Jump to content


NM11046

Donor
  • Posts

    7,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by NM11046

  1. 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 ....
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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).
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. See how his left cheek twitches when Nebraska is mentioned ... I think he's "N"
  8. EXCELLENT Zoogs. Thank you for sharing this.
  9. I'm curious on those who are in a "wait & see" stage regarding the legal trouble Trump has/is facing with lack of payment to vendors and employees. What exactly are you waiting to see? The USA Today story was very diligently investigated, all the news outlets (including Fox) are now running with it. The 3500 lawsuits are public knowledge - and I believe they are separate from the 1500 related to Trump University.
  10. Not "don't have to" but choose not to.
  11. I have no idea why Trump won or tied the Evangelical vote in many of the primaries as I would prefer someone with a better personal compass. With that said, I do expect many of those Evangelicals who did not support him in the primaries to get on board as we are down to two deeply flawed candidates, and Trump at least offers a chance to reverse the negative direction this country has been on for years. Hillary will simply offer more of the same. Thus, I do now expect many of those Evangelicals that did not support Trump in the primary to get on board the Trump train. Seriously. I need a Republican to walk me through the negatives that define the negative direction we're heading down, so we can figure out how they happened, how to stop them and/or whether they are actually bad. And I need a good Christian to help me figure out why so many followers of Christ are opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick and loving thy neighbor, and instead support candidates who embrace guns, wage war and invite the money lenders INTO the temple. Who is opposed to feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and loving thy neighbor? Dude - come on! I'm thinking at this point you're just trolling.
  12. As I've stated before, this election is about the worse of two evils. On the one hand you have a bully and blowhard outside the political system that has a history of getting results. On the other hand you have a pathological liar who has spent her career inside the system and has little to show for it. Both candidates are deeply flawed when it comes to their character, and the election will come down to whether Americans want an insider or outsider. That's the thing. What you see on TV and what the media advertises about Trump isn't who he is. There have been countless people who have come forward who have either worked for Trump, worked with him, or been around him, and all of them that I've heard have said that he's one of the most generous, respectful people they've ever met. I tend to listen to those opinions about a persons character before I would ever listen to someone in the media, or a career politician. I prefer to make my own educated decision based on what I see and what I read about in unbiased sources. And on top of that - My gut. Which has been right (not a placebo controlled trial) at least 95% of the time. Not on the supposed rumbles of people who may or may not have met the man behind closed doors on a good day. Why would you think that after he's elected suddenly we'll see this alter ego Trump? The worst in people comes out in stressful times, and it won't get less stressful for him if elected. I can't understand valuing someones opinion, (who you don't know from a hole in the wall) over documented instances and what you can see if you turn on a television or computer. If your mom or your 2nd grade teacher said she'd met him and he was wonderful that's one thing, but random folks - none of which will stand up and say it proudly? Nope. PS, my uncles friend's cousin met Mother Theresa and said she was an absolute loud mouth bully. It's true. One of the other nuns that lived with her said it too. My mechanic told me his neighbor told him so. Why would I not take into account people who have worked along side him and say that he is one of the most respectful, generous people they have ever met? The best example would be from all the women in the smear article from the NYT. They were all quoted out of context, and they all came out and said nothing but good things about him. On top of that, I look at how much his family loves and respects him, and how well he has raised them to be successful business people as well. Ivanka especially is an extremely impressive individual. Finally, the stresses? Really? He has been in high pressure situations his whole life and made out pretty well. I have absolutely zero concern about him handling stress. You know what - you've changed my mind. You're right, because it's far more common for the family of a public official (and that's what he is now) to not stand behind him and to instead say bad things. And if he's "made out" pretty well during bad situations in business then that's all I care about. Not how he's treated others, how he's considered people (their livelihood, their feelings, their rights) besides his own greed and financial benefit. The president of the US is required to think beyond him/herself. To see a broader picture, the long term ramifications of any decision that he makes. He/she has to be able to put themselves in the shoes of the people that they represent, the rich and the poor, the white, christian, middle aged man and the old single woman, the young black/hispanic/asian/indian man. The american people, and those outside our little (and it is little) world - he/she has to be empathetic, decisive and respectful. You're right Shark, Trump is all of those things. I'm sure the people on SharkTank think so, and so it must be the case. (insert sarcasm here)
  13. As I've stated before, this election is about the worse of two evils. On the one hand you have a bully and blowhard outside the political system that has a history of getting results. On the other hand you have a pathological liar who has spent her career inside the system and has little to show for it. Both candidates are deeply flawed when it comes to their character, and the election will come down to whether Americans want an insider or outsider. That's the thing. What you see on TV and what the media advertises about Trump isn't who he is. There have been countless people who have come forward who have either worked for Trump, worked with him, or been around him, and all of them that I've heard have said that he's one of the most generous, respectful people they've ever met. I tend to listen to those opinions about a persons character before I would ever listen to someone in the media, or a career politician. I prefer to make my own educated decision based on what I see and what I read about in unbiased sources. And on top of that - My gut. Which has been right (not a placebo controlled trial) at least 95% of the time. Not on the supposed rumbles of people who may or may not have met the man behind closed doors on a good day. Why would you think that after he's elected suddenly we'll see this alter ego Trump? The worst in people comes out in stressful times, and it won't get less stressful for him if elected. I can't understand valuing someones opinion, (who you don't know from a hole in the wall) over documented instances and what you can see if you turn on a television or computer. If your mom or your 2nd grade teacher said she'd met him and he was wonderful that's one thing, but random folks - none of which will stand up and say it proudly? Nope. PS, my uncles friend's cousin met Mother Theresa and said she was an absolute loud mouth bully. It's true. One of the other nuns that lived with her said it too. My mechanic told me his neighbor told him so.
