BigRedBuster

So, let me get this straight. Here is a complete thread basically dissing any thought process behind voting for Romney, I post why I am voting for Romney explaining that it is more than just a vote against Obama and you act like I shouldn't do that? What?? Are you expecting a 300 page dissertation on a message board? Sorry if I don't agree with you you are voting for. That's life. Sorry if I completely disagree with how liberals look at the world therefore I have a very hard time voting for a liberal President. I guess when you don't have a response you just call it "derp"...what ever that is...never heard that word before.

No kidding, you should try that. I am saying the current state of global warming hysteria is driven by politics I'm fully versed on the origins of this topic, and its current state of affairs. I'm also aware that the Republican Mouthpiece is the biggest fear-mongerer regarding Global Warming/Climate Change, and the biggest disseminater of misinformation. Wow....Do you know a guy by the name of Al Gore?

Using the terms "scientific consensus" in this argument lowers your credibility.

Hey...I'm not the one that started the conversation.

Did someone mention amateurish arguments?

Yeah...when you don't have a response I guess that's the response I get.

This issue is so friggen political that it shouldn't even be considered a scientific study anymore.

This thread is comical. People's vote for Romney is much more than just a vote against Obama. And, if you think so, that is just that much more evidence of worship for this "savior". After all, why would anyone not believe Obama is the most awesome political figure and leader in the history of the world. After all, he was a community organizer and won the Nobel Peace Prize. I honestly try every election cycle to find what I can vote for in both parties. The fact is, all I ever hear from the Dems is that the federal government is the answer to everything and how we are going to pay for it is to tax those evil rich people and those evil corporations. Now, if that isn't their message, then they really suck at marketing. The fact is, the federal government is not here to make sure you are successful and everyone is nice to you. It is not here to fix all of your stupid mistakes in life. On the flip side, I believe in smaller government and when possible, any governmental involvement in issues need to be as close to the local level as possible. Are the Republicans perfect? Hell no, I was pissed they have spent so much money during the Bush years. But, looking at this election, I have the decision to make between these two choices: a) Someone who represents a party who at least talks about smaller government and states rights. On top of that, the candidate has been successful in the private sector and running large organizations. He has been the CEO of a state and has worked with both sides to make that state successful. b) A community organizer that believes the federal government should fix all your problems and has basically worked all his life to get elected...(other than when he was organizing getting some people registered to vote). In my view, he has proven his incompetence since he has been in office. I'm ready for someone who has actually proven they can be successful an believes in smaller government. So, you can go along with your idea that the only people who want to vote for Romney are only voting against Obama. But, if that is what your party believes then they are in bigger trouble than I thought.

LOL....very good question.

If we could win any of our games without tmart, I could say the same thing replacing Ameer with Heard. Fact is, both are very valuable.

That is a perfect example of why polls are totally meaningless.

Can the offense as a unit be the MVP?

You don't like plaid?

I listen to one heck of a lot of 1620 and I have never heard this mentioned on any of the local shows. Not saying it wasn't discussed, but it's not a major topic they are all talking about. That said, why do Husker fans always do this? Why do they constantly spread rumors or fears that XYZ player is going to transfer? Good Lord.......

I agree with the pheasant population but in my area, they actually were starting to come back. The rest of your post sounds like you're a bow hunter I think shutting down the season might be a good idea but I would shut down all of them and not just rifle season.

There are a lot of people very concerned about this in my area. Along with this, they are concerned that the drought has left pastures so short that there isn't much for them to eat over the winter. Pheasant population could be decimated for the same reason.

http://www.huskermax.com/games/2012/files/07northwestern_nu_stats12.html I noticed the SOS stat. Other stats that really stick out are our Rushing defense, net punting and turn over margin. As for the turn over margin, I know there will be some who instantly start ragging on Martinez and the offense. HOWEVER, the bigger issue is why isn't our defense taking the ball away more often? As for SOS: Northwestern's schedule: Syracuse 2-4 Vanderbilt 2-4 Boston College 1-5 South Dakota 1-5 Indiana 2-4 Penn State 4-2 LOST Minnesota 4-2 Now, not saying that we didn't play some easy games. But, it is clear that we really don't know how good Northwestern is yet because they really haven't played any good teams yet.

The only way that is going to change is if the public revolts against the parties and the media. The public has the power. The problem is, not enough people are intellectually honest enough to use that power.

That doesn't mean we need to think so.

I would be willing to spend a huge amount of money if this is done right. Just brain storming here, but, I think they should be drug tested. If they fail, then they go to rehab for X amount of time. They are then given assistance but tested monthly. If they fail again, they are sent back. Yes, this is going to cost a HUGE amount of money. But, I personally find the drug problem so disgusting that I would rather spend MORE money on that then just constantly pay (admittedly less) money to these people so that they can go buy drugs where the money ends up in drug cartel's hands and other criminal organizations. Heck, there is even a certain amount of this money that ends up in terrorist's hands.

pretty simply, actually; drug testing the recipients costed more than they saved in denying benefits. That is my point. That doesn't look at the entire issue.

I would be interested in information on that. Probably more specific information than what can be provided here. I believe this is something that would need to be in place for a very long time and see a trend over time. On one side, you have the cost of the welfare and the incarceration when someone gets caught with drugs. You also have the cost of all the crime that goes along with the drug lifestyle. On the other side, you have the cost of rehab and the testing. Now, saying that, I fully understand that the success of the rehab is going to be lower for this group than people who go to rehab on their own will. I just don't know how you can quantify the "it wasn't cost effective". If you are simply looking at the cost of the welfare compared to rehab...then yes...but, that isn't the entire story.

That didn't work too well when it was tried in Florida. Why?

Just curious, were you going to list the points that were false or misleading in Biden's "facts"?

Now we're talking. (And I guess that you've abandoned your demand that I back up my statements with facts, bro?) No arguments that combatting illegal drug abuse is critical. From what I've seen I'd like to see the following changes in our strategy: 1. Focus more attention on treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts rather than straight incarceration. 2. Simultaneously, maintain or increase the penalties for distributing narcotics. 3. Where fiscally prudent, expand the training and deployment of canine units. 4. Increase cooperation with foreign governments (Mexico - methamphetamine, Columbia - cocaine, etc.) to intercept shipments both inside and outside of the US. 5. Decriminalize marijuana. Thoughts? The first 12 posts in this thread should just be deleted. The war on drugs is very frustrating. I think it is a necessity just like we must always now fight against terrorism in one form or another. The problem will always be here and we must always fight against it. However, surely there are things we can do better. I can't disagree with very many of the points you posted Carl. As for #1, I know drug problems persist in every economic level. However, I am most concerned about the lower income people who have absolutely NOTHING to their name but are addicted to this drug life style that literally ruins their entire world and they can be taken advantage of in forms of prostitution and other crimes. I agree that we need to put more into rehab instead of incarceration. However, I will put one more point on this. To receive public assistance such as welfare...etc, the person should be required to undergo a drug test. I am required to do that for my job along with many of the other millions of people who have jobs. Welfare is supposed to be a system to assist a person to support themselves while they imrpove their lot in life. It isn't supposed to be how they survive long term. NOBODY is going to get off of welfare while they are on drugs. If they can be put into rehab and they can see the difference that makes in their lives and THEN we can give them welfare while they get their life back together, the entire welfare system will be much more successful. Nobody can make a clear cut effort to get off of welfare and take care of themselves while they are in a drug infested state.