BCreed1

Truth

LINK

5. Alabama (7): Saturday's early slate had Alabama in the spotlight in a tricky road spot at Mississippi State, which entered the weekend at No. 16. What voters tuned in and found was yet another runaway win for the Crimson Tide, who have put up 45+ points in every game and are beating opponents by 28.8 points per game. This is a team that's building a case for No. 1 consideration, and that debate will be the backdrop for next week's showdown with Georgia.

1. Texas (Last week — 1): The Longhorns were off in Week 5 and will be back in action against rival Oklahoma next Saturday.

2. Georgia (2): Though their ranking is not expected to change, the anticipation for next week's meeting with Alabama was only heightened after another dominant defensive performance in a 38-14 win against Vanderbilt. The Bulldogs are allowing just 14.7 points per game in SEC play through three games after bottling up Blaze Berlowitz, but the challenge changes when staring down Keelon Russell and the Crimson Tide in Tuscaloosa next weekend.

9. Ole Miss (9): The Rebels were off in Week 5 and will be back in action next week at Vanderbilt. Their profile took a hit with Florida's loss at Missouri, but the head-to-head win against LSU could prevent any major changes.

10. LSU (11): We are not projecting much of a rankings impact from LSU's lopsided win against in-state FCS foe McNeese.

13. Florida (8): While it will be difficult for Florida fans to justify a drop below the Ole Miss team that the Gators just beat, we are projecting that voters will use the Oregon-Mississippi State-Tennessee range as the floor for a move down. The strength of the Ole Miss win still carries plenty of weight, but the poor performance at Missouri and a common opponent with Tennessee (close win against Auburn) point to a shared tier in that range of the SEC.

14. Mississippi State (16): It does seem confusing that a team could give up 56 points at home and not move in the rankings, but the strength of Mississippi State's resume and the growing respect for Alabama could leave voters keeping the Bulldogs in this range on their ballots. With head-to-head wins against Missouri and Minnesota, this is a team that has already logged multiple quality power conference victories, and the loss to the Bulldogs included myriad injury issues, the most notable of which was star quarterback Kamario Taylor.

15. Missouri (25): A total of 39 voters did not even have Missouri on their ballots last week, so it's fair to assume that after beating Florida, we are going to see quite the jump in the rankings. Not only are those voters who had Missouri unranked likely to change their tune, but the boldest Tigers backers (voters who had Missouri already inside the top 20) will only be further entrenched in their view of this being one of the top teams in the country. Last week's head-to-head loss to Mississippi State makes for an easy pairing on a ballot, so while the rankings may be varied across all the voters, we are projecting a consensus landing spot in the mid-teens.

17. Tennessee (17): While freshman quarterback Faizon Brandon was benched in Saturday's win against Auburn, running back Desean Bishop was there to carry the load with a career day, rolling up 220 rushing yards and three touchdowns on 34 carries. The week ahead will bring questions about the outlook for Josh Huepel's quarterback room, but voters will take the bounce-back win as a good sign after last week's loss to Texas.

24. Kentucky (24): A road win at South Carolina provided plenty of fodder on the Gamecocks' side of things with questions about the future of Shane Beamer, but in the Bluegrass State it's nothing but celebration for where they are with first-year head coach Will Stein. The comeback and two-point walk-off provided enough thrills to keep the Wildcats inside the top 25 with teams like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Duke and Minnesota likely getting closer to the cut line.

Why do a small minority of our fans go completely stupid like this.

Yeah. He was clearly off for whatever reason, but the defense could not help him out enough. n your starting RB was out.

I think it's simply depth. Staff is legit.

quote:

---

He’s carving up shitters. Yall forget Ole Miss steamrolled Taylor in the Egg bowl. Not enough around him.

---

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:


I love posts like this.

3 TDs to 5 INTs... And sacked 7 times. 5 by LaLa tech.


That's a lot of drama and money to have those results.

I did not see UF. Will see if I can find it.

Your defense is ranked like 113th in the nation after week one. There QB flattened your "All American" DL.

quote:

---

All I wanted was for you to tell us why Free Markets are a bad thing in your eyes. That’s it.

---

I personally don't think it is as advertised.

quote:

---

Maybe they agree and maybe they don’t.

