Danny Bateman

Lol. I literally had a thought earlier after watching the SNL vid on the first page... What if everyone just said screw it and wound up writing in Jim Webb. Anywho, that's why Hillary will probably get my vote. I feel like she's got a better chance of getting stuff done working with Congress. And I don't find her as untrustworthy as a lot of other folks. It's a legitimate beef that no one may want to play ball with Bernie. The Supreme Court is 5-4 Repubs as well. It's a shame too, because he makes some really good points. Healthcare here is so ridiculous. Tax Wall Street. The stats about CEO salary increases far outstripping the American worker always sicken me.

This is my problem with Bernie's campaign. I'm know that I will vote Democrat regardless of what happens. I just cannot fathom a Repub that I would select over any of the Dems available. The most reasonable to me seem to be Rubio and Bush, and it seems unlikely to me that either of them earns the nod. Anyway, as a left-leaning guy on most issues, I agree with a ton of what Bernie says. I love his ideologies and his passion. But his fervent supporters (many of them in my age bracket, I'm 24) seem to fail to realize is that the multitude of overhauls he's proposing, his "political revolution"-- healthcare reform, free state college tuition, minimum wage increase to $15/hr, infrastructure reform, campaign finance reform, breaking up the big banks-- will cost a LOT of money. And Bernie doesn't seem to explain much in the way of payment specifics outside of "we will tax the billionaires," "we will tax Wall Street," and "we will take on the pharmaceutical companies." Furthermore, I've very little about his foreign policy, and all I know about it is that he's very dovish. Bernie's ideas sound great-- as sounding calls. I worry that he can't or won't get into specifics about how we're going to do any of it, and am somewhat fearful much of it becomes a pipedream with conservative opposition if he takes office.

You think it would be better if he didn't actually say that? Yes.....I mean no! I just want us to land a stud! (Phrasing)

He certainly has perfected that sh*t-eating grin, hasn't he? And that story about the sleepover at the recruits house is just downright creepy. I'd have to say it's nothing but good that Clemson and UM are recruiting him at safety. We'll see how much playing WR really matters to him.

What is the correlation with marching with Dr. King and being honest? Jesse Jackson was close with Dr. King and...do I need to get into that? Also, did you look at the article (and the links) in the "Strange Election" thread that point to improper use of funds by Sanders' family? I'm incredibly reasonable and I DON'T like Senator Sanders at all, yet alone a lot. I do think that he would be better than former Secretary Clinton, but I'd rather not have to make that choice (thankfully, I never will!) I do agree with TGHusker, though. It is refreshing to see these guys crashing the party. The American 2-party system needs to be trashed. Per your bolded, I would disagree that you're reasonable. Moving on. There's no correlation between marching with MLK Jr and being honest, but when he preaches a message in support of the oppressed and the disadvantaged, there is evidence that he actually believes it by his actions when they weren't popular or scoring any political points. I think the word we're looking for is genuine. Most all politicians do things a lot of the time not because of their principles, but for the benefits it may have for their career. It's all about getting votes, pandering, etc. Not a hint of this from Sanders. The closest thing you could toss out would be his pro-gun voting history, but I'm assuming he had to do it to maintain his seat in Vermont. I think most people like Bernie so much because he seems to be up there doing not with some hidden agenda, but because he honestly thinks it's what's best for the country and its people.

