JJ Husker

I'm not blowing it off as no big deal. I'm just doubting that it affected the outcome. "deciding" and "influencing" are two different things. Sorry if "you" didn't claim that but this post of yours seems to indicate otherwise- If you were just interpreting how you read the US intelligence report and mistakenly chose to say decided instead of influenced, then I'll agree with you. Or, please point me directly to where a report says it was a "deciding" factor.

I'm not being blind at all. I understand what happened and that they did want to affect the outcome. I just think it is a huge stretch to claim, as you did, that a foreign power decided the election. My personal opinion is that our voters were not too damn pliable in this election cycle. Seems virtually everyone had their mind made up prior to this information being known. The candidates and our politics have been so polarizing that I seriously doubt it affected the outcome. Anyone who was already thinking of voting for HRC surely was not swayed by even more dirt to vote for Trump at that point. And LOMS I understand it was one sided and they didn't present equally damming information about Trump. I still don't feel there were enough people on the fence that it was a deciding factor. I could be wrong but that is the way I see it. I know people want to blame something for the result. IMO when both candidates suck so bad, well, you're going to end up in a bad place no matter what. In my case anyway, there was absolutely no information that could've been presented that would've caused me to vote for the other candidate. If one of them had knifed a baby on TV, I still wouldn't have voted for the other one.

All I know is that having 2 or 3 possible qb's that fit the system is a much better problem to have than the best guy not fitting the system, a walk on backup and no number 3. We should be celebrating, not arguing.

P&A is a good one. We play that with friends once in awhile. We just call it A$$hole. It goes well with over consumption of adult beverages.

Nice video. Thanks for sharing.

Cribbage is also a great game. Used to play that all the time with my dad. Haven't played it in many years. Backgammon is a really good one too.

Ha, we play all of those also. I also like 5, 10 or 13 point pitch but 5 point is my favorite of those. Spades and Hearts are fun. Used to enjoy Canasta but have forgotten how to play. But my absolute favorite card game is euchre. I pretty much majored in that while I was in college. Also have always liked Risk and 2 new additions to family game night; Catan and Sushi Go. I was skeptical about Sushi Go but it is a lot of fun. Cards Against Humanity is fun for adults and in the right company.

And this doesn't cut both ways? It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this --> I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement. What's different? This happened seven years ago. Manning was busted and did time in jail. Surely you don't think a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power hostile to the United States is anything like a disgruntled soldier divulging classified documents? I already replied above to Moiraine on the differences that I now see in the discussion between the two. But as far as a presidential campaign being decided by a foreign power....that seems a little over the top. They may well have tried and desired to manipulate the results of our election but they didn't tamper with any actual counts, no false votes were cast relative to their involvement, and the election was still decided by our process and our voters. I would maintain that all they really did was make more information known to some voters and, to my knowledge, none of that information was false. I sure don't like the fact that it was the Russians who did this or that apparently they got what they wanted by Trump being elected. And I sure don't like that there may be possible ties to Trump or his campaign as pertains to this. I do want that investigated and the truth to come out. Are you saying that people are upset because they were not kept in the dark about truths about HRC and the DNC? Seems like a funny thing to get too bent out of shape about, being told the truth and all. Personally I would like as much information as possible when I cast my vote. And yes, I think the 2 issues are somewhat related. I think the side a person takes on these issues should be somewhat consistent. If a person is against relatively harmless information being made known by Russia, why wouldn't that person also be upset by potentially more damaging information being released? (and as I acknowledged above, I do see where one is fresher and the other is older and already somewhat punished-but this commutation of sentence is new info) I find them both concerning but yes, I do find what Manning did to be more serious..... at least until Trump is actually proven to be behind the Russia deal. If that link is made, then I will change my opinion and that will be more disturbing to me as he is the President.

And this doesn't cut both ways? It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this --> I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Like you said she was convicted and has been in jail 7 years. Many in the GOP don't even want to investigate that other thing. That's what the "outcry" is over. I agree that it is hypocritical to ignore and not want to find out the truth of what really happened and who was involved in the Trump/Russian deal. But this does make sense if you look at how outraged some people are over an as yet unproven link to Trump but not a whole lot of outcry over a person having their sentence commuted when that is a proven case with the facts known. But you raise a good point, one is much fresher and the other happened 7 years ago and she has been at least partially punished for it. So yeah, I do get how the commentary here could be a little skewed toward the Trump deal.

And this doesn't cut both ways? It definitely cuts both ways. All politicians are hypocrites at times. I just feel the GOP is far worse with it than the Dems are. I could go into why I feel that way, but it would just be me doing a whole lot of this --> I would agree that lately the repubs have seemed more hypocritical than the dems. But my cuts both way comment had a little more to do with the difference in outcry here on good old HB. The Trump/Russia/DNC hack job seems to be receiving a lot more attention and criticism than this issue. Even though this Manning deal is a proven case with a conviction and jail sentence and the other is still a little up in the air as to what really happened and undetermined yet as to Trump's involvement.

