BigRedBuster

Wait....You actually think it's a good thing that so many people register for a party and then pretty much always just vote along party lines? Interesting. So.....really.....winning an election should simply be a matter of who registers the most voters. Actually making a decision based on the quality of the candidate should just be thrown out the window.

They are both extremely pathetic in very different ways. I have absolutely no desire to sit and contemplate on which is more pathetic because I feel that's a wasted effort.

A more interesting discussion would have been if TO would have allowed Alvarez to clean house and hire a new young and energetic staff that possibly would have kept recruiting going. I'm thinking....no. TO was pretty committed to those guys. At the point of his retirement, it was to a fault.

But...I'm already seeing comments from both sides implying that if they lose, they will partly blame the people who didn't vote for either candidate. Maybe that wasn't your intent but that's how your comment came across. To that, I say....it's not MY fault both candidates do not deserve my vote. I had absolutely no say in who those candidates are and I find it absolutely disgusting and against my moral judgement to put my name on supporting either one of them. Again....if that wasn't what you were implying, then..so be it. But, I have seen or had discussions with other people that DO feel that way. Hell....even if I DID vote for Hillary it would have absolutely no affect due to the fact I live in a district that is pretty much 100% going for the village idiot.

So...I'm supposed to vote Hillary and give legitimacy to her (and the Democratic party's view on issues) simply because the Republican Party is so pathetic they nominate the village idiot? Sorry...no thanks. If you want my vote, change the Democratic party and their attitudes on certain issues. AND...nominate someone that isn't pathetic in her own right.

