[Nickname]

major i found your halloween costume for next year

[Nickname]

so it looks like texas thwarted my conference realignment prophesy. oh well.

[Nickname]

[Nickname]

[Nickname]

biose needed to move they are way too good for WAC

[Nickname]

Nebraska to Big 10. It’s starting.

[Nickname]

MajorMajorMajor said:

Nickname said:

NuRayZ said:

Nickname, the last thing texas would do would be to follow in the footsteps of Nebraska. Texas has way to much money and pride to follow someone to a different conference.

um reread my post; texas Nebraska leaving the big 12 (for big 10) would make texas devalue the big 12 and move to the pac 10. that means texas would NOT be following nebraska anywhere.

 

Also, Colorado to the Pac-10. That is one prediction come true.

nub fail

*edited* my inability to type correctly.

[Nickname]

NuRayZ said:

Nickname, the last thing texas would do would be to follow in the footsteps of Nebraska. Texas has way to much money and pride to follow someone to a different conference.

um reread my post; texas leaving the big 12 (for big 10) would make texas devalue the big 12 and move to the pac 10. that means texas would NOT be following nebraska anywhere.

 

Also, Colorado to the Pac-10. That is one prediction come true.

[Nickname]

MajorMajorMajor said:

So is this primarily for football, because if it is basketball, the ACC would rape everyone.

 

Dear god, WVU, UCONN, UNC, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, Cincy, Wake……..VT…… (lol)

ACC basketball would be borderline unbeatable…

 

MajorMajorMajor said:

I mean I want to see the Big 12 die as much and anyone, but srsly… Its a pretty far fetch for the Pac-10 to allow 6 new members. I thought I read sumwhere that the PAC10 comish was saying yes they are open to expansion, but no they won’t expand greatly?

I read on ESPN that the Pac-10 is ready to offer invites to all 6 of those schools. Of course the only school that matters there is Texas. Texas will bolt if Nebraska leaves the Big 12.

 

MajorMajorMajor said:

ACC has already stated that they also are interesting in taking ECU if the opportunity arises. ECU plays nearly all the ACC schools anyways.

ECU brings the ACC absolutely nothing. They already own that TV market with the triangle being so close by, ECU would be mid pack at best in football, and ECU doesn’t fit the ACC’s academic demographics.

 

MajorMajorMajor said:

I doubt the SEC will want to expand though, historically they like to keep it simple only lettings one or two teams leave and come.

Really the SEC doesn’t have much reason to expand; they already have a very lucrative TV deal and unless they can grab schools in a different region they don’t already own (NC State? Baylor? USF? Kansas?), it really makes no sense for them. I mean GA Tech, Florida State, and Clemson don’t get them much of anything as far as new TV markets go.

 

MajorMajorMajor said:

Colorado has no business in the PAC10 – they needs to be in the MWC cause they are *edited*ties.

Colorado would be perfect for MWC if PAC10 took Baylor instead. I mean if MWC could grab up Kansas, K State, Iowa State, they would be a pretty decent conference after all is said and done.

 

Honestly though I think Notre Dame will join Big 10 and that will pretty much end all this; Pac 10 might expand to 12 by grabbing a couple MWC schools and MWC might grab some WAC schools to compensate. I’m still surprised that MWC didn’t invite Boise State though.

[Nickname]

Ok so I was doing some thinking about the whole conference shuffle that is coming.

 

As I see it, there are several situations that may unfold.

 

Situation 1: Notre Dame joins Big 10.

– In this situation, the Big 10 would probably just stop at 12; Big 12 would probably stay together; Pac 10 will probably try to take a couple teams from MWC or will stay at 10 and the world goes on as normal.

 

Situation 2: Notre Dame tells Big 10 to *edited* off.

– This will *edited* all the conferences

– Missouri and Nebraska will bolt for Big 10.

– This causes Texas to bolt for Pac-10, bringing Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and probably Colorado with it.

– Big 10 sucks up Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State

 

At this point, things could either stop, or get *edited*ing haywire.

 

**If SEC decides not to expand, Baylor will join MWC, along with Nevada and Boise State, and MWC will effectively take Big 12’s place as a BCS conference.

 

**If SEC becomes intimidated and decides it will also expand to 16 teams, it will likely take 3 from ACC plus USF from Big East

– This will cause ACC to expand i.e. engulf Big East, taking UConn, Pitt, and Syracuse. At this point, ACC can either stay at 12 or up to 16 to match the other conferences. Not sure if they would want to take some of the other remaing Big East teams (WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Rutgers) because of academic concerns (believe it or not, ACC actually cares about academics).

