JJ Husker

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.

Yeah, this whole deal has gotten weird. Two of the guys got pulled off their departure flight to be questioned by police and they're now trying to locate Feigan. I sure hope they weren't making up the robbery, and personally I don't think they did for a few reasons. 1- Street crime like this is not abnormal in Rio. 2- Rio officials have made it pretty clear they will defend against virtually anything that places them in a bad light. 3- I've been to South America (Venezuela) and they tend to be corrupt and do not act at all like we are used to here. I was actually detained by Venezuelan customs officials as I was leaving the country....the thing that got me back in their good graces and finally on my flight was putting a $20 bill in my passport on about the fourth time they asked to check it. I was advised to do this by some other American businessmen but doubted them until it became obvious that they were delaying our flight and detaining us for no good reason the than they wanted their payday. Corruption is the norm down there.

That's "on a popsicle stick" ;-) ....and I agree. It seems everyone is getting a little testy in anticipation of the season starting. Denzel's line from Remember the Titans comes to mind. "If we don't come together, right here, right now..."

There's a lot of truth and cobbled together misinformation going on here. Every effort to reasonably point out that Osborne made mistakes has been rebutted, in this very thread. Reasonable assertions that Osborne is human, even. It's a leap to claim that those people think Osborne is "an infallible angel," but there's good evidence of it. Osborne and Devaney were not angels, and Osborne did act improperly with the gun incident (the public one). To claim Osborne played Phillips "just to win" is supported by as much available information as it would take to believe that Osborne solely had benign intentions. It takes no more "hidden agenda" to believe either story. Personally, I think Osborne wanted to win, and wanted to help Phillips. The world is hardly ever black and white. It is not disgusting to think Osborne played Phillips out of a desire to win a national championship. It is, perhaps, disgusting to have minimized the brutality of what Phillips did to Kate McEwen, and to obfuscate the situation, and to have played Phillips at all. Those are all very possibly disgusting actions on the part of Osborne - and he could have had a hidden agenda. Again, it's likely not the case, and Dr. Tom was doing what he thought was best. But again, he's not a perfect man. It is not a big leap to think a college coach whose job has routinely been threatened would play an unsavory but talented player. It's the kind of thing that Nebraska Fan has no problem thinking of someone like, say, Art Briles. It's "disgusting" to think that of Osborne for Husker Fans, but they're alone in that. I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about, when I bother to talk around here. I'm not forcing any agenda, I don't dislike Osborne (see my avatar), and I don't want to besmirch this program, Osborne or the fans. But there are realities to face, and while it may be uncomfortable for some to face those, labeling people who are willing as "disgusting" isn't really productive. I will continue to share my thoughts. You're welcome to consider them foolish. So it goes. Knapp, you at least admit that he did it to help Phillips, among other reasons. I also acknowledge he wanted to win and that factored into playing LP. But, when a person says he only I did what he did to win, that is when I start to have a problem with it. Yes, that has been proven wrong in hindsight, and it is debatable that it may have been wrong at the time, and yes he is not perfect. But until the day I die I will believe that his primary concern, even more important than winning (aka the book "More than Winning") was to help LP. I do not believe he would have played him without that reasoning or for the sole purpose of winning at all costs. To me that motivation makes all the difference in the world in considering if he acted with integrity in that situation. I think one of the components people forget to consider is that TO laid out an action plan for LP to follow. Part of that plan was the reward of earning back playing time if he followed through and didn't screw up any more. By all accounts LP met the requirements, was a stellar team mate, and did what was stipulated. TO may have screwed the pooch by making that offer or by trying to help him at all but can we blame him for keeping his word with LP and subsequently playing him? Look, I've got no dog in the fight on his actions or legacy either way. I just hate to see people, notably Husker fans, skew it into some extreme, knowingly distasteful action all predicated on winning at all costs. I just don't see it that way and I don't think you do either. If you really felt that way, I doubt you would use his avatar. I just cannot read all that Tom has written on the situation and come away thinking that he did it just to win. That is what some people claim and I think they are dead wrong about it. Anyway /rant. Been through this one way too many times.

It's a false equivalency to say that people who think Osborne was a man of integrity in the LP situation also think that he, or other "founding fathers" of the football program were some type of infallible angels. I don't think Osborne, and especially not Devaney, were angels. I also think TO acted highly improperly in the gun hiding incident. But to claim TO played LP just to win ignores all sorts of available information and would indicate some type of hidden agenda. Personally I find it rather disgusting. I hope it is because those persons just don't know any better or just can't get beyond the wrong thing(s) LP has done. Most of it seems to be centered on the harm done to Kate and the idea that abusing women should not be tolerated. I can respect that. But then making the logic leap that TO had no integrity for trying to help LP and only did it to win. That's some serious bullsh#t right there. If you feel that way, you just plain don't know what you're talking about or are unwilling to acknowledge all of the available information. But please feel free to continue sharing your foolish thoughts. I don't expect it to change with some of you but I'll never understand why.

