something we can all agree on
 

osama bin laden is the biggest douche bag in the universe

just what I thought.....you're all traitors

I'm not a fan of his either, but you should watch what you post. There are a few supporters of his that post on here regularly, and they may be offended by what you just posted.

A douche... yes
A big douche... again yes
The biggest... well now that's a tough call, after all there are so many contenders...;)

This thread is completely off base. I can think of much bigger douchebags than Osama...and I'll give you several...

1)Barry Bonds 5) Rafael Nadal
2)Jason Giambi 6) Ben Roethlisberger
3)Lance Berkman 7) Jeff Gordon
4)Derek Jeter 8) Bob Stoops

...and these are obviously only from the world of sports.

Hey what's wrong with Nadal???

lol, yeah you're right

*paints target on chest*

Nadal, I hate Nadal. He's cocky, annoying and flamboyant. He's so european it makes me gag. Thankfully, my boy Federer showed him what was up.

Leave Derek Jeter alone! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oh no you didn't!

I can think of one: George Herbert Walker Bush Jr.

You know the downward spiral American society is in? Guess what, those Visa commercials with Derek Jeter a couple years ago started it. Thats right, Derek Jeter is solely responsible for the collapse of American society.

George W. Bush-Fine American

Bob Stoops, complete piece of crap. He was voting Auburn outside of the top 20 in 2004, while Tuberville was voting Oklahoma top 5. Because of such things Oklahoma reached the game instead of the much better Auburn, and Oklahoma was brutally slaughtered and embarassed on national TV. Karma is a bitch.

Little Shrub is not a fine American, he sends young men to a war, while he dodged the draft for his generation's war.

Auburn would have lost too. USC was just that good. (Nevermind that I think they're pro.) Plus, Auburn had a chance to show the next year that they deserved to go and they got nowhere close.

So you have to be a veteran to send people into battle? We're gonna have a tough time in the future then. Auburn may very well have lost, but most sportwriters agreed Auburn would have fared better. The fact that we went on to play football the next year was a valid reason for keeping Auburn out of the game? Please. Plus, Oklahoma had a chance the next year as well, and obviously did nothing.

I thought men having butt sex was the cause of the collapse of American society.

I said Derek Jeter, didn't I?

but seriously, gross.

Auburn has itself to blame for scheduling teams like The Citadel. Texas could have even been in the mix for that one had they been able to score a single point on Oklahoma. Auburn's own choices for its out of conference schedule made far more of a difference than Stoops voting them down.

Stoops felt he belonged, and has on many occasions stated that he supports making the coach's vote public.

If we're talking Big XII coaching douches, you have to mention Leach, Franchione and Callahan as front runners.

I really don't think the schedule argument holds up. Especially considering that our non conference opponents are about the same as the bad teams in your conference. You're telling me you deserved to make it to the game by beating powerhouses like Bowling Green, Kansas, Baylor and Houston? Oklahoma beat only one really good team, that being Texas. Auburn however, beat 3 top 10 teams over the course of the season. Beating LSU, Tennessee(twice), UGA and Alabama is no joke. Not to mention we went on to beat Virginia Tech as well. So make that 4 top 10 teams.

Personally I think Auburn would have won the national championship against USC that year. They were the best team in college football period. Oklahoma was good that year, but not great. There defense had serious flaws in the secondary that USC exploited by throwing the ball deep. If you remember in the Texas game that year, Mack Brown went to an option style run offense instead of throwing the ball down field. He was trying to manage the clock too much.

USC, to me, is easily the most overrated three year stretch team in college football. The 3 straight national championship hype was complete bullshit, as LSU won it in 2003 (USC wasn't even in the game.) They won one, against a far lesser apponent, and then, even though the score was close, got their ass handed to them against Texas.


and I agree that non conference games really don't play that much into the equation. I mean look at last year. Texas' toughest opponent was Ohio State, a very good team.....but after that we didn't play anyone worth a crap.

Unfortunately, the way college football is set up, there will never be true parity within conferences. We can say the Pac 10 sucks and USC doesn't play anyone, but then ESPN will respond that Oregon is top 15 and Cal is top 15, and they completely ignore the underlying idea that perhaps oregon and cal are ranked that high because they simply don't play anyone of note either.

The bottom line is that OU had the better SOS that year. You can argue the particulars of the teams on the schedule, Auburn played Louisiana-Monroe, Mississippi State, The Citadel, Louisana Tech, a 5-6 Arkansas, and a 2-9 Kentucky. We could then talk about how there were only 2 ranked teams on that schedule.

Except for 3 games against teams that finished outside the top 10, Auburn had a pretty easy schedule that year.

As opposed to an Oklahoma team who played Texas, period. A conference title game against Colorado? HAH. Auburn should have had the chance, and you know it. Maybe we'll get some sort of a rematch this year.

OU lost their last two games of the season that year too.......completely throwing out the notion that its better to lost early than late.

