ActualCornHusker

11 hours ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

I personally think there is a risk Trev makes a hip hip hooray type hire and gets a Mr. Rogers type coach in here because of all the crap that went on during Frost's tenure.  After all,  Trev's the one who originally said this goes beyond 16-31.   Pretty much confirms to me he wants a good-guy hire and not a winning hire.

So you're gonna just leave out the rest of the criteria that Trev listed? 

A grinder who hates losing, for example...

1 hour ago, Gage County said:

 

Looking at the box score, I'd say K-State was slightly better but found a way to lose. Same s#!t, different team.

 

KSt got stopped like 4 times on 4th down, a couple of times due to indecisive runs by Adrian. 

10 minutes ago, swmohusker said:

Kleimann. Go pay Hazelton from mich state to be the DC and let’s be the NDSU of P5 football and run A gap power. 

I'm so down. My #1 hope is that Mickey can win at least 5 and get the job, but if not, Klieman is my next choice

26 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

I don't have a problem posting the general story.  

 

An in house visit was arranged in Arizona to seal the deal with Dylan and this was a big event to the Raiola clan.  Dylan was very into Nebraska. Several Raiola family members arranged to be there.  Frost phoned Dominic morning of and said he couldn't make it.  Dominic apparently pleaded with Frost to re-consider, and Frost re-iterated he could not be there.  Frost eventually suggested a zoom meeting  Dylan lost faith in the process, Ryan Day caught wind, and OSU full court pressed.

 

I left out the reasons I've come across as to why Frost didn't want to show up, mainly because the general story is true but I suspect people are having fun coming up with Frost's reason to back out.  I personally suspect it's just another example of Frost having some type of personality disorder (another example being how he stood at the media day podium speechless staring past everyone until a BIG rep bailed him)...people with personality disorders make plans and back out last minute all the time...but i guess bad habits can't be ruled out.  

Ugh... I wonder if Mickey or whoever our new coach ends up being could possibly open that door again. 

29 minutes ago, TiredHuskerFanMWI said:

I just heard the Raiola recruiting disaster story for the first time tonight...oof...if true, man Scott has some issues I hope he irons out. 

Gonna have to fill me in on that one LoL 

No idea about viability of these, but the first names that come to mind that I'd be very happy with:

Dave Aranda - Proven success as a head coach, as well as a defensive coach in the B1G.

Luke Fickell - Wasn't ready as interim for OSU in 2011 but obviously is ready now. Knows how to create a developmental program.

Urban Meyer - Would be kind of polarizing, but the guy knows how to win games so I'd fully embrace him as our coach.

Dan Mullen - Currently jobless but ran a good program at Miss St. Would be intriguing.

Others that would be a stretch but I wonder if $10M & the resources this program has could get them here:

Sam Pittman

Mel Tucker

Matt Campbell

Jeff Brohm (if he promises to run the ball more)

Mark Stoops

There are probably some coordinators I'd be happy with as well but would prefer a proven head coach:

Jim Leonhard

Todd Monken

Bill O'Brien

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

 

A heck of a lot of that success in the US was because we were willing to change that framework they laid out.

I'm interested in your thoughts here.

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Follow board guidelines or don’t - either way, you’ll decide your own future. Testing your luck with a mod isn’t a good strategy. 
 

Please stay on topic. This point won’t be argued further. 

I have not strayed from the topic. You getting sensitive is not a me issue.

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

How about... we appreciate the framework they laid out, but don't dogmatically adhere to it 200 years later when the world has changed. Let the militia have military weapons, let hunters (and farmers) have low-output guns for their needs, and keep weapons of mass murder out of the hands of the populace.

Cars are weapons of mass murder. Should we keep those out of the hands of the populace as well?

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

 

I referenced 200+ years of court precedent that didn’t change until 2008. I also made several other points your response neglected to address.

 

Also, we can do without the quips and ‘gotchas’. You can take those to another message board.

Pick out my gulag cell I guess, idk what to tell you.

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I’ve never understood why people talk like they’re deities. 

Nobody said that, but they certainly laid the framework for an experiment in individual liberty based on a vast and deep understanding of history that has grown into one hell of a success. 

So if we were to take every idea that originated with people who did bad things according to today's moral framework and discard it because of the individual(s) personal short-falls, and simultaneously believe that people who achieved great things in the past couldn't possibly measure up to the intelligence that we possess today...

That's called narcissism. And it's 99.9999% guaranteed to result in chaos and destruction.

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

How is unfettered gun ownership working out for us?

We don't have that so I guess we'll never know...

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

They were slave owners, and one of them frequently raped at least one of his slaves. Probably should stop considering them infallible guides to 21st Century life, huh?

Sheer narcissism...

52 minutes ago, Enhance said:

This quote might shock some people.

 

"[The 2nd Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." - Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger, a conservative, in 1991.

