wildman

If were not racing at Eagle Saturday i'll make an appearance.

Only HuskerJen's panty size and wifi's max bench But for real everyone I have met in person from huskerboard with very few exceptions has been surprisingly down-to-earth, well-rounded and fun to talk to. No socially awkward internet nerds except maybe me. Oh, but stay away from PaulCrewe that guy is the literal worst. Sweet. Well I guess you guys can plan on myself making an appearance. so your admiting you know husker jen's panty size? or are you more into wifi? lol

Thank you for the reply. I agree we shouldn't invade every country with a tyrant. Especially when we cant take care of our own. With how unemployment grew larger. Plus with the homeless we have in this country. To me those issues, plus economy should be fixed prior to going and solving issues in another country. Yes we left it a mess no arguing that. But to me that is Obama's fault for pulling out to early. Since we went in and was changing them to be more western world. With how their country was run and pretty much how they had no military for support. We should of stayed there much longer, making it another Korea style base. But only should of stayed longer if and only if the locals were showing support for the change and military growing and getting better.

We weren't doing the invading in WWII. In fact, the truth has to be stretched to the breaking point to even get Iraq and WWII into the same conversation. What truth is being stretched in my post? I am simply stating that war used to be that we would go in and blow up everything and that was acceptable because we knew it had to be done to win. Now days, our military has gone to great lengths and amazing amounts of money per bomb to do everything we can to not kill innocent people and they are constantly criticized for doing so. This point has nothing to do with if we are the invader or not. Wildman seemed to get the gist of my post. Sorry you didn't. The reason there is more criticism now is based on the popular opinion of the war, good or bad. WWII-Popular opinion was good. No one cares how we win. Just win Vietnam-Popular opinion was bad, so our soldiers we deemed baby killers Afghanistan-Twin Towers go down, Popular opinion was pretty good so there wasn't much criticism Iraq-Popular opinion is bad so our soldiers are criticized again. That makes sense. However, I believe that with the media the way it is now in war zones, if we didn't have the technology that we do now and we were bombing afghan the way we bombed cities in WWII, the popular feelings would not be so nice to our military. valid point. Due to the news we are seeing wars in a different way and more upclose then we use to.

Well said +1

I disagree with this. When we go to war with someone yes total annihilation makes them surrender. There is no arguing that. But we go to war with their government not their local people. Blowing up, destroying, taking over government buildings and killing their soldiers. Weighs in more on a government. Then killing a bunch of locals and blowing up a supermarket, coffee shop and retail stores. funny thing is, when we went to war in WWII, we blew everything to hell. We flew huge bombers thousands of feet above and dropped bombs that literally just fell no what ever was in it's path. Huge cities were turned to ruins from literally bombing them like this for weeks. Meanwhile, in the Iraq war, our military uses bombs so precise they can hit individual houses from miles away. Yes, some went a stray but not from lack of trying to be precise. We would sometimes NOT bomb because of too many pedestrians in the way. We would bomb at night partly because fewer people would be in government buildings. And.....WWII is held up as the great war that we fought right. Iraq, we are a bunch of heathens that bomb innocent people. Both Iraq and Germany were led by tyrants that the world is better off without and in the end, both are gone from the face of the earth. good point. But drastic differences in both wars. 1. In world war 2 we killed a lot of innocent civilians. But the bombs we had were not as advanced as we have now. So we couldn't guide them into take out just government buildings and military targets. Plus spare the civilians like we can now. 2. Now that have the technology to do it civilians being killed now because of stray missiles and guided bombs is scene as a much worse offense then it use to be. killing innocent civilians is never a good thing. I'm sure a lot of the guided bombs we have now was do to how many civilians were killed because of our government in Germany and Japan. We learned from our mistakes

It wasn't just the general lies about WMDs/nukes it was the specifics. The aluminum tubes that are only used for centrifuges. The yellow cake forgeries (that were known to be forgeries!) and were still presented as factual. Etc. These were false (and known to be false) and were still used to beat the war drum. I'm glad that you survived. I'm saddened that so many didn't. Personally, I think that the politicians who vote to wage that kind of war should be required to join the frontline units. It might help them understand the true costs. Ok yea I see where you coming from. Yes I think it should be mandatory that everyone serves at least 2 years in the military. It's not for everyone. Even if you don't make it thats fine. A lot of those that enlist don't make it. I only made it through 4 years myself. But the pride I have and work ethics I got out of it are not matched anywhere other than maybe college sports. To me the discipline enough is good enough for everyone to give it a 2 year try. Yea I agree I think politicians should be in the combat zone with the troops and lead in by Generals like they use to be. It'd make going to war a much harder decision.

