NM11046

 

 

 

I understand it may take some time and money, but I would like to see palm/fingerprint recognition safety features on guns. They could be authorized to those that pass background checks, training, etc. I would support Congress allocating funds to research these issues and figure out the best way to implement these policies (but I doubt the NRA would allow that).

 

The FBI can barely get into a dead terrorist's iPhone after weeks of hacking, but children, criminals, and terrorists seem to be able to acquire and use guns with relative ease.

 

There's been research into them for a long time, but the reality is, they aren't remotely reliable enough yet.

I'd like to see more time and money be spent on these safeguards (and not allow the NRA to block funding for research).

 

My iPhone fingerprint is pretty damn reliable!

As for the funding issue, I haven't seen a verified report that the NRA is actively blocking funding for research on those type of safeguards. The only thing I've seen them oppose is making it mandatory, especially since it's not reliable. As for the iPhone, I have one too, but the sensor is not remotely reliable enough for a moment where I would need to fire a gun.

THe NRA is nothing if not smart - what they've done is block the ability of the CDC and other non-biased groups to do research and determine historical, fact based information (death rates. Impact, injury vs death, mass shooting vs suicide vs domestic violence etc.) Thus, there is very little "amunition" for anyone to use to justify investing in sensors and the like.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

I hope he keeps doing this ... the WRs still uncommitted and on their list as well as ours seem to rank character and coaching pretty high. This bs only helps us. Plus what it does for motivation at the OSU game this year ... and if I were Coach Dub I'd collect all the tweets and make a pretty little package to show recruits moving forward.

All of those OSU crystal ball predictions came before we knew he was visiting again on the 24th. Things should change closer to his announcement.

I think it would be awesome to come from a 15% chance on CBs to a out of left field (according to everyone) commitment though.

 

It is just strange to see all these predictions roll in for Ohio state and so much Husker twitter love.

I think the Ohio state love is bc tate Martell committed to osu

 

Agree - I think it's a red herring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The debates are going to get ugly. Trump has already tried to smear Hillary for Bill's infidelities. Does Hillary bring up Donald's cheating/raping?

 

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women.

 

And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest.

 

 

So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words.

 

If Bill were running then all those things could be brought up - but to hold a woman acceptable for her husbands past actions (good or bad) are is ridiculous. Hilary "smearing' them is a matter of opinion. For many of you it wouldn't matter what she did or didn't do you'll find a way to tie her to anything and place blame.

 

 

You are the one that first raised a claim about Ivana's deposition without reading the full facts of the case and what she spoke about in the past year on that topic. I don't love Trump and don't agree with many of his statements, but he has not victimized women in the way the Clintons have. Had Hillary left Bill upon knowing of his ways, then I would actually praise her and hold her in higher regard. Instead, she blamed the victims and the Right Wing Conspiracy while sticking by Bill's side. Multiple women have commented how Hillary tried to smear or silence them, and you think that is acceptable? If this was just a single woman making these claims, I would say its her word against theirs. But given it's multiple victims, and the Clintons have a history of lying, I am going to trust these women over the Clintons. I can say the same for the Bill Cosby situation. When I heard the first story come through, I thought, she must want money or fame. When the second came forward, I started to think different. But when more and more came forward, I no longer believed Cosby.

 

Nope. You should review the content here. I said nothing about Ivanka.

 

 

My apologies...there were two others that brought up Ivana's name (Ivanka is the daughter). With that said, my point still holds true.

 

No sweat. Sorry for the name mix up. To be clear, Ivanka is the one he said he'd date if she wasn't his daughter? :-)

Edit: http://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-ivanka-sex-trevor-noah-daily-show

 

 

 

 

 

The debates are going to get ugly. Trump has already tried to smear Hillary for Bill's infidelities. Does Hillary bring up Donald's cheating/raping?

 

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women.

 

And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest.

 

 

So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words.

