ActualCornHusker

50 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, if I own Twitter, and some people come on line and organize openly a violent action that would kill innocent people, I shouldn’t have the ability to ban them…..I would need to have the legal system take care of it probably after the fact. 

I don't think that's what Elon is saying. He's saying that content should only be moderated or censored if it is actually illegal, which is a stance that I agree with completely. 

I said a couple years ago when section 230 was a hot topic that social media giants should be treated like a utility.

Just now, RedDenver said:

The IRS would still be necessary as the regulating agency. But if we funded the IRS (and managed to get passed the lobbyists as you mention), there could be a super simple system where the IRS sends you your forms already filled out. Then you just agree and send it back, or go through the process of disagreeing and adding your own forms. Sweden, for example, already has this system and it's electronic, so you can just click a button to agree with the tax statements the government sent you and you're done.

Right. It would be efficient and would require far less manpower and funding

53 minutes ago, Enhance said:

The bolded is perhaps the most curious and interesting part to me moving forward because I think some people (and of those people, mostly more conservative folks) have obfuscated the issue into something it isn't. We can find a lot of conservative opinions and memes surrounding a variety of social issues on Twitter right now. It's very easy. In fact, most prominent conservative voices that have a Twitter have not been banned from Twitter.

 

But, let's look at a few of those who have been banned/suspended and why:

- Trump. Banned for the risk of potentially inciting further violence following Jan. 6th. His actions were grossly negligent at a minimum.

- MTG. Routinely spread blatantly false and potentially harmful COVID-19 information. 

- Bannon. Suspended for suggesting Fauci be beheaded.

- David Duke. Banned for violating hateful conduct policy.

- Mike Lindell. Banned for spreading objectively false election conspiracies.

 

Obviously this is just a selection. However, two of those are related to violence. One of them was related to spreading potentially harmful information regarding a pandemic. The rest are probably up to the court of public opinion.

 

I feel like there's this simmering narrative out there that conservative voices have been silenced for being conservative and, in my opinion, that just isn't the case. They've been silenced for often being violent or dangerous to public safety. I imagine in Elon's world, he's going to want to allow the ridiculous (but non-violent) stuff to remain. That's his prerogative and it is what it is. But some of the other stuff is going to be a real test for him and his moderation policies. At what point does he begin to care about those things if at all? That's the answer I'm most fascinated in seeing. Basically, how far does that pendulum shift, and what is the breaking point. We know there is one and will be one at some point.

Basically all you wrote here is pretty hilarious, but regarding your last paragraph:

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

OH......so you believe the government shouldn't collect ANY taxes.

 

OK.

 

I think we are seeing why they don't get funding to upgrade technology.

I say that somewhat tongue in cheek. 

At the very least, taxes should be so simple that the average person doesn't need a CPA or be forced to pay a couple hundred bucks to file through TurboTax, and the IRS would be completely unnecessary. Then they wouldn't have to worry about their technology. But I'm sure there's some lobbyists from Intuit for example that make sure that type of thing wouldn't happen

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The IRS is actually one of them when you look at congress refusing to upgrade their technology since before we landed on the moon.

The IRS is vastly over-funded when you consider that their ideal funding would be $0.00

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

The IRS has been intentionally underfunded for decades. Attempts to increase the funding creates pushback from voters. If the public had a positive reception to proper funding of government agencies they'd get it. The public does not have a positive reception to government and therefore reward when goverment is set up to fail. 

 

There's not a single government agency in the US that's under-funded... That is so silly.

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Both.  However, there's a limit to that.  The pipeline was shut down over two years prior to it even being scheduled to be in service.  There might be a slight bump up in early 2021 when it was announced.  But, that gets washed down over time.  Aslo, like I said, much of that oil (if not all of it) is already reaching market through other transportation methods.  

 

Where shutting down the pipeline would cause an immediate and major price impact is if it was up and operating and all of a sudden shut down so that oil wasn't reaching market.  

 

Another thing.  Even if the oil wasn't reaching market now, and all of a sudden the pipeline was up and running, it is less than 1% of the world's consumption of oil.  That's not going to make a major impact on the price.

 

There are probably valid arguments for or against the pipeline. Reducing the price of oil world wide is not one of them.  But, It's the hot button talking point that pro pipeline people use to get the common voter all lathered up. 

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

 

 

The people who play in these markets aren't you and me type investors.  They know the market and are much less affected by emotional crap that is around the Keystone pipeline.

OK so let me ask this then: Is it your view that gas prices rising immediately once Biden & Co took office was just a delayed reaction from the Trump admin and Covid policies? Or was it something else, or some combination of both?

