TGHusker

I figured the dump truck has all of that.

I hope the Big 10 is hit in the head by Scott's offense. Remember - as Scott said, our offense won't adapt to the Big 10 - it will have to adapt to our offense.

Good insight Mav and Mich Dad

The bold got me thinking about the missed opportunity and the message they may have sent without knowing it: If the Dem party wants to talk about the disenfranchised they should have considered that: The Kennedy Family is a 1%er It is a dynasty name like Bush, or Clinton, or Adams or Roosevelt - thus it doesn't promote fresh faces or ideas When you consider the "Me Too" movement - Joe's great uncle Teddy had the not so small issue wt Mary Jo & the car going into the lake- she was Great Grandpa's secretary. It shows how power and privilige got him off the hook and therefore diminished her life. So Joe Kennedy the 3rd represents white, wealthy, the privileged - It seems to me they should have presented an 'anti-Trump' figure in that spot- a polar opposite. Someone who would reinforce their cultural message. Harris or Booker or another person of similar background.

That deserves a few of these: That just got me laughing.

I just don't get it. Is there that big of a shortage of QBs in the NFL? Can someone explain why he is a viable candidate for a NFL roster. His performance at NU was horrific in many respects - yes he had a terrible line to play behind and not the best OC but he didn't blaze the trail at Tulane and was over hyped by MR and staff coming into last season. Seems like the hype is all from that one summer camp. Regardless, I hope he does well and finds a good path for himself.

Well - now that you bring up Trump - it is a different story. In the back of my mind I'm thinking - I don't expect trump to be viable by that time. I still think something will happen - that it won't be Trump. So I'm thinking new face repub vs new face dem. (Actually I hope McMullen runs as Indep if he can't crack the Repub shell) Yes, if it is Trump - the decision will already be made. No way I consider him. So we are in agreement there. And yes, I'm willing to take a risk on the policy side if Trump remains on the ticket. Besides, we all know, once in office, there normally is a moderating affect as the president becomes the president of the whole nation and not just his/her party or the extremes of the party - Trump notwithstanding Let me add - if the Rep congress continues to be what it has become (chaotic in governance and loony tune in so many policy areas) , I may just say - the heck wt it - time for change across the board and go Dem - just too early to tell. I don't have to carry the repub water any more. We'll see who is running in my district and if they can make any positive changes long term or will just reinforce the craziness that we've seen from this congress.

Not wt Biden at the top of the ticket. Yes, he has the most experience of all but it is time for a new generation. I think Harris, Booker are more realistic choices for the Dems. Before I vote for the Dem party in a national election, I have to consider many policy issues - must be more moderate than Bernie. Biden may be more moderate but do we want old guy vs old guy again - before long we'll be like the Soviet Premiers of the 1980s - they kept dying off and Reagan didn't know who he could negotiate with.

So, do any of you think Kennedy will be a 2020 presidential candidate or at min a VP choice? I don't know what kind of depth he has within the party but it must be solid if he was selected to give the response. The Dem party was smart in having a 'young gun' give the response versus one of the old folks. I think he would be 39 or 40 then.

Well, I started this thread, went home and totally forgot about it!! My wife and I were talking about other things - in the long run, more important anyway. I did remember it wt about 15 min left so we tuned in at that point. So I caught the story of the soldier who saved the life of his fellow soldier, the NK dissident and the mother and father who lost their son to NK abuse before returning him in a coma state -- all were very touching stories and whoever planned those guests knew what heart strings to pull. Seeing so little of the speech, I really cannot comment on the specifics. However, I couldn't imagine listening to him for the full, long 1hr 20 min - 3rd longest ever SOTUS - that prodding delivery was hard to take - as far as an orator - He is no Ronald Reagan or B. Obama. Regarding Kennedy's response - good speech, full of passion but that chap stick was a distraction for sure. I think he had some good things to say - typical Dem talking points but what else do you expect - too short of a time to make a game changer speech full of real policy. But I liked his tone, passion, heart and concern for the broader community. He does remind me of Robert Kennedy for sure. I figured he'd get this kind of reaction: https://www.thewrap.com/democrats-say-joe-kennedy-is-a-star-republicans-say-hes-drooling/

He may have to take out the line about the roaring wall street climb after yesterday and today.

Thought I'd start a state of the union speech thread for comment wt a poll. Will you be watching? What do you think will be his main emphasis tonight? Will it be believable? And will his wife smile?

