funhusker

My bad..I kind of read your post and blended it with Lil Red's. That it would be good in short term for Trump losing the general election, but bad in the long term because it would create a stronger Republican party. I agree that it would be good for the Republican Party and that would be good for America. It's what I get for reading Huskerboard and "Cat in the Hat" to my kids at the same time....

In the short term, I would agree. But for the long term, it might be best if Rubio is selected via convention and Trump runs as an Independent. That would all but hand the election to Hillary, but in the long term it might result in a stronger Republican party by way of "removing" the extreme far right element, particularly if Trump were to form, or was the catalyst for the formation of, a true third party. And this would be bad? I would be thrilled if we went to a minimum of 4 parties. Hippy Left, Responsible Left, Responsible Right, Tinfoil Hat Right. Let the fringe crazies have their crazy theories and radical candidates, and just get out of the way while the majority of Americans can do the job of responsible adults and govern the country, and states, in a resposible and respectful way.

Just like Powell and Rice then? I don't think they had near as many emails, but hey.....misuse is misuse, right? Hang'em all? (if the penalty for treason is still death, of course) It is not (think it was stopped in 1990)...but prosecute them all, yes. Wrong is wrong, right? If a crime was committed, yes.

Just like Powell and Rice then? I don't think they had near as many emails, but hey.....misuse is misuse, right? Hang'em all? (if the penalty for treason is still death, of course)

I read an article today, if I find the link I'll share, that explained that this probably means the FBI and DOJ have no case against Hillary. Here's why: 1. Most witness are encouraged by their attornies to plead the 5th, if possible, in front of Congressional hearings because of the obvious bias in the line of questions (from either parties). You have to admit, the panel would be out for blood if he had to answer any and all questions. 2. If he were to talk to the FBI or DOJ without immunity and on his own accord without immunity, he would be required by law to testify in front of Congress or be held in contempt. He would basically relenquish his right to "plead the 5th". 3. If he would be guilty of anything, the DOJ would offer immunity as part of a plea deal or they would actually press charges and arrest him. This isn't part of a plea deal. edit: added link to Forbes article

Would you vote for him if he got the nomination? I think that's the issue here. He clearly is getting a lot of the Christian vote in the primaries. Or at least the "Christian" vote. No. I will not vote for Trump in any circumstance. Same thing goes for Cruz and Hillary and Sanders. I think something to keep in mind here is that we are talking about strictly republican primaries with an extremely poor field. To some extent, primary voters have to pick one of the morons. They could pick no one. But the Republican primaries are having record turnouts. I have no idea what the Christian % of the primary voters is though. I'm also Christian, for the record, and don't understand why so many fellow Christians are staunchly in support of the Republican party except the ones who list abortion as their most important or only cause. Moreover, I think it's rather disgusting the way Falwell and Robertson are going out of their way to be buddy-buddy with Trump when he wants to do an interview with them. I'm going to stop short of questioning the man's faith (taking Jeb!'s lead ), but I wish a significant figure in the faith community would stand up and call him on his deplorable, un-Christian sentiments. Like the Pope? I don't know what the solution is, and I really don't think it matters. I think people have made up their minds about him, and the more they are questioned, the more staunch their support becomes. It's frustrating.

I like your recipes....

who would be a "splash" hire? I thought for a moment about adding the "sarcasm" emoticon, but I told myself to have some faith in the readers. Especially the people that are on here everyday and take part in the threads about every hiring decision with the posts of "I had to google" or "need a splash hire" Oh well...I'll take my lap

I had to Google all of them... so much for a "splash" hire

I wish the Republicans would stop "tackling" each other and have a true debate. A debate/discussion about how their policies would better America along with how they plan to implement them. Then the other candidates on stage could critique the "plans" and explain why it wouldn't work or how their ideas would be better. In other words: have a constructive conversation. Instead they throw petty insults at eachother and accuse each other of not being "conservative" enough and who hates Obama the most. Hillary and Bernie aren't exactly having the ideal debates either, but I at least feel like I'm watching a mostly political debate and not a "Real World" reunion when they are on.

A hypothetical one.

Edit: my picks, not Matty's

stumpy one no front page for you

Do you feel the same way about prohibition? Except prohibition made it illegal for ALL to drink, even responsible adults who wanted a glass of wine with dinner at home. Again, no one is taking any guns away from responsible adults. Using the prohibition comparison, the executive actions would be similar to putting out more patrol cars to check for drunk drivers, heavier fines for people that sell to minors, and helping alcoholics to seek treatment. Sound like good ideas to me.

Folks, Teach is just bummed because the Illini are going to get run off the court today....(and because it has the potential to be a rough game to watch ) He's an Illinois bb fan, GBRFan.

No...but it does seem like obvious sarcasm....

In Pelini's first year, he had embarrassing losses to #4 Missouri and #4 Oklahoma. Riley certainly sniff's those sh#t shows with Purdue and Illinois... Yeah you're right, it's far more impressive he let Iowa State beat Ndamukong Suh in Lincoln by scoring 9 whole points the following year. Wait a second...this isn't fair...Everyone says the Purdue blowout was not really that bad because of all the turnovers...so wouldn't that be the same for ISU? Look...We hired Riley NOT to have crappy losses like Bo Poloser...We hired Riley to fix those problems and to be a smarter coach with smarter game plans. Who is saying turnovers make that loss acceptable? It wasn't acceptable, neither were. Purdue should never beat us by scoring 50 and Iowa State should never beat us by only scoring 9. Purdue became palatable because we actually responded to it and finished the year off stronger than we thought we would by beating a playoff team. Pretty sure the '09 team finished off pretty strong too. They were :01 from beating a team that actually played for the title and then went on to beat a mediocre PAC12 team to build optimism for the following year....

