Moiraine

One of them needs to have a VP who doesn't seem like a wackjob. Sidetrack: I've thought about Hillary's choice and even as a woman I think, well she can't have a woman VP. That would be weird. But then I realize almost every presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates had male VP candidates. Why is it so "weird" to have 2 women on the ballot? Well, maybe it IS weird, but not any more weird than having 2 men on there. That being said she'd be more electable if she had a male VP.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. Stop being sexist. Women can be peeping "Toms" too. I guess they're just less scary because they're less likely to be able to overpower another woman.

I have no doubt in my mind that Trump would do that if it gave him a chance to get elected. But plain and simple fact is, in present day and age where people blindly cast their votes for a member of their party affiliation without knowing much about them, it's damn near impossible to get elected unless you're a Republican or Democrat. OK...please answer my question as to how you get less government involved in the primary process. I guess I thought we were speaking generally. In regards to the primaries, as well as the general election, they should be controlled, regulated, and/or run by the government. IMO, all elections should be a true popular vote by the people. Primaries should not be controlled by the government. That's pretty undemocratic in itself. Primaries aren't actually necessary. They aren't a real election. All they are is a way for a party to unify behind one candidate and say "This is our guy/gal." People can still vote for whoever they want in the real election. Like I said before (probably in this thread) the issue is the involvement of money in politics. The Republicans/Democrats have the money. They can pay the tv stations (some of which are owned by staunch followers of one party or the other) to only cover their crap.

Of course it does.

Yes he rightfully gets scathed for it. He's been doing this for a long time and was given a national championship winning quarterback to work with. His answer was that he's new.

Nobody here is defending Steve Pederson for anything, he single handedly set us back 10 years.I gave Steve Pederson the benefit of the doubt in the beginning, turns out the "naysayers" were right in his case. Has Pederson been good for any program he's been at? He was good for Pitt during his first stint.

The real reason your vote matters, even if there's a big margin, is the ballots have a lot more on them than the vote for president, and some of those things probably affect you more as an individual than who is president.

I get it, you're all jaded and emo because your boy(s) got canned. And you were a player and played a different way. And you like TO's way of doing things. But dude, get off your high horse and embrace a little change. If it ends up being for the better, what was the harm. Ya gotta break a couple eggs to make an omelette. You couldn't be more wrong about the system I ran. It's because I saw it waste talent that I'm jaded. And it's the "fire and forget" attitude of jack wagons like Pederson that got us into this mess. Well, as long as we are confirming your bias. Now we can agree that maybe you don't have proper aspect to fairly judge what the staff does or soesn't do. Say dipsh*t Pederson doesn't fire Solich. Over the next 3 seasons we slip to 8-4 or 7-5 and eventually have to fire him anyway. Can I prove it? No, but there were no indications that things were going to get better. Judging Riley after 1 year here is completely different. FalseHave to agree here. Defense had improved a lot after 1 year with Pelini and things looked on the upswing. But why are we pretending it was only wins and losses that got Solich fired?

No one wants to see that. Unless it's just the wide receivers cornerbacks and running backs. Then it's okay.

The post by Law was the most insane reading I've ever done. Like... Mind blowingly nuts. Anyhow, I agree with what knapp is saying. There are so many things that go into even those 2 labels. How can anyone possible agree with every single thing with the "liberal" tag, or every single thing with the "conservative" tag? The people who agree with every single thing from one side are nutters or dunces who can't think for themselves. So something more proper is someone tends toward liberal/conservative idealogy.

So the solution is to let ourselves get screwed over by other countries in trade deficits? Yeah, ok... The status quo is far better than what would happen with Trump trying to make things better. He's shown no sign of being able to use diplomacy, and several country's leaders have flat out told him no already and basically called him a nutjob. What's he going to threaten China with if they don't want to deal with North Korea on their own? Because that's all he's shown he knows how to do, threaten.

It's anecdotal evidence that the recruiting rankings aren't perfect, but then that's never been the claim. They're far from useless.

No I think we should force Saban to hold a clinic in Valentine, Nebraska. What do you have against Valentine? Nothing. Was just trying to think of a place filled with lots of good football recruits who want to play for Alabama.

No I think we should force Saban to hold a clinic in Valentine, Nebraska.

"PC" has no meaning. It's thrown around by anyone who disagrees with anything. Isn't it PC to tell men and women where they can and can't go to the bathroom? Whatever happened to the good old days when we could just pee in the forest?

Trump's "not backing down" would cause an economic crisis if he got elected. Awful things would happen. Too many people think we're so powerful that our economy wouldn't be affected if we just halted trade with a bunch of countries. We don't have the leverage he or his followers think we have.

I'm guessing it won't be that interesting.

The member schools of the NCAA voted to outlaw satellite camps. If the P5 conferences broke away from the NCAA, they still would have voted down satellite camps. No that's not what happened. Try paying attention. What happened then? Who voted to outlaw satellite camps? I guess I should have stated the FBS conferences (made up of NCAA member schools) voted down satellite camps. What happened is provided in several links in this thread, and I'm failing to understand why you can't read what the rest of us have read. That being said, to summarize: some of the conference representatives voted the opposite way the majority of schools told them too. For instance the Pac-12 schools were 11-1 against banning satellite camps. But their representative(s) voted for the ban. Pac 12 commissioner Larry Scott: Scott said the Pac-12’s voting guidelines call for a “directed vote” in the case of a clear position by conference members. He said while the members favor comprehensive study of football recruiting, “in the meantime we preferred the status quo (in satellite camps), which for us allows coaches to attend camps in other markets.” “He didn’t follow what was supposed to be a directed vote,” Scott said.

The member schools of the NCAA voted to outlaw satellite camps. If the P5 conferences broke away from the NCAA, they still would have voted down satellite camps. You seem to have done the opposite of read any of the news on this.

Lol

Not a fan of this idea. I don't want a "diversity of thought" if that includes a bunch of idiots who are at war with science. I want smart people. I wish more scientists ran and got elected. Unfortunately scientists are not usually personable enough to get elected. There's a reason lots of lawyers get elected and it's not their knowledge of the constitution/politics. It's because they know how to talk.

I'm guessing Vanderbilt and Missouri. You know, places known for developing big time DTs. They're as big time as Kentucky. I wonder if he confused basketball success with football when choosing Kentucky. It's one thing graduating then not seeing a future with the program because you've been a back up (excuse me - starting blackshirt, star of the defense) for 5 years. It's another thing thinking up silly reasons you're leaving that don't exist. Such as Kentucky giving him a better shot at the NFL than Nebraska. It's not a surprise that a guy who doesn't know the definitionn of back up doesn't understand how unlikely it is that transitioning to a new program (which happens to be one of the worst teams in its conference) is not going to help him.

lol

The 46 was based on scoring system that awarded defensive plays. Huh? It was offense against defense. The defense scored by accomplishing various things, like 3 and outs and collecting turnovers. The defense won (actually on that last pick thrown by POB). So they gave the D points for doing those things? I guess it's the "participation" ethos bleeding thru the college game, hmm, weird, and whatev.... Did everyone get a blue ribbon @ game's end? lolwut. It's a practice.

It's actually going in a large living room in a 1st floor apartment. I have some of those foam puzzle mats to put over the carpet to put the rack on. If you think this is a bad idea let me know. (As far as the surface, not the aesthetics of putting a gym in our living room ). I've read lots of comments saying as long as you have a plate on each of the plate storage pegs to weight them down, neither of these racks wobble. I will check out the sites. The wall mount one sounds great but probably can't do it in an apt.