It's great the talks such a good, appealing talk. Where I'm a lot more skeptical is the merits of his actual proposed approach to his presidency. Specific to healthcare, I feel we have achieved landmark legislation that was tumultuous a process enough. The next step to build on it, and not to rock the boat again under the delusion that the process won't be just as compromise-filled. I think you and I see eye-to-eye on this one, Zoogs. I try to play devil's advocate with my roommate. He's a big Bernie guy, and I'm actually in favor of any of the Dems, but I think I am in favor of Hillary before Bernie at this point. This is the first time in my life I have actively researched and tried to understand the nuances of something as complex as the healthcare system in our country. I think, after some work, I understand the benefits of a single-payer system. But it does seem a bit pie-in-the-sky to think we can up and switch from our current system to single-payer. If it was so beneficial (and relatively straightforward to implement), why have all the other historical single-payer plans from politicians failed? Furthermore, you raise a good point that Obama had an extremely difficult time getting the ACA through, with a supermajority in Congress. I have a very hard time believing the current Congress is going to want to play ball with ANY of Bernie's ideas, including healthcare. If you want more reading, check out the second BloombergView story I linked in the OP. It was written by Megan McArdle, a finance writer, and goes in depth on why single-payer isn't the magic bullet to fixing our heathcare system overnight. Basically, she says that the US already spends much, much more (percentage of GDP) than any other country touted for using single-payer. Single-payer is a model that is great at curbing GROWTH RATE in spending, and that it won't necessarily help if you start off at an already highly-inflated amount. She showed that no other single-payer system has ever actually cut spending any appreciable amount (i.e., negative growth rate) and sustained it, which is what Bernie is proposing. Ultimately, on Bernie, I definitely like the guy, and I definitely think out of all the candidates, he has people's interests at heart the most in what he does. But I'm the type of guy who wants to hear specifics. I like the anger he has at the millionaires and billionaires and Wall Street. But I want specifics on how he's going to achieve what he wants to do.

Good call, Warrior. That's good to be a good thing, right? RIIIIGHT???

Good thing we have the second best star average (this recruiting class) of the past 11 years then eh? Using which site? They vary pretty wildly. Regardless, couldn't that be more of an indictment on Bo or Billy C than a reflection of Riles? I do like avg stars, but all recruiting metrics have their flaws. Avg stars does not account for position needs in recruiting or penalize for imbalanced recruiting. For instance, we likely lost our top 3 DTs, have very little experience coming back, and yet have none in this class. We've whiffed on seemingly every DE recruit we've recruited outside of Stille. We need OTs badly as well, and have whiffed on quite a few of those as well. Hoping we land Farniok. It looks good, but it's never a sure thing til the ink is dry. Also, given lack of turnover relative to sleazy school like some SEC ones where oversigning is common, we need to make sure a high percentage of our recruits pan out. Flops hurt that much more. Just being a skeptic.

Methinks Mr. Penn should avoid Mexico for a while. I'd be feeling very anxious if I was that Telenovela star that hooked them up, too.

I don't think he'll win a general election, Fake. His base isn't large enough, and I doubt there are enough undecided or politically disenchanted moderates or liberals that would opt for Trump over a much less offensive, more reasonable democrat to bridge the gap. I agree some of his platform isn't terrible. I have a strong inkling he'd be good for the economy... It's his forte. But he'd be a disaster in foreign policy. He's already alienated half of the Muslim world and Mexico. And thinking about him being commander-in-chief when he clearly fumbled that nuclear triad question two debates ago scares bejeezus out of me.

I've always thought Harbaugh seemed-- off. This does nothing to lesson that notion. Definitely creepy. Definitely.

T I agree our system appears to be unfair to the poor and has inflated healthcare costs, but would a transition to a single-payer system be as seamless as Sanders tries to make it seem? I'm actually in favor of the concept he is proposing. Logistically, there's not a whole lot solid out there as to how it would be funded, and nothing current. He continues to say he will be releasing data on this "shortly," but hasn't yet put anything out. From the articles I've read regarding his 2013 single-payer proposal, Bernie's plan COULD work, but the figures he estimates don't add up. He has said the only taxes needed to pay for his system are a 6.7% payroll tax and a 2.2% income tax. Most all of that would roll downhill to the EMPLOYEE as opposed to the employer (in terms of payroll), and 9% of my income seems like quite a bit to pay for healthcare. But if you examine the system proposed for us in Vermont, it calls for an payroll tax of 11.5% and a sliding income tax of 0 to 9.5%. 21% of income going coverage is absurd. Then you think about the negative effects that Medicare-for-all could have on health care rationing and quality of care, and it just gives me a lot of pause. Not to mention the fact that our already implemented public single-payer program, Medicare, whose "whose cost has grown substantially faster than the economy for most of the last 50 years," shows no sign of improving efficiency. I'm actually a proponent of what Sanders is striving for. Of course healthcare should be afforded to people. As a medical professional, I put the patient first and people should be able to afford medical coverage. But I'm worried about the sketchy details Bernie has offered regarding actual implementation of his plan, and I'm starting to think it will be a lot more expensive than he's making it out to be. Here's some reading for some of the stuff I cited: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-11/vermont-s-single-payer-dream-is-taxpayer-nightmare http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-30/single-payer-would-make-health-care-worse http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/13/how-much-would-bernie-sanders-health-care-plan-cos/ The last is probably the best place to start and the other two play devil's advocate as to whether single-payer only could function at a national level.

