Fru

I can think of many other groups of people that would benefit from counseling services.

+1+1+1+1+1+1 "Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored". ~Aldous Huxley Careful. Cronyism permeates both political aisles. That is a fact. There is indeed a corruption of the system as it pertains to special interests, lobbying, and cronyism that is absolutely a problem in the system. The system is not functioning as it should. The way you've spun it makes it sound nice as a knockout punch to Trump, sure. But it's a misrepresentation of reality. I wasn't talking about cronyism. I never denied that it existed on both sides of the aisle. Not sure how you got that from my post. I was talking about the uneducated, ignorant, bigoted populace that denies facts and science resulting in the election at hand. Most people have no idea what labor statistics mean, what net immigration is, how carbon levels in the atmosphere are measured, how many Justices are on the Supreme Court, how a bill becomes a law, or even who their representative from Congress is. But darnit they're just sure that global warming is a hoax and all the brown folks are takin' all the good jobs. When you have an ignorant and bigoted populace, you get ignorant and bigoted representation. And please tell me what political party is most represented in teaching this "ignorant and bigoted" populace? Please quit acting like ignorance and bigotry reside on just one side of the political fence. There is plenty on both sides these days to go around. Never said it resides strictly on one side. However it is far more predominant on one side than the other.

North Face

+1+1+1+1+1+1 "Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored". ~Aldous Huxley Careful. Cronyism permeates both political aisles. That is a fact. There is indeed a corruption of the system as it pertains to special interests, lobbying, and cronyism that is absolutely a problem in the system. The system is not functioning as it should. The way you've spun it makes it sound nice as a knockout punch to Trump, sure. But it's a misrepresentation of reality. I wasn't talking about cronyism. I never denied that it existed on both sides of the aisle. Not sure how you got that from my post. I was talking about the uneducated, ignorant, bigoted populace that denies facts and science resulting in the election at hand. Most people have no idea what labor statistics mean, what net immigration is, how carbon levels in the atmosphere are measured, how many Justices are on the Supreme Court, how a bill becomes a law, or even who their representative from Congress is. But darnit they're just sure that global warming is a hoax and all the brown folks are takin' all the good jobs. When you have an ignorant and bigoted populace, you get ignorant and bigoted representation.

The disparity between education level of Trump voters and non Trump voters is really all one needs to know. More education a person has, the less likely they are to vote Trump. The less education someone has, the more likely they are to vote Trump. He (along with the media for normalizing his outrageous campaign) has validated bigotry, and that the notion that your feelings are equal to facts. Bringing up facts and verbatim quotes has somehow been demonized. People claim the system is broken. The system is functioning as it should. The system is predicated on an educated, informed populace. When our populace is uninformed, uneducated, denies science, denies facts, denies verbatim quotes and embraces bigotry... then this is what you get. The populace is the problem. Garbage in. Garbage out.

I have a hunch Pierson scores on a punt return

Just relaying stories I was told by people who have been. Sounds like anecdotes about the behavior of your fan base has gotten under your skin.

Mine was super positive. Partied before the game at a few bars...went to the game and sat with Badger fans...partied after the game. Never heard anything "bad" never saw anything "bad" You do this every time people talk about Wisconsin You're clearly in the minority. I have a feeling you bought the entire bar 3 rounds of drinks and then stuck with them through the game. I think a lot of people look to be offended… If you look to be offended you will probably find it. I have been to quite a few away games and never once seen or heard anything directed at me anyone I was with or any husker fan that was in the vicinity I'm guessing if 10,000 husker fans made the trip to an away game that 5001 of them were not offended. I highly doubt I was in the minority I think a lot of people love to complain. I was just saying that of the folks I know who've been, all have had some variation of horror stories. These are just two that come to mind from the 2011 game. A family friend of mine took his girlfriend who happens to be Asian. Of her experience in Camp Randall, she said she had never encountered such constant demeaning, hate filled, ignorant and racist comments. Another friend of mine, who for the record is not an obnoxious drunkard who brings trouble onto himself, got separated from his group, was jumped and had his cell phone deliberately smashed. Bruised and bloodied he stopped in a handful of restaurants and shops to use their phone and was told "Not for Cornholer fans" He eventually found law enforcement and said that they were even hesitant in assisting him. So yes, I am hesitant about venturing to Madison.

