funhusker

I just spent some time on "Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash" Facebook page. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but it is downright scary that many people think these posts are from real Bernie supporters. And then they equate actual Bernie supporters with complete whackjobs. I'm sure there are similar pages dedicated to Trump and Hillary. The fact is, there are a large poplulation of truly ignorant people and they help play a role in how these elections go. A two party system has it's flaws, but if we could actually approach it with common sense and some simple fact-checking it would work much better. VectorVictor nailed it, the "news" has done nothing to combat this, hell they've only seemed to inflame it! And BRI, in Nebraska I switch parties depending on the primary. Switching "allegiances" on a whim and the internet is also "liberating" And a lot of fun when friends say something like, "you Dems are all the same" and I respond with, "but I'm a Republican...", or vice versa.

That is absolutely sickening... What is it about Trump that you (or anyone else) dislikes so much? I'd love to see a list. Here you go... LIST I found a list of 40 reasons from a conservative site. It took me all of 5 seconds on Google to find this. I could put together my own list, but this seemed much simpler. I guess we could all start adding to it...

Would you want your son or daughter to work a job like that? I know I have much higher goals for my kids than trading their whole lives away working in a factory. Whose sons and daughters are going to work at all these factories that Trump will bring back? If not "ours" then it must be "theirs", but if "theirs" aren't allowed past "the wall" then it shall be "ours". If it was "our" sons and daughters doing these jobs, Nickerson most likely would have approved the plant. This facility would have paid better than the local gas station. It would have paid better then the waitress at the bar. It would have paid better than most hourly positions in the entire community. Not to mention the dozens of management and skilled labor jobs that are adequate for "our" children. So what's your point? That since I am voting for Trump that I don't have perspective on these types of things? I'd say that the "jobs" part of Trump's campaign is one of the least important in my mind. IMO, we need more people going out creating jobs and opportunities for others, and less people looking & training for jobs. Technology has the ability to replace every cashier in the country if we wanted it to. I say let it, especially if McDonald's employees think they need $15/hr. ^^^The red is my point. A company was going to create 1100 jobs, but because they aren't "good enough" jobs we don't want them. I didn't mean to necessarily single you out, I just know that you are outspoken about your Trump support. A lot of Trump supporters I've talked to like him because he says he will keep manufacturing jobs in America and get rid of illegals. Well, if we keep all our "crappy" manufacturing jobs and get rid of all the people willing to work them, I just don't see how that works....

To add: I as a man, can report a "suspicious" man in the men's room. Same as a women can report a suspicious "man" in the women's room. If someone looks out of place or is acting inappropriately, report it. F**k, it isn't rocket science people....

I think the argument is that this creates an unnecessary risk. You send your 8-year-old daughter into the potty while you stay outside with your 3-year-old. Some perv is in there on the pretext that "all people have access to all bathrooms" or "you can choose which bathroom you use based on which gender you feel like today" and they do something bad to your daughter. It's a terrifying scenario for any parent. Also, women do not want to use the same bathroom as men. Not one woman I've asked about this is OK with guys in their bathroom. Yeah, that's anecdotal, but it's 100% so far. Again, just presenting arguments and "facts," not advocating for which way this should go. I still haven't made up my mind. I have a fear of being a victim in a car accident caused by a person driving too negligently. I know there are laws against drunk driving, wreckless driving, speeding, not properly working tail lights, not using a seat belt, texting while driving, etc.... But what we really need is a law that car manufactures can only make cars that top out at 25 mph. We have laws against everything people are scared of in the bathroom. Will someone take advantage of the law policy (edit)? Maybe. Same as someone is going to top out their Corvette on the interstate because "they can". Hopefully that person is reported before something bad happens. Target is responding (I don't think they even needed to) to a topic raised by unneccesary legislation by far right lawmakers. This whole thing is stupid and it originates in North Carolina and other states that have manufactured fear among constituents. What gets me is when people to the right make fun of Target for "worrying about bathrooms" when it is their own elected officials that felt the need to worry in the first place. The best example I've seen is the meme of "Today at Target..." with a picture of a man holding hands with a presumed TG at the urinal. When in fact, that picture is exactly what Target doesn't want to happen. If anything, a courthouse in NC will have a bearded man, with a vagina, washing hands next to an 8-year-old girl in the womens room. This whole thing is (or at least was) a non-issue and it is frustrating to hear people say Target is pushing some sort of Liberal agenda; when Target is cleary, albiet unneccesarily, pushing back against an ingnorant and pointless Conservative agenda.

