BigRedBuster

Why do so many Husker fans predict a loss to MSU? I did it too, but not sure why. The all time series has us leading 7-2. Yes, they won the last two but only by an average of 9 points. Since we joined the B1G, we are 2-2 against them. The two games we won were by an average of 12.5 points. I believe we are very similar to them in talent. We have been simply out coached the last two times we have played them. Evidence of this is last year. We came in that game and played like crap for most of the first three quarters. If it weren't for a miscommunication between receivers, we might have won that game in the end. Yeah yeah yeah....I know, MSU might have let up at the end. However, a MUCH more talented team along with better coaching doesn't almost lose a game like that in the end. So, why do so many people believe MSU is an automatic loss? Is it simply a factor of their staff has been in place for a while and ours hasn't? I think this game is going to be really interesting late in the season. Our players and staff will have had time to get on the same page and be much more familiar with each other. I predicted we would have 1 loss going into that game. If that's the case, we will also have confidence going into a home game. We very well might pull that one off.

Hmmm....without looking, I did the exact same as you. I think we win against BYU but get tripped up on the road against Miami. Then we improve throughout the season to lose to MSU in a close game. Not sure how we will match up against OSU but I believe our showing will be better than the last time we were in the B1G CCG. We go against a decent team in a bowl game and win. 11-3 I would be happy with that.

Obama's funding came from way more small income voters than the Republican funding. It wasn't some sinister psychological brain child of a group that made people vote the way they did. There might have been more small donations to Obama. However, if you don't think the Democrat's political machine isn't greased with money from extremely wealthy people and groups then you are naive. Of course it is Then people can give all the $50 donations they want and think it's having an affect on the candidate and narrative but it's not.

If we took the affect of money out of American politics, I believe most people in America would be absolutely SHOCKED at the difference we would see in the narratives put out by both parties.

Obama's funding came from way more small income voters than the Republican funding. It wasn't some sinister psychological brain child of a group that made people vote the way they did. There might have been more small donations to Obama. However, if you don't think the Democrat's political machine isn't greased with money from extremely wealthy people and groups then you are naive.

I found this pretty funny.

You don't understand it. Obama was elected - twice - because he was the best candidate - twice. Had the Republicans pushed a viable candidate either time he likely wouldn't have been elected. Instead we got McCain & Palin - and there was NO WAY most Americans were going to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidency. And in 2012 you got Mitt Romney, one of the worst fake stuffed-shirt candidates we've had since George Dukakis. It wasn't "Chicago politics" that got Obama elected. It was the Republicans. Twice. Everyone understands that the Republicans crapped the bed in the last elections. No question. However, there was a political machine funded by huge amounts of money from very wealthy people that got Obama elected. That is how these elections have happened way longer ago than what Jimmy wants to admit. Infact, I pretty sure there would have been a pretty powerful money machine from wealthy people that got him elected too. To bad he sucked so bad it didn't work the second time. There's a "big political machine funded by huge amounts of money from very wealthy people" trying to get both Democrats and Republicans elected. The Koch Bros., Sheldon Adelson, Robert Mercer, etc, on the Republican side, and Tom Steyer, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, etc. on the Democrat side. Funny thing - notice Sheldon Adelson on both sides. Again - thanks, Citizens United! Agree. And Adelson is probably the smartest one in the bunch. He wins no matter what. This is the main reason why my eyes cloud over and my ears stop working whenever there is any type of alarmist propaganda coming from either direction.

And here is one of many counter perspectives on why the national debt does matter http://pgpf.org/issues/fiscal-outlook/2013/07/why-long-term-debt-matters http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/the-dangerous-notion-that-debt-doesnt-matter.html?_r=0 (when the liberal NY Times is saying Progressives are wrong for making light of the debt problem, then you know it's bad) I was an Econ/Business major in college, and the notion that it's ok to just continuously add to our national debt and not think it's a serious issue is ridiculous. For starters, more and more tax dollars go to simply pay the interest in our debt, which means less funds to invest in all those programs that liberals love for the federal government to provide. It also makes it more difficult to implement needed stimulus measures to help grow the economy and create jobs during economic downturns which are cyclical in nature. This is a statement that people who don't think the national debt matters completely ignore. If we had even half the interest payments we have now, just think of the infrastructure and social programs we could fund. I agree with the original article that national debt is very different than personal debt. However, in the form of interest payment eating up what you could spend your money on, it's pretty close to being the same.

I tend to think the same way. And, certain political people tend to use it as an....."OMG the country is falling apart....vote for me" statement. You, sir, get it! The fact is, Jimmy has one mission when it comes to this type of stuff. Get Democrats elected. Right now the Democrats have done a fantastic job of convincing a very large number of American voters that rich people are evil and they are stealing everything you have and you life is miserable because of those evil rich people with all the power so vote for me and I will end your misery because I feel your pain.....BTW.....send me your money so I can get elected. This article is very timely right at the beginning of the election build up and right before the first Republican Presidential election. So....hey....let's make statements and put out an article talking about how all the rich people have all the power and it's getting worse fast. And...BTW....Citizens United needs to be thrown in the trash.

