Oade

I agree, they look cool, they are cool, but I would love for there to be a real initiative to replace these blades. There is enough evidence to have real pause and concern about birds, bats, and marine life to at least attempt something new before Wind Farms go any larger in scale than they already are -not that Trump is going to help that. If the blade-free systems are as good as they seem, and can be improved upon, then they should be implemented going forward. Absolutely. I'm not sure about the environmental impact of those blades, but if there's something better that is less damaging to the environment, I'm all for it. Anything is better than fossil fuels dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The blades are estimated to kill between 200,000 and 375,000 birds per year, and an equal number of bats - in the US alone. I think the number is estimated at 700,000 birds world wide per year. Furthermore, Wind-farms are exempt from the same penalties you and I are subject to for killing bald eagles - there are restrictions put in place if said companies can't curtail the killings within a 5 year period though..... Also the bigger and under researched issue in my eyes, is of how the actual posts/towers effect ocean currents, whale & fishing migrations, coral developments, and hearing-damage during construction. -- A floating buoy-system would be ideal if possible. In regards to Trumps tweet, I hope it means he intends to undo part of the law Obama signed that protects wind-farms when they kill bald eagles. They should be held accountable no different from if you or I had a private wind-generator at home and killed a bald eagle. However, without knowing more about the in's and outs of the law than I do, I hope that's the only thing he changes about Obama's wind-farm policy.

I agree that we need to target the +3 limit going forward, and Riley deserves similar criticism going forward, but I think it is two-fold. We want the +3, but if the +3 aren't good enough recruits, then I'm ok with saving it. Also, not to be an apologist, but next year is Riley's first true NU class in my eyes- in terms of his staff recruiting players only to NU over the course of 3-4 years. Look at Sarell for example, maybe we would have landed him if Riley and Cav had been developing relationships to NU for that extra season rather than to OSU (small gripe, but notable imo). Its not uncommon to see an up-tick in recruiting for any program or staff during their 3rd full season of recruiting.

I agree, they look cool, they are cool, but I would love for there to be a real initiative to replace these blades. There is enough evidence to have real pause and concern about birds, bats, and marine life to at least attempt something new before Wind Farms go any larger in scale than they already are -not that Trump is going to help that. If the blade-free systems are as good as they seem, and can be improved upon, then they should be implemented going forward.

Do we have enough CB's to even afford to RS him? I think he pretty much has to play. Maybe if injuries pile up. Its also possible we just allow any injuries or lack of depth to dictate our nickle package use. We've got a legitimate 3-deep if we can afford to limit our Nickle packages. CB: Jones, A Williams, Bootle CB: Jackson, Dismuke Nickle: Kalu, Anderson

If that's the case, it's nice to know we're imposing a 3 scholarship sanction on ourselves. Aren't a lot of people thinking they are trying to save up a few more for next year? I could be wrong on that. Yes and no. I think we would have used up all of our schollys this cycle if the players all had wanted N, so in that regard its disappointing. But on the other hand, I think the plan was to save the 5th WR spot that we had originally wanted, and also DW seems very willing to only take one DB this cycle whereas that wasn't the original plan before he was here.

Just passing along what I've read, but someone on another board said it would be between 3 and 5, fwiw. I think that FoxSports is covering it, so they might be influencing the timing of everything.

I disagree, just because someone has convictions in a particular topic, or further more if they just have a simple observation they'd like to share, that doesn't mean they want to debate it ad nauseam. It might just be that a particular view or topic is worth commenting on..... And as a few in that thread have pointed out, they stopped doing so because of the general culture in this forum.... That doesn't mean they are any less convicted or justified for their views. But it does limit conversations and topics.

Trying to convince somebody else that your opinion is the correct opinion would be to suggest that this is a "debate" forum, not a "Conversational" forum.... Basis of the concerns expressed in the other thread.

