JuicedH22

Now the new practice of going undercover in bars and arresting people before they have a chance or choice of even getting behind the wheel is a bit more questionable...

Interesting? Annoying is more like it. While I agree with the constitutional question-ability of DUI checkpoints, there is a time and a place to raise the issue and voice your concern. These people are intentionally trolling the officers trying to get a rise out of them. Harassing them while doing their job does nothing but get hits on YouTube. I would say the officers handled the situation very well. It is also worth noting while I disagree with the constitutionalism, I appreciate the reasoning behind doing it, and them getting drunks off the road. Having been through a few, it's a minor inconvenience. A simple question and what should be an easy reply, and you're on your way. And this includes when I answered "yes, I had a beer and two 7n7s before and with my dinner." A couple questions later on that one, and I was on my way. It's not like they can't tell who should and shouldn't be driving.

I personally think its odd when people are "big"/devout fans of college football teams they didn't go to school at, moreso when they have a college degree from some other university... Though, I suppose it's different if its the "local" team, and either not college educated, or community college... Like WVU, whee there is no state or close nfl team...

Meh, Charles Sieger doesnt even make the Forbes 400 list... On another note, check out some of his neighbor's homes...

Silliness... Just because one team has gotten much better, doesnt mean a rivalry doesnt exist... THe view of the "nation" is that UM v OSU is an historical bitter rivarly... maybe not to the strength of Auburn vs Alabama "in some eyes" but still. Hell, the UC vs Miami (oh) rivarly is the 5th oldest in the nation, but even though UC is now a much bigger football program, and has demolished them the last decade, I would say the rivalry is still alive... hell, just a few years ago there was controversy because Miami wouldnt release UC block tickets (or something along those lines)... On the OSU vs UM.... just look what the perception of the common man is: Yahoo gave it the #2 rivarly in the nation! http://sports.yahoo.com/news/top-25-greatest-college-football-rivalries-200800228--ncaaf.html Though, UM vs MSU does make the list as #18 Top 10, first mention according to Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/the-10-best-college-rival_n_944635.html#s346517&title=Ohio_State_vs #1 rivalry according to bleacherreport http://bleacherreport.com/articles/955714-the-10-most-heated-rivalries-in-college-football/page/11 #3 according "america's best" http://www.americasbestonline.com/crival.htm #1 according to a public vote on ESPN... http://espn.go.com/page2/s/bracket/collegefootball/rivalry.html Hell, ESPN gave it the #1 rivalry, regardless of sport... http://espn.go.com/endofcentury/s/other/bestrivalries.html I can go on and on and on... But you made some remark about the "media hype" Are you suggesting that "the media" has artificially created a rivalry? :lolguy: How does that fit in with the polls (I can list those links too) that come to the same results? The general population hype? :lolguy: :lolguy:

I like Dantonio... I wasn't nearly as upset when he left than when BK left... For one, he didnt hide it, and at hte time it was well known that UC was just a stepping stone school. BK raised our hopes and told us to change that mentality, then used us as one, lol. I will say... UC is clearly a solid foundation for launching successful coaching careers: Urban Meyer (played at UC) John Harbaugh (asst coach) Rex Ryan (D.C.) Mike Tomlin (D.B. coach) Mark Dantonio (head coach) Brian Kelly (head coach) Joker Philips (WR/DB coach - does he count as a good head coach? lol) Jimbo Fisher (QB coach) Tim Murphy (head coach) Interesting fact, Rick Mentor (now DC at UK) hired a lot of the coaches above... Of course, UC is not nearly as notable as Miami(oh) and their "cradle of coaches" lol

I like it well enough...

This should do it.... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/LMR-Twin-Turbo-Corvette-AKA-Tejano-Blue-King-Streets-Winner-Oct-2012-/160908869349?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item2576ea7ee5#ht_3643wt_1064

I tried, but I don't speak Spanish in most cases...

You are dumb as a box of rocks, aren't you? It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. You are getting two points in history confused. In 2008, OSU wanted to back out of the 2012 game with UC. UC negotiated to move the game to Columbus instead of cancel. THAT is the OSU backing out I am referring to. That is a well documented fact not an opinion, dipshit. As stated 3 times now, THEN in 2011 UC asked OSU about moving the game. This is a separate and second incident. What is so hard about this to understand? Are you just to dense to get it?

Sad bearcat fan is sad...

silly japanese

:lolguy::lolguy: reputation added.