Garden of the Gods was way too packed and modern/touristy for me. The rocks were cool but I would prefer to hike somewhere where there isn't paved walk ways and rangers standing there yelling at you if you mistakenly wander in the wrong direction. It seemed to me to be pretty much a really big play ground for kids to run around and climb on things. Barr Trail was very nice. If I get back there again, i want to just take Barr Trail and go on up to the summit at Pike's Peak.

You don't understand it. Obama was elected - twice - because he was the best candidate - twice. Had the Republicans pushed a viable candidate either time he likely wouldn't have been elected. Instead we got McCain & Palin - and there was NO WAY most Americans were going to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidency. And in 2012 you got Mitt Romney, one of the worst fake stuffed-shirt candidates we've had since George Dukakis. It wasn't "Chicago politics" that got Obama elected. It was the Republicans. Twice. Everyone understands that the Republicans crapped the bed in the last elections. No question. However, there was a political machine funded by huge amounts of money from very wealthy people that got Obama elected. That is how these elections have happened way longer ago than what Jimmy wants to admit. Infact, I pretty sure there would have been a pretty powerful money machine from wealthy people that got him elected too. To bad he sucked so bad it didn't work the second time.

Relatively speaking, Cockrell didn't play that many minutes especially early in the year. However, when he was in there, it seemed like he was making plays. That is why he started getting more and more hype.

I tend to think the same way. And, certain political people tend to use it as an....."OMG the country is falling apart....vote for me" statement.

Admittedly, I know nothing about this specific industry. For whatever reason, the minimum wage increase to $70,000 didn't work.

Prediction.... If Stevenson comes in and doesn't get major snaps this year, there will be rumors after the season that he is unhappy and going to transfer due to horrible mismanagement of the roster by this staff. In reality, he will be just fine and he was just a true freshman behind some very talented, older and more experienced players.

OK...has anyone done this before? LINK To make a long story short, I went through some back problems earlier this spring that prevented me from running and I basically had taken the summer off. I knew I needed to get back into it but I fell into all of the normal excuses. Anyway, I was in the Colorado Springs area last week and was looking for a hiking trail and found this. This thing is absolutely nuts. It's a mile long straight up a mountain gaining 2,000 feet in elevation on an old rail road track. So, you are literally climbing the rail road ties for a mile up a mountain. Picture the most brutal stair master workout you could possibly imagine. Well, I finished in 1 hour 28 minutes. A lot were faster than me but I finished along with some people who were a lot younger than me too. If you have done it before, what was your time? Well, this has motivated me to get back to work. I will be going for a run this evening.

OK...so, he increased the minimum wage (for what ever reason) to way above what the industry or surrounding environment does and he's an ass for doing it. So what if he did it to attract customers or just for publicity? So what? The employees are getting a big pay raise. Enjoy it. My personal opinion is that his mistake is thinking he can play in the discount/low price market and pay his employees way more than anyone else. I would assume labor costs are a major part of the expense of this business. The only way that works is if he reduces his won pay dollar for dollar for what he is paying his employees. That might work as a small company. But, let's say this is extremely successful. He can only reduce his pay down to zero (theoretically). After that, all that labor costs has to be made up somewhere.

Just to be clear, the US was never a true Democracy.

To the original post, it's a great subject and I'm going to respond with my true feelings on the subject and please don't take them as cold hearted at all because I truly appreciate everyone who does what your wife does. The wife of the coworker right next to me is a special ed teacher and I hear what they do and go through. Let me go back to when I moved to the current community I live in. I had to go through a time when I had to convince my family to move here. I had three kids (4th, 2nd and kindergarten). So, the school system was a major part of what we looked at. We took a tour of the entire school system. We were obviously satisfied with what we saw or we wouldn't be here. BUT, both of us commented after the tour that we were amazed at the amount of money spent on special ed students. Let me clarify, this school system knew we didn't have special ed children but they spent so much time taking us through all the facilities and talking about the services provided to these children. I want to make it clear that I am not against this. However, I think sometimes it gets out of balance. I look at education as that there are three main groups of kids (in an effort to over simplify it). There are special ed kids, average kids, advanced kids. When we got here, it was obvious to me that way more facilities, expense...etc was being paid to the special ed students than the average student in either of the other categories. Now, this is the part where I don't want to sound cold hearted. But, does that make sense? Here you have a group of kids that are going to be in life what they are. I firmly believe they need to be taken care of and trained to help themselves take care of themselves as much as possible later in life. That is totally different than the average student. Now, you have the rest of the student population that you have a responsibility to educate to be as successful as you can make them. If you have advanced students, these students will be competing with students from all across the country or world for jobs and careers. That starts with getting the best education possible in HS so that they can get into the best colleges and move on with their lives to hopefully (as a collective macro group) make this country better in technology, math, science, medicine, business, leadership...etc. Now, to say a special ed teacher should just flat out be paid more than these other teachers just leaves me scratching my head. Now, I can see one being paid more if they have the expertise and experience and time in the job to warrant that. But, to say across the board, these teachers should be paid more leaves me baffled. Meanwhile, we are trying to replace a VERY good science teacher that a huge number of kids benefited from and can't find an appropriate replacement.

