sarge87

Haha ref you wish you could take down T-Mart

The ref looked like a deer in the roadway.

Why? Martinez needs to get as manning passing reps under his belt as possible right now. It's not as if we need to be conservative. Let's use this opportunity to work on some things.

FRinally found`my Hotel..WhadImiss?

 

 

And..Anyone know of a`radio station in San Diego that's broadcasting the game?

No. Closest station = Las Vegas, 1400 KSHP-AM

 

 

Husker bar close to SD = La Jolla: Sport City Café & Brewery 8657 Villa La Jolla Dr.

I'm in Vegas and more often than not I can't even get that station. It fades in and out all the time, and i've never had it come in clear yet.

Must be a low wattage AM carrier....

FRinally found`my Hotel..WhadImiss?

 

 

And..Anyone know of a`radio station in San Diego that's broadcasting the game?

No. Closest station = Las Vegas, 1400 KSHP-AM

Husker bar close to SD = La Jolla: Sport City Café & Brewery 8657 Villa La Jolla Dr.

Found a stream of UNK\UNO, but not a live one of the Huskers?

whats wrong with huskers.com?

 

Sorry, was speaking of video.

 

I cought an HD stream for T-Mart's TD, but it was pulled down shortly after

 

Mod's, if just discussing streams without links is bad let me know.

 

Thanks

Linking those streams will probably get you a banhammer because it is pirated from the PPV.

NDSU 3

KU 3

0:39 left in 2nd

I think Crick killed that guy!!!!!!

Guys, they don't bring the planned starter in 3rd, that would be flat stupid.

 

Green and Martinez are the future, get on the bandwagon.

I don't do bandwagon like a bunch of fanboys. I support whoever BP puts out there.

Ok, is anyone thinking about maybe Lee didn't start because it was like "well, this is WKU. Let's see how the 2 and 3 QB's do?"

That was my thinking, exactly.

These guys are the future, so get them as many reps as possible.

This may be the end of Zac Lee's career.

I highly doubt that.

O-Line getting some love......

Impressive!!!!!!

Awww Crap!!! Too much Habanero in the hot wings!!!!!

Good. Let's see what we can do with long field this time....

D-Line is giving up too many rush yards.

WOW what a hell of a run!!!

Interesting take. I don't see much that I disagree with here:

 

Republicans pander over 'Ground Zero mosque'

 

By Eugene Robinson

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

 

Lies, distortions, jingoism, xenophobia -- another day, another campaign issue that Republicans can use to bash President Obama and the Democrats. First it was illegal immigration. Now it's the so-called Ground Zero mosque, which is not at all what its opponents claim.

 

 

First, it's not at Ground Zero. The site in question is two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan; an existing mosque is just a few hundred feet more distant from the site of the collapsed towers. Second, while the planned building would indeed house a place of worship, it is designed to be more of a community center along the lines of a YMCA. Plans include a fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, bookstore, performing arts center and food court. Kebabs do not threaten our way of life.

 

Most important, organizers have made clear that the whole point of the project is to provide a high-profile platform for mainstream, moderate Islam -- and to stridently reject the warped, radical, jihadist worldview that produced the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001.

 

"It will have a real community feel, to celebrate the pluralism in the United States, as well as in the Islamic religion," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, said in May as she argued for permission to build the center. "It will also serve as a major platform for amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies. It will counter the extremist momentum."

 

Actually, it will take much more than one community center to stop radical jihad in its tracks. But it's hard to think of a better way to give extremist ideology a major boost than to demonstrate what far too many of the world's 1 billion Muslims already believe is true: that the West rejects not just extremism but Islam itself.

 

"Three hundred of the victims [of the Sept. 11 attacks] were Muslim," Khan told CNN. "We are Americans, too. The 9/11 tragedy hurt everybody, including the Muslim community. We are all in this together, and together we have to fight against extremism and terrorism."

 

President Obama was correct to say Friday that Muslims "have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in the country," and that this "includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances." Obama's remarks came at a White House dinner marking Ramadan, the Islamic holy month.

 

The first White House observance of Ramadan was hosted in 1805 by Thomas Jefferson. He invited the Tunisian ambassador to the President's House for dinner and changed the time of the meal from the usual "half after three" to "precisely at sunset" so the envoy could comply with the Ramadan obligation to fast during daylight hours.

