TGHusker

Yes I think we all long for the days of both PRESIDENTS (PRESIDENTIAL) Bush and Obama. Funny in a not so funny way how both look so much better in the rear view mirror. Maybe it speaks to the problem of full force partisanship - it blinds us to the good points of each party and in this case each former president. When that happens we end up with the results we face today.

^^^^ Knapp brings up a good point that has been scratching the back of my mind for sometime - Trump could end this immediately if he wanted to. He could support a full scale, open investigation of the issue. Take the high road and open up his tax records, or I mean his Russian contact records and this would be settled. Give full access and stop denouncing the press. Yes, CNN and NBC will milk it for all of its worth but if Trump hated CNN so much he could destroy their ratings by bringing this to a quick close. Stop defending Flynn, etc, Stop attacking Hillary and the previous admin. This should be alarming to any President - regardless if the hacking was on their behalf or not - it violates the very integrity of who we are as a nation. The vote is sacred and should not be manipulated by an outside agent or by tampering by either party and via the legislative process. Why doesn't trump end it? (1) Maybe the simple version: It creates the political boggy man - we against them (the press) or (2) the more nefarious reason - there is something to hide (like his taxes) and he doesn't want there to be a a 'big reveal'. You choose - what version is it?

Somewhat related: James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has another video sting. This one aimed at a CNN producer. It would be interesting to find out what might have gotten left on the editing floor. In reading this quote below, the producer covers medical issues - which in itself just makes it an opinion article - kind of a big stretch from medical issues to Russian collusion. So now the Trump team is doing all they can to discredit CNN as I'm sure the video was done in COLLUSION wt the Trump team. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-producer-trump-probably-right-about-russian-witch-hunt/article/2627180 A producer for CNN admitted in a newly released undercover spy video that President Trump is "probably right" in accusing his opponents of engaging in a witch hunt as it relates to collusion with Russia. The video, published online Monday night by conservative sting activist James O'Keefe's Project Veritas website, shows John Bonifield, a CNN producer who covers medical issues, saying, "I just feel like they really don't have it [proof of collusion] but they want to keep digging." He continued, "And so I think the president is probably right to say, ‘Look, you are witch hunting me.'"

Fox gains ratings by being the go to Trump media source. They create the us against the world attitude.

Yes but take the billions and trillions spent over time on all of the various welfare programs and channel it into one system that pays individuals a sustainable 'salary' - it could appeal to both sides of the aisle. Think of it as a social security fund pre - social security age. The Repubs should like the more stream line govt - no need for all kinds of ABC welfare agencies, and the Dems would like the socialization part of it.

Yes, when I saw that - I thought - time to get out of the market!! Well not really but that kind of over confidence just invites a contrary self fulfilling prophecy.

2 contrasting articles In the first Yellen says no new financial crisis in our life time. Is that a prediction she can guaranty. I don't think so - can only hope so. However, I have thought for some time that our next big crisis may be in state govts. The 2nd article touches on it. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/yellen-banks-very-much-stronger-another-financial-crisis-not-likely-in-our-lifetime.html http://observer.com/2017/06/illinois-is-venezuela-and-the-solution-is-cryptocurrency/ This opinion article is about the crisis in state govts in particular - Illinois. While much of it is about cryptocurrency - bitcoin and the like, he does get into the financial crisis of underfunded states. (remember also P Rico, the funding crisis in several other like Kansas and my state of Okla. These crisis have been brought about by both conservative and liberal governing practices. So no need to point fingers - it is OUR issue. Some quotes: Illinois faces financial distress that’s unprecedented for any American state. Without a budget for two years and sitting on top of over $15 billion in unpaid bills, the state is, to use a phrase that State Comptroller Susana Mendoza borrowed from Bonfire, “hemorrhaging money as the state’s spending obligations have exceeded receipts by an average of over $600 million per month over the past year.” While the United States Constitution prevents a state from declaring bankruptcy the way places like Detroit and Orange County have, the situation is so dire that the Tribune’s prestige columnist, John Kass, is only partially kidding when he calls for the state to be divided up between its five Midwestern neighbors. Again, this is not just wonky penciling. The people of Illinois are being crushed by the burden imposed by a state that cannot pay its bills. The Chicago Public Schools, for example, must now pay 9 percent on its adjustable bonds because they are rated as junk. S&P is warning of a “negative credit spiral” and threatened to lower its rating even further if the state cannot hammer out a budget by July 1, which is less than a week away. In other words, a bridge that used to cost $100 million to build because that’s what it cost to borrow the money from bondholders, now might cost $150 million. Just as we saw in the gasoline example, anytime something costs more US dollars for the exact same product, you can look at it as the cost of a bridge going up, or you can look at it as the value of a dollar falling.

