Guy Chamberlin

The meme of Laura Ingram is totally out of context and totally unfair. But kind of funny. Because she's just awful.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country? I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor. So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite. Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context. I guess you could call that arguing. Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting. But it's what you do. For the children. Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific. Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid. And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things. But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration. My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough. I'm guessing you will disagree. Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. You know, I choose my words carefully so you won't make weird, blanket statements like this. But it doesn't work.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country? I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor. So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite. Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context. I guess you could call that arguing. Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting. But it's what you do. For the children. Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific. Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid. And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things. But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration. My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough. I'm guessing you will disagree.

I think Nebraska fits in better with fans/schools in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Minnesota than it does with the same in Missouri, Texas and Colorado. I love the Big Ten. The Big XII was cool and all, but Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas were the only blue blood programs and everyone else was more often than not an absolute doormat. The B1G, in addition to the biggest fanbases, the biggest and most iconic stadiums, and the prestige, has Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State as the huge fish, and Wisconsin and Michigan State are both two really solid programs. The competitiveness is a blast. Playing in crazy close games against Wisconsin, Michigan, MSU and PSU is so much more enjoyable to me than playing in shootouts or blowouts against Kansas, Kansas State and Oklahoma State (or whatever teams). Let's not let those Big 8 memories cloud our reality. The Huskers would have no easier road in the Big 12 than they do right now in the Big 10. Baylor and TCU are the powerhouses these days, not Nebraska. Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and West Virginia have the kind of offenses that always give Nebraska fits. Kansas State is our peer, not our doormat. Iowa State is roughly our Northwestern. Oklahoma is back to perennial power status, and Texas had a way of beating us even when they sucked. I think we would blow out Kansas. But that's the only gimme.

Yeah. I've found this interesting myself. Not so much the partisan breakdown, but the overall quality of the debate, far more thoughtful and well-written than any number of sites I stumble into on the internet. I'd prefer to categorize Nebraskans and pragmatists and realists -- an outgrowth of living in farm country. Being a realist can cut both ways in terms of party politics. i.e. I have never assumed a Trump critic or LGBT supporter considered themselves a liberal, or planned to vote for Hillary Clinton. Or that a Hillary critic was a mouthpiece for the Koch brothers. I'd like to think we have a better nose for bullsh#t than most. But if we're not careful, we could turn into Kansas. Football AND politics. Vigilance, my red-clad people.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country? I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor. So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite. Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context. I guess you could call that arguing. Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting. But it's what you do. For the children.

Maybe I give him too much credit for not being a complete babbling imbecile but, he has not done ONE thing that shows me he really wants to win. He simply cannot be that incompetent by accident. I would love nothing better than to have a viable option to Hillary and, I understand the attraction to some of his rhetoric and the anti-politics as usual approach but my God......some people need to wakeup and see who and what it is they are still supporting when it comes to Trump. Just imagine if he were elected and he took the same approach to anything as he is taking to supposedly trying to get elected. I literally just can't believe he still has more than 3 supporters left. He can't be serious. It has always been a radical but plausible theory: Trump never expected to get this far, and deep down really doesn't want the job. I also think he holds his supporters in barely concealed contempt, but they just keep feeding the beast.

Haha...or we could see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or better yet Louis Farrakhan introduce Hillary next week. That would be in alignment with the Democrats support for an organization such as BLM that has advocated the killing of cops. And guess what...another police officer has been shot in Kansas City. Your image of a radical leftist Democratic party is laughable to both radical leftists and Democrats. And historians. Obama and the Clintons could have passed as moderate Republicans for most of the last century. And Ronald Reagan's words and policies wouldn't have passed the current conservative litmus test, no matter how much they love to invoke his name.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay.

