Lorewarn

Not my thoughts but an interesting perspective from someone on reddit: " Offensively, it was the same thing as last week. First half was really well called and almost flawlessly executed, second half looked like what I used to call Cocktail Napkin Time. Run all the bottom of the barrel stuff that you don't rep a ton in practice, get a feel for how it looks against a real team instead of the scout team. The second half of the last two games has been research and development for Satterfield, not any sort of attempt to run a coherent system. It is always going to be ugly when you face a team like UNI because you just don't have many drives to work with. Nebraska had just 8 drives in this game, excluding the run to end the game, and scored on 6 of them." Since I'm not an expert and this makes me feel good I'm gonna believe it.

Students are roughly 18-22 years old. That means Iowa has been our Black Friday rivalry game since they were 5-9 years old, and that Iowa has beaten us every year except one since they were 9-13. That's not new, that's normal.

How very small government conservative of you. This isn't eazy peezy at all. Sorry, but this completely fails as a solution in practicality. Who is in charge of spreading them out? What are the metrics used to spread them? What happens if they go somewhere else? Who enforces this? Who rounds them up if they don't like it and say f#&% off?

I'll lightly defend @Blackshirt83 here. Throughout this whole process I've felt a similar sense of being 'whelmed' by the new complex - it's massive and cool, but it's always struck me as being like, 'okay, yeah' in terms of efficiency and aesthetic, rather than "WOW". It's kind of hard to articulate exactly, and I don't know what differences or additions would change it, but I'm not an architect or interior designer. I just know that I've definitely seen facilities (Oregon, LSU) that made me go "holy s#!t" and ours has mostly made me go "oh, cool". Feels somewhat like a big hotel lobby or conference center with a lot of empty space as opposed to others that feel more like a space ship or a castle or something. Again, I'm talking ergonomics, aesthetics, etc. Edit: Also to be clear, it's obviously impressive. It's unfathomably huge and cost $150 million there's no way it wouldn't be. There's also an important disclaimer with 1:1 comparisons that the training table and academic support sections etc. serve all the student athletes and not just the football team. Seems like a lot of the massive budget is found in those sorts of operational and logistical strengths than in 'cool' stuff, which is fine I'm not mad about it. But you look at our $150mil project compared to Oregon's $68mil project or Georgia's $80mil project and it seems at best on par in terms of the wow factor stuff.

Violent crime up 40% from 2021 and 2022 and 12% from 2019? What? The data has rates of violent crime per 1000 people as follows: 2019 - 21.0 2020 - 16.4 2021 - 16.5 2022 - 23.5 2023 - 22.5 22.5 is 7.1% higher than 2019 (not 12%). 22.5 is negative 4.25% lower than 2022 (not 40%), and 36.36% higher than 2021 (not 40%).

Pretty rich. Y'all remember this gem, which was never followed up with any sort of sentiment of "I was wrong" or "That was misguided and irresponsible of me"?

Seems like Apsu vehemently prefers the war be over moreso than preferring that Ukraine wins. Which, in a vacuum, I can understand the sentiment of prefering no war over war and a truce (even if it's not fair or just) being preferable over death and carnage. Trouble is though, playing nice and compromise don't work when one party plays dirty. "At war with a villain, you can't call a truce You put down your weapon but now he's got two A liar's a liar, take him at his word Forever rebelling against the absurd"

I looked past this the first time but now you've used the language of the Cheney's joining the team twice. You know they aren't a part of her administration, right? They just endorsed her. d!(k Cheney can go to absolute hell and f#&% right off, but sometimes my worst enemies still make good points.

Works out great for the first round players getting generational money, for sure!

Jameis, Jamarcus Russel, Terrelle Pryor, and plenty of other examples of stupid owners/GMs/coaches thinking, "I can fix him"

Going back and watching through the game... Our offense only scored 21, but we were a hair away from a full on rout. • The drive with the wheel route to a wide open Lloyd (?) right off his fingertips resulted in zero points, 2-3 inches away from another 7 • After going 3 and out, I really like the playcalling on the second drive of the second half, but unfortunately had a 19 yard pass to Barney called back and ultimately resulted in Raiola's pooch punt • First drive of the fourth quarter on a 3rd and 20 Raiola had a pass to Banks that would've had 4th and 5 from the 23 that Banks just dropped. Would've been either a field goal attempt or a manageable 4th to go for it on. • Next drive Barney's 51 yard catch and run was called back because of Rahmir's perfectly legal pancake block. They gave us a makeup call on a roughing the passer, then Rahmir's 69 yard touchdown run got called back as well.

I kind of feel the opposite in regards to the second point. I'm also a "Unless it's Hitler himself I'm voting for whoever the non-Trump candidate is", but after this debate I've sobered on Harris somewhat and think she'll likely make for a very mediocre Presidency.

