TGHusker

I thought he was in it for the long haul when he announced. Now I believe there is a tremendous possibility (God I'm even starting to sound like Trump) that he will run a third-party candidacy after that attempted political assassination. Apparently the word came down to execute Citizen Trump because that hand raising question, followed by Megyn's "why are you a misogynist?" style question, was a naked attempt to burst Trump's bubble––and no one learned anything they didn't already know by staging it. Other than that, I thought the moderators did an excellent job with questions in that debate. They completely avoided climate change, student debt, income inequality, and campaign finance reform (except where Trump made an open declaration that the corruption not only exists, but he was party to it along with most of the candidates on the stage). But I'm a forgiving sort of person when you have ten candidates and a little under two hours to let them all say something. There is also increased chatter that Trump is doing this to help out Hillary. I've seen more and more reports detailing how close Trump has been with the Clintons in the past, he had high praise for Hillary in 2012, and has really limited his criticism of her so far in this campaign which is odd. He and Bill also talked before Donald announced his candidacy. I know there are always conspiracy theories out there, so not saying this is definite, but the man has had many very liberal positions in the past, and it seems odd he would wake up in the past couple years and now be just the opposite. I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. My guess is Clinton never once told Trump to run. He's too smart for that. What he probably did do was indirectly encourage him by feeding his narcissism. "You know, Donald, they just don't respect your ideas like they should." Kind of like pointing a Frankenstein Monster in the direction of your enemies and letting him shamble on over there by himself. It doesn't matter if he implodes in a week or wins the nomination; either way it ends up working for Hillary. And pretending Bill did intend this––which we can't prove, but say he did. What does it say about the Republican Party that it worked? You have to tip your hat. If Bill poured honey in Citizen Trump's ear, it was a masterful strategy. Good one - Bill is always massaging things (political and otherwise)

I was thinking the same thing wt the crowd in the arena last night. We have our favorite candidate just like a favorite team.

My take on the Debate: Losers: Biggest losers IMHO Rand Paul and Donald Trump. Bush and Walker as runner ups Paul: came across as thin skinned, snooty and had to prove his manhood by being the 1st to attack Trump and of course Christie. He did himself no favors last night. The camera views of him rolling his eyes reminded me of Al Gore's debate body language errors. Trump: I still cannot believe that there are many who think he won and were offended by the moderators 'attacking' him. I thought he was arrogant, had a mad scrawl on his face, didn't have specific answers or plans to solve anything - just red meat to stir up people. I think he would be a disaster for the repubs. He was not presidential in any aspect of his appearance. Bush: At first I thought Bush did well because there were no gaffs and I was going to place him in the winner just for looking the part wtout foot in mouth. However, that is too low of a bar for a 'top tier' candidate. I think Kasich stole his 'moderate' label (if there is such a thing on the repub side). In retrospect I think Bush needed to live up to his pre-season billing as front runner but failed. I do think he comes across as more likeable then his brother however. Walker: My leading guy going in. I came away wt a 'just ok' feeling about him. He held his own - no big mistakes but didn't show the vast experience the other governor's had. Of the 5 governors, he came across as the least experienced, knowledgeable, and passionate. He has a somewhat 'underwhelming' personality - not an inspiring leader. he didn't say enough to set himself up as the top guy. Winners: Kasich: a very experience guy at multiple levels but basically unknown in this campaign cycle. I think he came across well reasoned, compassionate, and could take the 'moderate' role if Bush and Christie fail to rise to the top. His accomplishments in Ohio measure better than Walker's Wisc, Christie's NJ, and equal to Bush's claim in Florida Rubio: Of the 3 senators, I think he had the best demeanor. He stayed on point and had good answers wtout a lot of red meat. However, my impression is that he would be a great VP and not ready for the top spot yet - I still think a governor should have that spot just for the executive experience. Huckabee: One does not have to agree wt his positions, to see that he comes across as passionate and compassionate on his positions. He may have a too narrow of a base to win, but I don't think he hurt himself at all last night. Carson: Just for his last 2 answers - one on civil rights and his humorous closing statement. He is out of his league running for this position (experience wise not 'smarts' wise) but he is respected for his accomplishments in his career. He has a calm demeanor under pressure and lights of the debate. The MEH Cruz: Cruz did what I expected him to do - be persistent in his answers, have passion. He didn't persuade me however to take up his banner. He had a good closing statement but too rehearsed. He had a good ISIS statement. But again he threw out some red meat. He stood his ground on calling repub leadership in the Senate as liers, etc. Unfortunately Fox didn't give him as much time/attention and he was quiet for a long time Christie: Again he did what I thought he'd do. He was bold and opinionated but he did a poor job defending his record in NJ. One more winner: Carly Fiorina - I didn't hear the early 'debate' so I base this on what I read and heard: while she will never be the nominee, she may move herself to the top 10 and an outside consideration for VP or a cabinet post. She was the only standout in the 'happy hour' debate.

