AR Husker Fan

Regarding the Suspensions: In order to address all the points raised, let me first summarize how we got here. Then I'll address some specific issues raised. This will be lengthy, but I ask everyone to take the time to read it. On May 31, NM11046 posted THIS REPLY, which obviously violated the rules. I posted HERE at 2:33 that I had suspended his account and why, and reminded everyone that personal attacks were not permitted. Within three hours, Coach Power'T and JJHusker1 did exactly what I had warned against with THIS POST and THIS POST. I suspended both and again reminded everyone that personal attacks were prohibited. Then, today AFhusker not only engaged in a personal attack, his attack was in the same vein as the ones that got Coach Power'T and JJHusker1 suspended. So... When we first created this forum, we noted to the members that politics and religion were high emotion topics. Nevertheless, we wanted a place where those topics could be discussed - one that was separate from the general BS forum as a lot of members didn't like wading through all the topics in the BS forum to find the topics that weren't about politics and religion. We told everyone that we'd maintain the forum so long as discussions could be civil. And that's the problem - the level of civility here has plummeted. We get that this election cycle is different. We get that each side has an element of, "OMG, if Candidate X is elected, the world will end tomorrow." To an extent, we've caused this by allowing the level of discourse to dissolve a bit. That's on us. But it's gotten out of hand. That leaves two alternatives. One is to start enforcing the rules. The other is to remove this forum and outright ban political or religious topics. We'd prefer to keep the forum - when it's civil, there is a TON of good debate and information exchanged. To address AFhusker's level of suspension, it seems that there is some thought that the single post is what made it 30 days. That's not correct. When we take action, we base it on a number of factors. In this particular case, those factors included: 1. Three members had been suspended for violating the personal attacks rule. In each case, we posted what we had done and why. But despite this, AFhusker proceeded anyway. 2. The notice of the suspensions for JJHusker1 and Coach Power'T put everyone on notice of examples of personal attacks that will result in a suspension. Despite that, AFhusker decided to proceed anyway with the same kind of attack. 3. AFhusker had numerous warnings prior to this action, three of them for personal attacks. He has been warned repeatedly; he knows the rules, but he proceeded anyway. In other words, there is a pattern. Previous actions did not work; that left no choice but to escalate matters. We don't want AFhusker - or any member, for that matter - banned. We go to great lengths to avoid it, much of it behind the scenes. Hopefully, this will modify behavior - not just for AFhusker, but for everyone. That's why I posted what actions had been taken. We don't like doing this. But the more it goes on, the more the personal attacks will just increase. Taking shots at someone serves no purpose, but DOES lead to retaliation and escalation. I'm sure everyone has been on some board, somewhere, that was full of flame wars. It's not fun, and it drives people away. We don't want that happening here. We have a lot of very intelligent, articulate and passionate members. When all of you are posting opinions and discussing topics without resorting to attacks, it's a true pleasure to read. And that's all we're asking. Bring your opinions. Bring your passion. But do it without attacking other members. If you can't do that, then please don't put yourself in a position where we have to take action. Avoid this forum if you must - but we hope that instead you'll take a breath, walk away from the keyboard, and then return when you can compose a response that demonstrates your point - and does not take shots at members.

