Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The same tired lines over and over again.
Passion
Member Posts: 4,622
Collapse at the end of last year: "Nobody is more frustrated than me."
Beginning of this year: "7-6 isn't good enough."
Approaching the end of this year: "Nobody is more frustrated than me."
Beginning of this year: "7-6 isn't good enough."
Approaching the end of this year: "Nobody is more frustrated than me."
Comments
-
The Seattle Times front page today literally says "SARK FEELS YOUR PAIN"
-
It fucking Groundhog Day for mediocrity at Montlake.Passion said:Collapse at the end of last year: "Nobody is more frustrated than me."
Beginning of this year: "7-6 isn't good enough."
Approaching the end of this year: "Nobody is more frustrated than me." -
For $2.6M a year I'd be willing to feel your pain, too.DerekJohnson said:The Seattle Times front page today literally says "SARK FEELS YOUR PAIN"
-
It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
-
Take a look at the "we're really close" statements Sark made. He's trying to stretch things out until next year when he has a schedule filled with dreck. He knows if he can split these 2 games, he's at 7-5 and facing a shitty bowel opponent with the chance to make it to 8 wins.
From there, he and his supporters can say, look we've improved!!! He gets 2014 and gets to 9 wins in 13 attempts before the bowel game and can again say, look we've improved some more!!
The only hope for those who want him gone is that he doesn't go 2-1 giving hope to those who won't look at the deeper issues. Those folks will then say, well, 8 wins is better than 7 and he did take over an 0-12 team, give him another year.
Give the guy credit, he's a great politician. -
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
-
Sark puts on a good poker face like this is all frustrating but it really isn't as he knows his job is safe with these type of games. Being "in the game" with UCLA and Stanford on the road and being down 1 score to Oregon in the 4th he has had a successful season in the eyes of the almighty incremental progress gem we now seek.
Now he gets to hold down the fort in Seattle and able to fuck gonorrhea infested meat lockers at Joeys on the side. -
CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
I feel supercanucks pain...I really do.
-
I thought when I saw "tired lines", you were going to discuss how worn out the Husky offensive and defensive lines appear to be through ten games,.... which could be disputable since neither have really done much this season so far. But then there's not an abundance of effective depth for either line, so I suppose it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
As for his hyperbole propaganda and eventual excuses when publicized preseason goals aren't met, Sark talks way to much to the media and uses far more superlatives in doing so than his program has shown thus far it can live up to. I don't mind Sark's bullshit so much even though I preferred the pragmatism and stoic nature of Don Jame's P.R., which was nearly perfect to suit my tastes for coach talk.
The Seattle/Puget Sound mainstream (non-Internet) media hated DJ because he was always on a higher intellectual level than they were which I believe was perceived as arrogance and disrespect. Now that the local media has for the past five seasons had so much more access to a dumbed-down UW head football coach who is almost an exact opposite to the Dawgfather, my only interest in Sark's P.R. is how long the media will continue putting up with his motor-mouth bullshit. Perhaps these two final games against beatable NW rivals will be Sark's final bullshit act if he doesn't win out. We know how much more sensitive the UW can be to bad press than they are to the wishes, needs or preferences of ticket-buying fans and boosters. -
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point. -
I voted for Clinton twice - but let's also give some credit to the guys who are called extremist wackos today for a joint effort in keeping the budget in check. Newt and Bill were a good pair of opposites who got some good results. I'd take them today in a heartbeat over Obama and Pelosi.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
Clinton never had to face a ranked Oregon State and it was nice that the Cold War ended, tech stocks were bubbling, and the Jihad was not front burner news. But he does deserve a lot of credit for steering a steady ship. -
This.RaceBannon said:
I voted for Clinton twice - but let's also give some credit to the guys who are called extremist wackos today for a joint effort in keeping the budget in check. Newt and Bill were a good pair of opposites who got some good results. I'd take them today in a heartbeat over Obama and Pelosi.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
Clinton never had to face a ranked Oregon State and it was nice that the Cold War ended, tech stocks were bubbling, and the Jihad was not front burner news. But he does deserve a lot of credit for steering a steady ship. -
Disagree. I was a young staffer in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and plenty of liberals were pissed at Clinton because he was willing to compromise with Newt and Republicans. He governed as a President should - choosing half victories over stalemates and childish obstruction. Triangulation. I'll give Newt and Bob Dole credit for being much more responsible leaders than the wackos who control Boehner.RaceBannon said:
I voted for Clinton twice - but let's also give some credit to the guys who are called extremist wackos today for a joint effort in keeping the budget in check. Newt and Bill were a good pair of opposites who got some good results. I'd take them today in a heartbeat over Obama and Pelosi.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
Clinton never had to face a ranked Oregon State and it was nice that the Cold War ended, tech stocks were bubbling, and the Jihad was not front burner news. But he does deserve a lot of credit for steering a steady ship.
