Balsy

Nice Post on all around a-zip! I pulled this part out to talk about. Unfortunately I feel the decision to play the Boca Raton bowl boiled down to two things: Florida, and $. The payout for the Boca Raton bowl was like $300,000 more (assuming the payout structures from last year are the same) and we have a significant amount of seniors and other players from Florida. I think the decision boiled down to those two things, and I'm not sure I can disagree with it...thought we would have stood a better chance in Mobile.

Annnnd Liberal is a label you conservatives use to describe anyone who has a more moderate, less conservative, view of yours. But no you missed my point. Bigotry, Homophobia, xenophobia are actual things, that have actual definitions. If your actions meet the criteria for the definition, you are...by definition...can be described as acting as such. There's a difference I don't care to explain, because you don't care. So I don't care to waste my time.

I'm confused. Did we win the MAC East and extend our season by two games? It seems some here would rather not extend the season two-games then to extend the season and lose them. He should get a 3-year extension. But now that we've "arrived" anything less then a .500 season is unacceptable, and a three-year extension (4-years) should include 2-3 more bowl appearances). Anything less is unacceptable. Losing to Kent is unacceptable.

Kreed, people claim to be open minded all the time. It doesn't mean anything. How people say things tips the hat to where they stand on being open minded and biases they hold. People don't have to make an overtly political statement for someone to figure it out. And, of course, this equally applies to me as well.

These announcers are also unbearable. "End of the first quarter...and have to say, this is good for Akron to only be down a touchdown"

I have now seen two unnecessary roughness personal fouls on FAU that have gone uncalled. FAU players grabbing Kato by the head after the play and shoving it into the ground. FAU seems like a bunch of punks.

Same. I was hoping we woulda goten 5 and then go for it.

Ugh.

Go Zips!! Excellent stop! MISSED FIELD GOAL! Now get a long sustained drive going and get the defense some rest!

ESPN just basically gave FAU on screen fellatio.

Go Zips!

I actually got a chuckle out of that It was not me. I didn't even realize the thing existed. Unfortunately I haven't written anything other than ZNO posts in sometime.

I've seen very little commentary from you, over the many conversations on this forum, that would lead me to think you're as open minded as you claim to be.

No, I did not say thoughts. I said Political Ideology which is defined as "a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order." This can be part of the problem, because identifying with a political ideology is similar to identifying with a political party...rather than a rational consideration of facts. People will distort their understanding of reality; bend, distort or outright deny observational facts about reality if they don't support their political ideology. Believing one thing is right, in every situation, all the time is absurd. Yet people confirm to these ideologies as if they do exist. It's quite irrational.

Not sure why I'm even responding to this; based on your comments, you live in a completely different universe than I do. Response in order of numbers. (1) You could make that arguement on Obama's election to pal. "Change" "Hope" "Yes We Can" were all populist slogans used by Obama, who won. Obama unfortunately didn't bring much change. One of the very few things he did do was maintaining Net Neutrality which he was originally against maintaining until he was for it because of the outpouring of outrage from the public. Trump will also not bring the populist change; he's as much in bed with the swamp as any politician before him. This is why we have to change the system; get money out of politics. (2) This piece here is why the swamp exists in the first place. Donald Trump is far from a master chess player, he's not even a decent tic-tac-toe player. For pete's sake the guy went on for months about how he had the "largest crowd ever" at his inauguration which was verifiably false. All you need to do is look at his cabinet to see the clear conflicts of interest to know that he isn't draining the swamp...he is the swamp. Look no further than Betsy DeVos who's family owns private charter-schools who has been lobbying the government for decades to privatize education (which they would directly financially benefit from); she was put in charge of the department which would make policy that would directly financially benefit her family. That is the very definition of the swamp friend. And look I'm objective here; I was a huge critic of Obama's coziness with corporate lobbyists, as I also was with Hillary Clinton (whom I did not support to be president). But don't be stupid. Trump isn't one iota better...in most ways his corruption is far worse. (3) No, you couldn't misunderstand the corupption in this country more. The swamp wants get rid of Net Neutrality. It's easy to understand: the swamp (the corruption machine) stands to make $$$$$ by getting rid of Net Neutrality. Allowing the ISPs to control speed of content gives them the leg up in negotiations with content creators (Netflix, Slings and Hulu's of the world), as well as the ability to force consumers to buy more expensive packages to access content they do on a regular basis now. Why allow people to have access to facebook on a basic package, when you can create a new super-delux package that includes facebook!? All about the $$$$$$$$. The swamp lobbies, places politicians in positions to support it's position, get's people who are sympathetic to their cause in charge of the agencies responsible for regulating/watching said industries. THAT is the swamp dude. I don't understand how you don't get that. But you're views are more radical then I thought. I don't think you have a firm foot in reality.

Not identifying yourself with a political party doesn't mean that you don't prescribe to a political ideology; which is equally the problem. The business of absolutism is part of the problem.

Anyone wanna play the major upset? Go Zips!