NICE! Love getting Dez, even if WR is one of the deepest positions on the team at the moment! Come on and make it official, bud. You know you want to... GBR!

What are the crystal balls saying? It seems to be all over the place here on the kid. 7 Huskers, 1 Iowa St,, 1 Mich. St. But 1 Husker is Towle. Looks like we're all wrong. Mr. Farniok will be taking his talents to....................... Funkytown.

This is listed on 247 as having an S-load of offers. I can't imagine they're all commitable... what's the deal? Regardless, would love another DB for this class. Can never have enough talent there in this scheme.

I'd like to see what Riley would say if anyone would actually have the balls to ask how he plans to offset the dead weight that is Read and Hughes in the recruiting arena. I realize that most staffs are constructed with a few lame duck recruiters and it's nigh impossible to have a cast full of recruiting all-stars, but it's particularly damning when a position of huge need (DL) whiifs on damn near everyone and one of your lamest ducks coaches the position. I'd imagine we'd get some coachspeak-infused answer. And I'm a Riley guy. This is a big issue when we're already at a disadvantage in recruiting. A huge step towards regaining national talent is absolutely maximizing recruiting, and we cannot afford any lapses.

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. He stated he liked the Australia laws (as does Hillary) which is why I brought up prohibition. The two are an apt comparison. All these "executive actions" won't do a single thing because they aren't really doing anything to change the current laws. It's pure political pandering. I don't like prohibition. People should have freedom to drink if they want and it's taxable revenue. Brings in just under $3 mil per year in the US per this site:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399 That being said, you'll NEVER ever convince me people SHOULD have access to alcohol if it's not good for them. There's nothing we can or should do legally to infringe their access to it. But working in a hospital, I see and work with lots of folks who come in over and over again to detox. They dry out and wind up back there in a few weeks to repeat the cycle. It's incredibly sad, but with chemical dependency, sometimes you can't save people from themselves. Furthermore, my mother is an alcoholic who to this day continues to struggle to maintain her sobriety. It profoundly affected my life growing up and is causing tensions for us even now. I myself am generally a teetotaler who very rarely drinks. So you'll never ever sway me from my stance that some people need nothing to do with alcohol. It will destroy their lives. The same premise applies to the executive action. The people who plan to misuse and abuse the acquisition system for firearms for VIOLENT REASONS should NOT be allowed to use a loophole to go about it. I'll also never change my stance that an action with no consequences for good, lawful people that aims to snuff out violence is a bad idea. FWIW, I didn't say I like the Australia buyback program. I just stated that it coincided with a decrease is violent gun crime there. Ok, well my apologies for assuming that since you liked what the President was doing, and that he has brought up Australia as a model, since you were going down the same path, that you were in favor of it as well. What they did isn't as black/white as some seem to make it either: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/ Definitely see why you'd think that man. No worries. It's impossible to determine someone's actual full political stance on something unless they explicitly spell it out for you. Good article. Lots of good data. The Snopes article I linked also includes info that denotes that there was a decrease, albeit perhaps not a statistically significant one. I'd argue a similar would have a much more profound effect here because we have a much higher incidence of violent gun crime, given time. Obama has praised what Australia, and though headlines from his statements claim he "endorses" their laws, I still see nothing to suggest he plans to implement anything similar here. Lastly, I don't view his action as pandering. It's all he could legitimately to do address gun violence before leaving office. He'd never be able to pass a law in time, and an actual executive order would go over like a fart in church.

