BigRedBuster

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate. Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself). The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP. So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line. LOL.....that's pretty amazing. Throw out a hypothetical and come up with a big grand description of how it could work and then by the end claim...."well...hey...it's already worked" and we haven't even really got the heart of the campaign started yet. I do know one thing. In most Presidential elections, what appears to be projected to happen at this point in the game very very seldom ever actually happens come next November. So, claiming anything has "worked" at this stage of the game is well....getting the cart before the horse.

What happens if we lose to BYU and Miami due to the team just not clicking right with the new staff from the start. But, by conference time, they start clicking, the better coaching is starting to kick in and we so undefeated in conference play beating Wisconsin and MSU to get to the CCG only to lose a close game to OSU and lose another very close game in a major bowl against a top 10 team. Is that the exact same type of year as marching through the non-con, getting blown out by Wisconsin and MSU, lose to Iowa and then lose a bowl game? Both seasons end up with 4 losses. The first example I would feel much better about than the last example with the same number of losses. Point is, there is just way too many variables to put in play to decide right now a win-loss record that is acceptable and what isn't acceptable.

Oddly enough, the same tact taken on the Affordable Care Act. What a coincidence... Wow, bringing in the ACA, the single worst piece of legislation ever passed that still is not popular to most Americans. Obama made multiple promises, including that it would help bring down health care costs, and would allow everyone to keep their doctors. Both promises have not been met. Here is one of many studies showing health care costs rising across the board. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/ Can you show me any studies that show health care costs have come down since the ACA implemented (and not the growth rate but actual costs)? This is what Obama promised. Also, can you show me how the ACA is being paid for in a manner that is not increasing our national debt? Nice attempt to defelect the point - that Republicans offer no viable alternatives in either example. And to reinforce X's point about the frustration he feels due to that lack of responsibility, note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase the national debt. And that analysis was made AFTER the Republicans had selected Keith Hall as the new CBO director. I'm all for great alternatives to ACA. The problem is ( and Brill obviously probably doesn't realize it) that the problem Republicans have with coming up with an alternative is that THEY were the ones who originally came up with the main ideas put in place in the ACA. But...of course.....now those are unconstitutional acts put in place by a Muslim dictator who was sent to the US 50 years ago to destroy our way of life and turn our nice peaceful government into a tyrannical form of oppression.

I found this graph interesting. LINK Now, I believe that in the early 90s was when Clinton funded putting 100,000 more police on the streets in an effort to reduce violent crime. It appears to me it worked. Or, something happened to improve the situation. If it wasn't the 100,000 police, what was it?

1) I think there are some misrepresentations regarding these 20-12-8% projections. 2) How can you put a number on that? Do you know how many are in there for mere possession? Obviously, it is going to be a case-by-case scenario. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remedy the situation, and of course no one believes it will solve all of the problems. 1) How so? 2) I have said repeatedly that I am all for not putting in prison people who simply have position of pot...etc. My point here is to what threshold is Huskerx claiming drug crimes should be taken off the books? Should crack be legal? Should the guy trying to sell cocaine to an 11 year old be prosecuted and put in prison? I have to assume that drug dealers of all types of illegal drugs are part of the 20%. And, if you read the 10 points from the article about Holder, it's pretty clear to me that he believes decriminalizing drugs is THE main way to reduce prison populations. My questioning is at what point does it actually become a crime that should be prosecuted? Huskerx just says "War on drugs". Well, that's a pretty dang big umbrella to put up. AND, the violent crime rate has come down a heck of a lot even though we still have the war on crime. I tend to believe that's because in many cases (not all obviously) we are locking up the right people.

I am excited to see the staff work. Many things can go into what exactly happens on the field. Maybe a group struggles slightly to be able to grasp the new concepts from the start. Maybe we have major injuries to another group....etc. Maybe we run into some really really crappy refs. But, what I'm most interested in is seeing how the staff handles that. Are the teachers and leaders? When something doesn't go well, are they the calm in the storm rallying the troops to teach them how to handle the situation and move forward? THAT is what will get me even more excited about this staff and the future of the program. If they can be that kind of staff, I believe the wins will come.