This is what college football is all about. Was stoked to see BYU beat Mich St

Death penalty is tricky for me. I think ultimately, I'm against it. But these are the competing thoughts in my mind. - What if you're wrong? Putting innocent person to death is unconscionable. It's amazing to me how many people seem to be "Aw well, too bad" about putting innocent people to death. - Cost. People argue about the cost "It's cheaper to let them rot in prison than it is to put them to death." Yeah maybe it does cost more to put them to death, but could one argue that that makes the community safer? There's a reason I spend a little more money on a nice winter coat than a cheap winter coat. Dangerous people don't become don't become any less dangerous if they're in prison, they become a greater threat to a more concentrated amount of people. - Is life in prison a worse punishment? Possibly. (My short career working in corrections has somewhat changed my perspective) prisons still use solitary confinement which is incredibly damaging regarding a person's mental state. I've been down to those cells and they are no picnic. But on the flip side, when I briefly worked in corrections, I worked alongside 3 inmates, all were convicted murderers, however they all served a CNA type role in the particular unit I worked in. Not excusing what any of them did by any stretch, but as a function of the institution, they did contribute meaningful assistance. Not all murderers are Nikko Jenkins types. - Justice/revenge. They aren't the same thing. I ultimately side with being against it. However I see certain situations where it could certainly be justified.

Me and a couple buddies have been kicking around the idea of driving up for it. However, I haven't ever heard of a positive experience in Madison.

Yes, as Newt so famously stated. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4f5ewIYYuQ Yes. Exactly Feelings and facts are not equal opposites.

Yes. Why would anyone ever want to pay attention to quotes, facts, statistics or empirically based analysis? http://www.cc.com/video-clips/e9z0ej/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-jordan-klepper-fingers-the-pulse---conspiracy-theories-thrive-at-a-donald-trump-rally The ending to this video sums it up nicely. "Do I have articles? No. Do I have facts? No. But my mind is made up"

Tell me again how Pence "killed it"

It's funny. I thought Pence came off as the smug, arrogant jerk. Calm? Sure. Knowledgeable? Hard to call him knowledgeable when he denies actual quotes and facts. I recall Kaine citing a labor statistic and Pence saying something along the lines of "Yeah you can throw out the numbers and stuff you want." Facts matter, whether you like it or not. Kaine challenged him to defend Trump. Which Pence couldn't do, or chose not to do. I'm not sure which is worse. Kaine interrupted plenty, but Pence also interrupted his fair share. Pence just seemed to make constant snarky comments "Career politician, God bless you for it" "I'm sure that played well in a focus group" "That's a good predone line" Maybe you enjoy hearing that, but it isn't adding content or substance which Pence had very little of in this debate. Saying he won on style points is like saying Oregon beat NU because their uniforms were cooler. Scoreboard or in this case, facts say differently.

I'm very surprised at how many people claim "Pence killed it." If by "killing it" you mean not defending his running mate and denying facts, then yeah, he hit it out of the park. To me Pence looked like he'd have rather been anywhere else in the world. His constant snarky under his breath comments, disdainful demeanor, and unwillingness to be accountable for his running mate made me dislike him even more.

As much as this dead horse has been beaten, all you need to do is a quick search and you should be able to find thread after thread in the archives to answer this question. While I realize this is a bye week, I'm not sure this can of worms needs to be opened during the season. Not trying to open a can of worms, just thought it was a relevant thought given the nature of the thread. And again, I'm aware of all the alleged stuff to have gone on, I just was curious if anyone had any insight as to what was BS and what might have had a little more weight.

I know some folks are touchy about divulging things, but what is the consensus about the "real" reason Solich was fired? I've heard a variety of things including messing around with coeds, boosters wives, coaches wives, impregnating a woman in David City, alcohol problems etc. Perhaps it was a variety. I don't know. I always thought Pederson just wanted NU to become USC. Flashy and NFL oriented, and Solich just didn't fit that mold.

I too have thought about if Crawford had chose football, or even if NU had snagged Zbikowski from Notre Dame. Though I don't know that it would've mattered much. I think Solich was a marked man.

Glad to hear you had such a great time!!! Whenever I walk up the ramp and see the crowd I always think of that scene in "Rudy" where Rudy's dad sees the Notre Dame stadium for the first time. "This is the most beautiful site these eyes have ever seen" (Granted I know it's Rudy and ND and I'm sure some folks on here will be all URGGH EFF NOTRE LAME, but relax, I'm making a point) That emotion is brilliantly captured on film. I admittedly get a little teary eyed every so often during a game. It can definitely stir all kinds of emotions, thoughts and memories. You think back to the first game your dad took you to, the first girl who you took a game to, the friend you went with and cheered like crazy as NU beat OU. You imagine the ghosts of coaches, players and past games happening on the field that lays right before you. Truly a special place.

