TGHusker

Well, I don't think there will be much of a reconciliation in the Repub party after this convention is done with. If Trump secures enough delegates for a 1st ballot victory, I don't expect Ted to show up in Cleveland. If Trump wins, we may be seeing the death of the republican party as we know it. The divide is getting too deep. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cruz-trump-liar/2016/05/03/id/726964/ In his most scathing attack yet on Donald Trump, Ted Cruz on Tuesday angrily labeled the Republican presidential front-runner as a "pathological liar" and "serial philanderer" for whom "morality does not exist." "Whatever lie he's telling in that minute he believes it. But the man is utterly amoral. Morality does not exist for him," Cruz said in Indiana, which is holding a pivotal primary that may determine his future in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. Cruz tore into a Trump's love life, calling the thrice-married, one-time playboy as a "serial philander" who "boasts about it." "This is not a secret, he's proud of being a serial philander. I want everyone to think about your teenage kids. The president of the United States talks about how great it is to commit adultery," Cruz said. "How proud he is, describes his battle with venereal disease as his own personal Vietnam. That's a quote from the Howard Stern show. Do you want to spend the next five years with your kids bragging about infidelity?" The Texas senator called Trump a "narcissist," the likes of which "I don't think this country has ever seen." "This man is a pathological liar, he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies . . . in a pattern that is straight out of a psychology text book, he accuses everyone of lying," said Cruz in an outburst carried on CNN. "Donald Trump is such a narcissist that Barack Obama looks at him and says, 'Dude, what's your problem?'" Cruz fumed (TG's comment: kind of like the Kettle calling the Pot really black!) Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/cruz-trump-liar/2016/05/03/id/726964/#ixzz47crZOLP3

The spirit of our Declaration is all about freedom not security. Only a truly free people can be secure. Are the people in N. Korea secure - yes relatively so (In spite of rhetoric to the contrary by their leaders the USA and S Korea aren't going to attack). Are they free - no. Total security has them living in fear. Freedom gives us the ability to live outside of fear to be free from fear. AS FDR famously said, "The only think we have to fear is fear itself". A truly free people can overcome all evils and challenges in time. A fully 'secured' people will have limits that prohibit them from meeting the challenges head on. The colonists could have accepted security. They could have been protected by the mighty British Army and Navy. They would have been secure as citizens of the empire. But they were not free. They could not self determine their course. They chose Liberty not security. Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. This is an amazing speech. We should revisit it regularly. I think the NSA actions and the Patriot Act have gone to far in the wrong direction. St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775. MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I go back and forth on the need for progress vs keeping the old town charm. It depends on the specific town I guess. The town has lost its school already so maybe the town is fine wt just being a bedroom community close enough to Omaha for the things it needs and yet far enough away to 'keep trouble away'. If I was responsible for growing the town and providing for the next generation of workers - then vote for progress. It appears this town is beyond that point - it has seen its better days and they just want to preserve the quality of life for those who remain and the few who may want to live there in the future. Maybe "quaintness" is progress. .

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/j-matt-barber/big-bang-blows-atheism-sky-high-even-science-may-eventually-catch-gods-word A good quote from your link: Albert Einstein, who is often dishonestly characterized as having been an atheist, agreed that God-denial is foolishness. He once said of non-believers: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.” “I’m not an atheist,” added Einstein. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” Illustrious NASA scientist (and agnostic) Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) put it this way: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tiny-nebraska-town-1100-jobs-citing-life-38807185 The fine people of Nickerson, NE (I haven't been there but I assume they are fine because they are from Nebraska ) voted down the building of a poultry processing plant (and its potential 1100 jobs) in favor of keeping the status quo - a quiet, livable small down of 400 or so. The article goes on to state that not too many in the community would work at the plant. The citizens were concerned about truck traffic, smell, and immigrant workers. So, if you lived in Nickerson, how would you have voted. For the plant and jobs or for the status quo.

Bravo fro Andy. Good to see this happen to such a hard working player.

My wife and I just watched the documentary "FED UP" - about the sugar industry (also watch KING CORN) and basically how our ag policy is not only screwing us financially as noted in the preceding posts but also making us sick and killing us - diabetes, obesity, heart issues - all stem from an ag policy that supports the corporations but not the health of individuals. Corn and Sugar rule our ag policy and are found in most of our foods that are packaged in some way. We've exported it to places around the world and the rest of the world is getting fatter like us Americans as a result.

