krill

He could have Ronald McDonald, or JoJo the idiot circus boy heading up the lawsuits now because the job is done. 80% of his voters don't believe Biden legitimately won.

I like how Fox News is desperately trying to erect some sort of containment fence around their pandora's box, realizing that destroying voter confidence for a totally lost cause will make it impossible for a Republican President, and possibly congressional majorities to ever be elected again (in a fair election). Also seems like Democrats are playing along to some degree knowing that many Republicans are obligated to go along with it until the last hour. Just seems like a wildly irresponsible and dangerous game that will make our country, which has been bumbling along from one crisis to the next since 2001, even more difficult to govern.

Careful what you wish for. My top post-election fear is that Trump, feeling betrayed by Fox, and banned on mainstream social media, will launch his own TV channel and social media platform that gathers everything horrible to the Eye of Sauron to marshal a level of depravity that we cannot yet imagine.

I voted 2009 Iowa State because I was there, and seated next to some really annoying ISU fans. There are plenty of bad games to choose come, but watching us barely lose to a horrible team for no reason at all, even with eight turnovers, was easily the most agonizing experience I've had at a Husker game. I was actually thinking about that game the other day when I saw that Niles Paul is somehow still in the league. IIRC he was responsible for about half those turnovers.

Our grandchildren will probably just murder us all. I'm not joking either; if it came down to a choice between huge the cost of dealing with climate change, and the huge cost of caring for old people (that failed to do anything about climate change), I think future generations would be right to choose the former over the later.

Plot twist, it's bottled in Mexico.

The Northerner remembers...but yeah, could do without the whole hipster thing. Pretty sure Randy's Grill @ 48th & Holdredge is Coop's Corner now too. The tastees do not live up to the hype either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvE84AGMWpE?t=29s

Are you insinuating that people, including politicians, make things up because their audience doesn't know the facts, and there's little repercussion? I suppose next you're going to say that it's some sort of scare tactic to fan fears and prejudices.

I made jokes every year about the Foster Farms bowl when with was the Kraft Fight Hunger bowl, now here we are, and it looks like that would probably be the best possible outcome. Going to a bowl @ 5-7 is a bit of a joke if it comes to that, but those extra practices matter a lot. The practices last year were probably completely wasted with lame duck coaches, and Bo's exit shenanigans with the players.

The man being interviewed (Philip Van Cleave) is a perfect caricature of what I imagine the no, no, no brigade is whenever this topic comes up.

If he's falling on a sword to prevent another pointless government shutdown, I can at least respect that. Seemed like Boehner wanted to do big things like compromise on long term solutions to entitlement spending and debt, but was completely incapacitated by a caucus that has no concept of compromise.

Kasich and Graham are both fairly moderate on economic issues, but neither have a chance of being nominated.

Completely random question, but it's been bubbling in my head every since these two stations opened in Lincoln (84th & Leighton, 27th & O). How are they able to consistently undercut every other gas station in the city? For instance, right now they are selling 87 octane for 2.12, which is 14 cents less than even Sam's club. Do they pretty much sell fuel at break even, or even a narrow loss, then make their money on the convenience store and car washes? I've never really understood the economics of selling gas.

It's my understanding that Lincoln actually has one of the highest, if not the highest refugee per capita population in the nation. I guess it's fair to say the part of town that population is concentrated in is the worst, but it's better than the bad areas of most cities. I don't even understand our immigration policy. Seems to amount to we'll take educated professionals that will work for less than Americans with open arms, and we'll take illegal unskilled labor with a very two faced attitude. That is, we need you, but we don't want you here, and being an illegal manual laborer is perhaps one degree better than a slave in ancient civilizations. Why not take more refugees that actually want to be here, work, and possibly stay if they get on the path to citizenship? The problem Europe has with the doomsday examples is that becoming integrated as a citizen is not part of plan.

Although I spend most of my time on this forum reading threads about athletics (rarely contributing), I have enjoyed posting in this section because it's fairly tame and reasonable compared to most politics forums on the Internet. The individual who was banned was the archetype angry Internet guy that rants about everything, while contributing nothing useful or interesting, and generally ruining it for people that expect a modicum of civility.

I can think of about 10 Pelini era losses that were much worse. 75% chance if that staff was in the possition we were @ the half tody, we would have folded up like wet cardboard, and be here now wondering how it was possible to lose by 40 in an opener to an unranked opponent.

I thought Kasich and Rubio were the strongest, while Cruz was dead last by a long margin, even over Trump's usual megalomaniac routine.

It's much easier to believe in short term pain for long term gain if the coaching staff is at least likeable, and the fans that really understand football can see the merit in what they are doing, even if it's not panning out smashing success right away. Maybe there were still some believers in the Pelini plan at the end, but almost no one liked him.

I wish it pissed more people off. Maybe something would get done about it. Instead, we're gonna slowly circle the drain as our country gets flushed down the crapper and our elected officials line their pockets. With the amount of money being pumped into social media by campaigns now, I wouldn't doubt that some of the pointless tu quoque (you too) arguments that seem to flood every Internet discussion are being paid for by the aforementioned sweaty wads of cash™. Doesn't matter if it's unions, Soros, the Koch brothers, other faceless ultra-wealthy individuals, or corporations...it all stinks.

I hope anyone from out of town that passes through these studies up in advance http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/mayor-picks-elevated-roundabout-for-warlick-intersection/article_064e9de0-f6b5-5bd0-9c6d-8eba655c3c4f.html In addition to the Superior roundabout that's still terrifying when a driver with no clue passes through, and the NW 48th diverging diamond that's under construction.

