Mavric

That pretty much perfectly summarizes the problem with this board at this time. Real, glaring, obvious problems with major components of this team are presented, then summarily dismissed with a few words, one-liners or quips, yet we have an 11-page (and counting) thread agonizing over every detail of the play of one player.

Case in point: Talk about Martinez has now hijacked the Husker Extra recruiting chat ...

Because you can't talk about recruits that are not signed.

I'm glad no one ever reads too much into anything over-reacts.

(***not enough sarcastic electrons in cyberspace for this post***)

Good post.

 

I agree about the credit/blame issue. However, sometimes you can see heavy presidential lobbying for issues that incontrovertibly increased the deficit.

 

Decreasing revenues while lobbying for massive new entitlement programs will lead to the sort of spike that you see in the 2009 fiscal year . . . which began on October 1, 2008.

This is very true - Presidents definitely have input that carries weight. I was going to say this might especially be true when the president's party at least has one house but I was apparently didn't realize how infrequently the two houses are split in terms of which party has the majority - only six times in the last 112 years. And only once for more than a two year stretch.

Players in the NFL:

(-2) California 211

(NC) Texas 181

(+2) Florida 177

(-1) Ohio 85

Maybe I misunderstood your stats. I took the above quote to mean that California produces 2 fewer (-2) NFL players than the number of 4*/5* players coming from California. Texas is even (NC). And Florida produces 2 more (+2) NFL players than the number of of 4*/5* players from Florida. Does it mean something else?

I think the number in parenthesis is the difference in rank - e.g., California is ranked two spots lower in the Rivals list than in the NFL list, Florida is two spots higher in rivals, etc.

Edit: Apparently I don't type fast enough.

I think presidents get too much blame (or credit) for how things are going than they actually deserve, especially on taxes/spending/deficits. It's really more congress that sets tax policy and enacts a budget (in theory). Yes, the president has to sign off on it but - in my admittedly limited research - I couldn't find an example of a president vetoing a budget. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

This isn't exactly the graph I was looking for but it's the only one I could find:

Federal Debt as a Percentage of GDP overlaid on President/Control of House/Control of Senate

I wasn't really looking for it as a Percent of GDP because that adds more variables but it also serves to somewhat inflation-adjust the numbers so maybe it's not so bad. Also it's not a perfect example because decisions made in one year can have long-term effects or may not go into effect for several years but it's an interesting overview.

There are three blocks where Republicans controlled both houses for more than two years (1901-09, 1919-29 & 1995-2005). In all three, the percentage was lower at the end of the block than when it started. It's not as clear-cut on the other side of the coin because Democrats happened to control both houses at the outbreak of both World Wars and the Stock Market crash of 1929 happened during a transition. Democrats held both houses the vast majority of the time from 1933-93 so you don't get nice breaks to compare. However, some of the problems we are having today are due to the long-term effects of social programs that tend to be more Democratically-supported.

Reagan had a Democratic house throughout his presidency so Democrats also had quite a bit of influence on spending policy. Even though GW Bush wasn't great on spending, the percentage was fairly flat until Democrats took control of both houses and the economy went into the crapper (no, I'm not implying a cause-and-effect relationship there).

Many like to point out what happened in such-and-such a president's term but it's way to complicated on many issues to make such a black-and-white generalization.

I guarantee that if LSU did end up snatching Moore from our clutches, and I wasn't here and nobody had given any fair warning about it being a possibility, that you'd be one of the ones here on NSD complaining. Either that or you'd be one of the ones with the whole "quality over quantity, this is still a great class, blah blah blah" spiel. All I'm doing is giving a realistic perspective of something that could happen, so that there won't be any surprises come Wednesday. Of course, you don't want to hear that. All you want to hear is "Moore is N."

Realistically, if they felt like it, every single recruit could have a change of heart and decommit on Signing Day and then we'd be really screwed...

If Cotton de-commits and goes somewhere else I'll officially be worried.

Nominate Ladyhawke. She should fly to the ball.

Second

The only thing I can't figure out as far as transfers go is why they wouldn't have wanted to transfer for this semester so they could be in spring ball. I guess if they're going to have to sit a year anyway maybe it's not such a big deal or maybe they're going to give it one more spring here to see how things look ...

How many pages will this thread get to before Sunday? O/U on 20

I'll take the under, but barely. Still extremely hopeful about Devin though. Would love him to be the next guy in line after TM.

The under was looking good but a late push might put it over the top.

Hope the same is true for Devin...

I just read this whole thread. If a great read ... all the ups and downs ... all the teams that came along and tried to lock of DF. You should take some time to enjoy the read. It's a great "story book". I hope what Michael Rose senses is true. But in the end ... it's a joy to hang with people like Michael Rose ... who bleed red and desire to have the on the side of their helmet.

