JJ Husker

Maybe we should bow out of the bowl game. Tennessee could play Minnesota's opponent......kill two birds with one stone.

Maybe you haven't noticed.....we already have a couple half generations of undereducated morons running around this country and it has nothing to do with defunding public schools, quite the opposite actually. Public funding has been increased and mostly wasted trying to get these underachievers up to some remedial level of almost acceptability so that the schools can "prove" they did their job. Nevermind that the high achievers have to suffer from being forced to share the same classrooms with these losers.Maybe someday people will learn that funding for schools has relatively little impact on the ability to educate kids compared to the parenting they are subjected to and their socioeconomic status. If I had a nickel for every kid that millions of dollars of funding was never going to help anyway..... We should be teaching most of these students how to be good parents because the other stuff isn't going to matter without it if they don't break the cycle of how they are being raised. I also wanted to go back to the bolded. I don't agree with this at all. We don't all of a sudden have "half generations" of people running around the country uneducated that we didn't have before. There were always uneducated people in this country and we always will. That's just part of living amongst a population of 300 million people. Our system is somewhat different than much of the world in that we at least ATTEMPT to educate everyone. But, in reality, that is an impossible task. Some people don't have the mental capacity to be educated. Others have piss poor parents who don't set them up to be educated. Others just flat out don't want to do what it takes to be educated. These facts haven't changed. What I DO think has changed is the world around these people in that a) it's much harder now for an uneducated person to get a decent job and sustain themselves...c) everyone now days is affected much more by forces not geographically around them which magnifies the problems when various groups don't understand one another...and c) with technology now, uneducated people have become a much more vocal and effective group politically and, they can be manipulated much easier. Now, that last statement may send some people off the edge but that doesn't make it any less true. You may be right. My bolded comment was based on my purely anecdotal experiences, particularly those I've seen associated with my kids schools and what they've told me about the students that attend their schools. In our area there seems to be a scarily large amount of students and parents who don't seem to really give a rip if their kids get educated or not. The school system seems to be no more than a big, free daycare for them. They don't attend teacher conferences, don't seem to encourage their kids to do their homework, don't attend their school activities, and seem to be the first in line to blame the teachers and schools for their own failures. Relatively few of these kids seem to overcome the bad parenting they have been dealt. For the longest time I thought it was an income/wealth issue but it isn't. The poorer kids who have engaged parents seem to do much better. And I know it isn't the teachers or quality of education they are receiving because our kids and many others do extremely well. Sure it's tougher when money is tight but the biggest influence I see that affects their education outcomes is how their parents help or hinder the process. So anyway, me saying a couple half generations of undereducated morons was more bluster than fact. It's just what it seems like to me.

Interesting. This discussion spurred me to look up religion demographics. I think this country is a long way away from having Christianity supplanted as the predominate religion. 70.6% Christian (inc. 25.4% Evangelical Protestant & 20.8% Catholic) 5.9% Non-Christian (Jewish, Muslim, etc) 22.8% Unaffiliated (including 7.1% atheist/agnostic) I did not realize Evangelical numbers were quite that high. And I sure thought non-Christian and atheist/agnostic numbers would've been much higher. Considering that one of our fastest growing segments is from Mexico and Latin America (who tend towards Catholicism) I don't see where Christianity is under any threat of being marginalized any time soon. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

I think it's an area we all look at a certain way because the context here is that the U.S. is overwhelmingly majority Christian, but in the general case this may not always be true. So I think a somewhat different question I'd pose is, how much of these ideas of freedom and tolerance do we see as intrinsically American, versus a beneficial consequence of Christian predominance seeping into policy? And if the latter, is it important then to fight to preserve that predominance? [/size] I'm not sure I totally understand the question but, yes, freedom and tolerance are intrinsically American ideals. I think they are also values of most Christians. However recently, it seems a sort of new breed of Christians (I'll call them CINO's) seem to have hijacked the narrative of the Christian religion, at least politically. IMO, they are kind of a whacky fringe element and don't particularly represent the religion too well. They seem to be rife with intolerance and casting the first stone. I imagine it is this vocal group that has turned so many against the church. I don't think it is important for America in general to fight to maintain the predominance of Christianity in this country. However, as a Christian myself, I sure would like to see it remain the predominate religion. Simply because I believe the majority of Christians tend to represent the correct values for this country. And that doesn't mean that I think some non-Christians don't stand for the right things. I guess I would just like to see the right and left fringe groups diminish and for the silent majority to be the ones shaping people's opinions. Unfortunately right now, way too many believe the militant abortion center protesters and gay rights opponents are what Christianity is about. That just isn't the case from my point of view. I kind of wish those people would just go away.