As of this moment he is the only candidate that has come out swinging against our country essentially devolving into a quazi-oligarchic plutocracy. Given what has happened with campaign finance after Citizens United, I believe we already have one foot in the grave, and getting both feet down there is simply a matter of time (i.e. how long it takes to stack congress, state legislatures, and consolidate power in the two national parties). The core of Sanders's policies are economic. Restoring thing like pensions, sick leave, maternity leave, vacation time––some of them things people took for granted sixty years ago. Salvaging Medicare and Social Security. The student debt crisis––and it is a crisis, make no mistake––is also high on his list. On a larger scale, Sanders favors a system of democracy more like Scandinavian countries have. High standard of living, excellent healthcare (as a human right, not a privilege based upon your bank account), and strong social safety nets. He's also in favor of employees being able to collectively bargain in the workplace, provided they want to. So far he has refused to call the billionaires or do business with super PACs. We'll see if he can pull it off without a few helping hands if he makes it to the general. The reason I am for Bernie is that until you deal with campaign finance and the complete desolation of our democratic system by admittedly legal corruption and bribery, it doesn't really matter what you believe. Conservative, liberal, Ayn Rand capitalist, libertarian, socialist––doesn't matter. Not a bit. What you want, or what the American people want, has no effect whatsoever on legislation in congress. Congressmen and women are too busy begging for money, which they openly admit, to worry about what their constituency needs or wants. Their primary concern is whether or not some billionaire is going to prop up a primary candidate in the next election cycle if they aren't given exactly what they ask for and in a timely fashion. For me, the separation of Corporation and State is the problem of our time after climate change. And if we don't solve it soon, we may not ever be able to. Sanders is one of our best shots at the moment. If you are talking about restoring pensions like they used to be offered, I am absolutely unequivocally opposed to that. Pensions are the absolute dumbest form of retirement funding known to man (other than not saving at all). What is being proposed or discussed about sick leave, maternity leave, vacation time? We have more family leave time than ever before. I don't know of many companies that have cut vacation time or sick time. I thought ACA basically expanded and took care of Medicare. As for campaign finance reform is concerned. I'm all for it. Separation of Corporation and State is good as long as you include other special interest groups too. I'm all for what Husker X and BRB said about campaign finance reform. It has to include not only corporations. PACs, but also special interest like Teachers Unions, the Govt workers union (whatever their initials are), etc - in which workers union dues are being used to support candidates which they do not support. I think Citizens United was a reaction to the union access to politicians and union money in campaigns - it sort of 'evened the playing field' but 2 wrongs don't make a right. Remove the influence of big unions and big corporations they both have a corrupting influence. I'll throw out a bomb here but I'm beginning to think that we should reverse the 17th amendment - make Senators beholding to the states again from which they were elected. They were elected to represent the people of the states however, it seems that once they get in the Senate - they set themselves up as Senators for all of the people in which they end up represent no-one - just the lobbyists who are in their wallet. Linking them to the state reps may bring back accountability and may actually allow for some turnover in the Senate which is sorely needed. We got guys there who have served for 30, 40, 50 years and have no new ideas but just get re-elected because of the fat cat special interest money behind them. Ok - I haven't researched this idea much but just started thinking about it.

OMFG.... Not everything friggen thing is about race. True, but this is and classist and about the right wing Christian agenda. PP was inspired by a right wing commited eugenicist(M. Sanger) but I don't think that has much of anything to do with the right motivation here. They're playing to their Christian lobby. This is about the right wing Christian agenda against abortion. That's it. The left wing propaganda machine can try to make it into more than that but it's not. The funny thing is, they don't even need to make it into more than that. Not everything that conservatives want to cut is motivated by wanting to keep poor black people down. That line is really old and worn out. Many of the lib lines and lies are not only warn out but misdirection tactics - look at them (right wing, extreme, Christian (always an easy put down blanket statement) - add 50 more adjectives) as we promote this (name it) progressive agenda. Example is in Corn's post above: Sanger was from a right wing Christian - She was a turn of the century (1900s) progressive taking Darwinian theory to the ultimate degree.

Maybe a bit more smash mouth football coming our way - hope it resembles the 94-97 & 99 era Ds.

