Landlord

3 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I thought the idea was to remove all things that have ties to racism?

Do you actually think that's the idea? Because that would include the United States of America as well.

Do you think liberals want to disband the actual country itself, or do you think it's a little bit more complicated than that?

lol jesus christ

8 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

New York was named after the Duke of York. 

 

The Duke of York was the leader of the RAC (Royal African Company)

Was the Duke of York's name...York? Or New, the Duke of York?

nvm I just looked it up - the Duke of York's name was James Stuart. So how is New York named after him?

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If one race voluntarily wants a racial divide, doesn't the other race have it forced on them and shoved down their throat?

I guess you can make an argument, and you could apply that argument to the first 250 years of America, but then the question is this:

Is having a different/additional national anthem a gross and profane example of a race of people having something forced on them and shoved down their throat?

4 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

He goes on to say it was tongue in cheek, but his point remains that racial divide is occurring and this might drive it further.

 

There's a distinct difference between "racial divides" that are voluntary and wanted by members of a particular race, and racial divides that are forced on them and shoved down their throat with the power of an empire behind them.

What's next, black MUSIC!?

On 7/7/2020 at 3:49 PM, Hilltop said:

Equating that to a handicap is pretty rude

You don't understand what the word equating means. 

I've seen 47. Guess I gotta watch the Godfather 1 & 2 for the first time, and Leon

The student tickets had to be validated if selling to non-students. Validation meant that you/they had to pay the difference between student ticket price and face value price.

Also, my mom and her flip phone are not going to like this.

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Basically, everyone is a libertarian till people start talking about the benefit they get from the government....then all of a sudden it gets switched to how justified it is.

 

Fact is, we all benefit from the government....and all of us should work to not rely on the government.....but sometimes that's not possible..so you rely on the government....but that shouldn't stop you from trying to get away from relying on the government....and stop complaining when someone else needs to rely on the government like you're some kind of saint for not relying on the government because you do.

This is about spot on.

There's a lot of good instinct in libertarianism, but for some super weird reason the only people you see arguing for it are people who aren't poor and trapped at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

Our country is currently a lot of socialism for the rich and powerful, and a lot of rugged individualist capitalist for the poor and helpless. If we flipped that around some, where there's a good and helpful safety net paired with tools for success and growth at the bottom, then yeah, let's libertarianism the hell out of the top. 

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

Fun fact, Nebraska has only made one bowl, that was backed into with a losing record, since Bo left in 2014.

4 hours ago, funhusker said:

I'll admit it.  I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at.

 

Are you claiming that it is a possibility that the Clintons could have a lot of power "behind the scenes", but they just can't use that power because it's "behind the scenes?"

Essentially, yes. There are many diffeerent forms and avenues of power, not having one doesn't negate others.

On 7/4/2020 at 9:35 AM, funhusker said:

Which would make her not powerful enough to sway an election. Right?

Which would have nothing to do with whatever hypothetical back room washington power she could have.

5 hours ago, funhusker said:

The fact that Hillary Clinton lost is proof that she and her deep state friends aren't nearly as scary and powerful as some crazy people claim them to be.

No, it isn't.

In comparison to Putin, he does it as the president and with state control over the media. Hillary had neither of those things.

53 minutes ago, funhusker said:

How does Putin do it?

Putin does it out in the open.

• He has any real potential opponents murdered or constantly detained/harassed by security services and shut out from the election by concocted crime convictions.

• He squashes demonstrations and protests with draconian laws that leave no room for something akin to the first amendment.

• Election officials are controlled by the state, and many stuff ballot boxes. 

• He/the state controls and owns the media

So in a nutshell he doesn't do it in the shadows, and he uses the power of the centralized state. The Clinton's don't have or couldn't operate the same way, so

I mean I'm not at all a Clinton conspiracy theorist but Hillary losing the election(s) isn't a proof through to the claim that the Clinton's obviously don't or couldn't have some powerful behind closed doors influence.

2 hours ago, GSG said:

 

One could also reason to think that if they're so great at all this backroom bulls#!t that Hillary would be president right now

Let's say the Clinton's are frighteningly powerful in the shadows. Can have people killed, have loyalists in different areas of government who can squeeze and mold things to their liking.

How does that kind of power extrapolate to controlling an election with citizens voting and citizens volunteering/counting ballots? 

1 hour ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

you would think a mid 20th century dry-toned media would be able to damage Trump plenty simply by reporting the times he's boorish. 

Yes, you would... because they are. Have you seen his approval ratings?

2 hours ago, krc1995 said:

My question, is the flatten the curve Phase over and now were In a zero transmission only phase? 

no

8 hours ago, teachercd said:

There isn't.  It is peaceful again.

What do you mean by "it"? Something that doesn't exist?

There are lots of "eagle on top of something round" insignias, including a lot inside our own country and government, but everything in America, and in other western countries, that has that general composition has the eagle facing west.

Nazi Germany's eagle facing east/right was/is an important distinction that made it unique and specific.

13 hours ago, GSG said:

 

Holy hell what year is that?!

It's a parody site. The banner on the bottom reads "This web site is made possible by a generous gift from one of Jeff Fortenberry's constituents and is maintained by Sniff Fartenberry Productions, which is really a name we just made up for Seeing Red Nebraska, and we obviously have no connection to this useless Gilead commander's re-election campaign, which we try to stay upwind from at all times."

Seeing Red Nebraska's site says "nebraska politics from the left"

5 hours ago, teachercd said:

CHAZ doesn't exist anymore.

 

 

Then how is there violence there?

14 hours ago, lo country said:

We can keep the athletes as a safe as possible, but they will still attend school, attend parties, embark on "life" etc....There's no way to live in a bubble.

That's true, but they won't be traveling to several states, having hundreds from other states traveling to them, being confined into small airplane cabins, spending time in hotels and so forth, which are all big factors in increased spreading.

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

But if the right would view her story veraciously, she is a pretty fair example of the American Dream personified. 

Well yeah....but she's brown and opinionated.

3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

This good article notes how many on the social right have now come to see that they have been 'played' by the GOP.

Well, it only took them 40+ years to figure it out, but better late than never I guess.