350 million people and this is the best we can come up with. Our system is broken

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/24_opt_out_of_a_clinton_trump_race Rasmussen has them even at 38% with this interesting note. A lot of people may just sit out this GE if it is Clinton/Trump. Others plan on voting for a 3rd party : A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump and Clinton tied at 38% each. But 16% say they would vote for some other candidate if the presidential election comes down to those two, while six percent (6%) would stay home. Only two percent (2%) are undecided given those options. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Trump is more toxic within his own party than Clinton is in hers. If Trump is the Republican nominee, 16% of GOP voters say they would choose a third-party candidate, while five percent (5%) would stay home. Sixty-six percent (66%) would vote for Trump, but 10% would vote for Clinton instead. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, 11% of Democrats would vote third-party, while three percent (3%) would stay home. Seventy-five percent (75%) would support the nominee, but 11% say they would vote for Trump. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, nearly one-third say they would opt out: 21% would choose a candidate other than Trump or Clinton, and 10% would stay home. Trump leads Clinton 38% to 27% among unaffiliated voters.

Our Oklahoma Cornhusker Club would love to see OU in our conf. Being able to go to the games nearby would be great - we all 'hate' OU having to listen to their arrogant fans here in the state. We miss going to close games in Norman, Stillwater and Kansas - all a relatively short drive from Tulsa.

So I heard Ted Cruz in an interview state that they are in the process now of vetting VP candidates. Who do you think each candidate should name as a VP candidate prior to the convention in order to gain support on the 2nd ballot? Assumption - they won't name one of the other candidates as their VP as Cruz and Kasich both said they won't be the VP. CRUZ - - Scott Walker or Rubio which brings Wisc and Florida into play (he may choose Carly Furina - who I don't think secures any states) Kasich - N Mexico Gov Susana Martinez or Rubio Trump - He'll name a family member as there isn't anyone else good enough but family. He's insulted everyone else

That's actually an interesting discussion to have. I got into it some tonight about whether open or closed primaries are more appropriate and whether non-members should have a say in an organization of which they're not a part. Two ways of looking at it: If you belong to a party, and it is a party nomination- I think only party members should vote. For example: Growing up I was in 4-H. When we elected officers, we didn't invite the Boy scouts to come over and vote in our election. The other way to look at is this: an open primary 'might' reflect the candidates strength in a general election. But it would open up the votes to trickery - the other party members voting in the primary wt the purpose of choosing the weakest candidate in the GE.

100% correct

What happened to us being RB U. I like that better. Or OL U.