I think you are missing the point. Iran has not had a history of being open and honest when it comes to weapons inspections, whether its through the US or UN. They have openly lead chants "Death to America" as well as the desire to eradicate Israel. Unless they have new leadership through fair elections, its complete naive to expect that their behaviors and intent will change. If Iran truly desires to be more accepted by the US and throughout the world, it will have to show more willingness to condemn Muslin extremists and terrorists both within Iran and in the region. They will understand that America is NOT a bad country who intends to do harm to others for no reason. For a century the US has used its resources to help promote peace throughout the world and make it a safer place. If Iran wanted to show goodwill, it would have released 4 prisoners it still holds as part of this deal, and the Obama administration should have made this part of the deal. That was a big mistake. Do you view Iran as an ally or an enemy? Do you think its plausible that they will change their behaviors and actions and truly become a long-term strategic partner in the Middle East similar to Jordan? In other words, whatever Iran agrees to, they need to do more, i.e. the infinite moving goalpost? Another nation on this planet with any nuclear capacity scares me, but the doomsday scenario of Iran sneaking to a quick breakout is no worse than North Korea and Pakistan having nuclear weapons. India and Israel are also non-signers of the NNPT and technically in position of arsenals that violate international law. Pretty sure there's plenty to be scared about with signers being shockingly careless with weapons at times too. One thing I think about frequently is that less than ten years after 400,000 Americans died fighting in WWII, (West) Germany and Italy had joined NATO, and Japan also signed a mutual defense treaty. In the last 40 years Iran took over our embassy and embarrassed a President out of office, probably helped with the Beirut bombings, and probably provided shaped charges for IEDs to Shiite militias in the previous decade. We shot down one of their airliners. We probably provided some assistance to Iraq during their brutal war with Iran. Not to brush all that off as irrelevant, but I think if we could get over the terrible things Germany and Japan did throwing the entire world into the bloodiest conflict in history, we can probably get over the rocky past with Iran. Iran is the only country between Israel and India that has a diversified economy, educated middle class, and some semblance of stable, functioning democratic institutions. Human rights are awful by western standards, but quite liberal compared to their neighbors, and would likely improve with better relations. I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to think that Iran could be persuaded to abandon their nuclear program for the same reason the apartheid South African government eventually did, and maybe in the longer term, the theocracy will fade to a more vestigial role with stronger democratic institutions. At any rate, a military strike on Iran would be a catastrophe that wouldn't degrade their nuclear capability, and there's a point where sanctions only drive a nation down the path of completely rogue pariah state (see: North Korea, has nuclear weapons). I guess if taking a chance at this crossroads backfires, then Obama's successor can look forward to total dysfunction stretching from Syria to Pakistan with no solutions. If it works, there may be somewhat better options in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, at least pertaining to the destruction of ISIS, and a return to a modicum of stability.

You'll have to look up the Nebraska cash balance pension to get a more accurate description of how it works, but it's basically a very generous defined contribution plan. The question with this fiscal health report is whether states that have huge defined benefit obligations (traditional pensions), that almost invaribaly have underfunded long term obligations, are accuracy compared to a state like Nebraska that could be looked at as more "healthy" with less known obligations.

It would be interesting to see what effect subtracting pension obligations would have on the chart. I'm not sure exactly when Nebraska axed traditional pensions for most state workers, but there is still some form of obligation with a 401K type fund that is backed by a guaranteed rate of return that is far higher than market rate. If other states that did away with traditional pensions have similar systems, and the future obligationss are not tallied in in the same way compared to states that are saddled with massively underfunded pensions, that could potentially be a huge difference.

I didn't mean to steer this discussion in another Christian vs. world type of thing, but perhaps it was inevitable. Jesus is not attributed to saying anything on the topic of homosexuality in the gospels. He didn't say much on explicit do's and don'ts period outside what we would now consider general goodwill (love your neighbor as yourself) and common sense morality (don't murder, steal, lie, etc.). The old testament is, let's just say, half scripture and half law. Most Christians readily dismiss the law aspect as antiquated and / or superseded by the teachings of Jesus in the new testament. I used the examples of shrimp, bacon, and mixing things as examples. It would be hypocritical to say obey this rule (a man shall not lie with another man) while not obeying the others. Plus, in the God of Abraham's eye, all sins are equally bad, so an argument that eating shrimp isn't as bad as a homosexual relationship wouldn't work. Then we have the problems with the new testament. The non-gospel chapters were added into what we now call the Christian bible largely as a convenience to codify and spread the religion throughout the late Roman Empire. If you consider yourself a devout Christian trying to live your life as Christ did, I think it's entirely fair to dismiss everything besides the gospels, or simply consider it contextual reading. In fact, works such as Saint Augustine's City of God are far deeper reading in early Christian thinking. As for my opinion on the matter, let me first say it's been over fifteen years since I attended church as a believer in what the church was doing. The attitude towards gays was probably the leading cause of my falling out. Every summer as a teenager I went a bible camp where huge amounts of time were spent using gays as the prime example of how our society had been corrupted. It never made any sense to me when the bible said little, or arguably anything on the topic, and there were plenty of us guilty of sins of flesh at that very camp. I think a lot of the young adults with sharper minds could see how hypocritical it was, that the arguments against homosexuality were more contorted than a Jenga tower, and not particularly relevant, but year after year it was the same message. Thinking back on that now, it's no surprise at all that vast numbers of Americans have drifted away from the church, while the increasingly small remainder becomes more zealous, sometimes even hateful in their behavior. I just don't think it's a battle the church should be fighting. It's a very convenient battle for some ministers with dwindling congregations, and politicians that want to stir the pot and get your money though.