Not picking on you specifically, but I feel like if I were to say something along those same lines about Trump, at least half a dozen other posters would ask me to verify my claims with proof of some sort... Which I think is the basis for most of the complaints from many people's within the p&r/ostracize thread. Trump is not the hero his biggest supporters make him out to be. Nor is he the villain his opponents make him out to be.

I'd love for him to be a Husker, and I'll wish him well and respect it if he's not. This past month has been odd for following along with Calvin's recruitment, and Its not that I don't care anymore, its just that I'm exhausted by it. In all reality, this is one of the most obvious cases to me where a recruit should not sign with ANYONE on national signing day. There is no reason he can't wait another week if that's what it takes to make the proper decision.... Better to wait another week, regardless of how exhausting it is for us fans, than to change your mind a year from now.

-- Josh Earnest, January 17, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/17/did-obamas-press-secretary-just-defend-trumps-approach-to-the-media/?utm_term=.8777c8d296ea And again, I'm not in support of a ban. However, I'm not opposed to the idea of continually improving and refining our procedures. I don't agree with the ban, but I do agree with the idea of practicing some patients when it comes to any politician(s), left or right.... Its entirely possible that new info surfaced that final week of Obama's tenure that would have made even Obama act in a similar manner.... I don't necessarily believe that to be the case, but I can be patient in the mean time.

To be fair, I feel like that sort of hypocrisy flows on both sides.... This isn't related to the Supreme Court, just an article that I came across yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html?_r=1 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/obama-trump-media-last-press-conference-233751

In regards to the perspective of that photo, a red NU envelope is at the very top of the pile. So even if he doesn't sign with us, we can take pride in that.

Opposition to refugees? You're attempting to argue that the Trump administration will represent a positive development in the amount of Syrian refugees taken in. This is an incredible argument. You know that Obama ramped up the refugee influx and was eager to increase it even more dramatically. You know where the opposition has come from. You know what Trump campaigned on and what he is doing now. Ha, not opposition to refugees, opposition "from both sides hoping to avoid committing to another endless war."

My position is that the U.S. under Obama did FAR less than its far share of shouldering the refugee burden in Syria. Although I would also point out that he tried to increase these numbers. It wasn't easy, as low as they were. The opposition was fierce. Where did that opposition come from? This is not the right comparison. What was the target number for 2017 on the other side? I would say that the opposition stemmed from both sides of the aisle - from both sides hoping to avoid committing to another endless war. I'm not trying to compare anything in all honesty. I was pointing out that a lot of people on here and otherwise are acting like we aren't allowing any refugees in this year. Or that what we had been doing for the previous decade was good. Which is not true.... We will have allowed more Syrians in, and possibly better screened, by the end of the year than all but maybe one year of Obama's tenure combined. Why protest on end about that? Of course this should not be a numbers game, and we should help as many people in need as possible. Putting a limit on it is silly, but so is not fully addressing the true reasons behind why these people are refugees to start with. Nobody on either side of the aisle seems to have a great idea behind addressing that though. I think we can all agree we want to see these people helped, and in the end, I fully expect them to be.... For as disappointed in the EO as I am, I also won't pretend that this policy is going to last Trumps entire tenure (unless Trump is impeached within the next 90 days).... Things are going to get sorted out soon, and hopefully they come up with a better policy than what has been in place for the previous decade. If they can do that, then I can be patient for 3 months.

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to pick on you with this post, just a general observation of mine.... Holding representatives accountable is necessary and should be never-ending, so why weren't there these same level of protests happening when Obama was only admitting less than 50 Syrian refugees per year? Where was the up-roar then? Does anyone on here honestly think that Trump's administration is going to have admitted any less than 50 Syrian refugee's by the end of the year? Honestly, if this is truly a temporary EO, then he's going to admit more Syrian refugees into this country than Obama did most years.

