JJ Husker

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 guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that. Well written JJ - I agree with everything you said. What gets stuck in my craw however, are the lies that are being spewed and then believed by the simple minded folks who are unable or who choose not to think for themselves; weigh the lessor of two evils, sort through the truth from the made up stuff, research a candidate's overall history and make an educated decision. Anybody who depends on Trump to educate them about Hilary or vice versa (or their respective news stations) and votes based on the rhetoric they hear from their candidate is a fool. And we seem to have a boatload of them right now. Shame on us, the US should be better than that - think what image of normal this sets for younger people who as far as they know, this is the sort of candidate and the sort of campaigns that the US has. Scrutiny - yes, it's expected and I think anyone who puts their name in the hat to run anticipates having to deal with it. But some of what's going on this year is just too much. The name calling, the immature twitter comments, the flippant disregard for other humans, the absolute made up on the spot lies. Why would any young person today live through this and say, "yeah, President is a job I want to strive for someday" or what middle aged person says, "yeah, I think my skeletons are not real bad, and I've got a tough skin, don't care about my family getting taken down, maybe I'll run in 4 years". It's no wonder we have who we have to choose from today - who would want to go through all this and to get THAT job. It's no longer a respected position, at least by Americans - it's not a job that anybody can honestly look at and say, "I think I can get things done". It's a sad, sad time for America. I agree totally. And, as you pointed out, the current and recent past is making it less and less likely for decent qualified people to seek the office. Not that I am even remotely qualified but I sure wouldn't want the job knowing what I'd have to go through to get it. A sad time indeed, with no silver lining in view. And Moiraine- I've just never and likely will never be a fan of Obama's. I will admit that his spell as POTUS has not been as bad as I anticipated but I also hold him accountable for much of the divisiveness, especially racial tensions, in this country. I had originally some hope that he would be a unifying force......I've given up on that hope long ago. And no, I am under no delusion that he has been the biggest problem in this area. I realize the obstruction he has received from congress and the blatant racism exhibited by too many in this country have been a larger problem. I had hoped that he would've been the bigger man on these issues but he wasn't. Also I can't really get beyond his arrogance and narcissism. Just a couple pet peeves of mine I guess. I can see how some people sort of like him. I'm just not one of them.

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 guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that.

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.

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.

This thread just got a lot more appetizing.

Is competent really the word you were looking for regarding Obama? Well, maybe competent wasn't the exact right word. Possibly could have used "better" or "capable" or any number of descriptors. I just believe we can and should expect more from the POTUS. But yeah, compared to this cycle, he may look like the best thing since sliced bread.

We agree that the congress, particularly obstructionist republicans have been THE problem with tackling any real issues. But, are you claiming that Obama is totally blameless and has had absolutely no hand in lack of cooperation or partisan gamesmanship? Because that would be a little "out there" IMO. I'm not saying there is probably much he could've done with this congress but there sure were times where it seemed he purposely antagonized the situation and was unwilling to work across the aisle towards any kind of compromise. I mean it did happen on more than one occasion....

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I don't want us to look back at the Obama presidency as "the good years." I hope much better years are ahead.What I was saying was, Obama's detractors unfairly paint a portrait of an incompetent president, which he most certainly has not been. This narrative has been pushed since before he took office and has remained in place, and is now believed (because the lie has been repeated enough) by too many people.The fact is that Obama is a more-than-competent person to be president. Because of party politics and latent racism, he's been hamstrung during his time in office. He's had a congress that has opposed his every move out of sheer self-serving spite, and then lied about or misconstrued their goals. Their adherents, and those who listen to their mouthpiece Fox News, believe their reasons and think they're just. They are not just, and history will show us how poorly represented we've been during these past eight years by our Republican leaders. I don't look forward to the day when misguided Americans come to that realization - it'll be a sad day, a "what might have been" day.This election cycle most certainly doesn't have us headed in the right direction. Too many uninformed voters are casting ballots for the worst set of presidential candidates we've had in my lifetime. Too many people with nice houses, two cars, food on the table and jobs are angry about all the things life is taking from them, never realizing that the people taking from them are the very people they keep voting for, that their anger is comically misplaced at "the immigrants." America has become stupid, and we need look no further than the adoring crowds currently hoping to elect a game show host as President of the United States.And yet, those are the very people who are most angry with, and most vocal about their disdain for, a decent president (Obama).Even if Trump isn't elected this cycle, we've set the precedent for buffoonery in elections. I'm as worried about who comes after Trump, in his footsteps, as I am about a Trump presidency. There's a market for demagoguery in America, Trump is showing that very clearly. When you elect demagogues, you get dictators. History is rife with examples of that.That's why I think we'll be looking back fondly on the past eight years. Not hoping so, but fearful that this will be.Believe it or not, I pretty much understood your position on all this before you explained it further. I know you want things to be better. And you're right, the Republican congress has been a bigger problem than the Dem in the WH, regardless what some believe. I probably place a bit more blame on Obama than you do for the inability of anything meaningful being accomplished but we're really probably not very far apart. Obama may be competent enough but I just would hope that we can identify and elect better people for the Presidency and all executive and legislative positions than we have had recently and that are currently propspects. We can and should do better than Obama and we sure as hell have to do better than those being considered this cycle. If not, the Obama years may sadly be the best we realize for a long time. sh#t has to change.

