Chilly

Believing Mack went to UCF for some need to recruit from there is silly as well. We've recruited all of 4 players out of the state since 2003, and Texas provides plenty of talent.

Apparently some family members are bringing a couple younger people to the game, and they want to go to the tailgate a bit later than we are. Is there anyway to reserve another general parking spot at this point? Thanks a bunch.

Hello from Hotel Indigo. We landed, immediately got Pizza Junction and Muscoreil's, and now its time for a nap! I can't friggin wait, this weekend is going to rock.

HELLO EVERYONE I WILL MAKE A SILLY POST BEFORE THE SEASON STARTS TO RILE EVERYONE UP. HAVE A NICE DAY.

Sorry, but I disagree. In the first video, Papa Bear is clearly saying to not judge Palin based on her daughter's pregnancy, and in the second he is judging the parents based on their daughter's pregnancy. You worded it wrong. You should have said: Just because I don't necessarily want a whiny candidate doesn't mean that I can't whine as a surrogate for her instead. And yes, that makes her a hypocrite. Uh, a campaign advisor is acting as a representative for that person, so yeah, it does negate that part of her speech. Then go pull the actual quotes and dig deeper, instead of arguing based on conjecture yourself.

Is that more or less moral than forcing an unwanted child to grow up with ungrateful parents?

Ah, okay, thanks. I thought you were trying to be sarcastic or something, hehe.

I don't get it.

http://buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=6533 They put him on IR because they'd be short ONE LINEBACKER for 2-4 weeks? WHAT THE HELL?!

His point has nothing to do with parenting decisions. Papa Bear is arguing that Palin shouldn't be judged for her teenage daughter getting pregnant, and then the Daily Show juxtaposes that with a clip of Papa Bear judging someone for their teenage daughter getting pregnant. Should we not judge all pregnancies, or just Palin's cause she's the Republican VP? Morris is insinuating that people have a right to be offended by that line of questioning in one video, and then making fun of a candidate for being offended by that line of questioning in another video and instead should legitimize the questions and answer them. Nancy says we don't want a candidate who plays the victim card, and then she herself plays the victim card for the candidate. In both of these instances, they are double standards: We don't want the candidate doing something, but everyone else has a right to do it. She said that women shouldn't complain about the extra microscope put on them, and yet her campaign's advisor (Pfotenhauer) was doing just that.

Photo of Tatum Bell with the luggage

It's largely because the CPD is a joke. There was a good piece written by Condoleeza about the 2004 debates sponsored by the CPD, and the various rules and regulations. Essentially, the two major parties are locking third party candidates out of the debates.

Yeah.

To be fair, debate questions aren't exactly out of left field either, although there is one debate this year where they can ask each other questions.

From my understanding, you are correct.

Uh, yeah, I'm serious. McCain's interactions with the media during his time as a senator was to let them ask as many questions as they wanted, and he'd answer them, basically giving the media unlimited access. His experience in responding to reporter questions in such a fashion will help him tremendously in the debates (assuming he uses such a style). In contrast, Obama has, to my knowledge, always been scripted. He also wasn't very impressive in the Democratic primary debates. A few weeks ago, the McCain campaign decided to reel him in, and have him respond only with answers they previously created, which I think is a fairly big mistake (and we're seeing the results in the Palin situation). At the very least, pissing off the media isn't a great way to gain favorable coverage.

Did anyone else get a nice laugh out of this reply? He claims there is substance to Obama's style, proceeds to spend the next bit attacking the other side, and then talks about style and not substance.

I'm inclined to believe he'll be much better than Obama, given the way he's dealt with the media over the years.

