Daily Bullets

Written by Kyle Porter

Where we’re just trying to forget Saturday ever happened.

Jenni Carlson grades the KU game. (NewsOK)

John Klein doesn’t think OSU will win any of the rest of its games if it plays like it did against Kansas. I concur. Can you imagine a 3-9 team? Yikes! (Tulsa World)

Gundy is glad OSU didn’t have to try and defend a game-winning drive. (NewsOK)

Really good recap of what went wrong on Saturday. (Tulsa World)

Charlie Moore is back (just like Florida State, Green Bay, and Tiger)! (NewsOK)

Goodness, Cowgirls got outshot 25-6. (okstate)

The rain might have sucked but it makes for some strong photos. (NewsOK)

Sooooo about Darrell Williams. Yeah, he’s free now, a registered sex offender, but no more jail. (Sports Illustrated)

The best senior class in school history is almost done at OSU. (O’Colly)

Sick throw from Weeden here (how many times have I written that?) Even sicker catch. (SB Nation)

Game notes for Saturday. This should just be 25 pages of Boone’s middle finger. (okstate)

Gundy said the team didn’t pack food in case of a weather delay. Because we’ve never experienced a situation like this bef…wait. (NewsOK)

Love this method of ranking the team. (Scout)

These are amazing. (Sports Illustrated)

Interesting: Berry Tramel still thinks OSU is worse than Baylor. (NewsOK)

Charlie Weis is weird but he’s right here about who was dominating the 4th quarter on Saturday. (Rivals)

If you can’t read between the lines about how little Monken trusts Walsh with this offense…I mean, what does he need to do to prove it to you? (NewsOK)

A revenge game if there ever was one… (NewsOK)

Interesting description of Weeden’s interception issues here. (Plain Dealer)

Not sure I understand what Gundy’s trying to say here about playcalling. (NewsOK)

Good breakdown from the KU side on what happened in the game. (Rock Chalk Talk)

Uh…I’m not sure Joe Randle much wanted to talk to Ubben. (ESPN)

On Weeden’s first W. (NewsOK)

Jenni on how we should view the Kansas game. (NewsOK)

John Helsley on the start of basketball. (NewsOK)

Is Monken wearing a leopard-print tie?

Saw the first one, will definitely see this one. Can’t wait to hear what you guys think this says about my political views.

  • If it makes anyone feel any better, Baylor got taken to the wire in Lawrence last year.

  • Nate

    “We won’t spend a lot of wasted time teaching terminology, teaching certain drills,” Ford said

    yeah… cause these guys have always exhibited a high level of basketball IQ

    • And their fundamentals have always been impeccable.

  • Kevin

    I’m really concerned about ISU… I don’t think we make it out alive even with Lunt. Someone, please, anyone, convince me otherwise

  • Ryan

    I love everything else you do w/ the Daily Bullets, but what’s the point of baiting people into commenting on your political affiliation?

  • OSUaggie

    Josh Cooper’s gettin’ a little luv in Cleveland; with their receiver issues, having a familiar pair of hands to throw to should be a big help to the Weeden….

  • BulletFan

    From pretty much every review I’ve seen, I would have to say your intentions of seeing Atlas Shrugged’s sequel after having already sat through the first speaks more to your fascination with poorly made movies than any political affiliation. But I do agree with Ryan and endorse separation of sports and politics. I’m pretty sure it’s in the constitution.
    You might be happy to hear that Holgorsen has been made into an adjective by Every Day Should Be Saturday’s Celebrity Hot Tub when he wrote this weeks’ “College ShameDay” article for Deadspin:
    “Bob Davie will take 4-3 New Mexico on the road to play one of the weaker Air Force teams in recent memory. The Falcons throw for only 116 yards a game, which makes them positively Holgorsian compared with the Lobos, who average only 59 and who won a game in which they completed one pass for nine yards.”

  • This describes, or more accurately parodies, what I think of your political views.

  • Bo

    Kyle, your interest in Atlas Shrugged says that you’re instincts are right on. Which is a little bit surprising after you wholeheartedly endorsed all that Lincoln propaganda. And durantok, you couldn’t be more off. Although I do not fully endorse Ayn Rand, as she was a proponent of intellectual property, which I believe to be illegitimate.

    • I’m pretty sure “wanting to see a movie” doesn’t equate with “wholeheartedly endorse all that propaganda.” I could be wrong though.

      • Bo

        Fair enough.

  • durantok


    You say I couldn’t be more off but you offer no argument for your stance. I don’t agree with her blatantly atheistic philosophy of selfishness, but at least she knew how to form a defense of her views.

    • Bo


      I assume, since you believe that Ayn Rand advocates selfishness (capitalism) you are (probably unknowingly) a Socialist or Marxist. You believe that redistribution of wealth is good for society and you apparently believe that governments can efficiently and effectively distribute what it’s previously confiscated (stolen) from others. If you work for me and someone takes from me to give to you I will either pay you less or get rid of you and your coworkers because there is such a thing as a bottom line in the real world where we cannot just print currency or move decimal points to make ourselves richer at the expense of everyone who trades in said currency. I would be glad to post videos or articles to explain to you why inflation is theft and redistribution of wealth has unintended consequences which actually keep people in poverty, but that would be a weak argument. Please, form a defense of your views.

  • Bo,

    Thanks for assuming I don’t know what I am. Asuming you know more about my thoughts than I do is a sign that you are delusional and probably not worth debating, but let’s try.

