Spartness

Apparently Nancy Pelosi is strongly considering using this procedure. According to the article I read, Pelosi and the House can get around voting for the Senate version of the health bill. The Republicans are saying this would be unconstitutional -- I realize this is partisanship at best, but is there some truth to it? Can the U.S. Supreme Court rule the Dems can't use this procedure? Carlfense: You study law. In simple language, can you explain how the self-executing rule works, and how Pelosi can get around voting for the health bill. I do not understand the explanations I have read so for. Please help.

Junior4949 said: The last time Nebraska's men's basketball team won the Big 8 tournament was when? The last time KU won any kind of conference title in football was when? In 1994, NU's mens basketball team won the Big 8 tournament getting an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. In 1968, KU tied for the conference title in football. People can crow all they want about KU's season in 2007, but the fact still remains that they didn't play either Texas or Oklahoma and didn't even win the North. Why the BCS picked them over Mizzou is still a mystery. Were you ever at Bill Snyder stadium in 1988? It paled in comparison to what it is now. It didn't even have lights until 1983. I was there at KSU in 1969 and a few times after. Sure, I bet the stadium has improved since then, but I remember it being a fairly nice stadium. Probably nicer than what buffalo has now. Dude, you can pick apart KU if you like, but even though they didn't play Texas and Oklahoma in 2007, they did win the bowl game against a very good team. You don't think that was an achievement? KU has shown it can win there. Are you kidding me? There is a lot better opportunity for Gill to show what he can do at KU. I'm not saying Gill will have top 10 teams very often, but might have consistent top 25, and will challenge for the North Division title on occasion. To say KU is a horrible place to coach is incorrect.

I'm not saying this should make us feel any safer. I am just reminding everyone that Ahmadinejad is not the supreme leader. That would be the ayatollah. He calls the final shots. Is the ayatollah as dangerous? Perhaps, but I don't know.

VA Husker Fan said: "OTOH, it would really depend on who the AD was. Devaney was solidly in his corner, yet it sounds like that wouldn't have been enough at the end of 1976. I had to go back and check that 1976 Astro Bluebonnet bowl. It didn't sound like much of a task to win that, but Texas Tech was ranked 4 spots ahead of us at #9." I read sometime back that Osborne acknowledged (don't remember the source) that he would had been fired if he hadn't won that bowl. That surprised me because, as you said, Devaney seemed to always stand by Osborne.

There is no clear answer. If Israel does attack, oil prices skyrocket and, as you said, there will be a unity with the Iranian government. And if Israel does attack, it's far from clear they could destroy all or any of the plants since they are underground and spread all over the country. At the same time, we can't allow them to get the nukes. It's not just Iran that's the concern. It's also who they would sell them to, such as Hezbollah. And I just don't see the Obama administration doing anything about it. What can be done?

I remember that game. PSU keyed on Rozier, and that was the only game that year he was held under 100 yards (He went on to win the Heisman.). But everything else sure was clicking that day on offense. The defense even looked good. That offense perhaps could rank as the greatest ever in Husker history, even with the great N.C. teams of the '90s. But the defense that year was one of Osborne's worst, which anything cost him the N.C. in the Orange Bowl against Miami. Irving Fryer was one of the two greatest WRs we ever had -- the other guy, Rodgers. Some of you might recall Gill, Rozier and Fryer were called the Triplets.

Could very well not be a very good site -- I like BigWillie's opinions, for example. I'm more interested in the game film of him. The dude has wheels.