---

In general I do agree. I would like to hear more however.

quote:

---

It’s too conspiratorial

---

Interesting. What part? Classic free-trade models assume:

-roughly reciprocal openness,
-private firms that cannot be conscripted by a party,
-adjustment that is national and quick,
-rules that are enforced.

The U.S.–China arrangement violated all four.

quote:

---

and I am not a fan of government intervention which your position will require.

---

Once again, we have always had Gov interference. Always. The only question is why.

quote:

---

Which nations are those that can be reliably counted on now and into the future? Argentina and Venezuela for now… Japan. Then who? Maybe South Korea and Israel? What does that do to our import and export market? How does that impact domestic jobs? Take our Ag industry which does a ton of business overseas and supports millions of jobs across the nation. Restricting trade will do extreme damage to it and the families that are supported by it. My family being one of those not all that long ago.

---

Maybe back up in history and read what could be considered your own words from the people your model destroyed. 2 sides to every coin. Which is why I stated that on paper it's great. in practice, not so much.

Free trade created identifiable winners and losers. The winners often received diffuse benefits through lower prices, while the losers could suffer concentrated losses—lost factories, lost careers, lower wages, and devastated communities. That's an economic redistribution just as surely as protectionism is. The legitimate debate is whether the aggregate benefits justify those concentrated costs, not whether redistribution occurred.

One of those is that we transferred wealth to places like China while placing people on welfare here.

Once more, 2 sides to a coin.

This will be a 2 part response

quote:

---

It's 100% accurate.

---

Not even close.

quote:

---

That's because it's a shitty definition. And you should be able to tell that it's a shitty definition just based on the fact that—as you pointed out—it literally doesn't exclude anyone. Definitions are supposed to clarify ontology by pointing out distinguishing characteristics. A definition that ends up proposing literally no distinguishing characteristics is worthless.

---

It is the very definition, sorry it does not agree with your "demand" that it only applies to those you deem unworthy of the title "Conservative".

quote:

---

An actual conservative isn't looking for a party to "have their backs." That's a classic populist ideal. A conservative is looking for a party that will advance conservative agendas based on conservative principles, even if those ideals in any given application are inconvenient to them personally. A populist doesn't want that at all. A populist wants the government to manipulate circumstances to their liking regardless of principles.

---

- yes. Conservative do expect that the federal gov and state gov have their backs. As in, stop undoing our conservative agendas by compromising them away. You attempt to label "have their backs" as anything other than that is extremely wrong. You just stated you want the gov to act in a manner that to give YOU what you think is needed for the nation even if it hurts you personally. Now you are a populist.

- We have already established what a populist is. Even in that above paragraph, you words don't align with it.

- The rest of what you wrote is clearly contradictory. It's a total misuse of the term populist.

- Your conceptual contradiction: A person can be both conservative and populist while holding very strong principles. Likewise, a conservative can be completely transactional and self-interested without being a populist. So the paragraph isn't describing conservatism versus populism—it is incorrectly substituting principled politics versus transactional politics for the actual distinction between conservatism and populism.

quote:

---

You can keep repeating it, but that won't make it true.

---

But it is. You yourself want the federal gov to continue policies that were implemented by a socialist democrat, FDR. That would be free trade. You want that because it's what you feel is best for you and the nation.

quote:

---

A conservative expects the government to feed itself and grow beyond its legitimate boundaries and tyrannize citizens every chance it gets. That's exactly why a conservative—an actual conservative—believes in keeping the government as small as possible and only responsible for a few legitimate functions, and an actual conservative expects to have to watch it like a hawk and trim it back continually to keep that all from happening.

---

Your flaw in your argument starts on an incorrect assumption. It is a false opposition between conservatism and conservative populism.

A conservative populist can absolutely have the same fundamental goals as a "traditional" conservative: limited government, constitutional government, individual liberty, property rights, fiscal restraint, and government confined to its legitimate functions.

The fact that a conservative populist is angry at an establishment that has violated those principles doesn't make him less conservative. In fact, an argument can be that the political establishment has abandoned conservative principles and that ordinary citizens need to take their government back.

You got 2 down votes for saying that our trade needs to be where nations not aligned with our way of life and constitution.

Think about that.