funhusker

Crazy isn't it? In 2080 my children will hopefully be enjoying retirement (they're 7). Not my great-great grandkids, the kids living in my house right now.

Pete Ricketts: "Hold my beer......"

Part of a leader's duty is to keep the public from panicking. Should the mayor have said "everyone get in your bunkers now. If you don't have one, you're screwed." ? I agree. But the ridiculous part is that he took Khan's comment way out of context. Apparently, the mayor told citizens to :not be alarmed" by the raised police presence in the coming days...

Apparently Alec Baldwin has come rushing to her defense. Why? Democrats, at minimum, should just let this die it's own quiet death if not denounce it entirely. How the hell do they expect to make gains in the electorate by taking a position that the minority of the party shares? I know Baldwin doesn't speak for the Democratic party, but he has become a Democratic folk hero with his Trump impersonations on SNL. He will be equated to the "liberal left", warranted or not.

If Indiana and Oklahoma played, how would we know who is who? Crimson paperclips vs. "defective" crimson paperclips? Texas vs. Rutgers might be hard too. Albeit one is to much product and the other a lack of hygiene, but in the end a lot of greasy hair...

Yes. But if you keep reading you'll find that Obama was for it, so it "gots ta go". I used the analogy of an office birthday gift for the receptionist. The whole office decided to chip in and show appreciation, chip in what you can afford and don't forget to sign the card. Trump stood up at his cubicle and made a public tantrum about how he won't be signing the card and he will buy his own gift. He then proceeds to give the receptionist the Snickers bar that he didn't have time to eat during lunch...

Going to the Supreme Court. God, I hope they strike it down too. What a kick in the nuts that would be! (not holding my breath though) To any legal minds, what's the point? Are they just looking for a precedent to be set, or just wasting time because of pride? The time frames outlined in the original ban have mostly come and gone, the vetting changes should have already taken place. Right?

"It noted, however, that the EU has achieved a long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2015 of 22.1 percent despite economic growth of 50 percent." ...before some posters overreact about the hypocrisy of Europeans.

What you think I said is not at all what I said. I'm just going to talk about correlation now. I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions). What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics. I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country. It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often. If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale. Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid. No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it. But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy. I very much doubt the bolded part. I'd bet there's a much stronger correlation between your parents being wealthy and you being wealthy. Maybe both can be true

What you think I said is not at all what I said. I'm just going to talk about correlation now. I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions). What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics. I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country. It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often. If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale. Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid. No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it. But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy. That may very well be true but it doesn't at all refute my argument. Let's assume it's true. There are many wealthy people who don't have a good understanding of national/global economics. Many people who understand national/global economics are wealthy. The above 2 statements are saying very different things. We want the latter group. Not the former. Gotcha. I replied before you edited. I was just going of the conversation between you and BRB about why rich people are in charge of economic decision making.

What you think I said is not at all what I said. I'm just going to talk about correlation now. I said I don't think there is a correlation between being rich and understanding economics (I was speaking of national/global economics, as was obvious since I was talking about making economic decisions). What YOU are saying I said is that there is a NEGATIVE correlation between being rich and understanding economics. I did not say or imply it was bad that rich people are in charge of it. I said there was no correlation. Meaning being rich isn't a good variable to predict one's understanding of economics. It doesn't mean rich people are worse at it than other people. I'm basically saying non economist rich people are on equal footing with non economist non-rich people when it comes to making decisions that try to improve the national economy. Money-making for one's self is a much different science than improving the economy for a country. It IS bad to put someone in charge of making major economic decisions JUST because they are rich, which is what happens too often. If I was choosing I'd pick actual economists regardless of their wealth + successful business owners on a national scale. Many people voted for Trump because they thought his amount of wealth equated to him being good for the economy. That was stupid. No real correlation between a rich person deeply understanding economics, I could believe it. But I would say there is definitely correlation between a person who deeply understand economics and them being wealthy. Which is why we will more than likely see very wealthy people in positions of power regarding the economy.

I think his budget proposal carries a lot more weight than a stupid Tweet. This guy is a joke....

Whoops! How long ago was that? Hell, that would get you fired and arrested at most places today. 1981 - Don't know about the consequences, I did nothing, everyone was clothed when we went in. She just started to disrobe after about I said 2 sentences Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you did something wrong, I can find the humor in the situation. I was just making a general comment about environment we live in.