How is that different than unemployment insurance here - just a larger $$ value? I was on unemployment for 6 mo 15 years ago - sucked and I understand the depression side that goes wt it. I wonder how the system would work wt a much larger population like ours? Taxes would have to be driven much, much higher and I don't think our culture would stand for it.

If MR wins only 7 this year, I have less hope for next year as it is even more brutal. I see 2019 as a potential break out year but not the next 2. However, MR has to survive this year and the meat grinder next year. He cannot bomb like he (team) did at the end of last year. If he does, make ready the red phone to call Scott Frost's office in Florida.

Justice Thomas: Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case, and that it will suffer irreparable harm with any interference. Thomas said the government's interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country. http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2017-06-26-US--Supreme%20Court-Travel%20Ban/id-d5738691d91f437d820f25c234304a4a So I'm trying to figure out the real balance between security and entry that Thomas notes in the quote above. Let's be honest - security is vitally important in todays world while at the same time our whole national identity is based on liberty to the down trodden. I'm struggling to figure out the correct balance. My concern as noted above by others is that this temporary ban gets extended to.... years in practice. While Trump used the ban as an excuse to get immigration and security issues reviewed, we should be done with that review - unless they were doing nothing the whole time this was in court. Now it will be used as a ruse to continue the practice. Yes, I don't want us to become London and Paris wt terrorist attacks happening regularly but I don't want to de-evolve into the Iron Curtain either. It was give me Liberty or Give me Death not Give me impenetrable security or death.

I understand this to be your ongoing, and well-placed, concern about costs. I just don't see how we can control costs through government intervention and maintain a democracy. Knapp and BRB - don't you think allowing insurance companies to cross state lines would drive competition and therefore drive down costs of insurance. Also tort reform to drive down liability costs - but wt safe guards for gross negligence. I'm thinking out loud here and I always thought these were two ideas, pushed by Repubs in the past, that would have a positive affect on costs. Are these items even in the bill? Personally, I've never understood this crossing state lines argument. Currently it is tough enough finding providers who are in your insurers network. What good would say an insurer from Missouri do me in Colorado? Who have they negotiated pricing with? What choices of providers am I going to get from an insurer multiple states away from me? I just don't see the benefit at all of this crossing state lines deal. The guys already operating in my state can't seem to get a handle on costs or expand provider network. I think it's smoke and mirrors. I think the idea is that companies will have a larger pool to sell to and also with more companies competing for that same pool, the consumer therefore has more options - choosing better cost providers or better service providers.

I understand this to be your ongoing, and well-placed, concern about costs. I just don't see how we can control costs through government intervention and maintain a democracy. Knapp and BRB - don't you think allowing insurance companies to cross state lines would drive competition and therefore drive down costs of insurance. Also tort reform to drive down liability costs - but wt safe guards for gross negligence. I'm thinking out loud here and I always thought these were two ideas, pushed by Repubs in the past, that would have a positive affect on costs. Are these items even in the bill? In some instances allowing an insurance company to cross state lines would drive competition. But the problem is that not all insurance companies are national. So that may drive the smaller guy out of business and thus perhaps in the long run actually reduce competition.

^^^^ Hey RD - I have a class of students doing a case study on Panera Bread next week. Very timely!!

I understand this to be your ongoing, and well-placed, concern about costs. I just don't see how we can control costs through government intervention and maintain a democracy. Knapp and BRB - don't you think allowing insurance companies to cross state lines would drive competition and therefore drive down costs of insurance. Also tort reform to drive down liability costs - but wt safe guards for gross negligence. I'm thinking out loud here and I always thought these were two ideas, pushed by Repubs in the past, that would have a positive affect on costs. Are these items even in the bill?

Both parties play the delay game - as you recall the Dems delayed implementation of some of the requirements until after the 2014 midterms to help at risk dems. I haven't read anything on this as I was at meetings all day until now. I think it is repugnant for either party to schedule implementation of a policy/law after an election just for political reasons. They aren't facing the music of their decisions - popular or not.

