Guy Chamberlin

(pssst! You forgot to mention anything factually incorrect or revisionist in my post!)

Hey, aren't you the guy who said Bo Pelini would easily have won 11 games last year with that talent?

My apologies. I thought you were a young kid with ADD.

According to Bo Pelini, he wanted out of Nebraska since 2011. That alone is a good reason for getting Bo Pelini out of here. If he had won 11 games and/or a meaningful championship, he might have engineered his departure to another major program. He didn't, and he didn't. I don't think many coaches want to support the firing of 9 win coaches, but I'm not convinced they're actually defending Bo Pelini. Expectations are high at Nebraska, but I don't think we're any more or less pathological about it than Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, USC or even some of the newer would-be dynasties. It would be kinda weird if we were satisfied with four loss seasons and no meaningful post-season appearances, right?

Two, maybe three, of those sentences contradict each other. That's a Husker Psycho hallmark.

I know we're friends now, and I really don't want to upset you, but there are a few things wrong with this post. Nebraska did not become a pariah when Osborne retired. If anything, the glory years of 94 - 97 made us a pariah in the world of college football. Respected on the field, of course, but considered tainted by many outsiders for our rash of criminal enabling and by others who thought the timing of Osborne's retirement was aimed at wooing sentimental voters away from the '97 Michigan team ranked ahead of us. I'm not debating our worthiness of that NC, just stating the perception of the college football world. Just for context, Alabama's recent success and arrogance have made them the current pariah. Things didn't change instantly when Osborne retired. Frank Solich had a blip of a transitional year, then had Nebraska right back in relevance with three consecutive high-ranked seasons that Tom Osborne would have been proud to own. The fact that Nebraska was selected for the NC game in 2001 after LOSING its own conference championship suggests Nebraska was perhaps coasting on too much respect in the college football world. I have never in my life heard anyone brag that Nebraska is famous for "making" coaches. 2003 was the first real job opening at HC in 40 years, and that was the wake-up call that Nebraska wasn't every coach's dream destination. In fact, I honestly don't recall much bragging at all since then. There's been plenty of humility since Callahan, but on the other hand I don't see any need to get on bended knee to the Iowa's or even the Michigan's of the world. We say "we're back!' in that hopeful way every year because that's what fans do, and for several seasons the college football press agreed with us, and some seasons we came tauntingly close to relevance. After awhile, we were no longer automatic choices for the Top 25 because we simply hadn't earned it. So on that we agree. But your posts are a pretty strange mix of decrying arrogance and then demanding it. Also, you don't seem to understand the actual history of Nebraska football and the definition of entertainment. But I'm glad we're friends.

Guy Chamberlin finds you very silly.

Careful. You're creating a pretty good argument against your own assertion that we shouldn't expect to be able to run the ball like we did against UCLA. Well it's a pretty simple argument that we will be able to run more successfully against poor rushing defenses than better rushing defenses.

Watson wanted to go all-in on the zone read, but he waited until he had a month to prepare for the Holiday Bowl to unveil it. Nebraska was up against a highly respected defense in Arizona, and the zone-read worked extremely well with the limited Zac Lee at the helm. The next season, Watson realized Taylor Martinez could get 50 yards on the same plays Zac Lee was getting 5, and it was game on. Tim Beck ran essentially the same offense, but caught pretty much the same grief for it. Martinez and Armstrong were as exciting as they were maddening. Turnovers, penalties, defense and discipline have long seemed the bigger problem than offensive play-calling.

I think we will run more and run better, but let's put to rest this trope that we ran the ball straight into the line a few times, then gave up and flung the ball all over the place. We ran as much as we passed, and were right in the middle of the run-centric Big 10, with a higher per-game rushing offense than Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Penn State, and just a yard behind the conservative ball control offense of Iowa. Nebraska's 4.7 yard per carry rushing average was perfectly decent, reflecting a sane diversity of play calls. Interesting to see Coach Power T invoke Shawn Watson, who was often criticized on this same board for being too cute and never running the ball enough. If the defense holds up its end of the bargain and if Tommy makes better decisions both running and passing, I think run game will evolve nicely.

We've been through this before. I take the time to go back and find the posts where you say exactly what I've claimed, then you find something irrelevant and distracting to say. Let's save us both the time.If you're actually hanging your hat on a poster or two suggesting a 7-5 season might not be so bad....whatever. In other words, you don't actually disagree with anything I've written in this thread about expectations for the coming year. You just don't like that I've responded to the "poster or two" who are laying down excuse foundations for 7-5. I'm going to stick with the words I've already used. They're pretty clear.

