Guy Chamberlin

Absolutely 100% completely and totally untrue. That is all. No, CM Husker is pretty much spot on, there. And since we're in the Brexit thread, it's really handy to note how voters there went for the populist and nationalist rhetoric, then woke up to find out they'd voted against their own self interest. The facts had always been there for the taking, but they chose to ignore them. Winners & Losers indeed.

I know his critics may find it hard to believe, but Obama's popularity and respect around the world has largely been UNDER-reported. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHRkLmTkj6k

Wouldn't it be crazy if Hillary was prosecuted or some how found not eligible due to some of the crazy legal issues she has and so then it's just Johnson and Trump? They'd have Joe Biden step in, and that would be an interesting cobbling up of votes indeed.

Only focusing on ISIS specifically is a handy little rhetoric tool to slam the current administration, since it ignores every other Middle-Eastern terrorist group over the last 16 years, and also the escalating tensions brought on by the worst foreign policy decision in modern history in the Iraq War. No kidding. That 4400% number sure sounds awful until you take five minutes to understand recent Mideast history. And put the number into context. And question its accuracy to begin with. And consider the alternative courses of action. And the unintended consequences, like those that created ISIS in the first place. Or you can just keep repeating it as though it proves something.

Or focus on how bad someone is (as Obama pointed out his entire first term about Bush), I'm not buying that either. There is no need for any politician to put others down to make themselves appear better. You must be thinking of your generic libtards. Obama generally avoided blaming the Bush administration and quickly established a good ongoing rapport with both George W. and Poppy Bush. It actually drove liberals crazy how Obama refused to go into attack mode. He's gotten a little better at it in his lame duck status. Unlike most recent outgoing Presidents, Obama could be a huge asset to his party in the general election.

I'm still confused. Is Obama: a) the Imperial President who has forced his unwanted vision upon America or b) A President who has accomplished virtually nothing due to obstructionism.

What do you mean by this? Of course, he didn't "personally" attack them. The people who "attacked" on 9/11 all died as a result of the attacks. If that is your position, then I will assume you believe suicide-bombings should not be investigated and justice pursued because the attacker is already dead? Or am I not following? No, I'm saying there was never any proof that Bin Laden was involved whatsoever. That's just the direction that Bush wanted to point his finger from the get-go, so that's the message he sold to Americans. I could be wrong, but is it possible you mean Saddam Hussein here and not bin Laden? Intelligence immediately pointed to the al Queda Saudis and their leader, bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks, and later evidence certainly confirmed that. The finger pointing you might be alluding to could be that within minutes of 9/11, Dick Cheney was asking if the attacks could be tied to Iraq and Hussein. Although there was no proof whatsoever Saddam was involved in 9/11, many players in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and unseat his regime. They were counting on Americans not knowing or caring about the difference between their Middle East madmen. They were right about that, wrong about pretty much every subsequent consequence.

This is a pretty succinct description of the Bill Clinton presidency. He wasn't much of a leader, but he had a knack for making people feel good. Wow, I have to actually defend Bill Clinton on this topic, which I don't do often. I personally find the guy an immoral piece of crap, but he is 1000 times a better leader than Obama ever could be. In 1994 after the Republican Revolution, Clinton has the self awareness to look internally and declare the era of big govt was over. He also reached out to seek compromise and find middle ground, something Obama again refuses to do. He also helped mobilize a Democratic coalition after 12 years of GOP rule. Like Obama, I think his biggest failures as a POTUS were gutting our intelligence community and not taking the terror threat seriously enough. In any other era, Obama would be considered a moderate Republican. Ronald Reagan pushed through more big government social engineering than Obama has. Some people conveniently forget that. And it is utterly ludicrous to blame Obama for not seeking middle ground and compromise given the blanket Republican obstructionism the Tea Party has foisted on the party. With both Trump and Sanders benefitting from the "throw the bums out" sentiment, some forget just how responsible Tea Party obstructionists are for making the system even more dysfunctional and dislikable. They are also responsible for a lot of the anti-Obama memes that get repeated until people think they're true. Most of them aren't. As for your last statement: it was the Bush administration that ignored the memo "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." that included a specific warning about al Queda hijacking a commercial airliner, because Cheney and others did not want to accept any intelligence from the outgoing Clinton appointees. The Obama administration has been far more accurate and successful in targeting and killing high level terrorists than their predecessors. I know Fox News likes to freak people out because Obama avoids painting Islamic Terrorists with a broad brush, but as any student of terrorism knows, that's what ISIS wants him to do. The very purpose and only tool of terrorists is to get their much larger adversary to over-react. Wow, I think the part in bold has to be the most laughable statement I've ever seen in this forum. I recommend an open mind and a bit of history.

