TGHusker

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-tax-subsidies-under-obamacare/ Do you care or is it meh? Stocks of insurance and hospital companies like the deal as those stocks went up this morning. Cheif Justice Roberts says in the majority opinion: Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Scalia in dissent countered: In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Using the acronym for the Supreme Court, Scalia said his colleagues have twice stepped in to save the law from what Scalia considered worthy challenges. “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so,” Scalia wrote. Scalia added, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words ‘established by the State.’ And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words ‘by the State’ other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.”

Another well know contradictory scientific topic is climate change: 1970s global cooling was going to kill us all off, 1990s-2000s global warming is going to kill us all off.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/mexico-to-overtake-russia-by-2050-as-u-s-slides So how will the fall of the USA from #1 to #2 affect the geo-political world we live in? It seems to me that we are going to have to learn to share power much more than we've had to in the past. We are no longer the world's sole super power as we were after the fall of the Soviet empire. The cold war separated countries into 2 major camps - democracy and communism . Now the lines are somewhat blurred as we see China and other communist countries embracing limited capitalism and growing as a result. It is interesting to read about the predicted fall of of Europe and Japan - primarily due to their aging population. The USA appears to be countering this trend wt our immigration policy - allowing a flood of workers in. However to compete we also need highly educated and skilled workers as well and this should remain a strong emphasis. Side note: note directly related but I got thinking about it: is their a link between the number of abortions done in this country since 1973 and our need for more workers and to counter our aging population? I think there is a link but I have not done or seen any strong research on that topic.

Excellent article. I just happened to have ordered the Timothy Keller book linked to in the article http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Self-Forgetfulness-Path-Christian/dp/1906173419/?tag=thegospcoal-20

How does this ^ follow from this? Yeah that response was pretty in lame in that it seemed like the exact definition of pointing the finger. Didn't even read the article, but I agree with the principle. I'm the last person you'll ever hear whining about how I'm being make-believe "persecuted" as a Christian, or how there's a war on Christmas, or that I'm being painted with too broad of a brush or whatever. I just don't care, and I don't think that stuff really exists anyways. But I do think that the cry of 'TOLERANCE!' in our culture over the last 5-8 years has morphed into something that is, on it's own, incredibly intolerant. Look - if someone actually IS a gross, explicit racist or very obviously hates gays or is extremely ignorant, call it what it is and don't give them the time of day and move on. But there is a huge camp of people, which I fall into, that have beliefs and thoughts and realize that a lot of them might have been indoctrinated, that continue to have questions we don't know the answers to, that can give a best guess but aren't up in arms about our position but are rather on the fence about a lot, and that are just trying to figure stuff out that we don't understand. But it seems like too many people aren't even willing to have a conversation about it the second that one of us says, authentically, "Well I'm not really sure how I feel about homosexuality as a Christian" or what have you. Agree LandLord - I believe most of us 'think we know what we think' until someone shares a valid point with us that 'cracks our shell of self assuredness'. It is good to have the shell cracked a few times to get the brain to really think. We may come back to our same conclusions but at least now its been given a more sure foundation after we've been forced to research and consider more. Like the Stephen Fry thread - I respect those who had a different view point and conclusion, they made me think about my positions and I can still feel secure in my thoughts without demeaning and even appreciating opposing views. I think that those not willing to have the conversation are either insecure or arrogant.

I've been reading this book and have found it to be very helpful in framing the whole discussion we have had. Keller summarizes the view of various religions & cultures through out history including atheism. He discusses/summarizes the philosophical arguments as we have in our discussion. However, as a pastor, he takes the next steps and makes the last half of the book practical - discussing the hope and resources found in Christian faith for the times we suffer - using no trite or pat answers. It is a very good read for anyone wanting help while facing difficult life issues or trying to understand the 'big' picture. I highly recommend it. Author: Timothy Keller Walking with God through Pain and Suffering http://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/0525952454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434986986&sr=8-1&keywords=walking+with+god+in+pain+and+suffering

While one can agree or disagree wt Lemon's (CNN Anchor )statement that Liberal and Progressives are the least tolerant and most easily offended, I agree with the base of his discussion - PC has run amok and we too quickly label people because we might disagree on 1 or more points. We only grow if we listen to those who challenged our assumptions. Charleston should teach us that we are all American's 1st and we all hurt when a tragedy like this occurs and stand united against evil in which ever form it is expressed. http://www.salon.com/2015/06/11/don_lemon_weighs_in_on_pc_culture_liberals_are_the_most_easily_offended_and_the_least_tolerant/ Quote: “We have to stop looking for reasons to be offended,” he said on a Black America Web radio show. “We have to allow people leeway to make mistakes in conversations without calling them racists, bigots, stupid, dumb, sell out or whatever your word choice may be.” “After almost 25 years in the news business, you know who is the most easily offended and the least tolerant? Liberals and progressives, because many of them don’t really want to hear anyone else’s opinion but their own,” he continued. “Here’s a tip, if you only agree with people who hold your same political affiliation or who are of your particular race, your particular gender or ethnicity, you are part of the political correctness run-amok problem. You’re actually thwarting progress instead of advancing it.”

