Lil' Red

KJJ is 6'1.

And McQuitty is 6'2.

 

Does anyone else think Trump would ignore a terror threat to get revenge on the people who wanted his ban stopped?

 

And also so he would have the excuse to attempt more restrictions.

 

I'm not sure he and Bannon wouldn't stage a false flag to try to seize more power.

 

I'm well aware I'm in tin-foil territory here.

 

I doubt they'd take that risk but I do think they might purposely make changes that make us more susceptible to terror attacks.

"The earth is a very dangerous place these days." -Spicer

 

 

 

Actually, no other time in the history of the world have we been safer than we are now. There's less war and we live longer.

I disagree. The world became a much more dangerous place after January 20th.

Isn't this a great sign? If someone slid you a paper to sign and then you found out it was putting them in a leadership position what would you do? His a$$ would be out of my organization for sure - immediately. I'm pretty shocked that Donnie sits back and allows this to go unpunished, except this reflects more on him and his lack of ability/experience in this role.

I wonder why Bannon pulled this on him in the first place. I doubt he'd do this if he thought it would put him at risk of getting kicked to the curb.

 

maybe Darth Bannon was at the whitehouse taking care of things.

Hahahahaha, I'd bet there are tons of good Sith jokes about the admin.

 

Darth Bannon and his Apprentice Trump

 

It's too bad Trump is not intelligent enough to be portrayed as Vader, otherwise a Palpatine/Vader relationship would be a pretty fitting comparison.

 

 

Yay another super bowl filled with political commercials #NotMySuperBowl

toughen up snowflake

I'm not the one who's being snowflaking for the past month about Trump sir......the guy I voted for won the election. Life is great

 

Just curious, does it bother you how much Trump complains? He is literally the most thin-skinned person that I know of.

The plunging cost of solar power is leading U.S. electric companies to capture more of the sun just when President Donald Trump is moving to boost coal and other fossil fuels.

 

Solar power represents just about 1 percent of the electricity U.S. utilities generate today, but that could grow substantially as major electric utilities move into smaller-scale solar farming, a niche developed by local cooperatives and non-profits.

 

It's both an opportunity and a defensive maneuver: Sunshine-capturing technology has become so cheap, so quickly, that utilities are moving to preserve their core business against competition from household solar panels.

Link

I found this interesting, and by interesting, I mean utterly depressing:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/coca-cola-ran-a-super-bowl-commercial-about-diversity-and-inclusion-and-people-are-mad/ar-AAmDYwZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

 

This link, seriously demonstrates that we have way too many racists in this country.

 

A "#boycott Coke" emerged on Twitter because Coca~Cola ran a Super Bowl ad where: 1) languages other than English were used, and 2) non-white faces were featured.

 

To be fair, most of the tweets I see our mocking/criticizing the hashtag.

Maybe they should hire 10k homeless veterans instead.....just a thought

They started a program in 2013 to hire 10k veterans by 2018. They are currently ahead of schedule.

Donald Trump's administration has imposed sanctions on Iran following its recent ballistic missile test.

 

The sanctions target 13 people and 12 companies, including groups in China, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.

 

President Trump tweeted earlier: "Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how 'kind' President Obama was to them. Not me!"

 

Iran called the threats from "an inexperienced person" useless, vowing to impose reciprocal measures.

 

John Smith, the US Treasury Department's acting sanctions chief, said in a statement on Friday: "Iran's continued support for terrorism and development of its ballistic missile programme poses a threat to the region, to our partners worldwide and to the United States."

Link

I don't like where this is headed. That last quote seems rather ominous.

Another reason I lean more to the republican side, although actually never voting in line with the republican nominee's (I've always written in a name or not voted at all), is simply because of the dictionary definition of the terms. Philosophically and personally I just associate with the term "Republic" more-so than "Democracy".

 

 

 

republic |rəˈpəblik|

noun

A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

• archaic; a group with a certain equality between its members.

 

 

 

democracy |dəˈmäkrəsē|

noun (plural democracies)

A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.

