B.B. Hemingway

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

I've never liked the look of it. Just round and dumb and uninteresting art. 

I get it. Out of curiosity, what's some CFB logos that you do like? Out on the cartoonist/mascot style altogether?

Just now, Hedley Lamarr said:

is that a Trojan Horse in your profile picture that was painted to resemble a pinata? VERY clever

It's a Swedish Dala Horse, you uncultured swine!

Just now, TGHusker said:

beats Bugeaters.    In that case, I guess Herbie would have grasshoppers hanging out of his mouth. 

 

I'd buy that t-shirt.

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Kinda corny, no pun intended. Too cartoony for my taste or sportswear.

Bah. It's from the time where cartoony logos were often used, and "old school" logos are quite popular right now, so it'd be an odd time to do away with it. What else are you going to do with a nickname like "Cornhuskers"?

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

It's a stupid logo no matter what his hands are doing.

 

If they had redone the whole thing and not just the hand, nobody would have noticed or cared.

What's wrong with the Herbie logo? Hand gestures aside.

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Push me over with a feather.  I am shocked.         Whoever didn't see this happening was looking under the wrong rock

How so??

247 had reported that he was interested in Wisconsin.

2 minutes ago, Toe said:

 

 

That's a win for the B1G West.

4 hours ago, Hayseed said:

I don’t like Herbie as a mascot, so whatever they decide about him is OK with me.

Lil Red has entered the chat!

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I like Dr. Jha’s thoughts and was the first to post him in this thread I believe.  But one thing comes to mind is he doesn’t have actual data to show what he is inferring.  He is using by his own words an educated guess.  So If I were able to ask him a question on this, it would be for him to explain the below data…

 

if Dr. Jha were correct, then Omicron should be decimating these countries with their extremely low vaccination rates.  I think age obviously plays a large role in this and everyone can agree that those 45 and older should get vaccinated regardless of previous infection out of precaution.  But it shouldn’t be policy mandated.  

There's also no guarantee that the current vaccine would protect against future variants so, in a way, we're all just hoping for the best. And as you said, the idea of a mandate is ridiculous, for many reasons.

Just now, Decked said:

Where are you seeing this? Rivals guys think it’s kind of overblown and it’s still USC & LSU 

247 had something on it. I'll see if I can find a link.

Sounds like Caleb Williams is leaning towards Wisconsin, which would be.... some kind of news for Frost and Co.

47 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

If diversification was the goal, an Asian female would be the most logical choice.  Would make the court 5-4 male/female and put the one nationality on the court that currently isn’t represented.  

And yet, somehow the Asian community seems to thrive in this country.

19 minutes ago, teachercd said:

 

 

I actually am impressed you came around and admit this because most of the times we just refuse to admit when we were wrong.  I 100% agree with you, blaming the race of a person instead of yourself is sad.  

 

Again, very impressed with your new attitude on it.

An ironic, yet welcomed change of heart!

Just now, NM11046 said:

  Blaming it on the race of the person they hire instead of you is a pretty sad, defense mechanism and probably explains why you weren't the top candidate.

Interesting logic. Maybe we should apply that same logic more often when hires are made across other professions.

4 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Yeah cuz college coaches don't move around a lot for opportunity (by their own choice or because they're forced to look elsewhere).  

Track coaches don't have the same financial incentives to move as other college coaches. Obviously. Either way, your solution to BRB's friend being the victim of woke policy/agendas on his college campus is to pack up and go find another job? Cool.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Amy Coney Barrett wasn't even a judge until 2017.

 

If I go back to your post history, will I find similar resentment towards picking her since she may have not been the most qualified for the job?

 

Ronald Reagan - the Jesus of the modern Republican Party - pledged to nominate the first woman to the court during his campaign in 1980. 

You can look if you'd like, I don't remember anything specific on Barrett. What do you imagine the theme was around her nomination on this board? I don't tend to repeat what the masses are saying on here, even if I agree with them. What more is there to add to the conversation at that point?

Good for Reagan, I guess?

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

  If we are going strictly based on diversity, an Asian American would make much more sense as there has never been one.  

Yeah, but that wouldn't garner near the political points.

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

So, you're not disagreeing that the leading candidate is highly qualified given her impeccable credentials.

 

I can list the qualifications of the other leading candidates, but they're all similarly highly educated, have decades of experience and were top students at prestigious Universities. 

 

Personally, I hoped the President would appoint a heavily accented 29 year old lesbian Latina Woman who identifies as non-binary just to watch the absolute meltdown on Fox. But, alas, we're going to get an intelligent and highly qualified black women, who is as qualified as any recent nominees to the Court. 

Maybe next time. 

Just now, Dr. Strangelove said:

... do the qualifications I listed for the leading candidate seem inadequate to you?

I was clear earlier that the most qualified candidate should be chosen. If that's her, then fantastic. My issue is with the clear pandering. But that's politics.

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

The Supreme Court is a place I think it’s important to have a very diverse group of people. So, I have no problem with this. 
 

I would say the same thing if the court was all but one black women and the president said he will nominate a white woman. 

I just don't like limiting your options off the top like that, especially when the two requirements you mention (must be a woman, must be black) don't make anyone inherently qualified for any job. All things being equal, of course diversity matters. 

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The Economy having a massive rubberband both upwards and potentially downwards is very real. It's likely it will take a few years for things to feel normal.

 

The leading candidates have great credentials. The choice being floated around is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, currently a circuit Judge for the DC Court of Appeals, the second most powerful court in the country. Before that she spent 8 years in as a judge in the US District Court for DC.

 

She previously clerked for Justice Breyer. She graduated from Harvard, both for undergrad and law school and served as editor for The Harvard Law Review. Other candidates being mentioned also have high credentials.

 

This is in contrast to Trump who appointed 10 judges to the judicial branch with 'Not Qualified' from the American Bar Association. I trust you were equally outraged at this.

I was very critical of Trump's presidency. Thanks for noticing. Also, there's a significant difference in making a worthy observation and being outraged.

1 minute ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

After reading your posts in the Racism is a real thing thread it seems you're the only one on here woofing and making it quite clear that you aren't handling your disappointment in Biden's choice and in this case color of our next Supreme court justice.  

 

I'm handling the news quite fine myself.

 

 

I enjoy coming on here and having conversation with most of you, however, my disappointment in Biden stays here. Like everyone else, what the guy does in that office has almost no bearing on my life. I'm golden.

4 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

Gotcha

 

Biden is going to do whatever the hell he wants and nominate who he wants.  If Republicans want to cry about that I say tough s$&!.  Go punch your pillow.

 None of it really matters all that much. Though, it sounds like I handle adversity and disappointment a little different than you. Crying and pillow punching, huh?

15 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

I'm sorry if you have a giant problem with that. 

 

Wait a minute.  No I'm not.

Pandering is never flattering. If a black woman happens to be the best candidate, fantastic. But to limit your candidates that drastically? That's pandering. Nothing more.

50 minutes ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

Only known requirements: Must be a black woman.

Just now, Ulty said:

Do you remember what Jimmy the Greek said? Racism is built upon applying crude stereotypes toward an entire population. You're throwing around stereotypes about black athletes so casually, then using your stereotype to draw some gross conclusions about both whites and blacks. 

I don't think you or I are in any position to deny evolution and genetics, or the environment and conditions that influence both. I'm sorry if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge such a benign, and clear observation.