Since all of the staff seem to see NU as a great opportunity - a once in a lifetime opportunity to get the success they always wanted to have - I think they will have the "this is Nebraska' attitude and not settle for 10-4 but will push all to obtain championships - cc and NC. Their attitude can't help but rub off on the players. The coaches see the specialness of NU - it is time these players see it and play up to it. GBR

I can live wt either one. I actually do like the fact that Trump got in the face - just to force honest conversation. I think he will force the candidates to say what they really stand for and not stand behind 30 sound bites. I'm not saying I support Trump but that I think he is a guy you can't ignore and will confront those in the good boy political club.

Agree. In their sorrow, they forgave and showed light in the midst of great darkness.

Like I note above, I've taken this poll 4 times and wt repub and Constitution swapping places 3 times and Rubio on top. Then I stretched my limit to the most tolerable position on some topics and I came out Green Party but wt Rubio and Walker as my candidates - something is messed up. You can't be Green and Socialist and still have those 2 as your top candidates. So some questions may be weighted differently.

So the current question is who will be the next Rex, AA or Roy and really standout. Is he on this team and waiting to be developed or will he be a new recruit? Due to lack of playing time, I not sure if any of the current group is in that league this year.

Agree 100%. One could argue for Zac Taylor to be in included in top 10 - top 12 all time. Without him BC would have had 4 losing years

Heard about that - not like 2012 when he ended up 2nd in the primaries.

Sanders vs Rubio - that settles it. No need for the endless primaries and debates. Let's get it on wt those 2 now.

For the most part, yes. Many to most businesses would do anything to increase profit, it only gets worse if they are publicly traded. We have endless examples of it. Businesses are doing fantastic, record stock prices, CEO and exec pay skyrocketing. Meanwhile, everyone else is just trying not to fall behind, and mostly failing at it. We have sickening wealth inequity that could literally be ended tomorrow if businesses and the greedy bastards that ran them gave a crap about anyone else. But they fight against every single min wage increase. They swindle people out of pensions, and give people a 401k. Pick a Walmart court settlement. How about the banking schemes that damned near collapsed the world economies? And that they are trying to undo the regs that were put back into place to keep them from doing all that damage again. Who is backing the guys who want to get rid of the EPA and any rules against pollution? The list could go one and on. Ethical is not a word that goes hand in hand with businesses. Ask yourself, do you trust the company you work for? Do you think they have your interests in mind? They want your loyalty, but will show you none if it costs them money. And conservatives are the champions of these same greedy bastards. All the while waving a Bible, which lists greed as sin, and their savior spends quite a bit of time condemning greed, and championing the poor. The exact opposites of their political positions. Making them first rate hypocrites. And then trying to subject the whole population to other parts of their centuries old book. Its a masterful bait and switch when you really get down to it. Strigori, I think they have anger mgmt classes for this. Just sayin. I like how you conveniently lump conservatives, big business owners and Christianity into the same big bowl and stir it all together to come out with the . It is easy to lump them altogether to create one big 'hate' group. These are 3 separate identities. As I recall, some of the wealthiest members of congress, the wealthiest businessmen are liberal leaning democrats who say little about or have nothing to do with 'faith'. Greed is not a conservative or a liberal trait, it is a human trait. And if you do read this centuries old book called the Bible, it has a lot to say about the subject and how to deal with it individually - most importantly the concept of 'dieing to self' (selfishness) and living for God and others first - the 2 great commandments. It also has a lot to say about anger - you might ck that out. Regarding the topic: You do realize that most employees work for small business owners. Most are just like you and I - just trying to get through the day, the week and at the end of the year hoping to be a bit more down the road of success than at the beginning of the year. So don't paint all businesses and business owners wt the same broad brush. Businesses themselves are neutral, amoral. Its the people in them that make the difference - owners and employees. Many businesses contribute large sums of money, resources and labor to improve the communities where they are located. They fund special projects for education, health care organizations, United Way, shelters, etc. And many are owned by, dare I say it..... Christians who live out their faith through the work place not by practicing greed but by giving and following those 2 great commandments to love God 1st and your neighbor as self. Are there big & small businesses that place self interest first and exhibit greed or worse? - yes. But it is a reflection of people in general. For you'll find employees within all organizations who live for self interest alone - some conservative and some liberal. Like I said selfishness and greed are human traits we all have to deal with. So where needed, legislation can help curb the expression of these traits by businesses. Thus environmental, health and safety, finance laws, etc work towards that end. That centuries old book also says a lot on how we can deal with those traits on an individual level. And by the way, I'm not a business owner.

