tschu

if you don't look back it'll be alright now

I actually DO tend to think that had we stayed in the Big 12, Bo's defenses would have been a lot better. Bo's defensive style was perfectly suited to the style of spread-out offense the Big 12 loves. But maybe that's just tschu drinking on a Friday night, still upset about how much of a dogshit move it was to move to the Big Ten. Nah, Bo would have had better defensive success in the Big 12, I'm sure of it.

My line of thinking here is, then why string this young man out for a year? You either boot him for good, or you give him parameters by which to work his way back and then let him back on after he has shown that he can learn and grow. You don't waste a year of a 20-yr old's life with false hope if you already think that he's not worth the trouble. I fully agree that what he did was really, really wrong, but this was not the way to handle the situation. Now he has to figure out how to move on after he spent a year just trying to make amends for a mistake, when he could have already moved on. And I really hope nobody thinks I'm minimizing his crime or anything; I just think that the "justice" should be clear and swift and timely, especially when talking about someone in the position of a 20-yr-old student athlete who doesn't have a full year of his life to just burn waiting on a situation strung out by false hope. If they knew they couldn't bring him back, then tell him, and let both sides move on.

Gotcha. Straight yardage then most likely. Maybe I'll look into it a bit more tomorrow But I do tend to agree with you that it seems that he did a fairly good job with not much at OSU...not that this guarantees success here, but it's sure a reason to hope

Can I ask what those defensive ranks are? Are they volume? Volume adjusted for pace? Efficiency ratings? Adjusted Yards Per Play? This matters...

No I'm with ya...a lot of things have to happen. But the protests help to change public perception which is big in driving the way that the legal and justice system acts. But yes I'd prefer that hard legal/policy/practice changes happen too. Progress is a long and winding road

I also think that if you lay out some parameters and someone has shown a willingness to learn and change that you give them a second chance...but I guess it is what it is.

It made her uncomfortable. Enough to call the police. That's ALL that matters. Then he did it again. ^^^This. WTF, Shark

Yep. Public pressure can result in big changes, history has shown that time and time again.

That's all well and good but it was the mortgage originators who drove the race to the bottom. Not the government. They had a good reason to do so... they were making mountains of money. OH...I agree. But, it was a push to deregulate the mortgage industry (that both Clinton and Bush pushed for) that allowed that race to the bottom. They both gained political clout from it also. Eventually you'd think we'd learn from the finance deregulation nightmares that we've been through but I guess not... Pure economics always mean that individuals and corporations will always do what drives profits, and when all of a sudden they figured out they could just securitize and pool all of the mortgage obligations, sell it and trade them as an investment security, and then either insuring or hedging against them using synthetic CDOs and credit default swaps (RIP, AIG)...the high finance bullsh#t that was allowed to go on was insane. And literally nothing has changed; there are no new regulations preventing any of that despite the fact that there is no financial or social value to many of the things that were going on, and the fact that it resulted in the worst recession in 80 years. People ended up so far removed from the thing that gave all these financial securities their value - THE DAMN MORTGAGES THEMSELVES - that it didn't matter to them whether people could afford their homes or not and what happened when these people could no longer pay. In fact, many people and companies made billions essentially betting that people would default on their loans. SMH. Unfortunately the big money in finance lobbying is pretty powerful...we'll see what happens. But at some point we're going to have to do something about it. Same with high frequency trading and other scary new financial instruments of the 21st century. Pretty scary stuff where a few glitches could tank the economy. Or a few greedy, poor decisions.

Yeah this lending thing is not good. I get trying to encourage lenders to throw a bone to struggling people and families, but I also think that long-term this leads to those people and families dealing with foreclosure and bankruptcy instead of just trying to get by in a small apartment or whatever.