Yes, I know what you mean. It is a term that got bastardized by charlatans from both spheres of politics and religion - both using each other for their own ends and thus loosing credibility in the long run. My son (age 29) & I were talking over lunch today. He said he wont vote for Hillary and won't vote for Trump. But even as dislikeable Hillary is to him, and her views on some of the religiously important issues, if he had a gun to his head and had to vote for one of them, he'd vote for Hillary just because Trump is such a morally repugnant candidate - even though he gives lip service to the evangelical side. He said at least Hillary will be somewhat status quo and won't tick off foreign leaders and has a base of experience. We both then got talking about the concept I mentioned above. As Christians we are to be light in the world regardless if the world is too our liking or not. If it hates us or not. Our mission is to love, help/serve our fellow man as Christ would regardless. It is not to create a Christianized American (Christians in American have the same right as anyone else to partake in the public square but they (and others) need to always remember it is still a 'public' square). As the video mentions, younger evangelicals are more open to issues that are harder for us older evangelicals to embrace - global warming, environmentalism, larger govt spending for social programs, etc. These were always side issues for us older people. One can be an evangelical and also a 'liberal' politically on many issues. They shouldn't be 2 disqualifying terms. As Moore states, one can be a citizen of the kingdom of heaven and have different ways of fixing things on this earth - a liberal way or a conservative way. I think most of us get into arguments over the process and needlessly attack the good nature of the other person - they just have a different path to fixing the same problem you want to fix. I know I have to watch it - not be so dogmatic and listen more. That is why this forum is good for me. For example: You, Dude, Zoogs are more liberal than I, Knapp is more moderate than I - I need your voices to keep me or bring me into balance. It is good to hear other perspectives. (And yes, Knapp, if you read this, I still post too many conservative articles. But I do read many of the more liberal ones you or the other guys post. I'm conservative so I lean that way. I guess I just reinforce my belief system which isn't always the best way of getting balanced. I limit my time on the web so I go to what I think is good and know you guys will post other stuff I can look at and consider. yea, I know too lazy or stressed for time to take the time to dig deeper. Maybe we should do a week of conservatives finding good stuff on liberal sites and liberals posting good stuff they find on conservative sites. ) So you call yourself a Christian, but it's difficult for you to embrace the idea of protecting the Earth that God created and taking care of the needy? Why not take care of God's creation? “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” Genesis 2:15 Or the needy? "'Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.' Then all the people shall say, Amen!'" Deuteronomy 27:19 "He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing." Deuteronomy 10:18 "because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him." Job 29:12 How is that difficult for you to embrace? No you got that wrong or misunderstand my statement. My life verse is Isaiah 58 quoted below - primarily the bold. On a personal level I've been involved in many areas of social justice issues. Volunteer for at cancer center, homeless shelter volunteer, feed the poor work, starting a ministry for single moms and their kids, help an organization that worked wt recovering addicts, etc. To more clearly state it - many in my generation tended to be more focused politically, on a few 'big' issues revolving around pro-life. We felt it was the church's role to do the social justice things and not big govt spending. Big govt spending is kind of a shotgun approach. You send a lot of pellets into the air in hopes of hitting something but not very efficient when it comes to waste etc. There is a place for it as only the govt has the funds to do some of the things it does, but non-profits whether it be the church or other organizations are more efficient in meeting the individual right were they are. I would like to see more of the govt giving assistance to these types of local organizations instead of large wasteful bureaucracies found on both the state and federal levels. Oh, and by the way, I do believe we are to be good stewards of the earth as well. Isaiah 58New International Version (NIV) True Fasting 58 “Shout it aloud, do not hold back. Raise your voice like a trumpet. Declare to my people their rebellion and to the descendants of Jacob their sins. 2 For day after day they seek me out; they seem eager to know my ways, as if they were a nation that does what is right and has not forsaken the commands of its God. They ask me for just decisions and seem eager for God to come near them. 3 ‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’ “Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers. 4 Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for people to humble themselves? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord? 6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? 8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness[a] will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. “If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, 10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. 11 The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. 12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings. 13 “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the Lord’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, 14 then you will find your joy in the Lord, and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. Forgive me if I came off snarky, wasn't my intent, I was just trying to cultivate discourse. I appreciate your response. I will push back though (for, hopefully, constructive discussion.) Big government spending always comes up as a reason not to fund or put emphasis on programs that help the needy. However I hear very little objection from Evangelicals and GOPers for the big government spending that funds endless war. Why is that okay, but making sure that kids don't go hungry isn't? Why is it that the sacredness of life only comes up in abortion? Why doesn't the sacredness of life come up regarding healthcare for all, gun deaths, protecting the environment, etc? Your forgiven. You don't know me and sometimes we stereotype people based on some label - conservative, liberal, GOP, Dem, etc. I have to watch it too. My comments are in red below. One question at a time. Big government spending always comes up as a reason not to fund or put emphasis on programs that help the needy. However I hear very little objection from Evangelicals and GOPers for the big government spending that funds endless war. Why is that okay, but making sure that kids don't go hungry isn't? first off, you are painting with too big of a brush. Many of the same people are involved with the needy on a personal level. Some of the most generous givers to the needy are conservatives as some studies have pointed out in years past & especially religious conservatives. We give out of our own pocket and not take other people's money (in the form of taxes) and call that our giving. Endless war isn't OK. Wars when justified for national protection, security should be limited in scope, not expansive as the war on terror became - going from Afgan to trying to justify war in Iraq - wrong. And by the way, Dems do the war thing also - think Vietnam, Balkin states in the 1990s - as the world's policeman we've got into needless conflicts under both parties. Both parties have allowed the MIC to control them. One has to keep this all in balance. The first obligation of govt is the security of its people and provide for the general welfare of its citizens. The budget must adequately fund security issues (NSA has gone too far, Iraq - too far), infrastructure and care of its citizens. Sometimes the budget pendulum swings too far one way or the other. Think of the GOP and Dems as 2 big brothers if you will. Each feels a responsibility to its citizens for a specific core role of govt. The GOP emphasis has been on security and budget restraint (except under GWB) - hard to do social programs with uncontrollable debt. The Dems have emphasized the social programs that take