funhusker

Okay, the "Nazi" comparison is spot on. People called them German Nazi's, some just called them Nazi's. But the people who cry out "Let's be real. They aren't just "Nazis" they are "German Nazis" would sound silly. It might give the impression to people like Oskar Schinder that the US will target all Germans, not just Nazi soldiers. That is what happening with the war on terror. Some call them Islamic Terrorists; some, including the Obama Administration, just call them terrorists. And people get offended because someone doesn't use a word. Its the "insistence" to categorize them as Muslim which is detrimental. I'll go back to my first post and leave it at that: "I will never understand the insistence to add the term "Islamic" in front of "Terrorist"'.

I'm going to assume a couple things here to try and make a point, please bare with me. I'm going to assume you love the Huskers since you are a valuable member here on the board. I'm going to start calling you Huskerfan BRB. All the time, no matter the conversation. You are now Huskerfan BRB Lets pretend we are out tailgating, me calling you a Huskerfan is no big deal. We are with other fans. We are about to enjoy a Husker game, no big deal. The next day you treat me to lunch and I say, "Thanks Huskerfan BRB, I appreciate it". The waitress says, "oh, I didn't know you were a Husker fan. My Dad grew up in Crete..." Again no big deal. Now, lets pretend I'm your business partner and we are trying to sell a deal to a bunch of Mizzou grads. Even though it is factually correct, would it be in good judgement to refer to you as Huskerfan BRB in this situation? It's a silly analogy, but I'm trying to point out that there is a time and place for everything. Even though 99% of people won't bat an eye to it, why risk that 1% if it isn't needed?

I think by "next year" he means next year, not this year. +1 I guess I still consider "this year" "next year" because it is 3 months away. But you make some good sense!

Exactly...not a difficult concept to grasp that the POTUS should be concerned with American interests first, and when American's interests are fine and we can help out the world, so be it. We should never be in a position where we take a policy position that would counter what is in America's interests. I realize this is a broad statement and can be sliced and diced, but as a general approach to foreign policy and relations, it's really not that complicated. Agreed. And when what is best for the US involves other nations around the world, which is a substantial amount, it is a good idea to get them on board. More flies with honey....

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Hmmmmm..... Not. Not what... I only read the first 3, but like Moiraine said, thise are not apologies. Even if he did apologize what the hell is wrong with that? We've f'd up quite a few things as a nation, and turned a blind eye to them. So you would be ok if a President Trump goes on a world tour to apologize for the messes Obama has created? I just dont think any president from either party should spend much time in other countries doing this type of thing. I guess if you are ok for Trump to do this type of thing about Obama you are being consistent. If Trump is building postitive relationships and trying to contructively solve problems facing the world, then no. I would have no problem with it. It is in the job description of POTUS to be a positive leader in the world, to put America's "best foot" forward. Which is why I have a hard time picturing Trump as President, I don't think he has the grace or temperment to be a valuable member in the world community. I don't love Trump and have stated this many times before, but where is there an actual job description claiming that the job of the POTUS is to be positive to the rest of the world. I'm sure glad Bush 43 was not focused on what the world might think of the US in the aftermath of 9/11. The US POTUS can and should be putting America first, and the anger you are seeing in both parties with the rise of Trump and Sanders is a frustration with the establishment status quo . I do wish Obama would be more positive toward Israel and less so to terrorist groups seeking their destruction. I know it's not an "official" job description, but I thought it was common knowledge that President is the main representative when working with other nations. http://ivn.us/2012/11/11/a-job-description-of-the-president-of-the-united-states/

Well, then we agree to disagree....

Nebraska vs. Arkansas State may be a hard ticket to get in 2016 Nebraska vs. Fresno State is the opener this year. Lincoln is always a good time and tailgates are welcoming, especially for someone from outside the US. Nebraksans have a need to show how nice we are to people who will tell stories back home, I mean that in a good way. Good luck and safe travels.