– If ACC decides to go to 16, taking those other 4 schools or perhaps some C-USA schools (Memphis? UAB? Southern Miss? Marshall? god I hope not ECU), MWC would probably expand again to 16 teams as well, taking Fresno State, New Mexico State, SMU, and UTEP.

 

This brings us the following conferences (changes in bold):

Big 10

 
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Illinois
4. Wisconsin
5. Penn State
6. Iowa
7. Purdue
8. Michigan State
9. Indiana
10. Northwestern
11. Minnesota
12. Nebraska
13. Missouri
14. Kansas
15. Kansas State
16. Iowa State

 

Pac-10

 
1. Washington
2. Washington State
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. Cal
6. Stanford
7. UCLA
8. USC
9. Arizona
10. Arizona State
11. Texas
12. Texas Tech
13. Texas A&M
14. Oklahoma
15. Oklahoma State
16. Colorado

 

SEC

 
1. LSU
2. Auburn
3. Arkansas
4. Mississippi State
5. Alabama
6. Ole Miss
7. Tennessee
8. Georgia
9. Florida
10. South Carolina
11. Kentucky
12. Vanderbilt
13. Florida State
14. USF
15. Clemson
16. Georgia Tech

 

ACC

 
1. Boston College
2. Maryland
3. Virginia
4. Virginia Tech
5. Duke
6. UNC
7. NC State
8. Wake Forest
9. Miami
10. Connecticut
11. Pittsburgh
12. Syracuse
13. Cincinnati
14. West Virginia
15. Louisville
16. Rutgers

 

MWC

 
1. BYU
2. Utah
3. Air Force
4. TCU
5. San Diego St
6. New Mexico
7. Colorado State
8. UNLV
9. Wyoming
10. UTEP
11. Boise State
12. Nevada
13. Baylor
14. New Mexico State
15. Fresno State
16. SMU

 

5 super conferences, all the leftover schools dont get *edited* basically, though conference USA might expand to take over some of the remaining schools.

 

So long story short, I hope Notre Dame joins the Big 10 lol.

[Nickname]

i need moar time in the day so i can play more l4d with fatty major

[Nickname]

btw this is an awesome custom campaign. Has a couple bugs but overall lots of fun.

[Nickname]

http://www.ihatemountains.com/

 

Also I installed it this morning on my laptop; will install and play it on my desktop in a couple hours

[Nickname]

epic convo said:

(11:56:36 AM) Mike: lol http://bit.ly/9iL3kO

(12:00:18 PM) Mitch: speaking of rick rolls

(12:00:25 PM) Mitch: these guys are giving away a free ps3

(12:00:26 PM) Mitch: http://techsmartly.net/PS3.php

(12:01:15 PM) Mike: i really hate you

(12:01:18 PM) Mitch: LOLL

(12:01:31 PM) Mike: I mean like if I was near you

(12:01:33 PM) Mike: and had a knife

(12:01:34 PM) Mike: well

(12:01:36 PM) Mike: you do to math

(12:01:37 PM) Mitch: lol

[Nickname]

Bitey said:

tl;dr I agree with MasterP, Wikipedia is a great source for quick reference and beginning research, but it should be checked like all other sources when you research, he needs to stop taking what I say negatively.

need moar summaries like this. i is lazy

[Nickname]

Dude there are always outliers to any situation. I know a lot of people that make crappy money and you know what? They do a *edited* poor job and don’t work hard at all. Likewise I know a lot of people that make a lot of money and work their *edited* off to do it. Its pretty much impossible to speak of work ethic in general terms, but most people won’t become a CEO by not working hard.

 

And BTW, I sure as hell know I could not run one of those fortune 500 companies.

[Nickname]

[Nickname]

Since MasterP wanted proof he is wrong, I am here to give it to you.

 

MasterP said:

NuRayZ said:

again it’s not all about money masterp, what did we have to show for those 8 glorious years of tax cuts, war, and spending?

The highest Dow Jones in the history of the stock market. I’d say that’s at least worth something…

Until you look at the fact that the Dow Jones DECREASED by over 2500 points while he was in office. On Jan 20, 2001, it was at 10659.98, on Jan 20, 2009, it was at 8077.56. Yup, seems like he did a great job.

 

MasterP said:

Bitey said:

What I can’t stand for right now is the inability for conservatives to see that the obnoxiously wealth are killing our economy. Do you not realize that defending them makes you look like a complete jack *edited*? Let’s defend the guy who sits on a throne instead of the guy who makes an honest day to day living, YEAH THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE, GOD I BET THE GUY ON THE THRONE IS PERFECT AND HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG HE DESERVES ALL OF THAT MONEY!

