NM11046
-
Posts
7,129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by NM11046
-
-
Let me dumb this down - if you are a practicing muslim and a US Citizen, you will be tested according to Newt's proposal ... how does that trump (or does it) your 1st Amendment Rights as a US Citizen?
-
@84HuskerLaw, @huskerfan2000
1. Do you agree with Mr. Gingrich's proposal that American citizens can/should be deported based on ideology?
2. If so, how do you reconcile that with the 1st Amendment?
lol, not what he said.. but don't let that stop you.
"We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported,"
The direct quote of controversy.
Right, he was talking about Muslims, not all American citizens.
OMG.
-
2
-
-
Islamophobia huh? LOL So many ignorant fools who seem to have their heads up their own .....!
Nothing irrational or insane about being afraid of Muslim nuts! And when 20% of the world's 2 Billion Muslims support and agree with this crap, Yes, it seems quite reasonable to fear their lunacy. Sharia Muslims avow to overthrow the American government and do not follow or obey our laws. They are simply enemies of the people and government of the United States and should be deported or arrested and jailed for their treasonous acts against the country.
This is NOT phobia. It is real as can be and alive and well and spreading throughout the world and particularly in the United States. The FBI and Hillary protector Comey has declared there are literally hundreds of on going FBI investigations of radical Muslimes all over (in every state in fact).
AND better yet - some of those investigations will turn up nothing. And you know what, there are literally hundreds of ongoing FBI investigations of everyday people taking place in every state as well. Some of whom (SHOCKER) are not muslims.
I don't doubt there can potentially be people that claim to be muslim that are radicalized and living in every state of the union. The fact that "So many ignorant fools who seem to have their heads up their own .....!" believe that this means all muslims are radicalized is defined as a phobia.
-
I feel like this conversation is circular --- a few of you should create another thread where you can discuss how the muslims are all bad and are going to take over the US and kill us all and the rest of us can have a practical discussion.
-
1
-
-
In my family we'd potentially say he's "quick, not fast".
Quickness and Speed are two different things. But what do I know.
The scout most likely meant that he doesn't have world class speed, and does not use speed as his primary way to get open, rather a combination of physicality, speed, and hand/foot work.
Most definitely they're different. And in my opinion, being quick involves what you described (footwork, physicality etc). Fast is straight-out clock speed on a 40.
-
In my family we'd potentially say he's "quick, not fast".
-
OK......trying to think outside the box on this, let me throw this out there.
What if our officers didn't carry a gun on their side. They would have a gun in the car just like man officers do now with a shot gun. But, in 99.9% of the encounters they have with the public, they wouldn't have a gun on them.
How would that change everything? They would be armed with a club and maybe a taser.
I don't think you'd get a lot of support from police officers on that. That sounds extremely dangerous for them.
You'll see us turn in our resignations in droves.............
Have you ever had to use/fire your gun BigRedIowan?
Nope, thank god, I've come close several times though and yes I've been shot at. Super s*^tty feeling.
I can relate to that - was held up at gunpoint, and shot at afterward, and it was scary. I also came out of that situation being 100% sure that even if any of the 3 of us had been carrying a gun it wouldn't have changed a thing.
-
I'm having a hard time of late accepting that any time there are people killed in a horrific way we are quick to label it "terrorism". The latest example being the truck accident in Nice last night. Was this a terrifying event? Yes. Was it terrorism? We don't know yet, but I don't think so. Earliest reports say it was a local man from Nice, a "petty criminal" and he acted alone. (to be fair, I wouldn't qualify the Dallas Police shootings as a terrorism attack either).
In my mind, the definition of terrorism includes a key component, and that is that there is a specific motivation to do wrong in the name of a group or radical idea. Not one or more crazy people that commit an act of aggression. I feel that when news stations and newspapers label any event as a "terrorist attack" they do so to get watchers/clicks and the result is even more polarizing to our US political discussions. They then get a whole group of people on the bandwagon (whether it be about religion, gun control, etc) and in the long run we likely motivate others to commit heinous crimes in order to go down in a blaze of glory. And on top of this, the real terrorists get credit by default for continuing to impact the world negatively.