I took the test 2x again. The first time by just choosing yes or no buttons and keeping the 'how important is this issue' slide in the middle. My results then came back wt Constitution party #1 and Repub 2nd. Wt Rubio as my choice. I then took it a 2nd time and drilled down to choose the other options: Knapp will laugh at this one or at least say that his "Project Moderation" is working on me. I decided to answer all of the questions again with the most 'moderate' position I could live with. In other words in the best possible world, my head would choose the more conservative choice but since this world isn't ideal and in the real world we never fully get the "perfect" we have to consider a more realistic landing place. So by this measurement - my results were (I'm going to need a physiological evaluation now - trying to figure out how I go from Constitutional Party to these leading 2 parties -- Doctor Knapp what does this mean? ): Parties you side with... 74% Green Party on immigration, domestic policy, education, and economic issues. compare answers 70% Socialist on immigration, education, domestic policy, and economic issues. compare answers 70% Constitution Party on foreign policy, environmental, domestic policy, and social issues. compare answers 65% Libertarians on immigration, healthcare, and environmental issues. compare answers 64% Republicans on environmental, social, and foreign policy issues. compare answers 61% Democrats on immigration issues. compare answers 61% Presidential choices: This doesn't seem to match wt the party as I end up with Scott Walker tied wt Rubio as 1st choice.. Walker is who I've said in previous posts that I was leaning towards him. then Hillary Candidates you side with... 57% Scott Walker Republicanon environmental and domestic policy issues. compare answers 57% Marco Rubio Republicanon environmental issues. compare answers 52% Hillary Clinton Democraton foreign policy issues. compare answers 46% Carly Fiorina Republicanon foreign policy issues. compare answers 43% Rand Paul Republicanno major issues. compare answers 43% Rick Santorum Republicanon environmental and domestic policy issues. compare answers 41% Chris Christie Republicanon healthcare issues. compare answers 41% Mike Huckabee Republicanon healthcare and environmental issues. compare answers 33% Ted Cruz Republicanon environmental issues. compare answers 33% Jeb Bush Republicanno major issues. compare answers 25% Bernie Sanders Democratno major issues. compare answers 13% Ben Carson Republicanno major issues. compare answers

Re: your last paragraph: When I think of smaller or 'right sized' govt I'm talking about efficiency without compromising duty (Justice, general welfare). Cutting govt just for the sake of cutting govt to fulfill a campaign pledge(or downsizing across the board) often compromises the concepts of justice and general welfare. It takes much more work to make govt efficient (efficient maintains justice and general welfare) than it does to just cut the size. (1)Regarding less rules for business - that should not be a goal in and of itself. Govt needs to protect the general welfare of all - thus certain environmental, financial, labor, etc regulations are needed. Yet too many laws/regs can create bad behavior - businesses sending jobs or moving headquarters overseas to avoid the overly burdensome regs that hinder profitability. Govt tends to view businesses too often as the goose that continually lays the golden eggs. One day, those eggs will stop coming if the rules are overly burdensome. (2) The govt should not hinder the free exercise or expression of religion - it should be religion neutral - not pushing one over the other but not endangering the free expression either. Re: your 1st paragraph. The GOP finds themselves in a hard place: they cannot judge Obama's response to ISIS as being too limited without evoking fears of being entangled again in the middle east.

Should add: Gregory may not have a choice but to leave early. Does anyone think VV will have a breakout year and set himself up for the NFL?