care of our own. I think if we get the big defense lobbyists out of the picture, we could come to some agreement on closing needless defense spending around the world, close some bases and then we may have more funds for social programs. This is what occurred in the 1990s. After Reagan's big military spending in the 1980s (pendulum swing) brought down the walls of communism we had the 'peace dividend' in the 1990s that allowed for reduction in military spending & more spending on other issues (pendulum swing) and help lead to the balanced budget later that decade. Why is it that the sacredness of life only comes up in abortion? It doesn't but it starts there. If we don't value the life in the womb, how will we treat the child outside the womb? Or the elderly, or the mentally disabled. etc. There are those who talk about terminating life of disabled, mentally disabled, soon after birth or in some cases later. These same people are also for terminating the life of those costly elderly who no longer contribute to society (a false evaluation regardless of state of individual. The most difficult to take care of should bring out the best in us not the worse). They state that the elderly cost too much to maintain due to medical need. Most organizations and individuals involved in prolife issues are also involved with or support crisis pregnancy centers that care for the mother and child, by helping with adoption if the mother wants to give the child to another family, etc. And then helping the mother to build a more successful life. Why doesn't the sacredness of life come up regarding healthcare for all, gun deaths, protecting the environment, etc? Again with healthcare it is in regards to means and not motive. I think we'd all would like to see health care available and affordable for all. The issue isn't motive it is a difference in the method in providing it. We have now seen what ObamaCare has become. Premiums and deductibles will skyrocket after the election, insurance companies are dropping out and the insurance is now becoming too expensive. Many will decide to pay the fine instead of taking the insurance. The GOP has for long been obstructionist and haven't pushed their alternative. But there are methods of providing healthcare via private means that haven't been tried. The old system was broken and this new system is even more broken. Yes, reasonable guns laws need to be enacted. No issue there. But again gun deaths are still a matter of the heart - Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws has the highest gun murder rates. Other things contribute - drugs, poverty, joblessness etc to the hopelessness found in cities with high gun death rates. Dems have run many of these major cities for years and these issues continue. Just throwing money at it isn't fixing the problems. Of course protecting the environment is important. Balance regulation is needed to do so. The USA has transformed itself from the 1960s to today in this regards. We are much cleaner than what we were when I was growing up. Bigger issue is what is China and India doing about it? Huge polluters. So in summary the sacredness of life must start in the womb and extend all the way to death. How we take care of the weakest in our society tells us the most about us as a people and as a society. The difference in emphasis isn't always about motive but on the means. There are very sincere people on both sides who what to solve the same problems but have different means of solving them. Just like we as individuals need to constantly check our priorities to make sure they line up with our stated values, our nation needs to do this as well. We do it during elections, at moments of crisis like 911, but we should do it more frequently by staying involved in the process - whether working at a crisis pregnancy center, a soup kitchen, lobbing congress, picking up trash in the national parks. mentoring an at risk youth, etc. We can't do it all nor should we be expected to do it all. But we can do something. The same with each party. The repubs can do it all and neither can the dems. This creates a problem - we could work together with the strengths of each party to accomplish a combined good. The polarization of our politics in recent years has prevented this from happening and both sides need to compromise for the good of the country. It doesn't but it starts there. If we don't value the life in the womb, how will we treat the child outside the womb? Or the elderly, or the mentally disabled. etc. Well judging by two instances that come to mind, the GOP cares very little about how we value life outside the womb. Earlier this year a bill was put forth by the GOP that cut free or reduced school lunches for children in poverty. “Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016” (H.R. 5003) that guts a key part of the federal free lunch program for children living in poverty. The bill is the product of an avid pro-life Tea Party Republican from Indiana, Representative Todd Rokita. Rokita wants to rein in government spending by eliminating access to free and reduced-price school lunches for over 3.5 million children at over 7,200 public schools as a cost saving measure. And, just to add insult to hungry children, Rokita’s legislation raises the eligibility requirement for kids in dire poverty to receive free or reduced price lunches." http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/16/gop-bill-school-lunches-3-5-million-kids-pro-life-hypocrisy.html The GOP's opposition to the Zadroga Act as well comes to mind. "Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11. A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year. The bill would provide funding for a health program to treat first responders, construction and cleanup workers and residents who inhaled toxic particles after the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The $7.4 billion cost of the legislation over 10 years is paid for by a provision that would prevent foreign multinational corporations from using tax havens to avoid taxes on U.S. income." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote Dems do the war thing also They sure do. The GOP emphasis has been on security and budget restraint Reagan did his fair share of spending as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/#35659e7257ec There are those who talk about terminating life of disabled, mentally disabled, soon after birth or in some cases later. These same people are also for terminating the life of those costly elderly who no longer contribute to society I've not seen any legislation related to this We have now seen what ObamaCare has become. Premiums and deductibles will skyrocket after the election, insurance companies are dropping out and the insurance is now becoming too expensive. Many will decide to pay the fine instead of taking the insurance. The GOP has for long been obstructionist and haven't pushed their alternative. ObamaCare was never intended as the end all be all. It was a step forward to help get Americans health insurance. It has genuine issues that need to be addressed, no doubt. But this alternative by the GOP has never come to light. They have not provided any viable legislative alternatives as they have voted dozens of times to repeal it. Chicago with some of the strictest gun laws has the highest gun murder rates. Other things contribute - drugs, poverty, joblessness etc to the hopelessness found in cities with high gun death rates. Dems have run many of these major cities for years and these issues continue. Just throwing money at it isn't fixing the problems. Yes Chicago and many big cities have their issues with guns. Wouldn't working towards alleviating that issue be a good thing? Instead of denying that anything could or should be done. So in summary the sacredness of life must start in the womb and extend all the way to death. How we take care of the weakest in our society tells us the most about us as a people and as a society. The difference in emphasis isn't always about motive but on the means. Not wanting to fund school lunches for children or healthcare for 9/11 first responders? What means are the GOP proposing, because I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing plenty of other factors taking a precedence over the alleged sacredness of life. Fru, I think you are hitting on many issues that are at the core of why many here (even though still conservative) are now registered as Independent. So, going through these issues and trying to find a Republican apologist on this board may be a difficult task. Not saying there aren't some. But, it isn't the majority.