Boy, I sure am glad this thread devolved into this topic......again. Seems there are always a few (usually the same few) in the Osborne screwed up royal camp on this one. Of course, given hindsight that is an easy position to take. I can understand it from younger people who just plain don't understand the prevalent atmosphere around college football in that time period or from those who have never read Osborne's own comments and thoughts on the matter. What disturbs me most is when older people who lived through it and were well cognizant of the events jump on that train of thought. A few facts to consider; Osborne has since acknowledged that, knowing what he knows now, he would've/should've handled it differently. There were all kinds of unsavory characters and occurrences in college football in that time frame. Zero tolerance and no 2nd chances were not the norm. Only with time passing since does it look bad. At the time nobody felt it was very out of place (except for the typical CU Buff fan) for TO to handle it the way he did. He didn't play LP just to help win games, but of course he wanted to win and to play the best RB he could. It's too easy to say that it was just to win and discounts the numerous accounts of TO stating that LP needed the structure of the team for his own good. He feared that only being on the team and only practicing would not accomplish what LP needed to keep his demons at bay so he gave him some guidelines to meet to be allowed to play. LP met those guidelines. In fact, by all accounts from team mates, he was about the best team mate a guy could hope for. Unfortunately, LP's later actions reinforced the idea that he didn't deserve a 2nd chance. It is pretty obvious now that nothing was going to save LP from his upbringing. I am proud and grateful that TO at least tried to help the kid. TO didn't simply forget about LP when his playing days were over. He remained in contact and was genuinely concerned about his well being. That fact does not lend any credence to the notion that TO just wanted to win games. It means he really cared about the kid as a person. Of course the easy path would've been to throw him to the curb and TO knew that at the time but still he tried to help save the kid. If it would've worked, he would be considered a genius. But since it didn't a few detractors choose to defame TO's character because of it. The Nebraska fans that join in this crowd of detractors make me sad. A person's actions can later be found to be wrong without them necessarily be wrong or lacking integrity at the time they made the decision. Why some people can't understand this, I'll never get.

Joe Ciprianno says high from under that table. I went to one of the NU basketball camps in the mid to late 70's. Cip showed up about day 2 or 3 (the first and only time he actually showed up) of the camp he was in charge of and was drunker than a skunk, slurring his words, walking crooked, basically chewed out all the campers and left. We were impressed because he had his shirt unbuttoned to his naval and was wearing big flashy gold chains.

Absolutely. +1000 if I could

He got his brand out to the public? Everyone already knew about it. We were saturated with it. What he got out to the public were his bigoted views. Yeah, how can the "message" he has been getting out benefit him in any way, shape or form? No way in hell I would knowingly patronize any business of his after this fiasco. His followers don't strike me as the type to be living the life and staying in high end accomodations anyway. I am/was republican and given the choice of staying at one of his properties for free or paying the going rate at a Hampton Inn, I would pay for the lesser room. That wouldn't have been the case before I got to know more about him.

??? Bizarre 6 year bump by a first time poster IMO. This has to be soliciting, doesn't it?

I've got an honest question about Trump and this seemed like the place for it. I've seen lots of people claim that Trump is a marketing genius, that he made this presidential run to boost his brand and that he can't lose either way. How in the hell can what he is doing boost his brand? Seems to me that any thinking person would reject everything about this blowhard, including anything his name is associated with. I understand that in our sick world, lots of times, any media exposure is good and even bad publicity can have a beneficial effect but damn. I used to not have much of an opinion about the man but did think his brand had value. After listening to this guy and seeing what he stands for, I would never consider having anything to do with anything his name is associated with. This has to be having an extremely negative effect on his "brand", doesn't it? How can any of this be helping him in the slightest? The people he seems to be attracting don't strike me as the type of people to live lavishly and travel, staying in high end accomodations. I really don't get it. This has to absolutely be hammering his brand, and I mean in a devastating way. Anybody have a take on how this can be seen any other way?