Is it an apples to apples comparison though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we currently only have less than 1000 troops deployed in Syria, and are not in control of the war there. Compared to hundreds of thousands of troops that have been in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past two decades.... Did we accept Refugees at the rate of 13,000 per year from those countries before gaining control of those wars? (serious question) To say that our procedures have not resulted in war-like attacks here is true, but to say that that same exact can be applied to Syria directly is debatable. These are different militaries, different countries, and at no point in the past 16 years have we had control of the situation in Syria, unlike what we've experienced/developed with Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree, I'm not sure how this EO does anything. I never would have enacted it myself if I was president. But given the fact that its temporary and people are still allowed in on a case-by-case instance, I'm not sure that screaming about it does much good. Furthermore, we've taken in roughly 15,000 Syrians in the past 18 months, compared to roughly 250 the previous 8 years combined. That is a very rapid increase in refugee numbers, and although we haven't seen crime-spikes, its possible that the issues that have plagued Europe have yet to manifest here simply based on numbers rather than actual efficiencies of our procedures in comparison to Europe. What about our Vetting process is different or better than European countries? Is it that our process is truly better, or is it that until a year ago we didn't take Refugees in at a comparable rate to Europe?

You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke. Right. So we're taking in refugees to get them out of the burning building. Several countries, including the US, are trying to "put out the fire." Where's the disconnect here? I guess my disconnect is that fire generally spreads if given the chance.... You don't take a burning personal item to your new house and let it continue to burn..... Taking in refugees indefinitely creates the potential for that here, which would negate the nature of the safety we can offer currently. Again, I don't agree with an all out ban, but increasing/improving precautionary measures can be a good thing.

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe? The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own? I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully? It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe. Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?" Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone? How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward? Lets be real, the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely truly solve anything? Your house is on fire. You don't stay in the burning house, you leave. Once the house has been rebuilt, you return. You also call the fire department to come put out the fire, or at least to attempt it, before all of your belongings go up in smoke. You don't just stay at your neighbors house until the fire stops, and new house is built, on its own.

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe? The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end the reasons once and for all that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own? I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solvee the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully? It offers them safety from bombs falling on their heads. I mean, they are literally asking us to save their lives. Not make them feel safe, but be safe. Fair enough, so allow me to amend the part of my post that you bolded..... "Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of temporary safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no?" Do we expect/allow for all of these refugees to never return to their homes? Do we expect the violence in Syria to end without further diplomatic or military policy? Or will it continue/spread across boarders until these extremest have killed everyone? How were we truly offering a solution to their safety-risks under the previous administrations, what should we continue from those policies, and what else should we do to solve the source-problem of their safety-risks going forward? Lets be real, the refugees aren't the issue, the war is, what are we doing to end it? Does offering refuge indefinitely truly solve anything?

Is it your position that taking in refugees solves the source problem? Does taking in these refugees offer anything other than a feeling of safety to these refugees? That's what they are seeking, no? Wouldn't they stay in their home countries if they already felt safe? The reality is that these people should not be refugees to begin with... In terms of world wide peace and freedom, this should not be an issue.... Would anyone be supportive if Trump (or if Obama had) decided to intervine militarily in Syria to end once and for all the reasons that these refugees are leaving? Or should we just take these refugees in indefinitely until the war ends on its own? I don't agree with an all out ban, I don't support endless acceptance of refugees without helping to solve the source reasons, and I don't support going to war.... What exactly about Obamas diplomatic-policies was going to lead to the resolution of this problem without going to war? How should Trump solve this issue peacefully?