 

Jefferson's well-thumbed copy of the Koran is now in the Library of Congress. If the author of the Declaration of Independence were alive today, he would surely face censure from the big-mouthed, small-minded coterie of Republican presidential hopefuls.

 

Sarah Palin wrote on Twitter that the "Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts." Newt Gingrich wrote that "there should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said that the mosque would "degrade or disrespect" the site. Mike Huckabee asked whether supporters of the project believe "we can offend Americans and Christians, but not foreigners and Muslims." Mitt Romney is against it, too, citing "the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda."

 

This is pandering -- and that goes for Harry Reid too. A CNN poll showed that 68 percent of Americans opposed a plan by "a group of Muslims in the U.S." to build "a mosque" two blocks from the World Trade Center site. I wonder what the results might look like if pollsters had phrased the question differently -- if they had asked, say, whether "a group of Americans" should be allowed to build "a center promoting moderate, peaceful Islam." It might be, though, that most people would oppose the project however the issue was framed.

 

And that's why we have a Bill of Rights that protects our freedoms against the whims of public opinion. Jefferson understood this. A bunch of opportunistic politicians -- who love to quote him -- obviously do not.

 

link

Why don't we hear from real Muslim's instead of a race baiting bomb thrower who couldn't even bring himself to criticize the 70% of black voters who supported California's Prop 8 against same sex marriage, instead it was those evil Mormons in Utah who were to blame and can't vote in California.

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation

 

Last week, a journalist who writes for the North Country Times, a small newspaper in Southern California, sent us an e-mail titled "Help." He couldn't understand why an Islamic Centre in an area where Adam Gadahn, Osama bin Laden's American spokesman came from, and that was home to three of the 911 terrorists, was looking to expand. The man has a very valid point, which leads to the ongoing debate about building a Mosque at Ground Zero in New York. When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

 

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

 

The Koran commands Muslims to, "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Building an exclusive place of worship for Muslims at the place where Muslims killed thousands of New Yorkers is not being considerate or sensitive, it is undoubtedly an act of "fitna"

 

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

 

Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

 

There are many questions that we would like to ask. Questions about where the funding is coming from? If this mosque is being funded by Saudi sources, then it is an even bigger slap in the face of Americans, as nine of the jihadis in the Twin Tower calamity were Saudis.

 

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

 

It's a repugnant thought that $100 million would be brought into the United States rather than be directed at dying and needy Muslims in Darfur or Pakistan.

 

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

 

The Koran implores Muslims to speak the truth, even if it hurts the one who utters the truth. Today we speak the truth, knowing very well Muslims have forgotten this crucial injunction from Allah.

 

If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S. We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America's Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

 

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

 

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

 

Raheel Raza is author of Their Jihad ... Not my Jihad, and Tarek Fatah is author of The Jew is Not My Enemy (McClelland & Stewart), to be launched in October. Both sit on the board of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

 

Read more

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday morning called for "transparency" in the funding behind a planned Islamic community center and mosque being built blocks from ground zero. But she also said there should be similar openness about the money behind conservative attacks aimed at thwarting the project.

 

The California Democrat, in a statement provided to POLITICO, adopted the split position of the Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan group dedicated to religious tolerance and separation of church and state. Although it blasted the Anti-Defamation League for strongly opposing the Park51 project, the Interfaith Alliance also agreed with the ADL's argument that the public should know where the money for the center is coming from.

 

"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance, that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center,'" according to Pelosi's statement, quoting the Alliance's position. "'At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'"

 

Pelosi's view seems parallel with President Barack Obama, who said that the construction of a mosque is a constitutionally protected expression of religion, but said he would not comment on the "wisdom" of building one so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Pelosi's counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, opposes the Park51 plan.

 

It's not the first time Pelosi has weighed in on the controversial Islamic center, which would include a recreation center as well as a place of worship.

 

On Tuesday, she said the mosque's location is a zoning issue that New Yorkers should work out among themselves, but she also noted that she believes most people respect the "right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property." She reiterated that position in her statement Wednesday.

 

"The freedom of religion is a constitutional right," Pelosi said. "Where a place of worship is located is a local decision."

 

Earlier Wednesday, Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

 

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

 

Republicans have signaled that they will try to turn the mosque into a campaign issue, and nearly all of the leading national Republicans have weighed in against the mosque's construction.