Received this email from the Bleacher Report. (Must be from my Touchdown Club membership.) Rated the third best back in the country. It has some great film on Green. (Don't know if this has already been shown on this thread.) This guy not only can fly, but he's got great moves and quickness. The only negative the short article says is he's not a good inside runner because of his size. Says nothing about Nebraska being one of the leaders. Hopefully that is an oversight. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/350153-ranking-the-top-10-running-back-recruits-for-2011

Spartness, If you create a thread with a provocative topic as this, be prepared to take on all-comers. The hit and run tactic doesn't work in this forum. Sarge87: Sorry if I'm acting dumb here. But why are you saying my tactics are hit and run? Please send me a personal message because I won't see it on this thread. Yes, it was my bad when I said I was done and I continued on, but I promise this one is it for me. I want to leave before it gets personal. Carlfense: Listen. It comes down to one big picture. I didn't need to bring up the little things. Nazi Germany, as you pointed out, was a totalitarian state, and it wasn't based on religious law. It couldn't have been more massive government. The bigger the government, with its additional intrusions, the more left it is. So any further argument you want to present or try to disprove, it doesn't matter -- it was clearly left. The totalitarian element outweighs anything else. End of story. As I said, I won't be back here -- only on the huskerboards. Bye.

So were the right-wing Iran or the Afghani Taliban pro-capitalist? I don't think so. You can't just say anti-capitalist cannot be right wing. The anti-capitalist element would be left with a otherwise far-right leaning dictatorship. You can have elements of both in a government. In this case, the right out-weighs the left. As for Carlfense, I still see the left out-weighing the right in Nazi Germany. Regardless of your arguments, the larger the government is the more left leaning the government is. As for the Nazis, they were a giant government. The smaller the government, the more right wing it is -- with the exception of a dictatorship ruled by clerics like in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan. The U.S. Democratic Party would be to the right of the Nazis -- as much as conservatives complain about them having big government, it doesn't have nearly as much control as the Nazis had. The key word is government intrusion. The more government intrusion there is, except in the case of religion, the more left it is. Sorry, I am having trouble ending this debate.

Carlfense said: "Nazis were right wing because they were nationalistic, patriotic, and militaristic. How many hippies do you see waving American flags out in the streets? I don't see any . . ." I know I told you I was done, but here is one final thought. And then I will close on this. The Soviet Union was very militaristic weren't they? Didn't in reality the Soviet Union have nationalism? The right is less radical about the environment than the left. Haven't you heard about far left groups like Earth First who wanted us to stop driving cars? When have right wingers ever gone that far? The Nazis were quite radical about their environmental views, although they contradicted themselves with there war machine. And their animal rights views were quite radical considering they value them more than humans. Right wingers value humans over animals. Dude, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Let's talk about something we can agree on like the Huskers.

Carlfense: How can being anti-capitalist be right wing. How can massive economic control be right wing. Right wing generally, with a few exceptions, is tied to conservatism. Nazis were opposed to conservatism, not just Communism and liberalism. Conservatism is based on a free-market system with as little regulation as possible. The Nazis were opposed to that. I doubt all political scholars agree that Nazism is far right. Maybe liberal ones do. Wasn't there plenty of militarism in the Soviet Union? The Nazis apparently combined Lutherism with paganism, but it has been said, including in the Wikipedia, that the Nazis were generally anti-religious. Sorry, I can't agree with you. An example of a right-wing dictatorship perhaps would be Iran and when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan. Islamic law and the law of the state appear to be all one. (Edit: Thank you Carlfense for not personally attacking me. It's so easy to do, and you took the high road. )

Did you watch the video above, carlfense? Please do if you haven't. The video explains very clearly that Nazism is based on Marxism. Hitler and Gerbals(sp?) study Marxism and embraced many of its beliefs. They admitted that Nazism and Marxism had only a slight difference. It was when they discovered that the voters wouldn't go for it, that the Nazis changed tactics and instead developed an anti-communist platform. So that was only for political reasons. Think about it. The only real difference is the Marxist doctrine is about totally nationalizing the economy while Nazism and fascism is about totally controlling it. But in reality there wasn't much difference because any private ownership in Nazism was in name only. Every phase of production in business was completely controlled by the Nazis. They told you how much money you could make. So-called free enterprise didn't have any freedoms. So what I described to you is a form of socialism (National Socialism), which is left-wing. The Wikipedia, like most of the media, is flat-out wrong. The media is not to be trusted. So go ahead, carlfense, and look at that video again if you have. Draw your own conclusions. But the more you think about through other resources that explain what Nazism really was, I think you will find that I'm correct. We will talk again. God Bless.