Rep candidates for sure

WTF???? Who is this??? Remember the show - Welcome back Carter - just a different name on the show now. and by the way Welcome back Carl

I didn't think PP was the only game in town to serve women health issues. I say defund, make sure services are available elsewhere. Most communities have community health care organizations that could pick up the gap. Even wt defunding, I don't see PP going away - they would still be there to provide some services I assume. I'm pro-life.

I agree wt a lot of the above. Trump would be a disaster either way - wins the nomination - everyone in the GE will look at the dem or a real 3rd party guy. If he runs as 3rd party - he sinks the repub nominee right out of port. Best thing repubs can do is give window dressing to some of Trump's ideas and place them in the platform and ask him to be Sec of Commerce or something - in which he would overstep his duties there and be a side show. Of course Trump's ego won't let him be a Sec of anything. Husker X - I haven't followed Sanders much - tell me some of his stronger positions that he is pushing to distance himself from Hilldabeast. You mentioned campaign finance reform which it is becoming very apparent this election cycle that this is sorely needed.

I went with 10 - just because it is a new season and time for some Actually, 10 should be fairly obtainable if we have the expected upgrade in coaching and motivation (instead of demotivation)

This is what I noted. I could see us beating Miami. Possibly MSU as we've played decently against them in the past. OSU in the CCG - would be 2 years to soon to think of a victory there imho.

so is Sip going to be to Riley what Dirk was to Bo? Sip needs to change his tune less he lose all credibility.

5 bits trophy - long history, close games currently, and relatively close in distance between the schools. The Iowa one is forced the Wisc one is too one sided. It may catch fire and importance as time goes on.

Yes - this is a huge problem. Some future court may have to reverse it or set new limits.

very interesting

Ok, we got the dem, we got the repub, now the 3rd party Presidential thread just for grins. It could easily be argued that Ross P cost GHWB the election in 1992 and that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election in 2000. Will there be a spoiler this time around? On the repub side, I could see Trump's ego being large enough to run as a 3rd party after the Repub establishment gangs up on him. I can also see Cruz's misguided self righteous cause persuade him to doing so as well. On the dem side, Sanders, after being squeezed out by the Biden/Hillary wing may consider a run on behalf of his very passionate followers and those causes that are outside of the establishment's approval. Will we have a 3rd party candidate, probably not, but there is always a possibility during an open presidency election. The 3rd Party candidate that I would support: The biggest issue facing DC is 'business as usual" - Washington establishment entrenchment which divides and thus we have gridlock - polarization on the extreme sides. There are two fractions (one per party) that have similar interests but on the surface seem to be far apart politically - they just have different means or ideas on how to get to the end goal. I'm speaking of libertarian leaning republicans and the Warren left leaning branch of the democratic party. While the traditional convention system would never allow a presidential nominee choose a running mate from the other party, this would not be the case wt an independent 3rd party ticket. It would take a real statesman(women) to be a part of such a ticket - to but aside party differences & to act on the common good and the common interest with the purpose of moving the country forward and not just the party. So wt that in mind, to me a dream 3rd party ticket would be .. Rand Paul/Elisabeth Warren. Both are articulate, passionate and there are many things they share in common - anti establishment, anti big banks/wall street controlling everything, limited foreign policy and military action, relaxation on personal liberty regulations, etc. Yes, they have some vast differences but yet there are common themes that could create an effective ' coalition' govt - to borrow a parliamentary gov't phrase (which may be a solution to our grid lock but of course that is a constitutional discussion worthy of its own thread if someone wants to start that discussion). So, I would support a Paul/Warren ticket and even a Warren/Paul ticket. Will it happen ---not in this political climate, should it happen - yes. Is there a different coalition ticket that you would support? What say you?

Boy this thread went down a million rabbit trails but good discussion. I don't think the repbus are too divided at this point. Most of the 17 in the race are in it for attention only IMHO - they want a book deal, they want to be noticed for future political job, etc. Most have no chance and they hopefully know it. It will dwindle quickly once the real fun begins in Iowa and NH. After S Carolina I expect it to be down to 5 candidates at the most - Rubio, Paul, Walker, Bush and Christie or Ohio Gov Kasich. Overall, the establishment will gang up on Trump - as candidates drop out - I see their support going to one of these 5. Maybe the Ohio governor will replace the NJ governor as Kasich's state is doing better than Christie's state. If one of these 6 puts Trump in his place during the debates (most likely Christie) you will see their stock rise in the polls.

