TGHusker

I would rather see the Fed Govt empower industry to create a secure 5G network than owning it themselves (govt). If this is a huge security issue, then do what we did in WW2 - empower and incentivize industry to take the lead. Not only industry but higher ed.

So if we over sign, do we tell some current players (who don't fit the new coach's style of play) on the roster that they no longer have scholarships ? Is there a way to 'get rid of dead weight' to make room for new players or are scholarships a 4 year deal period? (Don't mean to be rude - each scholarship is important to these young guys).

Have to be a subscriber to read the article - what did it say??

Good post. I too noticed how the UCF's players didn't panic. Our team would have melted as they so often did under Bo and MR (wt a couple of occasions where they didn't).

This is tech related and in directly related to the topic The Trump admin is considering the option of the govt building the 5G network vs having private enterprise (AT&T, Verizon, etc) doing it. Why, to beat China and to make it more secure. The admin likens it to the Eisenhower Interstate System directive of the 1950s. So, this would be gov't take over of a significant sector of the economy. Considerations: 1. Do republican law makers resist as they did wt Obama care? 2. Do Democratic law makers resist because this could be a personal liberty issue - govt control of a vital sector that would have all of our personal data? 3. Is this primarily a security issue which 'trumps' (no pun intended) all other considerations - a greater good argument? 4. Or is this too much like the Patriot Act - an overstep on behalf of a reasonable concern (security)? https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html

yes, it is a philosophical argument that could be used on about anything - as I mentioned and the author mentioned it doesn't care the weight of evidence (however one chooses to define evidence) behind it. I'm surprised you didn't mention Flying Spaghetti Meatball religion.

I thought it was Pat Robertson??^^

As Sargent Schultz would say "Verrrrry Interesting"

I know this is in the would have, could have and should have area of speculation: 2 more NCs were Tom's in 82,83. One stolen by the ref - PSU in 82. One by his honor. The 83 was his with a tie. He chose the higher road. Most other coaches won't have. Esp in today's world- you settle for a tie and you can finish it off in the over time period. You can play it safe.

none

I think this is symptomatic of our 2 party system and its limits. The 2 parties ying and yang the death out of us with the purpose of keeping us apart so they can continue to share power. It is no big deal if one of them is out of power for 4 years (regardless of their protest) but they know they will take turns making bogeymen out of us voters with our 'issues'. That keeps them both in power and they continue to scratch each other's back.

Agree. Yes, I didn't understand you were coming from a political perspective - Knapp I think knew my view point and could see that I was miss reading you. I think a real middle ground can be found if people stopped shouting over each other. Middle ground was consider the life of the mother, the viable baby in the womb, birth control, post birth care, support for women regardless of their choice, education, etc. - adoption, crisis pregnancy, social economic issues that contribute all have to be a part of the discussion. But polarization has stolen the opportunity for solution - for far toooooo many years.

BRB, your story & especially the bold reminded me of Pascal's Wager. While it isn't meant to be a scientific or evidence based proof of God's existence, it was meant to answer doubters (like any of us) from a philosophical perspective & at the lowest common denominator - our own self interest . It also presents an angle from the higher motive of justice as well. This article places it in perspective. As the article states, one's whole faith should be built on the wager but this may be the initial step a person may take. He also later talks about what in modern language we would say "fake it until you make it'. Sometimes all of our reasoning & searching clouds our ability to believe. He says do acts of faith and before long faith in deed will be found. Interesting concepts. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm The author's mini bio: Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He loves his five grandchildren, four children, one wife, one cat, and one God. His 75 books: http://www.peterkreeft.com/books.htm This is a part of the article/ summary of the wager. The article goes on to address atheism after this.

^^ I've seen that UFO video before. Pretty amazing. I wonder how close they got to it - whatever it was. I forgot about the whole crop ring thing. Reminds me of the Mel Gibson movie. That was one spooky movie.

Thanks Knapp for the 'detailed' Cliff's note version. It helps me to understand your journey. I appreciate your honesty and transparency.

To continue our off season, non-political discussion, I have a new poll. Kind of related to the paranormal poll but taking a more 'physical' slant. Do UFO's exist His Big Foot roaming the forests near you (seems like he has been 'seen' in about every state but primarily it seems NW USA) Is Loch Ness swimming under a boat in that English lake.

Hey Knapp - thanks for the clarification. Appreciated. That changes the perspective. And I agree. As you know, I've had a big change of heart about being everything Republican. I am very frustrated by the continued Republican plantation holding prolife voters hostage - I blame a big portion of this on one organization starting back in the 1970s - The Moral Majority. They created the narrative that tied prolife voters to one party. That one party has gladly given lip service to the prolife movement which has secured their votes for far too long. But the back lash is that it entrenched the opposite side into the Dem party in my opinion. It lead to polarization. The Dem party was full of prolife leaders at one time. I would bet that this would be a non-issue by now if that polarization had not started in the 70s. Yes, prolife people at a right to responded to Roe v Wade - but the extremes led the way and polarization was the result. I agree the CHIP/DACA is just another slap in the face on 'life issues'. Again a culture of life involves all of these issues. As a conservative, I would like to see the government being more efficient and make budget decisions that would address all of those life issues including CHIP/DACA. It is a matter of making proper choices. So If I want to be pro-choice it would be to cut the budget on waste, kickbacks to contributors in the form of unrealistic tax cuts, cut programs that reward foreign govts, keep the military right sized, etc - with the primary focus being the welfare of the citizens - those other life issues that the republicans have a poor track record on. So I can see how a person can be conservative economically and very liberal on social issues if the right decisions were made. Hard choices on the budget in order to fund the life needs of the citizens. If we don't care for our own, those under our 'national roof', we should be ashamed. I think this verse applies 1Timothy 5:8 Now if anyone does not provide for the own, and especially his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Knapp, honest question here and of course you don't have to answer and I'll respect what you have to say for I know this is a very personal decision. One main question with 2 clarifying questions: Can I ask what was the 'tipping point' - that one 'moment in time' if there was one that started your 180 turnaround? Was there a single event in your life that was the spark that began your search? Or was there a general feeling of doubt as you heard other arguments?

