.

I can't believe he threw that thought out there. That's ridiculous and probably pissed all the other black QBs that were great before him off. I'm just tired of Cam because his mannerisms and need for adoration and the spotlight. A lot like Donald. It's ridiculous that he tries to paint himself the victim and cry foul on Fox News when he's been lashing out at everyone imaginable this entire time.

BRB, we agree that Trump has decimated any sense of professionalism in an already troubled party with his antics this year. I hope you are right and they restore some of that.

I think the moderators will goad them into trying to lay into Trump. And I think that'd be a good thing. He finally won't be there to defend himself with insults or talk of poll numbers, and I hope they lambaste him. It should be a more civil type of debate rather than the circus sideshow jokefest he tries to turn it into. CNN has been plugging the narrative that this is Cruz's chance to shine, and Rubio's chance to go after Cruz to solidify his footing. I still think it's funny that people are reporting that CNN will cover Donald's event based on Ann Coulter And yet there's been no official confirmation from CNN. Yet conservative media outlets are picking it up and running with it. I hate how the media continues to circle anything Trump like rabid, hungry dogs. It's exactly what that asshat wants.

Meh. Good for Boeing and Airbus. Outfit the airports there with the same type of security we have here and there's no reason that Iranians shouldn't be able to fly. Certainly, after watching the boat hostage and prisoner release situation, I don't plan on booking a flight anytime soon.

Yeah socialism sucks--just ask the Pentagon. The troops, everybody loves themselves some troops--the socialistically paid troops. Or the police force, or the fire dpt, or the public schools, or public utilities, or the post office, or the grandma getting her SS check so she doesn't have to eat cat food. Just ask Goldman Sachs'/Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, et al, bailed out asses how they feel about socialism, or GM, or Boeing whois heavily subsidized and sells their planes to the gov't whenever nobody else is buying. All insurance is a form of socialism. How about your pro sports unions, yeah, socialistic. Ask Israel how they feel about Mur'can socialism to the tune of~3 billion per year. Roads, how could I forget the roads? Shall I go on? Bernie is simply going after the filthy rich to getting back to paying something resembling their fair share in the society, but not even near as much as that commie socialist Republican Eisenhower did back in the day when he had them at a marginal tax rate of ~90%. Lifting the $250k cap on income for SS payroll tax, the Tobin tax for Wall St speculation, not exactly rad ideas. The rich have had their way for the last several decades, Bernie just wants to restore some semblance of socioeconomic balance/sanity. He's not going to be able to raise taxes on only the wealthy. Everyone's taxes will be raised on some level. I understand the wealthy will get hit pretty good based on his plans, but I'm not betting on my taxes raising single digits. His ideas just seem too far fetched for me to buy into the hype. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates I just seen this article this morning as well just generally talking about the elections. I agree, it's a mess.... https://www.yahoo.com/politics/so-much-for-the-political-1352516777156662.html First of all, my above reply was a response to those who somehow don't realize that there are plenty of socialistic practices that pervade American society already, corporate and military/Pentagon social welfare being the major ones. Secondly, I'm not sure I trust the Vox chart's numbers--especially the alleged payroll tax increases he states which don't appear to be an accurate representation of Bernie's plans. But even so, if the Vox guy is correct with the income tax, it's only ~2% increase on anyone making up to ~250K/year. The slight income tax increases are to cover the single payer health plan and paid leave program only, from what I understand. The idea is, that you would have a slight income tax increase but would not have a private insurance policy and that expense, so on the balance, you would be saving greatly for health care. The only tax I don't agree with--for any citizen--is the carbon tax, which I think is a total scam, though it appears that Bernie would only be applying that to the fossil fuel producing industries(not sure on that one). Anyway, better to look at Bernie's site for his plans: https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ He was using the 6.6% payroll tax figure that was rolled out in Bernie's 2013 proposal for payroll tax increases. Before Bernie finally dropped his most recent plan for single-payer, that was all people had to go on to guess at the financing. Above $250k, the rates start to jump so rapidly because he's figuring in the marginal tax rate changes like removing the cap on SS at $250k. I'm certainly no defender of the rich. I like what Bernie is doing by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I like the concept. But some of it just seems economically unsound. Like they mentioned in the Vox article that Bernie's raises on capital gains taxes could actually decrease revenue due to the lowered volume of transactions. Let alone the fact that personally, if I were to ever find myself making north of $250k... it would really piss me off to have my profits slashed by that much. It seems to me that by curtailing $250k+ profits by 62% and up, you're making it very difficult to amass profit past that point. I worry about the effect that this may have on entrepreneurship and retaining American businesses as opposed to them outsourcing. I like Bernie's principles, but I find some of his policies politically untenable, and it makes it hard for me to want to vote for him.