I'm from the Bobby and Jack Kennedy era - I liked both of them and didn't care so much for Teddy( that little car accident incident didn't sit to well with me). I remember my 2nd grade teacher crying after Jack was shot (yes I'm that old) and the nuns (doing my summer catechism class) crying the next morning after Bobby was shot. So, I don't know much about this new generation Kennedy. What can you tell me - seems like he's been under the radar.

Good example on and off the field. Wish him the very best. I guess that opens up a scholarship for recruits. I wonder if we go for another WR to replace him?

Also throw in the litigation - General Liability issues. We want patient rights enforce & redress protected but provider (doctors) liability insurance is excessively high

^^^ just saw that, here is another link also on the subject. sounds like it is just for their employees but it is affecting the stock prices of other health care companies in early trading - new competition. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/amazon-berkshire-jpmorgan-to-set-up-a-health-company-for-staff

Ted Cruz maybe in for a difficult time in Texas. His opponent has raised more money than he in 2 quarters https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2018-elections/2018/01/28/cruz-challenger-beto-orourke-raises-24m-latest-quarter

How is he leaning? Is NU still in the running?

While not always true - there were a few times when 4 big 8 teams were in the top 10. Too often it was Big 2, Small 6 - but KU, ISU, Co, KSU, Mo all had runs at the Big 2.

Will they take a 62 year old former HS outside linebacker/TE? I'm thinking Rudy and Invincible movies.

Too me, it is having a blind eye for short term good but the blind eye has long term consequences. While Trump may accomplish some things and give lip service to issues evengelicals like myself might believe in, the long term implication is a stained reputation, a mis-repesentation of the Gospel, and a derailed mission. The church, or this segment of the church, loses it 'moral authority' to speak out on moral issues when they turn a blind eye to every thing Trump. To me, the better path is to speak out against it and demand a higher standard in the WH. What would happen if they spoke up and in part with all of the other voices, Trump is removed from office. They'd have Pense as President - who would be more in line with them traditionally. While many won't see that as an 'upgrade' due to his politics but at least he appears to be a true family man of the same values. If the Christian right spoke out against Bill Clinton, and it/we did, it is only right to speak up wt moral certitude now. In the early 1970s the evangelical message was associated with the Jesus Movement - people getting set free of drugs, etc by coming to Christ - I was a part of the movement (yes I'm that old!). There was a clarity of mission and purpose. Now we have leaders within the evangelical community who have lost that mission. It all reminds me of a sermon I heard via cassette tape in the mid 70s(remember those) by Paris Reidhead from the 1960s about humanism in the church. He tells the story of a Jewish priest (from book of Judges in the Bible) who basically prostitutes (my word) himself by deciding to become a 'private priest' of some rich guy named Micah who happens to be an idol worshiper. Micah agrees to pay him 10 Shekels and a Shirt - thus he has his own private priest but the priest removes himself from his true calling - a priest for God. Has not these evangelical leaders done the same thing - they look the other way, giving Trump cover (who also secures their votes and the votes of too many others) and they in return get what they want - a voice in the WH and legislation that they approve of. According to Reidhead, humanism says that the end of all things is the happiness of man while Christianity says that the end of all things is the glory of God. I believe this issue is the center - does this bring Glory to God? I would ask the martyrs of the church- the persecuted church if they would take the same course as American evangelicals. I think not. I say that the message of the gospel suffers more under prosperity than it does under persecution. Again, the policies may be acceptable, but the deliverer of those policies is not and should not have the endorsement (either actual or via silence, or excusing of Trump's actions) of these leaders. http://www.heavenreigns.com/pdf/ten_shekels.pdf

All good points. The greatest incubator for new technology is ... a problem. Acknowledge the problem and try to fix it - act like adults and don't live on the Nile (in denial). I've found that this works on 'my personal problems' as well - look at it honestly, take ownership, strive to 'fix' it, move forward and do not linger in the backwaters of negativity.

So in other words, because we are a consumer driven economy, more immigration is needed and not less. Birth rates are such that internal growth isn't sufficient to drive the economy - while not as bad as several European countries and Russia (we haven't announced a "make a baby day" like they did in Russia for example), it is sufficiently slow to slow down consumerism. It also lowers that worker vs social security ratio - we need sufficient workers to fund the huge # of us who have retired or will retire in the next 10 years. Funny think, those families that come from south of the board tend fit the bill - hard working, large families who tend to be loyal. Some bad apples for sure, but there have been a few bad apples that were internally grown as well.

I use to be a climate change denier - as it was the standard Republican line. Facts are a funny thing - or so they say. It is freeing not to hold to the Republican line - (there are many repubs however who aren't deniers also - so I'll give them credit also)

Calling the Minority leader a ' crying Schumer' really builds teamwork don't you think. What a leader.