Jump to content

Jhawkmvp

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jhawkmvp

  1. The merits of Rice or Kansas or West Tennessee Tech to other conferences should be in the realignment thread.  This thread is for how hopeless Kansas FB currently is and how it might, maybe, possibly be turned around some time in the near or distant future by Les Miles, Bo Pelini, or a yet to be born coach.

     

  2. Quote

    Kelly, who is Trump's current chief of staff, told Cohn afterward, according to notes Cohn made of the exchange: "If that was me, I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times."

    Kelly is definitely getting fired by tweet from Mar a Lago.

  3. 27 minutes ago, TornACL said:

    I don't understand how fans of a regime that constantly talks shit, can be so aggrieved when the same regime is publicly rebuked. 

    Trumpkin - Hey now, I said fuck your feelings. Not fuck MY feelings.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 2
  4. 9 hours ago, Longboard Horn said:

    That hot seat just became even hotter for David Beaty. How many more games til he's fired? @Jhawk @Jhawkmvp y'all know?

    Probably he will get the rest of the OOC and first B12 game as Jhawk said. If he is 0-4 he should be fired, then again I thought he should have been canned after last season was nearly as bad as his 0-12 first year. I figured if we lost this game there is a really good chance we go 0-12 again. I had no expectations the first 2 seasons as we were in a scholarship hole and he was a reach as a head man, seemed like a nice guy, and would need some time to grow into the job. Last year we should have taken a step forward and it was a terrible. Nothing looked like it should on a team that is bad, but improving. This year will be as bad as last year, and maybe worse than the 0-12 first year. 

    We should have kept Mangino and sent him to anger counseling like most schools would have done with a successful coach and closely monitored his behavior after; however, Mangino was supposedly a giant asshole to nearly everyone in the AD. When you are an asshole you get no breaks. Nobody wants to do you any favors.  Our AD at the time hated Mangino, so he used the issue to get rid of him. Things have thawed between KU and Mangino lately. The people who got rid of him are all gone now. I doubt they would rehire him as HC, but, I'd love to bring him on as a consultant to the next coach. He knows how to do well at KU.

  5. On 7/24/2018 at 5:30 AM, Jhawk said:

    Here are my thoughts:

    0-1 - Fired immediately

    1-3 - Let's see how @baylor goes

    1-4 with baylor boat racing us - Fired.

    1-4 in a close game where we have a chance to win - Probably sees week 5.

    From there on, I think it will basically be week to week with him being fired in week 9-10 as is customary with a coach that is going to be fired.  Any given week where we look completely lost on the field (hint: every week) will be grounds for termination.  We all know it is when, not if.  The longer we can hold onto him the better though.  We have him now so no reason to offload him as this season is already a waste.  Might as well make it look like you're going to get 4 years minimum to be a coach here.

    I hope they let him coach the entire season, or late into the season, so he completely owns the stinky turd he created. The only way I'd prefer to see him fired early in the year is if they want to evaluate certain coaches on the current staff with more responsibility for a few games. But in the end, I'll trust Long to fire him when he deems it best for the program going forward.

    I think AD Long will get this turned around and make us competitive again. I can't wait for this season to be over to see who he can convince to take the job. I have a feeling we will pay really well (4M+), so somebody solid should bite. 

  6. 7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    He did sort of brag that a C student could become president. He also claimed it was God's will that he should become president, and that God spoke to him, telling him things like he should invade Iraq. 

    God is funny that way. He almost 99% of the time wants you to do what you already wanted to do anyway.

    • Like 2
  7. Everyone kills it at Texas when you guys are good, and often when you are not.  Texas is a legendary FB program, is a great university, and located in a fun place. It pretty much recruits itself.  But feel free to pick him up when he gets canned.

  8. You do not want Beaty.  He has supposedly pissed off Texas high school coaches somehow. His biggest selling point when he was hired was that he could recruit TX lights out. The rumor he is not welcome in TX high schools is probably true based on the number of TX kids he has been getting. 

    Texas kids recruited to KU under Beaty:

    2015: 17

    2016: 10

    2017:  5

    2018: 2

    You want to go after RB coach and Asst. Head Coach Tony Hull. He is the guy killing it in recruiting and why we have landed a handful of four stars out of LA the last couple years.

     

  9. 10 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:
    "He stood up, he put his hand in his pocket... and he took two Starbursts candies out, threw them on the table and said to Merkel, 'Here, Angela. Don't say I never give you anything.'"
     

     

    Give him some credit. It is the nicest thing Trump has ever done. Those Starbursts will cost $20 after the Tariff Wars have begun..

  10. Trump administration pulls US out of UN human rights council

    Spoiler

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States announced Tuesday it was leaving the United Nations' Human Rights Council, with Ambassador Nikki Haley calling it "an organization that is not worthy of its name." It was the latest withdrawal by the Trump administration from an international institution.