Injuries could devastate this team. We aren't deep enough to overcome normal attrition. We need to be healthier than average this year to have a decent record. Depends on the position but yeah it really could. We need a solid year from key spots without having to plug holes because of injury or lack of production. To finish atop the West, we need a solid team for 12 weeks. Excuses no's... 10,678,416... 10,678,417. Excuses... and more excuses... and more excuses... and more excuses... and on and on and on... never ending... No more excuses ! What on earth are you talking about? There are a half dozen teams that will have a meaningful season each year, and five of them will be making excuses about not winning the National Championship. There's a very good chance Nebraska will not achieve a Husker Psycho level of success this year, and there will probably be very good reasons. You can call them excuses if you want, but actually they will be "reasons." You can then take the reasons why Nebraska did not win as many games as you would have liked and compare them to the reasons why Nebraska won as many games as they did, and decide if that counts as improvement. You will join the other 120 college football programs that did not win any meaningful championship and decide if you like the way the program is trending. You can be optimistic and realistic at the same time. Were there exciting games, memorable moments and highlight reel plays by your favorite players? That counts for something, too. It's an entertainment business. As much as we might grouse about our last 15 championship-free seasons, it's similar to or far better than the troughs other dynastic football programs have been through. That's not an excuse. Just a reality. And nobody --- I mean nobody --- is endorsing a losing culture. Winning is a lot more fun. We are rooting for the team to win. Some of us just want to give the new coach a second or third year before totally flipping out. So it's no longer the Nebraska Football Program... It's now the Nebraska Entertainment Business. I've always said that we would know the ultimate point of our downfall... the point of no return... when people started talking nonsense like that. This is a total betrayal of all those who have come before. All those players and coaches who gave their heart and soul for the sport of football. Will there now be tap dancing after we have thrown an interception. Will we become Nebraska Dancing With The Stars ? Will we show slow motion replays of lost fumbles and then let the crowd vote with number cards on the players performance during the fumble. If they get up with a big smile on their face do we give them a high rating for their performance ? Hey, why not it's entertaining. Will we show judges with huge smiles on their faces and jaws droped in amazement after we lose a game ? Of course, it's great entertainmemt. Or will we stop the nonsense and rededicate ourselves to the sport of football... with high athletic an coaching achievement and performance. Will we get back to being a program that cares more about winning football games... recruiting and developing high achieving athletes... and cares nothing about making excuses... I SURE HOPE SO ! As far a giving the coaching staff another year. Well guess what you goof ? That's exactly what were doing. We're all still here... and we're all giving the current coaching staff another chance. We'll cheer when we win and we'll be angry when we loose. When the season is over we will re-evaluate what happened this year and combine the results with what happened last year. We will also look at the results of the current staffs third year of recruiting and each and everyone of us will make their own personal decision on what we think... and where we should go from there. And that's a right that each and every one of us has, as loyal Nebraska fans. You cant force allegiance on fans. My allegiance is to the Nebraska Football Program... not any particular coaching staff or athletic director. I want what's best for the program. Each and every one of us has the right to think for ourselves. Many of us played football and many of us understand the game and coaching. We can see for ourselves what's happening and whether we're headed in the right direction. Go Big Red Well that was an entertaining mess of contradictions.

We've been through this before. I take the time to go back and find the posts where you say exactly what I've claimed, then you find something irrelevant and distracting to say. Let's save us both the time. If you're actually hanging your hat on a poster or two suggesting a 7-5 season might not be so bad....whatever.

You know, this making excuses thing works both ways. Who's making excuses the other way? The guy who claimed Riley inherited Top 10 talent from a predecessor who coached them to unranked irrelevance, who claims the Big 10 is easier to win now than when Riley's predecessor failed to win it, who claimed the new coach at Youngstown State deserved a pass after inheriting a winning team then delivering a 5-6 record (transitional year!), and who has consistently gone out of his way to discredit any positive recruiting story attributed to Riley. That's off the top of my head. I've never quite figured out your standard for determining "talent" but it seems pretty malleable and aimed almost entirely at making Mike Riley guilty for squandering it.

You know, this making excuses thing works both ways.

Final answer: There wasn't much patience. We didn't even like 9 win seasons if the four losses were too depressing and the coach had become a poor representative of the state. You know the firing of Solich was a bit more complicated, but it gets tiresome explaining it to you over and over and over. Callahan was granted a grumbling benefit of the doubt for one season, showed reason for hope for two seasons, then self-destructed in his fourth and was gone. Mike Riley has had one season at Nebraska that turned out poorly by all accounts. The only option other than patience would be an immediate firing. Since his reputation as a recruiter was a large part of getting the job -- along with his likable persona -- it seems reasonable to see how he fares with his own recruits and a season to calm the post-Pelini waters and player attrition. People who enjoy Nebraska football and prefer optimism think Riley might be doing an excellent job in recruiting. Hard to say until you see the results on the field. So let's wait and see the results on the field. I have every faith that if Mike Riley replicates Bill Callahan's four seasons, or Bo Pelini's seven seasons, he will be granted the same level of patience.