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives. But it just doesn't play that way. http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

Wow, do we live in the same country. Your posts are comical at least. 1. Hillary collaborated well in the Senate with Republicans. Please name me 2 or 3 key pieces of legislation she cosponsored that were signed into law? How about I just stick with supporting my original statement, minus your goalpost moving: http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/ 2. What specific obstructionism has the GOP conducted the last 7 years that has resulted in the rise of ISIS and terror attacks in general? Or put another way, what plan did Obama put forward to prevent terrorism that the GOP blocked? Oh it doesn't require specific obstructionism to discredit Obama, you can simply regurgitate numbers like 4,400% without looking at the facts. 3. How can Obama be kicking the terrorists ass when the number of attacks has exploded worldwide, and ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch according to his own CIA director, who also stated that ISIS was decimated when Bush left office? Read the whole thing. It's pretty fair: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/obamas-most-important-achievement-in-the-middle-east/379886/ Here's another fun fact: we went after ISIS' financial infrastructure and it's working: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/middleeast/isis-finance-broke-lister/ Here's another fun fact: Obama joins the roughly 10 billion people who have failed to bring lasting peace to the Middle East. 4. Regarding the VA scandal, its a joke to once again blame Republicans for Obama's failures. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to google Obama and VA and find that Obama has failed our veterans time and again. http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/barack-obama-scandal-veterans/2014/12/21/id/613896/ http://spectator.org/63393_va-scandal-linked-obama/ Good news. I'm not a rocket scientist. Just a Google cherry-picker. Like you: (honestly, no one comes out looking good in the VA mess, but there's enough Republican blame that they really should STFU about it at their convention) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/24/republicans-care-vets-blocked-bill-expanding-veterans-benefits.html http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/22/va-scandal-reveals-real-problem-republicans-wars-cost-math.html 5. Regarding Obamacare, Democrats realize this is a failed program and the American public still does not like it. So the only course of action is to continue to point back to a handful of GOP Senators in 1992 that proposed something that somewhat mimics Obamacare, but was frankly an ingenuous effort at the time to offer an opposition to Hillarycare. I've read up plenty on this proposal as its the only way out a leftist has when trying to defend the Obamacare debacle, and there's no meat there. You have fallen for the typical leftist approach of relying on some study from the early 90s to align blame for a failed program that Obama and the Dems forced upon the American people. Well much of what you say here is true. But there is absolutely no doubt that petty Republican obstructionism denied Americans of a better healthcare plan, that it's roots were indeed in Republican approved principals, and it was nowhere near the specter of socialism that partisans used to spread fear, misinformation and fundraising. Another very fair, far reaching look at the political machinations behind the ACA from the Libertarian leaning and well-vetted Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/ 6. Regarding anger, I seem to recall from 2006 to 2008 the Dems using a lot of fear and anger about the Iraq war to try to win back Congress and the Presidency. They were organizing protests, having moms of soldiers come out and speak, etc.. I recall in 2012 the Dems putting an ad out showing Paul Ryan driving granny off the cliff insinuating that the GOP was going to get rid of social security. It's completely dishonest to suggest that only one party uses anger and fear during elections. Both parties do it as they seek an emotional response to drive up turnout. Yeah. But you'd be comparing people who were angry about the disinformation from the Bush administration (that dwarfed Benghazi), used to launch a trillion dollar war (that dwarfed Benghazi), that killed a thousand-fold more innocents than Benghazi, that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to grow in the vacuum of al-Queda (some claim by 4,400%!), and the fact that yeah...the GOP REALLY DID WANT TO GET RID OF SOCIAL SECURITY. And you'd be comparing them to.....an attempt to give healthcare to the uninsured that didn't work out as well as promised? While people happy with their previous healthcare got to keep it? The lack of an immediate cure to the latest violent sectionalism in the 2,000 year history of the Middle East? The aforementioned Benghazi? Which wouldn't have lasted a day in the news cycle during the Bush administration? Saying both sides have their faults by no means indicates they are equal.

I think Bo might have coached last year's team to 9 wins. At which point we would have fired him.

I do remember when Pelini was hired it was widely accepted that Shawn Watson had been retained at Osborne's insistence. Or at least very, very strong recommendation. So there might be something to Grobe's story.

