JJ Husker

Who here is identified as a Hillary supporter other than zoogs? I consider actions as well as words. I don't like to name people and make it personal but, you seem to fall in that amp even though, every once in awhile, you "say" you don't support Hillary.

The only purpose for this thread is to provide a place for opposing supporters to argue with each other. 50 pages in and nobody is going to budge one inch. It doesn't matter to most of the people posting in here how bad their candidate is. They ignore their flaws and constantly go after the other side. It has gotten.....predictable, and thus, very boring. There are a couple threads that have just been started that the left supporters are ignoring because, although it should provide definitive proof of why no one should support Hillary (that has already been made glaringly obvious for Trump), yet her supporters plug their ears, audibly make the la la la la sounds, and come in here to complain yet more about Trump. Soros is ignored......until say the Koch brothers do something, then it is a problem. The level of brainwashing makes me sad. I am so glad I can in no way support either one of them. The contortions a person has to jump through to support either of them is mind-boggling. Why do it?

Any word on the cause? Years ago had maybe sort of the same thing happen in Greeley. If I remember correctly, guy was trying to commit suicide by gas asphyxiation but the gas filled the house and then something caused it to ignite. People heard the explosion from miles away. Took out his house just like this one and caused extensive damage to the whole block. I'm pretty sure the reports were that it blew him across the street into a tree....if I remember correctly, it didn't kill him. Pointer- Carbon monoxide gas asphyxiation probably much safer (for other people anyway) than attempting it with natural gas.

Cool stuff, very different. Not sure I've seen artwork like that before...Maybe along the line of the Queen News of the World album cover.

KSU +15 vs Stanford Wisconsin +10 vs LSU Nebraska -28 vs Fresno St. Locked down.

Happy Bday Tony. Hope it was a good one.

I'm not necessarily refuting that, but in a similar way to your response to the DOJ investigations, I can't help but shake some real skepticism over how much of a temptation expediency could be to people sitting in these rooms making the decisions. From the Last Week Tonight bit, a quote from a former advisor for the Defense Department: "Right now we have the executive branch making a claim that it has the right to kill anyone on earth at any time for secret reasons based on secret evidence in a secret process undertaken by unidentified officials." Some transparency would go a long, long ways towards silencing the criticism or the uneasiness towards the drone program, if there isn't really much of anything to hide, imo. I don't disagree with that but they will never be able to win in that arena. If they share too much, it will hamper our efforts and they will be second guessed until the cows come home. If they reveal the specifics of even one innocent casualty they will be mercilessly criticised. I may be a little too nonchalant or naive about it but I am content with trying to elect people who I feel will do the right thing and then let them do it. We can go goofy when it becomes apparent that they're not operating the way we desire. It won't work on any level if we're not willing to let them do these types of things without knowing every detail. There has to be a basic level of trust. If there isn't, I would argue that we have even more dire problems. *looks in mirror and asks if he really trusts our leaders-doesn't have a good answer*

I don't think anyone thinks it's okay. The unavoidable reality part of it is really the key element. The procedures are in place to help limit them not to make it "okay". Big difference.

I haven't seen either of those movies but I will try to give them a watch. Did you read zoogs article linked in the OP? It does a good job of addressing your concerns from a very neutral position. I think our people are considering those very things and making the best choices possible. I'm sure that imminent threat line gets moved back and forth as necessarY and that preventing collateral damage and loss of innocent life is foremost in their minds. You would have to be some kind of monster to not consider it and I don't think our people generally act like monsters. They're tough decisions for sure and I'm glad I don't have to make them. We may second guess some of what they do but I just don't see how it can be done with anymore care than we put into it. Innocent people die in war, it's just a terrible reality.