Serious question. This is how little I know about this. What gender was he/she before the surgery? In the past couple of days I've seen some footage on TV of Manning, but I cannot tell if it was a man or woman. I know, shocker huh?

And this doesn't cut both ways?

Sounds like Manning will end up having served about the same amount of time as others convicted of similar crimes. The initial sentence was, apparently, unusually long. If ~7 years is what people who do what Manning did typically get, doesn't this commutation make more sense? I guess it makes some sense if 7+/- years is the going rate and 35 years was overly harsh. But I guess my common sense tells me that 7 years is not enough for treason and leaking information like this. Seems like a pretty serious crime to me, from a person in a position of public trust and national security, that could have very dire consequences for American lives. But what do I know? Admittedly I am not familiar with this case, Snowden, etc., just seems like the type of thing we don't want happening for any reason. I think it's immaterial if she will suffer from her actions once released. That's like letting somebody like Manson out and saying, oh well, his life won't be all sunshine and roses so it's okay.

An interesting developement? Can somebody explain why Obama is not being crucified for this in this forum? Didn't she leak important secrets that compromised our national security and put American lives at risk? Why would Obama pick her for a presidential pardon? I'll be honest, I don't know know much about it but it seems pretty I'll advised, or maybe worse, on the part of Obama.

Well I guess ask and ye shall receive. Just saw an ad on TV sponsored by the house republicans asking for us to visit... www.abetterhealtcareplan.com Pretty disappointed. It links you to a ten second video bragging about how they have a plan and then redirects you back to that site so you can watch the worthless video again. No details. F#@kers.

I do not like at all how they (Trump) are going about replacing the ACA. I'm not sure any of them have an alternate plan because I sure haven't heard any details other than the horsesh#t of being allowed to purchase across state lines. To be honest it is making me fairly nervous that they repeal and then don't do crap, like they haven't in forever already. But I will say, if premiums are only going to double by 2026, sign me up for that much lower cost trajectory. That is nine years away. I don't know about you guys but my premiums have much more than doubled in the last 9 years. This year alone I saw a 28% increase, last year was about 18%, and the year they implemented the ACA it was about 10% plus the across the board 25% increase. The problem with the ACA has always been that they didn't fix or even begin to address the cost problem. It does need to be severely tweaked or replaced but all these asshats care about is repeal. If they know how to fix it, I sure would like for them to share how. Considering that hasn't happened at all, I will assume they're about to make a much bigger mess of it.

Happy Bday lady. Hope it's a good one.

The only stat I care about it when it comes to defense.It's really the only one that matters. Well sort of but I bet you wouldn't find many teams with a good scoring defense rank if they're giving up a bunch of big plays and have other crappy defensive stats. Those good scoring defense stats don't happen in a vacuum. The only one that matters is scoring defense. Now, if you are giving up more points than you should be, then you look deeper into other stats such as yards per play, number of big plays, turnovers...etc. to see why you are giving up so many points. But, the one stat at the top that means everything, is scoring defense. Like I said, sort of. I don't want to get into a chicken or egg discussion but the scoring defense stat is pretty much a result of doing the other defensive things right. Sure, at the end of the day, it's the most important but it's usually not an outlier. If it's good, there's a lot of other good defensive stats that are driving it. You show me a team that has a sh#tty scoring defense and I'll show you a team that has some other pretty crappy defensive stats. So, all of them are important.

The only stat I care about it when it comes to defense. It's really the only one that matters. Well sort of but I bet you wouldn't find many teams with a good scoring defense rank if they're giving up a bunch of big plays and have other crappy defensive stats. Those good scoring defense stats don't happen in a vacuum.

You can try to pick it apart anyway you wish but the fact is Diaco has had better defensive results than we have. Sure there is more to winning games but it's a helluva lot easier to win when you're not giving up big plays and you're limiting the points the other team is scoring. Not sure what the point is in trying to paint it any other way.

I am not angry, but When you hire a new coach there should not be a need to have this many assistants replaced so soon. It is disappointing that the correct coaches were not hired two years ago, That's a valid position to hold but I am just happy that finally poor on field results are being dealt with fairly timely. It's been a long time since that has been the case in Lincoln. Callahan and Pelini seemed to keep underperformers around forever and would act like nothing was wrong. I'm just relieved that there is finally some acknowledgement that those in charge expect more. I prefer to not get too caught up in what should have happened two years ago. That's water under the bridge and it's more important, to me anyway, that they are trying to get it right going forward.

Well yeah, considering 5 of them didn't really contribute here and another 5 are still TBD. But still a good point to raise considering Bama is signing classes better than this year in and year out and our list is a best of 16 years. The worm can turn though if we get some on field results and the recruiting momentum stays on the current trajectory. Can't complain that 25% of this list has been brought in over the last 2 years.

Interesting that almost all of this list occurred over the last 16 years but 5 of the 20 (25%) are within the last 2 years. I also didn't realize that so many were in state kids. I think it's fair to say Bo didn't strain himself any trying to get top prospects in here. Ahman Green is kind of an outlier time frame wise. When did the composite rankings begin?