1) No I'm not saying that . . . and I'm sort of confused how you would have gotten that from anything I said. My point was only ever about nonviolent drug offenders. I went back to the OP article to find it. According to Vox, "America's 'nonviolent drug offenders' account for a paltry 12 percent of America's prisoners." That's the confusion. I thought it was 20%. Vox argues it's 12%. 2) Fortunately for my argument it could be 1%, or 5%, or .034%. I'll take the 12%. My position is arresting anyone––even a single person––for a nonviolent drug offense is wrong. I also don't agree with the writer's choice of words. If you suddenly find yourself one day with a 12% reduction in the prison population with the stroke of a pen, that's a tremendous reduction with very little work. 3) Which brings me to my final point. Unless we're willing as a country to take a hard look at our drug policies from top to bottom, we're probably not going to see any kind of miraculous drop in the crime rate. If you keep the black market open, it's going to remain as violent as it is today. You're going to have all of the problems that we already associate with it. Which is why my position has consistently been we need to address the War on Drugs and everything that goes with it. I numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to respond. 1) I'm saying that due to the confusion you mentioned later in this paragraph. You were implying that 20% of the prisoners shouldn't be in prison due to drug crimes. From these numbers, 8% of the prisoners are violent criminals and so I wanted clarification as to if you wanted them released too. 2) I completely agree that someone just having a couple ounces of pot on them and getting arrested and put in prison shouldn't happen. We agree that these people should not be in prison. However, I have a question. What percentage of these 12% prisoners are in prison because they are trying to deal drugs like crack, cocaine or heroine to kids? I would think that technically would be a non-violent crime. Nobody was getting beat up, shot or raped. Just simply selling crack to kids. Should those people be not arrested and those laws making that illegal be taken off the books? 3) Well, we already have seen a pretty dang good drop in violent crime rate since the late 80s-early 90s. We have already seen a 12% drop in violent crime since 2009. FBI Time Magazine LINK This graph shows something around a 50% drop in violent crime rates. I would consider that to be significant.

I don't know of anyone who would take a close loss over a win.

Totally agree... Wins first. That is what matters the most. And with the schedule we have this year I think we all agree there are not many games that we should be happy with a close loss since they all seem winnable. GO BIG RED! Again....nobody is going to be "happy" with any loss. BUT, there is a big difference in emotions between a close loss of a well played game and getting blown out (Like Wisconsin last year) where the staff even appears to not have a clue as to what they are doing or how to handle the situation.

It's not just a moral victory to play competitively and not get embarrassed. That is a very real, tangible, good thing. It is just as important, if not moreso, than hanging a W on some nobody.I feel sorry for anybody who can't grasp this. If that W is the ultimate thing, why even watch the games? You can get all you need by checking the scores Saturday night. Ahhhhh, I get your point now. You mean it more from an "entertainment" point of view, yes, I agree with that. Close games (either way, win or loss) are usually more entertaining.But, I feel sorry for any fan of a team that doesn't think the W is the ultimate thing. That is why they keep score. No. You don't get it at all. It doesn't have anything to do with entertainment value. Absolutely nothing.It has to do with pride and fielding a good team. Any half ass team can go out and get a win against the Purdues and Illinois and McNeese States of the world. But what happens when we play a team with a heartbeat... a Wisconsin or a MSU? That is my point. The 9 wins we've been getting don't mean sh#t if we can't line up and play ball with the big boys. Analogy time. I pride myself on being a good basketball player. I play 12 neighbors every year. Nine of them are 5 year Olds and the other 3 are men my age. Do you see where this is going.......? Yeah, I see where it is going, you like playing basketball against 5 year old kids. Do you lower the rim or does it just depend which driveway you are playing on? Mav did the stats...3 losses last year by 1 score...why are people acting like NU got blown out 4 times a year? Maybe you should stick to being most concerned about tailgating and boozing and beave....... I want the team to play good enough to win them all. Wins don't manifest in a vacuum. They might just happen against lesser competition but you have to earn the ones that matter. I want the Huskers to play well enough to win them all. If they play good but fall just short in a couple, well that is much better than another victory against Little Sisters of the Blind. If that type of win means more to you than how the team plays, I am at a total loss to explain it any better. I think what you are trying to say and I agree with (correct me if I'm wrong). You want a good team that is well prepared and motivated to show up and play every Saturday. You want the team to be competitive with the best teams in the conference/country. Now, there is a lot that goes into actually winning a game and some of it is damn luck. If we come out and play competitively and the losses are right down to the wire and the game was well played, well prepared for and we appear to belong on the same field but lose because of some fluke play or the ball bounced the wrong way....then well....so be it. Good game and we fight on to the next. That is a big difference between what we have seen against teams like Wisconsin, OSU and Michigan at times over the last 8 years. And...yes...winning the games is what is most important. I get what you are saying...that is what happened vs Minnesota last year...a "fluke" fumble at the one yard line. A few years before NU caught a break vs PSU with a "fluke" fumble and won the game. I am going to guess that the close game with Minnesota did not make you feel good. I bet the win over PSU did! Sure. I'm always going to feel better after a win than a loss.....But the blow out loss to Wisconsin I stopped watching at half time because I was so disgusted with the coaching staff melting down on the side lines while the team was still trying to fight and win a game. Also, I am pretty darn sure that everyone is happier after a win than a close loss. If you are thinking that people equate them emotionally to be the same thing then you are missing the point.

