NUpolo8

What's the Democratic equivalent of pretending like Keystone XL is a monumentally important "jobs bill"? I was speaking more to the premise of their main platforms not being founded in reality. Which they are not. Gratis post high school education, for example.

It goes well beyond approving of it! This is literally the centerpiece of the Republican economic plan. How crazy is this? Does no one in that party give a damn about reality anymore? I would say at this point neither party has a firm grasp of reality. But hey.

You never read Rising Sun? Explain. Short explanation, it was a bad "polo" joke. Longerish explanation, in the late 80's/early90's during Japan's boom time, they bought several investments/holding companies/tall tall buildings across the state, predominantly the LA area. Often, there was much greasing of the skids on the bureaucratic and permit side as it was quite beneficial for the states economy and the juiced in politicians with interests in several of the purchases. Rising Sun was a Crichton novel based in a exaggerating rendition of they time. Which led to a hyper exaggerated movie. That was a good read, though. Pretty much the best way to read about boobs, then see boobs on the movie screen when you're a ambitious teenager wanting to read about "current events"

I can't think of any, but there's old laws on the books saying it's allowed, so maybe? http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1755&context=dlj

You never read Rising Sun? Explain. Short explanation, it was a bad "polo" joke. Longerish explanation, in the late 80's/early90's during Japan's boom time, they bought several investments/holding companies/tall tall buildings across the state, predominantly the LA area. Often, there was much greasing of the skids on the bureaucratic and permit side as it was quite beneficial for the states economy and the juiced in politicians with interests in several of the purchases. Rising Sun was a Crichton novel based in a exaggerating rendition of that time. Which led to a hyper exaggerated movie.

Yeah pretty much, as with the CA deals, it's for those with land interests and $ withholdings.

You never read Rising Sun?

LJS Article This is, perhaps, the scariest precedent this pipeline is setting. For the government to approve of this is disgusting. This is not an endorsement of what happening, just a statement saying this doesn't set any precedent. Similar happenings were and are commonplace in California for many water projects. The first term used by Gov. Pat Brown was these grabs were neccesary to stop "the mistakes made by nature and population". (Progressive!). So, the precedent was there, probably why this was able to happen in Nebraska. I can't say I'm for people getting things done to their land or having their land usurped, nor can I say I'm totes in favor or against this pipeline. But I do know this is nothing new. Sorry, guess I added nothing to this little thread.

So athletes generally had some extra dough already. They still won't believe you. People will believe him because he actually provided useful information. The only thing more Landlord could have done more is provide his source for the information, which I would assume is public and we could all dig up, so I am not holding that against him. You just made comments that never really added to the conversation. We asked you to provide information, but you just made snide comments making it sound like you are referring to 'money under the table.' Maybe we should have just ignored them, but maybe we had hopes you could back up your position. I would be curious what those numbers are for NU. It is disappointing that a lot of these funds seemed to be ignored when talking about this new allowance, or at least I have missed them in articles I have read. But it I guess it is like any campaign, your want people to focus on what makes this look like a good idea. That being said, I am still happy with this. These kids bring in millions for the school and some end up in bad situations afterwards. It will be interesting to see the statistics in ten years or more on how this helps or hurts the student athletes in the long run. Will they get into less trouble and will their post college lives improve because of it? Might as well give this try and find out. I know full well that money under the table has existed in Nebraska athletics. I don't doubt many here also know this. My only question is and was, how much more they're getting and if it's fair to all student athletes at NU. And it doesn't appear to be the case, which is too bad.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.So what about the Osborne guys?Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else.No... you're saying that the players are being brainwashed (fed information) by coaches with questionable motives, because they worked for Harvey. Hence my asking if players under Osborne were subject to that, since there are those who share the same opinions.No, I'm saying you're talking out of your ass and are wrong. Try to keep up.You're welcome to have your opinion, sans personal attacks. But off the top of my head, Frazier, Vrzal, Foreman, Moore, and Zatchka (all guys I listen to on podcasts) have said one way or another, that there's some issues with Harvey, his ego, and the football program.It's so hard to keep up when those guys are grudge holding has beens who need to move on because they're hurting the team and when they're sages with you guys.Any my opinion remains that Perlman isn't the problem. Perlman is a problem. I've said it before, I'm saying it again. Since Polo can state his opinion was, is and always will be the only truth, I too want to push my opinion as the only right stance to take. Perlman is a problem and if you don't believe it you are wrong, b/c I am right and that's all you need to know. Because when I visit other message boards about different teams, they all bitch about the chancellor too. And I'm sure the presentations on how to ignore your chancellor are a hit at the coaches conferences every year.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.So what about the Osborne guys?Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else.No... you're saying that the players are being brainwashed (fed information) by coaches with questionable motives, because they worked for Harvey. Hence my asking if players under Osborne were subject to that, since there are those who share the same opinions.No, I'm saying you're talking out of your ass and are wrong. Try to keep up. You're welcome to have your opinion, sans personal attacks. But off the top of my head, Frazier, Vrzal, Foreman, Moore, and Zatchka (all guys I listen to on podcasts) have said one way or another, that there's some issues with Harvey, his ego, and the football program.It's so hard to keep up when those guys are grudge holding has beens who need to move on because they're hurting the team and when they're sages with you guys. Any my opinion remains that Perlman isn't the problem.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?!Very VERY few. The 2001 5TH YEAR seniors wouldve been the only Osborne guys to have played during the Perlamn chancelling era. Who says Dahrran Diedrick didn't have CLOUT? What about Troy Hassebroek and Ben Zajicek then? If you did that off memory, I'm impressed.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. No... you're saying that the players are being brainwashed (fed information) by coaches with questionable motives, because they worked for Harvey. Hence my asking if players under Osborne were subject to that, since there are those who share the same opinions. No, I'm saying you're talking out of your ass and are wrong. Try to keep up.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?! Very VERY few. The 2001 5TH YEAR seniors wouldve been the only Osborne guys to have played during the Perlamn chancelling era. Who says Dahrran Diedrick didn't have CLOUT?

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding. If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach. You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago. Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Just to say, Perlman wasnt Chancellor until 3 1/2 years after Osborne quit coaching. You and I are an alliance!

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else.

Why isn't this thread for him? Who are you to decide?

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding. If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach. You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago. Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.

So athletes generally had some extra dough already. They still won't believe you.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program. Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it. It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding. If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.

The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program. No it isn't.

I believe this is an extra $3600That is incorrect, off campus scholarship athletes have always received at minimum the equivalent of room and boardRight, and this isn't changing. Everything I've heard about COA is that it's basically a "whatever" striped like the old "laundry money" players used to get, just a substantially larger amount. And I was asking how much more of an increase it was. Scholarship athletes have been given $ for years. He told you, $3,600. This isn't the same as room and board stipends. I understand, the previous number that is now 3600 wasn't zero. I am pretty sure this is a completely new allowance. So the previous was zero. But if you can find somewhere saying they received money before please post it. But this is suppose to be on top of everything they received before.You're right, previously they probably received a little more than zero. Doesn't mean that money was legally given to them. Now it is. Along with what existed. Polo, that was always against the rules. Find something that shows me it wasn't and that we did it. If you need documented proof from me that this existed at NU your naïveté is astounding.