If Trump gets the delegates I fully expect a contested convention, especially considering the turnaround he's doing on positions now that he's just about sewn things up. Current GOP leadership wants nothing to do with Trump, regardless of his running mate. The problem is, who is the GOP going to put in there to run against Clinton? They have no one that would actually be able to capture demographic groups beyond the white, uneducated and evangelical vote anymore: Kaisch and Cruz would be lit up like a Roman Candle during a general election, Trump will alienate the remaining GOP moderates still clinging to the party in the hopes that leadership remembers they exist and polarize the country against him, Rand is too bats*** crazy to last on the campaign trail without getting full of holes, and Mitt Romney is the type of American that pretty much got our country in the mess it's in currently. Rubio was the only moderate that had any hope of salvaging any respect for the GOP and winning a general election, so naturally he was vilified and run out of the primaries on a rail. The best outcome for this election is that the GOP combusts, fueled by its own derp, and two parties emerge--one for the moderate, rational former GOP members, and one where the fringe zealots, uneducated, evangelicals, and bats*** crazy can hang their hat while the rest of the grown-ups go about their business. I have a crazy, out of this world idea... How about instead of trying to fix the nomination for or against candidates, we let the people of America cast their votes, and the person who gets the most votes wins. I know it's a unique idea for American politics to do things the right way, but it's just something that popped into my head. That is what you would call, "direct democracy", and that's just not acceptable in American politics--the power elite won't stand for it. Direct democracy could also include asking the people to vote on small issues that effect their lives, like say, going to war, or wage and tax policy, for e.g, but again, to ask the people to actually decide such things is, again, unacceptable. Theoretically, we are supposed to choose reps who are supposed to be honest people that vote our interests for us, but since they are all on the take, lie as a matter of course, and beholden to power, well, you know.... You both are wrong. We live in a republic. Our gov't was designed for good reason to have 'indirect democracy' wt originally only the House of Representatives having been elected by direct vote of the people - thus the House was always called the "People's House". In the wisdom of our founders, the president (via the electoral college), the senate (up until a century ago, Senators were selected by the state legislature - not direct vote), judges were not to be voted on directly. Our founders saw the mess of pure democratic vote in France plus they also had just won a war against the authoritarian rule of England. A representative republic govt was their answer. The importance of our indirect federalist republic system was to actually decrease the possibility of mob rule, constrain the power of a majority when that majority was wrong, re-enforce states rights, limit the power of the most populated states - allowing less populated states to having their voices heard, and to bring stability to the system (allows for a slower deliberation of issues vs a quick knee jerk reaction). Our candidates are chosen in the same way - through a representative process. The delegates are committed to the candidates on the 1st ballot. After that those delegates, chosen via different methods as determined by individual state party rules, are to act as our representative to vote as they deem best on any additional ballot. It is in this area, where Cruz has trumped Trump. In each individual state the primary is a different event than choosing the delegates - which is event 2 of the process. The primary only tells the delegate how to vote on the 1st ballot. The campaigning doesn't stop wt the primary and Trump's team ( the great business men that they are and the great deal makers that they are) failed to close the deal on this 2nd part of the nominating procedures. In most years this would be a non-issue as the leader typically has enough delegates well before the convention - so it would be a foregone conclusion that there will only be one ballot. Not this year. Thus you have Cruz and Kasich making a deal in order to prevent Trump from having enough delegates to win on the 1st ballot. If Trump doesn't win on the 1st ballot - I believe he will be toast regardless how close he got.

There aren't a lot of them in America. According to a Williams Institute study from 2011, there were approximately 700,000 transgender persons in America. That's only 0.3% of the population, so not a large community. I know *of* two persons in my daily life, although I don't *know* them. Of the hundreds, maybe thousands of people with whom I'm acquainted, that's a tiny percentage. I've met a couple TGs - Oh NO "TG" - and I'm "TGHusker" - what happened to me? Whew, I looked down - it is still there! Yes, I think the NC law and I think the Miss law may be over reactions to the actual # of opportunities for abuse. What I hear more than the TGs using the female RR is that it gives the green light for perverts to enter and use it as an excuse to be in there. Again social change is never easy. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this one. We are a long ways from Leave it to Beaver, Wally.

You know that is a good point. Perhaps there is nothing to see here after all?? Maybe I don't understand the law - if the unintended consequences are as you note, then the law went to far. My question is Why has all of this come up at this time. Is it over reaction to the gay marriage court ruling or what (and that wouldn't make sense as transgender isn't the same as gay - but they all get lumped together in the LBTG label). It seems like everyone is reacting to something - NC, Target, Trump, ME as in my post - reaction to Trump. So what started the whole 'issue'? Maybe someone can bring light to it.

This is a part of this that absolutely drives me crazy. He actually admits he changes with what ever the time requires. The guy is totally fake and so many people just eat it up. Used to be a liberal Democrat...now running as a Republican. Claims to "love the bible" then......two Corinthians..... Acts like an ass but then says he will act Presidential when the time comes. The list could go on and on. Calls Rubio Little Marco now wants him to be a part of his team!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/20/target-stores-open-womens-bathrooms-changing-rooms-to-men/ So we have Target going public wt its policy that any person can use any restroom depending on their gender identity and not their gender birth (and genital features) We have the NC law limiting the same to traditional gender specific restrooms. We have Trump trying to make hay over it politically now that he is trying to win more liberal NE states (he of course said nothing in NC). Did Target over reach - potentially alienating 99.5% of the population for a very small minority of Transgenders? (This isn't a gay issue but a Transgender issue) Are the PC 'rights' of transgenders to be trumped (no pun intended) over the vast majority of the population? At what point do minority (not racial) sensitivities need to be ignored in order to maintain an orderly society? (Anyone can claim rights or sensitivities regardless of merit.) Finally, how soon will one of our liberal friends on this forum accuse me of being a "hater" for just bringing up the opportunity to talk about this honestly?? (Liberals only like free speech if it is liberal speech) My take: This is a PC over reach by Target. They risk the sensibilities of the vast majority of their customers to accommodate the sensibilities of a tiny minority. Who will they need to accommodate next? As expected there are already 'boycotts' being organized against Target now for this policy. Trump made the argument against the NC law based on economic ramifications to the state. However, since he failed to stand with traditional conservatives on this issue, he has revealed his NY values, his liberal leanings and as a man without core values - saying one thing in NC and @ Liberty Univ and another as he campaigns in the NE. I predict he will loose support and cause him in part to fall short of the number to win the nomination. Boycott article: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/pro-family-group-calls-target-boycott-allowing-bathroom-changing-room Please note to liberals: Just because someone has a different view than you on the subject doesn't make them a hater. I hope you can understand that concept.