This really is an argument about nothing. We all want wins and if we win every body will be happy. When we lose (and all teams lose games) it's a loss and nobody likes losses. Even though nobody likes losses, and everyone is for preventing them as the main goal of the program, there are ways to look deeper into a loss to see are their major issues in the program or is the program on a good foundation. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with that.

It's not just a moral victory to play competitively and not get embarrassed. That is a very real, tangible, good thing. It is just as important, if not moreso, than hanging a W on some nobody.I feel sorry for anybody who can't grasp this. If that W is the ultimate thing, why even watch the games? You can get all you need by checking the scores Saturday night. Ahhhhh, I get your point now. You mean it more from an "entertainment" point of view, yes, I agree with that. Close games (either way, win or loss) are usually more entertaining.But, I feel sorry for any fan of a team that doesn't think the W is the ultimate thing. That is why they keep score. No. You don't get it at all. It doesn't have anything to do with entertainment value. Absolutely nothing.It has to do with pride and fielding a good team. Any half ass team can go out and get a win against the Purdues and Illinois and McNeese States of the world. But what happens when we play a team with a heartbeat... a Wisconsin or a MSU? That is my point. The 9 wins we've been getting don't mean sh#t if we can't line up and play ball with the big boys. Analogy time. I pride myself on being a good basketball player. I play 12 neighbors every year. Nine of them are 5 year Olds and the other 3 are men my age. Do you see where this is going.......? Yeah, I see where it is going, you like playing basketball against 5 year old kids. Do you lower the rim or does it just depend which driveway you are playing on? Mav did the stats...3 losses last year by 1 score...why are people acting like NU got blown out 4 times a year? Maybe you should stick to being most concerned about tailgating and boozing and beave....... I want the team to play good enough to win them all. Wins don't manifest in a vacuum. They might just happen against lesser competition but you have to earn the ones that matter. I want the Huskers to play well enough to win them all. If they play good but fall just short in a couple, well that is much better than another victory against Little Sisters of the Blind. If that type of win means more to you than how the team plays, I am at a total loss to explain it any better. I think what you are trying to say and I agree with (correct me if I'm wrong). You want a good team that is well prepared and motivated to show up and play every Saturday. You want the team to be competitive with the best teams in the conference/country. Now, there is a lot that goes into actually winning a game and some of it is damn luck. If we come out and play competitively and the losses are right down to the wire and the game was well played, well prepared for and we appear to belong on the same field but lose because of some fluke play or the ball bounced the wrong way....then well....so be it. Good game and we fight on to the next. That is a big difference between what we have seen against teams like Wisconsin, OSU and Michigan at times over the last 8 years. And...yes...winning the games is what is most important.

