Ponderosa

If Texas is at a 10 year low - it doesn't mean they are dangerous. It means they stink. Their running game is right there with the likes of Akron, Toledo and 2-4 Tennessee. Heck KSU had higher averages in yards/game and points scored/game than Texas. And at least KSU beat UCLA. I want see Horns beaten bad enough that ISU beats them the following week. Ya' know - an old school thrashing. GBR!

Cee Lo Green - Forget You Here is the link for: F**k Y** (NSFW).

Nebraska - 49 Texas - 17 Rushing: 350 Passing: 175

Isn't it time to end the Hester as receiver experiment? I don't doubt that he is capable but he should be allowed save his energy for both KO and punt returns. The offense got a TD but so did Hester. Let Hester be Hester! I only heard the game on radio (don't ask) - so I couldn't judge - but how many near picks did Cutler have on the last drive? Yikes. Still Cutler has gotten much better. (thanks suh_fan93)

Guess I am part of the "koolaid gang". Yeah sure I'd prefer a 70-3 blow-out. But I see this as "progress" for Coach Pelini and staff. It could have be the Iowa State game again (but even worse). The stats are similar - so was the nature of the opponent (hungry, local, overlooked) But this time the game was won and with a rookie QB. This only the beginning of his third season. Back to one game at a time. It is a very positive sign. Hell it is a great sign. KSU will have a long day.

Heh. If a two loss UCLA team can be them in Austin... Maybe that is why Texas was afraid to go to the Pac-10? Just askin'.

The replay is blocked. Jeez

GBR!

I just got switched as well. I want be mad - but it is frickin' awesome!

NU - 35 WU - 17 Rush - 350 Pass - 200

Nebraska - 56 Idaho - 10 Rushing - 325 yards Passing - 250 yards

I thought they looked good. Very good. To me the defense has to adjust to the "problem" of the offense scoring quickly. After the first quarter the TOP was WKU 11:16 to Neb 3:44. Two 3-play drives - each drive was barely over minute. Up 14-0. End of 3: TOP 26:21 to 18:39 in WKU's favor. Still WKU doesn't score the TD until the 4th after it is already 35-3. The game is won and the defense is perhaps a little tired so they let their focus wanders. Bo won't let them forget it. I'm good with a 39 point victory. It could be much worse. OU only won by 7.

Huskers 49 Hilltoppers 13 Rushing 300 Passing 225

The Game is flapjacked. Damn shame to see tOSU/Michigan broken up. I didn't think it would happen. If they'd swap Wisconsin and Michigan, I'd say the division breakdown would be near perfect. It looks like they did it right. I'm pretty happy with it - but I'm interested in what the Big 10 guys think.

What's the value, you say? Hmmm...well...becasue that would be the actual argument against 51 Park Place - drained of the vitriol. Not the straw-men setup and re-framed by MSNBC, Olby, the DNC, NYT, Bloomberg, etc. It is not an attack on religion, the President (he waded in after the fact), the Constitution or any of the other garbage put out there. No, the actual factual argument is religious intolerance, as has been explained in plain English several times in this thread. We know that because if it wasn't a religious issue we wouldn't even care about it. This center isn't political in nature, it isn't a "victory trophy" or whatever else you want to call it. It's a religious center focusing on a specific religious belief, one that is time and time and time and time and time again linked to the 9/11 attack - by you as well as others, in this very thread, no less. We know it's not political because Islam is not a political movement. We know that it's focused specifically on Islam because there are several churches in the vicinity - even closer to Ground Zero than this joint - yet nobody is making threads about them. You're welcome to pretend this has nothing to do with religion, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you do. 'Cause then if it is political - then you'd be wrong. We can't have that, now can we? And oh that's right. Silly me. If person "A" knows that person "B" has the heart of bigot, well then certainly person "A" knows what point person "B" is really trying to make. And the people who support the project, take those who oppose it - on religious grounds, seriously, um...how? By dismissing them as intolerant bigots. OK so - don't like the point dismiss it; if the point doesn't fit the storyline reframe, then dismiss it. Got it. And finally - no, no - I have not linked it to 9/11. In point of fact, I have not actually given my opinion. And none have bothered to ask.