Regarding the Red - I think there was a reaction in the 1990s to the 'get along' republicans of the prior years. When the dems had control of the house for 40 years and the repub leaders basically got along to get along, the 94 group said enough of the do nothing leadership of the past that would not challenge the dems on anything. Newt took over and provided a different agenda. However, as time goes on, everything loses momentum and dwarfs into something less - the present day obstructionist party. Instead of presenting good alternatives on the table they obstruct. When confronted why they don't have proposals, they first say - we don't control the house. then it was 'we don't have the senate'. After voters gave them both the house and the senate - we'll we can't do anything wtout the presidency. Always excuses, no actions. It is so partisan they could have fixed obamacare, social security, etc by now if they were of the frame of mind to work wt the other side. I agree wt the bold I agree. The problem is, the attitude Newt had at that point in time, may have been an appropriate attitude. However, that should not be the long term attitude of the party. There are times in History where an aggressive type of attitude is necessary. But, those involved need to understand that can't be the status quo into eternity. It's like raising kids. There are times when it is required to be a hard ass on them. But, that can't be the standard attitude towards your kids or they stop listening or caring what you say.

Hmmm....I guess that you can look at that. It would be another example of how screwed we are with party politics. I don't understand this comment. Not that I disagree, just not sure why it's in response to this. Because everyone is just assumed to vote according to party lines instead of actually discussing issues, looking at candidates and making an informed decision. If elections can be predicted simply by looking at if the voter is registered R or D.....well.....that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Good God....please can we change our process????

It has always been clear that Nebraska is a very special place in the heart of Alvarez.

These two tweets came up on my feed one right after the other. The Republican party has totally lost it's ability to see reality. What they don't seem to be able to grasp is that the ONLY reason why they are going to lose the Whitehouse once again and possibly the Senate, is their own ineptitude in nominating someone even remotely mentally stable enough and knowledgable enough to do the job. But....oh boy....if he loses, they are going to grab their muskets. Clueless bastards. The article linked in the first tweet quotes the congressman saying they might go start a third party. GREAT!!! Go!!!! get the hell out of the party and let people who know what they are doing take over.

It is really going to suck having a World Series game on at the same time as the Husker vs. Wisconsin game. Have to say....I'm probably going to be watching the Cubs. This is for all the marbles in the world (including the steelies). I'll tape the Husker game and watch it later.

Maybe she needs to start with her husband.

Both are pathetic. I can not and will not support either one. No matter what happens, January 20th 2017 will be a very sad day for America.

got a kick out of this. MLB calling out the Indians Twitter feed.

I've been saying a lot of the same things. Good description of the problem.

To be accurate, this is the "MEDIAN" salary which is different than "average" salary. I would be interested in seeing the "average" salary rankings.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm confused as to how any news outlet knows this stuff. When I send in a ballot, I always thought it was secret and nobody other than the machine or person tallying up the votes would ever see it or know anything about it.If 500,000 people vote early in Nebraska, how does anyone know what candidate is winning from those votes? I believe they're just looking at registered Democrats and their share of the early voting, compared to previous years. Hmmm....I guess that you can look at that. It would be another example of how screwed we are with party politics.

The more I look at this, the more I'm uncomfortable with even the term "Religious Right". It implies that if you are religious, somehow you should be associated with a political "side". That's just simply not how I believe being a Christian is. My Christianity is not tied to a political side.

I haven't watched or listened to your link. But, from what you posted, here is where my view has changed. I used to be the died in the wool Republican that thought that they were the party that represented all that was good in the world and I did my darndest to defend everything they did and everyone they elected. Finally, it got to the point where I absolutely couldn't do it any more. I found myself defending the indefensible. I found myself defending these people who then in turn would do things I found disgusting and completely wrong. I was doing it all for the wrong reasons. I thought these few issues were so important that I should just over look all the other crap. I decided enough is enough. I still am a Christian but, I have realized my government doesn't represent me for my religious beliefs nor should it. It is there to give me the freedom to believe how I believe.....not to promote or punish others due to my religious beliefs. As just one example.......I am still pro life. But, I'm tired of being played like a fiddle by politicians who really have absolutely no desire to actually reduce the need for women to feel they need an abortion. That work needs to be done in our homes, churches, schools and society as a whole. This is just one example. Many of my political beliefs have morphed into this type of thought process. Another.....My neighbor is a minister and has a very nice family with three daughters. The oldest is a senior this year. I saw one of her senior pictures that she posted on line. It's her draped with an American flag with about 3 or 4 guns. The comment was something about something with our election. I sat there and couldn't believe what I was seeing. Somehow, this minister thinks that guns are some how tied to his Christianity and in turn, that love of owning guns in the name of God is fed through the government. These are the types of issues where the Religious Right have gone WAY off track to the point that, even though I'm a Christian and a gun owner, I have no desire to be some how associated with this group of people. This is where the Religious Right need to reevaluate their values and what really is important in the name of their religion and how that religion says they should be leading their lives.