Yes, I have also heard liberals being called it by some conservatives -- that's not right either. So I agree with you all there. What I am saying is the far-lefties like Nancy Pelosi refer to conservatives like Rush Limbough as Nazis when she and others like her have a few (not entirely) socialist ideas. They deny that Nazism and fascism is a branch of socialism and want to label it right, which is ridiculous. True conservatives are very far away from socialism of any kind. I think one reason why the far left refers to conservatives as Nazis is because they have it planted in their minds that right wingers who don't agree with left-wing policies are racists. (Racism is neither left or right.) Some of the most conservative people think that anyone left of center are socialists (I don't think that is true) and therefore call them Nazis, if not communists.

No question this is the team I want to beat more than anything. UT thinks they own us, and if you based it solely on the record since 1996, they are correct -- 1 and 8. However, except for that 31-7 loss in 2003, every game was close to the end. They have hardly dominated us.

Folks I know that sometimes we use the R word in a slang way and don't intend to make fun of the mentally handicap, but please be careful about using it. It is hurtful to some. As far as this analyst, who cares what he thinks. Most out there believe Suh is the better player, and I am not taking anything away from McCoy -- he's a great player.

The reason I post this is you have heard far-left leaning politicians and journalists in this country call conservatives Nazis. Since when have conservatives been socialists? Since when have conservatives believed in a centralized government having complete control over the economy and having complete control over every phase of our lives? I'm not saying progressives in this country are Nazis or fascists, but they are closer to it than conservatives.

Those secular progressives who compare conservatives to Nazis have no idea what they are talking about. Hitler clearly was left. Progressive's socialist beliefs are a bit (edit) closer to Nazism. (Edited out video. Carlfense is correct that I contradicted myself by saying I don't trust the media but yet I do trust a You Tube video. Unfortunately, I'm unable to edit the title of this thread.)

Perhaps the Florida spread option. It has a power element to it, and the QBs we have in the future could run it. It seems like some element of the spread option is coming with the type of QBs we have recruited. Did I read that Carnes never received a snap directly behind center -- always in the shot gun?

I will admit I don't know much about Buffalo, but I suspect that KSU has a much nicer stadium (I've seen it) than what BU has. And KSU facilities likely have been much better than what Buffalo's ever had. And the MAC is barely Division I. Buffalo is the bottom of the pit. There can't be a worst job. It's way too soon to judge whether Gill is as good or not as good as Bill Snyder. Wait four or five years. So respectfully you might be comparing apples to oranges. Yes, the Saturdays we play KU will be war. But otherwise, I don't consider Gill a traitor -- I respectfully don't agree with nillie. Be happy for him that he landed a coaching job in a major conference at a school that made it to a BCS bowl just few years ago. KU made it to the top 10 in 1995 and even in 1968. I see this as a decent job. KU has shown a lot more in football than NU has ever shown in men's basketball.

Jayhawk: Where's your posts Dude? Please chime in. I for one think the Gill hire is intriguing. He has brought in a real-good coaching staff, and I expect him to recruit well in Texas. Keep in mind that he was coaching perhaps the worst program in the universe, and probably had an ultra difficult time recruiting players there. So it's possible he did about as well as any coach could do there.

1) Who do we have left to play on our regular-season schedule? 2) Who do we have coming back next year? Is this a one-time deal or do we have enough young talent coming in among returning players -- what's the future for Lady Husker basketball?

I think Carnes is great because he signed with us. I would have thought he is terrible if he didn't. No I'm not excited about CG anymore. He is no longer an in-coming freshman. But because Carnes and Turner are not here yet, I'm excited about them.

Whoops! Wrong thread. -- Edit

Would it be that big of a deal to you if he said yes to NU? Come on and admit it. It's only because he didn't sign here. Don't call him a prima donna. We can't get 'em all. Edit: OK, I missed the part that you said he is a prima donna whether he signed with us or not. But I still don't agree having a press conference makes him one. I wish him well.