What you fail to realize is that the vast majority of the wealthy got it by honest, day to day living. The difference being they targetting their labor into more productive enterprises or simply rose the corporate ladder better. What you’re saying is that since they’re more successful than you are, as a nation, we should punish them with 90% taxes. How is that fair? Who determines what is and is not “wealthy”? What happens when people start thinking that anything above minimum wage should be taxed 90%? Surely you don’t think THAT’S fair…

I hate to say it Bitey, but MP is right here. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rich_work_more_than_the_working_class If you work hard for the money and earned it… hard to argue with that.

 

MasterP said:

Bitey said:

So here is the honest to God truth, when the economy is down, we need to tax the *edited* out of the rich. When it is up and we are in peace times, national debt is down, give them a tax cut. I think that is a fair solution for everyone.

So you haven’t read anything I’ve posted here. Go re-read my first post which details how and why that policy doesn’t work and gives a historic example of when the exact opposite worked beautifully. I’m not going to waste my time retyping it, it’s not what you want to hear and puts a giant crack in your view of reality so I’m not really expecting you to read it. At least pretend like you did though so you aren’t saying the same things over and over after being proven wrong by your own historic example.

Again MP is correct. When the economy is down you need to lower taxes to increase spending and be willing to absorb that increase in national debt. When times are good, raise taxes and cut down the national debt. This is exactly what Clinton did in the 90s and it worked great, but if we weren’t already in an economic upswing, raising taxes would have stalled out our economy.

 

 

Ok so really that is all I could comment on, and I only really found 1 thing he said that I strongly disagreed with so….

[Nickname]

MasterP said:

MasterP said:

either prove I’m lying or shut the *edited* up

there is no statement in this thread for us TO disprove, so im not sure why you keep stressing this point…

 

And saying wikipedia is more trustworthy because more people review it… sorry I really just can’t buy that. And yes I have to agree any professor that told you otherwise is fail. Wikipedia is fun to read for general information but not when you need to trust the information is accurate.

[Nickname]

MajorMajorMajor said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX09WnGU6ZY

i want to see it print full color pictures

.001 PPM

[Nickname]

MajorMajorMajor said:

http://standardmadness.com/featured/poor-mans-porsche-911-gt3-rs

that *edited* is baller as hell

[Nickname]

NuRayZ said:

quit being a such a serious sam.

You called?

[Nickname]

NuRayZ said:

im pretty sure it’s my truth, major’s fatness, and masterP’s lies

 

fixed

[Nickname]

i really cant read this all so im just gonna give my opinion and be done.

 

You all should have voted for RON *edited*ING PAUL.

 

/thread

[Nickname]

lol masterp uses wiki for his sources

[Nickname]

MajorMajorMajor said:

those poor cats. especially the one on the right.

[Nickname]

god you all both suck, i found the text within 10 seconds of going to google.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

senate final healthcare bill said:

SEC. 9002. INCLUSION OF COST OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH

COVERAGE ON W–2.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6051(a) of the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 (relating to receipts for employees) is amended by striking

‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the

end of paragraph (13) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding after

paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:

‘‘(14) the aggregate cost (determined under rules similar

to the rules of section 4980B(f)(4)) of applicable employer-sponsored

coverage (as defined in section 4980I(d)(1)), except that

this paragraph shall not apply to—

‘‘(A) coverage to which paragraphs (11) and (12) apply,

or

‘‘( the amount of any salary reduction contributions

to a flexible spending arrangement (within the meaning

of section 125).’’.

( EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section

shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

NuRayz, you were looking at the previous section, which is about the additional tax, this thread was originally about adding the amount of your coverage onto the W2, which will in turn increase your taxes amount.

[Nickname]

then you should rage at pro sports players more than CEOs as there are more of them

[Nickname]

You cant hate on all CEOs; that website you used Bitey is for >300 companies, all of which are on S&P 500 list.

There are hundreds of thousands of companies in the country, all of which have a CEO (just might not call him that), and the vast majority do not make nearly that much money. See http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_%28CEO%29/Salary and http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_compresult_national_ex05000001.html

 

But I agree that making that much money is a little ridiculous.

[Nickname]

Bitey said:

However when you have the board and CEO of a company making 600% more than their employees that tells me that they are probably paying their employees about 10/hr.

That would mean the CEO makes 70/hr * 40 hr/wk * 52 wk/yr = 145600/yr, which is actually very modest for a CEO.

 

Just throwing this out, Jamarcus Russell made $39 million for being a crappy NFL QB and getting cut after 3 seasons. It would take said hypothetical CEO over 300 years to make that much money on his hypothetical salary.

[Author]

Posts