ColoNoCoHusker

Hang in there; I have family, friends, colleagues, and employees that are LBFTQIA and are dealing the same emotional burden, some for a very long time. I believe it will get better as more people realize they can no longer sit on the sidelines. My heart & thoughts go out to you. As far as the favoritism, I think the issue is familiarity. I notice the longer a poster has been here, the more leeway the member seems to be given with posts that would appear to violate the rules. I think as Mods/Admins get to know someone's posting style, they interpret the post in favor of the poster. With newer members, they seem to focus purely on the wording without interpretation or much benefit of the doubt. I think it's a consequence of having mods/admins that are so active in the forum. This is just my perspective, though.

Obama gets a bad wrap over that. GW set the course on letting them off the hook before Obama got sworn in with the way the bailout was structured. As a result there wasn't much Obama could do that wouldn't end up being an economic nuclear option. The Repub's were also hell-bent on not breaking up any of the banks which sorely is needed... He could have not hired Wall Street execs to his team for one. He also could have charge them for crimes, and fined the hell out of them. Not on the last part with the way GW structured/organized the bailout without blowing up the industry. We worked with HUD & the big banks helping with the cleanup/sorting of the dead. There were a lot of backroom deals from GW around the bailout. Obama wasn't left with room to maneuver without making the downturn much worse. Why would several banks spend in excess of $50mil to buy up worthless mortgage pools and not initiate mortgage proceedings? I am not defending Obama but the blame needs to fit. EDIT: And as far as Wall St execs, that's what every POTUS does even Trump. Generally they are pulled from WS rather having been forced out as say a GS exec/partner but that is the path. There are several books on how GS owns our government going back at least since WWII. It's not good but IIWII...

You asking GSG? He loves athletes with mittens, or wrenches. Either one...

His twitter & the interwebs say he's grayshirting at 'bama... https://www.google.com/#q=Jarez+Parks+greyshirt

I've been hearing the same story from different senior management sources at 3 of the 5 largest healthcare insurance providers over the last week. The info is very consistent across unrelated sources but I cannot find anything that proves this is actual policy. Most of the large insurance providers' leadership has been speaking with Trump's staff since the election trying to feel out direction with ACA. Trump's administration has settled on a position that is basically: insurance companies will know what is going on with ACA in 2018 on 1/1/2018. It sounds like the WH is trying to create enough uncertainty so most of the insurance providers choose to leave the exchanges on their own. This will functionally repeal the ACA and force an actual repeal. Will be interesting to see what happens here...

Obama gets a bad wrap over that. GW set the course on letting them off the hook before Obama got sworn in with the way the bailout was structured. As a result there wasn't much Obama could do that wouldn't end up being an economic nuclear option. The Repub's were also hell-bent on not breaking up any of the banks which sorely is needed...

Here's the two best independent agencies for testing/rating AV software. Anything on their list is a legit/safe product on its own. Only one I would recommend staying away from is Webroot but that is data privacy rather than software issue. https://www.av-test.org/en/ https://www.av-comparatives.org/ As far as getting rid of all that malware/crapware, I would recommend wiping the laptop. It will be way less effort and its the easiest guarantee you will get rid of it all. If you want to PM me O/S, make/model of laptop, happy to give you some direction here...

I have been very confused by Repub politician's position on TPP. They are typically in favor of say, a Canadian pipeline through the midwest. They are against a trade agreement that gives US more access/influence to Pacific Rim markets and help keep China in check. The TPP as it sat needed a LOT of changes but from economic perspective, scrapping it really went against traditional Republican dogma...

I am happy to be a broken here. What evidence is there the process is/has been broken? How does a ban make it better/easier/faster/cheaper/more reliable to fix the vetting process? The analogies are endless but, as with anything, if it cannot be Quantified (i.e measured in real numbers), how can anyone hope to make it better? Whether it's football scores, number of terrorist acts by refugees, number of terrorist attacks by immigrants, improving business revenue, etc. the process of improvement is the same. Otherwise it is nothing more than propaganda, period. This goes for ANY party/candidate. I am completely in favor of continuous improvement of our immigration & refugee vetting process. Let's define the problem, though. There is no valid reason to presuppose the process is completely broken and this ban is valid based on any Quantitative measure. Couple that with the history of the EO's authors/sponsors and this carries every indication of being racially or religiously motivated.

