'SkersRule

I take it you're more well-versed in current GOP politicians than I, so could you tell me if there are any GOP leaders, or major players, who adhere to such policies today? If there are, where are their proposals to fix this broken economy? I honestly do not see any current GOP leaders who adhere to such policies. Please note that I am in no way up to speed on every single GOP person out there. But the major players that are currently involved--no I don't think any embrace or practice Goldwater style GOP economic policies. If they are out there, they're getting shouted down or ignored altogether. I suppose Newt Gingrinch might be considered the closest although even he has had more than enough moments of liberal spending. I do hear a lot GOPers talk a good game while campaigning but mysteriously once they get into office it's business as usual.

Could you back that up? Thanks. Uhhh . . . you do realize what resulted from GOP economic policy right? I mean . . . that was only a few years ago. Surely you haven't forgotten already. You might not want to freely throw around the imbecile accusations. 1. Compared to Obama...I'm almost a rocket scientist. Take a look at rigorous state run economies: Cuba, North Korea, etc and what do you see? People are poor and starving. Well not those in government, they're remarkably well fed and wealthy. Government does not, has not, and will never create jobs and prosperity. Only the private sector can do that. And it while people like Obama spew their class warfare bullsh** the simple truth is that if people on the very bottom rung of our economic ladder hope to benefit then those at the top must also benefit. For example, I'm a billionaire investor and I want to invest in carlfense's widget company. Why would I invest in your company if I think I'm going to lose money? However, if I think I'll make money I'll invest. That will give you a company, you will hire people, they will pay taxes, and hopefully have discretionary spending money. Then the waitress makes more because more people have extra money to eat out. Then the waitress spends her extra money and it helps out others. Cutting taxes and regulations creates a positive upward economy while raising taxes and increasing regulations causes a depressed economy, high umemployment--which is exactly what we're seeing with the Obama administration. 2. The deficit. http://www.usgovernm...federal_deficit. Notice in the graph under deficit charts what the deficit was in 2007, the last year under Bush and what it has ballooned to since your "savior" and the rest of the liberal agenda took office. Please note the deficit after 2008...but I'm "sure" the bailouts had nothing to do with it. 3. Republicans are not blameless. They are, in many respects, no better than Democrats when it comes to spending. And in terms of GOP policies, if we're taking about true Barry Goldwater type of GOP policies then those are the policies that work and help make a country prosperous. But if we're talking about the absurd neo-con psuedo "gop" policies then pardon me while I puke.

That's because he was playing against similarly sized OL. Holy crap, you put a 240 pound guy at NT in a 3-4 in today's game and your defense would get rolled.

What an obtuse fool. Yeah sure Obama, the private sector doesn't create jobs...government does. I love how Obama says that education, one of the most sacred liberal cows, will possibly be gutted to pay for "tax cuts for the wealthy." Standard liberal boilerplate garbage. Education spending overall has trended upwards for the past 30 years. More standard liberal boilerplate garbage: class warfare, envy, and resentment. So I guess 8+ % unemployment has always been the case? Oh wait, that's just under your idiotic administration. Yes and your ridiculous bailout contributed to more debt in two years than Bush II had in 8. It's amazing that somehow Barck sees his party's as completely blameless for the current economic situation. It takes a special kind of fool to be such a dullard. We had to "foot the bill" because you and your party are complete imbeciles when it comes to sound economic fiscal policy. And I had to stop reading there because it's just too much idiocy to handle.

Hyperbolize much? Behind Rex we have: Ameer Abdullah, Mike Marrow (who is listed as a FB but can, if rumors are true, play IB as well) with Imani Cross coming in as a true freshman in about a month. And then there is Braylon Heard who could step in at RB/IB if necessary. Then there are the walk-ons who could potentially be called upon. So that's, at the minimum, four potential RBs other than Rex. That's why I said: a) RB really isn't a priority and b) we only need one in this upcoming class.

Dead Sara is coming back to Boise on Aug 23 with Midline ( a local band I think), Aranda, and Saving Abel. Tickets are 8 bucks. Can't wait to see DS again!

