huskerjack23

Goodbye.

That was a BEAUTIFUL thread! I literally laughed out loud. I just hope the last post wasn't a Husker fan making a snarky comment on a Texas board cuz that would destroy the image of what I was laughing at.

What I don't understand is what if the Big Ten offers Texas as well? Did everyone just seem to forget that they were in interested in the Horns as well? There is no ultimatum from Texas/Big 12 if Texas is itself about to leave either with or without Nebraska. Nebraska is out the door as soon as the Big Ten offers, everyone is basically 90% sure of this. Texas would like to keep the monarchal conference of which they themselves are king. (That's why there's an ultimatum) The Big-Ten offers a lot of money, but about equal to what they're getting currently, and they would have to share, so this option is less desirable. The Pac-10 offer keeps all of their rivalries intact and has a potential to make a ton of bank with having 7 of the top 20 TV markets in the footprint. Knowing that Nebraska is pretty much gone, this one is definitely more desirable on paper. About the prospect of Nebraska getting left without a home: Nebraska has a TON of friends in the Big Ten. We have a tradition rich team among the top five in total wins. We do a lot of business with tOSU, Barry Alvarez is an alum. Who are our friends in the Big 12 nowadays. Turner Gill, maybe Mike Sherman and Bill Byrne, Missouri, and possibly Bob Stoops. I don't like those odds. Especially when OU and aTm are tied at the hip with Texas. Missouri also doesn't count because they also have a foot out the door. The Big 12 doesn't want us because of who and what we are like the Big Ten does. At least not anymore. You can't get us to stay anymore. We're tired of it.

Bo is an upper-echelon coach based on potential. I remember a Shatel article after the national title game last year saying that Bo coached circles around Mack Brown in the Big 12 title game and that Saban did no better than Brown did in the MNC. Without rose colored glasses, I could see the point he was making. Two straight years, Bo and company had to make due with what they had and they rattled off 5 and 6 game winning streaks. With a potential to have a great hand, the hustler will most likely bring home all the chips.

Did you notice that they had Nebraska ahead of Texas?

I have no concrete evidence, but I feel it in my bones. The Skers' are Big 10/11/14/16 bound

Why is Oklahoma State's new quarterback on the list? I guess Zac Lee is that bad where he can start 11/13 games and still not make the list.

you can watch the "yes we can" music video to see that there are plenty of left-leaning hotties out there. scarlett johannson for one.

By the logic of this definition, even if government were to disappear for 1,000 years starting tomorrow, any bad thing which happened in the (anarchy?) society during that time period could be construed as a failure of government, not a product of anarchy, and upon the return of government it would be blamed for anything bad which happened in its absence. You seem to have constructed a definition in which government=evil and even in its absence or inability to act over extended periods of time it is still to blame. According to Wikipedia, "Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.[1][2] Since the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991, there had been no permanent national government in Somalia." Nothing about the act of abolishing any form of central government creates "the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims." People can initiate force against one another and the only thing that prevents them is a shared sense of these personal rights or the fear of reciprocal force, but as we've demonstrated a half-a-hundred times, not all people share that philosophical position and for a variety of reasons only one of which has anything to do with a government. In addition an initiating force might neither 1-share the sense of personal rights or 2-need worry about reciprocal force because they are more powerful than the force they are acting upon. That kind of thought process always led me to believe that SOCAL's belief in his ideology was always dogmatic to never be questioned. Any demonstrable evidence of refutation is not refutation against the belief but the flaws of the enemy. If anything, the article about Somalia should have SOCAL doing backflips of glee because it demonstrated how the free-market stateless system would work. There are businesses thriving, people becoming wealthy due to their own choices without money being stolen by a centralized state.

Thats right all you naysayers..... To quote Jake Taylor from Major League, "Theirs only one thing left to do, win the whole f#$@)ng thing." it's not often you get to quote tom berenger

Bones and NCIS

the athletic department doesn't even use the N with the script Huskers on it anymore. druski_245's avatar is the preferred logo now.

Last.fm recommendations

Yeah this is probably why I was getting so frustrated. It was totally irrational, the things he was bringing up. Every inconsistency that I'd find in his argument, he'd just say "no, that's not how it is". It was total BS.

The argument to this was that people can't own land...it was so hippie. We all use the land for everyone. Not just us but ALL of us. It was so stupid.

I would doubt that he'd claim that it's a necessity. That's probably why I never brought it up.

His argument against this was that for people to truly appreciate what's been given to them that they must put in time and effort into doing it themselves. Yeah I couldn't bring that point across of people not being able to truly do what they want. It seemed completely totalitarian but under the guise of majority rules democracy.

Oil is replaced by renewable energy sources Water is never gonna run out according to him. If we run out of fresh water then we can take the salt of salt water. Didn't say natural gas but that's definitely a good one.

You're probably the best I've heard at debating for your side of the spectrum. I'd like to figure out how to debate this guy. Mostly he describes that his "utopia" that on a planetary scale people should be given all the essentials, food, shelter, clothing, water, etc. and must contribute back to that society the equal amount. But that apparently doesn't limit their freedom to do whatever they wish, as long as they contribute what they were given. And they can do whatever they want to do with their lives as well. Money also doesn't exist. His philosophy is so full of holes and it's predicated on the fact that resources on earth are completely unlimited. That's where I kept getting stuck because I couldn't think of a limited resource other than time and land. So, could you help me out? Also, don't like to something cuz I don't really want to read. I just kind of want to discuss with you.

didn't von miller stay? that makes them as dangerous as anything. i'd almost put t&m over ou at this point, except they were so inconsistent last year.

Guys, let's take a breather here... Have a poptart or something, maybe some honey roasted peanuts, possibly a cherry mash...

That's what the video said. Not me. Really?? You must not have watched the same video as me!! Nowhere did the video state or imply that free markets led to the slavery of humanity. That's what it said. We were enslaved because of capitalism. Plain as day.

That whole video is predicated on the premise of "the world went from a tribal society where humans only produced for themselves, but because they were smart enough to domesticate work animals and develop better technology, they produced EXCESS product. that they sold to others. (Capitalism, no?)" Let's be honest here, there was no royalty when man was first domesticating crops and animals. The video said itself that in tribal times, humans only produced what they could consume. And we all know that they had all sorts of crazy superstitions then too and now ruling class to exploit it. So where was this enslaving of humans coming from? Well, the ruling class didn't exist yet. It didn't exist until they produced excess product, to sell, and to profit from. Now because effed up people exist and don't care about the rights of others, captured and sold people because they are the ultimate livestock, for what it's worth. Now, we are slaves because of this, because religion and statism is easily manipulated to keep us livestock, whether it seems we are free or not. What made us slaves in the first place? Capitalism. Simple as that. The only people who are truly free are those who consume ONLY what they produce. Tribal societies, the amish, and guys with beards who live in log cabins in montana. Capitalism? Are you talking the free market or the state-run capitalism known today as corporatism? If you mean the free market, how does a system consisting of voluntarily exchanges between consumers and competing businesses constitute slavery? If you can choose whether or not you participate how is that considered slavery? Also, what do you mean the ruling class didn't exist? Not only were there tribal leaders, but you mentioned religion and superstitions, who do you think brought those ideas to the fore? It must have been those damn capitalists, huh? Are you really saying that because the free markets brought about the progress of man that it is somehow responsible for also enslaving them? That's what the video said. Not me.

Do you want me to accept that you define your beliefs on so many illogical and irrational contradictions? Fine...I accept it. The real question is do you accept that? Do you accept the fact that you stated so many contradictions yet continue to have faith in its existence?