Whoops! How long ago was that? Hell, that would get you fired and arrested at most places today.

Not just tuition and housing? What about nutritionists, physical therapists, trainers, free trips around the country/world, tons of free clothes, bowl game swag, free access to state of the art athletic facilities, being worshiped by tens of thousands, the exposure and publicity and training that helps get a player noticed and prepared for possibly becoming a professional, or the name recognition that gives them a leg up on a career in literally anything else around the area they went to college if they don't go pro. Oh, and a few thousand dollars of free spending money each year, as well as a number of other discretionary funds for travel, clothing, etc., as well as a check cut for the difference between the cost of on-campus housing vs whatever is being paid in rent (usually a few more thousands of dollars per year). How much is four-five years of all of that worth? To answer your question: whatever people are willing to pay. And in the the case of some schools and athletes, that is "more".

Let me start by saying I have zero problem with the all female showing (or "ladies night"). But my wife and I were talking about how it was upsetting some people for whatever reason and the conversation evolved. The point of events like the all girl showing or "ladies night" is to promote the movie/business. We started to talk about what is okay to do as long as it is trying to promote a business. For example: a bar has a Tuesday Night Ladies Night where women either get in free or get half priced drinks. This is done to try to get women into the bar during the middle of the week and the men don't complain: duh. But we started talking, what if a bar wanted to increase the number of black people into the bar (to promote neighborhood diversity, a good thing)? Would it be okay for them to give free entry or drink discounts because of skin color? What if they were trying to push out a population by promoting another? Neither one of us had a point we were trying to make, just raised some interesting talking points...

Yep. I would assume they would be in Nebraska's division. Putting up more hurdles before the Huskers even get over the first one.

Except just like the majority of terrorist in the EU he was a 20 something born in the country he attacked (I think even a citizen). The child of refugees/immigrants from the middle east. This is rarely an immigration issue. I know it was only 2 or 3 posts above this, but I think this is very important. bump

His audience would be better off if they took that advice on the daily.

Yep. I gotta remember to grab me some of those next time I'm back in God's country. I disagree. Wragge Dogs from the Pierce locker will put any other hotdog to shame. They are better grilled, boiled, and even cold...

As it should. I would have less of a problem with school vouchers (albeit still a really big problem with it) if private schools who accepted the vouchers were required to take on special education students, show progress of student learning, and also take on a certain percentage of low income at-risk students.

^^^Why not? Replace a West Coast guy with a fan favorite defensive coordinator. Rinse and repeat.

Granted, I'm 36 years old and probably forgotten much more than an 18 year old. But just doing a "thought experiment" myself, my earliest true memory of a football game on TV is Super Bowl XXIV between the Broncos and 49ers in 1990. I would have been 9 years old.

Ha! When I get into the work trucks in the afternoon they are usually tuned into 1110KFAB in Omaha. I usually find myself laughing too hard at the callers before I get the nerve to change it... edit: I do try to make a point not to purchase anything advertised on his show. Good thing I'm not in the market for gold, preserved food, or LifeLock.

All I know is, Rush was really worked up over this today. It was hilarious. He kept apologizing for not covering the Manchester attack because he had the responsibility to cover "all the news". In the end, the "slap" was nothing. People are making it up! She never did it! My God these people will make up anything!!!! It was just a MODIFIED FIST BUMP!!!!!1111!!! “Now his marriage is falling apart! Now his wife doesn’t respect him. Look what she did! She slapped his hand away. I mean, right there in Israel when the world’s cameras are on him, she just slapped his hand away!” That’s not what happened. (interruption) Is that what you think happened? She did not! It did not… That is not what happened. He was reaching back to make sure… (interruption) She’s in heels! Everybody’s moving past. He reached back to make sure she was there, and she gave what was the equivalent of a fist bump. He reaches back, “Are you there?” She touches his hand to let him know she’s there; everything’s fine. She did not slap his hand away. It was a modified fist bump. My wife hates fist bumps. When I give her a fist bump, you know, she kind of slaps my hand away. She’s not slapping my hand away; she’s doing a fist bump without making a fist. That’s what that was! Do not doubt me. There is no way that that’s what happened. But the anti-Trump corps wants to make it look like, “Everybody hates Trump, including his wife, who knows what a pig he is and who knows what a reprobate he is. Reading the transcript doesn't do it justice without his flustered and frustrated delivery