JJ Husker

Regardless of what ADSE may or may not have said at the time, I think anyone who didn't expect some bumps and transition pains is being unreasonable. Of course no one (or only a very few of the worst naysayers) expected MR's first season to be as rough as it was. Not many are happy with or anticipated a 5-7 regular season or losing how we did so often last year. Rebuild or not, quality players or not, it was to be expected that new coaches, new systems, new offenses, new defenses, etc. was going to entail some learning curve and maybe a few steps back to get re-oriented before taking new strides forward. I want success early and often as much as the next guy but this is why it is important to look at the whole picture and not just the W-L record. Putting a demand for 9 wins or bust on this coming season is not reasonable. I too think 9 wins is a reasonable expectation with our schedule but I am more interested, especially this season, in seeing adjustments and improvement before I start laying out ultimatums for W-L records. I'm not convinced MR is or isn't the guy to get the job done but I sure as hell am going to give him the opportunity to prove it beyond a doubt one way or the other. I wasn't too impressed with what I saw on the field last year but they seem to be saying the right things and recruiting seems to be headed in the right direction so I'll remain hopeful that those strides forward start happening this year.

IDK, I guess I would need it explained to me how the reasonable limits I outlined a few posts above have not already been adopted and agreed upon. If you would like more or less than these stipulations placed on owning a gun, please explain it. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I'm as mindful as anyone when it comes to protecting the constitutional right to bear arms. I believe it is important that the average, law abiding citizen continue to be allowed to obtain and have firearms if they so choose. While hunting, sport and self protection are all very good reasons to have guns, the main reason to prevent "them" from taking our guns away is, to keep our government in check and not let the citizenry get in a position to be too easily tyrannized by our government (God forbid it ever comes to that). BUT (and this is a big but), I see absolutely no harm in screening potential gun owners, preventing felons and mentally unstable people from obtaining them, and instituting reasonable limits on the types of weapons that the average person is allowed to have. Will this prevent all harm or keep mass murders from taking place? No it won't. People kill people, guns don't. But, certain guns are built to inflict maximum casualities in short order and certain people have no business being in control of a firearm. If you want an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine, I don't think it is asking too much to require training and licensing. No law is going to prevent every tragedy from happening but some sensible controls would not be out of line in a civilized society. If you're of sound mind and don't have any felonies or other terrorist or law breaking tendencies, then yes, I think you should be able to own a gun for whatever reason you deem fit. I even think a high magazine capacity weapon that is designed to do little more than kill is okay as long as you pass the check, state that you want it for self protection, and receive training and have to be licensed. This would allow the average, law abiding person to still keep and bear arms. And I am fully aware that criminals and terrorists who are so motivated will still be able to obtain weapons and cause problems. I think everyone realizes that laws don't prevent people from breaking the law. I just see no harm in getting that background check and being subjected to some reasonable limits to weed out some potential problems. The problem I see in this debate is that many are unwilling to concede any reasonable controls and many others are unwilling acknowledge that there are good reasons for responsible citizens to bear arms. Of course any responsible gun control measures come with the slippery slope possibilities of what will "they" take away next. I just fail to see how anyone could be opposed to keeping weapons out of the wrong hands or how some weapons may require a few more questions and/or training or licensing to be able to have them. I think as long as we are vigilant it will never have to get to the point where reasonable gun control or the 2nd amendment right are ever in serious danger.

He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters. If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers. LINK Here is a link to an article about the directive the Obama administration issued to our schools. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms.html?_r=0 If your only concern is about the possibility of one big free for all, common locker room with boys and girls teams changing and showering together, you're being purposefully obstinate about the repercussions of this. I too thought you had more on the ball. So, I guess you support this ruling and have plenty of good reasons why it is necessary. I would be most interested to know how you think hormonal teenage boys will not abuse this open invitation to enter girls bathrooms and locker rooms. Please share.......the reasons and/or whatever it is you may be smoking.