 

On Tuesday, the speaker blasted those making "concerted effort to make this a political issue." Yet on Wednesday, she seemed to do just that, taking a shot at opponents of a bill that bolstered health care for Sept. 11 responders. She urged those who are now expressing their concern for Sept. 11 attacks to reverse their opposition to the bill when Congress returns in September.

LINK

 

This is the whole text. I don't see where she got a couple of questions she didn't like at a presser. She wants transparency on both sides of this - who's funding the mosque and who's funding opposition to the mosque.

 

What's the problem?

 

Please don't put me in a position of defending Nancy Pelosi. Much as I hate to admit it, I think she's right on this instance. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, but that does NOT mean I'm a supporter of Pelosi. Far from it.

I'm not putting you in a position to defend Pelosi. You're doing that fine all by yourself.

And NO she is not right. You can't go around violating one group's rights to protect another's. The only people who have raised the spectre of how the opposition is funded are Congress critters because they are getting a little heat from voters. Next thing your going to tell me is the IRS has never been used to punish political opponents. The FEC is no different and won't hesitate to bank some political capital.

There was no mention of any transparency anywhere in her original statement. She knew she was going to get questions about this subject when her counterpart (Reid) came out against building the Mosque in that location, and she had a prepared answer. It was only when the sh*t hit the fan in the press when she was throwing around the "looking into the opposition finances threat" is when her aides went into CYA mode.

What you have there is the non-clarification clarification version of what she said. This is the original unedited audio of the presser, and the pertinent text below provided by me word-for-word.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=LKW3gPKrPD8

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."

None of this clap trap would have happened if the President would have just kept his big fat pie hole shut. But no, every time an issue comes up, he thinks he has to wow the masses with his superior intellect, and weigh in on an issue without completely thinking it through -- ala the William Gates fiasco. Who the hell are his advisers, because I would be flushing the toilet in the West Wing right now? Sometimes you have to know when to shut up, defer to the locality, and respect the rights of both parties to the issue. How can a political machine that crafted it's message so brilliantly in 2008, look like amateur hour vying for the job of village idiot two years later?

 

You should have just said "speaking."

 

Ah, but I'm guessing kansas husker is male...he'd have a hard time pulling that off, honestly.

A hammer might do the trick...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation

into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

 

Pelosi told San Francisco's KCBS radio that "there is no question there is a

concerted effort to make this a political issue by some."

 

"I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the

mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up?"

 

Link

Good for Pelosi. Discrimination should not go unpunished. If it turns out this isn't discriminatory all the better. But this is the job we're paying congress to do.

So Pelosi got a couple questions she didn't like at a news conference, now the government needs to intimidate investigate groups opposing the Mosque. I would think this was a silly joke unless I was living in Havana or Caracas. Maybe she can dig up ole Che. I hear he wasn't to big on political discourse and was one hell of a crack shot....or is that crack pot. I get confused sometimes.

What better way to defend the First Amendment freedom of religion than to have the Speaker of the House ask the federal government to intimidate investigate those exercising their First Amendment right to free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.....and that includes funding of political speech, no matter how popular or unpopular that speech is.

Public discourse and debate is a cornerstone of our democracy and our Constitution ensures the right of individuals to engage in these conversations without being exposed to unnecessary risks of harassment or embarrassment.

But I've never understood why athletes are so adamant on pushing God into sports.

 

It's not just about sports. Why do people who are so hung up in their religion and/or beliefs feel the need to push them onto others? Believe whatever you want to believe and do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn't affect me, but don't start blowing your cultish smoke up my rear end. Some of these sheep who constantly try to suck others into their gig are pathetic. It's not much of a stretch to call organized religion a publicly accepted cult.

Dammit!!! Did I miss The Annual God Squad Skeet Shoot and Non-believer Roundup again this year?

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone the right to build a place of worship anywhere they choose. Cities have zoning laws. However, a city cannot change zoning laws just to prevent the building of a religious institution, otherwise they will be in violation of RLUIPA laws, which would put them at odds with the 1st and 14th Amendments.

A close relative of mine, who happens to be a developer says you can't get a hotdog stand cleared and built in less than 2 years in a major city. So how did this building get fastracked through the process when Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed on 9/11 by the collapse of the Twin Towers, has spent nine years trying to get building permits to no avail? I'm not saying there's any impropriety going on but it does raise the question.

Should they build the Mosque? It's there right to do so since they have been green lighted for construction. I guess that's entirely up to them, but don't expect much fanfare from the local unions who support the NYPD and the NYFD.

