HSKR

perhaps you could inform us? seems like most holidays are just amalgamations of various past celebrations and it would be hard to claim that modern day thanksgiving is a christian holiday. does any church even claim it as a christian holiday? seems like american thanksgiving (and you are right, i stopped caring about the history of thanksgiving after third grade) is closer related to fall harvest festivals. i understand that the notion of giving thanks is a christian value, but i am ignorant of the history you refer to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving which I provided earlier is a good general read. I'm not saying only the devout religious should be allowed to participate, hell, that would take me out of the equation. Do what you want to do, but it still doesn't take away the fact that it is based in religion. In the end we are all taking a day off that is rooted deeply in religion whether we are or not. You bring up a good point about "Thanks"giving. Who were they giving thanks to in the first place?

My bad.

I'll say for myself the most religious aspect that I celebrate during Thanksgiving is hoping the Cowboys get crushed by whomever they are playing that Thursday, but if you can't comprehend that Thanksgiving is a holiday based in religion, in particular Christianity, well then your just ignorant of history. Of course I realize this debate is a lost cause when people think Thanksgiving was invented in America. Ah, that 3rd grade Thanksgiving education.

Everyone knows the Native Americans were Christian. Duh. That's the best you could do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving Darn it, it's a religious holiday too!

why would someone work on a federal holiday if they did not have to? A better question would be why is the federal government issuing a day off for a Christian holiday? If we want separation of church and state then no more days off for Christmas and if Christians want to take the day off then they can use a vacation day. Same thing for Thanksgiving. Because Christmas is hardly a Christian holiday. Wrong.

why would someone work on a federal holiday if they did not have to? A better question would be why is the federal government issuing a day off for a Christian holiday? If we want separation of church and state then no more days off for Christmas and if Christians want to take the day off then they can use a vacation day. Same thing for Thanksgiving.

Wow you are really trying to over think this aren't you? It's not complicated. Money got OJ off. Money is getting this kid off. As disgusting as it is, really nothing more to the story.

It's better to be rich in California

this is literally the republican attitude nowadays. if they do not get what they want, it is our fault when we have to watch the world burn at their hands. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57608318/fiery-tanker-train-derailment-in-canada/ "In the first half of this year, U.S. railroads moved 178,000 carloads of crude oil. That's double the number during the same period last year and 33 times more than during the same period in 2009." You can keep your head in the sand and pretend that the oil isn't going to be moved and blame everyone else every time this happens or you can accept the fact that the oil is already being moved and choose to support the safer method of transport, pipeline. Nobody wants any accidents to occur but you are absolutely right I will blame environmentalists when this happens in Nebraska when it could have been shipped via pipeline, the safer and more environmentally friendly alternative. Of course the good news is when trains derail, cleanup is easier since they have to just let it burn out instead of cleaning up oil off the ground. Just hope it doesn't happen in the middle of your town.

http://sdn.unl.edu/funding_sources "State appropriations accounted for 26 percent of the budget in 2009-2010" Guess they haven't edumacated you about this little thing called "taxes" yet. So since the rest of us have indeed been paying for your education, do we get free tickets too? Maybe you should try a year at a private school like Wesleyan and see if you still think your UNL tuition is still high.

You mean to people who can come and complain to people standing up and making too much noise? As Enhance said, what's the difference between the people who show up and sit on their asses and make hardly any noise than the students who stand the whole time and make a lot of noise? Hundreds of thousands of dollars of full season ticket payments and booster donations. Use it or lose it kids, because if this happens a few more times, they will take seats away from you to sell to regular season ticket holders. They won't take the tops rows either, they will take the bottom ones and move you guys up. It happened in the 90's, it can happen again. Doubtful. If the athletic department doesn't understand the extenuating circumstances behind why the students don't take up the top rows, then they are really, really stupid. At one time the student section was about 14,000 if my memory is right with the same attitude you have. Keep it up and they will whittle it down 6000. The only people who are stupid are the students who think nothing will happen if that top stays empty. The athletic dept doesn't see empty student seats because of extenuating circumstances, they see empty seats to sell to season ticket holders next year.