Naaa....I'm OK with discussing the severity of different types of losses and the level of disappointment I have with the various situations.

And then I'll just laugh at them. If Bo was still the HC I wouldn't be surprised at all by a blowout loss. If Riley loses this game, itll be close and competitive. Not a 40 point blowout that bo made famous. While I agree...this is one thing that I feel absolutely needs to leave the minds of the Husker fans. "Close loss" is for the "little engine that could" programs...Not for Nebraska. Back to the impact of this game. A win here really pretty much gives Nebraska the West Division Title. Please explain who is saying they are going to be happy with a close loss or a close loss is great or wonderful. Sure, well first...I did not say that people would be happy with a close loss or that a close loss is great or wonderful. I said that we need to stop thinking that a close loss is something NU should strive for but since you asked here are some posts that I would toss into the old "I would be okay with a close loss" category. I would be happy with a close, competitive game. Final score somewhere close to the spread. I want Nebraska to kick their asses and win. But I'll be satisfied if we prepare well this week and play hard Saturday. I'd really like to see our O-line have a great game giving TA time and TN/DO lanes. Preferably win but either way just make the game a competitive one. Just like Wisconsin's games with Michigan and Ohio St. were. If we do that it will do a lot for the confidence of the fan base and the national media that we are close to being "back". If that perception happens then we will win a lot of recruiting battles with this staff which in turn could mean a lot more successful seasons ahead. As painful as it would be, just keep this thing close. Just let it be a 4 quarter game. F you Bo Pelini and what you have done to my confidence levels So, clearly there are people (Husker fans) that if NU gets beat on a last second field goal will "okay" with it and so on. Now, I see what you are getting at, I really do. I get it, trust me, I do. You yourself said something like "If we lose, I won't be happy. But, at least if I get my wish here, it will be respectable." Your wish, you said, was to keep it respectable. That is the "Little Engine That Could" stuff. This is NU...They have out-recruited Wisconsin for the last 10 years...Our head coach was the freaking mentor to their coach, we have a 4 year starter at QB, they have a freaking freshman statue at QB. They just lost their all-world LB and their All-world NT. This is Nebraska...Not WMU, trying to make a name for themselves. f#*k being okay with a close loss. Win the freaking game. They can do it. Period. To the red part: No you don't. And, to the blue part implying that you understand my quote: You clearly have proven that you have no clue what I or anyone else was saying. Here is my quote from the other thread that you think you understood.....but took out of context. Got, your wish is that it is respectable. That is cool My wish is for a Husker win...and a threesome. You're really having a problem with comprehension here aren't you? No...you said you won't be happy with a loss. Neither will I. But then I have to ask, what is your wish? Why say that if you get your wish here, it will be respectable. Does that mean that you are okay with a 21-20 loss? Yes...you are having problems here... let me try to help you. a)....."I obviously want to see us win" means, I want us to win. b)....."But, if we lose, I want to see us competitive and have a chance to win it in the 4th. " Means, there is a chance we are going to lose this game. So....if we do lose, I want us to at least have a chance to win it in the 4th quarter instead of a total blow out and be finished by half time. c)....."Also, if we lose, I want it to be because they make good plays instead of us doing something totally inept." Means, IF that bad thing none of us want to happens, happens, I want it to be because they beat us by being a really good team instead of us totally crapping our pants on the field acting like we have never played football before. You know....like maybe the team was well prepared and coached well. d)....."If we lose, I won't be happy." Meaning....there's that pesky quote again about me not being happy if we lose. Interesting that you can't seem to quite understand that. e)....."But, at least if I get my wish here, it will be respectable." Now....here is the really tricky part. Concentrate really close. IF WE LOSE (important point, you do understand that I won't be happy if we lose and I want us to win....correct?) and I get my wish (meaning items b and c) at least it will be respectable.