NM11046

I find the irony so incredible ... plagiarism isn't a "legal" issue, it's a moral one. And what did she do? Plagiarizes the sections of Michelles previous talk that speak to decency, morals and hard work.

The real question is - who DIDN'T?

Hard working 4*s? Agreed, but Lewis is ranked higher than Tyjon and (ratings fluctuate) maybe higher than Darnay. Dude is a stud. You're totally right - as I hit "Post" I thought it would have been better to post that re: Calvin, and that Lewis is just a a great surprise. To not be on his radar and then have him visit and like what he saw, to see Gebbia lock up with him and do some selling, I like that and how I saw him interacting with fans and taking it all in with Bookie. I think his visit made a great impression on him, and Coach Dub is the cherry on top.

Waaaaaah.

Shoulda held out on naming his top 10 till he got to 100.

The question is ... did you dial in to watch it because of the Duck Dynasty guy and the other shall we say, "atypical" political supporters Trump is having on his newest reality show?

Did we lose many recruits in the Osborne/Solich transition? How about the Solich/Callahan transition? (Honest questions--I don't remember.) I know we lost a bunch of recruits in the Callahan/Pelini transition. We didn't lose very many going from Pelini to Riley. I couldn't honestly tell you, 2005-2006 is where my fandom started kicking into full gear. Interesting Gee? Only a fan for about the past 10 years? I would say that is awfully young to offer to many comments on the program's historical basis or in comparing coaches and teams and etc from the past 40 years. Most of the discussions about how a coach or team is doing as compared with Pelini, Callahan, Solich, Os, etc are pretty hard to say much if you weren't around to experience them first hand. Just my opinion. One doesn't have to have lived through something to have an opinion 84. Sounds like he has a pretty good idea of what happened, and he asked for clarity and perspective on some specifics he wasn't sure about. It was a solid, educated post that wasn't off base in any regard. Just in my opinion.

I think we get him and Calvin, and not Tyjon or Holmes. I think you have to put a lot of stock into how much time Gebbia spent w/him one on one during FNL, and also watching the videos - body language and buy in seemed very high. Honestly, I know everybody's high on TJ and DH, and I'd never turn down 5* talent, but give me hardworking, out to prove something 4*s any day of the week.

And 5 family members - as many Trumps speaking as there are sitting senators.

I thought the same thing.

I like the rumbles I'm hearing - I think Calvin's been in his ear. If we could just get both of them - imagine?Where you guys seeing this? Lots of things alluded to on Twitter by him and Calvin. Certainly nothing substantial, but my guess is that he'll be decimating soon (I don't think he has officially yet) and opening his recruitment back up. Thus the scheduled trip to Lincoln. Jamie put up and then quickly took down a tweet last week saying that NE was at the top of Echols list. Wow! Keep him away from Lincoln, unless you are talking about his on-field performance. HA! Thats a great auto correct huh? I try to double check before hitting "post" but missed this one. That will keep me laughing all night!

As himself or as legal expert Bob Loblaw? Not sure - rumbles are that he may take charge as "Charles".

I read that and was amused to say the least. Some real heavy weights there. Don't want to overshadow The Donald AND Lifetime heartthrob Antonio Sabato Jr. It would be funny except its for real - ok, it's still pretty f'ing funny. BTW I heard that Ralph Malph was endorsing Hillary. I also heard that Fonzi told Trump to "Sit On It". I can't wait to see The Late Show's coverage with Jon Stewart and Stephen on the floor of the RNC.

Can we please talk about the fact that Scott Baio is speaking for Trump at the RNC? Please?

Yeah, and then I swear he tweeted in the last few days that he was taking an official ... not there now though so who knows.

Anderson Cooper tried to call him out on it numerous times in the debates, and Megyn Kelly kinda tried - you're right though, they need to not let him off the hook. I'd love to see another Katie Couric/Sarah Palin like interview. That really opened up some eyes about her lack of knowledge I think. Trump just won't allow himself to be put in a situation like that .. .that is why he bans certain reporters or papers in his pressers. Which in and of itself should be something of note.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO. It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas. Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting. Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias. I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you. I read the bolded statement to be that officers have the opportunity to bias the reports rather than the inherent flaw in human memory and perception in recounting an event. I get what you meant, my bad. Thanks and sorry for the dramatic response - just don't want there to be any doubt that my feeling is we don't have the right kind of data to make any kind of statement (or rather that study doesn't provide it). As far as inherent bias, I understand why you might have read it that way. It's a tough concept to admit to, but we all have it. That's why there's placebo controlled drug trials, they don't want doctors seeing something (efficacy or side effect) that isn't truly there and the tendency is to judge based on past experiences and knowledge about the patient, the disease etc.