I can appreciate that killing innocents is wrong but the problem is, in war, it is unavoidable. There is absolutely no way to win at war without innocent lives being lost. Once you accept that reality, then you just have to decide if you do indeed want to win or not. It really is no more difficult than making that simple decision. Anyone who struggles with it and wonders who the terrorists really are, just hasn't accepted the reality of the situation or they think that losing is a viable option. As they say, war is hell. I think the US has generally been extremely good about using measured force, and limiting the loss of innocent life. It may not seem fair that we have better technology than they do but that fact should really put the ball in their court to cease hostilities. They make up for that lack of technology by being more than willing to die themselves and by not considering how many innocent lives they take. We bend over backwards trying to limit casualties. There really is not much more we can do as long as there are people intent on killing us in the fashion these terrorists desire. If you disagree and think there is another option I'm all ears but please keep it in the realm of reality. I wish we never had to kill another human being ever, innocent or otherwise, but what alternative is there? If you can sufficiently answer that question, there is probably a Nobel Peace prize in your future.

Good post. I mostly agree with this. (That seems a little strange for us...) I don't have a problem with Obama's use of drones. It's probably par for the course that it is probably the thing I least have a problem with him on while it does seem to be one of his strongest criticisms from his further left supporters. And I'm not sure why. There are people in this world that want to kill us for simply being Americans or Christians or non-Muslims or non-thems (aka the infidels). There is no reasoning or bargaining or diplomacy to be had with those types of people. The only solution is to kill or be killed. Given that choice, it really doesn't even take a moral compass to decide which direction to go. But to do it right does require moral consideration in how to harm the fewest possible number of non-combatants. I think drones, while an impersonal killing device, are very good at reducing collateral damage. It prevents us from placing our own innocent people in harms way and the technology is such that it helps limit the deaths of innocent people where we use them. Sure it's terrible when any innocent person loses their life but when used correctly and with moral consideration, I would venture a guess that casualties from its use are much reduced compared to conventional boots on the ground operations. You do raise a very good point about drone use likely making recruitment to the ranks of those who hate us easier though. I'm sure everytime we accidently kill an innocent, dozens more join the cause against us. That problem is likely worse with drone use than more conventional means. But nobody ever said war was sunshine and roses. It's a terrible thing no matter how it us conducted. I would argue that once you decide to cross that line, to kill others to prevent them from killing you, that quicker, easier and more efficient is probably the best solution. Drones fit at least 2 of those catagories rather well.

I will agree that the scope is different but the moral basis of the decision making in either scenario is basically the same. In both situations the US President was using the best available intelligence, along with unavoidable preconceived notions of the potential threat to the US and our interests, and then making the decision to act or not. IMO it really matters little, once the decision has been made to kill our enemies, whether we do it a little bit at a time or on a wider scale. I suppose taking that to the extreme, such as using nukes, would require a higher standard and more serious consideration so, in that light, yes scope does matter. But in the moral arena, considering the actions of one man, such as Bush or Obama, I can't find more or less fault with one than the other.

Interesting article. I'm not sure where I fall on the issue. I guess I hope that our people making these decisions review the circumstances thoroughly and do indeed make moral decisions. But I understand why they cannot/shouldn't make all individual strike data available. This whole drone and preemptive strike subject is really no different than when the Bush administration thought Hussein had WMD's. We knew he had used them on his own citizens and every indicator pointed to him having them and being more than willing to use them. Much like some terrorist Obama may choose target with a drone strike. I want to make it clear that I don't have any problem with Obama killing terrorists or potential terrorists in this manner. But I have seen those who berate Bush and call him immoral for the Iraq events but heap nothing but praise on Obama for his drone program. IMO, it is the exact same thing. Obama can't prove after the fact that the person(s) killed would've actually completed their terror mission. Just like Bush couldn't produce those WMD's. I trust both men to operate based on the best intelligence they have at the time. Anyone who ridicules one but gives the other a pass is not applying the same standard and therefore must be using criteria based on varying factors. Edit to add- And this is exactly why character in our President matters. Does anyone think for a second that Hillary or Trump should be in charge of the moral decision making process needed for something like this? Does anyone think for a second that Hillary would not lie to cover her ass on an issue like this? This is why neither one of them are worthy of the office. It's not simply a matter of one being better than the other. They both fail to meet the minimum requirement.

Note, he said "better" not "other". Words matter.