^^^^I agree Coach! If Nickerson doesn't "need" it, than more power to them for voting it down. It would change some things for the worse as well as for the better; it is up to them to weigh the options. But the people who went on record as saying "as a Christian town, we don't want Somalis" along with other "bigoted" statements, it leaves a bad look for the situation. I'm all for Nickerson turning them down because they like the "cozy" little town feel, but then they also better never complain about being "cozy" again. And I don't know if they ever did complain....

Would you want your son or daughter to work a job like that? I know I have much higher goals for my kids than trading their whole lives away working in a factory. Whose sons and daughters are going to work at all these factories that Trump will bring back? If not "ours" then it must be "theirs", but if "theirs" aren't allowed past "the wall" then it shall be "ours". If it was "our" sons and daughters doing these jobs, Nickerson most likely would have approved the plant. This facility would have paid better than the local gas station. It would have paid better then the waitress at the bar. It would have paid better than most hourly positions in the entire community. Not to mention the dozens of management and skilled labor jobs that are adequate for "our" children.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. Example: A female who looks like a female, talks like a female, acts like a female, is accepted as a female, with one private exception of having a penis, is forced to use the men's bathroom and is assaulted by some close-minded douchebags who don't take kindly to her "kind". Not OK. Completely separate issue, and not relatable to this discussion whatsoever. ummmm....are you aware of what "transgender" means??? It's exactly what the entire issue is about.

IMHO..as a Christian. If a Church is operated the way I feel comfortable with and not out to seek profit, they wouldn't have to pay taxes because every cent of "profit" would go to a charity of somesort. I understand that that is a simplistic view of income taxes and Churches, but I think laws could easily be written to tax "for profit" Churches. And yes, taking offering to expand your sound system is "for profit" in my book or to give the minister a private jet....

I do not really care to argue over this one way or the other, but I have to wonder how this example is the same as having a man ,at least in physical status, walk into a restroom with women and children using the restroom and go right next to them. Like I said, I am not arguing for or against, I just don't see how the two situations are the same. My situation happens thousands of times per day. The situation the law is aimed at preventing (a transgendered person assaulting another person while using the restroom) is rare if ever happened at all, anywhere. Both situations involve a person with the wrong genitals going in the wrong room. To add, there are already laws against lewd conduct and sexual assault. A "pervert" can still be convicted of a crime if he/she truly is a "pervert" and does something "perverted" in the restroom. But if simply "using" a restroom is a crime, there will be unintended consequences.

I have young children. On several occasions during road trips or shopping I have heard the panic stricken child say "I need to go potty, NOW!" I find the first gas station or restroom I can find. As my child is doing the peepee dance I find the mens room either too filthy to be used by my daughter or it was occupied. A clean womens restroom was being unused next door so without hesitation I take my child in to use it. When we exit the restroom a woman has been waiting. EVERY time I exit with an "excuse us, we couldn't hold it" and EVERY time the woman has smiled and said, "trust me, I understand". My point is, that under these "restroom laws", I would be committing a crime and putting myself at risk of being labeled a sex offender by entering the wrong bathroom. This is one thing I agree with Trump on, it isn't a problem, we don't need any new laws to explain how to use a bathroom.

...and Fyfe likes to run out of bounds for a 8 yard loss ...Bush carries the ball like a loaf of bread ...O'Brien can't handle a snap or escape 3rd string pressure They should have just moved Darlington back for the game and played him the whole way.

I watched that one on TV; and I thought the drills were awesome. Probably because the camera was right there. I could see how it would be lame in person though...

I love MadLibs!!!!