Too much of a political football not to make the simple tweaks/adjustments. If we fix the system, it can no longer be used for political advantage. That is the problem wt DC. It seems that too many issues never get resolved because those issues have to be available for the next election. Bingo.... Yep. Drives me nuts, both sides

Maybe ~2000 years ago. Now Christ's teachings are about fiscal responsibility at the expense of social welfare, the poor pulling themselves up by bootstraps, privatization of education, exclusion of other religions, and making sure that big business gets their necessary earmarks. God dammit. +1

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's not a product of any one certain religion; it's a society thing...the ones that turn violent grow up or are molded by a culture that condones and even encourages violence and retribution and extremism. The tables could easily be reversed and America and Europe could be the rich, stable, peaceful countries where Islam is the predominant religion, while Christianity flourished in impoverished and embattled, turmoil-filled middle-eastern states, and it would be Christians who would be doing the terrorizing. Lots of fun ignorant viewpoints in this thread though!

The fact remains that despite the biggest boom generation of them all being replaced by a generation giving us an extremely low birth rate, despite medical advances resulting in very long life spans, despite a stupid payroll tax that punishes the poor...we could still slash the benefits by 25% and the program would work, as is, until the mid-2080s. That essentially proves that there is no crisis and that with a few easy tweaks, we can keep the system going with the current level of benefits with just a few simple adjustments. But nah, that would be too easy and make way too much sense apparently. I agree that changes need to be made, but I don't think that this is the way to accomplish them. Nor do I think that this is going to result in any changes. It may even f#*k the system up even further. Put it this way, I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the Republicans wanted to raise taxes and were interested in the well-being of the elderly, poor, and disabled.

Abdullah, the Social Security system has been theorized to have been running out of money every since it began. I wish I could find the hilarious chart of all the timetables that Social Security was supposed to run out by.... 1970, then 1977, 1992, 2000, 2017, or whatever, and now 2033 apparently...when in fact it's just like any other government program, it needs adjustments and refunding in order to continue (like duh, obviously) Yes, captain obvious, an aging US population means that we need to raise taxes and SS contributions in order to keep the program going. It is not a crisis, it is a known quantity and one that isn't a secret, nor is it some immediate threat. However apparently the goal is to artificially turn it into a crisis, for whatever reason. If you're all of a sudden coming to grips with the fact that the Social Security system and the payroll tax are horrible and disproportionately affect the poor, WELCOME. Welcome to what the rest of us already know. But guess what? Fixing it is the exact opposite of what the GOP wants to do. They want to just slash the benefits and call it a day. I'm glad I could educate you yet again.

Bowl games? How would it diminish the bowl games if they would be rotating. 8 teams makes sure the Power 5 conference champions get in and at larges. I don't get how the regular season is watered down though. N College Football wants us to watch the 'NY6' bowls in the same way we used to watch all the Jan 1st major bowls. Problem is as they expand the playoff, the other bowls are playing for less and less. Also this year the timing was troublesome, if you were on the West Coast, the Peach Bowl kicked off at 9:30am on a Wednesday. How so? The BCS system used one game to decide it's champion. All the other major bowls like the Rose or Fiesta that weren't the NC game were basically meaningless when it came down choosing a NC. These major bowl games are being absorbed into the playoff system. I hardly see how that would diminish their value. Yeah I love the stupidity of that argument. It would be like back in 1939, saying "Well if we create this official NCAA basketball tournament, then the NIT won't mean as much!!!!!!" Yeah, but the games that replace it, or in this case, those same games (Rose/Sugar etc) mean even more. We aren't losing meaning or viewership or excitement at all...it's being shifted around slightly, and the end result is that we're gaining it.

but you think baby boomers are the worst and screwed us over, so f#*k them? They are the worst. But they are human beings and should have a safety net just like everyone else. Even you.

NCAA "loophole" means that Oregon can't practice as much as Ohio State http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/1/7/7510473/ncaa-wont-let-oregon-practice-as-much-as-ohio-state I very much can't wait for the day that the NCAA ceases to exist

Yes, Abdullah, I am opposed to screwing over the elderly and disabled, particularly when that screwing over is an intentionally manufactured "crisis" used for political leverage. I think that's a pretty fair viewpoint.

Yet there's a faction of the GOP voter base out there fist-pumping at the testicles that it takes to attempt the moves Junior and knapp posted. "Hell yeah, I want my party to have GIANT BALLS swinging around when they're f'ing me in the ass"

Using crippling Social Security as leverage? They have absolutely zero shame.

Also, best part about this battle is it occurred after the treaty was signed