Having problem with multi-quote button, atm... Oade & others - I think everyone agrees it would be great to improve our vetting. The question that nobody can answer is HOW does this ban do improve our vetting; WHAT changes need to be made to our vetting; and, HOW has the vetting from these countries failed? Everyone has an opinion on whether this process is broken or not. Myself and others are looking for Quantitative evidence which demonstrates the US vetting process for these countries has been inadequate. Otherwise, this discussion is going to continue to spin its wheels and go nowhere as feelings aren't typically grounded in facts (human issue, not calling anyone out).

I can respect where some feel that identifying posters by name can feel dirty or attacking. That said, the problem cannot be addressed if that doesn't happen either via PM or in a topic such as this. Maybe I am missing where the posts have gotten so bad as to make people feel unsafe. The times where it gets contentious is when: A) Poster states an opinion and is unwilling/unable to provide evidence for that opinion; 2) Poster states a position and when contrary evidence is presented, gets frustrated/upset rather than addressing it; C) Poster wrote X but meant Y - the mind readers steer clear of P&R so this is going to be an issue. Surprisingly, none of this is unique to Huskerboard. If you have a position you want share, provide evidence for it. This applies to everyone. Most people have a tendency to read/assume tone on what they read. We all need to try and not do that, especially on a message board. Everyone has a different writing/language style and it is easy to misinterpret a statement if you guess the wrong tone. If you don't want to write more than a few words, the P&R forum is probably not the best place for this posting style. These are tough topics that generally cannot be meaningfully discussed in 7-10 word answers.

I think if my dad raised us today, his opinion on playing youth football would be to wait rather than need to play it. Personally, I think kids need to play sports. Don't care which and if flag football was my son's interest, I'm fine with that. Football is a complex sport and requires a lot of confidence; as long as kids are doing some type of sport, they can start tackle football in middle school and be fine, imo. I think your approach is a good one.

I think it is worth trying. It's funny they mention flag football; that has gotten much more popular around my area the last few years at the expense of traditional youth football. When I coached competitive youth league, I was amazed at how much play there was in some of the equipment. It has gotten much better but I think that is still part of the problem. I had a few kids that outgrew their equipment by the middle of the season. Rugby is also taking a huge toll on youth football numbers out here. For the parents, the issue is child safety but also $$.

Good choice, great mind/author. If you like Krugman's works, I would recommend reading David Landes' Wealth & Poverty of Nations at some point. It's Euro-centric and Euro-biased, BUT, if you can keep that in check, it's an interesting attempt to look at economic histories from wide range of aspects/impact (social, geographic, political, climactic, etc).

I think the reason cheating by the Pat's gets so much play is because the Pat's have been so good, they'd win without it. The better the team, the higher the standard/expectations around this. Their performance under Belichick has been nothing short of astounding

Trying to cleanup the quote, BRI... So this ban improving our immigration is based on hoping that it leads to a better process. You are also comfortable with trusting the "eyesight" of the current administration over facts & figures? Bannon and a few others have a track record of poor "eyesight" by most measures but I "see" what you are saying. I guess I'm not comfortable ignoring ALL the evidence to this point to make the large assumptions that you are in "hoping" this is more/different than it is. I don't see how Trump/Bannon's opinion qualifies as "real intel". I also don't see how, within days of taking office, this intel would exist given how Trump has handled our Intelligence Agencies in his first week. By all accounts, these Agencies were not involved in this decision; if there was "real intel" it would have leaked, especially with the people that were forced out.

