Oade

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: 1. I think I agree with your first point. I'm not sure how this EO helps, but the fact that it's a Temporary order, and will no longer be in place by the time NU plays our spring game this year, makes me hopeful that something good will come of it. 2. But we are letting people in - on a Case-by-case decision currently....... And in 90 days we'll (presumably) be back to our normal/new process. - I posted an article on the previous page that mentions it.... Case-by-case basis, and considering the backlash so far, I would expect some case-by-case acceptions to be made soon. However, logistically speaking, its only been one working-day for cases to even be reviewed, so hopefully by mid-week we start to see some progress there. 2a. And no, actually you don't (and neither does any refugee) have the right to murder someone down the hall, or even steal from them (just to reduce the severity of the crime for arguments sake), you definitely don't have that right. I think its referred to as "conspiracy of first-degree murder", and you can be sent to prison for it, and lose most all of your freedoms in the process...... You may have the physical ability, but nothing within the spirit and terms of "freedom" allow for you to kill anyone, or even to "conspire", yet there is plenty within the spirit and terms to prevent and protects the right of potential-victims to not be murdered, among other things. For as disappointing as it is, a temporary policy is not a new thing.

I have no idea, but I personally don't like that question either. How is it relevant? It seems downright fascist. We are rapidly approaching a world in which fealty to the Executive is a requirement. All of us can choose to tolerate this, or not. We cannot be so dense so as not to recognize the erosion of liberty when we see it. The fact that there have been protests at these levels since November, without military/executive punishments for protesting, proves we are not even remotely close to a fascist level.

Because that would be illegal, so they couched it in distracting rhetoric. Guilliani even admitted as such on Fox News, saying Trump wanted a muslim ban and came to Rudy to ask, "How can we make this legal?" Easy. By finding some other excuse to ban entry from these Middle Eastern countries. Would you care to offer any kind of evidence or support of ANY kind whatsoever that the vetting process needs to be revamped, fixed, addressed, or whatever? 800,000 refugees here since 9/11 - not a one has killed an American citizen, and 3 have been charged with terrorism-related crimes. That's 99.99999% effective. So many people are saying this is a a good idea until we can solve the problem with our vetting - the question is, what problem? There doesn't seem to be one that exists, and though I and others have countless times posted the screening process graphics from the White House, nobody has ever cared to respond. re: the bolded, what do these have anything to do with Trump's refugee ban? It is easy for bad people to enter our country, period. Forget illegally. They can get here on tourist visas with tremendous ease. They're not trying to pose as refugees or immigrate - that's way more work and way more difficult. Further, Obama actually did quite a bit. I see a lot of conservatives on Facebook referencing his Iraq refugee halt in 2011, which was in response to an actual terrorist threat in the states, and resulted in a revamp of our now extremely thorough and effective vetting procedures. Evidence or support, do I have to find a Facebook post or reddit image to back my opinion? https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/11/the-refugee-vetting-process-will-fail http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy http://immigrationreform.com/2016/09/30/naturalization-errors-expose-vetting-problems/ http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html ---Read this one first. Ask the European countries that have been having issues with immigrants/refugees from some of these 7 countries if you think there aren't issues. As far as what you bolded, I was stating my opinion on Immigration as a whole. It would appear there are some concerns and deficiencies in the vetting process - those were interesting reads. However, we can improve our processes through well-conceived legislation. We can improve our national security by producing fair but strict immigration guidelines. What we can't do, and shouldn't do, is draft chaotic, confusing and in-part unconstitutional executive orders. This is a disappointing path towards improved national security, particularly when we consider Landlord's point - the current vetting process has been 99.9% effective. I will admit letting one bad apple slip through is unacceptable, particularly if it costs someone their life, but I do think this is a poor way of trying to fix the .01% of an issue. I agree about unconstitutional executive orders, it was my biggest complaint of the previous two Presidents as well. However, I think by allowing even just one "refugee" (or immigrant of any sort into the country) that doesn't have the interest of the Constitution in their intentions is FAR more dangerous to the constitution than a temporary-ban and improved-vetting process. We all have the Freedom of Religion, so if a certain refugee or immigrant supports oppressing people for choosing a different faction of Islam (which is sort of the big part of the issue) or for social freedoms we have here in the US, then they should not be allowed in. If they do not support the laws of the Constitution fully, then they should go elsewhere.... And if even just one Terrorist slips through the cracks, like what looks to be the case in Canada this weekend, then it undermines everyone's freedoms.