Bolded simply isn't correct. But I do hope that we see a better coached team next year, because there's no reason that Iowa should have played that Husker roster close enough where a few plays made that difference. That was a recurring theme throughout the season. That was a much better Iowa team than the unranked Iowa Hawkeyes who crushed Nebraska 38-17 on Senior Day at Memorial Stadium 2013, when the Huskers were supposedly primed and motivated to help Bo Pelini keep his job. Your recurring theme about Nebraska's outstanding talent and the much less impressive talent of other teams has been duly noted. Along with your selective memory.

Injuries could devastate this team. We aren't deep enough to overcome normal attrition. We need to be healthier than average this year to have a decent record. Depends on the position but yeah it really could. We need a solid year from key spots without having to plug holes because of injury or lack of production. To finish atop the West, we need a solid team for 12 weeks. Excuses no's... 10,678,416... 10,678,417. Excuses... and more excuses... and more excuses... and more excuses... and on and on and on... never ending... No more excuses ! What on earth are you talking about? There are a half dozen teams that will have a meaningful season each year, and five of them will be making excuses about not winning the National Championship. There's a very good chance Nebraska will not achieve a Husker Psycho level of success this year, and there will probably be very good reasons. You can call them excuses if you want, but actually they will be "reasons." You can then take the reasons why Nebraska did not win as many games as you would have liked and compare them to the reasons why Nebraska won as many games as they did, and decide if that counts as improvement. You will join the other 120 college football programs that did not win any meaningful championship and decide if you like the way the program is trending. You can be optimistic and realistic at the same time. Were there exciting games, memorable moments and highlight reel plays by your favorite players? That counts for something, too. It's an entertainment business. As much as we might grouse about our last 15 championship-free seasons, it's similar to or far better than the troughs other dynastic football programs have been through. That's not an excuse. Just a reality. And nobody --- I mean nobody --- is endorsing a losing culture. Winning is a lot more fun. We are rooting for the team to win. Some of us just want to give the new coach a second or third year before totally flipping out.

Your selective post reading noted, or is it just selective moderation. Either way, I didn't start to conversation, but not surprising you selected me to make the comment too. I responded to Guy's post a few pages back. Ah. I think I see the problem.

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past. I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President. • In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done. • When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist. • Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama. • Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it. • His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts. Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore. If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved. But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in. If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd. I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual. I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this. Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion? it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become.. EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned! Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord... So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion. I guess you don't understand.. No it's not all opinion, you just said as much. The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme. The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have. if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with. Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal. I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place. But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable. Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did. I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again.. Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something. In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist. So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right? Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one. That is a very good point, the difference here is the totality of evidence.. an action or inaction does not prove either, that is correct. That is why I posted the info I did, which included his voting record and his upbringing, as well as those that mentored him. Thank you for making that point! You're silly. Fact. Too bad you feel the need to lash out after being shown the error in your logic. Yeah, I honestly missed that part. Hate to make you fire up your brain again, but if you could glance back at post #209 and find a single thing you successfully refuted, I will rescind my insult.*

Because Tommy makes unforced errors against some very average college defenses. He would get eaten alive in the NFL. I don't think he's got the pure speed for WR. No idea if he'd like to play defense. Not sure if he's quite that super athlete that you try to get on the field by any means possible. Would have loved to see more by his Junior year, but I'd be happy to have him blow everyone away as a Senior.

Surprised, too. I knew interest and viewership in the conventions had been waning, but this really felt like must-see reality TV. Or is it that we can now choose to not watch these kind of events, knowing the good stuff will be all over the Internet the next day? I certainly know a lot of people who were interested in the RNC, but couldn't bear to watch.

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past. I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President. • In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done. • When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist. • Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama. • Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it. • His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts. Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore. If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved. But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in. If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd. I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual. I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this. Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion? it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become.. EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned! Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord... So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion. I guess you don't understand.. No it's not all opinion, you just said as much. The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme. The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have. if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with. Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal. I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place. But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable. Good Lord, little fella, I never said you did. I did refute them by the way. In case you ignored what I said I will say it again.. Just because one thing happens it doesn't mean someone should do this or that, or hell, anything. You claim that automatically proves he isn't this or that.. because of these non-actions. It doesn't mean that at all, all it means is he didn't do what you thought he should do in order to prove something. In other words, you have one fact, the financial situation, and then make claims about something YOU think he should have done (based on your opinion) if he was a socialist or communist. So then we shouldn't call him a socialist or a communist then, right? Because if he did do something that would be considered leaning towards socialism or communism, he wouldn't necessarily be one. That is a very good point, the difference here is the totality of evidence.. an action or inaction does not prove either, that is correct. That is why I posted the info I did, which included his voting record and his upbringing, as well as those that mentored him. Thank you for making that point! You're silly. Fact.