So my question for discussion - when did any mass casualty event become defined as a terroristic attack? Am I thinking about the word "terrorism" in a way that others don't? What would be a more appropriate way to report on these circumstances?
-
A uniformed officer just said in Obama's town hall that what they need from state governments to really help them is to do something about guns and he was flabbergasted that the Dallas shooter could get and use that rifle.
I'm growing more and more tired of right-wing politicians sitting on their hands and acting like we're paranoid and the status quo on guns is fine.
Love that you're watching the town halls and saw the CNN event - looking forward to your recaps as they come Dude.
-
OK......trying to think outside the box on this, let me throw this out there.
What if our officers didn't carry a gun on their side. They would have a gun in the car just like man officers do now with a shot gun. But, in 99.9% of the encounters they have with the public, they wouldn't have a gun on them.
How would that change everything? They would be armed with a club and maybe a taser.
I don't think you'd get a lot of support from police officers on that. That sounds extremely dangerous for them.
You'll see us turn in our resignations in droves.............
Have you ever had to use/fire your gun BigRedIowan?
-
As at least a few of you know, I'm pretty active on the reddit college football channel. Thankfully, possibly by pure luck, I've gained media credentials to cover the B1G Media Days here in Chicago on July 25-26 for reddit, but want to be of service specifically to my Huskers/Huskerboard brothers and sisters as well.
So if you have questions you'd like asked, throw them out. No promises of course, but I'll do what I can to work in the good stuff.
No question in mind LOM, just wanted to congratulate you and thank you for keeping the board members in mind.
-
OK......trying to think outside the box on this, let me throw this out there.
What if our officers didn't carry a gun on their side. They would have a gun in the car just like man officers do now with a shot gun. But, in 99.9% of the encounters they have with the public, they wouldn't have a gun on them.
How would that change everything? They would be armed with a club and maybe a taser.
Bold suggestion BRB - I like it. Or even if one of the two officers in the car carries and the other doesn't. With this of course I'd be advocating for something to be done to limit the potential for regular Joe's to carry (legally or not).
-
Has anyone else that uses Twitter noticed all the Kansas State fans that go out of their way to comment on anything Nebraska?
It's rediculous... Someone gets an offer or says something good about unl and they respond with last in academics, last in conference, no championships... Ect just thought it was crazy how much effort they are putting in and we don't even play them
It's actually one guy - or at least there is one KState guy who has at least 4-5 accounts under different names that he uses to stalk and bother our recruits. I think his ex-wife must have been a Husker. He's a bitter, sad man.
-
3
-
-
Trump is against free trade, Pence is not
Trump said he was against the Iraq war, Pence voted for it
Trump seems to be fine with gay rights, Pence is strongly opposed
Seems like a good match
I think they'll partner well - since Trump is open to feedback and new ideas and is known for getting insight from people who might be knowledgeable about a topic.
Did you miss the sarcasm emoji?
For Pence to advise trump on these subjects, would be for Pence to tell him he's full of crap on major issues Trump has campaigned on. Well, I guess he's basically come out and said banning all muslims was just....."Haha.....just kidding". So, maybe he can do it on these issues too.
If he does that, I'm sure all his followers will just lap it up and completely ignore that he just did a completely 180 on his agenda during the primaries.
But...hey....he "tells it like it is".
I think you missed my sarcasm emoji. I honestly don't know who he could work well with and who wouldn't absolutely be a 180 from all that he's claimed during this campaign (as that seems to evolve depending on his mood)
-
Trump is against free trade, Pence is not
Trump said he was against the Iraq war, Pence voted for it
Trump seems to be fine with gay rights, Pence is strongly opposed
Seems like a good match
I think they'll partner well - since Trump is open to feedback and new ideas and is known for getting insight from people who might be knowledgeable about a topic.
-
3
-
-
Just absurd this woman felt she had to issue an official apology over this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kaley-cuoco-apologizes-for-offending-fans-with-4th-of-july-photo/
I expect Trump to come to her defense in 3....2....1.....
curious, why the Trump reference?
I'm guessing because he and the conservative party have made a point of talking about the horrors of "being PC" and that it's ruined the country.