Dog people. People marrying the ocean. Man turns into goat. No flags allowed on fire trucks. Men allowed in women's restorroms. What a country (in my Yakov Smirnoff voice) Yeah, I don't think I want to fit in with the current tide of lunacy.

Band of Brothers is awesome. Make sure to watch The Pacific too. Samething, just war in the Pacific rather than Europe. Started on Dexter a few weeks ago. Really liking it. Funny how they can make you pull for a sociopathic mass murderer. There's a couple characters I really like; Batista and the oriental forensics guy (Vince ??) and there's a few that are annoying like his sister and gf/wife. If you haven't seen it, it's worth a try.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy. : Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs. Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did. You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive. Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me? Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult to read your posts. However, you think that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive. There, I would say you are wrong. Actually I do believe calling someone gay as an insult can be considered offensive. I just don't think that is what happened in the derp thread. That's funny. While you were writing this post, I was editing my post to say that I realize this is your opinion. It seems we will just not see eye-to-eye with this, which is fine. No problem, I'm over it. Beers at 3:00? I'm buying.

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy. : Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs. Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain.I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did. You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive. Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me? Okay, okay. I get your point. You were against the school. I was wrong in how I interpreted your post there. With so much angst and sarcasm, it can be difficult to read your posts. However, you think that calling someone gay as an insult is not offensive. There, I would say you are wrong. Actually I do believe calling someone gay as an insult can be considered offensive. I just don't think that is what happened in the derp thread.

I think for this election cycle, voters should be required to blow at least a .25 on the breathilyzer before being permitted access to the voting booth and that mail in ballots should be disallowed. This would serve 2 purposes; 1) Provide us citizens with the required amount of numbing for what we are about to do 2) it would give us an excuse for the rest of world that we were drunk and not merely stupid and inept. Who's with me?

So, are the school officials saying her shirt was offensive? Or disturbing? It sure doesn't seem to be lewd, vulgar or obscene. Seems like the school doesn't have much of an argument in this controversy. : Well, just look what happened in the derp thread. It would seem those in charge can rule any way they want. I guess that goes for schools too.Wait, JJ. Are you offended when we censor anti-gay speech on the board and when others protest school administrations choice to censor pro-gay speech? I guess you are being consistent with your approval of an anti-gay agenda, but it appears you have no consistency when it comes to free speech, something you complain about always on this board.Also, if you read the full article, school admin did nothing when another student wore a shirt that referred to President Obama as a Muslim Communist. I guess their thoughts about distruptive attire mirror yours about free speech on the board, only when it matches your sense of morality or beliefs. Wow! You sure do read a lot between the lines that doesn't exist. Actually that explains a lot. Let me try to explain it for you before you hurt your brain. I didn't feel there was anything "anti gay" in the derp thread. But you censored it anyway. Now, in this stupid school decision, there also was nothing wrong with the shirt this girl was wearing. It should have been allowed and the school also made the wrong decision, just like you did. You can stick "your anti gay agenda" comments that you directed towards me square up your you know what. And as far as my position on free speech, it doesn't fluctuate one iota based on the subject. My little blurb of a comment that you responded two paragraphs to, had not one thing to do with free speech. That girl had every right in the world to be able to wear that shirt and to protest the schools idiotic decision. And the school apparently had the right to rule that it was disruptive. Now are you able to re-read my post (that you wildly misinterpreted) and understand it now? Or do have some kind of problem with me?

Well, I agree that in diplomatic or international matters it is a bad thing to not carefully measure your words before opening your trap. That issue is the one that concerns me the most about Trump. However, what I meant when I said I liked that about him was that it is refreshing to not get the typical cover your ass politician speak from him. But, like I said, it would be really nice if when he was speaking with no filter, it wasn't offensive, degrading, misguided, childish, or a totally contradictory position statement like it usually seems to be with him. I think the reason I place him 1 notch above Hillary is just because I've been exposed to her crap much longer. But I for sure don't want anyone to think I like Trump or support him. I imagine (hope) others that say the same thing about him mean it also as I have explained it. But who knows, I'm sure there are some who like his quasi racist statements and childish attacks.