Not trying to be a jerk but a Tommy Armstrong that is an excellent passer would be a Heisman Trophy winner and the first pick in the draft. Anyone would take him. But they don't come around very often. Exactly. A Tommy Armstrong who is an excellent passer is Deshaun Watson. That occurred to me, too, watching last year's NCG. Also, a Tommy Armstrong who took off running every time the pass defense sagged is a lot closer to Deshaun Watson. Tommy is actually a pretty good passer. He needs to be a better decision maker. Talent wise, he's not that far off. I think it's mostly in his brain.

I see the problem. You're stuck on guilt-by-association and fairly flimsy arguments from the past. I'm talking about how Barack Obama has chosen to govern as President. • In the wake of of the 2008 financial meltdown, with the best political cover for nationalizing the banks since the Great Depression, Barack Obama did no such thing. He appointed Goldman Sachs and Wall Street heavyweights to run the economy, bailed out the banks, allowed executives to keep their bonuses, and set the private sector back on its feet to record stock market growth. When it came time for Wall Street Reform, the Obama administration proposed a few toothless regulations that did virtually nothing to keep the banks from acting and profiting as they had before. Those are not the actions of a socialist. It's what Reagan, McCain, Romney, Bush and Hillary Clinton would have done. • When Obama came out of the gate with health care reform -- and I think the timing was a mistake, too -- he did not shove Single Payer down America's throat. That would have been socialism (although interestingly enough, 60% of Americans preferred Single Payer when it was explained to them). No, he came back with the ACA, which had existed in similar form since the Nixon administration and endorsed by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine. Some liberals and the palty handful of actual socialists in the country criticized Obama for letting the private, for-profit insurance industry basically write and approve the ACA. That makes Obama a pretty sh**ty socialist. • Also in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it seemed like a logical time to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which were supposedly designed to be temporary. Meaning some tax rates on the wealthy would go up 3%, or back to where they were when we had the 5% unemployment everyone missed so much. Obama did not lift a finger to raise taxes, thinking he was compromising with Congressional Republicans on other economic legislation. Poor, naive, not-at-all communist Barack Obama. • Not really a socialist issue, but Obama chose to maintain the secret military rendition sites established by Bush, backed off his insistence on the closing of Guantanamo, captured, killed and dumped Obama bin Laden into the ocean, pursued a highly effective but morally questionable drone war against Islamic terrorists, drew the ire and contempt of Vladamir Putin, and compiled a near perfect rating from the NRA and a failing grade from gun control advocates because Obama has done nothing to take away our guns beyond publicly mourning the senseless gun deaths and wondering aloud if we might want to do something about it. • His most recent choice for the Supreme Court was a well-respected centrist, a friend and mentor to Chief Justice John Roberts. Man, there's so much more I could come up with that you have already decided to ignore. If you think about it, his actual record makes him a pretty lousy socialist, Muslim and Nobel Peace Prize winner. Conservatives should have been relieved. But Barack Obama is such a great fund raiser for right wingers who hysterically mis-represent his actual record that no amount of fact is allowed to wedge in. If all it takes is a Saul Alinksy reference, the truth is pretty f'd. I see the problem. You're stuck on your opinion being factual. I love this opinion piece.. You do realize that is all this is, correct? You believe, or at least are presenting, that because something happened barack should have done this and/or this, but because he didn't that means he can't be this. Please tell me you understand this is just your opinion? it is a fact that our upbringing and our surroundings affect us and affects who we become.. EDIT: Where are all those posters demanding facts.. oh yeah, they agree, so facts be damned! Pretty sure everything he listed there is factual. He just gave his opinion as to why it wasn't socialist at the end. You keep using dat whord... So, here you are once again claiming I said something when I didn't. You seem to get things mixed up easily.. I didn't use THAT word ( I assume you are talking about socialist, or maybe even communist) and his post was all opinion.. Sure the 2008 financial meltdown was real, and yes Obama not doing what Guy thinks he should have done was real, but the premise is all opinion. I guess you don't understand.. No it's not all opinion, you just said as much. The word I was referring to was fact/factual. And it was a joke from The Princess Bride, because it seems to be an ongoing theme. The only thing that is FACT is the financial situation, the rest is strictly opinion based on the situation. You can't claim fact on something that didn't happen because you think it should have. if you were referring to the word "fact" then I beg to differ.. YOU and your comrades use that word and expect undeniable, irrefutable facts whenever I post something.. but clearly you don't expect this from everyone, just those you firmly disagree with. Good Lord, little fella, I never stopped you from offering your own facts in rebuttal. I would certainly be open to your more detailed breakdown of my "facts" vs. "opinions" since I went to the trouble in the first place. But your response was, in fact, 100% predictable.