  14. Not gonna lie, I laughed a lot, even as someone who advocates for Trump. The only problem with this guy is he makes a career making jokes about other people, and that's not someone I'm ever going to listen to. Here is an intelligent person who lays it out there (and she's really nice on the eyes as well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQfIXixFi7o Also, one thing to note is that Tomi was extremely against Trump because she thought he was rude, and she has since joined his side understanding his flaws but still understanding that he's the best remaining candidate. Not gonna lie, I laughed a lot, even as someone who advocates for Trump. The only problem with this guy is he makes a career making jokes about other people, and that's not someone I'm ever going to listen to. Here is an intelligent person who lays it out there (and she's really nice on the eyes as well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQfIXixFi7o Also, one thing to note is that Tomi was extremely against Trump because she thought he was rude, and she has since joined his side understanding his flaws but still understanding that he's the best remaining candidate. Not sure if I'd bucket you as a sexist or a misogynist but either way you're an ass. If you had anyone starting to buy into your weird bs theories, you hopefully lost them with your 'easy on the eyes" comment. Do you not realize that by demeaning her with that comment you also take away any perceived legitimacy of her comments? I understand now why you're such a zombie like follower of Drumpf.
  15. I'd like to add self awareness and empathy, relateability. SaveSave If you add "nice" and "folksy" Mike Riley might as well be the next president. If I wasn't being sarcastic about Drumph you'd be right.
  16. But to be fair, I'd say Trump is the best candidate at using adjectives to describe himself. Not a lot of different ones mind you, but the consistent use of them when speaking about himself is indeed impressive. Terrific in fact.
  17. I'd like to add self awareness and empathy, relateability. SaveSave
  18. I'd like to add self awareness and empathy, relateability.
  19. What really blows my mind and confuses me are the folks that say he's been negative for race relations ... what the wha?