In fairness, much of fear-mongering launched against Obama is identical to the right wing narrative against Bill Clinton and will be repeated against Hillary Clinton. Obama's race certainly dialed things up for the overt racists and closet racists, but the obstructionism probably would have happened without it. I don't think the financial bailout had nearly the galvanizing effect that the proposal of the Affordable Care Act did. Creeping Socialism was in the air and the administration was essentially going door to door to sell the ACA in town halls, where people who don't normally have a voice have a voice, and well-intentioned but uninformed citizens on the more extreme ends tend to monopolize the microphones. I honestly thought the town hall outcry caught the Republicans by surprise, but once the Tea Party coalesced around it they co-opted the Tea Party and ran with the full-scale obstructionism, financed by conservative interests and promoted by Fox News and others. The irony, of course, is that the ACA wasn't socialized medicine. Single Payer Healthcare could be termed that -- and 60% of Americans liked the idea when it was explained to them -- but Obama had no intention of veering that far left. The ACA blueprint had been the Republican alternative to socialized healthcare for decades, written by and approved by the private for-profit healthcare insurance industry, with the Government merely acting as the middleman for the uninsured, while people happy with the way things were could largely keep things the way they were. Obama thought he had tricked Republicans by giving them national healthcare they had already endorsed. That turned out to be a mistake. Bereft of their own ideas and proposals, those early days of the ACA showed Republicans that simply opposing everything Obama proposed was a safe and simple course of action.

This is a pretty succinct description of the Bill Clinton presidency. He wasn't much of a leader, but he had a knack for making people feel good. Wow, I have to actually defend Bill Clinton on this topic, which I don't do often. I personally find the guy an immoral piece of crap, but he is 1000 times a better leader than Obama ever could be. In 1994 after the Republican Revolution, Clinton has the self awareness to look internally and declare the era of big govt was over. He also reached out to seek compromise and find middle ground, something Obama again refuses to do. He also helped mobilize a Democratic coalition after 12 years of GOP rule. Like Obama, I think his biggest failures as a POTUS were gutting our intelligence community and not taking the terror threat seriously enough. In any other era, Obama would be considered a moderate Republican. Ronald Reagan pushed through more big government social engineering than Obama has. Some people conveniently forget that. And it is utterly ludicrous to blame Obama for not seeking middle ground and compromise given the blanket Republican obstructionism the Tea Party has foisted on the party. With both Trump and Sanders benefitting from the "throw the bums out" sentiment, some forget just how responsible Tea Party obstructionists are for making the system even more dysfunctional and dislikable. They are also responsible for a lot of the anti-Obama memes that get repeated until people think they're true. Most of them aren't. As for your last statement: it was the Bush administration that ignored the memo "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." that included a specific warning about al Queda hijacking a commercial airliner, because Cheney and others did not want to accept any intelligence from the outgoing Clinton appointees. The Obama administration has been far more accurate and successful in targeting and killing high level terrorists than their predecessors. I know Fox News likes to freak people out because Obama avoids painting Islamic Terrorists with a broad brush, but as any student of terrorism knows, that's what ISIS wants him to do. The very purpose and only tool of terrorists is to get their much larger adversary to over-react.

I think the prognosticators -- like most HuskerBoard fans -- are looking at our loaded offensive weaponry, our offensive minded coach, and the return of the QB about to become our career total offense leader when they declare Nebraska a potential breakthrough team. But I'm still having trouble getting past a defense that was problematic to begin with, losing its best players in its best unit. Some unprovens and unknowns are really gonna have to step up for this to work.

Has anyone ever taken the time to figure out if any of the preseason predictors are consistently better than the others?

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans. The television media generally does a horrible job of fact-checking and context, period. People don't read the papers anymore. And they use the internet to find memes they already agree with. But in a pinch you can always go to factcheck.org. It's run by the Annenberg Foundation -- one of Ronald Reagan's biggest benefactors -- but they do a good job of maintaining neutrality. You'll find evidence there to make your case, but you'll also have to face evidence that destroys some of your other cases. That's the problem with facts. Also, being neutral doesn't necessarily make both sides equal. Donald Trump and the Republican slate of candidates do not fare very well. And the claims against everything Obama has done in office don't hold up to scrutiny, either. This is why I keep bringing up the Brexit example. Voters went for the raw, manipulative emotion and ignored the salient facts. Now they wished they'd paid better attention. While factcheck was founded by a Reagan guy, they have veered to the left and have ties to Bill Ayers. I honestly have little trust for any site or news outlet claiming to be neutral. Built-in biases always exist, and some do a better job of pretending to be unbiased. For instance, a site like fact check may try to show Trump as "True" on a minor meaningless topic, but then "false" on a more important topic, and it would be just the opposite for Hillary. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2923825/posts That's not a very impressive "source" that you're choosing to believe. If a strained connection to Bill Ayers is all it takes to ignore massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, I guess we're all f'd when it comes to facts.

The Bush family did business with the Saudi Royal family and the bin Laden family, owners of one of the largest engineering firms in the Middle East . No secret, really. Just the oil business. On the night of September 11, with all air travel grounded, the Bush administration arranged for safe passage out of the country for members and associates of the bin Laden family. No secret there, either. A prudent move, perhaps. But imagine if those actions had been taken by Obama or Hillary Clinton. The outrage and hysteria is wildly inconsistent.