You mean to people who can come and complain to people standing up and making too much noise? As Enhance said, what's the difference between the people who show up and sit on their asses and make hardly any noise than the students who stand the whole time and make a lot of noise? Hundreds of thousands of dollars of full season ticket payments and booster donations. Use it or lose it kids, because if this happens a few more times, they will take seats away from you to sell to regular season ticket holders. They won't take the top rows either, they will take the bottom ones and move you guys up. It happened in the 90's, it can happen again.

A buddy of mine was telling me that Kaliffs bought a quarter of ground they wanted from this old guy because they owned the other 3 quarters on the section. They told the guy to name is price and they will pay it. I guess the old man shot them a price of $9500/acre and Kaliff wrote him a check right there on the spot. Told the guy he didn't need to wait on it, go ahead and cash it that day if he wanted. Only $9,500 an acre? Hard to say without knowing more about the ground . . . but that probably falls about middle of the road for dryland where I grew up. If someone told me to name my price I'd ask for a lot more than that. For irrigated here in Nebraska, that is a pretty good price. A quarter of ground is about 180 acres. Irrigated in York County has gone for over $15K an acre recently. I believe $16.5K in Hamilton. $9500 an acre would be around a million dollars less for a quarter. I'd say they got a good deal.

I have a bad feeling that may come to fruition. He makes a little over $5 million now. Texas could pay him $10 million if they wanted too. He wins it all at Bama again this year and you got to ask what's left for him to do there? Go to Texas, double your money, prove that you can win it all at a third school. Five years, $50 million, get a national championship or two with Texas, retire and go fishing.

Spice away Messiah.

Currently much less controversial then Husker football.

Just goes to show you how unimportant real issues are becoming in elections and how votes can be won because you are pals with Jay-Z.