  20. I don't understand how the misdeeds and the errors of others should excuse Hillary's behavior. I haven't really been one to raise much of a stink about any of them but two wrongs don't make a right. I thought you didn't like Hillary? One of the main reason I have been avoiding these political threads lately is, I dont think any of the candidates are worthy of being defended. I dont want anyone to think I support any of them because IMO that would be somewhat embarrassing and also extremely hard to get very enthusiastic about. I'm confused why anybody who regularly claims the same thing, that all the candidates are poor, so often is seen defending one of them. Is it just the least bad of the bad thing that makes her worthy of sticking up for? Or, do you think she's not really all that bad? Or, is it just the thrill of pointing out cases of perceived hypocrisy? I don't mean to be getting on you specifically. I'm just dumbfounded by all the apparent support any of these wastes of air are garnering. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical. You wouldn't be hearing about this if Hilary weren't running for office. You wouldn't care. It wouldn't be treated as "big news," because it wouldn't be. It'd be treated the same as when Colin Powell did it and Condoleeza Rice did it. With a "meh" and barely a mention in the news. What you should be dumbfounded with is how shrill the attacks on Hillary are over something that at least two other Secretaries of State have done. What you should be dumbfounded about is how, 12 years after John Kerry was "swiftboated" in a crazy, stupid smear campaign, Americans are falling for the same kind of smear tactics again. I guess it doesn't surprise me that a candidate for President is being highly, and maybe unfairly, scrutinized by supporters of the opponent. Also it doesn't surprise me that people will tend to ignore the flaws of the person they support and raise a bigger stink about the opponent. That's just human nature. I guess I'll just have to remain most dumbfounded by the fact that any of them have any supporters who think they're worth defending. I'm having trouble coming to terms with these being our choices. I don't want any of them to get a pass on anything even if the attack may be considered unfair. Made up and over played controversy has been a backbone of our political system forever. But totally worthless candidates for POTUS? I won't accept that. Well written JJ - I agree with everything you said. What gets stuck in my craw however, are the lies that are being spewed and then believed by the simple minded folks who are unable or who choose not to think for themselves; weigh the lessor of two evils, sort through the truth from the made up stuff, research a candidate's overall history and make an educated decision. Anybody who depends on Trump to educate them about Hilary or vice versa (or their respective news stations) and votes based on the rhetoric they hear from their candidate is a fool. And we seem to have a boatload of them right now. Shame on us, the US should be better than that - think what image of normal this sets for younger people who as far as they know, this is the sort of candidate and the sort of campaigns that the US has. Scrutiny - yes, it's expected and I think anyone who puts their name in the hat to run anticipates having to deal with it. But some of what's going on this year is just too much. The name calling, the immature twitter comments, the flippant disregard for other humans, the absolute made up on the spot lies. Why would any young person today live through this and say, "yeah, President is a job I want to strive for someday" or what middle aged person says, "yeah, I think my skeletons are not real bad, and I've got a tough skin, don't care about my family getting taken down, maybe I'll run in 4 years". It's no wonder we have who we have to choose from today - who would want to go through all this and to get THAT job. It's no longer a respected position, at least by Americans - it's not a job that anybody can honestly look at and say, "I think I can get things done". It's a sad, sad time for America.
  21. Must you keep doing this? In every thread in this forum? God help us - he'll do it till somebody laughs, and thus it will go on forever.
  22. Trump is an orange version of SNLs Tommy Flanagan (the pathological Liar) http://www.hulu.com/watch/10387
  23. I would agree, but would revise the statement by saying: nobody has better academic support for its athletes than Nebraska. Playing devils advocate, there are plenty of other schools with higher ranking academic programs (depending on field of study), especially here in the B1G Ten. The important thing is that the chances of an athlete succeeding in their academic pursuits is better here, regardless of sport or coach. Hey IA State Huskers - not trolling here, seriously asking ... what's the source you use to back up the academic support for athletes at NE? How do we prove that the chances of an athlete succeeding is greater at NE than elsewhere? For the 2014-15 year, Nebraska was 2nd in the B1G for GSR (graduation success rate) behind Northwestern. Source: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/graduation-success-rate Nebraska clocked in at 85% while Northwestern hit 97%. Closest to us was Rutgers at 83%. If he truly wanted the best GSR school on his offer list...it would probably be Duke or Stanford. But honestly, if he wants to see the best supported athletic program as far as academics, I can't think of any program out there that can rival ours...we've invested over 16.2 million in student athlete facilities, programs and assistance in the past 2-3 years...including, giving each student athlete a laptop to use during their time here. Source: http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=4270 As everyone here knows, tutors are available for large gaps of time for student athletes in a variety of subjects. There are 14 full time staff members that support these endeavors. Nebraska is VERY serious about student athlete education. If it were me, I would make sure I put these programs at other schools up against what Nebraska offers and what it has achieved in the past. Using that formula, I truly believe that "there is no place like Nebraska". Good info to have on hand - thank you. Lots of folks making broad statements on how great their education/graduation/academics program is (or isn't - not just talking NE here) but there doesn't seem to be a reputable source that can be pointed to as fact. I like having this info. Thank you.
  24. I would agree, but would revise the statement by saying: nobody has better academic support for its athletes than Nebraska. Playing devils advocate, there are plenty of other schools with higher ranking academic programs (depending on field of study), especially here in the B1G Ten. The important thing is that the chances of an athlete succeeding in their academic pursuits is better here, regardless of sport or coach. Hey IA State Huskers - not trolling here, seriously asking ... what's the source you use to back up the academic support for athletes at NE? How do we prove that the chances of an athlete succeeding is greater at NE than elsewhere?
  25. Lol. I get the feeling he has a little more interest in us than Echols. Or Hill?
×
×
  • Create New...