Religion doesn't make a person good and lack of religion doesn't make a person bad. There are good and bad people of every race, color, religion, orientation etc. Why some still pretend this is not the case I'll never know.

The U.S. is not a Christian republic. It is explicitly a republic that separates church and state. A Christian republic enshrines Christianity as the official religion of the state, and I think as follows, a legitimate and endorsed basis of the state's laws and morality. It is *not* by definition a religiously exclusive system where only Christian churches are allowed to run schools. England has an official state religion. Although while official, it seems to be archaic and fading? (I don't know too much about the UK, so I can't really comment. I literally learned this was still true of England a moment ago.) Well, with that being the position from which you asked the question, I would be opposed to the US being a Christian republic. This country does not need an "official religion". That would make it pretty uncomfortable for people of other religions or no religion at all and that isn't what this country is about. But we also can't completely ignore the fact of what is the predominate religion in this country. Some of the sentiments from that religion and others are bound to seep into some policy and decisions. I dont see how that can be prevented without infringing on "by the people, for the people". However it should have nothing to do with the government officially.

I'm not sure I understand the poll question. Basically the US is a Christian republic, if the determining factor is a majority of the citizens or the largest group of its kind. Now if you intend some official government position or policies to cement that fact, I guess I would have to have more details. Until that is answered, I will select "would not mind".

I do think that those decision can be made by those closest, but I think it's far too easy for other things to get in the way, and that those closest don't make the best decisions. If we're going to get rid of federal oversight of education, then we need a hell of a lot of reform at the state level to disincentivize state politicians away from sacrificing our children's educations for things like political expediency, wealth building, pandering to corporate interests, etc. Because political expediency, wealth building, pandering to corporate interests, etc. are not worse problems at the federal level than they are at the local level???

I disagree with this quite strongly. The federal government shouldn't get out of it - they need to build a working model for education based on 21st century thought and abandoning the industrialization/factory line producing style of education that started all of this ages ago. Taking federal oversight out of it results in places like Texas, which not only does it's citizens, particularly those economically disadvantaged, a great and tragic disservice by offering awful education, but also retards the progress of the rest of the country. Theoretically I wouldn't disagree with you but can you provide some examples of how the federal government has helped educational progress in this country. Seems all they ever come up with is cookie cutter ideas that may have a beneficial effect for a narrowly defined group but a detrimental effect for most. I guess this is a pretty good description of almost all federal programs IMO. They solve a problem for a small group while creating countless problems for the majority.So you don't think the best decisions can be made by those closest to the people that are affected? That faceless bureaucrats are best suited for setting educational policy equally for say Columbus Nebraska and Detroit Michigan? It needs to be a combination. There should be nationwide standards but more flexibility. But this shouldn't happen:http://www.houstonpress.com/news/5-reasons-the-new-texas-social-studies-textbooks-are-nuts-7573825 Well, it is Texas after all....

I disagree with this quite strongly. The federal government shouldn't get out of it - they need to build a working model for education based on 21st century thought and abandoning the industrialization/factory line producing style of education that started all of this ages ago. Taking federal oversight out of it results in places like Texas, which not only does it's citizens, particularly those economically disadvantaged, a great and tragic disservice by offering awful education, but also retards the progress of the rest of the country. Theoretically I wouldn't disagree with you but can you provide some examples of how the federal government has helped educational progress in this country. Seems all they ever come up with is cookie cutter ideas that may have a beneficial effect for a narrowly defined group but a detrimental effect for most. I guess this is a pretty good description of almost all federal programs IMO. They solve a problem for a small group while creating countless problems for the majority. So you don't think the best decisions can be made by those closest to the people that are affected? That faceless bureaucrats are best suited for setting educational policy equally for say Columbus Nebraska and Detroit Michigan?