What "side" are you talking about? If you think I'm a Liberal, you'd better think again. I spent most of the Bush administration shaking my finger at all the ridiculous Bush-bashers out there (note - only the ridiculous ones). Just because there's a Liberal in office, doesn't mean I'm going to stop shaking my finger. I'm a Moderate, my man, registered Independent for over 10 years now. Come join me - the water's fine. You don't overreact to the nonsense out there, you don't have to declare "this guy" or "that guy" as your enemy, and you can in general stay away from the fray out there. I specifically wrote: "...on your side of the issues." I do not presume you are easily defined. And I'm sure you consider yourself to be a 'moderate' most do and you may well be. But again, I find your willing acceptance of the Niemoller inference to be bothersome. However, I'm just some random guy in a political thread - what the "heck" do I know about you? A: Next to nothing. Anyway, I really should go do something more productive. Have an excellent day.

What's the value, you say? Hmmm...well...becasue that would be the actual argument against 51 Park Place - drained of the vitriol. Not the straw-men setup and re-framed by MSNBC, Olby, the DNC, NYT, Bloomberg, etc. It is not an attack on religion, the President (he waded in after the fact), the Constitution or any of the other garbage put out there.

Yes - I am well aware of what it means and I don't like it. I'd rather discuss policy differences and if I am in error be allowed to make corrections. So fine - withdrawn. What do you concede? What then is the appropriate response to: eight years of Bush=Hitler, bigot, racist, fascist, liar, hateful, no blood for oil, homophobe, "When did you stop beating your dog?", etc. ad nauseum? Having one's motives relentlessly questioned. Oppose the President on policy issue - racist. Oppose HCR - unpatriotic. And yes it is cynical shouting down opponents as "bigots" - even if you think you are completely justified. Perhaps I've missed, it but I haven't see you call out anyone on your side of the issues (not as "moderator knapplc" but as "citizen knapplc"). Even you bought into Olby's Niemoller inference except you used a different poem. Have you foresworn the use of the word "bigot" (and like terms) when making your point?

I doubt I'll make any more headway with you than others in this thread. So when you say, "Those who are protesting..." - I read that as being "All who are protesting..." or as "Nearly all who are protesting...". Is that a fair assessment? In the sense that I worded it poorly. It should be, "Those who are protesting simply because it is a building that is associated with the Muslim faith..." It is possible that there are those who protest it for other reasons - I haven't heard of any, but that does not negate the fact that they might be out there. To date, the only objections I have heard have been based on the idea that the building is an affront to the memory of 9/11. That's simply another way of saying, "The people who commited the terrorist acts of 9/11 were Muslims - and since the people creating the building are Muslim, it's bad and and an insult to those who died on 9/11." Again, it's the same logic that would hold that all Christians are bad because the bombers of the federal building in Oklahoma City were Christians. Ah, OK. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is not blind fear and a deep-seated bigotry the of the religion itself - neither in part, nor in whole. But, and perhaps you won't answer a hypothetical, but what if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to you - your standards) that this specific group is in fact building a "Victory Center"? Leaving any religious elements aside - if the building is a political symbol/statement by a specific group. So, all the while maintaining their Constitutional right(s) to build the center, as the specific group sees fit. And merely your own internal and unexpressed, personal opinion. Not in action, not in deed, but in thought alone. Not lifting a finger or nor saying a word. [To yourself] Would you then oppose it?

As usual, you make no attempt at dialogue. Actually, I've posted more of my own words in this thread than you have. Fair enough (to the bold). But point isn't about a single position. I agree with the following: The article is not referring to a single policy issue - at least that is not how I view it. To restate using Manhattan's format: Person suporting: Arguments "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", etc. Person opposing: Argument "You're a bigot." That is different from: Person opposing: Counter-argument "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", etc. ---- As Krauthammers says, it "preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument." If the intent is to shut people up. If the purpose is to simply "win" the debate with ad hominem attacks, rhetorical tricks and simple assertions - that's fine. At least I know.

As usual, you make no attempt at dialogue.

Actual facts or gut-instinct work for me. Who is going to have a break-through year? I like what I've seen from J. Best RB DET. In fact, I like Detroit: QB, RB, WRs, even D/ST. D/ST is probably a case of homer-ism. Suh is going to break someone.

Here you go. Complete the non-comparison, comparison of the opposition to Germans of the 20s and 30s. And also creating a collective guilt for all of "us" for the actions of one unidentified person in Florida. Do it to "us" and it is enlightened. Do it to any other group and it is bigoted. Nice touch.

From the Wall Street Journal on 8/27/2010 LINK