Monte Christo Garth Glissman Frankie London Matt Turman Willard Witte

I think it's definitely a part. He was a household name before this election. If he was an unknown who just randomly burst on the scene and said the ridiculous things that he has, he probably wouldn't get away with it. Howard Dean let out a visceral scream of excitement and it ended his campaign. Trump said he'd date his own daughter if he could and he's the new GOP standard bearer.

Well if the comment sections of Politico and The Hill articles are reliable, Obama is going to declare martial law and call off the 2016 election altogether. So that coupled with a likely 7-0 Nebraska team heading into Wisconsin, and all the Harley Quinn costumes girls will be wearing downtown for Halloween will make for an entertaining October. I don't think there'll be any personally, but if I was to choose one it'd probably be one of the candidates capitalizing on some bit of new info from the other.

I'm genuinely asking, and not trying to inflame arguments or anything, but when you say you are 100% Pro Life, does that also translate to other political and social stances for you as well? Many times when I talk politics with folks, many folks claim to be Pro Life. However in other political stances folks who claim to be Pro Life are generally -in favor of war and military intervention -against addressing gun deaths -against universal health care coverage -against public assistance programs that largely assist children and the elderly -against regulation and protecting the environment These are all issues that concern life and well being. So you stating that you are 100% Pro Life, is that across the board? Or only for the issue of abortion? Again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory, or trying to create arguments. I'm genuinely trying to understand this, as it seems there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with folks who claim to be Pro Life. I'm at work, so don't have tons of time so this might not be as well articulated as I would hope; but here's my quick, and probably clumsy answer. I believe an unborn child has the same moral weight as a 3 month old. So, could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of a war, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of gun rights, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be opposed to universal healthcare, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against public assistance, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against environmental regulations, yes If you were more specifically asking my personal view on these issues, I don't have time right now other than to say they're varied. I guess I was asking if you held those seemingly contradicting beliefs, not hypothetically "Could someone believe this while also believing that." Can you see the difficulty in understanding how someone can call themselves "Pro Life" when it comes to abortion, but then want to deny healthcare to the sick, deny food assistance to the young and elderly, do nothing about the 30,000 gun deaths a year, not want to take action to take care of the environment, and be pro war? My view is that if you're going to call your self "Pro Life" then your other stances should reflect that as well. If you don't want healthcare for all, don't want to do anything about gun deaths, don't want to protect the environment, don't want children and the elderly to have food assistance, but then say people shouldn't get abortions, you're not really pro life, you're just anti-abortion. I disagree, you can be against and ever expanding gov't, and be pro life. I guess your phrase "100% Pro Choice" led me to believe that your value of life would be across the board, in all areas. Of all the issues I've listed, the only time life counts unconditionally is regarding the issue of abortion. Doesn't seem like 100% to me.

I'm genuinely asking, and not trying to inflame arguments or anything, but when you say you are 100% Pro Life, does that also translate to other political and social stances for you as well? Many times when I talk politics with folks, many folks claim to be Pro Life. However in other political stances folks who claim to be Pro Life are generally -in favor of war and military intervention -against addressing gun deaths -against universal health care coverage -against public assistance programs that largely assist children and the elderly -against regulation and protecting the environment These are all issues that concern life and well being. So you stating that you are 100% Pro Life, is that across the board? Or only for the issue of abortion? Again, I'm not trying to be inflammatory, or trying to create arguments. I'm genuinely trying to understand this, as it seems there is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with folks who claim to be Pro Life. I'm at work, so don't have tons of time so this might not be as well articulated as I would hope; but here's my quick, and probably clumsy answer. I believe an unborn child has the same moral weight as a 3 month old. So, could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of a war, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be in favor of gun rights, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be opposed to universal healthcare, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against public assistance, yes could I be against a mother killing her 3 month old but be against environmental regulations, yes If you were more specifically asking my personal view on these issues, I don't have time right now other than to say they're varied. I guess I was asking if you held those seemingly contradicting beliefs, not hypothetically "Could someone believe this while also believing that." Can you see the difficulty in understanding how someone can call themselves "Pro Life" when it comes to abortion, but then want to deny healthcare to the sick, deny food assistance to the young and elderly, do nothing about the 30,000 gun deaths a year, not want to take action to take care of the environment, and be pro war? My view is that if you're going to call your self "Pro Life" then your other stances should reflect that as well. If you don't want healthcare for all, don't want to do anything about gun deaths, don't want to protect the environment, don't want children and the elderly to have food assistance, but then say people shouldn't get abortions, you're not really pro life, you're just anti-abortion.