And speaking of the Cold War, I could easily say that Reagan had it much easier than Clinton. He had a clearly defined enemy. All he had to do to generate jobs was outspend the Soviets by dumping billions of tax payer dollars into the military industrial complex.
Republicans dismiss Clinton's economic achievements by simply crediting silicon valley (and Microsoft). I think you vastly underestimate the impact of his 1993 economic stimulus package (which republicans opposed, saying it would wreck the economy). That legislation raised taxes on upper-income Americans, and lowered taxes on people investing in small business startups. It fueled small business expansion and helped accelerate the tech boom. Clinton certainly wasn't a tech wiz, but he helped create an environment where tech wizzes (sp?) could get their businesses off the ground.
Regarding the cold war, Clinton had to navigate a more complex post-Cold War world and fix the Reagan budget deficit - which he did.
Ain't you sorry you asked me?
I'll just close by saying that I like Clinton much more than I like Obama. But - again - Clinton was fortunate in dealing with Republicans who were more willing to compromise, rather than block everything he was trying to do. Gerrymandered districts have been Obama's worst enemy. -
That's the last time I'll agree with you.Passion said:
Disagree. I was a young staffer in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and plenty of liberals were pissed at Clinton because he was willing to compromise with Newt and Republicans. He governed as a President should - choosing half victories over stalemates and childish obstruction. Triangulation. I'll give Newt and Bob Dole credit for being much more responsible leaders than the wackos who control Boehner.RaceBannon said:
I voted for Clinton twice - but let's also give some credit to the guys who are called extremist wackos today for a joint effort in keeping the budget in check. Newt and Bill were a good pair of opposites who got some good results. I'd take them today in a heartbeat over Obama and Pelosi.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
Clinton never had to face a ranked Oregon State and it was nice that the Cold War ended, tech stocks were bubbling, and the Jihad was not front burner news. But he does deserve a lot of credit for steering a steady ship.
And speaking of the Cold War, I could easily say that Reagan had it much easier than Clinton. He had a clearly defined enemy. All he had to do to generate jobs was outspend the Soviets by dumping billions of tax payer dollars into the military industrial complex.
Republicans dismiss Clinton's economic achievements by simply crediting silicon valley (and Microsoft). I think you vastly underestimate the impact of his 1993 economic stimulus package (which republicans opposed, saying it would wreck the economy). That legislation raised taxes on upper-income Americans, and lowered taxes on people investing in small business startups. It fueled small business expansion and helped accelerate the tech boom. Clinton certainly wasn't a tech wiz, but he helped create an environment where tech wizzes (sp?) could get their businesses off the ground.
Regarding the cold war, Clinton had to navigate a more complex post-Cold War world and fix the Reagan budget deficit - which he did.
Ain't you sorry you asked me?
I'll just close by saying that I like Clinton much more than I like Obama. But - again - Clinton was fortunate in dealing with Republicans who were more willing to compromise, rather than block everything he was trying to do. Gerrymandered districts have been Obama's worst enemy.
Are you sure who it is who isn't willing to compromise these days? -
Those obstructionists are the only thing standing between us and total financial insolvency. If Obama and Pelosi got everything they wanted, our country would be bankrupt in 10 years, and my marginal tax rate would be 55 instead of the shitty 39 it already is.Passion said:
Disagree. I was a young staffer in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and plenty of liberals were pissed at Clinton because he was willing to compromise with Newt and Republicans. He governed as a President should - choosing half victories over stalemates and childish obstruction. Triangulation. I'll give Newt and Bob Dole credit for being much more responsible leaders than the wackos who control Boehner.RaceBannon said:
I voted for Clinton twice - but let's also give some credit to the guys who are called extremist wackos today for a joint effort in keeping the budget in check. Newt and Bill were a good pair of opposites who got some good results. I'd take them today in a heartbeat over Obama and Pelosi.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
Clinton never had to face a ranked Oregon State and it was nice that the Cold War ended, tech stocks were bubbling, and the Jihad was not front burner news. But he does deserve a lot of credit for steering a steady ship.
And speaking of the Cold War, I could easily say that Reagan had it much easier than Clinton. He had a clearly defined enemy. All he had to do to generate jobs was outspend the Soviets by dumping billions of tax payer dollars into the military industrial complex.