Maybe you haven't noticed.....we already have a couple half generations of undereducated morons running around this country and it has nothing to do with defunding public schools, quite the opposite actually. Public funding has been increased and mostly wasted trying to get these underachievers up to some remedial level of almost acceptability so that the schools can "prove" they did their job. Nevermind that the high achievers have to suffer from being forced to share the same classrooms with these losers. Maybe someday people will learn that funding for schools has relatively little impact on the ability to educate kids compared to the parenting they are subjected to and their socioeconomic status. If I had a nickel for every kid that millions of dollars of funding was never going to help anyway..... We should be teaching most of these students how to be good parents because the other stuff isn't going to matter without it if they don't break the cycle of how they are being raised.

I would agree with this. The federal government should get totally out of it and leave it to the states and local communities. What works in New York city or Washington DC is likely much different than what would work in rural Nebraska etc.

So ... you don't want school vouchers then? LMAO......good one.

You need to separate what you think one person wants from what school vouchers (as they have been traditionally represented) will actually do. I'm a Christian and the last thing I want is religion forced on anyone. Heck I don't even want the information presented.....unless that is where the parents want their kids educated. There is nothing magic about public schools. Their sole purpose is to educate our youth. So what if some of the schools doing the best job of that happen to be religious in nature? Should we dumb down the educational opportunities available? Aren't parents better suited for selecting schools than some faceless government entity? Sure, many parents aren't very engaged or involved so their kids will continue in the public system just like they are now. Why should my tax dollars only be used for public education? If I wanted to send my kids to a Catholic school, why shouldn't I be allowed to use the $8000 yearly that the public schools get for their enrollment to send them to the school I choose? We sent our kids to the public schools we did because we felt they offered the best education in our area. Although from middle school on we opted out of our home school boundaries. What if we had determined the local Catholic school is where we wanted to go instead? Is it fair to tell me no, your tax money is only good for this underperforming public school, if you actually want a good education, keep letting us waste your tax dollars and while you have to spend even more of your money to obtain that good education you desire. Who's held accountable? Publicly funded schools don't have the market cornered for providing a good education. But, without school choice vouchers, they do have the funding cornered. I need to add that we could've afforded any private school we wanted but we chose free public schools. I don't see good schools being forced out of business due to vouchers. I also don't foresee any flight to religion based institutions. The majority of people so inclined are already going there. And the schools people would flee from aren't deserving of staying open.

This is so out of control it's laughable. Vouchers=Religion based education for everyone? Like unreligious people are all of a sudden going to send their little Johnnys and Sallys to a religious school because they can use that voucher anywhere. What a joke. All vouchers do is give families the opportunity to attend any school they want, letting those who need a better option obtain it and, yes in some cases, helping Christian (or whatever religion) parents send their childRen to a religious school that traditionally charge for attendance. Can somebody explain to me the inherent problem with giving people more options for the educational choice and preference? Or do we need to force kids into secular education even where it sucks? Seems some people fear presenting more information.

Can't say that I disagree with the OP's premise that bad QB play was a huge factor in our losses, particularly the 2 ugly ones. But I will stop short of vilifying TA for that. As NUANCE said, his legs kept us in and helped win many games and I don't think there is any questioning his heart and effort. I find a lot more fault with Langsdorf and Riley in those blowouts by trying to pound an injured round peg into a square hole. Change the game plan or change the QB. That is on the coaches to correct. Tommy only did what he was capable of to the best of his ability. Unfortunately he wasn't healthy enough to do what he does best and the coaches were too stubborn or stupid to adjust.

Well, I implied that, with competent to excellent coaching... * winning 9-11 games yearly, * being in regular contention for conference, and in some years national, championship contention, should go be achievable if we have my points 1-6 listed above. Well okay, excellent list then.

Good list. Pelini's teams usually had 4 or 5 of those covered. So I'm wondering, do your expectations include any actual on field results or are you happy with winning 7-8-9 games per year over inferior competition and getting beat by the better teams and getting blown out once or twice, as long as your list is satisfied? Sorry, had to move this along to satisfy Atbones premonition above.