I found someone who said this, and I liked it... "This is NOT a political message, but rather a clarification to remind us all of the correct facts.Remember that on October 9, 2007, 11 months before our “economic crisis” occurred (that was actually created), the Dow hit it s highest point ever, closing at 14,164.53 and reaching 14,198.10 intra-day level 2 days later. Unemployment was steady at 4.7%. But things were already being put in place to create the havoc we’ve all been experiencing since then. And it all started, as this email explains, on January 3, 2007.I'm sending this to each of you regardless of your party preferences because I believe it is something you may not have considered.This tells the story, why Bush was so “bad” at the end of his term.Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, which was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTHRemember the day... January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!Unempl oyment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.So when someone tries to blame Bush. REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th"

Oh, we're talking fear lies? What about hte Obama campaign saying that employees of a coal mining company were told they had to support a Romney campaign event or they would lose their jobs? Only for those coal miners to make a video saying "how dare you say we were forced to be there?" I saw that 'reply' commercial and thought "boom, roasted!" Reminds me of that old woman in ohio where they used her interview against her in an ad, then she fired back with a commercial calling htem out...

I love this... http://acrossthestreetnet.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/national-debt-elmo-2012.png Here is the point I am making http://blogs.fayobserver.com/blog.fayobserver.com/media/blog-whatyouthink/DebtinTrillions.jpg Look where the bend in the knee is, it's 2007-2008 after the 110th Congress held so much majority that even bills that were veto'd by the president could be passed with an override thanks to a 2/3 majority...

I want to remind you, it is OBAMA that is doing all of this, it is/was Congress. Obama just helped by agreeing and not trying to block it. I would say the majority of the blame for our financial turmoil goes to the 110th and 111th Congress.

1) Its when you say "only" that I call it minimizing. I think for one entity to own 10% of our debt is large. I think $1.2 trillion is a huge amount of money, I thought it was closer to $2T which to you would still be small it seems. 2) Yes, Mitt uses fear tactics when saying borrow from China, but he is right on where/what we borrowed. He never suggested the entirety of our debt was with China, but that the largest lump of what the 111th congress borrowed (under Obama as president) is a large chunk of that. And when it comes to using fear tactics, are you going to suggest that the Obama campaign, and Obama himself, dont do the EXACT same thing... such as saying Mitt is going back to "the old policies that got us in trouble in the first place" Which is a stupid thing to say on so many levels. 3) Keep in mind, Mitt also suggested we should partner and work WITH China to help grow our economy not view them as the enemy... those were nearly his EXACT words in the last debate. 4) Yes, I also used a strong "inflammatory" suggestion to get attention. 5) another "bottom line".... Democrat ran govt (congress and with the help of pres) has played a significant roll in the US debt skyrocketing to astronomical levels Too much of this goes on the president when it is really congress that is doing this.

The bottom line is... its very very very hard to say, because economic policy is a very complex thing. There is nothing that could tell me, you, or anyone, what it would take to spark a hyperinflation event that would crash our financial system. And 2 different ecomonimists will tell you 2 different things. What I can tell you is suggesting that inserting $1T into the monetary base is a foolhardy notion, to believe it 'couldnt' cause a catastrophy. In the LEAST it 'could' cause for a serious inflation problem. Minimizing that one single county owns at little under 10% of hte US's total debt, is also silly. Not to mention the asinine suggestion of borrowing from someone eles to pay it off if needed. im not into fear mongering or afraid of China asking for all of its money back, because sthat is a silly suggestion they would just demand it back, without need. (such as if htey had a financial halt and needed the money, which is very unrealistic with their GDP growth) What I am suggesting is, holding such a large debt to them, to be repaid with interest HELPS their economy,and HURTS ours... The economic policy of borrowing from them is poor for our country IMO.

just like you cant find a number or percentage or the trigger, I could not either... because it is a VERY complex phenomena. The difference of the hit in hte 80s wasnt precluded by an already skyrocketing money supply/monetary base. Look at the 80s inflation, the monetary base rose, but not nearly at hte rate it has the past 5-6 years. We are on an exponential increase in money supply, along with exponential increases in US held debt... not to mentiona very volitile world financial market Look at hte money supply in the 80s... it wasnt flying out of control like it is now... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Adjusted-Monetary-Base.png here is a good article, it primarily is about how this whole problem is hte fault of the Fed... but the points are stil lthe same... http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-reasons-why-the-federal-reserve-is-at-the-heart-of-our-economic-problems Even he is suggesting that as the Fed issues all this money, it could be explosive if/as the money hits the open market. BTW, the Weimer hyperinflation event was 21% greece suffered a hyperinflation event in the 1940s, that was 18%, China's in the 40s was 14%, and Peru suffered hyperinflation in the 90s with an inflation rate that was 5%.... Several more can be found here: http://www.businessinsider.com/9-hyperinflation-horror-stories-2012-9?op=1 However, helping your argument that we wont hit hyperinflation, is this article I read... which suggests that it is hte deleveraging of debt that will prevent hyperinflation, he does make some good points... http://www.businessinsider.com/hyperinflation-myth-2012-10

