LukeinNE

Me too. It isn't his job to make his underling feel rosy and secure. Besides, if he had come out and given him the infamous "vote of confidence" before the season ended, history has shown that's not airtight either.

I don't really care that he didn't publicly say "Bo Pelini is coming back - period," until after the game. As a method of controlling the media, I think his "evaluate when the season ends" stance is a good one.

That said, while we can't know exactly what happened, I think he pretty clearly kept Bo in the dark as well, and that contributed to the catastrophic outcome of the Iowa game. If he hadn't decided to keep him yet, that's one thing - but how could he not have? The Iowa game went worse than almost anyone could've imagined, so I have to believe that if Eichorst hadn't already decided, Bo would've been gone. Which comes back to what I think was Eichorst's fumble: we may not have beaten Iowa, but it would've been a heck of a lot closer had Bo not lost his mind, and I doubt he loses his mind if he's been told he's NU's guy in 2014, no matter what happens.

Ya, makes you wonder why anyone wants the job - it has to be the hardest job in the world not just the USA.

Ambition and ego. Maybe a smidge of duty to country. But mostly ambition and ego.

i am just confused on the debate. why would anyone support fossil fuels for the future of our energy? even if global warming is a hoax (a patently ridiculous assertion), fossil fuels are terrifyingly finite and largely in the hands of our enemies or places that will ruin the country for us to get.

 

green energy is better for the economy, security, and environment (beyond just carbon emissions).

 

so, what is the argument?

 

i mean, it looks like arguing that smoking is good for you in the '80s because philip morris said so.

I don't think anybody supports fossil fuels as the future of energy. The argument is that green energy just isn't quite there yet (in the case of electricity generation, not even close to there), and that it will necessarily take time to develop green technologies in order to minimize disruptions in the transition phase.

Why not sell $25 GA tickets to the public 30 minutes before kickoff? This gives the students enough time to get as close as they can and they can get an idea of how many seats are available to sell. I can bring my family of 4 to a game for $100 bucks. I will be sitting as high and away from the student section as I can and I assume there are others in my position who would fill the top rows. There wouldn't be many tickets available to high profile games, but I would guess the people interested in these seats are there for their first game or are taking someone to their first game so the opponent wouldn't be much of an issue. There's probably alot wrong with this idea, but I've always wondered about it.

The objection that immediately springs into my mind is what happens when it's raining sideways for the McNeese St. game? Goodbye, sellout streak.

Does this mean our increased Big Ten revenue shares are finally rolling in? I can never remember when that happens.

We had like 74 different injuries to that line last year. We had guys starting games at RT and ending at LG. We lost how many games due to injury over the course of the year, but still finished 19th in Rushing.

 

We were 8th in 2012. 15th in 2011.

 

It's pretty safe to say we're not "rebuilding." More like needing guys not to get their knees destroyed on freak plays.

 

 

Just because some dude writes the word "rebuilding" doesn't mean we are.

If the Huskers surprise people (outside of Nebraska, of course) it'll be due to the offensive line. Nearly every pre-season profile for the Huskers I've seen dings our potential because we have to "rebuild" our offensive line, without noting what our offensive line situation looked like last year.

Kudos to Rand Paul for this.

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Good column.

Here's another good one - from the man who defended George Zimmerman.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/13/opinion/omara-michael-brown-police-shooting-racial-injustice/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Yeah well sure that data is true but so what

Back to the topic of the thread: the data that you provided on the last page reinforced a truism: racial bias exists. Nobody on here disputes that it exists. The issue is that there's an enormous gap between racial bias existing and blacks living in an "oppressed state" as you put it. That's where the disagreements are, and I'd still welcome an expansion on that area from you. That being said...

It's really tiring to wade through and utterly boring and I'm probably just done.

If you want to withdraw from any conversation, the only person stopping you is yourself.

Plausible deniability has always been an important aspect of the modern presidency. The ability to pin wrongdoing on someone downstairs has saved us from a few impeachment proceedings, I suspect.

At zero point in any of the threads you listed did anyone explicitly say they wanted BIGGER government. We have laws in place to accomplish everything discussed in those threads. Larger government isn't the answer, and nobody on this board advocates that. You're reading people saying government should be THIS not THAT, and hearing "I want bigger/more government."

