TGHusker

The contrast: 3 years ago we hired a old coach not on anyone's radar, who had only average results at a no-name P5 program. SF is young, is the hot topic, is on everyone's radar, has an exciting offense and an attacking defense. What young kid wouldn't want to play for Frost. After evaluating the talent at NU, Frost should - secure a NU commitment from those players he's already received a commitment from to go to UCF. Get some JUCO linemen in here esp - no mater how good the offense is on paper, it isn't going anywhere if the line cannot produce. Talk to those players who decommited - that is low hanging fruit - they had an interest in NU - I think they will be more open to come back when the hot coach comes calling.

I learned it is more enjoyable doing honey dos for my wife than watching this poor NU team play. I did not watch the game nor did I have a desire to do so. My only amazement was the final score and the mercy PSU had on us by not running up the score. I still cannot fathom the different directions both programs have taken. Bring on SF and

I learned this weekend it is more enjoyable doing honey dos for my wife than watching this poor NU team play. I did not watch the game nor did I have a desire to do so. My only amazement was the final score and the mercy PSU had on us by not running up the score. I still cannot fathom the different directions both programs have taken. Bring on SF and

Can the coaches be charged & tried for malpractice???!! This is so shameful. The Blackshirts should be yanked - but yet the players are playing as they have been told and as they have practiced. The coaches are ultimately responsible.

Well at least there was some emotion on the side line

I didn't know anything about her until I saw the article. But it is a more than a bit hypocritical for her to be defending Moore/O'Reily or not taking seriously charges against them seriously. I wonder if see had made more comments about Moore since coming out with her story. Maybe her better angel got a hold of her and she started to think differently - reflecting back to her situation and comparing it to the Moore situation. I can only hope. Otherwise, one could say she was 'standing by her men' just like Hillary stood by Bill when she knew better.

This is a good read and details how politics can put 'blinders' on us. The political left of center is now coming to terms with what Bill Clinton did and how it compromised Hillary. The article concludes that Hillary was hamstrung by Bill's past when any other candidate would have been able to cut Trump down to size when it came to his womanizing and abusive behavior. I'm waiting for the blinders to fall off of those right of center in regards to Moore, Trump, etc. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/what-hillary-knew/546170/ A few quotes: Broaddrick’s account—now accepted not just by a vast right-wing conspiracy, but also by a gathering number of liberal writers—is of an attack as brutal and unambiguous as the worst of the alleged assaults by Harvey Weinstein. Clinton, she says, manipulated his way into her hotel room, threw her down on the bed, yanked off her pantyhose, and raped her. She says he bit her lip hard enough to leave it bloodied. “You better put some ice on that,” she remembers him telling her as he walked out the door, headed off to his important work of feeling other people’s pain. When I have talked about these matters with progressives over the past week, I have encountered a fairly consistent response. It is no longer a frank denial of the weight and gravity of Broaddrick’s testimony. Rather it is a frustrated and dismissive statement of fact, one that can be reduced to the following formulation: I feel sorry for Juanita Broaddrick, but Bill Clinton was an excellent president. It’s a sentiment that encompasses the bitter and irreducible truth about being female in this world. There is sympathy for a rape victim—but she shouldn’t go around destroying a man’s reputation or family or career. Rape, unlike murder, is accepted as such an unremarkable fact of the human experience that a woman who spends years seeking redress for the crime comes to be viewed as some kind of lunatic, rejected lover, or tool of a vast conspiracy. Liberals seem almost giddy with relief, admitting what they believe—which is how it always feels when you finally decide that you’re going to say what you really think and to hell with the consequences. The truth does set you free, but it usually comes at a price, which is why it will probably take another 20 years to open The New York Times and read an editorial called “Hillary Knew.” As first lady, Hillary Clinton created a children’s health-insurance program that continues to provide health care to millions of American children; as a U.S. senator, she secured the billions of federal dollars necessary to right the great damage done to New York City and its residents after 9/11. But in addition to these great and good works, she must have looked at the facts about Juanita Broaddrick and decided to put them in the same locked box where she kept the truth of Bill’s consensual affairs. As a wife, she had every right to do that. But as a Democratic candidate for president—one whose historic campaign was largely centered on the glass ceiling and the rise of women—she had a Grand Canyon–size vulnerability, as she learned a year before the general election when she blithely tweeted out this corker: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, posed the greatest existential threat to progressive goals and values of the past half century. He also had a long string of women come forward with very credible accounts of sexual harassment and misconduct. A different Democratic candidate would have cut him off at the knees for that, but Hillary had to be careful because of her husband’s past and because of her own widely believed complicity in helping to marginalize and silence his accusers. So maybe, in the end, she’s one more casualty of the truly vast conspiracy: the one that swings into action every time a woman stands up—usually alone, and almost always afraid—and says, “He raped me.”