Really??? In 2003, we attempted 192 passes and completed 94. (48.9%) In 2004 (BCs first year) we attempted 322 passes and completed 156. (48.5%) In the ISU game against the worst rushing defense in the conference, we lost after attempting 43 passes and only completing 19. (44%)

Rent a seat, set it in your spot and you don't lose your space.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate. Well, first of all, I posed this as a hypothetical in response to what really is just a minor conspiracy theory. Clinton allegedly had phone contact with Trump shortly before he announced his run. Now this could mean one of a million things, but I base my hypothetical on the fact that Clinton is smart, certainly smart enough to know Trump's presence in the GOP race is a boon for his wife, and Trump is easy to manipulate once you understand his underlying motive (himself). The only thing Clinton would need to do to be successful is get Donald Trump into the race and to say ~1-2 stupid things you could put in attack ads (or have your super PACs put into attack ads). It damages the GOP win, lose or draw, because it turns their primary into a circus where all the candidates are caught in Trump's maddening orbit for as long as he can maintain it. If he wins the nomination, it's good for Clinton. If he loses but brings down a few of the big-money contenders with him, it's good for Clinton. If he runs third-party, it's good for Clinton. Basically there are a lot of ways this can work out for Hillary Clinton, and very few ways it can work out for the GOP. So in that sense, it already has worked. The GOP base may not see it this way, but every minute Donald Trump stays in this race is terrible for them and particularly for the establishment who already has enough trouble keeping its members in line. Is that what the Dems have? A party of drones they can "keep in line"?

A lot of that 20% were violent crimes where drugs were involved. Are you saying we shouldn't put them in prison either?

Not disagreeing with the winning part or the schedule part or the coaching part or the QB experience part...etc. However, I think it was proven that the last 8 years 9 wins was the floor. The ceiling just was only about 2" off the floor.

Sounds like the correct one. Correct. What I'm wondering is will there be a few days of rioting in response or will protesters realize police have to do their jobs sometimes? Well, to answer that, you have to distuquish between the peaceful protesters (which includes Brown's family) and the ones just their to cause problems. The peaceful ones will understand the police need to do their jobs. The ones who want to cause problems hopefully get the message that the police aren't going to screw around and peaceful people aren't going to cry over their stupidity.

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular. Are you implying that 45% indicates that it's "wildly popular"? Most certainly not. ok

Of course. Along with 45% of the country. If you'll note the conversation above that qualifies Planned Parenthood as wildly popular. Are you implying that 45% indicates that it's "wildly popular"?

What's the DNC equivalent of Trumpmentum? In this election one hasn't come out possibly because they currently are the party in power (Whitehouse). I don't remember all the names but I remember elections where very liberal candidates will be popular early but then fade for a more moderate (more electable) candidate to emerge.

Hey....an actual DT.

Wait...I missed this. It worked??? I didn't know the election was over. If it DOES work, it doesn't say anything about the party other than they have a hard time all getting behind just one candidate. I think he meant "it worked" as in it got Trump into the race and the GOP base embraced his rhetoric. This happens in a lot of elections. Someone comes in flapping their mouth in a manner that someone from one side says....Ah....that's refreshing having someone actually just speak their mind. It's happened on both sides. This early in the election they get all the press because they are the ones saying the most outrageous stuff. It won't mean much later and most people will get behind someone else.

Flippen Dodgers. You have the Pirates beat and you put in a pitcher that only has to get ONE out and you leave him in so long that he allows 8 runs. Really???? What, did Pitt fans pay you off or something?

I hope that you're right. It'll play right into the playbook. Well, this will be the first time in a long time that the GOP candidate has the ability to go on the offensive on the abortion/PP topic. There is no way to justify or show support of those videos and the reality of what PP is doing trying to profit from body parts of the unborn. If you really think that it plays to the Dems advantage to have to support this, you must be living on Mars. In past years they could get by with the faux "war on women" argument, but the actual video evidence is going to make this difficult. They will argue that PP offers other services which is why they will still support it, but they must also condemn the reality of what PP is doing with these abortions, and if they don't, it will be a negative issue for the Dem candidate. Out of curiosity, how old are you? I only ask because pictures of aborted fetuses have been going around for decades as a tool to convince people to be pro life. I don't really think the videos are going to move the dial, or have moved the dial, as much as you think. I'm 37 here, and pictures do little compared to the power of these disgusting videos. I just posted this link in another thread, but will repost here as it shows the perspective of just one person (and i know it's just one guys opinion) on how the videos have caused him to re-think his pro-choice views. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html Ummmmm.....OK. What proof do you have that the guy is telling the truth about how his views have changed and he really isn't a planted actor acting out the part for a propaganda article?