Yes, the corruption is unreal, there I agree with you. I disagree though. The problem derives from money in politics. So long as it is legal to bribe politicians in the form of campaign contributions, the government will be nothing but a haven for corruption. Who benefits from a two-party system? Those that lobby both sides of it to get what they want. There earnestly was very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the types of people giving them money. They polarize the public on issues that truly at the end of the day don't matter; while both sides are bought out on the issues that die in the dark. But this is why I'm so outspoken in overturning Net Neutrality. Thats the ONE thing we do have; and the inspiration to overturn Net Neutrality is being spear-headed by the company who's the second largest campaign contributor/lobbying entity in the country, who has a former CEO on the FCC board making the recommendations. It's clear as day getting Rid of Net Neutrality IS THE SWAMP. Yet the slogan "drain the swamp" is suddenly silent when we're actually talking about the swamp rigging the system for itself, and getting exactly what it wants. Money in politics is what creates the two party system. Both parties are lobbied and paid by pretty much the same companies. Obama appointed Ajit Pai (former Verizon CEO) to the FCC...Verizon being a large donor. Trump gets elected, Verizon "donates" $2million to the inauguration. Trump keeps Ajit Pai as FCC chairman. Verizon (and the rest of the swamp) continues to get what the Swamp wants regardless of who's in power. I had hope Trump would be a man of his word and drain the swamp. He hasn't. Frankly, he's continued the status-quo of the swamp. And the Swamp wants to get rid of Net Neutrality. Yes and most who make this statement are guilty of the thing they criticize other people of doing.

And I wish you guys could just be honest. You throw a stat around like that without context. You know as well as I do that the "average" of the eight years of the previous president's presidency was dragged down by the outlier of the first few quarters where the economy shrunk as a direct result of the economic crash during the previous presidents presidency. There was a point during Obama's presidency where each quarter it grew by 4-6%. For almost a year.

Really? It's proven? That's a pretty high standard of evidence. Instances where government has made something bad sure. But every time it's involved with? Honestly that's a pretty narrow world view. Because I can think of tons of times where government not being involved has led to huge problems...look no further than the 2008 financial crisis...but others as well. Because without government protection many time it's the public that must shoulder the cost. Many of the things listed below, including the 2008 financial crisis, are an example of when gains are privatized and the risk is socialized. -Mine Run-off poisoning the waterways. -Dumping whatever chemicals you want into waterways, which eventually catch on fire -Wide spread use of Chemical sprays that nearly wipe out an American Icon the Bold Eagle -Ammonium Nitrate Storage Facility Blows up -Lake Peigneur, popular fresh-water lake destroyed And the list goes on...and on...and on. There are many other instances in which regulation works fine: -The entire plane industry is heavily regulated, and has been heavily revolutionized by publicly funded safety efforts through NASA/FAA research to solve problems like that seen by Delta-191 that killed 134 people. Most FAA regulations are reactionary (like the establishment of smoke detectors and such) but there are far fewer fatal plane incidents in the US today then in the past. To simply say "history has proven that government ruins most things it gets involved with" is categorically false. -Lead (a nervous toxin); It's universal medical consensus today that there is no safe levels of lead in the bloodstream of children. Banning of lead in commercial products and gasoline instantly reduced the exposure of children to lead. So to say EVERY time the government is involved with something is bad, is frankly ignorant and lazy. Is too much government regulation a bad thing? Yes. Is too little government regulation a bad thing? Yes. A functioning society requires a healthy discussion, debate and approach to finding the "right" balance. And the "right" balance isn't always the same.

Dude, it doesn't reaffirm a thing you believe. It's "overreach" to maintain the status-quo? Dude that's just idiotic. Corporations found a loop hole to exploit, and the government closed it to maintain the status-quo. Never thought you'd be on the side of lawyers, but cool w/e. Yeah the internet has pretty much been regulated as Neutral over the time it grew the most. You are for Net Neutrality and are too stubborn to accept it because your belief in an agenda is more important than reality. The internet had the most successful growth and became what we know it to be today BECAUSE there was the protection keeping it Neutral. The government is in charge of making rules...that's why it exists. That's why the constitution exists.

In 2014: In 2017:

It is not government overreach. As other members have pointed out before, NN was put into place to keep the internet the way it had been for the previous 20 years. Corporations used the courts to challenge the FCC that it could not prevent corporations from throttling customer service. That decision WAS MADE IN 2015, which thus lead to the reclassification of the internet as a public utility. Yes the internet was doing just fine because for 20 years companies hadn't been allowed to do what they are now allowed to do. NN was the guarantee that the internet would stay status-quo. I understand there's a bit of nuance to this, but NN IS NOT overreach, I'm sorry you are absolutely wrong on that. In the post below I've posted Net Neutrality explained in 2014, and in 2017. It clearly points out in 2014: it was the FCC that was moving to get rid of the NN provisions that had existed for 20+ years of the internet to "fix" the internet. So, honestly, if you are making the argument that there was nothing wrong with the internet prior to 2015 and the growth seen is was a positive thing over the decades prior to 2015 without government intervention, you are in favor of Net Neutrality. History Lesson: -> Prior to 2014, the internet was classified under the telecommunications act of 1996 which kept companies from selectively speeding up, or slowing down specific content...making the internet Neutral. -> In 2014 corporations like Verizon and Comcast challenged this classification under the telecommunications act of 1996, and won, therefore changing the "Neutral" state of the internet, and opening to the selective speeding up/slowing down of content by ISPs. -> In 2015 the internet is reclassified as a public utility under Title II, which kept it as the Neutral state it had been in for the past 20 years. Again, if you think the internet was just fine prior to 2015 when the decision was made to move it from Title I to Title II classification, you are in favor of Net Neutrality. The government wasn't overreaching, it was maintaining the status-quo. The overreach was by corporations who have a vested interest in creating tiered internet fast lanes. But I cannot emphasize this enough: If you are in favor of the way the internet was for the decades prior to 2015; YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF NET NEUTRALITY. Thanks for reading.

Is it three games? My bad. Go Zips bring home three wins!

Go Zips bring home two wins!