The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows. 1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot. 2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States. 3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner). 4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned. The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point: 1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens. 2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety. Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here: His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again. In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level. Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that. The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows. 1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot. 2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States. 3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner). 4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned. The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point: 1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens. 2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety. Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here: His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again. In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level. Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that. The differences between Obama's ban and this one are as follows. 1. It was a response to a specific terrorist threat of Iraqis in Bowling Green who slipped in and were planning a plot. 2. It only effected refugees trying to gain asylum here. It did not have any effect on people with visas or green cards - aka, people who were coming home to the United States. 3. It led to actual reform of the refugee vetting process, which I suppose we will wait to see if Trump's plan does as well (in a constitutional manner). 4. Obama's hault was for one country for 60 days. Trump's is for 90 days for 6 countries, but Syria, who's citizens are in desperate need of aid, is indefinitely banned. The Constitution allows people the freedom to not have the interests of the Constitution in mind. That's the beautiful thing about it. Obviously, we don't want terrorists here, and we don't want people who won't be law-abiding, but two things to that point: 1. Again - the refugee vetting is about as good as can be. 99.99999% of refugees who have made it here have been law-abiding citizens. 2. Freedom comes at the cost of safety. There is nothing stopping me from walking down the hall and murdering my office mates right now. We have to decide if safety is more important, because you can't have complete freedom and complete safety in the same social structure. It's impossible to be 100% certain that everyone here is 'good', that can't ever be achieved, so should we not let anyone in? I was under the assumption that freedom was the overriding quality we fought for in America. This EO and the arguments of many (not accusing you), seem to suggest that freedom should take a back seat to safety. Also, to those accusing BRI of being personally responsible as a Trump voter, 3:43 here: His ban of Iraqi immigrants was for 6 months from everything I've read. During a time we were at war in the region so I could see where folks might say that's dangerous as well because folks fleeing from there were in need of our assistance during that time. I think the green card thing was a disaster and that can't happen again. In reference to the vetting process and the "good as it can be" comment. We need to constantly evaluate what we're doing here as a country in response to changing threats around the globe. Thinking like that can lead to problems and instead of saying that you should be asking, "can we do more to ensure our safety?" If this action leads to a safer nation then the process was worth evaluating. I do not like that folks that were "coming home" were affected by this situation. That was a major mess up in this situation regardless of whether they were checking their status again or not. That probably could've been done to some extent at the administrative level. Lastly, thanks for the video, I think some folks need to watch that. That was a horrible video; at no point did Stewart blame BRI so not worth watching Not picking on you BRI, but the question I and others are asking is HOW does this ban lead to improving our immigration vetting and WHY can't that be done without a unilateral ban? It seems like we can review our immigration procedures and improve our vetting without this ban. I am also not seeing any actual evidence for the direct threat every one of these countries poses. I'm not trying to belabor the point or pick on you. I just see there being a difference between improving our vetting VS banning immigration/travel. There is nothing that is connecting one to the other atm...

These people are just trying to make a living. Have you tried living in the D.C. area on the paltry income given to these civil servants? Seriously though, those private equity offers aren't going to purchase themselves. It's market stimulus... /s

It's basically the 2017 version of the pony posse Can't believe the site is allowing this type of thing again. Should be fun to watch at least

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban? Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites. If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik You and the press are using the word Ban! Thanks for that Colo, so need I say more? Is there a reason I need to speak further on this. It points at a fault, a point of weakness. Maybe vetting him, would not have impacted 9/11. Maybe it will prevent another 9/11 in the future. OH WAIT, they are not on the list of countries who are risky. We should do no more than we already are, it's all good. Europe says hello! I am asking how the case you identified is related to this thread? Europe does not define our immigration policy(s), so again that has nothing to do with it other emoting. As I have stated, I am all for improving our vetting process. Can you give an example how this does that? Also, how does this immigration ban improve or change the situation with Malik?

So, I guess I have to ask, what would you like to see happen if you stop a person who you suspect is illegal? ICE should come out to our location, take information from this individual to register them and then get them on the road to citizenship. OK...I can handle that. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time, there isn't a road to citizenship that this person can be put on. I know one side in the past few elections has talked about a fast track to citizenship and the other side ridiculed it and voted for the guy who talked about having a deportation force and deporting millions of people who are here illegal. Nope, there isn't, but Trump has backed off of deporting everyone from what I understand. He's mainly talking about those that are criminals from what I've heard. Do we want those folks here? I personally don't, we've got enough criminals at this point. I do recall something Trump or someone on his team stated that being in the US illegally is by definition a criminal act when they were out here campaigning. Not finding the link but there needs to a distinction of what constitutes "criminal". I do volunteer work that has illegal/undocumented aliens as a large part of the serviced contingency. In my experience, these are the people that we should want to keep in this country. They are typically (99/100) better contributors & law-abiders than people born here.

Who immigrated to the US from Pakistan, married to the son of Pakistani immigrants. Pakistan - a country absent from the immigration ban. So how does that case justify Trump's ban? Again, I am happy to look at improving our vetting procedures or actually improving them. However, the current ban would have had NO impact on this case nor the 9/11 attacks. These are the two examples the EO cites. If we aren't going to address an actual problem, what are we doing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizwan_Farook_and_Tashfeen_Malik