BigRedBuster

Very well said Mitt Romney

I actually would not be surprised if impeachment actions aren't taken within a year of him being elected. Both sides don't like him. It wouldn't be hard to find enough people in Washington to get it done.

Guy.... I still just can't get over the fact that you pointed out Alabama (in the NC game) called a pass play on 3rd and short. Oh the horror!!!!

I'm not concerned at all about talent at this position. Bryant is a great addition for depth.

Have to admit, I'm a little burned out on offers. We have offered an amazing number of kids in the last month. At this point, other than s few, there is no way of knowing if any are even interested.

No, it's not a large difference. But it's pretty interesting considering how many people try to claim that we don't have a good enough offensive line or an elite RB to be able to run the ball. Very true.

Going to Cubs/Dodgers memorial day week. Sitting three rows behind the cubs dugout for the Tuesday game. Wifes first Wrigley experience. We are going with a group of 8-10 people. Half Cubs fans and half Cards fans. It's going to be interesting sitting with them in the bleachers.

That is not a huge difference that is all of a sudden going to make us a championship team. Now, do that and not turn the ball over constantly and we would have a pretty dang good offense. Couple that with a great defense and...now we're talking.

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.I could be remembering wrong. I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive... I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)... I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall! K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty. The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men. So there. I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.O.o Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general. Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.Well, Buster, we are on Huskerboard, right? Is every post on all of HB about just things that happen on HB? Do posts on HB even tend to be about HB? Pretty sure this is a place where people like to talk about what's going on in the world. I posted about it because I was reminded about it in this thread. Mostly because of knapp's reply. As for your weird reply about me not liking Clinton and being upset about men not liking her, you're again not getting it. Men voting for her far leas than the norm makes me wonder why they're not voting for her. I.E. Is it only because of her qualifications/policies? Is it possible that it's partially because she's female? We can't know that just from looking at polls for one candidate but it's a thought I've considered. And please don't give me an anecdote about how 2 years ago you voted for a woman. She gets lots of male votes. Just a lot less proportionally compared to other demographics other than youth. One thing I'd be interested in researching is whether there are any female candidates that get as much of the male vote as they get from other demographics, when they're running against a male. Conversely, Sanders is getting less of the female vote. I think it'd be hard to study this. The telling thing would be what happened in the general election with the M/F votes but obviously we can't test that with 2 nominees. Or....is it that many women vote for her because she is a woman? My suspicion is that both your assumption and my statement here are both true. So, are you as outrages at women who vote for her because she is a woman as you are about men who don't vote for her because she is a man? Sorry, this conversation is eerily similar to statements that I received about Obama claiming I didn't like him because he was black and I'm racist. Yes, there were racists that didn't vote for him for that reason. But, there were also black people that voted for him BECAUSE he was black. In actuality, I didn't like him because I didn't like his politics. I couldn't care less if he is black or if Clinton is a woman. For whatever reason these conversations often end up with you feeling personally affronted and becoming defensive about something. Obviously if men are voting for her in lower numbers, women are voting for Sanders in lower numbers. Data and statistics interest me. I'm not trying to threaten the goodness of men. More specifically I'm not saying that you, BigRedBuster, are a sexist monster because in SC Clinton got a small proportion of the male vote compared to other demographics. Somehow because 4-8 years ago someone accused you of being racist you've jumped to this crazy conclusion about what my post means. I specifically asked you not to give me an anecdote because I knew you would do just that. And you did. I'm not offended or becoming defensive. I'm simply asking questions, discussing and confronting what possibly is an over sensitivity towards comments made here. It seems like defensiveness when I bring up data and say it makes me curious and you automatically talk about how people called you a racist. Or when I mentioned people talk about women's looks more often than men's, you automatically bring up a couple anecdotes to show that "hay they are mean to men too!!!111" as if to show there is no problem when clearly it happens more often with women. I haven't been sensitive or very offended by any comments in this thread. If it seemed like I was particularly pissed at anyone on here, I wasn't. If it seemed like I think this is a problem on Huskerboard, I don't and I wasn't implying it. I think the comment that made me think of how irritating it is in general (in media and society) was the one about the person's wife who said Hillary looked nice in the White House and on the campaign but not as a senator. That person isn't even a member of HB that I know of but they definitely speak for a lot of people which I think is sad. Literally however Hillary dresses, if she tries to look prettier when campaigning, or if she doesn't, or if she tries to look too serious and not "dolled up" enough, she gets scrutinized. This is the same with any female who runs for office. I don't recall a previous conversation on here where people talked about what Hillary looks like. I was absolutely not talking about Huskerboard. No....I'm discussing your point by making counter points. That isn't being defensive, it's called discussing the point you tried to make. You get awfully testy if someone counters a comment you make.