What would he have done "worse" with a cooperative congress?Also, what has happened that could have been done better if congress had been willing to work with Obama?Finally, of those two scenarios, which would have benefited America more - Obama working with a congress that did his bidding, or an oppositional congress willing to compromise? I'm not sure which scenario would've benefitted America more. The way it has been was pretty blah.....not much good and not much bad. I imagine with a cooperative congress doing his bidding, there would've been more good and more bad. Not sure where that would've left us at the end of the day. I guess it would depend on which good things and which bad. I'm not really in the mood to speculate the specific what ifs. You commented earlier that you long for day when we look back and realize how good it actually was under Obama. I actually look forward to the time things are much better, when we have a more competent President and congress, and we realize that things could've been much better. Sure, it hasn't been as bad as many partisans have been playing it but, really it hasn't been anything to write home about either. I think we both want things to get better. Unfortunately this election cycle sure doesn't seem to have us headed in the right direction. You'll probably get your wish of thinking the Obama years were grand compared to the likely next 4 or 8.

Someday, probably in my lifetime, people are going to realize Obama was a pretty decent president. Not great, sometimes not good, but overall a good president.They're going to realize that, while some people did vote for him because he's Black, more people voted against him because he was Black - meaning he wasn't elected "because he was Black." He was elected because he was the best choice available.Twice.I'm ready for that day when we realize how good we had it under Obama, and for the day we finally start to wonder how much better it could have been had Congress not knee-jerk responded to every single thing he did with "NO!" instead of compromise.I'm just hoping that when people look back at this time with a softer heart, it isn't with regret based on the awfulness of the current president. He certainly has been better than I thought he would be 8 years ago. I also agree that unfortunately he probably lost as many votes because he was black as he got for being black. He probaby was the best choice both times. But I'll have to disagree with the notion that he has been particularly good. It's really hard to judge IMO with the Congress being so inept. But, if we imagine what he would've done with a cooperative congress, I think things likely would've been worse.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process.Love the "none of the above" option. Never heard that proposed before. It is brilliant. Coupled with a 2 month election cycle......we should now be on about the 45th attempt for 2008.Don't think so. Neither Obama nor McCain were widely disliked at the time. Yeah, I know, everybody was in love with the thought of "the first black President" at the time, so he was destined to get elected. But you get my point. Maybe I should have used 19th attempt for 2012. Point is we haven't had sh#t for candidates and we have been especially lacking anyone worthy in the political arenafor quite some time.

There needs to be a constitutional mechanism whereby the public can vote for "none of the above" on every election, and if that gets the most votes, we have to start the process over.Combine that with shortening the campaign season to no more than two months and we should have a better political process. Love the "none of the above" option. Never heard that proposed before. It is brilliant. Coupled with a 2 month election cycle......we should now be on about the 45th attempt for 2008.

What's the Dem version of this? Education? Social programs? I don't know of anything that gets the same level of play as "They're taking your guns!" gets from the Right. The Dem version would be that Repubs are only for rich people but the Dems care about the poor, and common working class folk. Even though both sides take money from the rich, cater to themselves and the rich, and screw over the poor and middle class. There's other examples but the point is, politicians on both sides use bullsh#t to garner votes. Anybody who thinks it is only a problem from one side of the aisle is either not paying attention or is already in the bag for one side.