I see your point, but I was referring to government power, not necessarily the literal size of the government (though I do think they inevitably intertwine), and never said anyone wanted bigger government.

As I explicitly stated, most here advocate a reallocation of government resources. Not larger - just focused differently.

 

Again, my original point was the expansion of government power, not necessarily size - though I frankly think it's impossible to fulfill the wishes expressed on this forum without growing government, as well.

But you don't give the people you label "liberals" here the same pass - hence the irony, and the "bravo." Because that is some truly self-serving myopathy, and while I don't think it was said with intent to harm, it certainly wasn't munificent of you.

I accept this one. I'll be sure to not assume their common ground with DC liberals/progressives/Democrats unless it is explicitly stated.

A perfect, amazing example of reading one thing and understanding another. Truly - bravo.

Could you elaborate? Assuming you're not just yanking my chain, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make.

And in none of those threads are there any statements by anyone saying we need MORE government. More EFFICIENT government is a frequently-heard thing, or at least, that's the way I understand it. Government that allocates its resources in different places, but is no larger, is another way I hear these thoughts being expressed.

I'll say it again: you can't be serious. Just as an example, Obamacare requires people and employers to buy insurance, or they will be punished by the government. That's an obvious expansion of government power. Or from the Elizabeth Warren thread: "1. We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it." Again, this is a proposal that obviously would be an expansion of government power. Nobody that I would classify as liberal on this forum spoke against it.

But there's a want-to, where any time a conservative concept is disagreed with, the knee-jerk reaction is to label the disagreer as "liberal" and presume they simply want the government to be "bigger."

If there's something the folks on this board who overwhelmingly agree with the policies advanced by what is commonly known as "modern American liberalism" would rather be called, I would be happy to accommodate them.

It's also a complete lie from a conservative standpoint - conservatives in Washington don't want government to be smaller, they just want their pet projects funded more than the other guys' projects. Neither conservative nor liberal in Washington wants or is working toward a smaller government. It's a talking point, nothing more.

I am not a conservative in Washington, nor do I approve of them. I suppose I could be wrong, but I doubt I've said anything nice about them on this forum.

Well, then.

 

. . . anecdotes are a dumb way to make an argument. . . . I'm not going to, because I don't think that's an accurate narrative. A string of anecdotes can be used to say almost anything.

 

 

I'd like to think you can tell the difference between building a national (300+ million people!) narrative of white on black oppression with individual stories, which is what I was criticizing, and responding to a challenge for "examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum" with (gasp) examples from this forum.

 

LINK

 

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/local/2014/06/18/armor-plated-military-truck-added-johnson-county-fleet/10814955/

 

 

I read a tweet from someone that said something like, "we could solve two big problems by taking the police's heavy equipment and giving it to the Kurds"

If this weren't so obviously a straw man I'd ask for examples of accused "liberals" like me, carlfense, Junior, tschu, et al, advocating big government in this forum.

You....can't be serious.

The global warming thread is full of calls for government action to combat climate change.

The Obamacare thread....

The wealth inequality thread.

The Elizabeth Warren commandments for progressives thread.

Those are just the explicit examples from page one.

Well, when you find yourself on the wrong side of the facts you can either admit error or try to change the subject. (Or I suppose you can leave the conversation . . . like the Global Warming Pause thread.)

I must've missed something over the weekend. I had/have three basic beliefs about climate change: it's happening and humans are a factor, future consequences are uncertain, and if climate alarmists are right, we're all screwed because there's no way we're going to do what they want in the time frame that they want. Naturally, I'm branded a knuckledragger because I'm not a disciple of the Goracle, but that's not a point to pound into the ground.

Well, if nothing else, I can at least be glad that some of the liberals on this forum are finally (!) seeing the dangers of unchecked government power.

Here are some numbers that would add credence to 'oppression'

 

 

 

• African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
• African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
• Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
• According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
• One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
• 1 in 100 African American women are in prison
• Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).

http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

Standing alone, all of those statistics have about as much credibility as claiming the justice system is sexist because men are incarcerated at 10 times the rate of women. A significant reason minorities (and men) are jailed at disproportionately high rates is that they commit a disproportionately high percentage of the crimes in this country.

