The SoCon will be weaker in both football and basketball going forward, but is that necessarily a bad thing for the Mocs at this point? With an automatic bid to the postseason in both sports, a weaker conference schedule will help us get there year after year. And the continued successes will be attractive to the good recruits.
That said, I can understand a move to the OVC if that is the desire of the powers that be. However, I think that any thoughts of a move to the FBS should be put on the back burner for now and let's wait and see how GSU and App St. fare first. I think the FCS is what's best for the Mocs for at least the near future.
[We can surely agree that the level of play in the NBA — on both ends of the floor — may be as good as ever. The level of officiating is worse than ever.]
Agreed on the level of play but I disagree on the officiating. There's always room for improvement, but the NBA refs are light years ahead of where they were in the 90s and most of last decade. No more obvious superstar calls throughout the game and they actually do call fouls (LeBron picked up a quick 2 last night and ended with 5). Also, no more 70-69 slugfests that were par for the course 10 years ago.
What's worse? Bad calls or bad non-calls? Or does it matter so long as the refs are consistent?
Once again, the media has overblown a passing joke as something way more than it really was. Sergio should have refrained from making his comment only because he should know better with the 24/7 p.c. police around. But Sergio's joke was simply lame and should have been seen only as such. As for Tiger saying that the comment was "hurtful", dude needs to grow up and be a man about it. Besides, he's not going to get much sympathy from many folks outside of the liberal press room after all of his cheatin' ways.
I am pretty excited about the Heat-Pacers series. Glad to see that the Spurs came out on top last night after Memphis benefited greatly from a bad flagrant foul call near the end of regulation. I did not think that Ginobli did anything flagrant in his foul on Allen. I think the play looked worse than it really was because Allen took off from the floor at a bad angle (he should have known a foul was coming in that instance). Also, Allen dramatized his descent to the floor a bit capped with him holding his head in apparent pain despite video review showing that he didn't hit his head at all. How/why the officials upheld the flagrant call is beyond me.
Jay, the NFL's tax-exempt status is currently in the news. If it were up to you, would you allow the NFL to maintain its non-profit status? Or what changes would you make to the current laws to effectively revoke the NFL (and/or NHL and PGA) from having tax-exempt status?
Your psychosis has been duly noted.
There's this button on the left side of the keyboard about halfway up called "Caps Lock". Do us a favor and make sure that button isn't lit up before you start typing. Thanks.
[The definition I provided was from Merriam-Webster.]
I provided the first and only definition to "hypocrisy." You provided the 2nd definition to "hypocrite". I should have made that distinction clear in my previous post. Neither of us are wrong in our definitions.
[It truly is unbelievable that you are incapable of knowing the commonly accept definition of the word "hypocrite" in regard to written words and incapable of understanding that words have multiple definitions depending on the context in which they are written.]
You said I was being hypocritical and I proved that I was not. That's why I accused you of not knowing what the word meant.
[The only one that gets to impose their beliefs on anyone in the gay marriage situation is the religious.]
[My position is to include everyone.]
[That's because you don't know the definition of the word.]
[You had to look it up and only included the first definition you came to.]
I did not have to look it up; I already knew the definition. I posted the definition for you since you obviously didn't already know what it was.
[And you'd still be wrong because I know that Ikeithlu would be "against" any religious institution trying to impose their will through legislation on others.]
It would be illegal to force people into a certain religion. But applying religious principles in laws is not. The Founding Fathers not only knew this but they encouraged applying Christian principles to our government's laws. If you are against doing that, that's your business. But don't ruin it for the majority of our country that wants to keep it that way.
[You don't even understand the definition you provided.]
[Secondly, the definition you provided for the word "hypocrite" isn't the universally accepted definition of the word.]
LOL!! I guess Merriam-Webster has it all wrong? Get them on the phone right now and tell them to change their definition! Unbelievable!!
[How are gays being given rights to marry "imposing' their "beliefs" on you? What rights are you denied by allowing marriage equality?]
The issue is about redefining marriage from what it currently is. That's how it's "imposing" on my beliefs. If gays are wanting other "rights" that they currently don't have, they should try to achieve those things through some other means.
[Marriage equality is inevitable.]
[The Bill of Rights states "equal protection under law".]
Funny that you don't use this statement in defense of the unborn. I guess "consent" is a prerequisite for equal protection? Says who? Not the Constitution.
[The majority cannot vote away that right.]
Marriage itself is not a "right".
I posted a link in my 4:57 pm post yesterday. There's no question that premiums will increase more than normal next year as a direct result of the Obamacare legislation. The only question is by how much.
[You do in the United States of America for it to hold up under scrutiny of any kind.]
[Especially when the SCOTUS gets involved.]
The SCOTUS is less concerned with the reasoning behind the 52% of Californians who voted down gay marriage. The issue is whether or not that kind of law can be passed in the first place. But the SCOTUS should do the right thing and uphold the vote in CA.
[I knew you didn't know what that word meant.]
You, sir, are the one who obviously does not know what the word means. From Merriam-Webster: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion."
[What about the fact that you don't want others to impose their "beliefs' on you, but you see no problem imposing your "beliefs" on others.]
I said earlier that ultimately someone gets to "impose" their beliefs on someone else. That's what happens when you live under a standard and the people disagree on what that standard should be. Nothing that I said about any of that is hypocritical based on the definition of the word. On the flip side, I did accuse Ike of being hypocritical because she claims to be against anyone "imposing", but in reality, she's only against Christians "imposing". It's okay to her if gays "impose" their beliefs on others. The hypocrisy falls under the "to believe what one does not" part of the definition that I provided.
[Or the fact that you are trying to accuse me of discriminating against human/animal matrimony while you're the one discriminating against two consenting adults of the same sex marrying.]
Because I am against the redefinition of marriage, then yes, I am "discriminating" against anyone who wants to be married that is not one man and one woman. I have not denied that. However, I pointed out that you are also discriminating as well if you are not in favor of opening marriage up to anyone and anything. Thus, by chastising me for "discriminating", you are the pot calling the kettle black.
[With no facts.]
So when premiums skyrocket next year (according to projections), people will have much less disposable income than they do now. And without the middle class having that extra money to spend, what do you think that will do to the economy?
[The issue in question is not about polygamy or marrying animals/inanimate objects. It's about two, consenting adults being able to marry.]
No, the issue (according to you) was about equality. And I showed you that you're not truly being equal by only extending marriage to monogamous gays.
[If you are too ignorant or brainwashed to see the difference between two adults marrying and a man marrying a sheep...]
Of course there is a difference. But you are still discriminating, are you not? Again, what/whose standard are you following by allowing some groups to marry and others not?
[You don't have a logical, non-religious reason to oppose it...]
I really don't need a non-religious reason to oppose it. Marriage originated in the Bible, did it not?
[Do you want a full run down or just a synopsis of today's hypocrisy?]
Lol. Go for it. There's zero hypocrisy in anything I've written today.
[Adams was saying that the Constitution was made for people that follow the rules.]
I got more out of his quote than just that.
[I was referring to the "recession" part. Where is your link regarding that claim?]
Here's a link:
[If the majority (Democrats) of low income voters are not voting against their own economic interests, then you are admitting the 15-20% of low income voters that don't vote Democrat are, in fact, voting against their own interests.]
Yes, I agree that the 15-20% are voting against their own ECONOMIC interests. However, when deciding on a candidate, there's more to consider than just economic interests. For example, the 15-20% that you mentioned may have voted conservative because they valued a pro-life or traditional marriage stance more than the economic issues. If so, then it's not fair to say they simply voted against their own economic interests as if they didn't know any better.
The same is true on the flip side. You'd expect the majority of the top 1% to vote Republican because it's in their best economic interests to do so. However, there are many prominent rich liberals who kiss Obama's hind end anyway. It's not because they don't care about their economic interests, it's because they care more about the other issues instead.