 

If Bill were running then all those things could be brought up - but to hold a woman acceptable for her husbands past actions (good or bad) are is ridiculous. Hilary "smearing' them is a matter of opinion. For many of you it wouldn't matter what she did or didn't do you'll find a way to tie her to anything and place blame.

 

 

You are the one that first raised a claim about Ivana's deposition without reading the full facts of the case and what she spoke about in the past year on that topic. I don't love Trump and don't agree with many of his statements, but he has not victimized women in the way the Clintons have. Had Hillary left Bill upon knowing of his ways, then I would actually praise her and hold her in higher regard. Instead, she blamed the victims and the Right Wing Conspiracy while sticking by Bill's side. Multiple women have commented how Hillary tried to smear or silence them, and you think that is acceptable? If this was just a single woman making these claims, I would say its her word against theirs. But given it's multiple victims, and the Clintons have a history of lying, I am going to trust these women over the Clintons. I can say the same for the Bill Cosby situation. When I heard the first story come through, I thought, she must want money or fame. When the second came forward, I started to think different. But when more and more came forward, I no longer believed Cosby.

 

Nope. You should review the content here. I said nothing about Ivanka.

 

 

 

 

The debates are going to get ugly. Trump has already tried to smear Hillary for Bill's infidelities. Does Hillary bring up Donald's cheating/raping?

 

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women.

 

And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest.

 

 

So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words.

 

If Bill were running then all those things could be brought up - but to hold a woman acceptable for her husbands past actions (good or bad) are is ridiculous. Hilary "smearing' them is a matter of opinion. For many of you it wouldn't matter what she did or didn't do you'll find a way to tie her to anything and place blame.

 

And furthermore - If you want to look at how someone handles a personal situation then you have to look in the Trump mirror and reflect on his actions surrounding his 3 marriages, affairs, how he treats employees and contractors and etc.

 

 

 

The debates are going to get ugly. Trump has already tried to smear Hillary for Bill's infidelities. Does Hillary bring up Donald's cheating/raping?

 

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women.

 

And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest.

 

 

So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words.

 

If Bill were running then all those things could be brought up - but to hold a woman acceptable for her husbands past actions (good or bad) are is ridiculous. Hilary "smearing' them is a matter of opinion. For many of you it wouldn't matter what she did or didn't do you'll find a way to tie her to anything and place blame.

 

The debates are going to get ugly. Trump has already tried to smear Hillary for Bill's infidelities. Does Hillary bring up Donald's cheating/raping?

 

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women.

 

And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest.

Obama currently issuing a takedown on the idiots who get hung up on the language he uses in dealing with terrorism. Fantastic stuff to finally see him come out and tell them to STFU.

I am going to miss him tremendously.

 

 

 

let me add this little nugget..

 

 

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

We have this thing called the constitution, France doesn't have that.

As I stated earlier I'd we strictly follow that then we have to strictly follow that the constitution wasn't written for colored people or women. So own all the muskets you want white men!

 

 

 

Can you point to where in the constitution where it says it isn't for colored people?

 

 

EDIT: I will answer that! You can't, are you taking two separate issues and trying to relate them. Which is by far the dumbest argument I have seen to date.

 

Just for factual clarification - you're right, the constitution never explicitly denies its services to black people or any other race. However, because of that, our forefathers did interpret the Constitution in a way to ban voting rights/civil rights to women and black people. The Constitution had to later be amended to address these concerns.

 

The Constitution is a living, breathing piece of legislation.

 

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson - 7/12/1816

 

Shark, you just did what is Trump's response to criticism in a bottle: he resorts to ad hominem attacks and tries his best to undermine the integrity and honesty of the source of the criticism. He rarely ever address the criticism itself, he just tries to slander whoever is levying it as dishonest or disgusting or what have you.

 

At what point does reporting a candidates own words and actions become disgusting and dishonest? It seems to me that particular line of a attack has a distinct fascist flavor to it. It's dishonest and disgusting simply because he doesn't like it.

 

Here is a brief history of Trump's stifling of free press during this election cycle.