 

The legal consensus surrounding the 2A for the majority of our country's history was that the right to bear arms was not an individual right, but rather a right for those called into military service i.e. a militia. And that's what the actual language of the 2A talks about - a militia. The U.S. SC did not rule that the 2A guaranteed an individual the right to own a gun until 2008 by a slim 5-4 vote. Up until that point, every other time the court had ruled previously, they had ruled that you did not have that right. And to this day, the court has still concluded that gun ownership is not an absolute right and is subject to limitations.

 

What we're seeing and have been seeing for decades now is a lobbying effort by groups like the NRA, as well as anti-democratic push by certain politicians and presidents (who don't represent the popular vote of this country), pushing policies on people who don't actually want them.

 

I'm all for hunting. I'm all for responsible gun ownership. But I'm also all for more strict gun control and much stronger barriers to entry/ownership. Most of this country is. And it's pretty clear that most of the apprehension towards more strict gun control is largely a result of successful manipulation by gun rights lobbyists with deep pockets and a financial agenda.

Post-Modern (lack of) logic hard at work I see. 

You could in fact look at the actual explanation by the people who wrote the 2nd amendment as to its purpose:

Quote

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

I guess Thomas Jefferson & George Washington were some crazy far-right conspiracy theorists huh...

49 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Obviously.  I wasn't expecting you to.  You've fallen for the fear tactics from the gun lobby.

I wonder where the push to send $50+ billion to Ukraine came from 

34 minutes ago, commando said:

so the only thing people need guns for is killing people they don't agree with?   

That's what the government does with guns, yes...

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You do realize that there are free countries all over the world with stricter gun laws that aren't seeing their people overran by tyrannical governments...right?

 

You also realize we can have tougher gun laws without taking your gun away....right?

I do not accept your premise.

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's right.  We need the ability to protect ourselves with a .308 against a government with tanks, long range missiles, fighter jets....etc.

 

The fear mongering from the gun lobby on this is ridiculous.  

 

Yeah....

No, we need tanks, missiles, and fighter jets to protect ourselves from the government... 

And you realize America has lost multiple wars now in Vietnam and the Middle East to people who didn't have any of the sophisticated weapons that our military has right?...

4 hours ago, teachercd said:

People can hunt with bows and set traps...is it harder?  Yes.

 

Is it harder than buring 20 little kids?  Probs not.

 

I am sort of half kidding but how often do hunters actually get out and hunt?

Why can't their hunting gun (you only need one) be locked in a state facilty until they go hunt?

or

Why can't they rent a gun from a state gun rental place?

The reason citizens need guns has almost nothing to do with hunting...

9 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

I don't remember. This sounds like a great story. Please share!

She didn't dictate US energy policy. She was just used as a human shield as the left always does with minorities and children so that when the ideas they are promoting with their activism gets criticized, the left can claim that it's a personal attack on their human shield rather than on the ideas themselves. Democrats did that with Obama for years, they do it with Kamala now, they are doing it with Ketanji Brown-Jackson, and they'll always do it because identity politics is the left's weapon of choice to beat people senselessly over the head with.

12 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I'm simply advocating for giving Red states what they want. 

 

If they want to end handouts, let's end them.  Red states get 23 cents more than they pay, that's a handout we can end. But we should also make them pay for all the money they've been sucking from Blue states for the last few decades.

 

If they want to ignore climate change, let them. But don't expect FEMA to show up if you don't want to help address the problem.

 

If you want to attack schools as liberal brainwashing institutions, fine. But don't expect federal education funding if you want to ban textbooks.

 

We simply need to let them face the consequences of their beliefs, which blue state tax dollars have prevented them from dealing with. 

The climate arguments you make are so ridiculously stupid it's almost incomprehensible.

News flash: extreme weather events have ALWAYS happened throughout human history, and are not getting worse or more frequent today due to cLiMaTe ChAnGe... You've been spoonfed this religious doctrine about climate from people who fly private jets around the world and buy ocean-front houses while they lecture you about rising sea levels and the effects of carbon emmisions, and you buy it.

LINK

Quote

In other words, hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters resulting from extreme events aren’t getting worse. They’re getting better. Much better. Given the flood of alarming news about climate change, many will be surprised to learn that hurricanes aren’t increasing in frequency, and that deaths from natural disasters are at their lowest point in 120 years. “A total of 2,900 people lost their lives in natural disasters in the first half of the year,” announced Munich Re on in 2020, “much lower than the average figures for both the last 30 years and the last 10 years.”

What, then, explains increasingly frequent disasters from 1900 to 2000?

In a word? Better reporting. 

“In 1962,” noted Pielke, “the EM-DATA data set shows there were just 24 disasters worldwide. In the 1980s there were just three floods reported for the entire continent of Africa. Come on. That’s obviously not right. That’s due to a lack of reporting.”

