Husker_x

Our staff is miserable at clock management.

It's pretty clear that Tommy just plain sucks.

 

Any of you that follow this have a guess on who might commit?

- Tre Bryant

- Desmond Fitzpatrick

- David Reese

 

I'm excited to get Reese locked up. Baller.

Imani for five again . . .

 

 

Dear Husker Family,

Good morning.

I want to express my sincere appreciation to every Husker fan who has come to Memorial Stadium this season to cheer on the Big Red; who has traveled hundreds or thousands of miles to proudly wear the red and white in visiting stadiums; and who has passionately supported our student-athletes, our head coach, our assistant coaches and staff. Your support and patience as Mike Riley rebuilds our storied program one brick at a time mean the world to our young men, our staff and our university.

While many are understandably disappointed in the current record of the football team and the heartbreakingly close losses we have suffered, I am confident the future is bright because I see it in the eyes of our players, coaches and staff and I am impressed by what I know is going on behind the scenes. Our coaches are developing our student-athletes and, though the consistent victories are not there yet, I am confident they will come. I have witnessed how our young men battle every day in practice and fight to the finish on game days in the face of great adversity. Football can be a humbling game of inches and seconds and our players have laid everything on the line while making no excuses. The prospective student-athletes looking to make Nebraska home possess athletic talent, academic potential, and high character making for a bright future. Coach Riley has a vision and a plan and is committed to providing the Husker faithful with a sustained winner which will compete annually for championships.

As I have said many times, it is an honor and privilege to represent Nebraska, and I am humbled and care deeply about the men and women I have a chance to work with every day here. The incredible amount of hours they put in and the sacrifices they all make to represent Nebraska are truly remarkable. In two decades as a student-athlete and athletics administrator, I have had the opportunity to learn and work alongside some incredible people at five different institutions. What the best administrators and coaches have in common is a consistent commitment to teaching young minds to do things the right way and to instill a values system that emphasizes hard work, discipline, loyalty, teamwork, compassion and excellence. Those principles coupled with a positive attitude generally result in championships.

Your continued support is what makes Nebraska special and together, we will do great things. Thank you again for your incredible passion and support. We look forward to another home sellout and an electric environment on Saturday as we come together to cheer on our team against Michigan State.

Have a great week and Go Big Red!

Shawn Eichorst

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=210466315

 

 

 

Almost died laughing. +1

I hope this isn't the narrative going forward. The play calling decisions in a gale force wind and sideways rain should be the real story. 31 pass lays in those cnditions when you are ahead the entire game. What the f#*k?

 

Forget the last two plays. How about they answer for the other 59 minutes of terrible decisions.

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 and one screen, then to the bench.

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 turn the entire fanbase into rabid monsters, squandered all goodwill he inherited, and with the Alex Lewis crap out there, he's now going to face a test keeping this team from completely imploding.

This is not what we asked for when we booted Pelini.

Somewhere, Bo Pelini is snickering...

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 better unf#ck himself in a hurry. This act will wear thin real, real soon.

 

 

Fine...leave deity, religion, X,Y or Z out of it.

 

This world has been "living" for millions of years evolving from molten mush into an amazingly complex system of molecules, cells and energy. The original question was, why doesn't it die off? Well, it appears to me that some people believe that we ARE killing it off and at such an amazingly fast rate that some people produce major movies warning us of ultimate doom and we are the cause of everything that is bad.

 

Well....maybe the answer to the original question is.....it hasn't died off yet simply because humans as a disease on the Earth hadn't advanced far enough yet to do it and that's simply the course this huge chemical reaction is going to take....and....so what?

 

Maybe we are actually a parasite that the Earth needs to exterminate to continue living.

 

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 was a moral imperative to protect and cherish the environment. Why that isn't a cornerstone of modern Christianity is beyond me: it's maybe the moral imperative, especially when you consider the impact on the poor especially if we fail.

 

If we fail, it won't matter if you are poor or rich, we will be exterminated.

 

Speaking specifically about climate change, the poor will be the first to experience the pain of droughts, mass migrations, etc.

 

 

I don't know if I can put a number on it. He's closing in in Iowa and New Hampshire and the debates haven't happened. If people get behind Bernie in a big enough way to win an election, it will likely mean a mass uprising. Hard to predict or account for all the variables in something like that.

 

Mostly I think that if we want to see Bernie elected, all of who back him better get off our asses and do something about it.

 

 

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 at this march on Washington he has planned a few days after the first debate), he could move the needle. I don't know how much of the black vote dislikes Bernie Sanders and how much of it is people simply not knowing him from Adam. Hillary Clinton is like the Coca Cola of Democratic politicians. Not hard to say you favor her when she's the only person you've ever heard of in the race.

Well, this is how the media skews election results, whether it's through polling or their coverage. In 2007/2008, the media fell in love with Obama and this was to Hillary's detriment. Obama was the chosen one that year. Regarding polling, in 2007 Cheney was in many polls despite the fact he was adamant he was not going to run. Guiliani was in many polls before he ever declared. Media loves to make these events a horse race.

 

One of the primary reasons Trump has gotten to the lead is the non-stop media coverage of him. They have given him the platform to drown out all other candidates. But much of these early polls have little to do with actual results when the voting begins.

 

I take it you are not a Biden supporter?

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 of a lot.

Kanye for President

I think he's planning to run in 2020. He'll have to sober up by then, so I won't hold my breath.

Fine...leave deity, religion, X,Y or Z out of it.

 

This world has been "living" for millions of years evolving from molten mush into an amazingly complex system of molecules, cells and energy. The original question was, why doesn't it die off? Well, it appears to me that some people believe that we ARE killing it off and at such an amazingly fast rate that some people produce major movies warning us of ultimate doom and we are the cause of everything that is bad.

 

Well....maybe the answer to the original question is.....it hasn't died off yet simply because humans as a disease on the Earth hadn't advanced far enough yet to do it and that's simply the course this huge chemical reaction is going to take....and....so what?

 

Maybe we are actually a parasite that the Earth needs to exterminate to continue living.

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 was a moral imperative to protect and cherish the environment. Why that isn't a cornerstone of modern Christianity is beyond me: it's maybe the moral imperative, especially when you consider the impact on the poor especially if we fail.

 

 

X & Corn - do you see Berine's age as an issue (I know you personally don't but maybe the general election voters may)- 105 or I mean 75 now. I know in 1980 that was raised as an issue and again in 84 against Reagan (who skillfully turned that issue against Mondale in the debate wt his famous line). I know 75 is the new 65 and all of that but do you think it will become an issue?

 

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 debates haven't happened. If people get behind Bernie in a big enough way to win an election, it will likely mean a mass uprising. Hard to predict or account for all the variables in something like that.

Mostly I think that if we want to see Bernie elected, all of who back him better get off our asses and do something about it.

X & Corn - do you see Berine's age as an issue (I know you personally don't but maybe the general election voters may)- 105 or I mean 75 now. I know in 1980 that was raised as an issue and again in 84 against Reagan (who skillfully turned that issue against Mondale in the debate wt his famous line). I know 75 is the new 65 and all of that but do you think it will become an issue?

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.

 

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 agenda.

 

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 contenders are still mulling, it's understandable. Right now polling data seriously affects the trajectory of campaigns. If you go to RealClearPolitics today, you will see Biden hanging beneath Clinton and Sanders at 14%––with no asterisk or caveat or anything. Why are we not seeing the poll where that 14% is being distributed among actual candidates? In my view they should be limiting major national polls (internal campaign pollsters could put Santa Clause on the list for all I care) to the candidates who have declared. If nothing else, it's for the sake of accuracy.

Why agenda? It seems clear that Biden is mulling a run, and why not? I don't see a conspiracy here. It would be unusual if the entire Democrat field simply ceded to Hilary without putting up a fight. And unless any of them intend to run as independents, it won't matter in the end. One of them will win and I have a hard time believing the base will decide "Hey, you know, whatever to healthcare."

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 reasons, chief among them being he hasn't even begun to put his stamp on the early primary states).

You also left out Sanders, who is leading in some polls in New Hampshire and is within seven points in the latest Des Moines Register poll in Iowa. Nobody is ceding anything.

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 agenda.

Dang....you make it sound like Sheriff A sent his deputies out and rounded up guys playing tiddlywinks on the sidewalks of Phoenix. I'd be curious how many of these "concentration camp members" are illegal and if they decide to stay in Arizona or shuffle on to a friendlier place once they get out.

 

Also please explain to me what sh**ty third world system would please you? Would you rather everyone has a job, a house and an education provided by Big Brother? What is the incentive for people to work hard at a job given to them when they can slack off and make just as much by flirting with the office secretary for 6 hours a day?

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 system are Ayn Rand or a Hippie commune.

 

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 million illegals, who are really nothing but scapegoats distracting an ignorant electorate from what's really happening in this country.

 

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 who act/believe that way - I'm sure there are. Are their libs who would like to install a Soviet style gov't here - I'm sure there are - but those are all exceptions. Trump has struck a nerve about issues that need to be fixed in the country - that doesn't mean his solutions are correct but just that he gets support because he's willing to talk openly about them. As far as I can tell, he hasn't put forward serious, WORKABLE, solutions to the issues he raises - this is why I believe his star will eventually fade. His supporters, while vocal now, are not the totality of the republican base much less the republican party as a whole. Yes, Trump uses red meat to stir people up - but eventually a more rounded diet will be desired and a more 'conventional' candidate will rise to the top.