I disagree with this. When we go to war with someone yes total annihilation makes them surrender. There is no arguing that. But we go to war with their government not their local people. Blowing up, destroying, taking over government buildings and killing their soldiers. Weighs in more on a government. Then killing a bunch of locals and blowing up a supermarket, coffee shop and retail stores.

Thank you for replying both of you. I love talking about this, will never argue it. Cause as we all know we have the right to our own opinion. I love hearing others as you have a different view point then I had. Yall see the news reports and heard what was on tv. I got to see most of it through my own eyes and in military reports. Both of yall stated it was under false pretenses. I'm assuming your talking about the wmd's here. I agree none were found and points to us being lied to. If thats the case I'd agree with you. But one of the things i've seen, that people i've talked never heard about. Was that we had troops that set up base in Baghdad, lived there for months. That happened to of been in a empty dirt lot where fighter jets were buried. No one knew they were there until a soldier walking back from guard duty. Happened to kick some dirt uncovering part of the tail fin. They thought it was unexploded ordinance and called in EOD. They ended up finding 2 or 3 fighter jets buried there. With the engines and other important mechanical parts covered in plastic protecting them. After inspection they were deemed flyable after being cleaned up. Also read some of the reports about where inspectors were taken to find wmd's. Saying they were taken to a empty sandy lot told they are buried out here. I've been on convoy's going from Baghdad to Kuwait. To describe what that would be like is taking you to a empty field between Lincoln and Grand Island saying well the tractor is buried out there somewhere. From my perspective we were welcome with open arms. Not in all locations, but for the most part that I seen we were. We came in and got rid of a guy that was torturing and killing them. Plus had 2 sons per their stories were worse then he was. So were we lied to by Bush and the administration yea probably. But could there be wmd's and we just never found them yea I would say it's possible. I hope they are found someday so that everyone feels better about being there. Honestly don't think it'll ever happen though. I agree I wish we never would of lost one American soldier, or any soldier from a supporting country. Carlfense your welcome for the service. But please don't feel sorry that I had to go, i signed up wanting to go. I'm damn proud of what i've done and been through there. I am honored to say I helped get rid of a dictator and provide that country freedom. For as little as it may last.

I'll go with that - as far as going forward. I'm thinking of in a historical sense as we look back. Interestingly, the only other war to span more than one presidency (decided via election - ignoring Wilson/Truman) was the Vietnam war. That was started by Johnson and finished by Nixon. After America left, North Vietnam crushed the south and united the country. History remembers Vietnam not as belonging to Nixon or Johnson, but as a huge mistake. Bush caused the war, Johnson dramatically escalated the war. Nixon & Obama were left to clean up disastrous messes, and did so as best they could. There was never a right way to end Vietnam or Iraq - we never should have been in either place, and the end was messy. I've served 2 deployments in Iraq. I'm always curious on why people say or think we shouldn't of been there. So I'm curious to hear your reason. If you don't mind sharing.

What are you thinking of putting in the tank? honestly I don't know. I have a hard time with that. Because I love bright colorful fish. but you really don't have that option in fresh water. I do love eels but don't think you can really keep one in that small of a tank. That's why we went with cichlids this time. cichlids are beautiful fish. I just don't have a tank I can put them in. I have found some bright colored fish that are classified as tropical freshwater. If you havn't seen any should look them up. But I bet no store in Lincoln carries them.

This lobster would be cool to have.

What are you thinking of putting in the tank? honestly I don't know. I have a hard time with that. Because I love bright colorful fish. but you really don't have that option in fresh water. I do love eels but don't think you can really keep one in that small of a tank.