    Haley, Trump's envoy to the U.N., said the U.S. had given the human rights body "opportunity after opportunity" to make changes. She lambasted the council for "its chronic bias against Israel" and lamented the fact that its membership includes accused human rights abusers such as China, Cuba, Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    "We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights," Haley said.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, appearing alongside Haley at the State Department, said there was no doubt that the council once had a "noble vision."

    But today we need to be honest," Pompeo said. "The Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights."

    The announcement came just a day after the U.N. human rights chief, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, denounced the Trump administration for separating migrant children from their parents. But Haley cited longstanding U.S. complaints that the 47-member council is biased against Israel. She had been threatening the pull-out since last year unless the council made changes advocated by the U.S.

    "Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded," Haley said.

    Still, she suggested the decision need not be permanent, adding that if the council did adopt reforms, "we would be happy to rejoin it." She said the withdrawal notwithstanding, the U.S. would continue to defend human rights at the United Nations.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office called the U.S. decision "courageous," calling it "an unequivocal statement that enough is enough."

    The move extends a broader Trump administration pattern of stepping back from international agreements and forums under the president's "America First" policy. Although numerous officials have said repeatedly that "America First does not mean America Alone," the administration has retreated from multiple multilateral accords and consensuses since it took office.

    Since January 2017, it has announced its withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, left the U.N. educational and cultural organization and pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Other contentious moves have included slapping tariffs on steel and aluminum against key trading partners, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

    Opposition to the decision from human rights advocates was swift. A group of 12 organizations including Save the Children, Freedom House and the United Nations Association-USA said there were "legitimate concerns" about the council's shortcomings but that none of them warranted a U.S. exit.

    "This decision is counterproductive to American national security and foreign policy interests and will make it more difficult to advance human rights priorities and aid victims of abuse around the world," the organizations said in a joint statement.

    Added Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch: "All Trump seems to care about is defending Israel."

    On Twitter, al-Hussein, the U.N. human rights chief, said it was "Disappointing, if not really surprising, news. Given the state of #HumanRights in today's world, the US should be stepping up, not stepping back."

    And the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank close to the Trump administration, defended the move, calling the council "notably incurious about the human rights situations in some of the world's most oppressive countries." Brett Schaefer, a senior fellow, pointed out that Trump could have withdrawn immediately after taking office but instead gave the council 18 months to make changes.

    Haley has been the driving force behind withdrawing from the human rights body, unprecedented in the 12-year history of the council. No country has ever dropped out voluntarily. Libya was kicked out seven years ago.

    The move could reinforce the perception that the Trump administration is seeking to advance Israel's agenda on the world stage, just as it prepares to unveil its long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan despite Palestinian outrage over the embassy relocation. Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, is visiting the Middle East this week as the White House works to lay the groundwork for unveiling the plan.

    Israel is the only country in the world whose rights record comes up for discussion at every council session, under "Item 7" on the agenda. Item 7 on "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories" has been part of the council's regular business almost as long as it has existed.

    The United States' current term on the council ends next year. Although the U.S. could have remained a non-voting observer on the council, a U.S. official said it was a "complete withdrawal" and that the United States was resigning its seat "effective immediately." The official wasn't authorized to comment publicly and insisted on anonymity.

    That means the council will be left without one of its traditional defenders of human rights. In recent months, the United States has participated in attempts to pinpoint rights violations in places like South Sudan, Congo and Cambodia.

    The U.S. pullout was bound to have ripple effects for at least two countries at the council: China and Israel. The U.S., as at other U.N. organizations, is Israel's biggest defender. At the rights council, the United States has recently been the most unabashed critic of rights abuses in China — whose growing economic and diplomatic clout has chastened some other would-be critics, rights advocates say.

    There are 47 countries in the Human Rights Council, elected by the U.N.'s General Assembly with a specific number of seats allocated for each region of the globe. Members serve for three-year terms and can serve only two terms in a row.

    The United States has opted to stay out of the Human Rights Council before: The George W. Bush administration opted against seeking membership when the council was created in 2006. The U.S. joined the body only in 2009 under President Barack Obama.

     

  11. 4 minutes ago, scottsins said:

     


    Here’s the thing: You are ignoring the fact that opening up economic opportunities and globalizing to a degree, to Kim, poses a giant risk of being removed from power. So the “top guy in a prosperous country” may not be accurate or seen that way by Kim.