betrayed the administration....not the united states. She was only going to be acting AG for another week or two. What difference does it make if she goes on an early vacation? No one gives a sh*t she was fired. The bullsh*t wording is what's stupid as sin. Not that it's surprising. You seriously think for a minute Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch would have crossed their handler and broken ranks on any issue? Their loyalty was to the administration not the office and what they thought may or may not have been right was a distant second. Uh, no? And the fact you asked me that means you're not comprehending my opinion on the matter. I literally just said in the post you're replying to that no one cares she was fired 2 weeks ahead of time. To the rest, people should do what is right regardless of their loyalty to a person or party. But Obama had a similar policy from 2011 to 2015 without a peep from the AG office. It wasn't until late 2015 or early 2016 that the gates were opened to Muslims but essentially closed to Christians from the Middle East....who were more at risk than Muslims. Here are the Syrian-refugee admissions to the U.S. since the start of the Syrian Civil War: https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/prm/releases/statistics/index.htm 2007: 17 2008: 24 2009: 25 2010: 25 2011: 29 -- The War "Started" -- 2012: 31 2013: 36 2014: 105 2015: 1,682 2016: 13,210 (unofficial) http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/13210-syrian-refugees-admitted-year-through-october-675-99-are / https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/30/us/syrian-refugees-in-the-united-states.html That's nearly a 700% increase of Syrian refugees in 2016. That's a big change in policy, and if the crime rates from Europe are accurate, then maybe some extra precautions are a good idea... Only time will tell imo. As to the Christian issue, of those 13,210 refugees in 2016, only 77 (0.5%) were Christian - Compared to Syria's total population of nearly 10% Christians. (A stat that used to be higher) I only point out the Christian stat because you asked, I don't think it really makes much difference.... If people need help, if refugees need help, then we should help them without attempting to fill out some religious-demographic quota.... But we should also be cautious and practical about this. A 700% increase is hardly cautious or practical..... Its dumb to put a number on it, because if someone needs help, then they need to be helped end of story, but 13,000 refugees from a high-risk (Obama's wording) country is not something we can consistently sustain without some problems arising, esp if Europe's problems are a truthful indication.

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows. 1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot. 2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States. 3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner). 4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned. The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point: 1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens. 2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety. Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here: His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again. In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level. Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that. The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows. 1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot. 2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States. 3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner). 4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned. The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point: 1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens. 2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety. Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here: His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again. In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level. Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that. The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows. 1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot. 2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States. 3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner). 4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned. The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point: 1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens. 2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety. Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here: His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again. In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level. Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that. That was a horrible video; at no point did Stewart blame BRI so not worth watching Not picking on you BRI, but the question I and others are asking is HOW does this ban lead to improving our immigration vetting and WHY can't that be done without a unilateral ban? It seems like we can review our immigration procedures and improve our vetting without this ban. I am also not seeing any actual evidence for the direct threat every one of these countries poses. I'm not trying to belabor the point or pick on you. I just see there being a difference between improving our vetting VS banning immigration/travel. There is nothing that is connecting one to the other atm... That's yet to be seen, this administration better hope it leads to a better process or there will be hell to pay and they'll get trashed even further for it. Why would we continue an unsafe practice if it's seen unsafe by the current administration? That could be considered equally as reckless IMO as an all out ban. Like I said, there is a fine line to walk here and I'm assuming there has been some national security intel brought up that led to this ban that we all aren't completely aware of. It should make folks feel a little better that the Obama administration tagged these same countries as being dangerous, but it doesn't seem to be helping. Let me ask you this, if it comes up later that there was real intel that led this administration to make this decision and it led to a better/safer process that you can't see until months down the road would you like this decision more? That's been on my mind these past few days. I don't expect it, but what crossed my mind --- Playing devils advocate here / Complete conspiracy theory ---- is maybe this had something to do with the Super Bowl.... How would people feel if Trump had said that they have intelligence of a pending-attack and this EO will help prevent something from happening there. --- Conspiracy theory, I know, I don't see it as the case, but its food for thought.

Is it your position that nothing bad has come of it? What is the "good" that is coming of it? I wouldn't say that the disruption of normal processes is a good thing (both government and social), so by comparison I would call this bad.... I never would have enacted this EO myself, but I can see the desire to limit criminals entering country. IDK what the good is so far, but if they are able to improve the vetting process in the coming weeks and months, or limit the problems that have plagued Europe's Refugee in recent years, then I would call that a good thing.