• a state governed by a democracy: a multiparty democracy.

• control of an organization or group by the majority of its members: the intended extension of industrial democracy.

• the practice or principles of social equality: demands for greater democracy.

 

Republic(an): Government with equality between its members.

Democracy: Government by the majority vote.

 

Ruling by way of majority vote, although it sounds nice, would imply that there is also a minority vote (its funny how they leave that part out of the dictionary)... Yet having a majority/minority vote implies a certain amount of inequality that I don't believe is Constitutional.

 

Gay/lesbian rights, legalized pot, foreign policy/wars, and so on, should not be subject to a personal/emotional/special-interest's "majority/minority" vote it should be subject to the terms "Justice & Equality".

In theory I would agree but I don't believe either party makes an effort to adhere to those philosophies.

Awarding electoral votes based on congressional districts makes more sense to me than either winning or losing a state outright.

In the absence of gerrymandering, yes.

Remember the Bowling Green massacre? No?

 

That's because it never happened.

 

 

Maybe she was referring to this

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

 

 

That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing.

 

To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will.

 

If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office

 

If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit?

 

If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians?

 

Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

 

 

 

The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment.

 

 

I don't think anyone would disagree that a Priest or Teacher should not have the ability to dictate how their congregation or student's votes. But to voice concern and opinion is fundamental to our freedom. That doesn't mean the congregation or students have to agree or vote that way, or that they have to vote at all.

 

These people, ideally, are role models and ambassadors to human-equality, peace, and love. Promoting human kindness, education, and equality is part of their job descriptions..... They aren't celebrities at an award show, and if these genuine role models should not have an influence over societies view/opinion on politicians, why should movie stars? Why should Lebron James get to endorse a specific politician, but not a Priest or Minister?

 

Its quite simple in my eyes.

 

Also, I'll have to read up on the Johnson Amendment. I really don't know enough specifically about it to say much more. I've only been sharing my experience and philosophical view on the issue.

 

Ministers, like LeBron, are allowed to make endorsements when they aren't serving as a minister. LeBron isn't allowed to make endorsements while involved with NBA activities and games.

The Johnson Amendment also prevents churches from making advertisements and coordinating field efforts for candidates. If repealed, churches and charities could potentially function somewhat like tax-exempt Super PACs.

 

 

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

 

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

 

 

That's an excellent quote, thank you for sharing.

 

To the idea of the separation going both ways, in a perfect world I would agree 100%, however I don't think its as simple as saying Church & State aren't allowed to influence one another - they influence each other regardless of intentions, and they always will.

 

If a particular Politician who is running for office proposes new military/foreign policies, or say the "ban" of refugees for example, that conflict with the churches teachings, is it not the responsibility of that Priest or Rabbi to speak up and influence their congregation? - Before said politician is voted into office

 

If the government enacts economic policy that in turn negatively effects the quality of life of a churches congregation, is it not the responsibility of the Minister to speak at the pulpit?

 

If the government allows for laws and limits the race-integration of public schools and public places, is it not the responsibility of MLK or any Priest to preach to his congregation about politics and politicians?

 

Edit, And furthermore, going back to what the Founding Fathers intended. They never intended for an IRS, it wasn't created until about 90 years after the Declaration was signed, so in regards to the Founding Fathers this law/rule is BS.

 

The Johnson amendment only prevents ministers from endorsing candidates and assisting their campaigns. It does not prevent them from voicing their thoughts on political issues. So a minister is free to voice his concerns on all the issues you listed but I don't think he should be allowed to dictate which particular politician his congregation should vote for. Similarly, I don't think universities should be allowed to tell their students which politician to vote for which is also prevented by the Johnson Amendment.

 

Remember, kids - the religious freedom you grant one religion today will be granted to another religion tomorrow. Trump and people like him will not be in power forever. That separation of church & state protects every religion, including yours, from perversion.