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Keystone pipeline has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil right now.  Nothing.  Here's an industry paper from 2020 that says it was scheduled to go into service in the first quarter of 2023.

 

LINK

 

 

So, how exactly would it be affecting the price of oil in 2022?

 

On top of that, much of that oil is already getting to market.  Oil companies have thousands of leases they aren't currently using that they could drill on today....but they aren't.

 

I would agree that the COVID payments from the government could have been done much better and keyed on people who really needed it.  But, again, most of that wasn't this administration....which you acknowledge.

 

And....hey....I would be all sorts of excited for an Independent President that's not tied to either party's wacko extremes. Let's do it!!!

 

 

From my understanding, you're a business person. So question: Are markets reactionary or anticipatory, or some mix of both?

11 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Of course I did, but his line of "incompetence" led me to believe he places more blame on the Biden Administration. I could be wrong in that. 

 

Pipelines or leases on Federal land wouldn't help. Pipelines take years to develop and don't net add production, but it can lower the costs for transportation. Leases on Federal land don't help because Companies aren't that eager to explore for new projects. They would likely be stranded assets in a few short years. Most people agree that with the rise of electric vehicles, the demand for gas is going to fall dramatically by the mid 2030s. 

 

For your second paragraph, I largely agree. But one thing people need to realize is that politicians respond to the desires of voters, our government is incompetent because voters want it that way. 

Idk if they "want it that way" but the average voter is so easily propagandized, and they have about a 2 week memory. An incumbent can spend 3.5 years of their term actively working against the interest of his constituents, and then he campaigns for a couple months and tells people what they want to hear, and they vote for him... Even though the body of evidence shows that almost all of our elected leaders are utterly unworthy of holding the power that they do - and the unelected bureaucrats are just as bad, if not worse. It's a sh*tshow to say the least.

24 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

It's amusing that 2/3s of COVID Relief spending was under Trump, but Biden is blamed for inflation regardless. You don't think it has anything to do with high demand post COVID and the difficulty of companies meeting that demand?

 

Companies relied on Just In Time Manufacturing to meet demand, usually on the backs of cheap labor. Workers have realized that wages at $10 dollars an hour simply isn't worth wasting 40 hours of your week to earn. 

 

Additionally, a lot of the supply chain issues are international. Biden cannot simply buy more semiconductors to build more cars. Furthermore, energy - one of the highest contributors of inflation - are commodities with international prices. There isn't much Biden or anybody can do to lower them. 

And yet he's done plenty to increase their prices.... It's pretty laughable to say that the president has no impact on gas or energy prices when we can see with our own eyes that that is bogus. 

Regarding your 1st & middle paragraph, yes, I agree that it's far more nuanced than anyone on either side wants to admit. And on stagnant wages, there's a large number of factors at play. One of the primary factors is this: when given a choice between 2 comparable products (1 that is priced lower and has used chinese slave labor, & 1 that is priced a little higher but is made in America and pays their workers well), consumers will purchase the lower priced product 9 times out of 10. That's why American manufacturing has dried up and been out-sourced to countries that can produce things at less cost. Of course, there's a ton of political corruption and incompetence that has forced that as well.

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not a big Biden fan.  But, what would a Republican President have done differently with the economy knowing the issues Biden has had to deal with?

The Republican party is just as much garbage as the Democratic party, so idk if that really matters. But perhaps someone who isn't completely incompetent, ideologically possessed, and corrupt (wishful thinking, I know) wouldn't have shut down the pipeline on their 1st week in office and chosen not to extend oil drilling leases on federal property. That would be a start. Then the additional unemployment payments were a freaking disaster and should have never been approved in the 1st place, but certainly should have been ended FAR sooner.

I think the biggest flaw is bouncing back and forth from Dem to Rep candidates thinking they're going to solve any of the other's problems when they've both shown to be not only incompetent but completely crooked. How anyone can have faith in either party at this point is truly mind-boggling to me.

On 4/22/2022 at 10:45 AM, BigRedBuster said:

Yep. 
 

So, many people have been complaining about high fuel prices which, the increases since in invasion, can directly be contributed to that invasion. He’s taken certain steps to elevate those high fuel prices. One, was to allow ethanol to be sold over summer. So, now they are going to complain about food prices. Meanwhile, farmers who are heavily Republican, are benefiting from that. 
 

Republicans are swimming in circles around this trying to blame it all on Biden. 

The economic incompetence of the current administration can't possibly be overstated, but the original source of the rapid inflation we're seeing was the idiotic shutdowns and the printing of many trillions of dollars out of thin air, which happened under Trump. But yeah, basically every step taken by whoever is calling the shots for Biden has exacerbated the situation.