I didn't actually mention the white supremacist in the crowd, and when you have a crowd of twenty thousand, you can't exactly pick and choose who shows up. With that being said, it's not surprising either that Trump attracts the racist bloc, given his bombastic rhetoric and general stance towards immigrants and everyone else he considers "losers."

Like him or not, Donald Trump is the Republican frontrunner (and has been for some time), and therefore at least temporarily he is the standard-bearer guiding the Republican debate. His plan, which has been widely hailed on the right and aped by other candidates, is exactly what I said: to deport ~12,000,000 people from this country. It's an undertaking that will at the very least require a hugely expensive police campaign to weed out all the "illegals" and force them, no doubt often at gunpoint, to return to wherever they came from. Many of them will be met with poverty, starvation, and violence when they arrive. If you disagree with Trump that it's "workable," I'm sorry but in his eyes you're just a loser who doesn't have it. Probably you should be deported as well.

The Republican establishment may roll their eyes at this eventuality, but this is again where someone like Hitler (or pick your tyrant if you like) is a good reminder. Things don't always go the way you hope they will. Everyone who's gotten into the habit of taking this insane doofus lightly has had egg on their face so far, and nothing––no matter how grotesque or deplorable––has slowed him down. The more vitriolic and xenophobic he becomes, the larger his lead grows. That's the fact of the matter. That is the GOP in the present moment. If you're not on board, I'd suggest you lend a hand in taking your party back. I'd do it quick, too, because from my vantage point it looks like the walls are fallen and the castle is burning thanks to the people you claim are not representative of the Republican zietgeist.

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 million illegals, who are really nothing but scapegoats distracting an ignorant electorate from what's really happening in this country.

And then make your enemies your friends.

It worked for Caesar . . . for awhile.

X - I've placed this book on my amazon wish list. Looks interesting. Here is a good review of it - I place in bold and underlined what really caught my attention. We on the conservative side often talk about the 'low information voters' who would vote for Obama. However, that is a cheap excuse for not having quality candidates who can win. Low information voters can be found on both sides and as noted in this review are manipulated by sound bites, pictures, and distracted by entertainment 'bling' & trivial messages from culture from really knowing the facts:

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 music––it starts to take the form of truth. Hillary Clinton is not under criminal investigation and she did not destroy a server, and there is some confusion as to when the "classified" material was classified, and why it was classified.

The problem is even if the hosts that put this stuff out there end up being proven right in a few months, we still have ourselves a classic case of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Eventually you get tired of being burned by this kind of stuff and go look for sources that don't have a vested interest in the destruction/humiliation of political opponents.

As to #2. Are you saying that you favor all drugs being legal to purchase as an adult no matter what that drug is? In your description, that may cut down on some violent crimes. But, I have my doubts if it has a major cut back on crimes committed by drug users. If someone is addicted to crack and they are out of money, they are going to do whatever it takes to get either the money or the crack and many times that means turning to crime. An addiction is an addiction no matter if it is legal or not.

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 violence. If we followed that rationale for everything, we might as well ban food, because all bank robbers, rapists, and serial killers eat.

Yes, we have a long ways to go to bring our violent crime rate down. However, I still am interested in the relationship the "tough on crime" legislation that was put in place in the early 90s and the drop in violent crime. It seems to me there has to be a relationship.

I don't dispute that.

Now, with all of the incidents like Ferguson, police are being painted to be these horrible monsters that don't care about who they are shooting and killing. That is farthest from the truth. Mistakes are made and those mistakes need to be corrected and better management can correct those.

However, my fear is that these incidents are going to lead to basically the police in this country being disarmed and their forces cut. My thoughts is that this will increase the crime rate again.

We are locking a lot of people up. However, a vast majority of those deserve to be and should be locked up.

If you want to open the conversation all the way, as far as it can, we also have to think about things like: what do we hope to accomplish by locking people up? Do we want them to have a high likelihood or a low likelihood of returning to prison once released? What should their prospects be when they're released? How do we keep the recidivism rates down? There's a lot to it.

Please point me to a poll that shows that a majority of Americans are acceptable of socialism or a Socialist candidate.

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.

Also, let's stop the BS that ideological media is one-sided. There are plenty of Conservative voices out there just as there are liberal voices. When Bush was President, the liberal voices went on, and on, and on, and on of how bad Bush was. It's the nature of politics unfortunately, and the party that is out of power in the White House usually has the loudest voice. Are you really going to sit here and act like there Big Liberal media was not on the attack against Bush 43 day in and day out?\

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 in the news-infotainment business.

One book I read in high school that has served me well in life is Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman, a media critic who frames his book about influential forms of media and technology in light of the differences between an Orwellian and a Huxleyan dystopia. Check it out.