It is factually correct that these groups claim to be Muslim and are using a twisted version of Islam to commit horrendous acts. I agree, it is "correct" to call them Islamic Terrorists but I also believe it is unnecessary. Why give ISIS or other groups even the smallest opportunity to twist our terminology for their gain? The world knows who they are and what they stand for. The last thing America and it's allies need to do is give them the slightest validation as a "Muslim" group which could give them traction in recruiting.

Please provide dates and locations of said apology tour. Also quotes would be highly favored. You really have not heard about him touring the world after elected and talking about how arrogant and bad America was. Here is just one story highlighting his visits and his words. Were you living under a rock at the time? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower Hmmmmm..... Not. Not what... I only read the first 3, but like Moiraine said, thise are not apologies. Even if he did apologize what the hell is wrong with that? We've f'd up quite a few things as a nation, and turned a blind eye to them. So you would be ok if a President Trump goes on a world tour to apologize for the messes Obama has created? I just dont think any president from either party should spend much time in other countries doing this type of thing. I guess if you are ok for Trump to do this type of thing about Obama you are being consistent. If Trump is building postitive relationships and trying to contructively solve problems facing the world, then no. I would have no problem with it. It is in the job description of POTUS to be a positive leader in the world, to put America's "best foot" forward. Which is why I have a hard time picturing Trump as President, I don't think he has the grace or temperment to be a valuable member in the world community.

I did. I will leave it at that. Thank you for respecting my privacy and that of my friend that had to also deal with it. Huh? You are the one that brought it up in post #540. And if this was a non-public incident that you and a friend were privvy to, wouldn't you already know the outcome? Why would you "hope" the KKK guy got cold-cocked? You should drink the vodka instead of pouring it on the fire.... Thank you No, sir. Thank you. Thank you… I'm not a big fan of you calling me sir but still thank you. I did edit my post to include maam... your welcome

I did. I will leave it at that. Thank you for respecting my privacy and that of my friend that had to also deal with it. Huh? You are the one that brought it up in post #540. And if this was a non-public incident that you and a friend were privvy to, wouldn't you already know the outcome? Why would you "hope" the KKK guy got cold-cocked? You should drink the vodka instead of pouring it on the fire.... Thank you No, sir, or maam. Thank you.

I don't know if Teach is a Trump supporter or not, but there is zero doubt he is NOT voting for Hillary. So, I'm just going to go ahead and assume it is made up, foofoonanny, that he is trying to bait people with. He's been really good (or bad, depending how you look at it) at doing that the last few months in the election threads.

I did. I will leave it at that. Thank you for respecting my privacy and that of my friend that had to also deal with it. Huh? You are the one that brought it up in post #540. And if this was a non-public incident that you and a friend were privvy to, wouldn't you already know the outcome? Why would you "hope" the KKK guy got cold-cocked? You should drink the vodka instead of pouring it on the fire....

Then, fill me in please. It's a really long thread and haven't seen or heard of another incident involving a black Trump supporter punching a protester.

I'm sorry, are you advocating violence on here? Yes. Maybe you aren't black...but if a white guy in a hood gets in my face and is calling me racist names...I am pounding him. Maybe you have a little daughter, I don't know and maybe the guy gets in front of her one day and start screaming in her face these horrible ugly names And I hope that you punch his lights out. What are you referring to? The Trump rally where the protestor got punched by a black guy? If so, that happened nothing like the way Trump tried to explain it the other day. There was video, the man was wearing a red, white, and blue American flag shirt. They were obviously (well, at least to most people) making fun of Trump's support from KKK members. The black man grabbed his sign once he was past him, he did not scream racist ugly things in the man's face. Trump has a habit of saying things never happened, even though there is a lot of video and audio that says otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt4uF87wzrA edit: and another angle... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljE0ZjSYvCY