I'd have no problem if that's how they interepreted the rule now. If a player can lower his body to brace for impact, is he really "defenseless"?

If that happens (and I don't think it will), Riley will be done No he won't... he'll finish 8-4 in the regular season and it'll be called "marked" or "drastic" improvement. He's not going anywhere. +1 for being right, although I don't like it....I think 8-4 is the ceiling for next year (losses to Oregon, OSU, Wisconsin, and one of Maryland, Indiana, Northwestern, or Iowa) with the potential of going 6-6.

^^^^The story of Charlotte, the little girl, makes it pretty dang hard to take a position against the medicinal benefits of cannabis. +1 for the video

Football players are doing far, far, far greater damage to their bodies playing football, than they are smoking pot... My .02

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie. NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie. I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar. True. But to use your analogy; Bo asked Eichorst out for a beer on Monday. Eichorst said, "no thanks, I don't drink beer during the week". On Tuesday, Bo went to the bar and saw Eichorst and Riley taking shots at the bar. Not a lier I guess, he didn't have any beers, but.....

Sounds like an interesting book. : It is very interesting viewpoints. Just be sure not to go in with a "defensive' mindset. Some of the things he talks about would easily get some people worked up. For example, he explains that the Christmas story more than likely didn't happen citing historical evidence about Herod's rule and what the census would have been used for. The writer focuses on the "historical" Jesus, and admits that the followers "saw something" after Jesus' death. But he didn't want to cross into realms of "faith". I'd recommend.

The path to Heaven is not in the works. Meaning that we as Christians believe (because Jesus said so) that if we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and recognize that He died for our sins, we will be granted the gift of eternal life in Heaven. Now here is where I disagree with a lot of my fellow Christians. Take for example a man who has accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior but rapes and murders people. Based on those beliefs alone, he should be granted with eternal life. But I have read in the Bible a couple passages (can't remember what or where) that talk about this very issue. We as people could make the case that if this man were committing these horrible acts against others, that he has not truly accepted Jesus. I feel that God most likely views this situation in the same light. So on one side, the path to Heaven is not in the works, but on the other hand, it is a little bit. How you as an individual feel is the best way of going about your life while still accepting Jesus is essentially up to you, and there is not one concrete way of going about it. In many cases/situations, you kind of should ask yourself the old cliche, "What would Jesus do?" Yes, it's very cheesy, but the idea of a true Christian who has truly accepted Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior is to live his/her life as an example of God's word. In other words, love others more than you love yourself and "doing the right thing." That is the path to Heaven according to the Bible. I just finished reading "Zealot" by Reza Aslan, and there was a section that discussed the disappointment and "disgust" that James (the Church leader in Jerusalem) had for Paul for spreading the message that "only belief was required". Aslan mentioned in the book how James sent his own ministers to Rome and other places that Paul preached to with the intention of circumventing Paul's message. As a Christian, I thought the book was very interesting. It never said "Jesus is NOT the Messiah", but it did go into detail about the politics and history of the region around Jesus' time. And painted a good picture of the broken system that Jesus preached against. What did James say was required over and above belief? ================= As a general comment, it seems like the "issues" with Christianity began as soon as Jesus ascended. Different groups had varying interpretations and agendas, leading to Christianity being splintered into the great number of factions we have today. In other words, once Christ left it didn't take long for man to f#*k things up again. James actually felt following the Laws of Moses was very important along with helping needy. That was one of the reasons Azlan felt he was able to stay in Jerusalem and be accepted by the Jews.

The path to Heaven is not in the works. Meaning that we as Christians believe (because Jesus said so) that if we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and recognize that He died for our sins, we will be granted the gift of eternal life in Heaven. Now here is where I disagree with a lot of my fellow Christians. Take for example a man who has accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior but rapes and murders people. Based on those beliefs alone, he should be granted with eternal life. But I have read in the Bible a couple passages (can't remember what or where) that talk about this very issue. We as people could make the case that if this man were committing these horrible acts against others, that he has not truly accepted Jesus. I feel that God most likely views this situation in the same light. So on one side, the path to Heaven is not in the works, but on the other hand, it is a little bit. How you as an individual feel is the best way of going about your life while still accepting Jesus is essentially up to you, and there is not one concrete way of going about it. In many cases/situations, you kind of should ask yourself the old cliche, "What would Jesus do?" Yes, it's very cheesy, but the idea of a true Christian who has truly accepted Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior is to live his/her life as an example of God's word. In other words, love others more than you love yourself and "doing the right thing." That is the path to Heaven according to the Bible. I just finished reading "Zealot" by Reza Aslan, and there was a section that discussed the disappointment and "disgust" that James (the Church leader in Jerusalem) had for Paul for spreading the message that "only belief was required". Aslan mentioned in the book how James sent his own ministers to Rome and other places that Paul preached to with the intention of circumventing Paul's message. As a Christian, I thought the book was very interesting. It never said "Jesus is NOT the Messiah", but it did go into detail about the politics and history of the region around Jesus' time. And painted a good picture of the broken system that Jesus preached against.