Here's a conservative view on the matter. I have tried to stay away from this issue all weekend because its clearly creating a lot of opinion/emotion, so maybe there are some parts of this article that are wrong, I wouldn't know, but overall there are some fair points made. Also, there are links within the article to other articles, that I am not posing in the quotes that stood out to me. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/no-trump%e2%80%99s-immigration-order-isn%e2%80%99t-racist-or-reminiscent-of-the-holocaust/ar-AAmp8dX?li=BBnb7Kz#image=3 Original Article: http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/30/no-trumps-immigration-order-isnt-racist-reminiscent-holocaust/ So Syrian Refugees are technically allowed, on a case-by-case basis, and considering the social outrage, I would expect some acceptions to be made shortly. So if the numbers in that final quote are correct, and if Trump's goal of allowing roughly 50k refugees is true, the in reality that number is probably more than any other president in US history except for Obama, and maybe (maybe?) during WW2? I fail to see how that is worth all of this backlash. I didn't vote for Trump (or anyone for that matter), and I don't agree with the ban in general, but at the same time, I don't see this as an awful bad thing either - so long as the "temporary" terms of it all are indeed "temporary".

Yeah it seems like a possibility, but I don't think that's his goal. I think he has a good idea of where he's going, just waiting until signing day to announce. His high school could have very well asked him to wait until he has a Study Hall or something like that. Or if the HS wanted to throw a small pep-rally like some schools do, then it could have just been more logical to do that at the end of the day rather than first thing in the morning.

I agree. I really like our DBs, but it's not like any of them are front runners to receive all-American or all-b10 honors... The opportunity is there for any of the younger guys to step up next season, even a freshman.

IDK about grades or why we're slow playing, but agree about his upside being high enough to push for a commitment regardless of Rafdal and Allen. Not trying to knock on those two, but I feel like Robinson is more suited to line up out wide or behind the LOS than either of the other two. Which is a useful attribute during a 2-minute offense or when injuries start to pile up at one position or the other. On top of that if we miss out on one of these final few WR's were going after, then Robinson could be moved to WR for a year or two if needed, and eventually moved back to TE if needed.

This is why people continue to give you sh#t. Stop playing the victim and just take it in stride. Eventually they'll get tired and move on. No actually its not his fault that other people haven't moved on two weeks later, and choose to continue to bring it up in every single thread. Its a two way street. Take it somewhere else.

I wonder if its an NCAA violation, or is it solely from a school safety standpoint? I understand safety but if its because of the NCAA then thats the dumbest thing ever I'm guessing it's ncaaI was thinking the school. I'm sure they don't want a ton of Husker fans just walking through the halls. Not sure how the NCAA could regulate fans showing up at his school. IDK whether or not it is a NCAA violation, I don't see how fans showing up itself would be a violation any more than fans showing up to a Friday Night football game would be, but I could see how inviting fans, could be a violation. I can see how the NCAA would potentially have issues with an open invitation like this. In some ways, this could be seen as no different than an open invitation to his High School graduation reception, which would open the door to countless "congratulation" cards with $20 and $50 tucked inside from people he has no personal connection to.... If thousands or even just one hundred had showed up to his signing, I could imagine a few bringing him a congrats-card or simple gift of some sort.

I had to scroll back up to make sure Matty didn't post this lol See, I don't really mind a little of this, because it's funny once. But in every thread it gets old. Especially when you were also a guy saying Darnay was in.... Hold on, fella. While others may have said that they felt Darnay was N, it's safe to say that nobody took it to the extent that you did. When you make bold and reckless predictions while referring to yourself in the third person via a douchey nickname like, "We will know soon boys. Hope those that have followed the iceman are ready for operation celebrate." and you swing and miss...you should expect to be endlessly ridiculed, especially when you continue to post in recruiting threads, as if you have some sort of inside information (other than a paid sub to a recruiting service that any shtick can purchase). "Endless ridicule" is a bit much, no? Staying positive and "predicting" a recruits final decision to be NU (something we all would've loved), is hardly grounds for "endless ridicule.".... Beyond maybe a random joke or two, any ridicule should all be kept inside the thread of said "prediction". Having the jokes and ridicule spill over into other threads, two weeks later, and seemingly without end, is more annoying than someone predicting that a recruit will pick NU.

Hey, if Steve Smith can make it work, why not Jamire??

I disagree. You don't see too many 5-9 200 lb wr's.You also don't see many 150 lbs WRs successfully/consistently blocking a 200 lbs CB downfield. To be clear, I like Calvin and hopes he committs, but anyone who weighs under 180 lbs at the D1 level is going to have a pretty limited role in the grand scheme of things. Not saying they wouldn't be valuable or useful, but it limits things.

Independent, not a part of UNL.

I'm no expert on the 3-4, or Diaco's D specifically, but I think it will actually mean more of those short passes, which is fine if the rest of the D is executing the way it should. From what I understand of Diaco's D, the secondary plays fairly deep to prevent giving up big plays. Doing that opens up the middle a little more than what you would want, but if it prevent opponents from taking the top off our D, and keeps them out of the end-zone, then God bless it. Makes sense with the bend don't break comments. What about bringing pressure in the 3-4? Thats one of my biggest questions too. I had read early yesterday that Diaco doesn't like to blitz that often, but then someone in a different thread posted this last night: 3rd in the nation for TFL, and 10th in sacks during his year at Cincinnati, so he must bring pressure from somewhere if he was able to get top-10 results.... And just looking at his Wiki page, it lists Diaco as DC/LB coach during his year at Cinci, so I would imagine that because he coached/worked with them more so than others, that he probably liked to use his LBs quite often to get TFL and Sacks (that's just a assumption though).