 

I simply don't see it the same way as you. I've made my point multiple times in this thread, as well as the Republican election thread, and I'd be better off talking to a plant. It's funny what you say, because that's the only form of response I've gotten. No one knows why they think what they think, but they criticize my views because on this board, they're not popular. It's bullsh*t, but whatever.

 

I'm sorry he's not politically correct enough to fit into the narrow little "presidential" box that people expect him to fit into, but that's exactly his appeal to people right off hand. I've spelled out my understanding of his weaknesses, but his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses IMO. Sorry the radical opinions on this board (or however you could categorize it) don't accept that and decide to respond to me in excessively harsh ways. You people are allowed to have your opinions, but I'm tired of being sh*t on for supporting Trump. I (and millions of others in this country) think that people who support Bernie or Hillary are idiots too, so... Not sure what to say to closed-minded, overly PC people...

 

Dude - if sharing links to fact based information is treating you "excessively harsh", and you feel you're being sh*t on I have no words. There has been little to no aggressive talk here - the moderators have made sure of it. You've been treated as well as your ilk has created the "leftists PC people"

And, "closed minded" might be the pot calling the kettle black. If either side feels that their comments will change the mind of the others we're all high. Folks that aren't sure of their politics aren't logging into these threads. God help us if someone on the fence comes to the HuskerBoard threads for that purpose.

I have no idea what kind of garbage some people on this board are reading and watching in order to draw their opinions... It's freaking unreal honestly, and it's a total mind-f*ck on a daily basis...

I could not agree with you more. Honestly.

I don't know why everyone already putting him at OSU, I think he really wants to learn under coach Williams.

I'm with you - I think all those CBs in the last day or two are waaaaay off.

 

 

The fact is, this guy "Orlando shooter" was on the radar, went abroad and was questioned not once, but three times by the FBI.

 

Why was he given the green light to purchase a weapon.

 

Once again, the gun is not the perp, the individual who wielded the gun was!

 

 

You can't be serious, right? He was able to purchase a weapon because the laws that many have been attempting to pass that would stop people like this from being able to purchase weapons, keep getting rejected by Republicans with the mindset of, "the guns aren't the problem"

[citation needed]

 

Edit: and FYI the no-fly list isn't it.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459099457/republicans-reject-proposals-to-bar-people-on-no-fly-list-from-buying-guns

 

Moderators - if I call someone crazy do I get kicked off the board?

Indeed.

 

:-)

I think we get a silent commit out of Lindsay when he visits on the 23/24.

Moderators - if I call someone crazy do I get kicked off the board?

 

 

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

 

You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

 

The content of any of his comments after these shootings (isn't that heartbreaking that we have to differentiate WHICH one of the mass shootings he commented after) is always heavy on recognizing families and loved ones and the country as we work through tragedy. I highly doubt any one of the impacted family members today had a problem with President Obama coming out strongly against guns after their loved ones were murdered by one (or more). You may have taken political issue with it, but I'm confident that parents and families do not.

I happen to have ties to Sandy Hook and I speak confidently when I say that the people directly impacted in that tragedy had no doubt where the Presidents comments came from and they were grateful that he acknowledged our country's obvious gun control issues openly. To not acknowledge that there is a pattern and that we can not continue to be ok with these news stories continuing to occur routinely is asinine.

I can't/won't even begin to reply to your placing blame on broken homes, lack of good parenting and etc being the cause of the obscene rise in gun deaths ....

Darnay Holmes is all of those things too, he just has a greater spotlight on him.

Agreed - I just appreciate that Tyjon has made a point of asking not to have his recruiting discussed and tends to only do interviews that are required based on his tourney commitments. Speaks (imho) to a focus on doing his job and not wanting distractions. They're both talented, I just appreciate the humble focus of Tyjon.

Coincidentally listened to this last night and opened this thread this morning.

 

Counters a lot of what has been said in this thread.

