G27

Nice straw man. I never said it might not be necessary under some circumstances, but we have the ability to cause change that they did not - the voting booth. Besides that, they didn't WANT to take up arms against the crown, they simply felt they had no other choice. Those who want a revolution (a la 1775 and following) are simply dreaming of being Rambo, ignoring the horrors of what it would really be like.

They're living in a fantasy land.

Just just countering by saying that people talking about a team doesn't make them 'relevant'. Nor does popularity - ND obviously has it's share of fans - but relevance is about competing, not just having a large fan base. Unless something radical changes in the future, ND will continue to be a team that is popular because of what they did 20+ years ago - hardly relevant on the national scene. I'm a college football freak - I'll chat on about just about any college football team - does that mean I have the power of relevance just by typing? Wow, I should sell my services. If that's really how you define 'relevance', then it shows just how far ND has fallen in the last few decades. Had Army or OM been relevant in the last 50 years, that discussion might exist. Give ND another 20+ years of irrelevance and people will simply shake their heads and smile when ND fans post about how they're still an important part of the CFB scene. But it's good you still stick by them after all these years of futility. Wish more teams had as devoted fans.

No, I get your point, but how long must wait for ND to become relevant again? It's been 20+ years... I guess one can continue to hang on to the dream, but to act as if they're relevant right now it simply wishing. And I like the 'colossal waste of my time' bit - four posts! Though in fairness, trying to convince people that ND matters is a fruitless effort nowadays.

What's ND's winning percentage over the last two decades? Not seven or even ten years, but 20? How about this - what do the four teams you mentioned have that ND doesn't have in the last 20+ years? A National Championship. USC has two Alabama has three LSU has two Oklahoma has one LOL, Memphis has entered into the discussion. Of course, comparing ND to Memphis is valid - they have the same relevance wrt championship football over the last two decades, but come on - you really are reaching here...

They are. I talk about whatever is brought up - just because someone mentions a team in the discussion doesn't make them relevant in CFB. But keep grasping at straws. haha

Yah, guess you have hang your hat on something if you're an Irish fan, considering they've been irrelevant longer than any of their players have been alive...

Great point - everyone wants some government, the arguments arise over how much is too much. The ideological inflexibility I see from so many (from all across the political spectrum) seems to be higher now than ever before, and it's not helping anything.

I've shot many thousands of rounds of BB steel-cased ammo through my AR with zero issues whatsoever.

Absolutely - he's my favorite character on the show.

"Everyone sounds like Meryl Streep with a gun to their head."

Big fan of the Sub2ooo, personally. It's a tack driver.

Video interview of shooter: [media=] [/media]

Keep calm and carry on. I'm a bit of an anglophile myself, thought the piece was well done.

35,073 unread emails?

No ink or piercings here, but your knife rack in the first pic is awesome.

It's a classic, he had a bunch of good ones over the years. [media=] [/media]

I'm sure you can find more if you're really interested, but he accomplished quite a few of the very things most here claim we need as a country in his tiome as Governor of NM: Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget Left New Mexico with a budget surplus Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone Created more than 20,000 new jobs First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature More here: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues And for the record, I have no idea if I'll vote for him or not - just saying, he's certainly a lot closer to most of the expressed views here than Romney, though he has 'no chance'.

No need to be offended, if you are, but if the masses were voting for someone else, would you lead and vote for Romney or follow and vote for whoever the masses were voting for? You call it pragmatism, that's fine. But f you aren't voting for who you think is best, but rather who the masses are going to vote for, then I call it something else. No biggie. I think those people are the same as the above. I'm not a 'Paul bot' - I've never voted for him in an election and doubt that will start anytime soon, though I've not decided yet. I will say that anyone who votes for someone other than who they think is best for the job because of pragmatism, herd-mentality - whatever you want to call it - isn't helping. Certainly no better than someone voting for a person they believe is the best person for the job. This whole discussion is happening because some folks are so scared of Obama (there's always something to be scared of if you listen tot he republicans - every single election is 'the most important ever') winning the election they're taking shots at people who refuse to vote for Romney. I'm just tired of seeing folks take shots at those who wish to cast their vote for who they actually believe is the best person for the job instead of falling in line with what the masses are predicted to do. But whatever, it's really no big deal - vote for whoever you want. Those who wish can continue to bash the people who are voting from their hearts, and if Obama wins again this fall, I'm sure the blame will be placed squarely the independent voters. Rinse and repeat, same as it ever was.

I'm not calling those voting for Romney sheeple, as long as they believe he's the best man for the job. If they're voting for him because 'no one else can win', then they're followers, so the term fits. I don't find it insulting, we're all sheep in some aspect of our lives. Well, I'm not really concerned with winning anyone's respect, I'm just tired of folks acting like those of us who are willing to vote for who we believe in instead of following the masses are somehow the problem.

Oh, I don't think anything will change - if the fearful party voters haven't noticed the last few decades they're not going to wake up now. I just think it's ludicrous to blame people who don't line up with the party sheeple as the the problem. Which has happened over and over in this thread. But I don't care, que sera sera.

Definitely. Agree 100%. Just wish he could've been taken out before he killed anyone else.

Yup, me too. I won't vote for Romney any more than I'll vote for Obama. Every election is the same, it's "panic time" because "this is the most important election ever", and everyone lines up to vote down the party line - not because they believe in the candidate, but because the fear-mongering from their own party actually worked. Vote for whoever you want, but realize that continuing to vote for the status quo (and don't kid yourself, Romney is the status quo, just like Obama) is why we're where we are today. But I'm sure many here will utilize pretzel logic to blame everyone but themselves for the situtiation we're in.

Yup - keep siding with the 'sheeple' and nothing can change.