Maybe we can afford to pay big $$ for coaches who can actually win something of significance now

As a kid - I remember watching the Game of the Century wt a house full of family and relatives. The day after Thanksgiving tradition could not be beat. Living in Okla I would love to see it happen again. When I moved to Tulsa I remember we just beat OU (1978) and then were # 1 for one week when we lost to of all people Mo and Coach Powers ( a former NU coach). It was such a heartbreak when it was announced a day or 2 later we would play OU in the orange bowl. Yes, great TV match up - revenge factor - great for OU but terrible for Tom and the team. It was hard to get up for that game - having beaten them once - OU had all of the motivation and we had lost our chance to play for the NC. Then Turner Gill arrived and we had several years of victories. Out of the blue OU wins the 85 NC. We then had Steve Taylor at QB and if it wasn't for sooner magic I think we would have been talking about Steve as a Heisman and NC QB ranked near to Frazier, Crouch, Frost and Gill (I still rank him after those guys). 1989 was a turnaround. Winning the Big 8 at frozen, rainy OU and it seemed to get us back on track in the series. 1990s we dominate. I was at the 2000 game when OU ran the October table beating highly ranked Texas, KSU and #1 NU 3 weeks in a row. It was the last OU/NU game I attended. So yes, I'd like to see OU in the West division but I'd like to see us prepared to play on their level 1st. Let us play up to Wisc's level first before we bring back dreams of the old days.

Is that destroyer named after the famous Gordon Lightfoot song??? Or JFK

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/16/vice-president-mike-pence-profile-feature-215257 Extensive article about Pence - worth the read to get a better understanding of him.

That is a powerful and truthful video.

That would be a shocker big time. And you base it on Just gut feeling. If the campaign was colluding with Russia, I don't see how he could have not known. It's a little bit like I know a lady who embezzled a bunch of money from her work over several years. She went to prison and her husband claimed he didn't know she was doing it. Meh.....that's hard to believe. She was very good at stretching their dollar!!

Very good. Yes, I'm seeing more clearly that as a pro-life voter I can also be (and really should be to be consistent) pro to many of the other social policies that those on the left side pursue. Pro-life in the womb and outside of the womb as some have said. I don't have to stay on the republican plantation just for my pro-life views. This allows me the freedom to vote for a dem if I think in balance they would be better overall.

I have been spending more time than normal around my parents lately. I have spoken about them on here before. They are the typical elderly Trump supporter that sits down and watches Fox News for hours and soaks up all the crap they can about those evil liberals and Hillary and Obama are out to destroy America. Anyway, I refuse to even sit in the living room with them when Fox News is on. They finally were catching on and when I would come sit down, they would change. Well, last night I sat down and Fox (Hannity) was talking about the shootings. "Dad asked, What do you think about that?" I calmly expressed my feelings about how disappointed I am about what this country has become where all the sides do is demonize each other. Dad started in instantly talking about how this guy was a BERNIE supporter and how this happened because he was a liberal and he just can't figure out why "THEY hate Trump so much". I lost it......... I went off.....I expressed exactly why I can't stand Trump and gave all specific examples and reasons. My Dad sat their fairly quiet and my Mom would say...."I didn't know that". I said..."Fox News isn't going to tell you that because he's their God Child and you only listen to Fox News". My wife was digging her nails into my leg and I just didn't stop. I gave specific examples of Republican congressmen like Rand Paul (posted on here) tweeting last year about what the second amendment is for and picking up your musket if Trump didn't win....etc. I'm still pissed about the conversation just writing this post. Dad just sat back and said...."well, this is fun". and changed the channel. Sadly, my expressing my feelings won't change anything. My Dad I think is coming around slowly. He decided to change his registration from R to I. He has spoken negatively of some of the Fox guys including Hannity and O'Reilly before he was fired. I personally cannot stand to listen to Hannity. I know it is nothing but a partisan rant. I understand Fox has dropped or is dropping the motto 'Fair and Balanced' - maybe they are removing any pretense. Oh...in my rant about Fox News, my Dad had the gall to say...."Well, the New York Times is the WORST..." I shot back....who told you that......Trump and Fox???" He didn't say anything. I think all legit news outlets have biases. However, knowing that shouldn't keep us from considering what they are saying - it challenges our biases. Which is a good thing. The NYT and Wash Post have had some good articles since the election. When someone labels everything a legit sources puts out as fake news, you have to wonder what they are trying to protect. If a legit news outlet (broadcast, cable or print) only gave out fake news, they'd de-evolve into the National Inquire and InfoWar status (hummm seems like Trump supports both of these ). What kind of creditability do they have? Zero. From a purely business point of view, it is bad policy to major on fake news (except if you are in the business of fake news and play to the extremes)

Yes, after we dropped cable a few years ago, I thought I'd miss Fox. It was the best thing for me. Now I can go to a hotel room and not feel compelled to turn it on. Life is more than 24 hour news - whether it is fair and balanced or not.