True, but I do thing the PAC 10 is overrated. #6 Oregon played in the Holiday this year against Oklahoma and pretty much got embarassed. The score didn't show it 17-7 I think, but I watched the whole game and it was a joke.

Wrong year.

You're thinking 2003 -- losses to K-State and LSU. Auburn didn't have a good season in 2003, going 7-5. For the 2004 season, OU was undefeated going into the game with USC. Auburn wasn't even in contention for its own conference in '03.

No, I'm sayin just that, that the Pac 10 is overrated. The rankings within conferences can often be inflated by one team being ranked too high preseason. For example, say Minnesota is ranked 10th preseason, and Michigan is 7th or something. Michigan could beat Minnesota in the second game of the year, move up to about 4th, and already be in the running for the BCS going on nothing but preseason rankings. I think ranking non-traditional teams highly is dangerous, like in the Minnesota example. The AP will think Oregon is loaded on paper and put them at 6th, and when USC destroys them, it gives wrongful legitimacy to USC. Hell these things can go back several years...If Cal goes 11-1 against shitty competition one year, it may be top 5 the next year. This is when it hurts other teams, as it may take that Cal team 2 losses before they even drop out of the top 10, meanwhile a team like AU, or WVU, or _______ started the season at 24th, and is having to beat top 10 teams simply to move up into the top 15. This is precisely what happened with Auburn.

Yeah you are right.

The dude that went after the A-Team is a bigger douche bag.

Usually you can tell a douchebag by their statements... things like "I hate America," or "George Bush hates black people," or "lets go to the shore."

... or say "Mission Accomplished", or "Bring it On"?

You just jump at any chance to get in a dig, don't you?

What we seem to have proven here is that it isn't likely that we can all agree on anything.

As of July 14th, 2006 at 9:43 EST there are 26 members of the NPC.


There. We can all agree on that. (Unless someone kicks the bucket in the next 30 seconds.)

After his last post I couldn't resist anymote :p

I was describing douchebags. George W. is not one of those. He may be an asshole, but he's our asshole, and personally, I'm proud of him.

What's so bad about the jersey shore? Don't have a fondness for mullets, Z28's, gold chains and tribal tattoos I see.

I don't understand the whole culture surrounding GW Bush. Personally I feel he is just a "average" president. I don't get how some people think he is the greatest president we've ever had. I know some people who group him with Washington and Lincoln, while others group him with Hitler and Satan. In my view he is far the greatest, but also far from the worst. Mediocre.

Haha, yeah, the Jersey Shore makes me cringe. You're right about Bush I think. I honestly don't know many who think he's a great president. I think he's a great person, and that he is a bold leader. I think it will take time to see what his legacy is. However, while his policy is bold, I think he should be even more so. I want to see a tough president, one who goes after the press, and doesn't let them simply ridicule the office. Somebody needs to slap the media around, knock them off their high horse of "doing service to the public." They are corporate goons, like the oil men they so often associate with Bush. Bush also needs to play Hardball in Congress, but the lack of Republican power in the Senate and House is not his fault. I mean, seriously, does Frist or Hastert scare anyone? You think Nancy Pelosi could run her mouth like she does when Newt was Speaker? No way. She would be shunned, backroom dealt, and made to look like a fool in the public arena. I think Bush is a decent president, one who has faced a great deal of problems, and dealt with them in a manner he saw fit. May work, may not, but his leadership in times of crisis is fairly good. He's no Reagan, but this is a different world we live in. Fear not Republicans, power and authority is on the way, via Mitt Romney. Anyone else see him talking about the Big Dig yesterday? Some reporter asked him if he wanted the resignation of the person overseeing the project and Romney said something along the lines of "No I don't want his resignation, I want termination." Romney 08

I'm really looking forward to the primary's myself. I'm still not sure about Romney, but McCain and Guiliani might give him some problems just on name recognition alone. I still want to see if the Dems are going to run Clinton for president or not. If they do, they might as well forfeit the elections.

I'm excited too. However, McCain and Guiliani are both poor choices in my opinion. McCain is so middle of the road it disgusts me. Guiliani I think is a good leader, but I question whether he would be a great leader in peace time or in times without crisis. I think the best candidates for the republicans are George Allen and Romney, although Romney is a much more ideal politician and a powerful speaker. For the Dems, I'm sure Hillary will be in the mix, but she can't win. I think Edwards is still their best shot, although him going to bat for Kerry in 04 absolutely ruined what he had going. He was the unifying candidate, a southern gentleman who didn't go negative until Kerry picked him up. I think the majority of the advantage for the Dems will come in 06, when they may pick up the Senate, but I think it'll fizzle before 08. The democrats still fail to initiate any type of agenda, other than destroying what the GOP wants to achieve. But what do you expect when you put someone like Howard Dean in charge of your party.

Besides his awkwardness over being Mormon and the shitshow that spawns every time he has to talk about it, Romney is also a carpetbagging douche on the same level as Hilary Clinton.