 

Very interesting perspective - it does make sense that those (I speak for myself) of us fighting that "it's not all muslims" are also the ones who have the perspective that the over the top christians (Westboro Baptists, active pro lifers) are not reflective of the entire christian population. But for those who believe in the christian bible explicitly word for word it is an easy leap for them to think that other religions do the same. What gets lost is that there is good and bad in the bible, just like there is good and bad in the Koran. Folks seem to forget that christians don't exactly take it word for word - same goes for muslims.

I like this kid batter than Darnay. More of a put your head down, be quiet-don't call attention to yourself, learn and do the work. He'll really be something under a coach that really works with him. I also think we've got a better shot at him - he seems attuned to family, character and I think Coach Riley and Williams have done a nice job quietly letting him know his place with NE would be bright. (can't hurt with Riley working his mom and aunt either).

 

 

 

No, I didn't. I thought you, as a clear Trump supporter, were genuinely parroting Trump's name-calling the way we've seen other Trump supporters do regularly here (remember when 'Lyin' Ted' graced this place?) in an attempt to ridicule Elizabeth Warren.

 

That seemed like a safe assumption, but if instead it was sarcasm, and you were ironically pointing out the line of attack for the empty, racially-tinged disgrace it is, then I apologize for leaping to conclusions.

There was nothing racist about that comment. The lady lied about having native american heritage so she'd get special treatment at Harvard. I actually find that comment extremely funny.

 

Do you seriously feel that there's nothing racist about the comment made by Trump? Regardless of her supposedly checking a box, there is no situation where a man should refer to a woman as Pocahontas. None. It's a horrible habit that Trump has, to belittle and attempt to demean people by using a "nickname" to condescend to them. It's unattractive, and a weak childish move at best (i.e. Little Marco, Boring Jeb, Crooked Hilary) but this one is indeed racist. I assume you're male - do you feel there is ever a time that you could be referred to as Tonto and it would be appropriate?

 

 

If I had claimed to be Native American in order to get special treatment when in reality I have 0% Native American blood, then if someone jabs me with the term "Tonto" I deserved it. And no, it's not racist. And in case people need the actual definition:

 

Racism

1.

having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

Nothing that he said demeaned Native Americans, unless they'd consider being associated with this woman as an insult. But then again, everyone gets offended by anything and everything these days...

 

You'd have to talk to Native Americans to determine if they felt demeaned ... the two current members of House felt at best it was pejorative and felt strongly enough to comment about it in the press. As did John McCain.

I'm going to choose to be happy about the fact that he's alienated yet another group of Americans, as well as some additional republican politicians. So now Hilary's got Women, Mexicans, Muslims, Native Americans and LGBT among others (heck just count all the folks from NJ, NY, FL and elsewhere who are suing him for back wages and lack of payment for services and goods provided, as well as the Trump University folks) I'm feeling pretty good, and I I think his downward spiral has just begun.

 

No, I didn't. I thought you, as a clear Trump supporter, were genuinely parroting Trump's name-calling the way we've seen other Trump supporters do regularly here (remember when 'Lyin' Ted' graced this place?) in an attempt to ridicule Elizabeth Warren.

 

That seemed like a safe assumption, but if instead it was sarcasm, and you were ironically pointing out the line of attack for the empty, racially-tinged disgrace it is, then I apologize for leaping to conclusions.

There was nothing racist about that comment. The lady lied about having native american heritage so she'd get special treatment at Harvard. I actually find that comment extremely funny.

 

Do you seriously feel that there's nothing racist about the comment made by Trump? Regardless of her supposedly checking a box, there is no situation where a man should refer to a woman as Pocahontas. None. It's a horrible habit that Trump has, to belittle and attempt to demean people by using a "nickname" to condescend to them. It's unattractive, and a weak childish move at best (i.e. Little Marco, Boring Jeb, Crooked Hilary) but this one is indeed racist. I assume you're male - do you feel there is ever a time that you could be referred to as Tonto and it would be appropriate?

See how his left cheek twitches when Nebraska is mentioned ... I think he's "N"