That was last week Trump. This week Trump demands everyone, including Supreme Court Justices to remain above the fray and speak only out of the kindness of their hearts; otherwise, apologies must be issued. Or, is that only when comments are directed at him?
#Thin-skinnedTrump2016 #BuildTheWallAroundYourFeelings
Only when directed at him. Unless they're mexican and talking about muslims. Or if they're bimbos talking about the KKK. Or if they're gay and jewish and talking about a handicapped person.
-
Obama has far too many times been referred to as some sort of great orator and eloquent speaker. He doesn't even have good speech writers who key the words into his teleprompter. You have to search and scan through his entire speech to find one or two intelligent statements. Usually he follows a smart statement with one that basically implodes the very central meaning of the one before.
At a rare press conference, Obama is forced to offer his own thoughts at the time and he fills the air with long pauses and gaps between words and lots of 'uhs" and 'ums' and etc.
George W. Bush had decent speech writers and spoke well with infrequent stutters, ahs, ums, etc. He chose not to use the $5 words as many Americans simply are not well educated and don't comprehend beyond about a freshman in H.S. level. You have to aim your message to the audience. In fairness to Obama, perhaps he feels he also must speak down to the audience but he simply looks confused and at a loss for words almost constantly when speaking from the cuff as if he has not thought about the topics and issues and really doesn't know what he believes.
-
Obama has far too many times been referred to as some sort of great orator and eloquent speaker. He doesn't even have good speech writers who key the words into his teleprompter. You have to search and scan through his entire speech to find one or two intelligent statements. Usually he follows a smart statement with one that basically implodes the very central meaning of the one before.
At a rare press conference, Obama is forced to offer his own thoughts at the time and he fills the air with long pauses and gaps between words and lots of 'uhs" and 'ums' and etc.
George W. Bush had decent speech writers and spoke well with infrequent stutters, ahs, ums, etc. He chose not to use the $5 words as many Americans simply are not well educated and don't comprehend beyond about a freshman in H.S. level. You have to aim your message to the audience. In fairness to Obama, perhaps he feels he also must speak down to the audience but he simply looks confused and at a loss for words almost constantly when speaking from the cuff as if he has not thought about the topics and issues and really doesn't know what he believes.
Nope. Nah-ah. Disagree. With all of it, but if you think Bush "spoke well with infrequent stutters..." I'm gonna have to call you out on that.
I find it funny that you feel Obama speaks down to the public and uses "$5 words" when I see your lengthy posts here where you attempt to make yourself look like you're well spoken and educated vs. the rest of the group.
-
1
-
-
Just absurd this woman felt she had to issue an official apology over this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kaley-cuoco-apologizes-for-offending-fans-with-4th-of-july-photo/
I expect Trump to come to her defense in 3....2....1.....
curious, why the Trump reference?
I'm guessing because he and the conservative party have made a point of talking about the horrors of "being PC" and that it's ruined the country.
-
-
I feel a lot more comfortable in general when I can assume that someone carrying has had to jump through hoops, training, and demonstrate competence in order to have gained that license -- as opposed to simply exercising a right that shall not be infringed.
And therein lies the rub - we all would "feel" better thinking they have training and the like, and the responsible gun owners do - but right now there's no way to monitor and assure this happens.. I'd bet (I'll try and research it a bit later) that there are 40-50% of owners who have never taken a safety course or had any sort of training.
-
But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?
It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?
Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!
There, I used one of those silly terms.
"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.
It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"
It is most important to understand that the Bill of Rights is a basic declaration of the individual rights of the people which are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - an important distinction to keep in mind when discussing any of the many Constitutionally protected rights. The rights already existed in the individual citizens and are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution but preserved and not limited by it as such. The Constitution is a limiting document which grants certain very limited powers to the federal government and more powers to the several states and the rest, residue and remainder are retained by the people. Only by Constitutional amendment through the prescribed process can individual's rights be restricted, reduced, taken away or otherwise limited by any governmental authority. So, it is not a Bill of Granted Rights but rather more aptly expressed as a Bill of Rights Retained by the People over which the government has no power to limit.