I like the rumbles I'm hearing - I think Calvin's been in his ear. If we could just get both of them - imagine?Where you guys seeing this? Lots of things alluded to on Twitter by him and Calvin. Certainly nothing substantial, but my guess is that he'll be decimating soon (I don't think he has officially yet) and opening his recruitment back up. Thus the scheduled trip to Lincoln. Jamie put up and then quickly took down a tweet last week saying that NE was at the top of Echols list.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO. It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas. Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart. NM, I think we should refrain from accusing police officers of mischaracterizing the accounts of the events of a situation in their police reports. In fact, if you look at it from the view that these reports describe a thread of biased use of force toward African Americans by police officers in these 10 precincts, I would argue there is no need to assume inaccurate reporting. Also, thank you for bringing some balance to this discussion, BRI. Would should be reserved in our indictment of all members of our law enforcement community based on this singular study. We should also thank you and all other members of this community for your sacrifices and service. I think the root of this discussion, or more so the national discussion, is to identify a situation in which a group within our society feel disenfranchised and experience intolerance by individuals in positions of power based on their race. I think there are specific individuals that propagate this bias, and are the root of the issue, rather than a systemic bias. I have no idea how you took away that I was accusing police officers of misconstruing anything. Farthest from the truth and honestly I take offense to your suggesting that I felt that way. All I said was that looking at a police report after the fact is subjective, and without objective measurements and criteria (in place in advance) the data would vary from person to person and from station to station. What one cop might include in a report is different than what another might include. Different local requirements, different training - there are a zillion things that would make what you write up and what I write up different. We don't know how they defined use of force for instance - that too would be subjective unless there was uniformity as to defining what that means. At NO time did I incenuate that are officers are misreporting or misconstruing anything, and I didn't need a call out from you.

I like the rumbles I'm hearing - I think Calvin's been in his ear. If we could just get both of them - imagine?

Boy, if you had ever told me that at any point in my lifetime someone would think there were too many liberals on a Nebraska chat board I'd have told you it was impossible.

Just like there needs to be a bigger data set they're looking at to justify saying there is no racial bias in police shootings, the same thing applies to the use of force piece in this study. I agree the data set isn't even remotely large enough to say this study can be accurate for anyone at this point. I read it a few days ago and just taking data from Texas, Florida, and LA isn't going to paint an accurate picture at all IMO. It's big enough to extrapolate only to those areas. Really to only the 10 precincts that they looked at within those 3 states. And we aren't privy to how many "incidents" they looked at, so we don't know if there were truly enough to create statistical significance. Also, it was based on police reports, so there is some inherent bias in that sort of subjective review. What one person/precinct might consider a big deal might be day to day business elsewhere. This working paper is essentially one guys opinion. It will never see the light of day after being looked at in depth (if they even bother, because if I can tell it's got so many holes certainly other economics reviewers will tear it apart.

I wouldn't be totally surprised if after this "tour" he's on in the SouthEast he potentially back off on making his decision in August.

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum. seriously...did you read my post and the article provided or did you see something and just post to post? You reiterated nearly the same verbiage that I typed.My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.sorry, I came off like an ass. World events are pretty effed and sad, plus idiots running a golf course this morning have me a little on edge. No sweat - I find that in the Politics forum I tend to read everything as if it's written sarcastically and sometimes I miss the mark. I agree with you that the world is F'd up. I haven't had the tv on in a week - I just can't handle 24/7 negativity and depressing events. I check in on occasion so that I'm aware but all that's going on drains me.

I think you misunderstood - indeed it's been written by a Harvard Econ professor but the reason it's not valid yet is it is a "Working Paper" and because it's only a working paper (meaning he's penned it but there's been no peer review or analysis of his data) makes it not yet valuable to those who want clean data or who truly want to statistically see a trend. Might prove to be totally on point, but honestly I can't imagine a peer review wouldn't ask for a larger dataset reflective of the real population at a minimum. seriously...did you read my post and the article provided or did you see something and just post to post? You reiterated nearly the same verbiage that I typed. My bad - obviously I misunderstood your post. Seriously.