That being said, half of black men and forty percent of white men are arrested by the time they're 23. That's largely a product of the drug war, which is a bad policy that does need to be abandoned.

How I feel about it doesn't really matter. You spend a lot of time throwing around loaded words like "oppression" and I'd like to know what you really mean by that. To put it in your perspective, it'd be like me constantly saying "Obama is a socialist" while not doing anything to substantiate my claim aside from posting a few of his more radical soundbites and stating "the facts on this are clear."

the reaction by the protestors is one charged by racial tension, due to the still-oppressed state of blacks in this nation. That. Is a fact.

I think you need to define what you mean by "state of oppression."

Merriam-Webster:

Definition of OPPRESSION

1

a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power

b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power

 

I file this under "he has to say this when asked." To say it'll never happen would make students upset - and rightfully so. But the logistics dictate that it'll never happen.

Yeah, I doubt he could do it, even if he wanted to make it happen. I don't suppose it's legally binding, but it's long been accepted that as long as you keep giving money to the AD, you can keep your seats (or very close equivalents) for as long as you like. Violating that would cause a rebellion. The only chance would be to identify the section you wanted to give to the students and offer everyone seat upgrades without the higher donation level requirement. That'd be both difficult and pricey for the AD, so it won't happen.

Nobody is building a case on anecdotes.

Uh, yes, every time someone posts a story that reinforces their broader narrative, that's exactly what they're doing.

The data is damn clear.

The only "clear" thing in this thread is how desperate certain people, you included, are to pass judgment on a situation before facts are known.

Not exactly a conspiracy, as you called it.

I'm not exactly sure whether you're deliberately misreading what I said, or literally lack the capability.

What you dismissed as a rent-a-cop acting stupid is just that - a rent-a-cop acting stupidly due to some type of racial bias.

What did I just say about your desperation to pass judgment on events without all of the information? Do you have any proof that racial bias was a motive here?

Feel free to start posting every example of police brutality against whites though, nobody is stopping you.

I'm so hurt.

I believe embarrassed is the emotion we're looking for. Your reasoning for selectively quoting me in order to claim I said pretty much the exact opposite of what I actually said would be.....?

 

A rent-a-cop acted in a stupid, overzealous way, stop the presses! I mean...I dunno, I just think it's sort of silly to build a case for a national conspiracy against blacks with a bunch of anecdotes.

 

 

You can find plenty of non-anecdotal data; in fact much of it has been linked in this thread. But nah, we're just here propogating a conspiracy with cherry-picked examples, don't mind us

 

Zero points for reading comprehension to you tonight.

I voted for Northwestern, but they don't belong on the list of "overlooked" teams.

I've got an odd feeling about Illinois, though. They'll probably be another flop and Beckman will get his walking papers, but if they're not....I suspect the Nebraska game will be their coming out party.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/13/black_bystander_maced_seattle_pro_palestine_protest_turns_weird_ugly.html

 

An unarmed black bystander was maced near a pro-Palestine protest at Seattle's Westlake Mall this past Saturday after a strange confrontation with a belligerent, shirtless white man.

 

The bystander, 25-year old Raymond Wilford, encountered the shirtless man outside the mall. According to witnesses, the latter individual was already on the scene and had been using racial slurs while confronting pro-Palestinian protestors. In images captured by photographer Alex Garland, the shirtless man can be seen moving toward and then squaring off with Wilford. (No punches were thrown by either of them, and a report by the Seattle Police Department says the shirtless man instigated the confrontation.) That's when a mall guard stepped in, looked past the shirtless individual, maced Wilford, and took him into custody.

 

A rent-a-cop acted in a stupid, overzealous way, stop the presses! I mean...I dunno, I just think it's sort of silly to build a case for a national conspiracy against blacks with a bunch of anecdotes. I'm not saying racial bias isn't real, it is, the only point of contention is pervasiveness, it's just not a good way to argue. I could easily match you story for story with non-black people being treated badly by police. I mean goodness, there's actually an "excessive use of force cop" meme: