Jump to content

Husker_x

Members2
  • Content Count

    5,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by Husker_x

  1. - Tre Bryant- Desmond Fitzpatrick - David Reese I'm excited to get Reese locked up. Baller.
  2. Amen. We are rightly skewering one of the single worst calls in the history of Nebraska football, but that one call is only the crest of a tidal wave of stupid. Langsdorf is a freaking joke. Mike Riley's "Real will to run the football" is a load of horsesh#it. They have no will to run the football. They want to run some half-assed muddled mess of an offense with the pass defense to match. After living through the Callahan era, this is more depressing than words can describe. Oh, and I'll throw it out there. Why was DPE in the game? Was there some secret plan there? I saw one muffed punt an
  3. It doesn't matter. What the hell would you call a QB run or any kind of fancy play in that situation? Why would you even allow the potential for a f#ck up? Coaches can dance and dodge all they want; they give in to Jano, this game is in the books, and the only thing we get to whine about is Langsdorf bombing it downfield to nobody fifty times while our RBs hardly touch the ball on a windy, rainy day. The entire coaching staff has exposed themselves in five games. People are damn skittish for a damn good reason. Riley took a can't-lose situation (the game and his tenure) and managed to tur
  4. He can snicker all he likes. His ass deserved to be canned well before we tossed him. What I can't get over is we tossed him to hire a smarter, seasoned coach who ends up making some of the worst play calling decisions seasoned fans have ever seen in their lifetimes, the result of which is the worst season record (so far) the same fans have seen in their lifetimes. To borrow a phrase from Ron White: "You can't fix stupid." I'm a patient man, but losing games like this is on a level of unacceptable Pelini or Callhan never reached. In that sense the comparisons are unfair. Riley had
  5. I think there's probably a grain of truth in there. Not that the earth needs to do anything. It doesn't notice or care. But many scientists believe we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction caused by humans, which has resulted in the fastest rate of species extinction in millions of years. Left unabated, humans will almost certainly be a part of the extinction. Not to get too political, but this is one of the reasons I don't understand how Christianity got mixed up with the right wing (although on a positive note, I find Pope Francis very refreshing). I always thought growing up that it w
  6. Yeah but then what? Even if he somehow won Iowa and New Hampshire, that's because those states are almost entirely full of white liberals, who are the only people he has any ground with. He has like 5% support in the black community. Yeah and that's one of Nate Silver's bullet points on why he can't/won't win the nomination. Clearly he has some heavy lifting to do. The thing is, he does have some time to do it. We haven't even really gotten to the point where most Americans are paying attention to the election––except maybe to gawk at Trump––so if a major grassroots movement emerges (say
  7. I certainly don't hate the guy, and I'd be willing to consider his stances/arguments if he runs. Due diligence and all that. It's just extremely late in the game. I don't see a pathway to victory, and neither does anyone else. The narrative that the establishment democrats are trying to protect Hillary I think is missing the mark a bit. When they urge against him running, it has a lot to do with fundraising and time––or how little of it is left to mount a plausible bid for the White House. We turned the calendar to September today. That leaves a little less than six months to accomplish a hell
  8. I think he's planning to run in 2020. He'll have to sober up by then, so I won't hold my breath.
  9. I think there's probably a grain of truth in there. Not that the earth needs to do anything. It doesn't notice or care. But many scientists believe we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction caused by humans, which has resulted in the fastest rate of species extinction in millions of years. Left unabated, humans will almost certainly be a part of the extinction. Not to get too political, but this is one of the reasons I don't understand how Christianity got mixed up with the right wing (although on a positive note, I find Pope Francis very refreshing). I always thought growing up that it w
  10. Undoubtedly, but John McCain was getting up there as well when he ran, and that after a bout with skin cancer. Nobody can tell the future when it comes to those things. The stresses of being president could give any of these people a heart attack pretty much at any time. I think if Bernie gets the nomination, his vice presidential selection had better be good. X, do you see this any differently than me in thinking that Bernie has better than 5% odds to actually get the nomination? I don't know if I can put a number on it. He's closing in in Iowa and New Hampshire and the
  11. Undoubtedly, but John McCain was getting up there as well when he ran, and that after a bout with skin cancer. Nobody can tell the future when it comes to those things. The stresses of being president could give any of these people a heart attack pretty much at any time. I think if Bernie gets the nomination, his vice presidential selection had better be good.
  12. You haven't been around polls for very long I take it. This type of stuff happens all the time. When Romney was toying with the idea of running again earlier this year, many polls came out with and without him as a candidate. This happened all the time with Jeb Bush as a candidate well before he declared in June of this year. What it does is provide a snapshot of what the race might look like with another big name in it. It's hard to find a bigger name than a sitting VP. If it's one poll, or five polls, or ten polls, fine. Like I already said, early in the race when contende
  13. Always with the extremes. By putting the vice president's name into a field he is not actually a part of (yet), they're skewing the poll results for no other reason than to drive the media's obsession with the horserace. That's not a conspiracy. That's the infotainment media's primary function: drama, conflict, BS. I don't particularly care about polls a year before an election, but we're getting into the meat of campaign season now. The Republican debates have started and anyone who has a real prayer of winning has already entered the race (Biden has no chance whatsoever for a host of
  14. I took a phone survey for Quinnipiac today, and when the question came up about who I was likely to support (I forget the exact wording), Biden's name came up. This is both astounding and frustrating, because as of today, 8/30/15, Joe Biden hasn't announced a candidacy. He's not in the race. No one could stand for him in the caucuses or vote in the primary because his name would not be on the ballot. This has been going on for months. Polls continue to rank participants that aren't participating. I don't know if this is a common scene in the political world, but it smacks of a serious agen
  15. That's kind of funny, because in many respects America is beginning to resemble a third-world country. Name your topic. Education, gun violence, criminal justice, healthcare, current infrastructure, infrastructure spending, economic inequality, alarming rates of science denialism, militarized police force, wars of aggression, blatantly corrupt campaign finance, etc. and so forth. Sometimes I can't tell if people can't see what's in front of their face or simply don't want to. Also it would be nice if people would quit pretending that our only two options in creating a functioning economic
  16. X - I'm not a Trump supporter but I disagree wt anyone labeling a candidate based on some guy in the crowd. The same is true if Sanders was the speaker and someone yelled out 'communist power' (yes I know socialism isn't communism in the same way conservatism isn't racism - by the way it was mainly southern Dems who were in the old white power organization of the past KKK). I personally don't know of any repub who believes what I have placed in bold in your quote - that again is a broad brush accusation that cannot be substantiated and only distracts from the discussion. Are their repubs w
  17. I don't think it's possible to ignore the manipulative and directed way in which Trump is stirring up nativist sentiments to fuel his primary run. It's also not hard to connect those dots with similar tactics used throughout history. Using the age-old "They are coming to take our country away from us" mantra is a vile campaign tactic––which of course is why Trump is leading the Republican party in every poll. The Republican base is either comprised of or deeply sympathetic toward racists and xenophobes, who believe priority #1 in "making America great again" is to forcibly cleanse it of eleven
  18. I agree, and it has a lot to do with why our political system is malfunctioning, to put it mildly. Take the Hillary e-mail scandal as an example. I've heard some pretty outrageous accusations and conclusions thrown out there. I imagine a fair percentage of the right wing thinks that Hillary Clinton herself under criminal investigation for "destroying" a server that contained classified information. That's not entirely accurate. But what partisan hacks learned centuries ago was that if you tell a lie enough times––best when attended with a BREAKING NEWS swooshing graphic and some exciting
  19. Yes. The reason I favor this approach is because of the decline in overall usage rates in Portugal when they tried decriminalization. It's not perfect. Drugs are still very dangerous. But the case studies we have indicate that locking people up is not only ineffective and expensive, but harmful to society overall. Canada also offers one model of what we could do in response to your perfectly reasonable concern about addicts and violence. However, I don't think we can rationalize locking up nonviolent offenders on the basis that someone somewhere who does drugs might also commit an act of v
  20. Whoops, another straw man. Got a real collection going in this thread. Saying that something is acceptable is not the same thing as saying something is the majority view. Also, the majority of Americans probably could not tell you what Socialism is, or how it differs from Marxism, Capitalism, or––most importantly in our immediate political context––democratic socialism. I can't stop because I never started. You have missed my point two or three times now. I'm increasingly convinced this is deliberate. My worldview is not dominated by the left vs. right thinking that's entrenched
×
×
  • Create New...