 

 

Trump vows to 'totally destroy' rule imposing political limits on churches

 

Warning that religious freedom is "under threat," President Donald Trump vowed Thursday to repeal the Johnson Amendment, an IRS rule barring pastors from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

 

"I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution," Trump said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event bringing together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries.

 

"In the coming days we will develop a system to help ensure that those admitted into our country fully embrace our values of religious and personal liberty and that they reject any form of oppression and discrimination," Trump said.

 

 

I'd like to know from our religious members: How is religious freedom "under threat?" Do you feel your religious freedoms are under threat? If so, how?

 

 

I've heard that exact complaint from a former Priest of mine, privately of course.... He's a great guy, huge husker fan, we've hung out and watched Husker games together, he might even be a part of the Huskerboard.... I wouldn't use the words "under attack", but I would say that its open to interpretation. I'd be more curious to hear the views from someone like the Pope or from MLK or Gandhi if we could go back in time on the subject than to hear Trumps/Pence or anyone else in DC on the subject.

 

I can't recall the exact complaint from that Priest, and personally I don't have a huge gripe on the matter, but from what I understand the idea behind "separation of Church and State" was originally designed to keep State-sponsored agendas and influence out of Churches, not Church influence out of Government like is enforced. Of course that's open to interpretation.... A Priest or Rabbi not being able to speak about politics from the pulpit seems almost hypocritical to me, Religion and Social government are interconnected in many ways - I mean we're in a "Politics & Religion" forum.

 

In a utopian world, both Churches and Governments are ideally serving, improving, and securing the quality of life of others. Both offer tremendous social services to their communities, so on and so forth..... You would have a hard time convincing me that Reverend Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, or any other local-level Rabbi's & Priest's haven't improved the standard of living for all walks of life, to not embrace and promote Government/Social opinions from people in those positions does seem off to me, I wouldn't call it an "attack", but it does seem off.

 

I don't understand the IRS law fully, and I'm curious if the term "pulpit" carries over to the political arena - Because to allow corporate lobbyists and special interests to drive decisions in DC, but in tern limit the reach of voice from some truly great people, seems a bit backwards.

 

Of course, its yet to be seen if changing that culture is a true intention of Trumps, and is something that I don't expect....

 

If you read about the founders, it's clear that they intended for the wall of separation to go both ways. Here's a quote from Jefferson who coined the "wall of separation" term that would seem to suggest he supports the Johnson Amendment:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

The Trump administration appeared to loosen U.S. sanctions Thursday that the Obama administration had imposed against Russia in response to its cyberattacks in the 2016 presidential election.

 

The Treasury Department published a license that authorizes certain transactions between U.S. companies and the FSB, Russia’s security service and for the importation, distribution or use of “certain information technology products in the Russian Federation.” Such transactions had been prohibited under Obama administration sanctions imposed on Russia in late December. At the time, the U.S. sanctioned nine entities and individuals including the FSB and GRU. The Obama administration said that the FSB had assisted and provided material support to the GRU in its efforts to interfere with the U.S. election.

Link

This... is not what Trump should be commenting on.

 

"Hey Donald I have a great idea. Why don’t we switch jobs? You take over TV, because you’re such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job," said Schwarzenegger in a video. "And then people can finally sleep comfortable again. Hmm?"

Link

 

 

Congress needs to act on this stuff and impeach him if any of it comes to fruition.

Yea. Whats that going to do? It certainly isn't going to give Hilary the presidency.

 

I don't think the left should actually root for Trump being impeached. If it happens you'll be begging for him to come back.

true....the tweeting trumpwit is not as ominous as the dark lord vp is.

We already have a dark lord running the country with Bannon calling the shots. I think Pence would be an upgrade at this point.

I definitely don't think it's a requirement for a coach to have be a former Husker, I think it's a big bonus. Nebraska is a unique program, and I think it's beneficial for former Huskers to be recruiting to the city of Lincoln and the school.

It also greatly diminishes the possibility that they'd leave to go to a different school. Our secondary coach position has been a revolving door for quite a while so landing someone that will stick around for awhile would be nice for a change.