Okay, you got me there. That is real. There is absolutely 0% chance I will vote for Clinton or Sanders and still a possible 2% chance I might vote for Trump. But that 2% is coupled with the fact I would have to be sh#t the bed drunk and also able to discern the names on the ballot when I am voting.....wait, with these candidates, that might actually make it a more solid 2% chance The good money is on me writing in FU or Mickey Mouse for President, if I vote at all.

I actually agree with you on the Rice & Powell / Clinton difference. She should be placed under higher scrutiny because she wants to be president, more so than Rice & Powell. However, I think you should apply that same logic to your presidential vote. Donald Trump also wants to be president, and he's got as many skeletons in his closet as Clinton, and has zero experience in the realm of politics. If you're going to hold Clinton to a high degree of "show me" (and you should), you owe it to yourself and to your fellow Americans to do the same with Trump. I find it distasteful to vote for Clinton, probably the single most distasteful vote I've ever had to cast. But it's the responsible vote. Is that really a trait you want in the person in charge of our world diplomacy? It makes me incredibly uneasy. Whoa, whoa, whoa! I'm going to stop both of you right here and now. Where have I said I want Trump in charge of anything? Where have I supported one fricken thing about him? Where have I said I will vote for Trump? (other than the smart ass comment that there was a 2% chance the ornery in me might throw a vote his way for entertainment value) This is why I should have never come into this thread. Damn slow Fridays before a holiday weekend.

Manslaughter can have jail time. It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket. It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape. There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others. Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter. Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving). You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age. You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits. Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime. Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB. The intent doesn't always go to the whether you intended the result. In some crimes, the intent requirement is whether you intended to act in the MANNER that resulted in the harm. For example, take DUI. If someone grabs you, pours liquor down your throat until you are intoxicated, and you then drive - no DUI. So, no, you're wrong - it's not BS and I'm not splitting hairs. You claimed that intent "has very little to do with most crimes". That's simply wrong. Ask any attorney. I addressed your claim - intent is required. That you don't like being wrong does not make it BS. Sorry for the BS comment but it seemed like you were purposefully twisting my words into some legal definition context when that was not my intent (there's that word again). However, I was wrong to say that intent has little to do with most crimes. Because that places "intent" in the legal context and yes, then it does matter. But I will still stand by my example that many people convicted of crimes had no real conscious intent of committing them even if they were found to have the legal definition of intent. They may have intended to drink and then drive and a consequence of their actions was harming someone. I think we both can agree that their lack of real (not legal) intent to harm others does them little good in court. That is the point I was trying to make.

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is. Her public persona is definitely cold and distant (allegedly, she is quite open and warm with small numbers of people, but I can hardly say I know that personally). Simply put, she grates on people. No doubt about it. To many, Trump does the same. I agree, I dislike Trump for a whole list of other reasons but mostly because he is a flip-flopping pompous ass. I like that he seems to say whatever is on his mind without benefit of any filter. I just wish when he did that though that it wasn't some totally asinine comment.

Manslaughter can have jail time. It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket. It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape. There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others. Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter. Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving). You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age. You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits. Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime. Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB.

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is.

Manslaughter can have jail time. It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket. It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape. There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others. Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter.

Good, I hope that is the case. It doesn't sway my opinion of her in the least but it would be reassuring to know our former SoS and likely next President had enough common sense to not risk the security of "top secret" material. We might have to disagree about the appropriateness of her sending 22 unsecured emails containing information that later rose to the level of being classified top secret. I guess that would get her off the hook for criminal behavior but it does little to bolster perception of her judgment.