Yea, they play 1 non-conference team a year.... and you can say the same about the SEC, they just get away with it because "our conference is soo super tought... But When you look at the top B12, P12, and even add in the other BCS guys ACC and BE... lots of them play 2 non-conference games against AQ schools... and moreso at least play an FBS instead of an FCS I just grabbed Oklahoma because they popped in my head as a traditional top P12 school... Look back from 2005 to present and they play either 1 or 2 AQ school, and then 2 or 1 FBS school.... Look across the other conferences and you will see they do the same. Poor brOhio state has the stigma historically of playing more FCS and maybe a bottom FBS school.... Im just saying what I hear... There is no way you have not heard this about OSU before...

Basically, if you dont think a sudden addition of $1TRILLION dollars to the US money supply could spark hyperinflation and crush the economy, you are absolutely on another planet. Do you really think if it was that simple, and a "small burden that people would get over" WE would hold foreign debts that large???? The Fed has a hard time swallowing an increase of money supply in the high millions/low billions... yet alone a TRILLION!

ha! Are you really that dense? After he absolutely asinine things you said, that is funny. First, lets talk how the fed increasing the money supply "printing money" (not actually printing) causes inflation, and what that means.... The fed will increase the money supply traditionally by buying bonds, and therefore the demand for bonds increases, raising their prices and lowering their interest rates. As the interest rate drops, banks find them less valuable and sell them to the fed, for actually money, dollar bills yo. Now all that money is in excess reverves, which does not earn interest. Banks dont like this so they lower interest rates to attact new borrowers. Lower interest rates adds incentive for companys to invest in new capital, as well as encouraging consumption by the average person for things like cars, new homes, improvement projects (anything people take loans out for). In short investment and consumption rise, i.e. Aggreate demand is rising. Further, since interest rates are lowering as well as bonds, so foreign investors do not invest and the dollar depreciates. Weaker dolalr makes exports attractive, further increasing aggregate demand. This makes prices rise on products produced in the US to keep up with demand. At first, as the prices start rising people 'buy now save less'under the expectation that it will just get more expensive leading to further consumption. The companies increase their invesments now to meet the rising demand expectations. Since prices are going up, workers want more money via raises to beat inflation. Companies must also deal with higher costs from imported materials/goods since hte dollar is worth less. Now the aggregate supply declines as companies begin to struggle covering the rising cost to do business. And so begins the doom and gloom inflationary spriral.... Goods get more and more and more expensive, and businesses struggle more and more and more to make ends meet... All from an initial fixed increase in monetary supply. For further clarification see: Weimar-style runaway inflation Here's a good way to see the "spiral" graphically... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Vicious_circle_in_macroeconomics.svg/500px-Vicious_circle_in_macroeconomics.svg.png Okay so that's "basic" inflation, but you said "hey Im not talking about increasing monetary supply, im talking about paying our foreign debt" Lets talk about what that means. I will focus on just paying off foreign debt. Foreign investors (and US) have loaned money to the USG on the basis of being repaid with interest. So lets say it's just $1T we owe China (I thought it was more, but thats subjective at this point). The Chinese investors will look for a way to get rid of the liquid money we give them. They will use that money to buy investment assests of other kinds from other countries; things like corporate bonds, stocks, commodities (i.e. goods and services, I am sure many in the US economy). What does that mean? liquid money begins to hit the US economy just like in the first example. You go into the same loop, inflation spirals. Going back to inflation rate... The current monetary base is $2.6T If you 'payoff our debt' it is hte monetary base that would increase by 40% very quickly http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BASE_Max_630_378.png So you are increasing inflation of MB by almost double and 'overall' inflation in money supply by 11%... that would DEFINITELY be more than enough to turn into runaway inflation, I am sure most economists would agree. This number starts to increase, via the explanation above... its hyperinflation at work. Its not 11% and thats it, it just goes up and up, "spiraling out of control" On the definition of hyperinflation: Basically put: Hyperinflation is the result of a continuing rapid increase in the amount of money that is not supported by a corresponding growth in supply (goods and services).

PS, I am we'll aware they are not actually printing dollars... Careful trying to insult someone who may be more intelligent than you... But then again that could just be my right leaning ego.