Nope, this is only about the recruiting camps. It doesn't stop Harbaugh from doing spring practice in Florida again either. OK....you are going to have to explain that to me. So, we can't do satellite camps but we can go to California and hold spring training? Big difference. One is working with recruits off your campus. The other is working with your players off your campus. Who gives a flying rats azz? It's clear that both are for recruiting and so recruits in that area of the country can come see the program and meet the coaches. Both are for recruiting, yes. But the camps allow for "unknowns" to perform in front of coaches in hopes of earning a scholarship without making a trip to Lincoln.

Do you honestly think this is what a Unicorn is? It's nothing like the Unicorn of the common myth. Your story shows this: We're all talking about this: Unless you're saying "god" isn't what you think it is, and that the glorious figure of god, like the unicorn in the second image, is actually a very mundane earthly creature from a bygone age as in the first picture? Because there's several problems with that, ranging from the evolving image of god to suit today's ideal, the glorious god people believe in compared to the actual shabby god there is, the fact that the god of the Bible says, "I'm the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" meaning what we believe is god today can't be different than what god is, or that if god is different than what we believe, the fault lies somewhere with an omniscient god's lack of communication and willful allowance of such errors to be made... I mean, if we're claiming that the legendary unicorn was, in fact, a rhinoceros, don't we also have to acknowledge that what ancient Israelites thought was "god" was, in fact, something else? This really isn't a road we want to go down, is it? Some people think that "if there is a God" why would he make us live here in this mess to "prove ourselves". They paint a picture of what they assume God 'should be' and then claim he doesn't exist because it doesn't match their own observations. When, possibly, God does exist He just doesn't match what our parents or our Church has made us believe or feel that we deserve. Yes our churches and all the major religions of the world are based on theology. These differing theologies create different images of God. The original question doesn't even ask about the God of the Israelites, it just mentions "omniscient, all-powerful, God". Those of us that said yes to that option, happen to be Christian, whether that be by geography or whatever. Those of you that said no, are spending a lot of time discounting the God we believe in. My point is, you are picturing a certain God and stating why you believe that "one" can not exist. One thing about this thread I know for sure, at least from what I've read, is that we all have a desire to ask questions. No one here discounts science, and everyone would be excited to hear of discoveries of our origin. We all want to be kind (well, most of us), and we all want the world to be a better place. I'm starting to look at this as fans of two teams trying to explain why there team is better the week before the game is actually played. No one knows "for sure" now, but someday we will. For now, I'm just going to enjoy the beer and wings before kickoff....

Sometimes we think we know exactly what a unicorn is and what a pretty unicorn looks like. Sometimes we discover we were wrong about our belief of what a unicorn should be.... http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/29/giant-siberian-unicorn-existed-much-more-recently-than-previously-thought-experts-say.html

Humans didn't know where the first molecules came from, so they created a god to explain it. Just like they didn't know what lightning was, or earthquakes were, or the sun is. Wait a minute. I thought we were close to proving there is no need for believing God created the earth. Well....this needs to be answered before that happens and I don't think we are anywhere close to coming up with some scientific proof of where the very first molecule of matter came from......without a higher power. And once we figure out where the first molecule came from, we will still be faced with the question, "what caused that?" It's a neverending cycle. And I don't mean to say that we should just break down and say, "God did it!" Personally, I am very curious to see "how" God did it. And whether you believe or not, we all should want to follow that same trail.

Because there's gathering evidence that it's true. http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html That what's true? So the poll question should read, "Is it more likely a supernatural entity created millions of universes" or "millions of universes popped up out of nothing for no reason?" I like Hawking, but describing alternate theories isn't "proof' that God isn't needed. The questions in the poll are both "unlikely" if we want to be honest. Humans seek for reasons why things happened, it's what we do. No matter what option you sided with, if we walked it all back the the very beginning, whether that be 13.8 billion years or "1 bazillion, million, trillion, 00000000 to the 100th power years" we would get the very first step and say "why?" We are all overgrown 3-year-olds, always with the questions.....

Hillary isn't going to jail, guys... or is it "guise"? not sure...

