ActualCornHusker

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's why I said "assuming".  You're discussions here made me think you did.

Isn't it interesting that the mere assertion that orange man wasn't in fact the devil incarnate invokes a never-trump psychotic rage that people lose their ability to use logic and reason at all? I don't believe in "voting for the lesser of 2 evils." That's such a god-awful way of selecting a person to run the country.

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, you realize there's so much crap that comes with him that you didn't vote for him.....but people who point that out are freaking psychopaths?

Not what I said at all, but you do you.

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why would you want him to exit the public arena and never come back if he's so great for policy that you voted for him twice (assuming) and all the other BS that comes with him doesn't matter?

Who ever said I voted for him?

33 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I would love to destroy the "2 party system"

 

It would pretty much ensure that crazy candidates that have no business being elected to office would ever win elections again.

 

 

I'm not so sure on that one.

Just now, Lorewarn said:

 

 

None of that even starts getting into the fact that....he isn't conservative. His policies aren't conservative, his ideology isn't conservative, he'd been a Dem his whole life, and then he co-opts the party, and suddenly lifelong consistent GOP members are RINOs. I guess the term isn't wrong if being Republican means following Trump and abandoning principles of good conservative policy.

That would be baffling to people who believe there are 2 parties at opposite ends of the spectrum. My view is that there are not 2 parties - there is a uniparty that puts up a public display of being 2 parties in order to manipulate the public. Both major parties need to die a quick and painful death.

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But...but...but....we are the ones who left principle behind.

If Orange man made you vote for Democrats, then yes. You left principle behind.

I'd personally prefer Trump to exit the public arena and never come back, but I at least have the ability to look objectively at him, give him credit for policy issues that I agree with him on, and criticize his policy and personal baggage without sounding like a freaking psychopath.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

FIFY

Case in point.

58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's going to be one of the more interesting sociological studies for years as to why so many people are drawn to this BS.

Nowhere near as interesting as the study on the people who abandon all principle to oppose orange man.

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

This almost seems illegal to me.  Let's assume everything about the laptop is actually true.  Isn't there still a level of privacy that is being broken here, not only of Hunter, but the other people involved in emails, that should be adhered to?

 

 

You can't be serious... The FBI and DOJ suppress the Hunter laptop in order to benefit candidate Biden, with multiple intelligence officials calling it Russian disinformation, so to counter that, people on the right try to show their constituents how incredibly crooked Biden actually is, and your issue is with.... someone other than the agencies that are supposed to crack down on that very thing?....

Yikes.... 

It's truly incredible to watch as a person who isn't attached to either side how insane the statist faction of our population is (which is basically the entire democratic party and at least half of the republican party)

People who think Tucker Carlson is an extremist are extremists.

11 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

To a certain extent, agree. Lies like the stolen election is severely damaging our country. 

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yeah….we shouldn’t worry about disinformation.  

The most dangerous disinformation comes out of the mouths of the politicians and bureaucrats in DC

17 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

That's absolutely crazy pills insane. You'd pick the lady who claimed jewish space lasers start wildfires over a dignified presidential candidate who has a consistent record of putting principle ahead of party.

Who exactly are you talking about? Romney? If so, lmfao

41 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

LOL…..sure….in favor of Trump, MTG, Boebert, Jordan, Gaetz…..etc. 

 

Have fun.  I’ll never support it. Thanks for giving the board an example of why I can’t be a Republican anymore. 

I'm not a republican either but I'd vote for MTG 1000x before I'd vote for any of the listed Republicans or a single Democrat

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Exactly.  It’s clear that right now, the Trump, MTG, Boebert, Desantes, Jordan, Gaets side of the fence is controlling the party. They are trying to shun and get rid of the Romney, Sasse, Cheney, Kissinger side.  
 

I can’t support that. 
 

Everyone else in the middle is scared to speak out against the first group. 

Republicans SHOULD get rid of Romney, Sasse, Cheney, Kinsinger, and I'll add to your list, McConnell and McCarthy, because they're all just awful people with awful records as politicians.

Packers could be a good spot for Toure to succeed! 

Pretty surprised Allen and JoJo didn't get drafted, but I'm sure they'll both find a good home in free agency

By far the candidate with the best platform for governor is Breland Ridenour, but unfortunately people vote for name recognition.

Herbster has a ton of baggage, Pillen strikes me as a BoomerCon, and Lindstrom's stances on the issues are wishy washy imo.

