yyz28

This. We need a new AD and make this whole debate moot.

No question that the time has come for change. And after tonight, I think there's very little doubt that it needs to be wholesale change. The team was certainly better this evening, but now is not the time to look within the program for answers. It is fundamentally broken, and it needs to be repaired from the top down I will always appreciate the positives that RV has brought during his tenure. We would be foolish, however, not to acknowledge his apparent limitations in moving this program to the next step.

There is no substitute for holding the reigns.

I oppose the seizure of private property from corporations or citizens for government use. Period. I'm very black and white on eminent domain. Sorry, even if it is something we agree with. I love the person talking about "free market" and using it as a reason to allow the GOVERNMENT to seize private property. Greatness.

Recruit a QB who can pass the damn ball This.

Damn. Y'all turn on a guy quick. So, he had one good season on Dodge's players?! Did you really just say that?

Again. What do you want them to do?

At some point you have to focus marketing to those who respond.

No. That's why they send out daily emails to thousands of people. You tell me. What should they be doing? I get mail, I get email. I mean, if you didn't care when you were here, what can the AD do to make you care now?

Why do they need to? I'm here. ...and I'm calling bullshit. I an email once a day from the MGC or athletic department. At least. What do they need to do? Personal invitation?

The offense is impotent. 5 yards of total offense?!?!

I know it's a Thursday. But, c'mon. Alumni side is sad!!!

Does this mean they don't teach history at TTU? ...cause, I mean... damn.

Actually, alumni side looks really weak compared to student side.

I'm a BIG TIME gear head, and I'm not at all afraid of the hybrid thing... BUT there are some things that have to be understood - 1. The environmental impact of building the batteries on a Prius is greater than the environmental impact of the fuel burned in a V8 Camaro or Mustang, much less a more fuel efficient vehicle like a Malibu or Accord through around 200,000 miles. Currently, our battery technology isn't where it needs to be and the manufacturing process is quite dirty. 2. Hybrids and Electrics ARE more difficult and expensive to repair. Any shop that would charge $500 to change the water pump off the front of a Ford 4.6 (like was on the afore-mentioned Grand Marquis) is called a dealership, and anyone who has a dealership work on their cars after the warranty is out needs to be educated on the car game. No, a Ford dealership (known in the industry as a "stealership") is not necessarily the best place to have your Ford serviced. 3. The driveline components on today's gasoline cars are FAR LESS prone to failure than in years past, AND are far more reliable than the early technology that is today's electric and hybrid cars. 4. Electricity is not free. Shifting en mass the demand we currently put on burning fossil fuels for personal transportation onto the power grid will require more than simply putting some charging stands in. plus, you may have to consider supply vs. demand. As the demand on power goes up, so does the cost on that supply, and Washington is making it harder, not easier, to ensure we have the electricity we need to keep up with future demand. Some of today's most exotic super cars are hybrids, and use the hybrid mode for power, better performance and in cruising mode, greater efficiency. Frankly, I disagree at the core that Electric is the Future. Hydrogen IS the real future.... Electric may be a step in between, but it isn't where this will all go.

Might as well be for the past few years.

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another. This is what Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday about Natural Gas, which IS a fossil fuel. Shall we lampoon her, call her an idiot, or simply accept that it was a mistake and move on? Using one sentence soundbites to discredit someone makes NOBODY smarter, or more educated on a subject. I plead, again, with the folks engaged in this thread to stop trying to discredit the opposition, and rather listen to what they have to say and argue the MATERIAL, instead of try and destroy the person delivering it. ..the point being, we don't elect politicians because they are scientific geniuses, but because we agree with their philosophies overall, and feel they will evaluate what is presented them and come to conclusions similar to what we come up with.

If he'd stop killing family members, he'd be less ronery.

I don't think you're a jack ass at all. I think your assessment of what is going on is right on, and i also happen to agree that Obama is doing about all he can here. This isn't the place to expand on why he can't do more. just suffice it to say, there is only so much he can do based on how we're seen in the world at present. This isn't the time to dissect why.