By the way - how do you know all of these folks??

The whole world knows we are in an all out press for a top flight coach. If we end up wt Bohl then we are in an even worse place than the most dour fan could imagine. And that isn't a knock on Bohl. That aside, I think he has done a great job elsewhere and he should be commended and not put down due to the past here at NU. He has recovered nicely. And to be honest, 63-36 is far better than some of the other disasters we have faced since that infamous day in Colorado. It only sticks out as the worse because it was probably the worse defeat in decades up to that point - and it cracked our shell of invincibility. We had to look squarely at the elephant in the room and realize that the emperor had no clothing - even wt Eric Crouch we were in 2001 becoming a shell of the program that we were in 1997 (by the way who was the QB of that 97 team?-- I think there is a tiny thread named after him in case you are wondering. )

Here is a long and interesting read about Chris Steele's history and how he started to investigate Trump About half way down the article you see a large T and a pic of Manafort. This is were it starts talking about Trump specifically Below is quoted from the article. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke Normally an intelligence officer would debrief sources directly, but since Steele could no longer visit Russia, this had to be done by others, or in third countries. There were intermediaries, subsources, operators – a sensitive chain. Only one of Steele’s sources on Trump knew of Steele. Steele put out his Trump-Russia query and waited for answers. His sources started reporting back. The information was astonishing; “hair-raising”. As he told friends: “For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience.” Steele had stumbled upon a well-advanced conspiracy that went beyond anything he had discovered with Litvinenko or Fifa. It was the boldest plot yet. It involved the Kremlin and Trump. Their relationship, Steele’s sources claimed, went back a long way. For at least the past five years, Russian intelligence had been secretly cultivating Trump. This operation had succeeded beyond Moscow’s wildest expectations. Not only had Trump upended political debate in the US – raining chaos wherever he went and winning the nomination – but it was just possible that he might become the next president. This opened all sorts of intriguing options for Putin. In June 2016, Steele typed up his first memo. He sent it to Fusion. It arrived via enciphered mail. The headline read: US Presidential Election: Republican Candidate Donald Trump’s Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin. Its text began: “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in the western alliance.” “So far TRUMP has declined various sweetener real estate business deals, offered him in Russia to further the Kremlin’s cultivation of him. However he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals. “Former top Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has compromised TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able to blackmail him. According to several knowledgeable sources, his conduct in Moscow has incl If Steele’s reporting was to be believed, Trump had been colluding with Russia. This arrangement was transactional, with both sides trading favours. The report said Trump had turned down “various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia”, especially in connection with the 2018 World Cup, hosted by Moscow. But he had been happy to accept a flow of Kremlin-sourced intelligence material, apparently delivered to him by his inner circle. That didn’t necessarily mean the candidate was a Russian agent. But it did signify that Russia’s leading spy agency had expended considerable effort in getting close to Trump – and, by extension, to his family, friends, close associates and business partners, not to mention his campaign manager and personal lawyer. On the eve of the most consequential US election for generations, one of the two candidates was compromised, Steele’s sources claimed. The memo alleged that Trump had unusual sexual proclivities, and that the FSB had a tape. If true, this meant he could indeed be blackmailed. uded perverted sexual acts which have been arranged/monitored by the FSB. As well as sex, there was another fascinating dimension to this alleged plot, categorically denied by Trump. According to Steele’s sources, associates of Trump had held a series of clandestine meetings in central Europe, Moscow and elsewhere with Russian spies. The Russians were very good at tradecraft. Nonetheless, could this be a trail that others might later detect? Steele’s sources offered one final devastating piece of information. They alleged that Trump’s team had co-ordinated with Russia on the hacking operation against Clinton. And that the Americans had secretly co-paid for it.

This should be interesting. Chris Steele not backing down from his dossier reports. Believes it to be up to 90% accurate considering his connections. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who compiled an explosive dossier of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election. The book, Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, by the Guardian journalist Luke Harding, quotes Steele as telling friends that he believes his reports – based on sources cultivated over three decades of intelligence work – will be vindicated as the US special counsel investigation digs deeper into contacts between Trump, his associates and Moscow. “I’ve been dealing with this country for 30 years. Why would I invent this stuff?” Steele is quoted as saying. One of the reasons his dossier was taken seriously in Washington in 2016 was Steele’s reputation in the US for producing reliable reports on Russia, according to Harding’s book. Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine. The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump, which included allegations that the Kremlin had personally compromising material on the US president, including sex tapes recorded during a trip to Moscow in 2013, and that Trump and his associates actively colluded with Russian intelligence to influence the election in his favour. Related: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/07/trump-russia-steele-dossier-moscow

correct - just confirming his jerkness

# 2 https://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2017/11/melanie-morgan-after-tv-appearance-al-franken-harassed-me-too Now Rocky. Say it isn't so Adrian. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081605/Sylvester-Stallone-accused-forcing-teen-threesome.html

Or when he doesn't like the incoming candidate - Judge Moore. Ok wt him going after Moore but the whole party looking the other way on Trump is another story.