Everything works better with a good offensive line. Everything.

I have two kids and share serious concerns about their future, but it's based more on the fear and reprisal agenda the Trump forces are selling. I love America. But I don't believe in the America they want to get back to, probably because it never existed. So I'm gonna fight for my America, too. I'd love to be more thrilled about Hillary, but I'm far less scared, because everything the Clintons have done is political calculation. I personally don't like poll-driven ideology and the pandering that comes with it, but the result is a pretty fair representation of what most Americans can live with. She's far more pro-business than she is socialist -- a stone cold fact -- and has long been considered a hawk within her own party. She was well respected and collaborated with by Republicans during her Senate career and has never taken an extreme position in her life. If she's the third term of Obama, as the RNC breathlessly warns, we could do a lot worse. If we wanted to "make America Great Again" we could aim for the 1990s of Bill Clinton's presidency and nobody would argue with the numbers. Liberals should be troubled and Conservatives relieved that Hillary Clinton is likely to follow the business-as-usual policies that have maintained order and protected the powerful, much like her predecessors from both parties. It won't work that way, of course. Pretty amusing last night to watch the Republicans discuss the horrors of the past 8 years, without acknowledging that Republican obstructionism was directly responsible for much of it. And God forbid it get out that Barack Obama was actually a terrorist ass-kicker. Or that cop killings actually decreased during his administration. Or that Mexican immigration actually decreased during his administration. Or that Obamacare was originally drafted by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine, and endorsed by the private for-profit healthcare industry. Or that Republicans blocked funding to both the VA and what would have been Benghazi security forces. Just keep people angry and ill-informed. That's what I want to save my children from.

I believe the question was: what more do you need beyond multiple Republican investigations that basically absolved her? What piece of evidence do you have that those committees of her most fervent detractors missed? And how could that happen? And yet again, how does your standard for honesty and accountability apply to the many politicians who proceeded Hillary Clinton? Because we could prosecute dozens of f'ers if you were willing to open your outrage to all political parties.

Eh, I think we make too much of the UCLA game. Nebraska ran well in other games, too. Then less well when opposing defenses adjusted and/or the Nebraska defense gave back too many points too quickly. UCLA didn't make the adjustment, and we passed just enough to make sure they couldn't. Also, the UCLA defense was notoriously bad, but I still liked the win. There was something both on the field and behind the scenes that kept a featured RB from emerging last season, and too much talent at WR to ignore. Tommy Armstrong needed to run more often, both by design and in rollout options. Given the option, he preferred to pass, sometimes preferring the panicky pass over a two yard scramble to the sideline. By the UCLA game he seemed a bit more chastened by the criticism. The gameplan helped, but Tommy also played under better control. We may forget that he turned a called run into an unscheduled pass in the fourth quarter of the UCLA game, nearly identical to the Illinois brain fart, but it didn't hurt us in the end. He simply needs to play a savvier game, run or pass. I don't have any doubt that Riley will run it more this season, and I'm guessing Tommy and Ozigbo will be the beneficiaries. He won't run it enough for some Husker traditionalists, but it's not like he's allergic to the concept.

