ndawg

I loved tonight, but I still don't have any faith in Tom Herman as our coach.

Wow:

I thought about including the employer side of payroll taxes, but I didn't want to be accused of exaggerating the point

Also, so many people don't know the difference between payroll taxes (medicare/ss) and income tax. People who pay zero in income tax still give up ~7.65% of their income in payroll taxes.

I'm not arguing that a solar panel mandate is the best possible means of accomplishing the goal of carbon neutrality, just that your civil liberties aren't being encroached by it. There is absolutely nothing about this mandate that suggests the government believes it knows any more than anybody else about the best way to power their home. The goal is to wean the power grid off of fossil fuels. If you've got wind turbines, adding solar panels will increase what you can contribute to the grid. The aim of the legislation in question is to obstruct abortions, which constitutes the infringing of women's personal liberties. As such, it is completely wrong and should be stopped. You are able to compare the two, and while there are some similarities, you also seem unable (or unwilling) to also contrast the two. Building codes are not the same thing as reproductive rights, they're entirely different contexts. Building a house requires not only extracting a ton of limited planetary resources, but it also ties up land usage indefinitely in a way that has a tangible ongoing environmental impact. I don't know what to tell you if you can't see the differences as well as the similarities... those differences are why pie-in-the-sky fantasies like libertarianism don't actually work. There's always a tension between personal liberty and public good. Each issue, whether it's abortions or building codes, demands a far richer perspective than you're applying here. There isn't some grand unified theory that we can categorically apply to every issue and come out with the most sensible policy. Governing is hard.

Building codes are ancient, and are well within the established authority of the government. If California elected a government that aims to be carbon neutral, a solar panel mandate is a completely legitimate usage of that authority. How you feel about the aesthetics of your house doesn't mean anything to me, but your house's impact on our planet does.

I believe you could provide many examples of what you would call hypocrisy, but that's not the same thing as examples of actual hypocrisy. All you've done with the NRA example is lift two different lines of reasoning out of their context and compared them in a vacuum.

He's got better odds of winning than Trump had.

The young man that was kicked out of the Billings rally was replaced by a woman that looks eerily similar to the woman sitting behind Kavanaugh flashing alt right signs.

I guess if Trumpkins just decide they're comfortable with the idea of regressing back to the point before we had government, then any irrational skepticism of it can remain justified. Checkmate, Brisket.

Saban is an asshole the way that folks with obsessive compulsive personalities are assholes. He's hard on people, difficult to please, and rages at imperfections. But he's also self critical -- he's probably harder on himself than he is on his staff and players. Think about it, as much as he's actually won, he's still displeased. Herman is an asshole the way that narcissists are assholes. He builds a cult of personality around himself (i.e. "mensa"), and attacks anyone who threatens that image. When he's cornered, he'll reach deep in his back of narcissist tricks, like demeaning people. They couldn't be more different, IMO.

So cringeworthy for him to condescendingly ask the dude's age, only to later pretend it was just a question and not a pointed insult.

I don't know that I can agree with that solution. Get better at the game, and it's impossible not to be motivated to play. Conversely, continue to suck, and you'd have to be delusional to get motivated. My solution: get a coaching staff that can, over the course of a fall camp, produce a team that can execute at a D1 level.

No idea what the offensive staff was doing during the fall camp, but it seems like every other division 1 offensive staff spent that time actually installing some concepts that their players could execute. I'll be the first to admit I'm not a football expert, but our offense seems to lack any sort of timing. On running and especially screen plays, even when the blocking seems like it's there it still arrives way before the play. Sam's screen passes take forever, and he seldom throws to receivers that aren't wide open. While there were a few times where it seemed clear that we called the wrong play or protection (e.g. extra blitzers have a free run to the QB), most of the time our offense just looked like it was just plain bad at execution. I don't know what we're good at, other than Sam occasionally leaving the pocket finding someone downfield, or one of the playmakers making someone miss. We suck at the same things we've sucked at for years. Herman's not the guy. We need a coach that can mask our deficiencies and accentuate our strengths. Seems like Herman is masking our strengths and accentuating our deficiencies. I can't help but to get the sense that we're about to plunge into a free fall.

Wow, thanks. That is absolutely nuts!

If she's signalling, she's still got plausible deniability, so any accusations can be easily dismissed. If she's not signalling, any accusations can also be easily dismissed. itsatrap.gif

Interesting. Can you point me to where I can find the interview?

Based on his views on the GOP today, he must really regret pushing Palin on McCain.

Is this turning into a surly cloak room tailgate party? Because I am down.

Ag with Kids bringing one of the more impressive displays of cognitive dissonance I've seen on this board.

Okay, I kinda agree with that part..

It would be pretty surprising to see them put her on the ticket. That said, you did say this: Reading that sentence, it doesn't seem like you'd consider Trump substantially worse than she'd be.

I give people a pass for refusing to vote for either candidate in 2016. I also don't think that she's going to run in 2020, either. But suppose we accept for a second that they appeared to be equally bad in 2016 (I don't buy it personally, but hey, I'll play ball for a second). Exactly what more evidence would you need to see in order to conclude that he's substantially worse than Hillary would have been?

Point of order: we need to distinguish between prejudice and racism. Many black people in the world are indeed prejudiced against whites. Is it wrong? Absolutely, in the sense that it can and does lead to injustices. Is that racist? Not necessarily. Racism refers to the belief that ones race is inherently superior to another and thus deserving of a higher place in society. White supremacy is an example of systemic racism, the kind that harms all members of a minority group, which is also what I think you were suggesting might be likely if we see a non-white majority in the US.

This is ultimately white supremacy's final gasp of fear -- utterly terrified that, soon, white people will suffer from the same cruelty we inflicted on everyone else. I don't buy it. White supremacy was borne out of some unique circumstances. Namely, our ability to terrorize other cultures with superior technology and the availability of Christianity as a means of justifying it to the masses (and ultimately indoctrinating them as well). There is no brown supremacy or black supremacy waiting on the wings to exploit us the minute they gain a majority. I think you're cynicism is unfounded here.