I think it absolutely benefitted Kamala, but it also means one can't really rightfully argue that there was a tangible bias against Trump. As has been the case for the last 8 years, Trump gets graded on a significant curve.

Why?

The vast majority of the American electorate then.

It's different in a lot of ways. Assuming this is in fact a DUI checkpoint, they're stopping everyone. They stopped Hill for cause. idk if the 120mph thing is accurate (I doubt it) but he was clearly speeding, and the police will naturally and rightfully engage with someone breaking the law differently than they would any random person in an indiscriminate number of presumably law abiding citizens. Also, this guy's windows aren't tinted and the cops can see his hands. Not against the law for your windows to be tinted (to an extent, and I have no idea about the level of tint on Hill's McLaren but we'll assume it was legal), but if your windows are heavily tinted the cops will obviously react differently for their own safety. I haven't looked into whether them ordering him to roll down his window was a lawful order or not, but we need to look at this from a legal standpoint but also from a pragmatic one. Also, this guy is calm and communicating clearly. Not being friendly but not being combative either. Tyreek mostly just kept saying or shouting "Don't knock on my window like that" and "Don't tell me what to do". Again, not illegal, but to protect ourselves we all need to be pragmatic about cause and effect of our actions even if it's unjust and wrong. Now, all that being said, this is also horrendous police work. Absolutely terrible job and these officers are an embarrassment.

I watched it, and I'll give you my thoughts without being snarky or condescending or combative. The moderators sucked overall. They asked specific pointed questions (some even verbally explained as being a yes/no) to both of them and let both of them get away with not even attempting to answer the questions. Despite the supposed rules of time limits and mics turned off, they allowed Trump to get final rebuttals and/or domineer them as they tried to move on on nearly (but not every) every single topic. The one time Kamala tried to do the same and respond to one allegation he threw in, they firmly cut her off. There was one explicit fact check which was after Trump started claiming that some states allow abortions after babies have been born, there was one soft check where they said the mayor (i think) of Springfield said there were no credible reports of immigrants eating cats/dogs or whatever, and inside the phrasing of a question they alluded to Trump's 60 lawsuits regarding the stolen election that resulted in nothing. I don't recall any specific fact checks on Harris but both of them had plenty of lies and/or exaggerations (Harris saying Trump would sign a national abortion ban, for example, which I rolled my eyes at). You can guess which of the two was spouting significantly more bulls#!t than the other. The claims of moderator bias imo aren't much different than the claims of NU fans that ESPN/Kirk Herbstreit/The Big XII/the national media/the refs/whoever hate us. It's cope for sucking.

Watching the video in the tweet you posted from the Colorado game, if by "that" you mean that he goes down on first contact most every play, I agree. But if by "that" you mean that he deliberately looks for contact in a scenario where he had just as good if not a better opportunity to try and make someone miss (which is what I thought you were getting at initially), I'd say I only saw that on two of the runs out of all of those.

This is one of the main problems with the "mainstream media is liberal" grievance. The crusade for 'fairness' entirely fails to account for the unfair distribution of facts vs bulls#!t of each respective side. People claim there's an unfair fight because Trump says an insane lie that gets fact checked by the moderators as being a lie, which it is. Of course these folks fail to acknowledge and assimilate the info that the moderators also constantly allowed Trump to speak out of turn (and the one time Harris did they sternly cut her off), allowed both of them to frequently completely fail to answer the actual question asked, etc. A bias towards fairness is a disservice and detriment to us all when the amount of lying is so asymmetrical. The Newsroom put it well: Mac: "Are there really two sides to this story?" Maggie: "What does that mean are there really--" Mac: "The media is biased towards success and the media is biased towards fairness." Maggie: "How can you be biased towards fairness?" Mac: "There aren't two sides to every story, some stories have five sides some only have one." Will: "Biased towards fairness means that if the entire congressional republican caucus were to walk into the House and propose a resolution stating that the Earth was flat that the Times would lead with 'Democrats and Republicans Can't Agree on Shape of Earth"

Of course, but all people have the ability to do their job in a way that doesn't reflect their bias or at least minimizes it, and while you maintain that the mainstream media is definitively and strongly biased towards liberals, I would maintain that the supposed bias that exists is largely incidental as a byproduct of worldview, vs an ideological activism sort of bias which I think is a much more pervasive majority of the bias of right wing news and media. Edit: Further, if we want to dive into distinctive features of news organizations and want to frame it as mainstream (left) vs right-wing, the amount of factuality of each respective side would be a very unfavorable assessment of conservative news.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4757490-nate-silver-joe-biden-resign-abc-interview/ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pollster-nate-silver-urges-biden-resign-after-incoherent-comments-abc-interview

It would be interesting. And it would also surely lean Democratic. Of course that data would also have no correlation or bearing on the news being reported, nor would it be of any great use for determining bias in the news, but I would definitely be interested in seeing that data.

Conservatives love the free market of commerce and ideas until they suck at it.