I've never watched MSNBC so I have no proof that this allegation is false. But there's zero chance a major news outlet didn't "even acknowledge Memorial Day." Where does stuff like this come from? Who thinks this is true? Unless someone watched literally every minute of MSNBC then there's no way to make that statement factually. Plus, I don't mean to be offensive to any veterans, current military members, etc., but what do people expect? Wall to wall coverage? It's an important holiday but it doesn't keep eye balls. Politics, breaking news, the Cincinnati Zoo incident... that's what keeps people watching TV. It's called using the internet looking at MSNBC's website and pulling up stories about it. Not to mention flipping between channels since it was raining like a MF'er out here on that day and we couldn't do squat for it. The closest thing that they came to was Obama's speech at Arlington National Cemetery. =bundle%3Atheplatform_video]http://www.msnbc.com/search/memorial%20day?f[0]=bundle%3Atheplatform_video The first part of your question about what people expect is quite alarming to say the least. Do you not know what Memorial Day is about? Apparently you don't so let me tell you It is about honoring all of the thousands of brave people who made the ultimate sacrifice for people to have the freedoms that they enjoy today. For those of us that are still serving or have served, we don't expect anything for doing our jobs, it's about honoring those who didn't come back. It isn't just a day off so people to only talk about a stupid gorilla (for example) and trying to act like it's life is as valuable as a human beings. That is what is concerning and dangerous about the left as they care more about taking flags off of fire trucks, stopping the pledge of allegiance, not allowing people to say "so help me God in schools" even though it doesn't say which god, you could be saying it to the spaghetti monster if that is your God. But will legislate that mentally ill people get to pick which bathroom they want to use. Makes perfect sense to me. As bad as the Republican Party is messed up (and it is very messed up) the Democratic Party is messed up even worse. Again, unless you physically watched an entire day's worth of MSNBC coverage, either online or on TV, your statement is unfounded. "Flipping through channels" and "pulling up stories" is like saying you read a book by flipping through chapters and occasionally reading some excerpts. I also just did a google search and found four different stories, including two video tributes, they aired over Memorial Day weekend. Lastly, I'm incredibly offended by your asinine, holier-than-thou assumption about what I do and don't know about Memorial Day. You know nothing about me, my military service or my family's military service. I just have a different perspective than you. I spent 3 hours Monday with local groups laying flags on fallen soldier memorials and unnamed graves, not trolling through MSNBC's website. But, apparently I don't know anything about the day. I answered your question, it isn't my fault that you got thin skinned feelings hurt. Don't ask questions that you don't want to hear the answer too. Here's Enhance's argument: "The claim that MSNBC did nothing to pay homage to Memorial Day doesn't hold water unless someone watched all 24 hours of MSNBC's Memorial Day programming." He then goes on to show that MSNBC did in fact air four different stories--including two video tributes--that aired over Memorial Day weekend. Is that less than other news programming? Perhaps, and that's completely up to the MSNBC's producers. Point is, you can't make a sweeping judgment about MSNBC's lack of respect for Memorial Day by watching just a few hours of programming. You could do the same thing with Fox, CNN, ABC, HLN, Al Jazeera, or whatever and wind up with the same argument. You want to bet that Fox News or CNN weren't talking about the gorilla incident or any other news that just happened to occur on or over Memorial Day weekend? I'll happily take you up on that offer. News companies report news and rarely--if ever--will Memorial Day be the sole story of the day. In the unfortunate event that a mass shooting occurred on Memorial Day, do you expect news companies to not cover that story? No where in any of his posts did he even bring up a disrespect towards Memorial Day or armed forces veterans in any way. That is an assumption made on your end that led you to act foolishly, and then you're blaming someone else for being offended by your assumption. I know many, many people who silently and not so silently observe Memorial Day, the day dedicated to all the brave men and women, such as yourself, who willingly risked everything in defense of our great country. To question people's respect for our veterans without any proof whatsoever is pretty misguided. I have a great respect for our armed forces. My brother-in-law is a Marine officer currently serving overseas, and I cannot begin to imagine the difficulty in being separated from the person he loves, in a place far removed from the USA. Yet he, and many others, bravely solider on, knowing that any day might be their last; they know they must protect their country of people most of whom they'll never meet. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is those who boisterously demand to be respected because of their service. I, and many others, already respect these individuals--the uniform, wounds, titles, do enough to garner respect. Apparently you or those who are +1'ing you lack reading comprehension. He asked a very dumb question asking "what I expected, all day coverage?" The sarcasm in that question and the premise was disrespectful in it's tone in itself. Next,when did I "boisterously demand to be respected because of their (my) service?" I even said that those to include myself don't want sh#t from anyone. It is for those who made the ultimate sacrifice and died for this country. AFhusker's account is suspended for 30 days for the personal attack. This now makes 4 that have been suspended because they insist on taking shots and making personal attacks on other members. Again, there is simply no reason for it. Attack the post and not the poster.

Oklahoma can be added to the states in which that game-plan is failing. a 1.3 billion dollar budget hole - wow!

First, they blow a hole in their budget, and now this... Thousands of voters in limbo after Kansas demands proof they're American

North Korea says Trump isn't screwy at all, a wise choice for president

Both JJHusker1 and Coach Power'T have had their accounts suspended for their personal attacks above. That makes three today. We are not joking; if you have to take shots at someone, find another board. Or, if you want to hang around and simply can't control yourself, don't frequent this area or use the Ignore function. But enough is enough.

NM11046's account has been suspended for 7 days. Folks, I realize that passions run high when it comes to both politics or religion. But that doesn't excuse that kind of personal attack. To all members, if you can't debate in a civil manner, at least have the self control to remove yourself from this forum until after the elections. Or use the ignore function. But enough with the personal attacks.

