funhusker

Go for it...

I may need some further explanation on what many Trump supporters are calling "Nationalism" and "America First", because I keep reading these posts and coming away with the impression that we want to elect Trump to voluntarily impose trade sanctions on our own country....

ZERO???

Because people shouldn't have to work with drug dealers, rapists, and underwear models....

^^^ No O'Brien??? That didn't last long.... All kidding aside, I hope we have a bench full of adequate D1 talent (which it appears we may be trending in that direction) and the coaches are able to pick the very best one to help the team be successful. I really don't have an opinion as to who it is, or what his strength is; I just want the best option out there to help the team win.

Did Lee get a 6th year? If it hasn't been decided yet, any ideas on when it will be? I'm not sure if he has to wait until his eligibility runs out to even apply.

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same. Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%. Try reading my post again. I said it was still a dramatic increase, and I understand the math. That is why it is currently a 3500% increase and decreasing (esitmates have ISIS currently at 25,000). But as others have pointed out, that percentage that you keep throwing around, although currently incorrect, needs to be put into context. I did read your post and I think I posted my additional thoughts in a different reply...my bad. I don't think the context around removal of territory matters when discussing the bottom line result that ISIS has exploded in the last 7 years. It went from being a beaten down terror group in 2008 to one that had a few successes here and there, and when the leader of the free world blinked and took a path of pacification, ISIS became emboldened and began to spread. It's now a movement that has spread across the world with more fighters joining because they have witnessed the successful attacks over the past 7 years. For Obama to be criticized from Dianne Feinstein is telling... http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/23/feinstein-obamas-policies-are-making-isis-issue-worse-not-better/ I agree that intelligence is key, and after the Orlando attacks most new outlets were reporting that we do not have enough intelligence officials to keep up with all the leads and areas of concern. In my mind the primary job of the federal government is to keep its citizens safe, and I would rather my tax dollars go to beefing up our intelligence than to other initiatives. See, this post meant a lot more and now I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. It explained your position much better than just saying "Obama is horrible because ISIS grew by 4400%". That's all I was getting at.

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same. Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%. Try reading my post again. I said it was still a dramatic increase, and I understand the math. That is why it is currently a 3500% increase and decreasing (esitmates have ISIS currently at 25,000). But as others have pointed out, that percentage that you keep throwing around, although currently incorrect, needs to be put into context.

To add, a lot of the time teenagers get jobs because their parent's "know someone" or people know their parents, especially in small towns. I have no idea on a percentage but my guess is it would be significant. It's nothing shady, but poeple will hire familiar people when possible for entry level jobs like babysitting, mowing, helping out at local businesses. People with more money, tend to have more connections with people that are looking for workers.

OK...I know it doesn't look good and far be it for me to defend Trump. However, the $12,000 went to the Susan G. Komen organization which is a very goo organization doing a lot of good work. It's basically a donation from the foundation. Which.....that's what I would expect a foundation to do. Yes, but if he kept the helmet for himself, or gifted it to a friend, he could owe a penalty to the IRS. It's a whole lot of "not a big deal" but it is a glimpse into why he doesn't want to reveal his taxes. If reporters can find out silly things like this through back channels, imagine the fun they would have with the front door wide open.

Bnilhome- You need to update that 4400% you keep throwing out. It's currently closer to a growth of 3500% (4400 = 700 to 31000, 3500 = 700 to 25000) That isn't to say dramatic growth didn't happen under Obama's time in office, but it is also dishonest to say the US isn't doing anything. ISIS numbers are shrinking, territory is being taken back by the Iraqi army; sadly many people think this is why there is and will be an uptick in random attacks around the world. Fighters are leaving the failing "caliphate" and taking their fight home with them. We are physically fighting what we can, but this war is going to be won by intelligence (focusing on ISIS recruiting, finances, weapon supply). As far as keeping American civilians safe, it will be a war the public won't see, so many will assume nothing is being done. Back to the growth under Obama. The only thing that Obama could have pushed for (hindsight being 20/20) was to keep a strong military presence in Iraq and swiftly toppling the Syrian govt and have a large presence there also. I don't honestly know if that would have been a better alternative.

I got a 120 because of a crappy memory... The highlight of the test was reading the comments at the end from the people who apparently didn't do well.

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? I think his response was sarcastic following the random response from knapplc about the tea party forming because of a "black" president...but maybe I am wrong. Knapp's post was somewhat random, yes. But it is also true; at least as far as when the Tea Party formed. The "why" can be debated, I guess. I figured Shark's response was addressing the refernce to Bush's handling of Bin Laden in Guy's post. We're probably both wrong

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?