I think the answer to this is a lot.With respect to illegal aliens, technically, they're all criminal. What I mean is if someone gets a parking violation one day, and then their family is torn apart to satisfy the jingoistic urges that elevate (and keep) men like Trump in power. If we become a country that regards Muslim people as a threat, then I would say we have lost our own (highly progressive and virtuous) foundations of Western civilization. Here's a bit connecting Trump & Nixon on 'law and order' and it sort of goes back to the idea that punishment can create crime, and destroy lives. Nixon's efforts come in the ugly context of disrupting communities of political opposition.But as you point out, it's completely easy for the ugly sides of all of this not to touch most people, and also for us to develop or subscribe to comforting narratives about how it's basically the right thing to do. And that is exactly why I said it's very important to be specific about which people any of this applies to. A jaywalker is not a "criminal" and of course we don't want to tear apart that family. Now if it's a violent criminal, murderer, rapist etc., that person is responsible for tearing their family apart not a sensible law that kicks them out of the country because of it. Same goes for radical terrorist Muslims. Of course we can't become a country that fears Muslims with no other qualifiers. But it is shear naivete to not acknowledge that there is this group of people in the world that want to do us harm. We need to do what we can to prevent that harm just as importantly as we need to not let it turn into persecuting people simply because of their religion. Now, if we trust Trump and this republican congress to implement it the right way, that can be reasonably doubted and questioned. But let's not act like some reasonable measures can't be enacted, they can. We just have to be vigilant that they don't go wrong.

I don't disagree with this. So the question becomes, how many people in this country are willing to trade some of those possible negatives for economic stability? I think this last election cycle answered that question. Not saying it's right in all cases, just the way it is. I think when dealing with this issue it's important to be a little more specific though. If an illegal alien is a criminal, shouldn't they be deported? If a foreign national Muslim wants to enter this country and they have terrorist tendencies or want to advance some anti-western agenda, shouldn't they be disallowed entry? If there is disproportionate crime in inner city areas, shouldn't it be policed hard? I don't think there is much sympathy to be found if these policies are implemented correctly. On the other hand, if they aren't implemented correctly, yeah, it could be a nightmare for honest, legal, well intentioned people of certain ethnicities.

wait he left? That's one way to put it... Or as another poster refers to these things...he got disappeared.

That's the most concerning part to me. There are little to no checks against the Republicans, so it falls to the Republicans themselves to be the check against Trump. That's a recipe for disaster.The way I look at it, with a quasi-repub President and the repubs in control of congress, our government may actually get something accomplished. Now of course, the big question is, will it be good or bad? A lot of signs point towards not too good. But, in a sort of sick way, I think the American people will win anyway. If Trump and the repubs do get some good things pushed through, great. And if they don't and royally screw the pooch, well, it might very well be the end of the repub party, and the way they've been lately, that wouldn't be a bad thing. At the very least, they will have to do a complete makeover and get their priorities straightened out. They're in charge now and it is going to be virtually impossible to blame the dems if things don't get fixed or if they get worse. I believe the people voted for change for a reason and that reason was not that they liked Trump. It was because they were extremely dissatisfied with our government and conditions (primarily economic) in this country. I don't believe the people will be forgiving or partisan if they don't see some improvement in their lives. And now the repubs will be held completely accountable for what transpires. If we have to take a few steps backwards to get our course corrected, that's better IMO than continuing as we were. I guess a good analogy would be, just like Nebraska football when Pelini was ousted. Did we really want to continue winning 9 games but never achieving anything of importance? 9 wins isn't bad, sort of like things in our country aren't terrible, but people expect more than just not bad. Maybe I tried too hard there because I think economically things in this country are probably a lot worse than 9 wins, but hopefully it still makes sense.

It's not so much that I want to give him a chance but more that we really don't have anot her option at this point so I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I don't have high hopes but I also don't think it can be as bad as so many are fearing. Like I've said becore, I could be wrong and quite possibly all the handwringing is not premature. He sure hasn't given any signs that it will be a great 4 years. And for your question, I don't have any faith in our government, Republican or Democrat, anymore. But yes, I think even a repub congress will provide some checks on him. Obviously not to the level dems would but the people have spoken. Now they'll get what they voted for. Probably won't be good in all cases and probably won't be the end of our country either. If he does go completely batsh#t crazy, at least maybe the electorate will learn a little something and hopefully we'll get much candidates in the future. Some people won't believe the flame is hot until they get burned by it.