Most of the media refused to fact check Hillary, Warren, or Obama. That's just how it goes when you don't subscribe to their views. Regarding Warren, she actually scares me more than Bernie Sanders. For those that think Trump is a whack job, just listen to Warren talk for an hour, and the sad part is she is dead serious in her views. While I think Warren would excite the Democratic base as a VP pick, I think she would alienate moderates and Independents, not just because of her far left-wing views, but also I honestly don't think this country is ready for a dual female ticket. I honestly think it could backfire a bit as well. There is always a gender gap where Democrats win the female vote by 10 points (give or take a few) and Republicans win the male vote by 10 points (give or take a few). I think adding Warren keeps the female advantage about the same for the Dems, but drives up the male advantage for the Republicans. The television media generally does a horrible job of fact-checking and context, period. People don't read the papers anymore. And they use the internet to find memes they already agree with. But in a pinch you can always go to factcheck.org. It's run by the Annenberg Foundation -- one of Ronald Reagan's biggest benefactors -- but they do a good job of maintaining neutrality. You'll find evidence there to make your case, but you'll also have to face evidence that destroys some of your other cases. That's the problem with facts. Also, being neutral doesn't necessarily make both sides equal. Donald Trump and the Republican slate of candidates do not fare very well. And the claims against everything Obama has done in office don't hold up to scrutiny, either. This is why I keep bringing up the Brexit example. Voters went for the raw, manipulative emotion and ignored the salient facts. Now they wished they'd paid better attention.

Men and women approach life very differently, based on the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. This has been going on forever.

I agree. To not give a woman any choice over her own body, it seems to objectify them and/or render them an unperson, as though they are nothing more than a baby-making machine controlled by others. This. There are moral, religious and ethical arguments that can go on forever and deserve mutual empathy and understanding. But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies. Abortion is also practiced by many species within the natural order, so I don't think it qualifies as unnatural either. Just as outlawing guns won't stop gun violence, outlawing abortions will not stop abortions. Instead we'd get an unregulated black market requiring new governmental oversight and intrusion. I can't believe HuskerBoard hasn't solved the abortion and gun control issues yet.

I hate tit for tat. I really do. Two wrongs don't make a right, etcetera, etcetera. But if you hate dishonesty and corruption and cozying up to the Saudi's so much, and you remained silent about it during the Bush Administration (and Reagan, too, for you older folk), than you should probably keep your yap shut about Hillary Clinton. And the "business as usual" practices you decry aren't likely to change under the billionaire who profited by gaming the system.

Again, Trump supporters continue to conflate Donal Trump "saying whatever he wants" as honesty, when it's merely "saying whatever he wants." It's refreshing from an entertainment standpoint, but not from someone who seeks legitimate power. Then again, why would he change now? Being vague and/or categorically wrong hasn't hurt him a whit. As the Brexit fallout continues, it appears supporters were impervious to the facts. They responded to nationalistic and xenophopbic platitudes and willfully ignored arguments that leaving the EU would clearly hurt their own self-interest. As the facts catch up with them, many Brexit supporters are having profound buyers remorse. They were sold a false bill of goods, but they also weren't paying very good attention. Here's hoping we can avoid that fate.

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with. Sometimes people mistake "socialism" for "civilization."

Listen to the radio broadcasts on the Big Red Network: more seed and fertilizer ads than you will ever hear anywhere else.

If Joe Frat steals a lobster, hardly anyone on Earth will care. If Heisman Trophy candidate Jameis Winston steals a lobster, it's news. That's more a function of the news than the legal system, where the court of public opinion may affect the star athlete more than any criminal charge. It's still a bit of a stretch to think star athletes don't get special treatment. Any more than believing rich people don't get special treatment.

Whether or not you want to call Jerry Sandusky an "athlete," the fact was that Penn State football believed itself to be bigger than civilian law, and managed to subvert the process for years, aided by a community that blamed the victims in order to protect the program.

Years ago they go special treatment...now with social media and camera phones they have it kind of hard at times. I'd agree with this. Mostly. But it wasn't many years ago, and it still happens in plenty of locales. Tends to be an entitlement issue, which isn't exclusive to athletes. But star athletes can definitely grow up in a bubble of entitlement that skews their understanding of consequence, especially when they have adults who readily cover for them.

I think that the QB with fumblitis was TMart due to him always trying to reach out the football to gain a half of a yard. Martinez and Armstrong have the same instinct, whether running or passing, and it's what the NBA pundits call "hero ball." You know you're an exciting player and you can make exciting things happen, but you never quite learn when it's smarter to tuck the ball and declare the play over. Somehow the whole turnover issue on both sides of the ball goes to the same issue of fundamentals, discipline and desire. Especially since the turnover issue appears to parallel the spike in penalties. Somebody with more discipline and desire can look up Nebraska's past decade of penalties. But with penalties, there's no correlation between penalty rankings and winning percentage. I didn't know that. A bit surprising if so. Maybe there should be an auxiliary category: stupid penalties. Fun Fact: Nebraska's #2 ranked 12-1 Big 12 Championship team from 1999 led the NCAA in fumbles.