Of course, like so many laws and actions by our various levels of government, aided and abetted by judges who fail to read and follow the Constitution's declarations carefully enough, over a couple centuries, the rights of the people have been watered down, limited and otherwise modified by laws, regulations, court rulings, etc. In other cases, such as abortion rights and other so called 'rights to privacy' for example, there have been 'rights' (more aptly thought of as privileges really) which are judicial creations. Created basically out of broad 'reading' or interpretation of the Constitution as a whole without finding specific language therein to support such creations. This judicial activism or judicial law making is more like legislating from the bench and represents a reach beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution and its drafters. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to be a super legislative body with the power to override and impose the will of a select few judges appointed for life tenure to declare new 'rights' and privileges to both the government and or the people that were not contemplated by the founders and the several states in the enactment process. This doctrine of judicial review, as the Court has referred to it, was also simply created by the Court long ago, in the effort to apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases and controversies that naturally arise in society within and without government's functions. Fortunately, until recently, the Court exercised great self control and often declined to intervene in the affairs of the people and their dealings with government and each other. Many scholars would argue, quite correctly in my view, that the Court has gone far beyond the bounds of what was ever imagined for the role of the Supreme Court as a separate but equal branch. We are now to the point where the Court, coupled with the cooperation and overreaching by the legislative and executive branches, has allowed or even directed, government action in areas clearly beyond the limited powers available to them.
In regard to the 2nd Amendment's unequivocal and plain language protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, there are so many rules, regulations, statutes, court decisions and other restrictions on the individual's gun ownership and use rights that the 'right' has effectively been reduced to a limited privilege basically. There are controls over who, what, where, when and how one may buy, sell, own, carry, possess, use and etc. The 2nd Amendment Right is more limited than any other Constitutionally protected right by far. Oddly, there are relatively few case decisions by the Supreme Court and until the NRA got involved, the typical individual was virtually powerless to fight the government's actions due mostly to the cost and long time process required to assert and maintain those rights. The NRA opposes most new gun limits on law abiding citizens because the tolerance of any more direct restraints of one's liberty in this area of the law threatens all individual rights. Broad controls imposed on long guns vs. hand guns any of the myriad of types of guns are direct threats to the liberty of all Americans. Inherent and perhaps most important within the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental civil right of any human and that is the right to self defense. The right to protect one's self from the actions of government and or individuals is so fundamental and basic to life as to be, arguably, the most important civil right of all. If a person loses to right to defend one's self, then all other rights become meaningless. The founders were acutely aware of the dangers to freedom and democracy and the society that they all envisioned to come from the entirely new and never before tried governmental structures created by our Constitution, that they designed the fundamental structure of the government in three co-equal but divided branches to prevent any of them from going to far and encroaching on the rights of the individual to be free and live with an absolute minimal interference by government and certainly no King or other authority beyond the restraints of the people using the power of the vote.
84, no disrespect intended dude but, I know you don't expect me to read all that to find out what you are trying to point out!
I read the first sentence and I think he meant to say, "I agree Takoda".
Thanks NM11046, glad you could translate that from what he had posted, but I would not be so sure as to what he is trying to point out there.
May I call you NM next time for short or do you prefer NM11046?
And NUance, seriously, you quoting that 2 more times?
Word? LOL!
NM is good - if I had known I was going to stick around and talk so much I would have picked something a little more personal!
-
I really think this is pretty serious - just think if one of the Davis boys hurts an opposing team member they could come back and use this against them.
Can you clarify how having a house party in the summer can be used against them in a game?
Sorry haven't figured out the sarcasm mojo yet.....
Ah - gotcha. Was hoping that was the case, but lord knows one can never assume on this board.
-
1
-
-
But with 2nd Amendment rights, why is that person an idiot? If the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to carry that weapon, then... what's the issue?
It seems there's a societal taboo against actually enjoying the freedom the 2nd Amendment gives us. Is that not so?
Knapp, don't pretend like you don't have your agenda. Starting this thread and posing the questions, thus obtaining the reasonable deduced responses to your questions was part your goal!
There, I used one of those silly terms.
"Rights" as I have stated before in the gun thread, (IMO) are not a forgone conclusion and come with restraints.