Well I think that applies to Obama, Trump and Hillary. After the MN and LA shootings Hillary immediately spoke about whites not understanding black lives...and after the Oregon shooting last year Obama went on a rant 3 hours after the shooting took place about gun control...this was before all the facts were known about the killer, and also before family members even knew if their loved ones were killed. So i agree in principle but its innaccurate to claim only Trump does this. My point about yesterday is that Hillary does not need to wait 10 hours to issue a show of sympathy, and there is a point where waiting too long such as with the Benghazi security request signals dereliction of her core duty as sos. If you're not talking about white people not understanding black lives, then you have no grasp of the actual issue. If you think that indicates support for black people killing cops, you have no intention of understanding the issue. If you still think there's something shocking and incriminating about Benghazi, there's no talking you out of anything. Wow, if you really believe HIllary did nothing wrong as it relates to Benghazi, that says a lot about you and your perspective on a host of issues. If you really believe Obama has not widened the racial divide and help encourage the anti-cop movement in this country, there's no talking you out of anything. It began when he called the police stupid back in 2009 when someone called 9/11 because his black buddy was trying to break down his own door. And at every moment since that time, he has made any sort of black on white issue about black victimization and assumed the police were always wrong, yet has ignored cases where black americans have killed or tried to injure cops. Obama has never put forward a fair approach to this topic and has let his personal biases get in the way which has helped lead to BLM, Ferguson, and the killing of cops. http://spectator.org/the-road-to-dallas/ 1) What more can you possibly want beyond multiple Republican-led investigations that concluded Hillary Clinton did nothing actionably wrong as it relates to Benghazi? Jesus, dude, you sound like a chem trail enthusiast. But to be fair, let's take your criteria for irresponsible, possibly treasonous politicians, apply it across the board, and prosecute them all. Seriously. I'd be down with that. 2) You are wrong in virtually everything you are blaming on Obama, perhaps due to your terrible choice of news sources, perhaps in what you choose to overlook. I could pull up reams of public pronouncements from Obama in which he did the opposite of what you claim. You could, too. If I'm using your math, nobody is supposed to point out the disparity between the treatment of blacks and whites in this country because it makes people angry. Obama has done a pretty remarkable job of navigating the issue. Obama did not call the police stupid back in 2009. He called an individual policeman's actions stupid, because they were. Then he invited everyone to have a beer together, which they did. Case closed. Moving on. Unless, of course, you want to keep dredging it up, remembering it inaccurately, and shifting the blame for America's racial divisiveness to the uppity colored guy.

This is the biggest concern I have. Riley struggled with game management at Oregon State, and he struggled last year at NU. The guy has been a head coach for ~20 years. I don't think he is all of a sudden going to improve in that area. He is basically who he is.Agreed. I posted it a while back, but Hail Varsity did a great article in their yearbook on the importance of year 2, and how telling it is to success. Basically, if we don't make a huge jump this year, than chances of ever being relevant under the current regime is very small. Well it depends on your definition of "huge." We definitely have the talent to win more than 6 games this season, but it wouldn't be shocking or unacceptable if our mercurial quarterback was not as good as Riley's hand-picked successor, or if an already suspect defense that lost its veteran leadership still needed time and talent to become championship-worthy. A third season would be largely reliant on Riley recruits and two years into his style and system and assistant coaching adjustments. Let's see how that looks before deciding we would never be relevant again.

Link needs fixing. Redirected to my FB homepage. Maybe post a screenshot to Imgur? Yeah, just noticed every video now posted on Facebook is given a Facebook address. Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceQISThDYQ

Well I think that applies to Obama, Trump and Hillary. After the MN and LA shootings Hillary immediately spoke about whites not understanding black lives...and after the Oregon shooting last year Obama went on a rant 3 hours after the shooting took place about gun control...this was before all the facts were known about the killer, and also before family members even knew if their loved ones were killed. So i agree in principle but its innaccurate to claim only Trump does this. My point about yesterday is that Hillary does not need to wait 10 hours to issue a show of sympathy, and there is a point where waiting too long such as with the Benghazi security request signals dereliction of her core duty as sos. If you're not talking about white people not understanding black lives, then you have no grasp of the actual issue. If you think that indicates support for black people killing cops, you have no intention of understanding the issue. If you still think there's something shocking and incriminating about Benghazi, there's no talking you out of anything.

This guy really nails the disconnect and the troubling underlying issue. Taking the partisan reaction for granted, is there anything he says that is categorically incorrect? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceQISThDYQ

My kids love Pokemon Go. I think it's stupid. So I spend my time arguing with strangers on Huskerboard. That makes me smrter.

Nebraska has been underperforming for years. So prognosticators have gotten used to it. One of these days that "sleeper" tag is gonna work.

I still think Tommy shown the exact same promise and liabilities every year, regardless of coach or system.