Oh zoogs..... I think you'll get part of your wish and the GOP will get soundly rejected in the Presidential race, as they should for running a know nothing blowhard. There shouldn't be much concern about that happening. As far as rejecting them "all the way down the ballot", well, I hope for all our sakes that doesn't happen. The last thing we need is a runaway progressive agenda with Hillary in charge. Hopefully some of the whacky hardcore right will lose along with some of the whacky hardcore left and the whole deal moves more to the center. But we don't need the liberal lefties running roughshod. And I don't know about protecting progressive gains in the ACA. I guess it depends on what you consider progressive. I wouldn't call still wildly out of control healthcare costs and premium increases any kind of good progress. That sucker needs lots of work before it starts benefitting anyone. Unfortunately, I have no idea who is going to precipitate the change that is needed with it. We don't need it thrown out but it sure does need some major tweaking. I can live with protecting climate initiatives and addressing income equality, problem is the dems don't have all the best answers either. Little steps, not giant leaps.

I selected The Economy, Supreme Court appointments, & candidate integrity. The economy is always priority #1 in my book. And Supreme Court appointments are really more important than who lives in the WH for 4 years. Generally I would not like to see the SC become more liberal. Although I am not necessarily for it becoming more conservative either. Although I am personally opposed to abortion and would like to see the numbers reduced in that area, I don't believe it is our government's job to tell people that they can't have a safe abortion so overturning Roe v Wade is not on my priority list. I would also like to see a little something accomplished with gun violence but am also very leery of infringing gun owners rights. Would rather they adopted some common sense licensing/qualification procedures to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them to start with rather than getting carried away with 2nd amendment revision. I'm fairly libertarian when it comes to the social issues and would prefer the court simply upheld the laws without becoming too activist or re-interpreting intent. But the issue that is probably influencing my vote the most this time around is candidate integrity. I could give 2 squirts about personality but integrity is important and neither of the top 2 candidates have any. Won't be voting for either of them. I still don't know much about Johnson and where he falls on the issues. It's been a mixed bag on what I do know but at least he passes the human being test and that might be all it takes in 2016. If I find out I don't like his economic plans, I don't know what I'll do....probably still vote for him and assume Washington will remain in dysfunctional gridlock.

I agree with that take. Unfortunately I do live in a state where my vote could matter. My guess is Colorado will go blue this time but it certainly isn't set in stone like Nebraska going red. I'm not sure what is worse, knowing that I actually could help cause Trump or Clinton to win or lose in CO but still planning to vote for Johnson or if I was truly helpless, hating Trump, living in Nebraska and knowing I had no influence at all. It's just sad that so many Americans find themselves in one of these predicaments. Yeah, I would say the two party system is not working well right now. BTW, out of curiosity, what state do live in dudeguyy?

As far as the question about the real desire for proliferation of a multi party system or if some of us are just disillusioned with the candidates this time around. It's both for me and I haven't really been vocal about it but now that you ask.... Yes, the candidates are just awful this time but also I have not been happy with what used to be the republican party and the recent list of losers they have trotted out and the direction they have chosen to turn. I also haven't liked the democrats politics or candidates and generally can't support most of their platform or positions. So yes, I would like to see a party rise that represents the issues I want to see advanced and one that doesn't run criminals, liars, cheats or idiots. It's really just born out of necessity and not some ideal for the greater good. If that's bandwagoning, I'll jump on.

I've also seen a handful of polls suggesting Clinton voters are far more enthusiastic than Trump voters, which is somewhat counter-intuitive to the common sense narrative. I would agree that Trump is worse so don't expect any argument from me that he isn't worse. I can also see the argument that at least Hillary has some experience and probably has more business in that position. But, it is pretty hard to argue that she is worthy of the office or fit to be POTUS. I wouldn't waste my effort getting blue in the face to help either one of these idiots. Neither one is worth it IMO. It really isn't a false equivalency....it's just acknowledging the fact that both are extremely poor candidates. Just because one happens to be worse than the other, doesn't make that other one a good choice. I realize my Johnson vote (or whichever other candidate it ends up being) will pretty much be wasted. I'll just take comfort in the fact that I didn't help elect either one of these worthless human beings. (assuming ole orange mop top is even human....)

I might be wrong but I think in most cases a lot of these people really do like and support Trump or Hillary and are embarrassed to admit it. So they just excuse their support by further demonizing the other candidate. That way they don't have to take responsibility in either situation for voting for someone who really has no place as POTUS. What's easier, admitting you have latent racism or saying Hillary is worse. Or admitting the person you support is a known liar and has made a career out of stepping on people and using power to avoid the law or saying Trump is worse? I think in the end, people will vote for exactly what they want. It's sad that anyone would vote for either one of them. Pretending the other one is worse is just an excuse to not take responsibility for what they are voting for.

Come on? Sure he's turned into a pretty big jerk but this radio deal.....? Like the mayor is picking out the radio hardware, and we're now supposed to have hindsight on them? This is extremely childish and counterproductive. If people want to have at Rudy for the stupid things he's been saying or for supporting Trump, then have at him, but radios......grasping for any hate.