Republicans dismiss Clinton's economic achievements by simply crediting silicon valley (and Microsoft). I think you vastly underestimate the impact of his 1993 economic stimulus package (which republicans opposed, saying it would wreck the economy). That legislation raised taxes on upper-income Americans, and lowered taxes on people investing in small business startups. It fueled small business expansion and helped accelerate the tech boom. Clinton certainly wasn't a tech wiz, but he helped create an environment where tech wizzes (sp?) could get their businesses off the ground.
Regarding the cold war, Clinton had to navigate a more complex post-Cold War world and fix the Reagan budget deficit - which he did.
Ain't you sorry you asked me?
I'll just close by saying that I like Clinton much more than I like Obama. But - again - Clinton was fortunate in dealing with Republicans who were more willing to compromise, rather than block everything he was trying to do. Gerrymandered districts have been Obama's worst enemy. -
Some things are real obvious from the sidelines that you commoners just can't see from the stands.Passion said:Disagree. I was a young staffer in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and plenty of liberals were pissed at Clinton because he was willing to compromise with Newt and Republicans.
Huh?
-
He''s one of yours, Passion. Big surprise. His political analysis is as in depth as his football takessupercanuck said:Hahahahaha... Now you clowns are discussing financial policy!!
Omg that is rich.... Surprise surprise, we got tea baggers in the audience.
This just keeps getting better and better -
supercanuck is to the left as PLSS is to the right
-
supercanuck is a KKK troll trying to make democrats look bad
-
You were agreeing with me?RaceBannon said:
That's the last time I'll agree with you.Passion said:
Disagree. I was a young staffer in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, and plenty of liberals were pissed at Clinton because he was willing to compromise with Newt and Republicans. He governed as a President should - choosing half victories over stalemates and childish obstruction. Triangulation. I'll give Newt and Bob Dole credit for being much more responsible leaders than the wackos who control Boehner.RaceBannon said:
I voted for Clinton twice - but let's also give some credit to the guys who are called extremist wackos today for a joint effort in keeping the budget in check. Newt and Bill were a good pair of opposites who got some good results. I'd take them today in a heartbeat over Obama and Pelosi.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
Clinton never had to face a ranked Oregon State and it was nice that the Cold War ended, tech stocks were bubbling, and the Jihad was not front burner news. But he does deserve a lot of credit for steering a steady ship.
And speaking of the Cold War, I could easily say that Reagan had it much easier than Clinton. He had a clearly defined enemy. All he had to do to generate jobs was outspend the Soviets by dumping billions of tax payer dollars into the military industrial complex.
Republicans dismiss Clinton's economic achievements by simply crediting silicon valley (and Microsoft). I think you vastly underestimate the impact of his 1993 economic stimulus package (which republicans opposed, saying it would wreck the economy). That legislation raised taxes on upper-income Americans, and lowered taxes on people investing in small business startups. It fueled small business expansion and helped accelerate the tech boom. Clinton certainly wasn't a tech wiz, but he helped create an environment where tech wizzes (sp?) could get their businesses off the ground.
Regarding the cold war, Clinton had to navigate a more complex post-Cold War world and fix the Reagan budget deficit - which he did.
Ain't you sorry you asked me?
I'll just close by saying that I like Clinton much more than I like Obama. But - again - Clinton was fortunate in dealing with Republicans who were more willing to compromise, rather than block everything he was trying to do. Gerrymandered districts have been Obama's worst enemy.
Are you sure who it is who isn't willing to compromise these days? -
Difficult to choose between a tea partier and a superMcCanuck, eh?supercanuck said:Hahahahaha... Now you clowns are discussing financial policy!!
Omg that is rich.... Surprise surprise, we got tea baggers in the audience.
This just keeps getting better and better
-
Bullshit. Don't ask me to list the reasons, because I will...starting with the recession of '92.monroecougdad said:
Bush the First left more in the cupboard for Clinton than Willingham did for Sark.Passion said:
Dude, Clinton oversaw the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. He is incredibly popular because he can point to tangible results.RaccoonHarry said:
Exactly. Clinton perfected that strategy and the soccer moms still love the prick. Sark has his finger on the pulse of liberal Seattle and the fire Sark crowd is just sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or so I fear, Bill Shakespeare and me.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:It's a classic rhetorical device you see in politics all the fucking time, you acknowledge what others around you are saying about you and say that you "feel their pain" or "believe me, no one is hurting more than I am". While this often works on people that are on the fence or on his side, it usually does not work on people that have already lost confidence in the person.
Sark has no results.
Next time pick an example that makes your point.
