BigRedBuster

Forget specific legislation . . . Willard won't even give basic details! Romney's own VP candidate killed Simpson-Bowles. If you're trying to blame Obama for the failure of SB . . . well . . . you are truly blind. You can go look at who voted against it if you'd like. Heading that list? One Paul Ryan. BTW...What is it with democrats and using nick names for Romney? PS.....that is a joke.

I am very well aware of the ACORN problem. http://theweek.com/article/index/200161/the-fall-of-acorn-a-timeline Basically, ACORN was paying people to register voters. These people went out and "registered" people with absolutely no documentation on who they were or even if they were alive or if they were human.

To what legislation are you referring that the Democrats "pushed through?" Obamacare? Because universal healthcare was a Republican platform plank in the 1990s. You know this, right? 1993. Bob Dole, John Chafee. Mandated healthcare. You realize this happened, yes? You assume I supported it back in the 90s. Sometimes the assumptions you jump to make me laugh out loud....

Nebraska 45 OSU 17 Passing = 305 Rushing = 192

And, for the record, ACORN was a total mess of voter fraud.

Why not fight to stop both? Or, are you playing the..."they do it so we should do it too" card?

The AJA does have great details. The ACA is already passed. Etc. We know Obama's details. Agreed but the difference in 2012 is that we have one candidate with detailed proposals and another that steadfastly refuses to provide any sort of details on any issue. So...by this logic, incumbents should always be reelected.

Probably due to its vitriolic nature, but I think you have hit a good point. Lots of flak Romney is taking for lack of specifics. And to be sure there are some real concerns there. He wants to use that "China test" to cut programs, for example, which might amount to a lot of effort and the elimination of exactly 0% of our federal budget issues. Not exactly, but close enough in magnitude relative to the big sinkholes. And Romney doesn't have convincing answers to these hard, unsolved problems that he is making it sound like there are easy, philosophically based solutions for. But on the other hand, what grand specifics are part of the Obama plan going forward? What grand specifics did he have in 2008? A political principles message is all that anybody runs on. I do think Romney ought to be held accountable for these holes in his argument. But let's not pretend that Obama is offering up great details (am I wrong here?), or that he won in 2008 on detailed proposals as opposed to an inspiring message, principles, and a demonstrated eagerness to tackle the problems open-mindedly. Thank you...that is basically my point.

Have you paid attention to how the ball has been spread around this year to various players? It leaves me scratching my head to think someone believes that Beck/Bo are over using Rex this year.

Shockley... This debate is about a year old. The fact is, we went a couple years and didn't get good QBs. That was mainly the transition between Clownahan and Bo. Last year we got an absolute stud (supposedly) at QB in Armstrong. We really need him to redshirt this year. We right now have what looks like another stud at QB coming in by the name of Stanton. Now, supposedly, RK3 is the best passer in the system right now and really knows the offense. He has gotten in the games when we have the game in hand to get some experience. Last year we had absolutely nobody behind Taylor. This year we have someone who we want to redshirt and someone who knows the offense really well but isn't the athlete that Taylor is so the amount of the offense he can succeed in is limited. NEXT year we will have that stud back up behind Taylor and we will see him in games getting experience as a RS freshman. The future looks bright right now at this position. This isn't the pros where we can just go out and get a free agent in the off season. When we miss in one or two recruiting cycles, this is what happens. That can happen when coaches change and recruiting of certain types of QBs change. I am very comfortable with our situation right now at QB.

Let's see.....Democrats submit and try to push through legislation that goes specifically against everything the Republicans are wanting to do and you're surprised that they fought against it??? Trying to cut back on entitlements and the Dems put in place what will end up being the biggest entitlement in US history and you're shocked they didn't just go along with it??? Really???

Did you even look at the other Presidents first dates of submission? The deadline is a few weeks after they are inaugurated, no one get's the budget out on time the first time *I guess I should amend this, the last 3 Presidents didn't get their's out on time either*. The extra 30 days is curious, but maybe it had something to do with the situation at the time. Guessing you won't agree though. And, that is exactly my point.....it is common for the challenger to not have specific legislation written out and ready for submission. BUT, for some reason, liberals right now are up in arms that Romney doesn't.

I agree. It's a lot like when Pederson fired Solich and hired Clownahan. It wasn't particularly that he did that, it was HOW he did it that upset some people and...more importantly.....didn't set up the new hire in the best situation to succeed.