Great..... Never comes during 8 years of his own Presidency...but, his wife wants our delegates so...hey....I'm finally going to go hang out in Nebraska.

Yeah definitely would make more sense if it was meant for high school coaches. You would think he would have specified that a little more clearly though. Not just coaches. I'm sure they would allow some HS players to also attend.

So, in other words, he has his people he buffaloed a while ago and everyone else is staying away.

Hell, I'm fine using the tree out back but I'm sure someone would be offended by that.

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.I could be remembering wrong. I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive... I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)... I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall! K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty. The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men. So there. I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.O.o Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general. Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.Well, Buster, we are on Huskerboard, right? Is every post on all of HB about just things that happen on HB? Do posts on HB even tend to be about HB? Pretty sure this is a place where people like to talk about what's going on in the world. I posted about it because I was reminded about it in this thread. Mostly because of knapp's reply. As for your weird reply about me not liking Clinton and being upset about men not liking her, you're again not getting it. Men voting for her far leas than the norm makes me wonder why they're not voting for her. I.E. Is it only because of her qualifications/policies? Is it possible that it's partially because she's female? We can't know that just from looking at polls for one candidate but it's a thought I've considered. And please don't give me an anecdote about how 2 years ago you voted for a woman. She gets lots of male votes. Just a lot less proportionally compared to other demographics other than youth. One thing I'd be interested in researching is whether there are any female candidates that get as much of the male vote as they get from other demographics, when they're running against a male. Conversely, Sanders is getting less of the female vote. I think it'd be hard to study this. The telling thing would be what happened in the general election with the M/F votes but obviously we can't test that with 2 nominees. Or....is it that many women vote for her because she is a woman? My suspicion is that both your assumption and my statement here are both true. So, are you as outrages at women who vote for her because she is a woman as you are about men who don't vote for her because she is a man? Sorry, this conversation is eerily similar to statements that I received about Obama claiming I didn't like him because he was black and I'm racist. Yes, there were racists that didn't vote for him for that reason. But, there were also black people that voted for him BECAUSE he was black. In actuality, I didn't like him because I didn't like his politics. I couldn't care less if he is black or if Clinton is a woman. For whatever reason these conversations often end up with you feeling personally affronted and becoming defensive about something. Obviously if men are voting for her in lower numbers, women are voting for Sanders in lower numbers. Data and statistics interest me. I'm not trying to threaten the goodness of men. More specifically I'm not saying that you, BigRedBuster, are a sexist monster because in SC Clinton got a small proportion of the male vote compared to other demographics. Somehow because 4-8 years ago someone accused you of being racist you've jumped to this crazy conclusion about what my post means. I specifically asked you not to give me an anecdote because I knew you would do just that. And you did. I'm not offended or becoming defensive. I'm simply asking questions, discussing and confronting what possibly is an over sensitivity towards comments made here.

It is weird to think how hard people are starting to work so that they can try and stop they guy that seems to be the most popular and gets the most votes. I can't think of a time when that has happened before... Also...Rubio is super hot. He's a disgusting candidate that is winning by only getting around 30-35% of the vote. Clinton will demolish him in the general because she will have the money to put out ads telling the truth about him. AND, it's not that hard digging up crap about him and showing what a fake piece of crap he is. For the life of me, I can not figure out how in the hell there are 30-35% of the Republicans in this country that love this guy. It is one of the most baffling political issues of the last 20 years. Trump's platform is a very dumbed down (and extreme) version of Obama's "Hope and Change" campaign. Appeal to the masses by telling them you're going to change the way things are going, and that they'll be better off for it. Obama at least had some semblance of a plan, but Trump is merely taking that core concept and turning it to 11 and spouting off about how he's going to fix the "bad" or something. Thing is, Clinton will not hesitate to dig up what ever about him and pound it into our brains over and over again. A Clinton vs. Trump campaign is going to be very very ugly.