Considering I made my original list over 2 years ago, I figured it would've changed by now. It really hasn't changed hardly at all. I do think now, especially since Clutch put out their Psychic Warfare album, I would have to substitute Clutch for Rush (no for Zeppelin no for Rush.....) This ain't easy. Okay, I have a cheater's solution. I'll take half of Rush's catalog and half of Clutch's and call it good. Still don't think I'll change my songs or genre. 5-5-1 is extremely limiting but that's what makes it interesting. If you didn't have to cut out stuff you liked, it would be easy.

Bump. Thought this might be worth revisiting. Got some pretty good song/artist recommendations in here.

GSG's puppy is probably going to piss in his house numerous more times.....but he's so darned cute.

I think I just cycle back and forth through all of them. I've pretty much accepted that we're screwed no matter what but also that the President really doesn't have to have a huge effect, especially if the house and/or senate remain uncooperative. But that still doesn't keep those first 4 stages from coming back on a regular basis. I mean look at them and look at these candidates. How can anyone believe this is what we have to choose from and then not simultaneously deny it, and get depressed and angry about it?

Well, in their defense (which is probably ill advised at this point), the difference between cops and robbers in South America can be extremely negligible. I was basically held hostage and robbed by Venezuelan customs officials. I'm sure had my story received any attention they would have charged me, arrested me and claimed something else was going on. And I didn't even get drunk and destroy a bathroom...well, I did get drunk but that's another....oh, nevermind.

You need to stay away from those liberal echochambers.... Seriously though, speaking as someone from the right (can't rep the repubs tho-I don't know what the hell they're up to anymore) and who understands way more than I should about healthcare and insurance, the concern with a public option or one-payer system is quality and availability of care. I've chastised the ACA since it's inception that it didn't sufficiently address runaway healthcare costs and skyrocketing insurance premiums. Those are the most critical issues. And yes, any lower cost options would help create competition thereby mitigating these increases but, it doesn't take much to realize what would happen to healthcare in government run or one-payer system. A peak inside the VA would indicate what that might look like. And as zoogs alluded to, many republicans and libertarian minded people complain about the mandatory coverage provision. IMO, that is just people taking another angle against the ACA and not considering what is required to make healthcare work. I understand the general resistance of people not wanting to be forced to do anything by the government, like absolutely having coverage. But an ounce of common sense tells us that it won't work unless everybody has coverage. The only way around it would be to refuse healthcare service to those without coverage but our society will not allow that. If some people don't have coverage and still receive care, the cost of which gets passed on to everyone else, well then we're right back in the same boat we were- costs rapidly increasing being passed on to those with insurance. This drives up care costs and premium costs. I am vehemently opposed to government imposed socialist plan type things but when it comes to healthcare, I really don't see any option other than the government getting very heavy handed. I've got lots of ideas of how to get where we want to be but all of them come with the downside of either reduced quality and availability of care or still increasing costs. We've already seen numerous insurers pulling out of state exchange plans because they are losing their ass due to the regulations and having to cover all these new sickies and people who prior couldn't get coverage. These aren't fly by night companies pulling out. Some of them are big name insurers who have been around a long time. I believe some states are already down to only 1 or 2 insurers providing plans in the exchange. What happens when it goes to zero insurers? It is just an absolute sh#t sandwich and I'm not sure there is a good solution. One payer is probably the only way anyone will be able to afford care but I dread what that care may look like if we go there.

Yeah, it sorta was.... There were literally only 2 or 3 posts on the Nebraska Way until it devolved into this turd. I apologize to everyone for my involvement in this. Not only should it be locked, it should be nuked from existence. Nobody will miss it, at all.

Actually, just lock this bitch. It was valueless from the git go anywho. The Nebraska Way.....

Geebus F'n krist....Lighten up everybody. What a shitshow. The way some people take a comment and run with it like it's the end of the world..... What goes on inside some of your heads that turns "she got a bigger payday" into you're a woman beating POS. Just chill out with that revisionist hyperbolic bullsh#t or, better yet, take a break for a few days. Your rational logic thingamajig ain't working properly. Somebody (not naming names) is putting in overtime inflaming this subject yet again. If you feel that strongly that you can't have a semi-civil discussion about it, bail out and leave it alone.