Jump to content

EMAWesome

banned
  • Posts

    3059
  • Joined

Everything posted by EMAWesome

  1. Sammy Watkins four catches for a 150 yards and two touchdowns. Mahomes 8/9 for 211 yards and two touchdowns. Oh yeah, there is still two and a half minutes left in the first quarter.
  2. The Chiefs offense looks the same as last year. The Chiefs defense looks the same as last year.
  3. It took the Chiefs all of three plays to go up 7-0. Sammy Watkins turns a five yard slant into a 68 yard touchdown.
  4. Someone at Phog.net started a thread asking whether they should have gone after Mack Brown instead of Les Miles. Also a best of from their game thread today. This team can't live up to even the most meager of expectations.Jesus fried chicken Christ these idiot kickersLet’s just kill the football program. What’s the point anymore?We are a defensive line, offensive line, quarterback, linebackers, cornerbacks and a kicker away from being pretty dang competitive.Let’s see. no QB and no offensive line. The Decade of Despair continues in Lawrence.I can’t believe I thought this team was going to be improved. This is terrible football.This team will end up being the Big 12 bottom feeder and one of the ten worst D1 teams.I think David Beatty possesses miles’ bodyWho the fuck let Beaty back in the building?Color me unimpressed with the coaching. Bettyesque....I used to make fun of people that would say dump the program but at this point it’s actually starting to look logical.Miss the field goal or fail to convert 4th down. Hmmm tough choice.Wtf is miles retarded? We have no time outs now and got nothing? Sorry but that is below Beauty level coaching.Burn down the stadium. Tear up the field. Plant a field of corn or something.Let's play nothing but Div 2 schools, give them all their 1st win vs a Div 1 school. Roof the stadium, put the basketball team in there and give up football.I actually thought we would be competitive with KSU this year. Yeah I’m a ******** moron but hahahaha. Agreed we are nearly at the point of appointing a group to study dropping football.I just think too much damage has been done over the last 10 to ever recover. There are people that need to be sent to the electric chair for killing this program.“He needed one. He gets 26.” The last decade of KU football in a nutshell.I guess I can’t understand after 11 years and paying imbeciles tens of millions of dollars, how is it so hard to find one coach and one QB who could make a “power 5” team just barely adequate?Their kicker is our best offenseThis is the most soul crushing thing I’ve ever seen regarding football. This is worse than any Beaty coaches game. This is so bad. I don’t have words.I just broke the Apple TV remote.Hate to say it, but KU has been Charlie Weis-ed again. We are stupid to contunue with a football program.This game was coached worse than anything we’ve seen the last decade and that’s a low bar to try to go under.Use the funding we waste on football to buy the b-ball players Duke and Kentucky are buying.Borderline FBS team without a campus to practice on for a week against an FBs team with a championship-level coach whose had 9 months to prepare for back-to-back home games and we lay an egg. WhoooooooooooWhat's even more crappy is that my KSU friends did not have the heart to rub it in after this game, they are treating me as if they just found out my prized dog won't hunt.
  5. It would be a 50/50 proposition that Biden would even know both exactly who he was debating and exactly what town the debate is taking place in.
  6. And yet greenhouse emissions in the United States decreased last year (thank you fracking) and increased in China. (and pretty much everywhere else in the developed world including those countries that signed the Paris Accord)
  7. We are beating up teams we are supposed to beat up which is good. We are doing it with players (other than the starting quarterback) I have never heard of before this year which is Snyderesque. It's still going to be hard to get any kind of read on what this team is capable of until they get into conference play though it looks like any team that has trouble stopping a power running attack is not going to like us.
  8. American newspapers pay attention. This is how you do a headline.
  9. It's so bad the number of interracial marriages are at an all time high and every state in the country has seen an increase in them. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/07/interracial-marriages.html
  10. 90% of the posters in this thread, including you, have no business commentating on anyone else being disconnected from reality.
  11. Your attitude is exactly what he is talking about in the video.
  12. Bullshit, science isn't anywhere near there and won't be for at least another century. So you want to get rid of oil, coal, and all other fossil fuels. Okay, how are people going to go anywhere? Electric cars? How are you going to build them? Factories need a consistent source of power and plenty of it. What are these cars going to be made out of? Metal? Solar and wind don't power things that need to run underground and that is where the ores that comprise metals are at. Are we going to go back to the 1800s and dig it up by hand? Plastic? I thought you were trying to get rid of things made with petroleum. By the way, you know what else runs on fossil fuels? Tractors and combines, anyone ever see one run on solar, electricity, or wind? Without those how are you going to feed a nation of 330 million people? I haven't even touched the question of how are you going to replace every single item made out of plastic that we use in our world. Our planet will still be just fine and dandy ten years from now, twenty years from now, thirty years from now, and long after every single nitwit screaming that the world is going to end in the next decade or two has died. The only threats this planet could face in the foreseeable future are stupid governments and politicians starting a nuclear war somewhere, a collision with an asteroid or something else from space, or the volcano underneath Yellowstone going boom, which no environmentalist has answer for anyway. And in case anyone cares, no I did not watch one single second of this idiocy on CNN last night. I would have rather watched a seven hour long infomercial on edible, glow in the dark butt plugs. Those would be more useful than anything proposed by these idiots would be.