     

    You are right. Kim is not going to just throw everything open and embrace the global economy.  South Korea already has factories in NK near the DMZ. Whenever SK and NK get into a "serious" spat they are closed down for a bit by NK until things settle down.  Probably be a similar story for any company who opens a factory there. NK will allow a few foreign managers there to oversee things, but NK will basically control the factory and everything that happens there.  The NK workers will continue to get paid peanuts while Kim and his regime pocket the profits.  NK will shut down all operations anytime they feel slighted by the companies country of origin.  Any businesses allowed in will be tightly controlled. A regime that still puts people in prison camps for things their grandparents did decades ago is not suddenly going to embrace the modern world.

  12. Bipartisan Group of 10 senators challenge Trump over tariffs

    Spoiler

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of 10 senators introduced longshot legislation Wednesday that would require Congress to sign off on tariffs imposed in the name of national security, defying President Donald Trump on a bedrock issue that once defined the GOP.

    Congressional Republicans are mostly at odds with what they view as Trump's protectionist instincts on trade. Despite much hand-wringing, prospects for any bill to challenge him remain uncertain. Many Republicans are hesitant to confront Trump in a legislative showdown that could end badly for them. Doing so could court a veto and bruise their standing with Trump voters they need in midterm elections.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., indicated he was not interested in spending too much time on the effort presented behind closed doors Tuesday by its chief proponent, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., saying he preferred to focus on "getting bills passed." And the second-ranking Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said he hoped Republicans concerned about the tariffs could prevail on the president to reverse course. He was heading to the White House later Tuesday for talks.

    "Not everything we do has to be legislative. Part of this job is persuasion," said Cornyn. He said lawmakers would "continue to make the case" with the president and his staff, which he noted is divided.

    Trump took office promising to rip up trade deals and crack down on unfair trading practices. But that campaign slogan is at odds with Republicans' longstanding preference for free markets and open trade. The standoff is raising an uncomfortable question: If Republicans can't confront Trump on trade, can they challenge him on anything?

    "For Republicans, this is who we are," said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "If we believe our own rhetoric — on trade, tariffs and congressional prerogative — I hope it does come to a vote."

    The idea being pursued by Corker, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and others who have been meeting privately — and with Democrats — would be narrowly crafted legislation requiring congressional approval of the tariffs Trump has imposed in the name of national security.

    They're targeting Trump's reliance on the so-called 232 authority, named from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed the administration to impose tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on imported aluminum from Mexico, Canada and the European Union, some of the U.S.'s top allies. The senators are also hoping to halt Trump's threat to slap tariffs on auto imports, including those from Japan.

    "I fail to see the national security threat when a Pennsylvanian decides to buy a Toyota Corolla," Toomey said.

    It's not just Trump, the senators say, but past administrations that have leaned too heavily into the national security provision the lawmakers now want to subject to congressional oversight.

    "When you can just name anything as a national security issue then basically you undermine the whole trade agreement process," Corker said Tuesday.

    Five Republicans and four Democrats signed on as co-sponsors to Corker's bill. The bill requires the president to submit to Congress any proposal to adjust imports in the name of national security and provides for speedy consideration. The requirement would apply to all such actions moving forward as well as those taken in the past two years.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce quickly endorsed it, saying "this modest proposal to clarify congressional prerogatives is welcome and long overdue."

    Corker acknowledged the difficulty in passing legislation despite "tremendous concern" among lawmakers in both parties. "My guess is the administration may have some resistance," he said.

    Time and again, Republicans in Congress have been reluctant to put guardrails around Trump as the administration has veered from GOP orthodoxy in policy or as the president interprets the law, as he did earlier this week, to assert the special counsel probe is unconstitutional and that he has the power to pardon himself.

    Flake is one of the few Republicans who repeatedly take on Trump, and he has separately offered a bill that would reverse the steel and aluminum tariffs, with support from Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

    Farm-state senators are particularly concerned about retaliatory tariffs that would close off foreign markets to pork and key crops like soybeans and corn. "It isn't as if the dog has not barked," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

    Roberts hesitated though on whether he could back the bill. "I've got to get a farm bill done. I don't want to roil the waters."

    Challenging Trump comes with its own risks, from alienating his supporters to taking voters' attention off a healthy economy before the midterm elections, which will determine control of the House and Senate.

    Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said it's too early to say whether the House would take up Corker's proposal. Lawmakers are wary of a trade war, he said, but "we're not looking for a fight with the president."

    "A lot of senators are a lot braver since they're not on the ballot. Over here, everybody is on the ballot," Cole said.

    Asked if Congress will act on trade, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., a member of GOP leadership, answered simply: "No."

     

  13. 7 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

    Fart noises. 

     

    Japan and South Korea are not paying for any military action we start. Trump is going to give South Korea and Japan the last reason they need to go nuclear.  If Japan and South Korea can't depend on the USA and it's nuclear deterrent as an ally, they will take care of business themselves. One or both countries will likely have nukes in the near future. 

×
×
  • Create New...