funhusker

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?

Obama hasn't been a "disaster" at all. Most of the world would tell you that Obama has done a pretty good job with foreign relations. It's only in America where Obama's political enemies live that people would consider him a "disaster." Of course, these are the same people that brought us the Birthers, the Mom Jeans and "Obama is a Muslim." So, Hillary? Please share.

I'm going to preemptively put this here... "Obama Apology Tour" The answer: no one

It's not nearly as bad as your "friends" say HuskerShark. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/ http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/16/how-the-world-sees-obama/ And what apologies are you talking about? If they're so rampant, I'm guessing you can share a couple?

All jokes aside, CoachT. You are about to embark on your first year of teaching (congrats btw), you are about to witness the strange things in this world first hand. If your world gets turned upside down because someone says or does something ridiculous, you are in for a lot of fun.

The man equating the US flag to ISIS and the dog people, I'll admit, are strange things. But what is so wierd about Christians gathering? It's been happening for over a thousand years...

I have no idea if he will build a wall or not but I totally understand your point. I supported Ted Cruz but have now gone to Trump because after looking at the two I think Trump brings change we need(not necessarily the wall) and Clinton just seems like she will be worse then Obama. This is an important time in our country and we have basically two bad candidates I just go with Trump because I believe in most of what he says compared to Mrs Clinton. What "change" will Trump bring that we "need"? I've seen/heard variations of this comment many places but no one has ever verbalized them. Not even Trump to my knowledge.

From an average person's standpoint, I can see how you think that. Have you ever watched Shark Tank? The Sharks invest in hundreds of companies on there, and not all of them become successful. The Sharks lose all or most of their money on a lot of their deals, but it's a law of averages. One investment that turns out great can make them millions and offset the ones that failed. That's how successful people work. They make quick, educated decisions and exhibit massive action. I will NOT critique Trump for several failed businesses, because that's a poor man's mindset. As far as the bankruptcies, of the 4 bankruptcies that he's filed for, 3 of them were on casinos. I think I see the problem. You're getting your financial perspective from"Shark Tank" and "The Apprentice." It's a tad more complicated than that, my friend. Amen! Those guys could have all just put their money in the stock market and they would have made more! I think I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. A Trump Presidency would involve the US government creating a ton of new government programs and spend a boat load of money, on top of what we already spend. The "law of averages" says that one or two of those programs would be wildly successful and worth the money lost and people negatively impacted by the others. I mean, that's how they do it on Shark Tank, right?

I concur.

I don't think anyone has a problem with Trump not debating Sanders. No one ever expected them to, and most political pundits thought it was a ridiculous idea to begin with. People only started talking about it when TRUMP opened his mouth and threw out some words that happened to fall in a sequence similar to "I'd love to debate Bernie for charity". Bernie said, "hey, sounds great! Let's do it!" Then Trump cowered back hopefully finally realizing that people might actually try to hold him accountable for the words that fall out of his head.

Not sure how to embed the video, but this link is the 2012 play. I think it was pretty clearly a TD, but whatcha gonna do?

He's got an easy out with this one. He just has to say he meant "man made" climate change is a hoax.

I added it...

Is it not? edit: oops it is... Never noticed that before

With all the discussion on the board about the election and the non-stop release of "national polls" from media outlets, I thought it would be interesting to take a poll of HB. THIS IS A PRIVATE POLL!!! Meaning the public can't see your vote. Some people who have participated in discussions have made pretty clear who they are voting for, please still vote. I'm also interested in the people who may just linger and not post, along with those that haven't made their opinions public in the discussion. I'm not asking for reasons "why?" or even a discussion of any kind. Just a poll.... I am witholding my vote until several votes are cast to "hide" my vote.

When did any back run all over us last year? Good point. Valentine, Collins, Gangwish, McMullen, and Williams should have it covered......So you have no faith in the LB's or the young lineman at all? The style of defense that they run is meant to stop the run. I think they'll do fine. But I don't think it is realistic to just replace the experience that was lost and expect to be just as good or better.

Back 7 should be solid, hopefully the line comes along against the rush.

When did any back run all over us last year? Good point. Valentine, Collins, Gangwish, McMullen, and Williams should have it covered......

Well they are your picks so they only need to make sense to you. To me, winning half of the toss ups would be an average expectation. Yeah, I get what you're saying. I say "best case" is winning half of the toss ups, Riley and his staff didn't do anything last year to make me think they will do better. Yes, they are recruiting their tails off, but "their" players will either be true freshmen or not even on campus. I'm bracing myself for a small improvement from last year's record, if there is one at all.... Trust me, I'm rooting against my own predictions

This is why I did this exercise. You are saying worst to best case scenario is 5 to 8 wins, but when you actually put pen to paper (so to speak) game by game, you actually came up with 6 to 10 wins. (Average 8) don't you see it? I actually only came up with 6 or 7 wins when I put "pen to paper". Which would be in line with my 5 to 8 wins: median of 6.5 I don't think Nebraska will win 10 games next year, or 9 even. They will most likely lose 3 of the 4 "toss ups" in my opinion. Best case is they split them, worst case is they lose all of them plus a game that should definitely be a win. Eight wins isn't my "average", it is best case in my judgement.

Fresno - Win (Should be comfortably, but wouldn't be surprised it the first game of the year is a little shaky) Wyoming - Win Oregon - Toss-up (I think the Huskers lose, but there is a real chance they don't. The hype and home stadium make it a toss up) @NW - Toss-up Illinois - Win @IU - Toss-up Purdue - Win @Wisconsin - Toss-up @Ohio State - Loss Minnesota - Win Maryland - Win @Iowa - Loss 6 "wins" 2 "losses" 4 "toss-ups" (Oregon is likely loss, Wisconsin is likely loss, I"m not even very comfortable with NW as a toss-up) If I put a number out, I'd say 7-5 is likely. 8-4 best case, 5-7 worst case.

Not sure how much your willing to share, but I'm curious. How many hours a week do your employees work that will be affected? And what type of positions are they? My understanding was these jobs would include people who are salaried, but work more than 40 hours to avoid overtime. I had a job similar to this right after college. I was inside sales for a electrical wholesaler. I would work 9-10 hours a day but only compensated for 40. However, at the end of the year I was able to participate in profit sharing, which made up for the hours and then some. (but these profits were, in part, because we saved money on payroll) I was fortunate to be part of a profitable company. On the surface, this policy seems like a good thing for workers, which is usually bad for the company's bottom line. I don't understand enough about it say it is a good or bad decision.

I wouldn't trust a vocal "birther" to change my oil let alone lead my country. I say 'vocal' because I'm sure there are/were a lot of them out there, but most were smart enough to realize they sound incredibly stupid when they say it out loud.

Way hotter, too!

You don't feel like you would have been duped if you voted for a man and that man turned out to be a woman? Really? I mean...their age is checked...their place of birth is checked...it appears that their tax returns are checked. You don't have to like it or even care. I just think it is a good idea. I also want to know their medical history. So, are you admitting women are better Presidents than men, or the other way around?