Here are some elements of Article 85 of the UCMJ (desertion): It's a grey area but I suppose you could define what Bergdahl did as desertion even if he did have the intent to return to his unit at some point. The hard part would be proving that his dereliction of duty (Article 92) came about because he wanted to avoid hazardous duty. But then again was he ever alleged as a deserter? I know he was kept on Army rosters. sh#t's crazy, yo. It'll sure be interesting to see what happens down the road with this case. I agree it's a crazy deal. It'll be difficult to prove. They have to show he did it with out intent of returning. Or to avoid hazardous duty. Which he was already in Afghanistan so i'm not sure if that would even work.

Why are you convinced that he did desert? Are you a mind reader? Sounds like the whole "leaving a letter" story was fraudulent. How else are you going to get to his mental state/intentions? As I stated in an earlier post, it has been widely known throughout circles within the Army that he deserted. And this was very soon after he bailed. As I have also stated several times, his own platoon mates stated as such. Do you not believe them? If not, why? How do you even know he deserted? Per UCMJ awol is leaving, disapearing, not being where you are suppose to be. Plus have the intent to reenter into the military. for ex. your unit gets deployment notice. you flee to Canada and return when your unit returns from deployment. Per UCMJ desertion is leaving, disapearing, not being where you are suppose to be. Without having the intent to reenter into the military. Which can be punished by death. now tell me again how you know he deserted?

ok I didn't think i was remembering it quite right. But honestly what is the difference between that and a bad snap? So would it just be a judgmental call? I know most linemen just fall on the ball and play is over. But really what is to stop them from picking it up and running with it? Since a fumble can be picked up and advanced, unless the rule is stating linemen only can not advance it. NCAA yea I'm trying to information on the ruling of it. But so far nothing other than it was banned following 1992 season. But several teams have used it since then. Even seen that Presbetyrian College ran the bouncarooski against Wake Forrest a couple years ago.

ok I didn't think i was remembering it quite right. But honestly what is the difference between that and a bad snap? So would it just be a judgmental call? I know most linemen just fall on the ball and play is over. But really what is to stop them from picking it up and running with it? Since a fumble can be picked up and advanced, unless the rule is stating linemen only can not advance it.

I've never understood how it's illegal. The play as I remember it would be snapped to the qb. Who would instantly hand it back to center. The linemen, qb and running backs would roll to the left or right indicating that is where the play is going. When the defense went that direction the center would run the opposite way with the ball. I'm sure i'm missing something as the play was just before my time. Plus I havn't read the rule on it. So if this can be explained it would be nice. As for us running trick plays. I'd like to see them as they are fun to watch. Id love to see Bo call Annexation of Puerto Rico [aka fumblerooski] during a red/white game.