Nice mock. ...alright, so I went back and spent the better part of the last hour reading the bulk of this thread. ...and I'm brought back around to the following conclusions - 1. This thread isn't meant for political dick-fighting, which I pointed out has no bearing on it, and that I'm tired of the moral equivalency and "he did it so it is ok". Seems like we're pretty well in line there... 2. We're in a weak position to do anything about this, and I haven't seen you point out otherwise. 3. Russia in control of the Ukraine is bad for the US and our national security and political interests. ...again, I see nowhere where you disagree. ...so other than the fact that I voiced these opinions before I spent an hour reading that we agree and that there are some in here who want to turn this political, why are we mocking? ...pft on the Z28 comment. ...yikes on the pic of Rick. ...and his mullet.

Hot Sports Opinion, right ya'll live and die by the Ticket. Sorry. ...interesting stance. Are you arguing that someone has to have read THIS thread to have an opinion on what is going on in the Ukraine? Mock all you want. What I said is right. Russia controlling the Ukraine is bad. We are in a weak position to do anything. Pointing political fingers is pointless. Which part do you disagree with or plan to Mock, oh mighty one?

HSO? High School Only? Head Shot Option? Highly Sensitive Olfactory?

I'm not going to read all of this. I'm not going to point fingers. Bottom line is this. We are weak. We can sit here and point, bicker and argue about why we are weak, but we are in a weak foreign policy position right now, today. It is NOT GOOD for the US for Russia to be intervening and thus ultimately controlling the outcome of this civil war in the Ukraine. They see it as an opportunity, and they are acting on it to empire build. Imagine the reaction on the world stage if the US invaded say, Mexico, using the defense (in many ways rightfully so) that the lack of stability south of the border puts our national security interests at risk, and then planned to annex Mexico. ...cause essentially, that is what is going on here. ...and because of our world standing, we don't have really anything we can do about it. I'm getting really tired of this "well Bush said/did" crap, because he was no saint and was certainly challenged by me and others when he was wrong, and then using it as moral equivalencies as to why it is ok if the current President did it... I also notice it is people who hated Bush and criticized everything he did who now use this defense? ...is it the person or the action? If you don't like the things they did, don't show up here arguing that now that your guy is doing it is A-OKAY! ...You couldn't be any more intellectually dishonest in doing so.

I did. 90 has. TFLF, both in real and satire mode has. Volumes worth. Volumes that I know without a doubt in my mind you haven't even read. The news articles I post that quote scientists, you reject because they are news articles. The blogs and posts and articles by scientists I post you reject because they aren't the right (by your judgement) scientists. ...and then you conclude with name calling. ROTFLMAO! Thank you for proving my (and our) point. Name Calling and refusal to actually address the content = weak argument. Done. Game. Set. Match.

You just can't stop can you? You can't actually answer the arguments made, you can only attempt to attack the creditability of the person offering the argument. Throwing up excuse after excuse as to why you won't even give the arguments an effort. ...so back again you go to calling on the "ignorance" of the claim about the climate over the past 10 years (which absolutely DOES show cooling, I've posted the data from the NAS earlier in this thread showing that fact, and explaining why many in the scientific community call into question the validity of the NOAA data) and both I and TFLF (quite brilliantly, I might add) dismantled this BS that nobody in the 70's were panicking about global cooling. It wasn't just the NY times, as shown by the funding being spent on studying it as well as briefs by the CIA preparing for the result of massive cooling. Articles posted today trying to discredit what was in fact an issue of large-scale concern is sort of like the "Captain Hindsight" episode of South Park. Everyone's seeing the pattern here right? Anything the opposition posts isn't peer reviewed or from "legitimate literature" (as measured by what, I wonder). ...I wonder if the small outcroppings of dissenting written word during the infancy of our revolution and ultimate founding were looked upon by imperialists as not peer-reviewed or "legitimate". Sometimes, to get information out when you're speaking of a position not held by the "legitimate majority" you have to get the data out there as you can. I notice that you have yet to go into the science of anything i posted and respond to it on a scientific basis. All, so far, you have done is call it illegitimate and attempt to discredit it and the authors instead of telling us WHY. Frankly, I don't think you are ignorant. I'm not going to drop to the pathetic level of name calling. I think you are looking at the science that supports your point of view and, yes, politics, and running with it. That is fine. ...but be honest in what you are doing. You haven't really looked at what those of us who disagree with you have posted, and you certainly haven't argued any of it away. You've tried to cast me as Rush Limbaugh, but haven't taken the science and conclusions within the items that have been posted in debate on at all. You only have moved to try and discredit the source, not the data. Again, this is the sign of a weak argument.