I think when you're in college you're still quite naive and have this romantic idea your going to change the world and everything will work out just fine. But then the bills start rolling in and it's not so much fun anymore. The pay is also why 50% of all teachers leave the profession within their first five years in education. So indeed, many people are quite fed up with it, don't want to complain about not making money and leave the profession. Sadly, that's when teachers are the most underpaid: When they are fresh out of school and just starting out. The pay gets a bit better by the time they have 10 or 15 years under their belt. Ummmm.....Isn't that the case with most majors coming out of college? They get paid the least right when they start then go up from there?

I didn't read the entire thread but I want to respond to the original post. Back when I was a towed a party line (Republican), there was a point where I looked at the Democratic party and thought they were a total mess. I was sitting happy. I thought there was no way they would win a Presidential election anytime in the foreseeable future. I was wrong. Out of the last 24 years (including the next year until election) 16 of those have been under a Democratic President and the Republicans are the ones that have been in a mess. I actually view the sheer number of Republican candidates as a good thing. HOPEFULLY, some common sense can come out of it and someone who can actually lead a conservative party in a common sense manner instead of the crap it has been drowning in. The part that I believe will hold this back is the conservative media. When I used to basically be talking about Fox News. However, now, I think the bigger problem is the internet, emails, Facebook...etc. The absolute total crap I see going around the internet and the people who believe this crap is just absolutely baffling to me and I believe this is a much bigger problem than anything any candidate or group of candidates.

So, let me get this straight. A business owner raises all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 and slashes his own pay to do it. And, it's a bad thing he publicized it? Really? If I were to do that I would definitely publicize it simply because I would hope I would get the best of the best of the employees applying. That is what an employer hopes would happen if they do this. The only way this works is if you have the absolute best and happiest employees in the industry and that translates to better customer service and products to the customers and they realize that. The fact remains though that is a bigger factor. Each industry has a theoretical limit as to what salaries can be and still be profitable. Now, if the owners and managers are taking huge amounts of money and not paying anyone else then screw them. I hope they get crappy employees. But, if someone goes out and purposely tries to over pay above the industry norm, then they must have a business plan that accounts for that. If they don't, then they will go broke and out of business.

The last time we won a conference championship I was half my current age (I'm 30 for the non math folks). We're currently recruiting kids who were born that year. Nebraska has been banging its head against a glass ceiling for 15 years, so it's no wonder why the natives are restless.. I feel your pain. The problem with putting that pain into expectations of this staff is that this staff had nothing to do with that. They are taking over a program that hasn't won a conference championship in 15 years. The only thing that matters is how they move forward. We could have won one two years ago and that doesn't change.

Do you have the same opinion about all the people who already seem to know that this staff is an upgrade over the previous staff at basically every potion, that they are such better recruiters, that they'll actually have an improved scheme, that they'll put the players in a better position to succeed, etc., etc. etc.? Well, you can spin that term "upgrade" in a lot of directions. Most people talking about this staff being an upgrade are talking about years of experience and knowledge in the technical aspects of their positions and the game of football. When you look at the previous staff's coaching history, I don't think that's even debatable. Hell yes this staff is an upgrade, pretty much across the board. Better recruiters? I don't know about that. Bo and his staff got some pretty talented guys here. Riley's had a nice start I have to admit, he really started strong it seems, but I think we need to give that a little more time before we declare anything there. I don't follow recruiting as hardcore as some of you guys do though either. Improved scheme? Based on what? How do we know they'll have an improved scheme? We don't know what the team will come out of the fall looking like and they haven't played a game yet. I'd say "improved scheme" is pretty tough to say at this point, so yea, I'd say I feel the same way. I think when people say improved scheme, I think they've heard how much simpler it might be and they believe these coaches will teach it better, but we can't possibly know how it looks yet. I think this staff probably will put the players in a better position to succeed. You've already heard a lot about them building their systems around the talent they have. You've heard them talk about being selective in what they do and practicing those things repeatedly. Things like that are very positive signs and something we all begged to ever hear come from Pelini's mouth. 7 years later and he swore by doing the same things "his way". I'd say it's a very positive sign that we are already hearing those positive things from Riley, so yea I'm gonna say the players will probably be in a better position to succeed. Good post. I expect this staff to put the players in a better position to succeed simply because in the heat of battle, I believe they will be better leaders. They will be the coaches the players can look to for leadership and confidence instead of the HC melting down on the side lines while the players are the ones trying to pick up the team. I believe this staff is an upgrade based on the last paragraph plus the years of experience in their positions. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of our current coaches come in with more years of experience than the old staff left with. That is pretty amazing when you think about the difference.

Not always. Smaller contractors can be hired to do work say on military bases around the country but they are required to pay union wages. It's not a problem if you know the rules going in and it's built into the bid. Those union wages are a set figure for everyone to bid. The problem would come up if they are required to bid using union wages and then the union has the ability to then turn around and pay their workers less than the minimum wage. No matter how you cut it, the unions can't have it both ways. Either you want the high minimum wage or you don't. If you want it high, then you have to live with the consequences just like any other business.