shows Id like to see come back Friends MacGyver Blue Mountain State

1) Big Ten vs SEC Matchups are Getting More Lopsided I think it's foolish of the author to assume that the Big Ten will continue to struggle against the SEC because they have struggled against them in the first half of the decade. Operating under that assumption, the Big Ten should've "dominated" the SEC in the 1990s because they were 6-4 against SEC teams in the first half of the 90s. But the SEC reversed that trend in the second half going 12-5 against Big Ten teams to finish with a 16-11 record. Similarly, the SEC was 12-7 against the Big Ten in the first half of the 2000s, and should have gone on to decimate the Big Ten; yet the conference versus conference record ended at 18-15 meaning the Big Ten was 11-3 agains the SEC in the second half of the 2000s. And like many have mentioned here and elsewhere, the match ups are in fact getting closer, not more lopsided. 2) The Additions of Maryland and Rutgers Will Dilute Football Even More Maryland and Rutgers weren't brought into the Big Ten for football reasons, they were brought in for financial reasons. I agree that both teams aren't the football powerhouses that Virginia Tech and North Carolina (?) would have been. But how can the author even proclaim this as a "fact" when neither team has played a snap in the Big Ten? 3) To Be a Top Conference, You Have to Win National Championships To be the top conference, you have to win national championships (and you could debate that point as well). But there should be no denying that the Big Ten is a top conference. Under this statement, only the SEC and the laughable ACC would be top conferences. 4) Ohio State and Wisconsin Carried the Big Ten Through the BCS Era. Agreed. 5) The NFL Does Not View Its Talent as Elite. I don't know why top ten pick is used as a cutoff to determine elite status. It's arbitrary and is being used out of convenience to claim the SEC's dominance over the Big Ten. I would like to see how many total NFL players each conference comprises. James Laurinitis is still Big Ten talent the last I checked. 6) In Recruiting, It's Second Tier, Not Second Best. Why the distinction? It can definitely be argued that Big Ten recruiting is second best behind the SEC. Disagree again. 7) 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren't Currently Elite. Agreed. 2/7...not bad. Plus 1, and as far as number 7 I agree. Currently not elite. That could all change very quickly. I totally agree with your point on number 3. Also, like you said in your first point, this guy takes a small sample size and acts like its the historical rule. This just isn't the case and it's idiotic to do that., the way the game changes Oregon and the PAC 12 could start winning championships this year. Stanford andmOregon both have been knocking on the door. It won't mean they are suddenly world beaters, or better than the SEC or Big Ten. It just means they are having success right now. If Oregon, Stanford or anyone else wins a mnc. Would mean they were the best that year only. Now if Pac 12 won 9 championships in a row like the SEC. Then they would be the best conference out there as winning 1 is tough that many in a row would be difficult to do. Would deserve respect for that. But the thing is most people don't look at the past, they look at the now. Which is why the article was written about today was to get the average readers attention. Most schools or fans seem to look over x number of years any more to judge a coach. They want a turn around and success now, not wait for tomorrow. With some schools achieving success with a new coach shows that it can be done. Because of that i feel is why were are in the what can you do for me now stage in sports. Which is why we see coaches being let go after 2 or 3 years. Because fans are starting to care more about the now, not the past. The past is great i love seeing things about the 90's as that is when I grew up learning about football. But that does nothing for me now. I want to see the team improve and be competitive now. People like me that looks at the team now, not in the past is who the article is written for.

I love aquariums, had several growing up. I currently have a 29 gallon tank that is needing some fish. As of right now all I have in it is a king crown tail beta. Which I might hit the fish store tonight as my aquarium sounds really sad.

I'm far from convinced this would be good for the sport. I just see a greater division being created between the top tier schools and everyone else. Increased parity is part of what has improved CFB IMO. Anything that pushes us away from that is bad for the sport. This could work great, or it could be a total failure. I just see Alabama concentrating 2 million a year on 30 5* kids, and Nebraska getting left with a bunch of 2 and 3* guys half way down our board. yes Alabama may spend that much for 30 offers to fill say 19 spots. But if their offers and the commitments are enforced by the NCAA to be just more than paper. That would leave 81 more of the top 100 athletes to look at other schools such as Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa etc etc. Alabama wouldn't be able to offer all of them any more cause now that offer truly counts. They just like every other school has to be more selective. Which is great for all schools as the lower schools now have chances at top 100 athletes. Plus it's great for the student as they concentrate more on their schooling plus, not be hounded by coaches once they commit. Plus have the opportunity to see the Nebraska type schools they may not normally visit. Yes Nebraska may take more 3 or 2 star players then they'd like some years. But so could Alabama, Ohio State, LSU. If they act slow. Other schools could act faster, offer first. Alabama's list of 30 athletes could dwindle down to 8 available before they knew it or contacted the athlete. This happens now. We scout and offer a 5* top 100 running back, he gives a verbal commit. Then all of a sudden 3 weeks before signing day Alabama offers and he signs with them. This would stop that scenario.

Huskerboard: no blue hairs here

I'll admit I don't watch the news based on bad experiences with them when deployed. But I currently work in the insurance field. Some states are looking at making state laws that any of their residents, that have insurance policies of any kind. Have to be handled only by citizens of the US. To my knowledge only Illinois has passed this so far. Which has caused the company I work for to pay more attention to the location the paperwork is coming from and sorting to only American workers as we do have some employees in India. I'm sensing you were being sarcastic to a point. But I'm betting it's a combination of some policies Obama as put in. Plus changes in states helping jobs grow.

Huskerboard: yea we only get 9 wins but at least were not Colorado Huskerboard: Ponyposse members 4 life