My prediction is, it won't get built.

I was an early fan of Palin. Her home spun, blue collar conservatism appealed to me (nice cans didn't hurt either). I intially saw her as very raw politically and in terms of public speaking, I assumed she would mature into the role. As a conservative, I supprt her campaigning for others, but if she has any aspirations for the white house, I'd have to vote elsewhere.

 

I think most peoples' public estimation of other peoples' intelligence tends to be way off base. I would assume most presidents are like most people, that is mostly pretty average. The public perception however is offen swayed mostly by media. How is Quale an idiot for a few gaffs and Biden is just a tad eccentric. Really?

 

I've also heard enough of this well, he went to Harvard or Yale, I have to say, if my dad had the cash, I could of gone there too.

 

Now, we do have opportunities to do something about these parties, I have attended some 911 seminars and certainly read alot about the other various movements cropping up. The press seems content to paint the Tea Party thing as just a right wing freak movement, but I will tell you, the movement is in an embrionic state, it is not a unified ideology or even a group of entirely like minded people. You have the chance to shape the future of what may be the next viable political party. Will you continue to whine about the evils of the Dems and Pubs or are you ready to get off you a** and get involved?

I doubt that you could have made Law Review at Harvard Law though . . . lord knows I couldn't.

Being book smart and having a grasp on what works in the real world are two different things. I don't think anyone is challenging the former but the latter.

 

In my experience the book smart/real world smart distinction is generally excuse making by those who didn't/couldn't do well in school.

A simple statement that wasn't meant as a slight, but an observation in my experience dealing with kids straight out of college coming to work for me. Maybe you should switch to decaf or something.

David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh considered themselves Christians - maybe not the definition of Christian most Christians believe, but that was their belief.

Where is your basis for that statement?

McVeigh was a vile human being and had a falling out with Catholicism long before the bombing.

In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would "improvise, adapt and overcome", if it turned out there was an afterlife. "If I'm going to hell," he wrote, "I'm gonna have a lot of company." The Guardian June 2001

 

McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."

Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing, 1st ed. (New York, NY: Regan Books, 2001), 142-143.

The only thing Koresh and McVeigh had in common was their belief in Anarchism.

Koresh fancied himself a modern day Leo Tolstoy, the Russian Christian Anarchist, and used the Anarchist Cookbook as a guide to making incendiaries.

While McVeigh openly rejected the book's racism, McVeigh's bible was The Turner Diaries which depicts violent revolution in the United States and leads to the overthrow of the U.S. Government. Photocopies of pages sixty-one and sixty-two of The Turner Diaries were found in an envelope inside McVeigh's car. These pages depicted a fictitious mortar attack upon the U.S. Capitol in Washington. McVeigh visited Waco during the standoff, where he spoke to a news reporter about his anger over what was happening there, which had everything to do with his personal war with the federal government and nothing to do with religious conviction.

McVeigh composed two letters to the BATF, the first titled "Constitutional Defenders" and the second "ATF Read." He denounced government agents as "fascist tyrants" and "storm troopers" and warned:

ATF, all you tyrannical mother f***ers will swing in the wind one day for your treasonous actions against the Constitution of the United States. Remember the Nuremberg War Trials.

McVeigh said he began harboring anti-government feelings during the first Gulf War. In 1998, while in prison, McVeigh wrote an essay that criticized US foreign policy towards Iraq as being hypocritical:

* The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") – mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) — with respect to Iraq's (real) war with and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

 

* If Saddam is such a demon and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above.

 

* The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

McVeigh claimed that the bombing was revenge for "what the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge."

Ruby Ridge was the site of a violent confrontation and siege in northern Idaho in 1992. It involved Randy Weaver his family, Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and agents of the U.S. Marshall's Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation. After an investigation of the siege, which led to a FBI sniper brought up on charges of manslaughter and later dismissed under sovereign immunity, numerous wrongful death lawsuits settled out of court for millions against the federal government which subsequently led to the Rules of Engagement of federal agencies to be changed.

However, the ROE would be disregarded again, leading to the Janet Reno cluster**** known as the Siege at Waco. Notwithstanding the government's wrongdoing in the incident, Koresh's culpability should not be disregarded either. Had he not set events in motion by simply just giving up to authorities and defend himself in a court of law, the useless slaughter of 80 people wouldn't have happened either.