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.I could be remembering wrong. I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive... I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)... I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall! K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty. The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men. So there. I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.O.o Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general. Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.Well, Buster, we are on Huskerboard, right? Is every post on all of HB about just things that happen on HB? Do posts on HB even tend to be about HB? Pretty sure this is a place where people like to talk about what's going on in the world. I posted about it because I was reminded about it in this thread. Mostly because of knapp's reply. As for your weird reply about me not liking Clinton and being upset about men not liking her, you're again not getting it. Men voting for her far leas than the norm makes me wonder why they're not voting for her. I.E. Is it only because of her qualifications/policies? Is it possible that it's partially because she's female? We can't know that just from looking at polls for one candidate but it's a thought I've considered. And please don't give me an anecdote about how 2 years ago you voted for a woman. She gets lots of male votes. Just a lot less proportionally compared to other demographics other than youth. One thing I'd be interested in researching is whether there are any female candidates that get as much of the male vote as they get from other demographics, when they're running against a male. Conversely, Sanders is getting less of the female vote. I think it'd be hard to study this. The telling thing would be what happened in the general election with the M/F votes but obviously we can't test that with 2 nominees. Or....is it that many women vote for her because she is a woman? My suspicion is that both your assumption and my statement here are both true. So, are you as outrages at women who vote for her because she is a woman as you are about men who don't vote for her because she is a man? Sorry, this conversation is eerily similar to statements that I received about Obama claiming I didn't like him because he was black and I'm racist. Yes, there were racists that didn't vote for him for that reason. But, there were also black people that voted for him BECAUSE he was black. In actuality, I didn't like him because I didn't like his politics. I couldn't care less if he is black or if Clinton is a woman.

It is weird to think how hard people are starting to work so that they can try and stop they guy that seems to be the most popular and gets the most votes. I can't think of a time when that has happened before... Also...Rubio is super hot. He's a disgusting candidate that is winning by only getting around 30-35% of the vote. Clinton will demolish him in the general because she will have the money to put out ads telling the truth about him. AND, it's not that hard digging up crap about him and showing what a fake piece of crap he is. For the life of me, I can not figure out how in the hell there are 30-35% of the Republicans in this country that love this guy. It is one of the most baffling political issues of the last 20 years.

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.I could be remembering wrong. I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive... I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)... I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall! K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty. The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men. So there. I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.O.o Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general. One possibility could be that while men only care how women look, women care how both men and women look. I've also heard it stated many times that women are much harsher judges of other women than men are. Could be. Both are definitely guilty of doing this. I guess another thing that's been on my mind is Clinton beats Sanders in almost every Democrat demographic but she either loses to him on men or her margin of victory with men is much smaller. I don't even like her but this bothers me. OK....so you don't like her but you don't like it that men don't like her. To make you happier, you will still not like her but you want more men to like her.

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.I could be remembering wrong. I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive... I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)... I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall! K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty. The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men. So there. I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up. O.o Why are you assuming I'm talking about Huskerboard? I'm talking about the media and society and how we talk about female candidates (and other females) in general. Hmmm...Probably because your comments are on Huskerboard and posted after a few comments about her looks on this board.

Amen!!

Here is what I think the Republican party should do. Trump is going to get the most delegates if everyone else stays in the race Really, the only others that even have a remote chance are Cruz and Rubio. Cruz is second behind Trump. So....Tell Rubio, Kasich, Carson...etc. to get out. This would allow Cruz to see if he can beat trump head to head without votes going to other candidates. Now, to get Rubio to do this, promise him that if Trump still wins, the Party will back him 100% in the general election as a third candidate. This is the only way I can see somehow beating Trump.