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776. Did you just compare the colonial revolutionaries to Al Qaeda? 1. "Al Qaeda", at least as the organization that struck the US on 9/11, doesn't really exist anymore. It's like what we see with Nazism after World War Two. What you have now are a bunch of radical people who subscribe to the basic tenents (Salafi Jihadism, Pan-Islamism etc...) popularized by UBL and AQ and several organizations (AQ in Iraq, AQ in the Arabian Peninsula, AQ in the Islamic Maghreb) that claim to be continuations/heirs/affiliates or somehow incarnations of the original AQ. Some of them have/had legitimate links to the real deal, others do not. It doesn't much matter because of the way these organizations, and the original Al Qaeda, work. These ideas, at their core, are popular with a lot of people throughout the Muslim world and their adherents bounce around between the organizations and allegiances that propagate those radical beliefs all the time. A kid might be a "member" of Lashkar-e-Islam, "the Taliban" and "Al-Qaeda" all at the same time depending on who asks him, when and how. "Terrorism" is (and has been for a while) a franchise operation. It's all farmed out. Give young men these ideas, some money and a little bit of training and motivation and they act. The specific organization isn't really important. 2. The Syrian Civil War, as we all know, is a very complicated conflict. I feel like you're implying that all, or at least most, rebels subscribe to the belief set I mentioned above. It's a concern of mine as well and it's why I want to stay out of it but I really don't think that this is Assad v. Al Qaeda. I think that it's more or less Secular/Moderate Sunni Syrians and Kurds and Islamic Militants (in an awkward working alliance) v. Assad. The proportions on the left side of the equation are important and I don't think anybody has a solid sense of how they breakdown but this and this (I know its reddit, sorry) gives a decent generalized view of it. I'd venture to say that most people fighting Assad are not "Al Qaeda" types but my fear is that we'd see something like we saw in Mali where the more moderate (in Mali it was the ethnic Tuaregs) groups initiate the revolt and then get pushed aside by the stronger and more violent Islamists. This war has been going on too long and I think we're already seeing that radicalization process happening so my fear, which you probably share, is that even if we just support the Moderate Rebels and they do overthrow Assad the radical Islamists will win out. Maybe we completely agree and I'm just taking issue with your wording...oh well. On what I think we should do? Stay the hell out. Syria is an upside down Iraq. Iraq: Secular Baathist Dictator, Oppressed Shia Majority, Sunnis with a few Christians rule. Lots of Oil. Syria: Secular Baathist Dictator, Oppressed Sunni Majority, Alawites with a few Shittes rule. Very little oil comparatively. When I look at Syria I see an ethnic and religious conflict that's actually played out, quite violently, before. We see a Sunni population rising up against their Alawite rulers and this is where it gets really s***y: Whoever wins a lot more people are going to die. Sunnis win? They massacre the Alawites. Assad wins? Pogroms in major Sunni cities. Its going to be bad no matter what we do. Even our "allies" are on different sides of it: - The Turks: Want the Secular side to win out so they have a stable southern neighbor that can help them deal with the Kurds. Under no circumstances do they want that Kurdish population in NE Syria to gain any kind of confidence or freedom of action. - The Saudis and all their rich Gulf buddies: Secretly pulling for the more radical ones to win. This may not be their Governments' positions but their rich nationals who enjoy exporting Wahhabism are definitely funding them. Where do you think the fighters we see blowing up SAA tanks with RPG-29's are getting those fancy things? We're not buying them those things, I can guarantee you that. - The Israelis: They just seem to want Assad's world to burn as a way of undermining Hezbollah. This makes sense but it also lacks foresight as whoever replaces him could be even worse...then again this may explain why they're so quiet. They're probably content to just sit there and throw money at AIPAC until they can buy enough Congressional votes to have our Air Force bomb Assad. - The French: I haven't figured Francois Hollande out yet. I think he's just drunk with the success of his intervention in Mali and probably feels he has to do something because of Syria's French Colonial past. - The Brits: See America, that's how a Government is supposed to work. Your elected representatives tell the executive "no" and then he doesn't do it. ...and then there's us with our illustrious record of overthrowing dictators and installing lasting democracies like we did in Iran, Chile, Guatemala and Brazil. Also, we've never collaborated with or supported autocrats like Park Chung-hee, Teodoro Mbasogo, Saddam Hussein or the House of Saud so we have plenty of moral credibility… We need to stay out of it. The best and safest time to intervene in this war was well over a year ago when it was still young and less of a mess...and even then it would have been a bad idea. Now we're just embarrassing ourselves on the world stage. I apologize for the rambling, I'm typing this while fighting disgust with the UW game. TLDR: Not "Al Qaeda" but still not ok to intervene. Fantastic post! I think the shortest way to summarize it all is if Assad is removed from power we have absolutely no idea if Syria will be a better place. It could be better, it could be the same, it could be worse. I've seen nothing from Obama/US/the rest of the free world that they are going to make the kind of commitment needed if Assad is removed from power. Stay the hell out.

Yep, like France and Spain left us to handle our own problems in 1776. Did you just compare the colonial revolutionaries to Al Qaeda?

Not terribly surprising. Between the out of control pensions and the massive sewer separation project Omaha could be better off than it is. It is really only a slight downgrade we went from Prime to High Grade, AA+ is still better than most. It will help people see that we need to make some changes though. Just as long as Stothert doesn't adopt a "blame Suttle" campaign. It will happen no doubt. This decision was set in motion before Stothert or Suttle took office though. Considering what Suttle had to deal with during the flood it is impressive that we held onto the rating this long. Omaha is strong enough to move back up with some good decisions these next few years. Those pensions need to be fixed eliminated. Fixed it for you.

This has a lot less to do about driver's feelings and a lot more to do with sponsors. If the race fixing issue doesn't get resolved, sponsors will start pulling out of the sport. The economy has been making things very difficult for teams to get good sponsorship the last few years, even with some of the top names. That last thing NASCAR needs is more sponsors to leave because of questions of integrity.

Glad Gordon got in. No reason he shouldn't have been added any different then Newman after learning these other circumstances. Only bad thing is now that he will be racing for the championship he won't have a chance to take Bowyer out. I've never been a big fan of the chase and last week was a good example of why.

Edit for double post when trying to fix a spelling error.

see. we can be friends. Never!