It is important to remember, "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Granted Rights"
It is most important to understand that the Bill of Rights is a basic declaration of the individual rights of the people which are RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE - an important distinction to keep in mind when discussing any of the many Constitutionally protected rights. The rights already existed in the individual citizens and are NOT GRANTED by the Constitution but preserved and not limited by it as such. The Constitution is a limiting document which grants certain very limited powers to the federal government and more powers to the several states and the rest, residue and remainder are retained by the people. Only by Constitutional amendment through the prescribed process can individual's rights be restricted, reduced, taken away or otherwise limited by any governmental authority. So, it is not a Bill of Granted Rights but rather more aptly expressed as a Bill of Rights Retained by the People over which the government has no power to limit.
Of course, like so many laws and actions by our various levels of government, aided and abetted by judges who fail to read and follow the Constitution's declarations carefully enough, over a couple centuries, the rights of the people have been watered down, limited and otherwise modified by laws, regulations, court rulings, etc. In other cases, such as abortion rights and other so called 'rights to privacy' for example, there have been 'rights' (more aptly thought of as privileges really) which are judicial creations. Created basically out of broad 'reading' or interpretation of the Constitution as a whole without finding specific language therein to support such creations. This judicial activism or judicial law making is more like legislating from the bench and represents a reach beyond the intent and spirit of the Constitution and its drafters. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to be a super legislative body with the power to override and impose the will of a select few judges appointed for life tenure to declare new 'rights' and privileges to both the government and or the people that were not contemplated by the founders and the several states in the enactment process. This doctrine of judicial review, as the Court has referred to it, was also simply created by the Court long ago, in the effort to apply the Constitution's provisions to the cases and controversies that naturally arise in society within and without government's functions. Fortunately, until recently, the Court exercised great self control and often declined to intervene in the affairs of the people and their dealings with government and each other. Many scholars would argue, quite correctly in my view, that the Court has gone far beyond the bounds of what was ever imagined for the role of the Supreme Court as a separate but equal branch. We are now to the point where the Court, coupled with the cooperation and overreaching by the legislative and executive branches, has allowed or even directed, government action in areas clearly beyond the limited powers available to them.
In regard to the 2nd Amendment's unequivocal and plain language protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms, there are so many rules, regulations, statutes, court decisions and other restrictions on the individual's gun ownership and use rights that the 'right' has effectively been reduced to a limited privilege basically. There are controls over who, what, where, when and how one may buy, sell, own, carry, possess, use and etc. The 2nd Amendment Right is more limited than any other Constitutionally protected right by far. Oddly, there are relatively few case decisions by the Supreme Court and until the NRA got involved, the typical individual was virtually powerless to fight the government's actions due mostly to the cost and long time process required to assert and maintain those rights. The NRA opposes most new gun limits on law abiding citizens because the tolerance of any more direct restraints of one's liberty in this area of the law threatens all individual rights. Broad controls imposed on long guns vs. hand guns any of the myriad of types of guns are direct threats to the liberty of all Americans. Inherent and perhaps most important within the right to keep and bear arms is the most fundamental civil right of any human and that is the right to self defense. The right to protect one's self from the actions of government and or individuals is so fundamental and basic to life as to be, arguably, the most important civil right of all. If a person loses to right to defend one's self, then all other rights become meaningless. The founders were acutely aware of the dangers to freedom and democracy and the society that they all envisioned to come from the entirely new and never before tried governmental structures created by our Constitution, that they designed the fundamental structure of the government in three co-equal but divided branches to prevent any of them from going to far and encroaching on the rights of the individual to be free and live with an absolute minimal interference by government and certainly no King or other authority beyond the restraints of the people using the power of the vote.
84, no disrespect intended dude but, I know you don't expect me to read all that to find out what you are trying to point out!
I read the first sentence and I think he meant to say, "I agree Takoda".
-
2
-
The term "Terrorism"
in Politics & Religion
Posted
No need to be condescending 84 - I'm quite aware that there is islamic terrorism and terrorists actually do exist. Believe it or not I prefer to wait until an investigation uncovers the reasons for the attack (if any) and background of the attacker. My question to put it bluntly, was why do people like you look at any event that results in mass tragedy and automatically call it terrorism and go on diatribes about the evils of a religion and faults of immigration and etc. Your response was actually proving the point of my question.