I'm no expert on the 3-4, or Diaco's D specifically, but I think it will actually mean more of those short passes, which is fine if the rest of the D is executing the way it should. From what I understand of Diaco's D, the secondary plays fairly deep to prevent giving up big plays. Doing that opens up the middle a little more than what you would want, but if it prevent opponents from taking the top off our D, and keeps them out of the end-zone, then God bless it.

I think you mean "getting to play". I'd rather play either Pelini than either of Wisky's last two DC's. On top of that, it'd also be pretty funny watching them try to recruit to Wisconsin. Hiring either of them would set Wisconsin back 10 years.

I agree for the most part. I like the change, I also like the initiative taken by both SE and MR - they both deserve credit.... I don't agree with the general idea that this is an attempt (or abuse of powers) by SE to save his job -- this is his job! I would be more concerned if he was any less involved than he is. It is the responsibility of everyone within the program to work together, not against each other - just like at any other successful business, everyone needs to be on the same page, working toward the same common goal. It is SE's job to review, assess, and critique the quality of work by all of the coaches. It's also MR's job (as it was Bo's, and anyone else who has a job) to accept the critique of a superior at work, especially when the critique is as obvious as it is/has been at NU, and take appropriate actions. MR deserves some freedom and latitude in regards to his staff, but they are still part of the AD's responsibilities - regardless of the AD's own job security. SE may have brought up the idea of staff changes, but that doesn't mean he's abusing his powers. He gave Bo several chances to make some changes before firing him, and I'm sure this is the same situation, only MR is smart and humble enough to accept advice from a superior at work. I doubt any changes would have come from SE this season if MR declined to make changes, or if MR explained why these assistants were more important to the success of NU than SE (or most of us) would give credit for, but I can't imagine an "annual review" meeting taking place between SE and MR without these issues coming up.

Matty is probably half a gallon into his Ben & Herry's. Is that the more depressing version of Ben & Jerry's? That depends on how you feel about having little strands of hair stuck in your mouth.

No, not that I'm aware of.

Grim, Alston, Stanton. Nebraska focused heavily on California this year and ignored the 500 radius which Riley said he wanted to own.This isn't what you originally posted about. You said California kids use Nebraska as a placeholder.my original point was the 500 miles radius was being ignored as shown by my agreement in the prior post. and you haven't provided evidence of that. I agree, just opinion and no proof!Bradley, NEAllen, NE Mcquitty, MO Only commits in 500 miles. Zero Colorado, zero iowa, zero Minnesota etc for this recruiting cycle. It all seems to trend to CA. Therefore I guess I generalized the 500 being ignored. Not many of the 500 choosing between us and another school this year. BandoThomas Watts Leito Bando - forgot him good callThomas - Florida Watts - Texas Leitao - decommited and is from Oklahoma Leitao's hometown is 400 miles from lincoln fwiw.

Well we'll know for certain if/when Clouse starts using an Iowa Sig on his Twitter account.

247 Well the good news is, is that we now have definite confirmation that playing side by side with your best friends can override what media has reported and assumed for the past 2-3 months....

I agree, and I'm not on Twitter or anything, and not trying to defend short sighted individuals on Twitter, but there was a lot of talk this year about kids trying to get Husker (and other schools I'm sure) followers on Twitter. As a little game or for fun or whatever. Anyway, when kids do that it certainly creates an environment where there will be some pull back and strong reactions if they don't pick said school. Not trying to defend dumb fans, but the recruits and their support group should be keeping a buffer between themselves and the fans, and vice a versa. Twitter should be an ncaa violation.

But it's closer than Nebraska. A two hour flight from LA into Eugene. 35 minute drive to OSU. Plus, his mom can drive to USC, UCLA, Stanford or Cal to watch her son play. This is pu&&y sh#t. If you want to use this as a scapegoat no one should ever come to Nebraska if they aren't from Omaha, Lincoln, or Des Moines. No it's really good logic actually.... Some recruits can afford it, others can't. KJJ's parents can afford to travel that much, but not all families can.... I can't, and I would not want to travel 20+ hours by car or spend $10,000 (over 4 or 5 years) on plane tickets just to see my son for a weekend here and there. I personally wouldn't stand in the way if my kid wanted to live that far away, but I certainly wouldn't be happy about it either. Logical.

How far have we fallen as a program when we hire their coach... By that logic, how far has Notre Dame and Alabama fallen (their hats were on the table too) if Oregon State beat them for a recruit?