This is a great get by the coaching staff - and to think we can rub in Wisc's eyes for the next 4 years is even better

amen - unfortunately it was our last major highlight also

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/osu/osuhomepage1/the-big-at-top-highlights-from-the-conference-s-history/article_2c452608-26ac-5951-b235-32d137b08757.html This article and a series of articles listed at the end of it reviews 20 years of Big 12. I post it on this forum because they recognize the 1997 teams championship, Suh as the #1 D player and Grant Wistrom also listed @ 10 - too low. (No mention of the Browns, D Williams, Peters, Bullocks and other dominated D players. It mentions Eric's Heisman and has him rated in top 10 of QBs and A Green as 20th in non QB Offensive players (way too low)

Another What IF -- What if Tom took up the potential job offer at Colorado. Would the Big 8 have been all about Colorado and the Sooners, would the Big 8 become a one team Sooner league, or would it have been possible for NU to draw a big name coach, Bobbie Bowden before he went to FSU for example, and remain dominate as they were under Tom?

Is anyone surprised it took this long for Frost to get in? I had assumed, wrongly, that he would have been in long ago. Why so long? Glad Brook is being so honored.

One final though on suffering. The church's response is to be involved and to try to lesson the impact of suffering around the world. Our faith, which believes in an ultimate final answer to suffering, tells us to be Christ's representatives now - to bring healing and hope to the hurting, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc. Here is an example of what one segment of Christianity is doing in one continent - Africa: I am not a Catholic, but I support every church's efforts to help the less fortunate. While many Christians have done bad things (as some so quickly point out to in order to discredit) it was also Christians that led the charge to free the slaves both in the USA & England, and lead or led in times past in providing support for so many who seek social justice around the world. Christians churches and individuals do a great amount of charity. Compassion International feeds thousands, Christian Charity, Catholic Relief services works in over 40 countries to bring clean water and the ability to make a living to the poorest of the poor. Catholic Charities works in our own country with soup kitchens and other assistance to the poor. Along with that, most churches have a stash of money they can use to give to people who come to the church begging. And that is the tip of the iceberg, Where do these organizations get their money to do this? From the everyday Christian who donates their time and money. I promise you, if all Christian charities were to cease their work tomorrow. The world would be much worse off Here is more: http://www.forbes.com/lists/20... If you go down and select all of the Catholic organizations the amount is astounding! Adding up just Catholic Charities, Food for the Poor, Catholic Relief Services, St. Jude's, and America's Second Harvest alone total $5,570,000,000, which is greater than #1 on the list for America. Keep going down the list and you find Father Flanagan's homes, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Covenant House, and more. Add the thousands of other charities, from Missionaries to the Poor, Amigos for Christ, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, to religious orders (like Missionaries of Charity) and thousands upon thousands of individual parishes across the globe who often do their work in anonymity, and you will see some of the charitable works of the Catholic Church. Again, I am not a Catholic but I highlight their efforts as they are perhaps the best organized but also the most maligned group. Start adding in groups like World Vision, Compassion International, Salvation Army, Samaritans Purse, Feed the Children and we are just touching the tip of Protestant giving to aid people who are suffering. Christian faith understands the issue - God and Evil can co-exist at the same time. We believe we have the practical answer in the hear and now- feed the hunger, give water to the thirsty, cloth the naked, comfort the hurting. And we believe we have the theological & philosophical answer for eternity - God will one day sweep all evil aside as He brings this age to an end - there will be no more suffering, only joy in His presence.

No. Edit: I looked at wikipedia. Looks like lots stayed. '76 was an interesting year though. 1972: Bob Devaney Head Coach Tom Osborne Offensive Coordinator Cletus Fischer Offensive Line 1960-85 Carl Selmer Offensive Line 1962-72 Jim Ross 1962-76 John Melton Tight Ends, Wingbacks 1973 1962-88 Mike Corgan Running Backs 1962 1962-82 Monte Kiffin 1967-76 Warren Powers Defensive Backs 1969-76 Boyd Epley Head Strength Coach 1969 19692003 Jim Walden 1971-72 Bill Myles Offensive Line 1972 1972-76 Not sure what happened in 1976, but maybe Powers and Kiffin had decided they had been assistants at NU long enough. I am sure they were disappointed when the young OC (Osborne) was named HC after 1972, but stayed a few more years out of loyalty to Devaney. Then they left to pursue their own HC jobs. From what I have heard, it was pretty controversial when Devaney selected TO to succeed him. Then Powers gets his revenge in 78 as his MO team beats NU after NU beats OU for the #1 place in the poll - thus we end up playing OU again in the Orange Bowl instead of winning the nat'l championshiip - what a bummer that was.