Our military needs to be better??? We spend more on our military than anything we spend money on in this country by FAR. Military officials have said many times that they don't need all the money that gets flung at them. If we put 10 percent of what we pay into our military into education we wouldn't have dumb dumb trump equivalent supporters by the time they were old enough to vote. You have it backwards on the education comment, more money won't get spent on it by the Democrats because their backbone is the uneducated voter. It's been awhile since I delved deeply into this topic, but do you have any hard conclusive data to back this statement up? A few years ago, it was pretty well determined/documented in most areas of the country (other than the deep south) the higher the education level = the more likely someone was to vote democratic. And that's still the case.

Simply stunning.

Then I take it you didn't see these statements from the poll you cited: In other words, the dislike for Obamacare is more a result of propaganda than reality for most people. As for Trump repealing Obamacare, there are several points to be made. First, Trump, as President, cannot unilaterally repeal Obamacare. That will take Congressional action, and if the Senate flips - a distinct possibility - there will be no repeal. He COULD say he would support legislation to repeal it, and that would be truthful - but claims HE will repeal it are patently false. Second, Trump supports much of Obamacare - particularly the mandate. See HERE, HERE, and HERE. Third, based on conservative principles, what Trump offers as an alternative is, in reality, Obamacare on steroids. He doesn't want to repeal Obamacare - he wants to extend it to a single-payer system. But, like repeal, he'll never get that passed unless both chambers of Congress flip. While a flip is possible in the Senate, at present it is a virtual impossibility with the House.

Manslaughter can have jail time. It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket. It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape. There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others. Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter. Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving). You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age. You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits. Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime. Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB. The intent doesn't always go to the whether you intended the result. In some crimes, the intent requirement is whether you intended to act in the MANNER that resulted in the harm. For example, take DUI. If someone grabs you, pours liquor down your throat until you are intoxicated, and you then drive - no DUI. So, no, you're wrong - it's not BS and I'm not splitting hairs. You claimed that intent "has very little to do with most crimes". That's simply wrong. Ask any attorney. I addressed your claim - intent is required. That you don't like being wrong does not make it BS. Sorry for the BS comment but it seemed like you were purposefully twisting my words into some legal definition context when that was not my intent (there's that word again). However, I was wrong to say that intent has little to do with most crimes. Because that places "intent" in the legal context and yes, then it does matter. But I will still stand by my example that many people convicted of crimes had no real conscious intent of committing them even if they were found to have the legal definition of intent. They may have intended to drink and then drive and a consequence of their actions was harming someone. I think we both can agree that their lack of real (not legal) intent to harm others does them little good in court. That is the point I was trying to make. Yes, we can agree on that - it's actually pretty common, particularly for violent crimes.

Manslaughter can have jail time. It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket. It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape. There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others. Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter. Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving). You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age. You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits. Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime. Well that's BS and you know it. You're just splitting hairs and changing the argument now. I agree it is incumbent to know the girls age and to not get drunk and get behind the wheel. And maybe that trips the "legal" intent wire but I can guarantee you that many, many people have done those things with no intent of harming anyone. That is the type of "intent" I was addressing with BRB. The intent doesn't always go to the whether you intended the result. In some crimes, the intent requirement is whether you intended to act in the MANNER that resulted in the harm. For example, take DUI. If someone grabs you, pours liquor down your throat until you are intoxicated, and you then drive - no DUI. So, no, you're wrong - it's not BS and I'm not splitting hairs. You claimed that intent "has very little to do with most crimes". That's simply wrong. Ask any attorney. I addressed your claim - intent is required. That you don't like being wrong does not make it BS.

Yes, she certainly has been highly scrutinized. On one hand, you can assume that nothing substantial coming from that level of scrutiny maybe means there is nothing that bad to be found. But, on the other hand, there is always the thought that where there is smoke there must be fire. I suppose I fall more into that later category, possibly just because I tend to lean a little more right than left but I'm not sure why exactly. I just know I don't like her or trust her, sort of in the same way I don't like Obama. It's not a conscious party line decision and it's not for the same reasons but it is what it is. Her public persona is definitely cold and distant (allegedly, she is quite open and warm with small numbers of people, but I can hardly say I know that personally). Simply put, she grates on people. No doubt about it. To many, Trump does the same.

Capone had the benefit of "investigators" that were susceptible to influence - whether monetary or physical or "higher command". In other words, they weren't motivated to actually seek the truth. Hillary's investigators? Precisely the opposite.

