NM11046

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.

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.

Somebody had a great idea ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/14/a-small-pet-business-from-vermont-is-selling-huge-numbers-of-donald-trump-chew-toys/

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.

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!

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.

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".

I also have a dumb question about guns (hit me today at the gym). It's called the NRA (National RIFLE Association) so when did their agenda become to protect anything other than rifles? Handguns, AR57 etc.

Crabby.

Can you clarify how having a house party in the summer can be used against them in a game?

The latest statistical update (as of 1/1/16) reviewing Obama's time in office. SummarySince President Barack Obama first took office: The economy has added more than 10 million jobs, and job openings are at a 15-year high. The unemployment rate has dropped well below the historical norm, but long-term unemployment remains higher than at the start of the Great Recession. The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.4 percent. Corporate profits are running 152 percent higher, and stock prices have soared. The number of immigrants caught trying to enter the U.S. illegally has dropped 53 percent. Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise. The home ownership rate has dropped by 4 percentage points. The number of Americans on food stamps is up 36 percent. Oil imports are down 53 percent, and wind and solar power have quadrupled. The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by 15.2 million. Tons more detail at: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/obamas-numbers-july-2016-update/

At least its in July. I would doubt we'd see suspensions but who knows.

And who's fault is that? The police or the person the police are dealing with? I already said whose fault it is in that post. It's sometimes the cop, more often the person being contacted, and sometimes it's a mixture of both. Seen that and that's the correct answer in my eyes, but the overall tone of some in this thread is the cop is being biased and they are more in the wrong then they are right. Just the way I'm seeing it. I understand that it's tough to talk about this stuff for you, at least not without some level of defense. You or people you work with are risking their lives every day just to do your job. It's only natural you're going to be on your guard in conversations like this. Most of the rest of us don't risk our lives just doing our jobs. We have a very different perspective from you. I just hope you don't take the things people say personally. I think you're really respected around here, both for your Husker knowledge & because of what you do for a living. BIGRED.... My personal opinion on this is that being a police officer is just like any other job in that the vast majority of them do the job professionally and as it should be done. They are great people with families and come to the job with the correct attitude. However, as everyone has experienced in just about any job, there are people who get hired that aren't that way. They are bad at their job, they shouldn't have had the job in the first place and the situation needs to be corrected. The problem is, as a police officer, those people have the ability to do tremendous harm in the line of duty when they don't come to work with the right attitude and don't do it well. I think those people are a vast minority in the police force in this country. The trick is to figure out who those people are and eliminate them from the force. The guy who arrested me was fired shortly after. Not just because of my incident. The police chief had had multiple complaints bout the guy including a sit down parent meeting with several families from the community explaining how he had treated their kids. (giving a speeding ticket to a kid on a bicycle....etc.) This was in small town Nebraska where everyone knows everyone. What I wonder is, how can that be accomplished at the level of the Des Moines police force or Baton Rouge, or Atlanta or LA....etc. The public doesn't feel like they have access to the higher ups like we do in small town where I know the chief personally. And...unfortunately, as what usually happens in these situations. The majority of police officers are being painted in a bad light due to the actions of a few. The trick in larger cities is to have a Chief that's approachable that has mechanisms in place to make sure complaints are looked into in the correct way not just pushed to the side, typically the norm in smaller cities. I can tell you without a doubt the Des Moines Police Chief is probably one of the best Chief's in the nation. A very passionate man that cares about people and the officers that have the opportunity to serve under him. People will be coming from across the nation to try and lure him away, but I doubt they're successful. The Des Moines Police Department hasn't been without their issues over the years, but they've typically dealt with them the correct way ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the officer if there was an issue, but those issues are very rare, fantastic organization. I'm lucky to serve in the Des Moines Metro Area as all agencies in this area don't take "bad cops" lightly and WILL see to it that they are dismissed from their job should issues arise. Despite what the officers say about the Chief in Dallas I've seen nothing, but positives from what he's done with the department, but he is losing officers in large numbers because of the changes he's making. That could be for several reasons, but his approach has been one of progressiveness and problem solving with programs and approaches that have been addressing issues down there. His story is an amazing one, came from a poor family, has been a Dallas cop his entire career, his partner was killed in the line of duty early in his career, his brother was shot and killed by a drug dealer in Phoenix, his mentally ill 27 year old son was shot and killed by police during his first week as the Chief after he killed an innocent bystander and a police officer. Somehow he's continued to lead, I admire that and admire what he's gone through and how he's persevered through all of that and now finds himself in the midst of this latest tragic event. Can't imagine going through all of that while leading the 9th largest police force in the nation. I appreciate your perspective BRIowan, and thank you for doing one of the toughest jobs around. Des Moines or Dallas, it's a selfless and often unappreciated position.

I don't see him leaving CA regardless - he's too Hollywood (in a good way - but Lincoln would be tough)

I think somebody might have whispered "Calibraska" to him ..

You're missing out on all the Juan ....

I think he's cooled - his phone calls and convos via Skype are enough to keep us interested (and us fans engaged sorta), but with his dad's program and the future recruits from that area I think he's being appropriately political. I think our potential is higher with Calvin, Lewis and Lindsey - in that order. Those are all WR's. We need DB's, especially corners, so I'd say Holmes's potential is much higher. Arg. You're totally right - spaced!!!

So quick question to those who think that by civilians carrying guns we lesson the chance of attacks (because when a gunman tries to rob, or attack there would be a bystander with concealed carry who could stop the event). In Texas, where gun ownership is high (I think the last official stat I saw, and it was 2 or 3 years old said 37% of people in the state owned a gun, and I'm assuming based on politics, the color of the state overall and our current debates that this number has gone up significantly). How can one explain how Dallas happened? Statistically there were a significant number in the crowd who were carrying. This is not a trolling question, I'm sincerely interested in how this argument makes sense to some.

My top two: "liberal media" "politically correct"

I think he's cooled - his phone calls and convos via Skype are enough to keep us interested (and us fans engaged sorta), but with his dad's program and the future recruits from that area I think he's being appropriately political. (edited by me)

He Juant.

Hey you guys, all of the non-White people on the show Cops continuously fight the police and make hateful/threatening remarks. This is so alarming I can't even fathom it. That must mean all non-Whites are racist and hateful toward cops! Surely the subjects of an episode of Cops are representative of their respective populations as a whole. Now let's pick the first two Black people we can think of and blame them for this! Now let's not assume that the fact it's a show about Cops arresting people means these people are not exactly upstanding citizens, nor should we assume that the stuff that makes it on TV is the most controversial/entertaining. That'd just be crazy. This is the post of the year right here. Kinda like deciding Trump is a good leader and businessman by watching Shark Tank and The Apprentice? See a pattern here?

Oh why, why, why, do the people I block from seeing show up when I dial up this site on my cell phone .... must go take meds - have headache.

No, that was a tactic that I've never heard of, but it was obviously very effective. I actually want to know more about how that works. Seems to me a bomb robot would be somewhat easy to see coming.

Either of them has 4x the intellectual horsepower than one of the nominees.