So in other words, any data showing that extreme weather events are increasing is just due to technological ability to monitor and communicate with the rest of the world for reporting of extreme weather events.

Another tidbit for you:

Quote

The 92% decline in deaths over the last century occurred during a period when the global population nearly quadrupled, and the global temperature rose 1.3 degrees centigrade.

Pielke finds that the cost of natural disasters globally also declined as a share of GDP between 1990 and 2020. In a 2020 review of 54 studies over the last 22 years, and published in the field’s leading scientific journal, Pielke found “little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate.”

Pielke, Jr. finds that the cost of natural disasters globally also declined as a share of GDP ... [+]

 ROGER PIELKE, JR.

So in other words:

Is the climate changing? yes, it always has

How much of it can be attributed to humans? no one can tell you that, and if they claim to know, they're feeding you full of horsesh*t for some ulterior political motive. 

Is the world going to end because of it? Absolutely positively not.

Is it going to create catastrophic weather events that are worse than human history has ever seen? Ridiculous.

Now you have the current regime trying to force people onto electric cars as if that's not going to create a whole new set of problems that are more than likely worse than the current set of problems they think they're trying to solve through force (which is called fascism by the way), and here you are spewing the same lefty talking points 

Speaking of lefty talking points, you should also take a look at the reality behind your claim that blue states subsidize red states

And if you don't like that one, how about one from a left-leaning site

Or maybe one more:

Quote

The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states. They're richer: that's why they vote more conservative and more right wing.

We could, of course, take yet another point from this essay:

For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership — or even an affordable rental apartment — is increasingly out of reach. Adding insult to injury, rapid gentrification in these larger knowledge hubs brings the constant threat of displacement of creative workers. For even the much better paid techies, engineers, financiers and managers who are displacing them, the metropolitan version of the American dream is a cramped condo or a small house and a long commute. Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.

 

That rather shows that the way that the blue states are run isn't conducive to good living standards for the poorer half of the population, doesn't it? Or, as we might put it, blue, liberal, policies don't actually do what they say on the tin, aren't in fact pro-poor.

I've long said that the left doesn't actually care about the poor. They just hate the rich out of envy.

21 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Right the coach gets all the praise and glory and all bad with it too. I mean was it SF fault that Yanz tripped over his own feet at the goal line??? They are going say well why did you even put Yanz in the first place. Right call poor execution. Now do I believe it was SF fault he tripped nope that's on Yanz that's why I been saying SF has put his players in positions to win(score) just got to execute the play right and everyone will be happy.

I agree with you, but execution falls on the coaches as well. It's my moderately-educated opinion that Frost's offense required too much of the position players to read the defense and react to the coverage rather than just play and adjust on the fly. Hopefully it's simplified under Whipple and our players can exhibit their talent.

35 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

And if they called a pass play and it didn't work they were being too cute.

 

When something doesn't work, the coaches obviously should have done something different.

And if the plays are executed properly and work, then it was a perfect play call and the coach is a master mind.

Never fails.

31 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

You guys and your selective definition of tyranny.  Cracks me up.

 

As you surely know, the Red States are the most prolific government teat-sucklers in the country, yet still screech incessantly whenever they're asked to stop being a$$h@!es and do something decent for the common good. 

You guys and your selective definition of the common good. Cracks me up.

As you surely know, individual liberty IS the common good. 

23 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Hmmmm….I thought the Republican talking point was that the high gas prices were all Biden’s fault. 

More accurate than the regime talking point that it's all Putin's fault

On 5/20/2022 at 6:32 PM, teachercd said:

So right now, for the stuff you all purchase on the regular...what have you noticed as the biggest price increase?  Not counting gas.

2 years ago eggs at Aldi were 77 cents. Now they're almost $3... A lot of that is due to avian flu, as well as increased freight charges (due to diesel being so crazy)

Protein powder and creatine are at least double the price from 2 years ago as well.

14 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Let them.

 

If they want to create a MAGAverse, so be it. We can build a wall to keep the feral Trumpers out. We can set up a repayment plan so Red states can pay back the federal dollars they've been leeching. We can fine them for every gun that is found illegally across the border. They can reimburse blue states for FEMA relief if they want to deny climate change. They can be ravaged by the next pandemic of they don't want lockdowns or vaccines. The voters in those states don't face real consequences (outside of being financially poor and having borderline 3rd world health outcomes) from their idiotic voting. Give them what they want. 

 

Consider that 9 of the 10 poorest states are Red, and 20 out of the poorest 25. Blue states are subsidizing their existence. So, by all means, secede. If they don't want the tyranny of the federal government, give them what they want. I don't want blue state tax dollars to subsidize them anymore.

 

"If red states don't submit to government tyranny, we should tyrannize them harder!!!"

-Basically the entire ethos of the Democratic party