Manslaughter can have jail time. It wasn't my intention to drive too fast but that matters little when I get the ticket. It may not have been the 19 year olds intention to rape the 17 year old girl, who he thought was older, but that doesn't necessarily get him off the hook for statutory rape. There are plenty of drunk drivers who didn't intend to kill somebody. Plenty of people driving while texting who didn't intend to harm or kill others. Intent can make a difference but it doesn't always matter. Actually, you had intent in those crimes (speeding itself is not a crime - it's simply a traffic violation absent something else, such reckless driving). You intended to have sex with the girl - it's incumbent on you to be sure she's of age. You intended to drink - it's incumbent on you to not exceed legal limits. Again, intent is a necessary element in almost every crime.

Having lived in Arkansas during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as Governor, I can safely say that Hillary's overriding weakness as a public figure was her desire to maintain "zones of privacy". It was understandable as it was applied to the limited contact with her daughter. But for a public figure in general, her desire to isolate "her" business conflicts with public service. That's grown over time, and to a big degree, it's understandable. She has been the subject of countless investigations over the years (and never been found to be criminally responsible - and let's not forget that all of those investigations were conducted by people that were highly motivated to find criminality).

Actually, intent is almost ALWAYS a required element of any crime. You get some cases, like manslaughter, where the concept can be murky, but only on the surface. In manslaughter, for example, you may not have intended to kill the person - but you intended to strike him. It's difficult, actually, to name more than a handful of crimes where intent is not a necessary element.

The correct answer, of course, is "none". In May of 2015 the State Department began releasing several thousand pages of Clinton's emails, many of them partly redacted. The releases continued until the last of the roughly 30,000 messages were made public in February of 2016. In other words, all the email (with the exception of 22 emails that contained “top secret” material - and that were classified as such AFTER they had been sent) from the server have been turned over.

When I first read "double digit scholarship reductions" I assumed it meant a 10 or more reduction in a single year. What they are self-imposing isn't nearly as severe when you spread it over three years (since the 2015-2016 "reduction" isn't really a reduction at all).

Talk of a President repealing the 2nd Amendment - or any amendment, for that matter - inevitably points out the lack of education and critical thinking in this country. Presidents don't repeal amendments. In fact, Presidents play virtually no part in amendments. To repeal an amendment, you have to pass a new amendment that "overwrites" the amendment to be repealed. That means you have to begin with a proposed amendment that must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The proposed Amendment must then be sent ot every individual State's legislature for consideration. Each state follows its own parliamentary process to arrive at a yea or nay on the proposed Amendment. For the proposed Amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, 3/4 of the individual States must vote a final yea. With 50 states, the required number of State ratifications to adopt the new amendment is 38. Upon the confirmation of the 38th yea, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution, amending, or changing, whatever the subject of the amendment covers--whether it be a new cause, or eliminating an old Amendment. That's why, of all the amendments, only a single one - just one - has ever been repealed (and that's why we can drink beer on game days, thank the gods). See? No involvement by the President. Further, every presidential race since at least Bush verses Dukakis has contained the claim that the Democratic candidate would "repeal the 2nd amendment". And in every case in which the Democrat won, the newly elected President has...done nothing to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If folks will recall, that was the claim when Obama ran the first time. What happened? Well, no repeal (obviously, for the reason above) - but there was a hell of a run on gun purchases and ammo. Enough that ammo prices shot through the roof and gun owners complained long and loud. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. The people who swallow the claim that "Candidate X" will repeal the 2nd Amendment are those that lack sufficient education and any degree of critical thinking. They are the ones that wallow in propaganda and hype. Unfortunately, despite their ignorance they still are permitted to vote. Like I said, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

JJ, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is the possibility of enlisting the media. Seems every market has some kind of "investigative journalist" that loves to go after businesses and generate outrage when someone is treated as you have been treated. And that kind of negative publicity can go a long way in changing attitudes. Just a thought...

What are you basing this on? Good question, insofar as virtually every legal expert concludes that, given the evidence, there's been no crime. CNN's Pamela Brown, further, reported that she has been told by officials that the investigation is close to ending, and that there is no evidence to warrant an indictment. In other words, precisely the opposite is to be expected...

On what do you base numbers 3 and 4? As to number 3, I can't think of a single Democrat that has expressed anything but contempt for Trump, and see in him someone that embodies the very antitheses of what that party believes. As to number 4, an equally likely - or perhaps more likely - scenario is that Sanders supporters, being denied their first choice, will swarm the polling stations to vote for someone, and that they will go for Hillary as at least the lesser of two evils - they will see in Trump someone that isn't an agent of change, but one that cannot form coalitions, articulate coherent plans, take the same position on an issue twice running, and is dismissive of women and minorities. Particularly if Sanders throws his support to Hillary after losing at the convention, I see Sanders' supporters flocking to Hillary.

The Steam Summer Sale will reportedly kick off on June 23 Just in case anyone's interested...