 

Keep hope alive people ... and drink your red kool-aid! :-)

I hope you had plenty of to get you through!

Didn't want to leave The Dude hanging...

GBR!

Reading the title, I thought maybe he was looking for a "Head Coach" for his reelection bid.

Unfortunately most Americans have been brainwashed by our media to believe that only social issues are the litmus test between left and right, liberal and conservative. Finance and foreign policy are ignored as key issues, since both major parties are pretty similar on them.

Maybe I'm not sure what you're including in "Finance" because there seems to be a lot of difference in where the sides think the money should come from. What are you referencing under "Finance"?

 

Trends in tax policy and sSpending policy.

So you don't think there is a noticeable difference on tax and spending policies?

I agree and do listen to differing viewpoints. However, your point about following "mainstream views" is rendered impotent if the recent poll showing roughly 40% of Americans identifying as conservative, 30% moderate, and 22% liberal is accurate................then why is "mainstream media" out of step with "mainstream views" ?

I would venture to wager that a good chunk of those that identify themselves as "moderate" would be more likely to lean to the "liberal" side of things.

So ...

 

Democrats trust sources that have a liberal bias.

Republicans trust sources that have a conservative bias.

 

This news brought to you by the democratically-affiliated polling service.

 

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming ...

My point was about epistemic closure.

If that was your point, then I agree with you. Both sides favor hearing bias closer to their own beliefs.

I wasn't trying to argue with you anyway, just not surprised by this "finding".

Perhaps that is because the liberally biased sourced have been shown to be more factual.

Reference?

Unfortunately most Americans have been brainwashed by our media to believe that only social issues are the litmus test between left and right, liberal and conservative. Finance and foreign policy are ignored as key issues, since both major parties are pretty similar on them.

Maybe I'm not sure what you're including in "Finance" because there seems to be a lot of difference in where the sides think the money should come from. What are you referencing under "Finance"?

symantecs. google ron paul's foreign policy if you think he means they weren't upset at all before Clinton's bombings.

Here is the first sentence from Ron Paul's website on Foreign Policy:

If you hit someone and kill their family, they will hate you and probably hit you back in the future.

How is that different from what he actually said at the debate?

He said "we endlessly bomb these countries then we wonder why they get upset with us."

 

Not "more upset". Not "are upset". To "get upset" means you were not upset before.

 

Since you are far and away the best prognosticator on this board, what do you really think Ron Paul meant?

Everyone else is trying to tell me what he meant. I'm just going by what he said.

I don't know what he meant. But what he said wouldn't sound good from a sitting president.

So do we redshirt him?

Going out on a limb with a 50/50 chance. We have to expect Marrow to get the first look at the short yardage back but Cross could bring a different skills set to the table. He does have good hands. If Cross gets the protection packages down quickly, his chances of playing early skyrocket.

Rex isn't your "traditional" power back (i.e., 245 lbs) but I've NEVER seen anyone make more guys miss in the backfield and get a couple yards when he should have lost a couple. With he and Marrow, I don't think we're hurting for a short-yardage back this year. I wouldn't mind a redshirt, regardless of what happens with the trio of sophs.

When a "report" has phrases like "The American people wonder why members of Congress suggest cuts to Medicare and Social Security but won’t require millionaires to pay their fair share in taxes" and "then use that extra cash to pay bloated bonuses to CEOs or ship jobs overseas" in the first couple sentences of the introduction, it makes me question their commitment to objective reporting but that's how it goes. Their data was (as far as I could tell) taken straight from a different report and there weren't many citations in that report for where the data came from so I was having trouble checking to see where they were getting their figures.

I've heard GE brought up before as far as not paying taxes during that time and I believe some of that was due to the fact that they had a net loss for at least one of the years in that range. That made me wonder if the "profits" they were referring to were more accurately "revenues" which is a totally different deal but, like I said, I had a hard time tracking the data all the way through to figure that out.

There's plenty of blame to go around but it's up to whoever actually has the vote - whether it's electing representatives or voting on laws - that are responsible for the decisions made.

Does he make the switch to N?

 

http://espn.go.com/n...ach-sources-say

I think we are full at LB, unless the staff wants to make room.

 

Given the complete lack of depth/talent at the position, if he wants in we take him, right?

We could go with the ever-popular "encouraged to look elsewhere" if we have a guy who'd be behind the others.

Not saying I like that approach, but a "look, we've got two guys last year and now five this year - if you want to look around, go for it" type of deal.

His name is Armstrong for crying out loud.

+1

Case dismissed.

Jsneb83

 

Im trying buddy!

Second

EZ-E

Second.