MrRain422

Sure, but again, why even pretend like they're competing for the same title then? Whether or not they're actually as good as anyone else is completely beside the point. It's just a stupid system that doesn't allow most of the teams even the chance to compete. Either create a system where every team at least has a chance, or put them in a separate league. To be fair to Utah, when they scheduled this year's game against Michigan a couple years back, it probably was an attempt at scheduling a tough non-conference game. Not really their fault that the program reached it's lowest point this

My point is, if they're going to be considered minor league, then put them in a different league where they are eligible for the championship. If they're all playing in the same league, then they should all at least theoretically have a chance at winning. It shouldn't be about if we think Utah can beat them -- if they're all playing for the same championship, then Utah should be given a chance to compete.

Division II has its own championship system. With a playoff. Sure, it's usually going to be the major conference schools making a hypothetical playoff anyway, but at least the undefeated minor conference schools have a chance. You can still reward the major conference teams with higher seedings or whatever if it really matters. Again, I acknowledged that Hawaii wasn't as good as those other schools. But I fail to see how it's even a legitimate system if 2/3rds of the teams are disqualified before the season even starts.

Or Boise State, or Hawaii, etc. I know, I know, those teams weren't as good as some of the 1 loss teams. But it's still stupid that, under the current system, it is literally impossible for teams outside of a few conferences to win the championship. Those teams did everything possible -- won every game on their schedule -- but still didn't get a shot. And that's why the BCS is a sham. Doesn't matter how obvious it is that a team isn't as good as another -- if it has won every single game, it should be at least possible to win the championship. Otherwise why even pretend that it's the NC

I would vote for you, mountain bed.

Getting Holliday only makes sense if he thinks that they can re-sign him, or if he thinks they can win this year. I don't see either happening. I respect Beane but don't really get the last couple seasons of moves he's made either.

The might overpay him yet. This is just an opening offer.

I'm reserving judgment until I see how things go. Ideally I think Obama needs a healthy mix of fresh faces/ideas along with with some people who know how things work in Washington. Things are too dire right now for them to spend too much time just figuring out the logistics of the job.

Ralph Nader has no interest in growing third parties. Has he ever lent his support to a third party candidate, for any office, other than himself? He doesn't care if third parties grow, he just wants his own name and face in the news. If he really had interest in helping third parties, he would actually try to do something that would help them.

Obama isn't claiming to be advancing third parties. What has Nader done that has made any third party, or third parties generally, more viable in the last 8 years?

Except that no one here has really come out against Nader for his message, just for his tactics. If he really wanted a competitive third party, then he would do something to build up a third party. He has done exactly zero to help the growth of a third party.

31

I could take him seriously if he actually did any work towards accomplishing his supposed goals anymore, but as far as I can tell all he's done in the last 10 years is bitched about anyone willing to make any sort of compromises. I have a lot of the same ideals as him, but I'd rather make some compromises and see some things actually change rather than insisting on wholesale change all at once, because that just won't happen.

Who is Ralph Nader?

I was under the impression that bonuses were to reward good work. Silly me.

Enormous salaries are one thing, but I think it's pretty crazy when they get huge bonuses while laying off thousands upon thousands of workers.

EXACTLY When did I defend the auto industry? I defended their employees who had nothing to do with the industry's failures. Not the same thing. And no I can't just move. I have a lease.

Who said anything about a job being a right? I'm not upset that I lost my job because I think that I was wronged, I'm upset about it because I don't want to be out on the street. Can you really not see the difference? You're talking about philosophy while I'm talking about being able to afford to eat tomorrow.

My friends and family can't help out if they're all out of work too. Nice of you to make that offer on their behalf though. I'm not blaming anyone. You blamed me (and countless others) for not having saved up enough money to be unemployed indefinitely, as if it's as easy as just deciding to have that money.

I have no problem with anything you're saying here. I'm not totally sold on the bailout either to be honest with you. I just can't handle ZenLunatic's position that people losing their jobs isn't important and that everything will be just fine so long as people don't let it bother them and just go out there and get another job, and that if anyone really hurts in this economy it's their own fault.

I'm not talking about my happiness, I'm talking about my ability to pay rent next month. Also, this is a completely idiotic point of view. Everyone's lives are intertwined, and people's lives are and always will be impacted by the decisions of other people.

Okay, I think maybe I just got a little melodramatic, but ZenLunatic, I really think you're downplaying how big of a deal this would be big time. Yeah, bailing out the industry would be a drain on the country, but letting it fail would also be a huge hit on the economy. You don't seem to understand that part of the equation.

It's not really about "fault" anyway. I think you're fundamentally disregarding reality if you think that most people really have a choice about it, but even if someone is completely at fault for their own problems, I still think it's wrong to just let people's lives fall apart. Also, a failing auto industry will bring down other segments of the economy as well. What about their suppliers? What about the people in service industries whose customers work in the auto industry? What about the cities whose tax bases depend on the industry and those who work for them? What I'm saying is,

That's all there is to it? Just choosing to create a life where I'm financially solvent regardless of my work situation? Wow, I've been going about this all wrong.