Danny Langsdorf - Leaving the NFL to coach with his friend Mike at NU tells me that he will be around for a while until they 'win something' significant - conf championship, Rose Bowl and or a NC. You don't leave a high profile position ( I consider his position working as Eli's QB coach pretty significant - esp based on what he accomplished) in the NFL without a definite goal of accomplishing something significant. I think all of these new coaches, who worked hard in the restrictive confines of OSU, look at NU as their career defining opportunity. I think they are all hungry to prove their worth. Scott Frost: If he ever comes 'back home' as HC, I think it will be many years down the road - 5 or 6 after MR retires or bombs out here. If Mike retires then Langsdorf would be set up for the position- assumping MR retired as a successful coach. If MR bombs then all of his coaches will be thrown to the wind and the path would be paved for Scott.

My leading category was republican wt Constitutional close 2nd. No surprise there.

Per the attached article, Donald Trump is about to jump into the fray. He will make the primary season interesting to say the least. He will have the funds to stay in the race longer than any of the other long shots. But as he points out the 'clownness ' of some of those in the race already, I wonder if he is looking in the mirror. While there are things that one can admire about his business savvy & outspokeness - he's had his share of bankruptcies within his business empire to give one pause to consider him being over the whole economy. He's also had more than his share of loony tuneness as well. But overall, if he can make the primaries interesting and fun - then so be it. Let him run. Maybe his open and frank talk will fluster, frustrate, and filibuster the debates enough to force the others to talk beyond their talking points and perhaps expose some as empty suits. If he does this then I will be happy to see him in the debates. In Raleigh, Donald Trump all but announces presidential bid | News & Observer News & Observer http://www.newsobserver.com Billionaire businessman Donald Trump all but confirmed he’ll run for the Republican presidential nomination during a stop Saturday at the N.C. GOP convention. I use to swallow all of the neo-conservative bait thinking they were like Reagan, who I hold in very high regard (I consider him, FDR, & LBJ to be the most influential presidents of last century - LBJ only because his Great Society program dramatically altered govt's relationship wt citizens, and of course the negative impact of Vietnam) . But when one looks at Reagan's record, he would be considered a moderate in today's world. While I may agree with many Tea Party principles (the get gov't right sized emphasis), I don't think they have a governing philosophy that will work and they aren't properly represented - Cruz and Paul- the leading TP types are not electable and if elected, I don't think would do any better than the the current president to end the bitter divide in DC. (probably do worse as they enrage people in their own party). I personally prefer a governor and not any of the 1 term senators which are running (we have one right now as President and I think we could have done better). I prefer Walker but if it comes to Jeb (while I don't want another Bush or Clinton), I think he would be 'workable' and better than his brother. Chris Cristie, another governor is going to have to defend what is looking like poor results in NJ. Gov Rick Perry - it will be hard for him to escape the taint on him from 2012. Not sure Walker can withstand the heat that a national campaign puts on him - although he has survived 3 elections in heavily democratic Wisc.

All great guys. Great to see Gangwash- I expect a lot of excitement out of him this year. Also neat seeing 4 jrs - a great group. I hope they all stay for their senior year.

A. N Wilson article, former atheist friend of Dawkins and Hitchens and well read novelist explains his path away from faith and the road back. http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism Final words of the article: I haven't mentioned morality, but one thing that finally put the tin hat on any aspirations to be an unbeliever was writing a book about the Wagner family and Nazi Germany, and realising how utterly incoherent were Hitler's neo-Darwinian ravings, and how potent was the opposition, much of it from Christians; paid for, not with clear intellectual victory, but in blood. Read Pastor Bonhoeffer's book Ethics, and ask yourself what sort of mad world is created by those who think that ethics are a purely human construct. Think of Bonhoeffer's serenity before he was hanged, even though he was in love and had everything to look forward to. My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting. So it will always be; but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God "a category mistake". Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . 'The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'." And then Coleridge adds: "'And man became a living soul.' Materialism will never explain those last words."

I was reading the list of the new team captains and was surprised that 4 of the 6 were juniors. Of the 4 I suspect Collins, and Gerry will get opportunities to play and start in the NFL (Westercamp may get a look & probably should as well) Who do you think will end up being the better pro? Gerry or Collins My gut tells me Collins will leave after this year and Gerry will play out his senior year. I think Collins will become a starter sooner but I think long term Gerry will have a better career. He has the tools - speed, quickness, agility, & run support to be a good defender in the NFL. I also think Collins will have an impact but would be better served if he stays his senior year for more seasoning under the new coaches who are putting him in a better system that will high light his abilities. If Collins stays through his senior season - then I think both will have a more impactful career than that of Gregory - I think Gregory left a year to early - with all of his injury issues. He lost a lot of development opportunities this past season. Of course he had off field issues that may have forced him to leave early too.