Nah. Just didn't grow up with it. It's a tradition (or lack there of) we tend to inherit from our parents. Nothing against those who did; we are nothing if not bound by social and cultural traditions. It's really not that empty or different over here, though. We're living in the same world; that is, with each other. And you didn't have to spend an hour at Church before opening presents on Christmas... In the words of Napolean Dynomite: LUCKY!!!

Probably going to have to let this one go. You're apparently unwilling or unable to look at it in the same manner that I do. I'm not hedging my bet. If anything, I am hedging the bet for other people. I know for a fact that God was the cause. Don't ask me to prove it or explain it any further. It is a deeply held belief of mine based on my cumulative experiences. The one God creator does not have to be the specific of any one religion. You think he does yet you don't believe in him. I find it somewhat amusing that a self professed non-believer feels compelled to tell others how they need to believe and what's what with that belief. You tried it for years, attending church, leading Bible studies, etc. and you failed at it. Somewhere along the way you adopted some thoughts or beliefs that preclude you from looking at it in the same manner I do and now you actually think you've got it right and I and others have it wrong. I can't look at this natural world and think there was not an intelligent designer. Quite frankly, I don't understand how others can. IMO, belief in a creator, one creator is easy and almost unavoidable. And that belief has nothing to do with any specific God or any specific religion. Once a person accepts that there must have been a first cause, then yes, we will attempt to explain that first cause as best we can and that is where different interpretations of God and the multitude of religions come from. Have you ever wondered why people forever have felt compelled to explain his existence. Maybe it's not as simple as the non-believers like to claim it is. Maybe it's not just pushing the easy button for things we haven't fully figured out. Maybe we do have a soul and maybe there is something in it compelling us to find God. At least that seems a lot more likely to me than a few cells crawling out of the pond and here we are today having these in depth discussions but yet having absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It has been my experience that most every person who does not believe in God has some earthly reasons for it. Many did believe at one time but became angry with God for one reason or another. Usually due to the death or suffering of someone close to them. Those are hard things to deal with and some people bail out because they can't justify those things with a loving father figure of God. They take their human limited thoughts and try to understand why a loving father would let these things happen. They think, it could be so easy if he would just do this or that or the other thing. I've just come to accept that God did not intend for it to be that easy. Sure it would be easy if he would show up weekly, 4000 feet tall riding a cloud and talk to us. If he would remove all pain and suffering from our lives. If he'd just come sit down in our living rooms and explain it all to us in person. That seems to be what so many nonbelievers think should happen. I'm just not arrogant enough to think I know better than an all powerful God and I can accept his existence even with the limits that are in place. I recommend the book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" by Harold Kushner for those that haven't read it. Easy read, takes a couple hours. He's a Rabbi that lost a son at a young age, and ministered to many others experiencing grief. Takes interesting views of bad things that happen in the world. For example, a child dies in a drive by shooting (familiy mourns) and his organs are donated to multiple families (prayers answered). To be clear, he states without question that he doesn't believe God intended for the young child to die in a "master plan", that wouldn't be "just". Just an example of the types of things he writes about.

I'd say they're equally easy depending on your point of view and your nature and what happens to you. It's easy to believe in God if you don't suffer horrible tragedy. It's hard to believe in God if you suffer horrible tragedy. It's easy to believe in God if you're scared of death and want comfort. It's easy to not believe in God if you're not scared of death. Obviously these aren't the only options. Anyhow, as a Christian my biggest issue has been similar to what someone else already posted. How can you think everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus and what he did is going to hell when you have tribes living in the jungles of Brasil with no chance of ever seeing a Bible? Maybe there are several religions that are fine and you're just not supposed to be a horrible person very often. Although that flies in the face of Jesus dying for people's sins and not needing to earn our to heaven. So I think I can believe what I believe about Jesus and let God deal with the other people if he wants to instead of forming an opinion and judging others. I'm more scared of death as a believer than I would be if I wasn't.... Kind of like high school graduation. There is no reason my diploma wouldn't have been signed. But there was still a very tense second walking of the stage where I peaked to make sure the Superindtendent of Schools and my principal signed it. That "tense second" wouldn't exist if there was no such thing as graduation Other than that, +1 to you!

TG for President!!! Seriously, great post!

^^^^really? I'm not complaining, just haven't heard that.