Lots of companies that post jobs that don't require a college degree to perform still prefer people with college degrees. I know people who have experienced this when applying for administrative assistant jobs. What would you say is the cost of the cheapest company one could start and make enough money to live on? IIRC you often say people should just start their own businesses but that tends to require money. Most people work up to something like that with time. People can start a business and build a livable or even luxurious income in network marketing, but many people are uneducated about that industry so are guarded against it. In traditional business, i would recommend a franchise to any beginning entrepreneur (not McDonald's or big chains like that). Smaller franchises can be started for $50-100k, which is less than most pay for college, and those can provide livable, if not very solid incomes. People paying that for college are usually getting it from loans. It's far easier to get a college loan than a loan to start a business (maybe that's the problem?). $50k-100k requires you to have had a good job or some kind of collateral (which usually requires you to have had a good job). That's exactly one of the problems. Lack of financial and entrepreneurship education in schools is the largest problem. Which is where a good network marketing company can help fill the gap, not only in income, but mostly in business knowledge and entrepreneurial mindset. Starting to think you sell either Mary Kay or Tupperware and are only a few posts away about sharing an exciting opportunity for someone that doesn't have an "employee mindset" I get that you are trying to be funny but that is exactly what I mean by people being completely misinformed about network marketing. You're right, I'm just trying to be funny. Nothing personal. But now I'm curious. What is in my comment that shows complete misinformation? Maybe I'm thinking of something completely different...

Lots of companies that post jobs that don't require a college degree to perform still prefer people with college degrees. I know people who have experienced this when applying for administrative assistant jobs. What would you say is the cost of the cheapest company one could start and make enough money to live on? IIRC you often say people should just start their own businesses but that tends to require money. Most people work up to something like that with time. People can start a business and build a livable or even luxurious income in network marketing, but many people are uneducated about that industry so are guarded against it. In traditional business, i would recommend a franchise to any beginning entrepreneur (not McDonald's or big chains like that). Smaller franchises can be started for $50-100k, which is less than most pay for college, and those can provide livable, if not very solid incomes. People paying that for college are usually getting it from loans. It's far easier to get a college loan than a loan to start a business (maybe that's the problem?). $50k-100k requires you to have had a good job or some kind of collateral (which usually requires you to have had a good job). That's exactly one of the problems. Lack of financial and entrepreneurship education in schools is the largest problem. Which is where a good network marketing company can help fill the gap, not only in income, but mostly in business knowledge and entrepreneurial mindset. Starting to think you sell either Mary Kay or Tupperware and are only a few posts away about sharing an exciting opportunity for someone that doesn't have an "employee mindset"

I think the article sums up my thoughts perfectly. It's why I will never understand the insistance to add the term "Islamic" in front of "Terrorist". It is a stupid line used to pander to a fearful base. It's no different when someone calls Westboro Baptists a bunch of "wackos". There isn't a demand from Cruz, Trump, and others to stand up and declare "They are 'Christian' wackos!!! Why can't we man up and call them what they are?!!!" I agree with Obama's stance of not letting religion become a part of 'choosing sides'. Instead, this administration has defined the sides as "civilized, peaceful, thoughful" vs. "barbaric, violent, short-sighted". There is room for Christians, Muslims, and all other people to fit into either camp. But they must choose that "side" based on their person and not their religion.

Fascinating how quickly the tide turns. No one with the slightest semblance of thought in their head honestly believes Donald Trump is a legitimate candidate for president. When it comes to winning the election, it doesn't matter one bit who the Democrats put forth as their candidate. The vast majority of people who will ever vote Trump are one-ticket Republican voters - no way he stands a chance in the general election. I think the support for Trump is very real, even though I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. I agree the general election will likely favor Clinton, but I know some very successful people who are Trump supporters and I consider these people to be relatively intelligent and level-headed. And, personally, that's why I'm baffled they support him, too. I agree, Enhance. I know several people I would consider much more intelligent than me who support Trump, but their support seems to be different. It is a quiet support, they are not excited about it. They (the people I know) seem to look at a Trump presidency as nothing more than a signature on bills coming from a Republican Congress and an opportunity to appoint conservative judges. They seem to be counting on the fact that there will be enough of a support system around Trump that he won't "blow up the world". However, the people that I know that trumpet their support for Trump because he's "gonna make America great again!" and think Bernie is communist and Hillary deserves the death penalty, are the folks that get their news from random Facebook posts that have no basis in reality. Sadly, there is a 'YOOOGE' chunk of the population that fits in this category; about 80% of my extended family....