    I am not a Marxist or a Socialist, I am a centrist. Marxism and Objectivism (Rand’s philosophy) are both extremist views and both are extremely dangerous. I’m sure you know the examples of history where Marxism has failed, USSR, North Korea, etc. Do you know of any examples of Objectivism failing in practice? Look at Somalia. A country that has practically no government and the person that has the capital makes the rules. I’m sure you are willing to move from the socialist regime of Obama to the unfettered capitalist haven of Somalia. Send me a postcard when you get there.

    By the way, since you can assume my positions, I would like to assume your age. Based on your your remarks so far, I’m guessing you are in the 10th grade. How close am I?

    • Bo

      First, a centrist is not worth debating in my opinion. You might as well say “I’m a pragmatist. Who’s winning? I’ll be for them.” I apologize for assuming (and casting in an extreme and foolish light on) your political views.

      You obviously know a little bit about Somalia. You said it yourself: a country that has practically no govt and the person with the capital makes the rules. True, Somalia is basically void of regulations and codes but “practically” no government is still government. Especially when at the first sign of profit the “government” blatantly and literally takes all that they can from whomever they wish. Being free to trade but forcefully void of capital is not a free market, durantok.

      Which brings us back to the point. I assumed (correctly?) that you are a proponent of (some?) wealth transfer. Well Somalia is but an extreme example of a country where wealth transfer has had a terribly negative effect. Don’t assume that because Obama or Romney ostensibly claim to have the most pristine of intentions that taking and giving are anything less than taking from the few productive and giving to the masses in exchange for votes.

      For the record, I’m a 28yr old anarcho-capitalist. I believe that there isn’t a need or want of humans that can’t be solved and addressed through a free market. I don’t believe in violence. I believe that government’s only tool is violence and therefore is illegitimate. I’m sure you’d consider this extreme. Of course, you’re probably glad that government hasn’t claimed responsibility for providing clothing, food, cell phones, shoes… Pretty much everything that is desirable, of value to consumers, and not in short supply.

      Btw, both candidates support inflation, which I’m sure you agree is theft. So if you are trying to tell me that Obama or Romney’s style of ruling is less harmful than our friends in Somalia, then I say give it time.

      • There you go again, telling me what I think. I’m not for who ever is winning at all. A centrist isn’t someone who says “Who’s winning? I’ll be for them”. A centrist believes that there is a role for government in making our lives better. I’m not saying that government should be everything or there should be no government. There is a balance that benefits us all. I like having roads and schools. I also like that I can breath the air without getting sick, but I don’t advocate paying 100% of my income to taxes (or anything close to that amount). I am not a proponent of wealth transfer but I do believe that people who live off of trust funds should not pay a lower tax rate than I do.

        Since you don’t think Somalia is a good example of Objectivism or anarcho-capitalism, give me an example of a place and time where this philosophy was implemented and how well it worked.

        • Bo

          Wow. How are those government schools working out for the fine folks of Chicago? The very best roads that I know of are toll roads, which are as close to being free market roads as we have right now. And you think that we have (relatively) clean air thanks to the government?! I’m not putting words in your mouth here, am I? In a free society where natural law and property rights are applied if you were to pollute my land, I would have you cease whatever it is you’re doing on the grounds that you are diminishing the utility or value of my property. You would have to find a way to produce whatever it is you produce without harming others. In your centrist society (the one we have) if Power Plant or Widget Factory can pay enough booty to the government, it can go on polluting at will, and with political cover! Of course this means that Power Plant will likely pass the cost of doing business (bribery) on to you. We loose double. Good examples, okdurant!

          As far as where or when anarchism has worked… where’s it been tried?! I mean, the US was pretty darn free for 150 years or so and we were the most prosperous and productive nation the world has ever seen. What happened around that time that totally screwed us? Hmm, maybe the Federal Reserve was instituted? And the dollar has lost over 95% of it’s purchasing power since then. So much for government living within it’s means!

          But to be an anarchist doesn’t mean you think anarchy will “work” (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or “can” be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians, pragmatists and centrists.

          Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

          • durantok

            So if I’m polluting your land, how are you going to have me cease? I’m a pretty big ol’ boy, are you sure you want to come at me?

            I’m not sure how I can debate someone that doesn’t think his philosophy will work since we both agree that it won’t. You’re really getting into some tinfoil hat stuff here.

          • Bo

            I’m sure you’re one bad mofo, after all you claim to be on the internet. Be that as it may, I believe in private courts, private defense contractors and natural law. In other words you’d cease infringing upon my rights in a free society, no matter how tough you think you are.

            I didn’t say that a free society wouldn’t work, of course I believe that it would. But more to the point: it doesn’t matter, it’s morally sound! What clearly doesn’t work is theft and coercion. The burden of proof, to me, is on the proponent of institutionalized violence (you).

            I’m content to let this conversation die. It doesn’t seem to me that you’re interested in exchanging ideas, only in defending what I perceive to be simple and tired ideas. It’s also quite clear that you don’t have a very concrete moral compass, which makes you extremely hard to reason with.

            No hard feelings, I’ll catch you on here next time Kyle posts something we vehemently disagree on.

          • You guys need to take this thing over to Orange Power or something.

          • I’m just going to quit because your talking about dreams not ideas and I can’t really argue with your dreams.