I usually somewhat enjoy participating in some of these political topics. But for the life of me I just cannot get excited or even pretend to support any of the candidates this go round. And I for sure can't come up with a good reason to argue for one over another. They all have numerous downsides and are unfit for office IMO. But you guys go for it, I'm just gonna drink some beer and hope the next 4 don't get as bad as they would appear to be headed. Now get off my lawn.

Can't imagine he would seriously consider BYU after playing at Utah, even though he is Mormon. Aren't they pretty much bitter rivals? I mean that would be sort of like somebody transferring from CU to Nebraska........oops, nm.

Let's keep our finger crossed. One thing's for sure, we could use some immediate help at that position. If he wants playing time, can't imagine the Trojans or Tide have the open need at DT we do. My gut was to somewhat discount him (basically 2nd string from Utah) but the fact is he likely starts and plays a ton here this year. His stats weren't too shabby either. Hope we get him, could be a huge pick up.

Relax man. It's just a rah rah article bragging on Schreiber and reminding and encouraging the fans to get out there to support the team. Jeez.

Interesting tidbit- As I was perusing the information on the Colorado dora site, they had yearly reports and summaries for all complaints filed in prior years. 2014-2015 saw a 29% increase in complaints on health insurance companies from the prior year. Maybe that is to be somewhat expected with the implementation of the ACA but it was obviously a very large increase when prior years complaints had been showing a pretty flat trend. Can I say it? Well I will anyway ....Thanks Obama.

I did finally get my complaint filed with the Division of Insurance. I told the guy I spoke to that a few people had recommended that I contact the AG. He said I had in effect done that by contacting the div of Insurance. He said if I had contacted the AG they would immediately kick it back to his office without comment anyway. He further explained, if the investigation and process led there or needed the involvement of the AG, they would take care of that. I was highly impressed with the guy I spoke to at the Div of Ins. He seemed to completely understand my complaint and all of the related issues and laws. He said technically what KP did complied with the law as far as providing notice and terminating but he also said he was somewhat hopeful and optimistic for a good resolution. He said typically Insurance companies, in those situations, will take a very hard line with the consumer but that they are usually much more receptive when the Insurance Commission contacts them. He felt the proof that I had in fact attempted payment and my incentive to obviously want and need coverage were compelling. He also indicated that dates, time frames etc. sort of go out the window at this point. I was concerned about a quick resolution so that coverage could be reinstated and continued before it became impossible due to too much time elapsing. He said there was no magic date where KP would be unable to do that even considering how the ACA law is written. I guess we'll see where it goes.

KP is correct. That is the law. There are a lot of things within the healthcare system that could use some tweaking. Negotiated discounts is one. Depending on if you have KP, BCBS, UHC, etc you pay a different rate at the doctor. These are "volume discounts" not unlike you would see at a Sam's or Costco buying in bulk. One big problem with the discounts is that they lead to problems with transparency as a doctor/hospital can't tell you what a service costs since it depends on you insurance company, network within the insurance company, and then actual insurance plan. Also, Medicare/Medicaid rates are artificially low, so doctors/hospitals try to make that up on the commercial/individual population. Also, if you walk in off the street with no insurance to get a service, you can negotiate with the doctor/hospital to get a discounted rate. They would rather get some money than no money at all. Yeah, there is just so much of it that is open for abuse and really what most reasonable people would consider criminal behavior. The lack of transparency is another huge issue. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has a chance in hell of deciphering a bill like we typically get from our hospital. I had a colonoscopy a few months back and the charges for all the line items on the bill from the hospital......f#*k. Literally 1 to 5 word descriptions that we had no idea about. No date of service, no specific information whatsoever. I have no way of knowing if they were legitimate charges or not. A guy hopes that the insurance company is holding their feet to the fire on those types of things but the average person has no chance in hell. It really doesn't have to be that way. I think the providers and insurance companies want to keep the consumer in the dark because then they can do and charge whatever the hell they want to. It just isn't right and I feel that is a huge contributing factor to the real problem with our system; runaway, escalating care costs.