Well...you brought up Rubio's looks the other day (so did I)...and JFK and Obama...I don't think I did. I replied to someone saying Rubio isn't handsome. Then I said something about wishing I wasn't discussing it.I could be remembering wrong. I thought you said...Rubio is the best choice for the republicans, he is well spoken and attractive... I replied that I did not understand why people thought he was attractive and said Brad Pitt was a good looking guy...you said Brad Pitt was basically the bomb (which he is! Ha)... I bet you loved him in Legends of the Fall! K, thank you. I mentioned his attractiveness because being attractive helps candidates win elections. I voted for Ralph Nader so I'm clearly not guilty. The topic at hand is about people (from the media to the public) commenting on a woman's looks a disproportionate amount of time to her qualifications/policies as compared to men. So there. I'm pretty dang sure Clinton's "qualifications" have been commented on WAY more here than her looks. There have been multiple threads over years talking about her. This is the first time I can ever remember her looks coming up.

That's right I'm sure glad nobody made jokes about Christy being fat or trumps hair or Bernie looking like a mixture of Albert Einstein and a crazy man. I must have dreamed of people making jokes about trumps small hands.

I honestly can not figure out why people waist so much time on issues like this. OK....does it really matter where they go take a piss? If a woman becomes a man and they go into use a men's bathroom....WHO GIVES A FLYING RATS ASS!!!!! Same the other direction. It continues to baffle me how some people get caught up in this crap. (Haha...punn totally unintended but funny anyway) I dunno. I imagine my eight year old niece would be sort of creeped out if some hairy, middle aged "woman" with a wanker and two low hanging balls followed her into the restroom. And frankly, I think the whole transgender fad is some sort of silly attention-getting thing. I mean, if a dude is born with XY chromosomes, a wanker and testes, he's a man. He can pretend all he wants that he's a woman. But he's still a man. (Okay, I know there are freak medical conditions like XXY people. But those are very rare.) Soooo....your 8 year old nephew would be less creeped out if a middle aged 'woman" wearing a dress followed him into the bathroom and whipped out a wanker and two low hanging balls to use the restroom? No. It would be an equally creepy situation, I'd say. So....the transgender is in a no win situation. Remind me again why it matters where they go to the bathroom?

Incorrect. He tore his ACL one time and came back the next year and set the all-time scoring record at Katy that next year which set the 5A Texas single season scoring record. He was also the State Championship game MVP. LSU did not pull the scholarship offer ... Adam elected to accept the Husker offer over LSU. Also not saying he could win the Heisman at any school. Just saying he has done everything the Huskers have asked of him so why not give him opportinity to succeed. He was also the 2013 Scout Team offensive MVP We've heard these opinions from you before, however, you still haven't answered the question that was posed to you in post #30 - if Adam Taylor has truly done "everything the Huskers have asked of him," then why isn't he playing? Why have younger players (Ozigbo) played ahead of him? The only plausible answer that would fit your agenda is the coaches are playing favorites and intentionally trying to tank Adam Taylor's career. The other more reasonable, and more likely answer, is that what Adam Taylor has done so far simply isn't good enough. Think about it in a different light - for example, I had classmates in high school/college who did everything they were asked to do for assignments/classes, yet I had better grades than many of them. I'm not bragging but trying to prove a point - just because you've done "everything" doesn't mean it's the best or worthy of appraisal. Maybe Taylor's best effort just isn't cutting it. It's sports. Sometimes, other people are just better than you. My son worked his ass off in basketball over the summer. Lifted weights, spent time in the gym, played games...etc. Basketball season came around and he was at every practice, helped with little kids basketball, I have to assume worked hard in practice just because that's the kind of kid he is and he loves basketball. When games started, there were kids in his class that got varsity playing time and he didn't. Our team didn't have a good season and kids made mistakes and didn't play well on the floor. Should I go raise hell to the coach and cry because my son didn't get playing time? Or, should I spend more time in the gym with my son working harder to get to where he needs to be to get that playing time? The fact is, these kids at Nebraska have already had more glory, praise and fun playing at a high level than many many other kids who love the game just as much as they do and honestly, may very well work just as hard. Sports are a bitch sometimes. Sometimes it just doesn't work out that you are the kid that is going to be getting all the playing time and glory.