  13. I just about posted this in the Tennessee thread on the football board but I figured I would get accused of cloaking up the board.
  14. Yeah, I know this is a four year old article. Point still stands. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#75a08c203f9f In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said. Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need. But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that. Which brings us to the next question: 2. How do we know the 97% agree? To elaborate, how was that proven? Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position. Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct. One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges. Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent. But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t. The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested: “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” —Dr. Richard Tol “That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .” —Dr. Craig Idso “Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.” —Dr. Nir Shaviv “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .” —Dr. Nicola Scafetta Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate. It’s time to revoke that license.
  15. I don't have a problem with any drug being legalized for adults. Just don't come to me looking to raise my taxes to pay for federally funded rehab centers. It is your body you can put whatever you want in it and I'm not going to stop you. It is your body and your life and it is also your responsibility to take care of it, not mine. You are free to make whatever bad decisions you want to make as long as you accept the responsibility of making them. Just don't ask me to bail you out of the mess you have made of your life.
  16. Good job stereotyping asshole, I have one 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun that I haven't used in at least fifteen years. What's so dumb about comparing gun control to the war on drugs? How did making stiffer penalties for drug usage and possession decrease the use of drugs in this country? How did mandated federal sentencing guidelines work to solve that problem? There are two types of people in this world. Those that follow the laws and those that don't. More laws only affects the behavior of those that do follow laws. They do not affect the behavior of people who don't follow laws. If this problem is going to get solved someone will have to find a way to change the behavior of people who don't follow the law. Politicians don't do that, if anyone is going to do it it is going to be societies and civilizations in general.
  17. Constitutional scholar Chris Hayes--"The Electoral College would be unconstitutional ‘if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution’." https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/msnbc-host-electoral-college-would-be-unconstitutional-if-it-wasnt-specifically-in-the-constitution
  18. That won't do shit. Draw the line at weapon X and someone will eventually use weapon X to kill 25 people. Then everyone will scream draw the line at weapon Y and possession of any weapon beyond Y is a felony. Then someone will use weapon Y to kill 24 people. Then everyone will scream draw the line at weapon Z and possession of any weapon beyond Z is a felony. Then someone will use weapon Z to kill 23 people. Then everyone will scream draw the line at weapon AA and possession of any weapon beyond AA is a felony. Then someone will use weapon AA and kill 22 people. And so on and so on. Eventually you will be drawing the line at Derringers and .410 shotguns. You will keep on sawing off the very end of the tree limb but since you are not changing the mind of the people that do this they will keep on finding ways to do it and eventually you won't have anything left of the limb to saw off. How did that war on drugs go? How well did prohibition work?
  19. How fucking old are you? I was born in 1966. Between Charles Whitman in the year I was born and the fuckface that shot up the McDonalds in San Ysidro, California in 1984 nothing like this made the national news. You would have a serial killer like Son of Sam or Zodiac come along every few years but that is different from the "how many people can I kill in one place or at one time" killer we are plagued with today. In that time period I had access to guns since I was 12 years old and practically every other boy I went to school with in my class at that time had access to them too. I'm willing to bet my school was not an outlier among rural schools back then either. When did this stuff skyrocket? Right after the advent of the 24 hour news channel and just before the popularity of the internet skyrocketed as well. When no one gave the people that did this attention it rarely happened. Now everyone gives it attention and it keeps on happening. It's not the number of guns that is the problem. It is the number of "who gives a fuck how many people I kill" attention whores this country has produced in the last few generations that is the problem. 500 numbnuts in Washington D.C. who basically sit around and pick nits out of each other's fur are not going to produce the solution. We as individual members of society have to figure this out. It's not a legal problem. It's a moral problem. A person that knows it is not right to kill another human being unless in self-defense and accepts his responsibility as a gun owner to not do that is not a threat if he owns one gun or 2,000. A person that can not or will not understand and accept that principle is a threat to kill if he has one gun, two thousand guns, or no gun.
  20. You can pass any law you can think of. None of them will stop this. This isn't a problem that legislatures solve. This is a problem society solves. We had less strict gun control laws forty and fifty years ago and this wasn't happening. Something has happened with our evolution as a species since then.
×
×
  • Create New...