JJ Husker

Boston is playing very solid in their D zone. Hawks can't seem to generate many opportunities and when they do get a shot Rask is a wall.

Bo, it'll be on NBC on Monday night at 7pm... Replays scheduled on NHL network on Sunday; Game 1, 11AM Game 2, 3PM

If they keep this pace for the whole series, it'll definitely be the best series I've ever watched and that would include many from the Av's heydays. But, I'm not sure much more of this is humanely possible.

Well deserved W. Already looking forward to a seven game series.

Playoff hockey is awesome but these OT periods are insane. Wow.

Boston deserves this game...... and I'm quietly pulling for Chicago

I haven't watched the Bruins but two games this year. Rask is very impressive. I think the quickest side to side I've seen

Jagr almost ended it right there. Still has that quick release

Yes he has, as has Boston generally. If they scored hockey like boxing, Boston would win on decision two periods to one. But luckily we get OT yet again.

Yeah Tuuka brought his game. Still waiting for the rest of the Bruins to pick it up and make a game of it. The announcer was right about Jagr- he's got no jump left.

I don't think that is the part of this that indicates moral decline. But, using innocent third graders to advance your politic position....... I have no problem with civil unions and I think any law that prohibits them violates a persons right to life, liberty, and happiness. However, I'd much prefer that they left innocent 3rd grade students totally out of it. Can you summarize the video for me? I can't watch it on my phone. Not much to summarize. Two nine year old girls were invited to the WH to introduce the Pres for a LGBT pride event. They plugged his positions for gun control and gay marriage. They have two mothers and said they are just as good as anyones parents. I quit watching when Obama started speaking cuz that is generally what I do when he starts talking. The thing is, knowing how those deals get setup, they went out of their way to have these sisters stumping for them. I'm sure they love their mothers, as they should but it just struck me as a bit exploitive of two young children. Pretty much a non-event though.

I think much of the early discussion is ignoring the role Frazier played as a competitor. Lots of that supporting cast doesn't produce at the same level without Tommie ridin their ass. So, I don't believe it is quite as simple as taking any successive QB and saying he would have netted us the same results. Much of what TF contributed transcends simply taking snaps on a very good team. He was a major reason so many others were that good.

If that chart had substitutes listed for cocoa powder and vanilla extract, it would be impossible to tell if you were making brownies or some ancient eskimo poultice for frostbite.

Converting the "Best Brownies" recipe on Allrecipes.com, I come up with this; Brownies 5 TBS Chia Seeds 1 1/2 tsp Vanilla Extract 3 cups water 1/3 cup unsweetened cocoa powder 1/2 cup black beans 1/4 tsp salt 1/4 tsp baking powder Frosting 3 TBS Avocado, softened 3 TBS unsweetened cocoa powder 1 TBS Honey 1 tsp Vanilla extract 1 tsp liquid Stevia I dunno. Something tells me these are no longer the "Best Brownies".

Drunk - wouldn't that be Taco John - do they exist anymore? Yes they exist still. Soy tacos, bleh. Hey now I like me some fake meat Taco Johns. Seriously, their taco bravos and soft shells are way better than Taco Hells. And where else can you get a plate of super potatoe oles smothered with sour cream (dairy content doubtful) guacamole (pretty sure it contains no actual avocado) tomatoes, beans, and cheese?

I don't think that is the part of this that indicates moral decline. But, using innocent third graders to advance your politic position....... I have no problem with civil unions and I think any law that prohibits them violates a persons right to life, liberty, and happiness. However, I'd much prefer that they left innocent 3rd grade students totally out of it.

I'm not sure that I can make it more clear for you than I did here: http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1170570 Ok, I got it now. I claimed that you were saying that "deficits have no adverse affect" when in reality you were saying that worse deficits than the CBO estimates wouldn't be a stiffer challenge for our economy. Or, maybe you feel the GOP's estimates of the deficit are totally overblown and feel the CBO's $4T is as bad as it can get. In that case Either way I'm done. It's beerthirty and my brain hurts from this discussion. Have a good weekend.

I get that it is not as simple as equating it to a typical families mortgage. But, I don't care how you spin it or polish it, spending beyond your current means of payment cannot go on forever. It is bad financial planning. This "it isn't all doom and gloom" take on things assumes it is ok for us today to leave debt to those who follow because their growing economy will simply absorb it. I can accept that may be a necessary situation in dire circumstances such as when you have to pay for an unavoidable war but, I really don't think it is a responsible way to conduct day to day business. This kind of thinking is exactly like a pyramid scheme. Somebody at some point gets f'd. In the case of the US economy, it will be a whole bunch of people all at the same time.

Huh? What? Where are you seeing this? First sentence. http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1170577 You seem to be arguing with statements that you've attributed to me that I haven't made. Ok, then what did you mean by replying "Huh?" to my statement that started this?

The condescension doesn't really work so well when you're just making claims up . . . (Then again . . . when you say "did you read the article" when the article doesn't talk about what you're claiming . . . it's possible that you don't understand how condescension works. In that case, "I would suggest some remedial classes might get you up to speed.") Uh huh. So, are saying that deficits have no adverse affect? Honest question cuz I have no clue as to your problems with this. What claims have I made up? And sorry for the condescension. It seemed well timed but now I'm thinking it might be a deeper issue.

Well Carl, if you don't think the deficit adversely affects our economy, I would suggest some remedial economics classes might get you up to speed. Or, better yet, possibly quit trying to turn everything into a partisan issue. $4T to $72T to $106T is not just a few little tweaks apart. My point was that if a person is relying on the $4T figure or the ten year CBO projections, the reality is much worse for our deficit AND our economy.

Combination of 3 and equal parts 4 & 5. So, in other words, #1.

Huh? Huh what? did you read the linked article? Some excerpts; "Obama officials came into the initial meetings on the Hill reiterating the president’s position that $4 trillion in deficit reduction would basically solve the problem for now. But according to GOP deficit projections subsequently prepared by Johnson and obtained by National Review Online, the true size of the problem is staggering, and surprised even many of the seasoned budget negotiators involved. $4 trillion? Try $106 trillion, the medium estimate. That’s $106,954,000,000,000. Even the lowest, extremely conservative estimate comes in at $72 trillion; the highest is over $120 trillion. The amounts are so large that some controversial reforms appear inconsequential in comparison. Take Obama’s “chained CPI” proposal: it would save an estimated $89 billion over ten years, or 1.3 percent of the total deficit over those same ten years." "CBO’s long-term budget outlook, for example, offers two estimates: the “baseline” scenario and “alternative fiscal scenario.” Baseline is according to current law, including all of the gimmicks Congress has put in current law to game their CBO scores. According to that, we’re totally fine — the debt will slowly go down without Congress’s having to do anything. It’s also fantasy. The other scenario is more realistic. In it, debt begins to really ramp up around 2025, and quickly becomes unwieldy — even insurmountable — by 2040, when the graph ends." So, my take away was that things are not near as rosy as they have been portrayed to be. What did you get out of that article?

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of horror/slasher flicks but Cabin in the Woods had a few twists and seemed a little different than the typical genre. I really liked it also.