Just a guess here but don't you think a lot of them do manual labor jobs and get paid in cash...under the table? In which case their wages are not being taxed? I suppose that is one way. Don't you think the IRS would ask questions about a construction company that builds 100 houses a year with only one framer? Or the orange groves that are harvested by one farmer? Or the meat packing plant that produces millions of pounds of beef with a couple butchers? Yes, there are some illegals that work for cash; there are also a lot of born'n'bred Muricans that also work for cash to avoid taxes. edit: I'm only using these jobs since you mentioned manual labor. There are also illegal immigrants (from many different nations, not just Central and South American countries) working in retail, food service, travel and tourism, office jobs, and just about any other job/careers you can think of. Not many of these positions are set up to pay in cash. I think it depends...You got a lawn care company and you have 12 dudes working for you and 4 of them are illegal. I don't think questions would get asked. In college I worked lawn care...we were paid in cash under the table. There were like 6 of us I think, maybe 5, that worked for the guy. I think that is pretty common I guess my point is that is one way that they (myself included back then) don't pay taxes. How do they avoid sales tax? Two totally different taxes. Sales tax has nothing to do with income tax. no sh#t..

Just a guess here but don't you think a lot of them do manual labor jobs and get paid in cash...under the table? In which case their wages are not being taxed? I suppose that is one way. Don't you think the IRS would ask questions about a construction company that builds 100 houses a year with only one framer? Or the orange groves that are harvested by one farmer? Or the meat packing plant that produces millions of pounds of beef with a couple butchers? Yes, there are some illegals that work for cash; there are also a lot of born'n'bred Muricans that also work for cash to avoid taxes. edit: I'm only using these jobs since you mentioned manual labor. There are also illegal immigrants (from many different nations, not just Central and South American countries) working in retail, food service, travel and tourism, office jobs, and just about any other job/careers you can think of. Not many of these positions are set up to pay in cash. I think it depends...You got a lawn care company and you have 12 dudes working for you and 4 of them are illegal. I don't think questions would get asked. In college I worked lawn care...we were paid in cash under the table. There were like 6 of us I think, maybe 5, that worked for the guy. I think that is pretty common I guess my point is that is one way that they (myself included back then) don't pay taxes. How do they avoid sales tax?

Chances are better of you referring to Obama as a "she" because of "mom jeans" and you not recognizing sex and stuff....

Just a guess here but don't you think a lot of them do manual labor jobs and get paid in cash...under the table? In which case their wages are not being taxed? I suppose that is one way. Don't you think the IRS would ask questions about a construction company that builds 100 houses a year with only one framer? Or the orange groves that are harvested by one farmer? Or the meat packing plant that produces millions of pounds of beef with a couple butchers? Yes, there are some illegals that work for cash; there are also a lot of born'n'bred Muricans that also work for cash to avoid taxes. edit: I'm only using these jobs since you mentioned manual labor. There are also illegal immigrants (from many different nations, not just Central and South American countries) working in retail, food service, travel and tourism, office jobs, and just about any other job/careers you can think of. Not many of these positions are set up to pay in cash.

Maybe that's why BRB phrased it as "screwed up". But the issue was illegals not paying taxes. Whether that SS number on Tax ID number is stolen or completely fictitious doesn't matter. The fact is, they pay taxes and are unable to be refunded any of them. Illegal immigrants more than likely pay MORE federal/state income taxes than legal workers. Along with sales tax on goods and services.

I g uess I need something explained to me. Let's say I screw up and employ an illegal immigrant here in central Nebraska. How exactly is it that they are not taxed?