In that position.....as Secretary of State....yeah, it should be a prison worthy crime. Security and confidentiality of that level of information requires following protocol and not circumventing it. I'm not claiming she was any worse than the others, hell I don't know a lot of the particulars but, damn our SoS can't operate that way without ramifications. Rice and Powell, if they also engaged in this behavior, should've been dragged over the coals too. You can understand this, can't you? I mean it's not like some average person screwing up at their job. That IS their job. I fully understand dragging them over the coals and giving them all criticism that is deserved of basically sucking at their job of doing what is necessary to keep this information private. However, still, I don't see how it's a prison worthy offense unless it is proven she did it with the intent of letting the information out. Intent is not the only thing that would make something like that criminal behavior. In fact, intent has very little to do with most crimes. Hell, in that position, even if it was purely accidental, it still could rise to the level of prison time IMO. Personally I don't know what did or didn't happen as regards this but, if it is anywhere near as bad as some (no matter their motives) make it out to be, even if it was just plain laziness or stupidity, it still might be deserving of prison. But I'm going to back off of it now because it has very little to do with why I won't vote for her. And I understand Knapp's point of some people raising hell about it unfairly. I don't know enough about the specifics to keep hammering on it. I'll let others handle that until hopefully the full truth finally comes out.

What classified information did she email from the private email account? Don't know, don't care. I'm not running around making a big stink about it either way. But, it is important and based on the little snippets of information I've gathered on the subject, I think it should be investigated and made extremely clear if she did or didn't, because she is running for President and it is extremely relevant information at this time. Rice and Powell should've been investigated with a microscope up their butt too if they engaged in the same activity. I care less about them at this time because they are not seeking the most powerful office in the world. I don't think that makes me a hypocrite, just a realist who doesn't personally care enough to waste my time finding out more about it. If there was any chance at all I would vote for her, I'd do the research and learn more about it. But there is no chance so I'm content letting others demonize her.

We should support fair scrutiny. The email "scandal" and the millions of dollars wasted on BENGHAZI!!! are not fair scrutiny. They are witch hunts. I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not like Hillary Clinton. I do not want her to be president. I thought she was part of a crooked team when Bill was in office, I thought she was a carpet-bagging hack when she "moved" to New York and won a senate seat, and I do not think she would make a great president. If you're operating under the assumption that I'm supporting Hillary because I want her to be president, you can stop. That couldn't be further from the truth. The awful thing is, she's the best available candidate. That's the bald truth, and the only reason I'll vote for her - because the alternatives are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, and neither are viable candidates. Okay, good. You had me a little worried there for a minute. I guess now we'll just have to disagree about Hillary being the best or a viable candidate. If somebody had a gun to my head forcing me to vote, I don't know what I'd do at this point. There is a 100% chance I will not vote for Clinton or Sanders. I just won't do it. And about a 98% chance I won't vote for Trump either. And that 2% is just the ornery in me wondering how entertaining those 4 years might be. I'll likely write in FU for President and see if that gets elected.

I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I don't care if people drive a mile over the speed limit but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong and/or illegal. Is it a big deal? Maybe not at all...was it wrong/illegal? Maybe. But dismissing it because someone else didn't get in trouble is just as bad or worse as it becoming a witch hunt because of the the person is. I don't think knapplc is trying to dismiss it, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe his point was that it's being blown up to epic proportions because Clinton is a presidential candidate and the other two were not, yet people don't want to acknowledge or don't care about it having happened to other political figures. It makes sense, again, because Clinton is a presidential figure. But, that makes it no less hypocritical. I still don't understand why it gets more attention than setting up a sham University to scam college students out of money. I don't quite get why one gets more attention than the other either but they also are not even remotely the same thing. One is just plain criminal low-down behavior but the other involves national security issues. I would hope we expect and demand near perfection in that area when it comes to our SoS and transmission of possibly highly confidential information.

In that position.....as Secretary of State....yeah, it should be a prison worthy crime. Security and confidentiality of that level of information requires following protocol and not circumventing it. I'm not claiming she was any worse than the others, hell I don't know a lot of the particulars but, damn our SoS can't operate that way without ramifications. Rice and Powell, if they also engaged in this behavior, should've been dragged over the coals too. You can understand this, can't you? I mean it's not like some average person screwing up at their job. That IS their job.