The injuries have been an issue, but Rogers has been a consistently splashy player any time I've seen him on the field. He's very good.

I'm the eternal optimist, but if Robinson leaves, all I have to say is... "sh#t..."

Uh.... This looks potentially really hopeful with the Mathis situation...

Not a good deal with Rogers leaving, and a bit perplexing as to why he'd leave now when he's slated to start... Anybody heard anything on why?

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm pretty sure both Alabama (Saban) and Nebraska (Frost) are taking this seriously to try to benefit in recruiting from it.  I have no problem with a coach though expressing their opinions about it though. 

Oh I agree. I think Frost has embraced both NIL and the portal with open arms even though he might dislike it personally. That's what I mean - if a coach resists against them, he's going to get left in the dust.

2 hours ago, Farms said:

Frost hates it too.

I've been in favor of players being able to profit from their NIL although this iteration of it is pretty crazy. Coaches can hate it all they want, same with the transfer portal - but if coaches don't embrace the new landscape of CFB and use it to make their teams better (despite their personal opinions) they'll be doing their programs and themselves a disservice. I'm not sure what rules need to be put in place to make it better, if any, but as Decked has said, most of the successful programs have been paying players anyways - this has just legalized it for everyone.

46 minutes ago, ndobney said:

We need 5 more o lineman from the portal or I'm going to have to call this off-season a fail. I watched the spring game my grandma would have had 5 sacks

It's possible that both our starting tackles were standing on the sideline. Wouldn't hurt to grab 1 or 2 more tackles if they're quality though

17 minutes ago, Hooked on Huskers said:

 

stairs

 

wedding cake layer

I'm no engineer, but the foundation underneath would have only been designed to support the first deck. Adding significantly more weight on top would require major reinforcement

OL is obviously the biggest question mark and will probably determine how many games this team wins. It'll be interesting when Corcoran & Prochaska get back to see what that room looks like

My summary of this team: the pitching looks pretty average, the hitting lacks consistency, and there doesn't appear to be much player leadership like the team had last year. 

Not sure where that guy is hearing Clark is the guy opposite Newsome. I keep hearing that Tommi Hill came in and has been super impressive and that's why they moved Buford to S.

I think DL will be in better shape than ppl think. Most of the time we're only playing 2 at a time, so barring injury, we really need Robinson and Rogers to be the guys that they have shown in flashes over the last couple years and do it consistently. Then we need guys like Feist & Hutmacher to step up for 2nd rotation and heavy packages when we play 3 big men. Like others have said, it still wouldn't be a bad idea to get 1 or 2 DL out of the portal if for no other reason than to add quality depth.

Obviously TE is concerning as well with all the injuries.

And OL, I'm definitely taking the wait-and-see approach with that unit.

10 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Whats funny is that with our supposedly abysmal OL, Nebraska's rushing game has been ranked #2, #2, and #4 in Big10 conference play the last three years. Our quarterback remains the leading rusher, and no featured RB has emerged, but you can't exactly call Frost's rushing game a failure, just the results on the scoreboard.

 

I think success depends on getting a rhythm to the offense and hone in on our role players. A mobile but pass-first quarterback opens the door for more RB touches, and while a lot of guys might deserve a look, it should be a more solid 2 player platoon for conference play. I thought we'd finally achieved that with Yant/Ramir last season, but it didn't last. 

And this is why I'm not a big stat guy. Like you said, our QB being the leading rusher is typically a red flag, and when you put that in context, that in most short yardage situations, our best run plays have been QB power with a lead blocker or 2. I view it as a combo of RB personnel, overall scheme for goal line offense, and OL play. It all needs to get better so I'm looking forward to seeing what the revamped offensive staff can do.

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Yes. Scott Frost inherited Ozigbo. He chose Greg Bell. His subsequent choices haven't been better than Ozigbo.

 

If you think I'm criticizing Scott Frost and staff for poor RB recruiting and development over the last four years, you're right. It's why I chose the words I did.

 

Not sure what you guys are arguing at this point. 

Completely agree. I know Frost and Held liked their small scat backs, but especially in this conference, I'd prefer a big body RB like Grant appears to be, with the ability to use power but also be agile. Time will tell, but it appears Yant is putting in work, Grant looks good in limited highlights, and Rahmir actually grew on me a lot with his play last year, and he's a threat to catch the ball out of the backfield.

With that said, the success of the RB position really hinges on the OL performance this fall. Fingers crossed there.