Moiraine

Some sort of pavement would be nice

I could have done without reading that

you had a pic from the catwalk? where did I miss this? It was earlier in the thread:

R-O-B Z-A-T E-C-H K-A, Zatechka, Zatechka, forever will his GPA be high.

That part didn't matter "returning for his season season in 2013."

according to the article, Martinez will be returning for his season season next year.

It's too cartoonish to me.

1. He'll complete at least one pass. 2. He'll rush for at least one yard. 3. He'll prove to be better at counting than me.

Now you've ruined everything. Unless we go 0-12. Then I'll be happy it's over.

I was going to reply "No point in going this year with no Bubba" but now I won't.

you bumped it without providing a #

I haven't "glossed over" anything. Wait, I'm sorry...I should just realize that when I'm conversing with someone who is on the left whatever they say is automatically 100% correct and I should simply nod my head in blind agreement. Obamacare is the greatest legislation ever produced and only the elite liberal left know what's best for me. Happy? You did skip it. You made five or so posts before even bothering to address the points I made and continually asked the same question which I believed I answered. You finally just now replied about them and made a decent enough point. But then you posted this little number. I'm an independent. This great post of yours is more evidence that you skimmed my posts. I already said that I think the bill will increase insurance rates which is something I'm not for.

Why do you wonder why? I don't think the posts I've made on it are complete drivel but you seem to gloss over them every time, so I guess I'll give up posting them so you can keep wondering.

Over-reacting? Let's say you're a vegetarian and Congress wants to tax you for the meat you're not eating, they tax you for not having a child instead of the two they require, or they tax you for not having solar panels on your house. Where does this end? This scotus ruling makes absolutely no sense and essentially means that as long as the government calls it a tax they can tax you for buying and not buying at the same time. And you're telling me you'd be "okay" with those types of taxes? I'm not against paying some taxes. I like traveling on well maintained paved roads, having a strong military, and other useful things our tax dollars enable. But this ACA ruling is beyond idiotic. The overreacting I'm speaking of is the assumption that we're going to be taxed for meat we're not eating, not having two children, or having solar panels... or any other of the fun ideas I've read in this thread. This isn't the first time we've been taxed for something we don't have. We've been taxed for things we don't have for decades. I already mentioned two examples. Speaking of being taxed for not having children, people who DO have children get tax exemptions. Since I don't get a tax exemption (because I don't have kids), I'm footing part of the bills that those with children aren't paying, so in a way I am being taxed for not having them. Then there's the marriage penalty. Admittedly I don't know much about it, but people used to have to pay more taxes for being married than for being single. You're cherry picking one example to get pissed off about when there are likely thousands of them that have been in existence for years. If you hate what's in the actual health care bill, that's a different story. I personally think insurance companies are just going to raise their rates. I could be wrong, I don't know what, if anything, the bill does to protect against that. Except that I think there's something in there about increased competition. There are tons of ideas in the bill that I think are good, I'm just worried that the insurance companies will make up for being forced to do the good things in the bill by making it more expensive. Edit: Thought of another one. You mentioned being taxed for meat we're not eating: I rarely eat meat. I eat less grains than I eat meat. Most of my diet is legumes, vegetables, and fruits. Yet the taxes I pay toward agriculture are going mostly toward subsidizing meat, dairy, and grains.

In a way, we already do get taxed for not having a car. Part of Nebraska's sales taxes go toward repairing highways. Of course, it could be argued that everyone buys things that get transported via roads, but those without cars are damaging the roads less than those with cars. And then there is help for people with disabilities. Part of that money comes from Supplemental Security Income which "is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes)" "It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" I'm not aged, blind, disabled, or low income, but my taxes help pay for this and I'm fine with it. This ruling isn't going to produce a lot of earth-shattering changes. People are overreacting.

I don't know the actual wording of any of the NCAA rules. Is it an attempt to gain advantage or just gaining an advantage? I would say covering up nasty crap like this in order to protect your football program's good name and maintain recruiting levels is an attempt to gain an advantage over what they assumed they were going to have if this all came out. I would also argue that it would accomplish something. It would be a warning to other schools to immediately report things like this instead of sweeping them under the rug.

I actually thought he improved a lot on the option as the year went on, but it was definitely frightening to watch at times.

Ricky Rozay is a decent rapper Horsefeathers. ...I like them too. Or is that another way of saying BS? Anyhow, I wonder how this works. I guess when I think I'm asleep I'm actually sleep-typing on Huskerboard as an alter ego.

we need a better rolleyes emote

Obviously I didn't when I posted it

Moiraine, how is that fair, to the #4 or #3 team left out? It's "fair" because they've already lost to one of the other teams in the playoff and the #5 team might be an undefeated team like Oklahoma State last year. I put fair in quotes because there's no such thing as a perfect system. You mention a non subjective way to determine it. That doesn't exist. The BCS is pollsters and computers. I'm guessing (though I obviously don't know) that they'll use the BCS and have some stipulations like what I mentioned.

As far as having 3 teams from the same conference, they can easily put a rule in that if there are 3 in the top 4 of the poll, the #5 team gets in. And they did say two of the main points the selection team will consider are "head-to-head results and whether a team is a conference champion" so they are obviously keeping this in mind. If a team is top 4 and 3rd place in the SEC, they've already lost head to head games to at least one of the other teams.

Here's a problem I have with that. McQueary was allowed to remain a GA and then hired as a coach at Penn State. JoePa either had to assume that there was wrongdoing or that McQueary was lying. But instead he hired McQueary as a coach and Sandusky was allowed to keep using the PSU facilities. So if you were trying to come up with a similar situation, the person who makes the accusation is a good friend, and after nothing happens to the accused, you stay friends with both of them and act like nothing happened.

Actually no, and neither would the game being played in Texas. Stating that I would prefer it outside doesn't mean that I'll be angry if it isn't. It means that I have a preference. Weather simply means outside to me. I never said rain snow hot or cold. Just compare the Rose Bowl to a dome... it's a huge difference. I shouldn't have to say it again but this is my opinion and of course some people don't give a crap whether the game is played inside. But when I watch a game that's inside I think NFL, and that's a sport I don't watch much. If it was up to me the national championship game would rotate between the four major bowls. I'd just have to deal with the sugar being one of them.