Can't we all just get along -- Rodney King. I do think labels do pigeon holes groups of people and does keep us from going the extra step to understand. I think most liberals and most conservatives want to resolved the same problems but take different approaches. Those approaches for the most part aren't 'evil' because they are different. They are just different. Do I agree wt Bernie Sanders - no way. Do I think he is evil - no way. (now Hillary -- I may have to think about that one ). DC isn't functioning because people are shouting at and above everyone and not talking and listening and understanding. The art of compromise has been lost because compromise is considered the new "Mortal" sin by both sides.

I'd like to visit Deadwood again. Miss those Black Hills.

Trump on the Today show 'town hall' said he would act 'so presidential that it would be boring'. What a con artist. You know as anti socialist as I am (sorry corn - can't / won't go there) I'd just as soon vote for Bernie than Trump just because wt Bernie I know what I'm getting and I think his intentions are honest if not misguided in several areas (yes I can support some of his ideas - I'll throw a bone to Corn for that one ) Trump goes on to say that he thinks it is ok for men (transgender - or those who may feel like a girl) to use the girls bathroom. Someone can start a new thread on that idea if they so desire but lets remain on topic - http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-Presidential-bathroom-bill-transgender/2016/04/21/id/725087/

Bernie may need Elizabeth Warren to take up the mantle. The best thing for the socialism movement would be a Trump presidency and the best thing for the conservative movement would be a Hillary presidency - long term. The conservatives could point out that Trump was not a conservative - and rightly so - after he gets trounced by Hilary. The socialists could point out the fascism of Trump and point the nation towards their spectrum of ideas. As it is we will have 2 establishment types - one overtly (Hillary) and one covertly. Trump who played all of the establishment games until he 'converted' to conservatism just in time to run, is running as an outsider and the establishment is not for him - but I think once he gets in as president, he'll make all of the deals wt the establishment - he isn't a true believer - he will make 'deals'. . I'd hate to see it be another 8 years before we have an opportunity to see 2 candidates free of the establishment mark.

All we can do is hope for is a contested convention. Trump should be on a roll next week also wt several other NE states. This is starting to look really bad Trump or Hilary as our President Hillary - WH one big swinging door for Bill's parties and Hillary corruption. Trump: one unbearable embarrassment before the world as he tries to learn all of the things he obviously doesn't know. The only way Trump succeeds is if he has Kasich as VP who does the actual work of the president and Trump is just the mouth piece - kind of like Chaney was for GWB.

I agree it is a mess. The repubs establishment and the dems establishments are doing all they can do to prevent a popular voter uprising. Trump from one angle and Bernie from the other. Maybe a 3rd party of Trump/Bernie!! Now wouldn't that be funny. I'm as you know am not a Trump fan - so I don't want him on the ticket period. Again we see to different angles attacking the same problem- from the left and from the right. It would be nice to find a 'coalition' candidate who could provide cover for both sides - you may not get all you want on the left or the right but you get something. I think there are many conservatives and many liberals who are tired of big banks and corporations controlling the political system. If we weren't so blinded by our differences, I bet we could find enough common ground to make some progress - if people were willing to compromise. I think it is a foregone conclusion now that Hillary gets the nomination. My hope is that the repub goes to the 2nd ballot and both Trump and Cruz are surprised - Kasich becomes the compromise nominee. He isn't perfect but he seems to be the sanest of the group. I think he'd be more willing to get things done wt both sides. Hillary will turn it into one partisan funding machine for her foundation some how.