BigRedBuster

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.

The stupid thing about this entire issue is that Maher didn't "ruin" the script Ohio. Heck, the band didn't even have to change what they were doing. Ohio fans need to get over it.

No . . . it's fine. I suppose it's easier for a certain type to deny defeat. Plus they can always retreat to the echo chamber rather than face reality. In fact, that's exactly what I expect if Obama is re-elected. Obama didn't really win. Voter fraud. ACORN. Soros voting machines. Etc. It's all rather sad from the outside looking in. LOL...I'm not the one coming on here as soon as you can claiming victory. I said it was a draw and it appears through polls that more people in this world agree with me. Maybe you should take off your donkey glasses and not be so biased. Only a biased person would believe one side, without question, won that debate last night. Biden being a condescending asshat is a side note to all of this. Of course, people who aren't blindly convinced that the Dems are winning everything already knew that.

You guys are laughable on this one. Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times in a 90 minute debate. Now, if I remember correctly, Ryan talked 38 minutes. That means that Biden interrupted him every 27 seconds while he was talking. That doesn't even count totally looking like an azzhat sitting there laughing and smirking. It proves one thing. Biden as VP is Obama's best security blanket. NOBODY wants anything to happen to Obama because Biden would be next in line.

Interrupting the moderator is totally different than every time your opposition tries to say something you interrupt him.

It's no wonder why we got our butts handed to us in the second half! First time I saw a video of that. That was damn funny. Props to Maher.

I think his team showed plenty of weakness on Saturday. Admitting it frustrated them would hardly make it any worse. I said his in game demeanor has improved. However, spitting mad rants on the sideline don't show "football passion" they show a person incapable of controlling their temper and I fail to see how this "quality" has done much to fire up the team. Lying, in my experience, is a bad idea all around. It's a sad reality that telling the truth is seen as "showing weakness." That's where we have our differences, if someone blows their cover, multiple times, I don't have a problem with him ranting on the sideline to that said player. You do wrong, you point it out. Now people take the context of him yelling last week, just like they did against the TAMU game with Martinez. Discipline is a thing he has enforced and will continue to force. Your a STARTER, you shouldn't be making mistakes like that. I have not seen Pelini lie, but I have seen him avoid an answer, which is something ALL coaches do when they are frustrated. He has stated that its his fault, the coaches fault for that loss at OSU, and it trickled down to the players, what else do you want? Want him to go on Dr. Phil and express his true feelings? OMG...a football coach yelled at a player on the side lines. This should make ESPNs 30 30 program.