No problem - the more the merrier on this depressing topic - hell.

The bold is kind of a straw man argument to me and Fru referenced it above as well - to which I answered. This false narrative / argument assumes that a person who is pro-life cannot also be passionate about all of the issues you bring up and that cannot be involved in both. Many are. If we nurtured a culture of life in this country we'd be concerned wt life issues from the womb to the grave. Let me ask, how many Planned Parenthood agencies promote adoption as their primary goal or are they creating soup kitchens, food and clothing pantries, homeless shelters, etc? How involved are they in clothing, sheltering, education(outside of birth control and abortion education)? You may argue - that isn't their calling. Well to many pro-lifers their primary calling is the life issue. For others it is those other issues and they remain prolife as a secondary issue. As I noted in my earlier post, most pro-life individuals are already involved in those other areas. Most churches that are active in pro-life issues are involved in other life issue. Don't confuse organizations that have a primary focused to address the pro-life issue with the vast # of common individuals who are active across the spectrum.

The old Lock Out, Tag Out omission got you! So what are you seeing floating around at night! Maybe there is some paranormal going on because of it. I once tackled a guy so hard in HS football that I saw stars dancing - does that qualify as paranormal?

I have no problem answering that. First it is wrong to assume as too many do that Pro-life in regards to abortion means that is all prolifers are (that we only care about abortion). We are just as likely to be volunteering in a soup kitchen, giving financial counseling, help in a homeless shelter as we are in standing for the life issues of the unborn. I've done all of those things and more - because I believe in life period. To be pro-life should mean and it does mean to me - at all stages of life - womb, childhood development, adult, and end of life issue (elderly people should be treated with respect and not treated as cattle in some retirement home as some are). The reason I said the Economic/Social issue concerns me in the abortion issue isn't because I don't care of the economic disadvantaged, it is because I think that is a poor reason to make a decision about a viable life - the baby in the womb. The economic issues can be addressed by many means but you cannot 'unring the bell' as Paul Harvey use to say. Once the baby is aborted it is final. But I understand the basis of your question so therefore I don't think you are coming off dickish. Too often our prolife ticket has been stamped by the republican party that has been lacking in all of the other 'pro life' issues that Dems are typically strong on. So the basic view is that Prolife = Republican = Zero Compassion for other life issues. This is why I wish this wasn't such a political issue. I really do believe the Dems could capture most of the prolife vote if they had a more open tent and were not so solidly pro-choice. Can a person be a pro-life liberal? - I believe they can be and perhaps should be but the Dem party isn't opening up to them. Even now more than ever, wt the repugnant Trump in the WH, Pro-lifers with a moral conscious could flock to the Dem party if the party was open to them. I think it would be very easy to be pro-life and liberal on most other social areas and conservative from an economic policy area.

Knapp, what separates a 'very good medium' from an average or good medium. Maybe real good connectivity perhaps??

I believe in the afterlife. I think there is paranormal activity but I think it is rarely seen. I once knew a gal who worked at a local funeral home. She said this lady ghost was known by all of the employees and would occasionally be seen. I've also known others who have said they have seen 'things' - but I never have. I do believe in angels and spirits (evil) that war in the unseen world and I've heard stories of that unseen world becoming seen at times - but again, I've not seen one. Again this is a fun topic to talk about to get us through the day. I also had a friend in HS who said he and his girl friend saw a UFO. This was in the Mid 1970s when there seemed to be a lot of talk about UFOs. I guess that could be another topic.

I agree with both of these. Also adding supporting crisis pregnancy centers that do help the mother to carry the baby to term and find adopting parents if needed. I'm not a woman and would hate to be placed in that decision point. Another issue I want to bring up is that the Republican party has 'plantationed' this discussion among the Christian right. It has been the topic to keep conservative Christians on the plantation. Of course this is true somewhat on the other side. Pro-life Dems are a rare breed as is a Pro-choice Republican. This topic should not be the political hot potato that it is - which is the reason so much isn't resolved about it. It is kept alive as a 'red meat' issue and it has kept good meaning people on both sides from working together. I come from the strongly pro-life side. I didn't like some of the choices above because they come without substantiated meaning - Define 'health of the mother' or social /economic reasons or fetal impairment. If it is codified into law with those restrictions, it would have to get fairly specific. Overall I probably lean to a reserved # 5 and BRB probably expressed my views the best. I'm also concerned wt devaluing life. A child in the womb is still life - not just 'potential life" with a beating heart, etc. It is still the 'other person' in the equation. I can understand allowing the issues noted in # 5 with clear cut guidelines. Children with 'Downs Syndrome' can be a great blessing - is that a fetal impairment?? Those are some of the hard issues one has to consider. Part of life is protecting the weakest and most vulnerable among us. I find the Economic/Social idea pretty hard to swallow - I think it cheapens life. Most of us wouldn't be on this forum if our parents had to consider their financial accounts or social status before we were born. In the end, I wish this was a cut and dry issue, not political. In reality, it comes down to the woman, the man if he remains involved, & doctor. Counselors (religious or non-religious counselor) may give guidance but ultimately it comes down to the woman and the man and not the politicians.