They're late by a week... The mug at the top and the tone of the words tells me that there is an agenda behind the site anyways, even if it is .gov. I used that as one example. Look at how late he was for his first budget. (close to 100 days). So, when all these people who loved Obama last time (OK, you didn't vote for him but someone did) claim Romney doesn't have anything, I have to laugh. Challengers don't have specific legislation completely written out and submitted. I just got a chuckle from a memory of the debate. Romney was explaining that what Obama should have done was take Simpson Bowles and at least take parts of it (if not all of it) and push it through to help with our budget issues. Obama (sort of under his breath) said...."We are now". Romney shot back that it's been 3 years since it was submitted. So....we have a sitting President that these people support that can't get budgetary legislation submitted in a timely manner and they complain that a challenger that isn't even IN office doesn't have a complete set of legislation written up and ready to submit???? Now, you can argue that you don't agree with Romney. That's fine and we can debate that. BUT, to sit and complain that he doesn't have legislation written up is laughable and weak at best.

Funny....no comments on the point of my post.

OK...if liberals want to keep going down this path of...."Romney doesn't have any legislation ready for his ideas"....bla bla bla......you are just going to look silly. Romney doesn't have a budget and this you are surprised at and alarmed??? http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=276880 From this, it appears that it is fairly common that a president doesn't meat the first dead line in February for his first budget. In fact, Obama mist his by almost 100 days. now...what is laughable is that Obama has also missed his last TWO dead lines. That hasn't happened until you go back to Reagan. So.....you sit here and harp on Romney that he doesn't have a specific budget all laid out and YOUR sitting President can't get it done by the time he is LEGALLY obligated to do so. In 2008 when Obama was running he had absolutely nothing to show for legislation but he sure kept saying those wonderful words of..."Hope and Change" and everyone fell on their knees in tears at the profound words coming out of his mouth.

I would be pissed if Miles isn't.

First of all. Who isn't a K. Bell fan? The only logical situation to have Turner in the wild cat is if Martinez would go down and RK3 would be QB. We would then use Turner in the wild cat since we would have a QB that isn't that big of a running threat. I honestly don't understand why a team would run the wild cat when you have a true dual threat QB. It makes no sense to me.

I find the discussion about how bad Badger fans are funny. I have always been a fan of Alvarez. But, I keep going back to that he started his coaching career in Lexington Nebraska and their fans are very similar to the comments made about Wisconsin fans. Just something I chuckle about.

I don't know what to believe right now. Facts from Harvey's press conference: 1) TO let him know in early September that he was going to step down. 2) Eichorst toured the campus (by himself) and interviewed for the job Sept 9th. Unless Harvey is lying about when TO told him he was going to retire, these dates line up. 3) Harvey says that he did this search by himself and he ruffled some feathers in Lincoln. 4) TO is one of the people who were upset. 5) He had TO talk to Alvarez and Alvarez gave Eichorst a thumbs up. (this happens many times with ex bosses. You would have to be a total failure for an ex boss to not say good things about you in this situation). 6) Search firm couldn't touch base with Bo. The Bo thing doesn't make sense to me. Some say Bo is upset he didn't have a bigger part in this. If the search firm actually tried to get a hold of Bo and Bo knew what it was for, and he didn't call them back, then that's Bo's fault. One thing that I do agree with though with Harvey, I don't like someone choosing who their successor is. TO isn't the one that has to live and work with this guy. He could pass away next week for all we know and the fans and the University are the ones that must live with the decision. So, even though I think TO's input could be valuable and it would make a transition that much more smooth, I don't know TO in those situations. Maybe he is an over bearing person and demands his guy gets the job. I honestly don't know. All that said, from the outside looking in right now, it appears that this could have been handled better. The last time we had someone stand up from the University and claim they did the entire search by themselves and made the decision by themselves it was a disaster. I am extremely nervous about this hire but I will try to support him and the University as much as possible. Unfortunately, Harvey has put the new guy in a difficult situation from the beginning.

That post didn't even make a good point. Read my response.

So what? I guess I don't get your point. 8/14/11 Michele Bachmann Looks Ahead After Iowa Straw Poll Victory 9/1/11 Perry Overtakes Romney as Top GOP 2012 Pick 10/26/11 Herman Cain Tops New Polls 12/10/11 Gingrich Prepares for First Debate as GOP Front-Runner 1/11/12 Romney secures front-runner status with New Hampshire win 2/10/12 Santorum surges nationally after three-state sweep 4/4/12 Romney sweeps 3 primary contests, eyes general election battle

I just hope that the Romney campaign doesn't start getting too confident. There are examples of people winning the first debate then losing the race. This is equivalent to a football team winning the first quarter of the first game of the season. Not the time for confidence and cockiness. Even if you win the election, that is only the first game of the season....go do what you said you are going to do.

That's fine. But, then you have to get rid of someone.

I really am interested in knowing why guys like Jimmy Williams Paul Meyers were not considered. We will never know but honestly, I thought this was probably why Jimmy was brought here in the first place.