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. He stated he liked the Australia laws (as does Hillary) which is why I brought up prohibition. The two are an apt comparison. All these "executive actions" won't do a single thing because they aren't really doing anything to change the current laws. It's pure political pandering. I don't like prohibition. People should have freedom to drink if they want and it's taxable revenue. Brings in just under $3 mil per year in the US per this site: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399 That being said, you'll NEVER ever convince me people SHOULD have access to alcohol if it's not good for them. There's nothing we can or should do legally to infringe their access to it. But working in a hospital, I see and work with lots of folks who come in over and over again to detox. They dry out and wind up back there in a few weeks to repeat the cycle. It's incredibly sad, but with chemical dependency, sometimes you can't save people from themselves. Furthermore, my mother is an alcoholic who to this day continues to struggle to maintain her sobriety. It profoundly affected my life growing up and is causing tensions for us even now. I myself am generally a teetotaler who very rarely drinks. So you'll never ever sway me from my stance that some people need nothing to do with alcohol. It will destroy their lives. The same premise applies to the executive action. The people who plan to misuse and abuse the acquisition system for firearms for VIOLENT REASONS should NOT be allowed to use a loophole to go about it. I'll also never change my stance that an action with no consequences for good, lawful people that aims to snuff out violence is a bad idea. FWIW, I didn't say I like the Australia buyback program. I just stated that it coincided with a decrease is violent gun crime there.

Sounds like a great way to get cops killedAnd some federal agents. But you cant just take peoples private property. Youd have a major uprising. Id let them buy back my 22 and stash the rest at the office. This idea is assinine and that is being kind. Guys, I don't think HoH was serious. This post seriously has to be tongue in cheek. If not, he's a total whack-job It is seriously starting to piss me off that the GOP finds it so convenient lately to nuthug the NRA and suggest that the President is out to get your guns. Nowhere in anything he's said or done does he even hint at trying to TAKE BACK any guns. He's gone so far as to say he wouldn't do so, citing the 2nd amendment. The man flatout does not want to violate the sanctity of that amendment, and if you believe otherwise, you're simply terrified of a non-existent boogeyman. Interestingly though, Australia implemented a gun buyback program on semi-auto and pump weapons in 1997, and since then, overall homicide rates, gun homicide rates, and armed robbery rates have declined. Removing assault type weapons does seem to lead to a decrease in firearm-related crime. Just FYI. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp What he is trying to do is make sure as many people as possible go through the channel that they're supposed to go through before they acquire their gun. The channel designed to sniff out red flags that perhaps there's a legitimate reason you shouldn't have a firearm in the first place. If there's nothing wrong, you pass the test quickly, get your gun, and get to exercise your right. What pisses me off the most is that the GOP and gun lobby at large seem more concerned with lobbing these fiction bombs that somehow this executive actions sets in motion this chain of events that culminates in absurdly difficult gov't confiscation of guns, rather than CARING about the LIVES they could potentially save. If this executive action prevents one person from acquiring a gun through nefarious check-less means and using it to perpetrate some type of violent crime, mass slaying, or blowing their own head off, isn't the whole damn thing worth it? It's common sense. We're dealing with human lives.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/1/8/rumor-mill-hillary-facing-criminal-indictment-obama-2016-surprise-in-the-works/ http://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-imperils-hillary-clintons-presidential-prospects/ Not really. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/jeb-bush/heres-whats-wrong-jeb-bush-saying-hillary-clinton-/ I've learned to expect a lot of half-truths and flatout misrepresentations of the truth from conservatives in this cycle. Bush is actually the least offensive to me, and him or Rubio would probably get my vote with a gun to my head. But, it'd literally take the gun, and I'd have to think about it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363452/Bill-Clinton-15-year-old-masseuse-I-met-twice-claims-Epsteins-girl.html At the initial outset of the scandal, the girl herself said that Bill never participated in anything illicit. No one is talking about it because it's a non-issue. That Epstein guy is a serious sleazeball, and apparently a well-connected one, who happened to be friends with Bill, but that's about it. Wouldn't surprise me for the GOP to resort to some more mudslinging instead of talking issues, though. Interestingly enough, though Bill seemed to have passed her smell test, another notable public figure didn't fare too well:

I don't know that there was much we could've done to close earlier. Isaiah seems like a kid who was just going to take his time regardless... Frustrating, but oh well.

Got a very good feeling about Lamar. Almost negates my complete skepticism that we have any shot now at Simmons.

I'm right there with ya, Sea O' Fred. Ridiculous to get this far and have Clemson swoop in last second to steal the kid right out from under our nose. Sucks.