Yep, and measurables don't necessarily translate either. I'm with you, I'll trust the judgement of an impressive list of coaches (schools).

And another ... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/25/politics/george-will-donald-trump-leaving-republican-party-election/ Every Republican has this choice. Punish their party -- at least temporarily -- for choosing to endorse Trump. Or make like party leaders and do all the contortions and mental gymnastics necessary to get around to supporting him. It's a very self-defining choice. Pretty easy one to break apart actually. The people who support hidden establishment agendas, or socialism because they're lazy and entitled, won't support him, and people who desire to think big and put America's interests first will support him. I don't care to look it up (maybe I have a little Trump support in me ) but didn't you claim somewhere earlier in this thread that a lot of Bernie supporters were going to jump on the Trump train after Hillary won the nomination?

I understand I'm late to this party. Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact. The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims. Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check? -Limit on rounds fired per second -Limits on magazine capacity -Background checks for every gun purchase I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it. If my life, or my families lives are in danger, then I choose to have as much firepower as I can handle to eliminate the threat(s). How much firepower I choose will depend on how many assailants there are. This isn't something that can be determined ahead of time by some buron. Limiting magazine capacity is a joke. Any weapon I own that uses replaceable magazines can be reloaded in mere seconds, as in 2 or less. If you limit my magazine capacity I'll just carry more of them. And why would you limit MY magazine capacity? I'm no criminal. For that matter, why would you limit anything firearms related for law abiding citizens? And get this, as a Concealed Handgun Permit holder not only have I passed multiple background checks (mine come back in minutes compared to days for other people) but Concealed Handgun Permit holders belong to the most law abiding group of citizens in America. And understand this, you cannot get rid of firearms. That is a pandora's box that cannot be closed again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVhceWZiYPQ A Canadian I know on another board had this to say: I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill to the greatest extent possible without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. The mental health care in this country is atrocious and needs fixing. First of all, I will never support banning guns. Secondly, you already go through background checks, so shouldn't everyone for every sale? Lastly, why would we limit YOUR capacity if your not a criminal? a. Omar Mateen was not a criminal before Orlando b. Adam Lanza was not a criminal before Sandy Hook c. James Holmes was not a criminal before Aurora d. the list goes on e. Where do you think criminals get automatic guns, ammo, and magazines? They buy/steal them from legal owners and buyers. If legal owners/buyers can't have them, neither can the criminals. That logical deduction isn't hard to comprehend. I understand that there are people who are unwilling to at make small sacrifices (in this case time: waiting for background check, time in changing magaizines), I just don't understand why.....

^^^^

JJ I don't know the details of Brexit and don't pretend to. I feel much the same way you do in your post. But on the surface I think a lot of the "panic" is because people (investors) don't know what will come next. The UK will play by their own rules now and not be part of an "organized" EU. I think....Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Like I said, don't know much about it.

Huskershark-- What would the negative effect of limitations on shots per second and magazine capacity have? I don't want to see "single shot" by any means, but a capacity of 10 (pulled that number out of my butt) seems like plenty of chances to scare off an burglar.

I understand I'm late to this party. Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact. The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims. Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check? -Limit on rounds fired per second -Limits on magazine capacity -Background checks for every gun purchase I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it.

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do. So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives? 100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us. Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have. Are you serious with his question? I am. What are the people of Australia held back from doing? What freedoms do we have that they don't? I can walk around Omaha without the fear of poisonous snakes and spiders????

Don't apologize for that "rant' BRB. Nailed it!

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others. There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate. The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over. That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun. Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out. To the first bold - This whole thread is about opinions, even what I have stated and more importantly everything you just said. There are no facts that more gun control would do anything at all, but that doesn't stop the forum dems/libs from thinking it must be done, infringement be damned! To the second bold - I would love to see your numbers on "most people", or are you talking about just in this thread. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks The following article lists several polls and other points. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/ lol, some of the most liberal sites suggest 92% want more gun control. Flat out LIE! http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/02/Gallup-Most-Americans-do-not-support-gun-control/5291414975282/ This one says it is a lie, and I can find more! Point _____ Head My Gallup poll is more recent then the Gallup poll in your article, so there.... edit: I'm not here to get into a pissing match about polls. I'm simply saying there was and still his an overwhelming majority of people that support a universal background check for ALL gun sales. I agree with them. I am also a hunter and believe in protecting my family. That said, I will happily wait a prerequisite amount of time to recieve my firearm. I think this is a very small price to pay; if a person "needs a gun today", it is probably a reason not to sell him/her one... Just saying.