I know you are but what am I??? A WINNER! I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

I just acquired the game yesterday so these answers are subject to change or be modified later...against the computer: 1. QB...You can take off and run on a pass play if you're not really under pressure. However, if you're under pressure you have almost zero chance at getting away. It doesn't matter if your QB has 99 speed and he's being chased by 56 speed DT. Running the option is actually better although you still need to run it almost exclusively to the TE side. Running an option to the open side of a formation results in getting smashed almost immediately and almost guarantees a fumble. 2. The zone read has come a long way. I've actually been able to run it very effectively at times-other times it's a complete disaster. There's no rhyme or reason as to why it works one play then fails miserably the next. What I've found happens when the play fails is the DE to the read side can somehow crash down on the RB, peel off and tackle your QB, all in the span of about .003 seconds. Giving the ball to the FB on the option out of the i-formation isn't even possible with Nebraska's default playbook. In fact, I can't find a single play in the Huskers default playbook where there is a strict handoff to the FB option or not. All the options I've ran and plays I've looked at have been load or sprint options. 3. Defenders speed/awareness is still, at times, remarkably unrealistic. LBs can still, at times, jump seemingly 5 feet in the air to intercept a pass over the middle, although it appears that EA has somewhat addressed this issue. Other observations: Running game...is pretty realistic to a degree. Breaking a long TD run is now a lot harder than in past games where all you had to do is get to the outside. Defenders, even computer controlled one, take better angles. There are still the WTF moments but they seem to be less and further in between. Although seeing a 180 pound UCLA running back bowl over a 300 pound DT (Chase Rome) kinda raised an eyebrow. It is still pretty much impossible to run to the open side of a formation though. Passing game...I'm still learning the nuances of it but it appears to be much more controlled and smooth. It appears that now you can actuall throw passes over the middle and complete them. The hot routes-I wish I could set my own rather than being stuck with the lame default ones. On the road...It's bizarre because your players, even being up 21 points with 4 minutes to go in the 4th Q, are still "rattled" by crowd noise. Defense...blitzing is pretty much necessary on every play because playing base man or zone pretty much ensures you'll get run on to the tune of about 6 yards a pop. Those are my observations for now.

At this point we still need: 2 CB (Cover guys). 2 DE (Pass rushers). 3 OL (At least two of which should be OTs). 2 DT (Biggest need thus far). 1 RB (Not a huge prioroty, but still necessary). 1 WR (Have Gladney, but still need another). 1 QB (Getting Stanton was big, but one more would be good). 1 ATH (A versatile kid who could play WR, SS, FS). Based on our current 12 commits, signing the above allotment would give us 25 scholarships.

Decked, gotta give you props for that...hilarious!

Every team, except Nebraska, can beat Texas....

Not to be indolent, but I really don't give a sh**. To get to the office of President you're going to have some skeletons in your proverbial closet.

Yes it is okay to expect the best. But if the only way you derive true happiness is from Nebraska winning all their games then you're rarely going to be happy. If winning all the games were easy we'd be Boise State.

Well according to an Omaha World Herald story the "aircraft carrier" has made the turn around and is steaming full speed ahead into Big 10 battle.

I concur with this ^^^. However, I don't really understand why some of our fans are so down on this team when they haven't even played a game yet this season.

Which I do. The difference is that a kid from Texas, California, Ohio, Florida, etc faces equal to or better than competition.

A

You are certainly free to think whatever you want. But a "good man" does NOT: 1) Look the other way while children are being abused. 2) Cover up abuse of children. 3) Protect the abuser of children. These are ALL things that Paterno did...none of which would be done by a "good" man.

Since when in the entire history of American politics has a voter's "qualifications" ever been a component of casting a vote?

But somehow "majority will" is perfectly fine and acceptable when talking about how Al Gore "won" the 2000 election? Point: Lefties love to point to "majority" when it favors them and then ridicule and down play it when it goes against them.

I guess the difference is when a majority of Americans oppose legislation and yet it stands....to wit obamacare.

I also thought he would have been gone along time ago. I think it is a matter of time before they do offer. I concur. LSU will offer him sometime at the end of Dec/early Jan and he'll decomit from ASU and switch to LSU.

I can do this all day as well...2010 South Dakota... 1. Nebraska didn't even prepare or practice for this team and the utterly flat performance demonstrates this. 2. You can't say with a straight face that if Nebraska put forth 100% effort in this game that they wouldn't have won by 70+. Hell we smashed a "tough" Washington team early in the season only to lose to them in the bowl game. Are you saying that South Dakota has talent equal to or better than Washington?

And I sincerely doubt it was the lone female.............

1. Early non-conference game. 2. UCLA coming off a 6-8 season. 3. New coaching staff, offense, defense, the whole shmear... There is approximately a .0000123409765987% chance of "laying an egg" in this one. I know the percentage is accurate because I pulled it out of thin air.