Ugly to brown bag ugly. Never thought I'd see the day when the line is that high against NU and deserving so.

yes - rub it in. But it is sooooooooooooo true I think we all can live about a dozen plays that kept us from a NC. When you were that good - it often was just that one #@&* play.

well it was page 126 - I'm disappointed in the night posters. Slacking off I guess.

Ok when I check back in the morning - I expect this thread to be at page.....127

Sen Johnson opposing the tax bill because it unfairly priortizes corporations over 'pass through' entities like sole proprietorships, partnerships. LLCs Since it is the smaller companies that hire the bulk of the workers, I think the tax break would have a greater affect being extended to the smaller pass through companies. It is there that I would think it would be passed on through higher wages or expansion of businesses. Big corp will use it in other ways and most likely not pass it through to workers. Workers with expanded incomes will have more money to spend and drive the economy more. The Trickle Up option of economic growth I guess. https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-sen-ron-johnson-opposes-gop-senate-tax-package-1510777290 In addition to his concern about the details of the Republican proposal, he also complained about a process that he said has been closed to his input and also misleads the public about the nature of the tax overhaul. “I don’t like that process,” Mr. Johnson said. “I find it pretty offensive, personally.” Mr. Johnson said Republican plans prioritize corporations over “pass-through” entities—sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies and S Corporations—whose owners pay taxes through individual returns and at individual income-tax rates, rather than corporate rates. The Senate plan, like the House plan, proposes to cut the corporate rate from 35% to 20%. Top rates for pass-through filers would remain over 30% in the Senate version of the bill and the House bill substantially constrains how much pass-through income could be taxed at a new 25% rate. The Senate bill would provide $1.3 trillion in gross tax rate cuts to corporations, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That compares with $362 billion in gross tax cuts for pass-through entities. Both types of businesses also would lose some tax breaks. More companies are organized as pass-through businesses than as corporations. Many pass-through filers are small businesses. Overall U.S. business income is split roughly evenly between the pass-through businesses and corporate income. “I have no problems in making all American businesses competitive globally,” Mr. Johnson said. “This isn’t anti-big corporation at all. When you’re going to do a tax reform, you have to treat them equitably so they can maintain their competitive position here at home as we’re making them competitive globally.” Finding the right rate for pass-through businesses is a challenge in part because they file their tax returns as individual filers. Cutting the rates for the wealthiest pass-through filers could be tagged as a giveaway to the rich. More than half of pass-through business income goes to the top 1% of households, according to the Tax Policy Center. Mr. Johnson said many small-business owners he speaks with think they will receive a new top tax rate of 25%. That was the goal laid out months ago by Republican leaders and it is in the House bill, but narrowly constrained to a small portion of pass-through income. “That is still buffaloing people, pass-throughs that think they’re getting a 25% rate,” Mr. Johnson said. “It’s still lost on a lot of people.” Mr. Johnson said he has been working at this issue for months and trying to get a hearing for his ideas, only to be rebuffed at every turn by his party leaders. He said he has repeatedly sought a hearing from leaders of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee and spoken to high-level officials in the Trump administration.

yes, I noticed that about UCF's RB. I think Spielman could excel in a couple of places in that O. Slot, RB and even WR - prefer taller but sometimes quick overcomes the height disadvantage. He'd be crazy in an up tempo O - quick snap, quick guy wt the ball - hard to keep up wt the action from the D perspective. It will be interesting to see how he and TG (our redshirt QB) might connect. I think TG might be better in SF's offense than O'Brien.

They all want to catch Bama. Tired of playing 2nd fiddle. Lightening only strikes so many times. We were fortunate at Nebraska - it struck 2x back to back.

Would love to see the announcement that this is MR's last game and it ignites a fire and they go out and win one for the gubber. I mean gibber.

Yep, BB would not be much different than Bo. It would get pretty old real quick. And we'd have to apologize to Bo for letting him go (besides Bo getting his regular ck from us).

He is an amazing talent. I was hoping DPE would have a great season but I guess his injuries were too much. Spielman has more than filled that gap. I think he would excel in SF's offense.

Mark Levin is calling on Paul Ryan and McConne1l to resign for allowing sexual harassment to continue in congress: https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mark-levin-mcconnell-ryan-resign/2017/11/15/id/826304/