I wanted to take the time to address some of the things I've heard in the media and on this board in regards to young voters, as well as lay out my own opinion on the subject. The young vote is always a hot topic, and it seems even more so this year, with Barack Obama's alleged youth-inspiring campaign. The data I'm pulling for prior elections is from various studies done by political scientists (not myself), but is generally originally from the ANES (http://www.electionstudies.org/). The ANES is the place to go for all sorts of data in regards to elections, voting behavior, and demographics. The points I want to address: The Claim: The Youth have been uninspired in the past by their candidates, which has repressed the turnout. The Data: Generation Y actually liked Kerry and Gore at higher rates than other age groups. The ANES uses a measure called the "feeling thermometer" which is based upon respondents scaling their fondness toward a candidate. Gen Y responded with significantly higher ratings than the Baby Boomers by about 10%. Gen Yers were more likely, not less likely, to respond with positive feelings toward Kerry and Gore, and those positive feelings were usually higher than older voters. The Claim: Generation Y has been turning out at lower rates than Gen X, which turned out at lower rates than the Baby Boomers, and so on. The Data: Generation Y voters have actually been turning out at levels well ahead of where Gen X voters turned out at, and near the level that the Baby Boomers turned out at. This is likely to increase as the voters get older, thus solidifying Gen Y's higher turnout numbers. The Claim: The campaign's don't talk about the issues important to Youth Voters. The Data: Generation Y's attitudes toward issues were actually closer to Gore and Kerry than any other age group to any other candidate. As a result, the idea that they were alienated by the issues is false; they actually had their positions, as an overall group, more closely matched by a candidate than any other candidate. Young voters don't really have distinct priorities or wants, unlike what the media claims. As a result of the above, I find the claim that the Youth vote are ready to mobilize a lot more for Obama quite dubious. Young voters are typically repressed voters because the cost of voting is perceived to be higher than the benefit (in large part due to not being established in the community), they haven't been completely civicly socialized yet, and there are limited mobilization efforts directed at the age group (usually half the contact rate of other age groups). The limited targeting of young voters does make sense from a campaign point of view. The data shows that the young vote isn't stable; it can be changed relatively quickly given the current events, largely due to an almost absence of party affiliation. Added to the poor turnout showing, this is a group that isn't usually mobilized, and if they are, they aren't likely to vote stably across elections. One thing to note here, though, is that young voters decide their votes around the same timetable as older voters. So what does that mean for this year? Well, Barack Obama has increased the efforts to mobilize the youth vote, and the effects of that won't be known until well after the election. However, we can do some comparisons across age groups and to previous years. A pew poll in June found that youth voters are 15% more likely than 4 years ago to indicate that they've given a lot of thought to the election. While it seems like a promising statistic that is showing the youth mobilization effort paying off, the other age groups are also responding at a 16% rate increase, showing that this isn't a youth-specific change, but rather one which is taking effect in the whole electorate. As such, I'm not convinced that youth voters are any more engaged in this election in previous elections. In addition, the question of interest doesn't mean that the gains from going to vote will outweigh the costs from the point-of-view of the young voters. As such, I'm not convinced that we're going to see a huge increase in youth turnout compared to the rest of the groups. For a hypothetical sake, let's argue that the youth vote will increase by 15%. Currently, the youth vote is breaking right around 58-34% for Obama. If we split the undecideds on a 2-1 scale for Obama, his lead increases to 64-36%, or a difference of 28% over McCain. In 2004, the youth vote was around 20.8 million votes. If this increased by 15%, there would be an increase of 3,120,000 votes. Obama would increase his vote total by 28% of these votes, or 873,600 votes. Enough to make a difference in a close election, for sure, but not earth shattering by any means. I do think that we'll see an increase in the youth vote turnout from 2004 for two reasons: The Obama camp has been talking to and attempting to mobilize the youth vote, and because interest in this election is the highest its been. However, the interest level increase is consistent across all age groups, so it remains to be seen if the increase in youth voting will be significantly more than other age groups. I suspect that we will see a slight increase in the youth turnout relative to the increase of other age groups, but that it won't necessarily be a huge difference (a couple percentage points, for example). Of course, this is my best educated guess based off of the current data, so it could be completely and utterly wrong.

You want a serious answer? Well, you GOT a serious answer buddy: I think its because the new version of the board probably accommodates Google's archiving and indexing services without making it get an account (if you search the member list for Googlebot, it doesn't show up, and I don't recall seeing it recently).

I just thought it was ironic that the guy who claimed I was spamming the board reposted something. I really have no issue with it though, it's all good.

Says the guy who has complained about my supposed "spamming" of the board.

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1115036

From the reporter's Wikipedia page:

Amen bruddah. Tis why the dinosaurs died