NM11046

Nothing she did was illegal, and nothing she showed to by the gun shop was false to my knowledge. So this is totally ok. Her transfer of the weapon is also totally within the law as it's currently written. But we don't need to make any changes (sarcasm).

Is it though? I'm trying to decide how one gets the attention we want them each to get when there are so many top tier recruits there at the same time. (honestly, not trolling) I'd rather have Coach Dub be able to love on Tyjon to the max without having Joseph watching in the background and vice versa. Also, Key jr. is potentially coming out next weekend as well. If Tyjon is seriously looking at us and strongly thinking about committing, KW could easily use that to his advantage with Lewis in that he could explain if he comes here, he has a great QB and those three WRs could play together as possibly the best WR group in the country at a place where the fans love them, pack the stands and game day is crazy. I feel like we're a plan B for him and he's checking the box - we've got KJ, and think we've got JC silently and I'm betting we get TJ. I can't pretend to know how these kids think, but if it were me and I was evaluating programs, I'd want to go where: 1. Good history of offense or scheme being pass heavy (or offensive coordinator that thinks that way) 2. Good QB with pro skills 3. I'd have a position coach that I liked and respected and that I'd learn from 4. I have a chance of starting asap 5. Where I'd be surrounded by other decent WRs but not the absolute best - I'm all about me, and while I want to compete I want to be the star 6. Surrounded by strong OL and etc.

Is it though? I'm trying to decide how one gets the attention we want them each to get when there are so many top tier recruits there at the same time. (honestly, not trolling) I'd rather have Coach Dub be able to love on Tyjon to the max without having Joseph watching in the background and vice versa. Also, Key jr. is potentially coming out next weekend as well.

I agree. I think Rahyme is too.

I'm surprised this hasn't been shared or referenced yet ... it perfectly summarizes my thoughts and also backs the rationale up with points and examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Well if Christie keeps his job getting the blow hard McDonald's for lunch maybe he'll fade away quickly.

Seriously, are you purposefully being obtuse? This thread is about gun control, about something needing to be done (as in new laws). What NEW law would prevent this from happening, prevent this guy from getting a gun? NOTHING WOULD HAVE! Dude - I feel like you're only reading about every other word that people type. And seriously, no need for all caps.

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.

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.

I think the Ohio state love is bc tate Martell committed to osu Agree - I think it's a red herring.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am going to miss him tremendously.

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

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 could not agree with you more. Honestly.

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

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

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?