Gregory and Dennard might both have been 1st rounders if not for their non-football baggage

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

Since SF took over, we have signed 15 high school WRs (not counting the 2022 class).  Only 3 remain on the team (Brown, Grimes, Hardy).  Only 1 has seen game action (Brown - 11 games, 18 yards rushing, 71 yards receiving, 273 return yards).  Of the 12 that left, only 2 (Robinson, Betts) played more than 1 game.

 

It almost takes skill to recruit that terrible.

From my understanding just from listening to Frost, his offensive assistants, and the players, it sounded like Frost's offense forced receivers to read the defense too much and adjust their routes, and they had to also be on the same page as the QB. That complicated of a system, combined with lackluster (at best) position coaching for the WRs, probably explains the lack of production from young receivers as much as lack of talent IMO. Hopefully with Whipple's system the receivers are more free to react rather than get bogged down thinking so much.

8 hours ago, Toe said:

 

If this is the decision making criteria, I really hope she's talking about Nebraska

It would be really great to add Mathis, but our need for interior DL guys became pretty pressing so if I had to choose Mathis or a couple interior guys who can hold up against the run game, I'd take the latter.

I also realize the coaches are trying to bolster the numbers at DE/OLB since there's only 4 on the roster, but Mathis doesn't really solve that long term either since he'd be a 1 year guy I'm assuming. And you'd have to wonder if Gunnerson or Butler take the Mathis signing as a slight and think about leaving as well. Hopefully not, but who knows...

6 minutes ago, Enhance said:

You presuppose to know how an Elon-owned Twitter is going to be managed moving forward even though his tweet (whether on accident or on purpose) literally leaves room for interpretation. They're his words, not mine. 

 

The only thing hysterical, perhaps even naive, would be failing to leave open the possibility that we don't know everything and there may be room for nuance. 

On my conference call with Elon 30 minutes ago he told me exactly what he meant by the tweet. 

Jesus... He has spoke openly about what he believes twitter SHOULD BE, which one could infer would be how he will plan to have it run.

And not to obsess over the tweet, but you seem to be so caught up on it. When he says "censorship that goes far beyond the law" I interpret that more as an accusation of the way social media is currently being run rather than getting hung up on the word "far"

You're right, no one knows for sure how exactly he'll run it. But I am taking the totality of what Elon has said as a good indication of what he's going to do, and you've chosen to fixate on a single word of a single tweet because that fits into your ideological presuppositions.

6 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

HahahahHhaAhaha. Oh man. Libertarians are the best.

 

You say this posting on the internet regulated by the FCC, you drive on roads managed by the Department of Transportation, protected by a well funded police force, in a house/apartment with water managed by your local water department, likely living in a state who's economy depends heavily on various government subsidies,where employees are protected by OSHA, eating food monitored by the FDA, using a cell phone service facilitated by the FCC, who's bank account is protected by the FDIC, and you're very likely to have attended a publically funded school and you're retirement is at least partially taken care of through the SSA. 

 

I could go on all day. I really, truly wish we could give voters like you exactly what you want. I mean, I get that some regulations are frustrating, but people really have no idea how freaking great we have it living in the United States.

I agree, we do have it great in America. There's no other country or time period in history I'd rather live in. But that's in spite of our government, not because of it.

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This is so incredibly false that it's not worth taking to you about it because you want to believe it's true. 

That's fair, because most of the gov agencies that you would claim are under funded shouldn't exist in the first place.

10 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Read it one more time.

 

"I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. "

- Elon Musk

 

He contradicts himself in one concise tweet. But, please, continue to enlighten us on how you know Elon and his intent so well.

If you read the first sentence, he tells you what he means. You're just here trying to muddy the waters and apply your own presuppositions to what he's saying

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

I don't see the humor in what I posted. There's a lot of room for guess work and speculation right now, particularly since what you claim he said he did not actually say.

 

From you: "[Musk is] saying that content should only be moderated or censored if it is actually illegal, which is a stance that I agree with completely. "

 

What he actually said: "By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law."

 

He did not categorically say only illegal content - he said that which goes far beyond the law. At a minimum this is some inconsistent phrasing even inside the tweet itself. And considering that neither you or I are likely on Elon's short list of personal confidants, it seems a bit ill-advised to posture like you know where this is going. None of us really do yet. I don't have a particular dog in the fight although I do generally lean towards supporting free speech even on social platforms.

Read it one more time:

By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

--Elon Musk