Moiraine

Reverse racism isn't what you're saying it is here. I don't think it exists (the way takoda described it) but it definitely exists the way you're describing it. But you're not describing "reverse racism." You're describing racism against Whites. Regardless of whether minorities "often" think there can't be racism against Whites (big generalization of minorities) , there can and is and that whole statement is silly. What you're talking about is insitutional racism, which in the U.S. does not work against Whites.

1,600 people to show up to do something constructive would have been positive. Grown ass people chasing an imaginary thing on a phone like a dimwitted puppy chasing a laser light is might be the crapfest part. But don't take my word for it, you might want to check your phone and see what it tells you think, do or say. When it serves your needs, you say you're not really a Husker fan. You just like UNK. Yet considering that fact you spend a lot of time here posting. And you make fun of other people for picking a different "weird" hobby. And then when someone thinks this is good, fun PR move and that the topic is not a place for yet another discussion on how bad the team is, you think they get their ideas from their phone. What is that about? The grown ass person making the comment you just made is a lot more sad than the people going to that event.

Great, great guy.#BOTHSIDES Funny, you want to deeper gun laws, even banning them, to stop the deaths but yet you have no problem letting these people into this country without being checked out? lol, gotta love this mindset. Think about this for a minute.. further restrict law abiding citizens, but give free access for those who have potential to kill massive groups of Americans... Anyone has the potential to massive groups of Americans. That's not exclusive to Muslims. So do we have to test everyone?For a country so averse to government surveillance, a lot of us sure don't seem to mind if it's done to the scary brown people... What other groups are killing people like Muslims? none!! EDIT: haha, no you're are just for limiting Americans rights.. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/06/23/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/ What other groups kill like muslims (so much ignorance in that statement, but I'll bite again)? Brazilians kill far more people than terrorists, some 50k, where's your outrage for them? Mexicans kill more than ISIS did in two years in Iraq (almost 20k per year). Americans kill more Americans than ISIS does in a year (about 12k). Where's your outrage for these groups? They're are vile, barbaric people. Can we ban Americans from America?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate so much ignorance in this statement.. This is hilarious coming from you. You blather on about constitutional rights but you don't even realize those rights would be infringed upon by picking out which people support sharia law. On top of that it would be a witch hunt. Anyone who doesn't like a Muslim would say they overheard them saying they want that form of government. The fact you keep asking people if they're okay with sharia law or the people who support it show you're missing the point people are trying to make. It's all well and good wanting that to never come close to happening here. But picking and choosing who supports it requires a violation of rights to citizens.

Congrats to the people who turned what should be a topic filled with only positive things into a crapfest.

http://www.kansas.com/entertainment/restaurants/dining-with-denise-neil/article89631312.html

You're part of the problem. Like he's going to absorb that.

As long as the public was unarmed as well which will literally never happen. Which is why I said it would be have to be gradual. That would be the only way to get the public less armed. There are places with low crime where not many people/police have guns. But it's never going to happen here.

Found a cool 538 link that ranks pollsters based on how well they performed in the past: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Methodology is in the link. It shows bias towards both parties and gives a grade, and allows you to sort it however you want. If you sort it by grade you should look at the # of polls looked at though. Some of the places have only done 1 poll, so getting an A+ doesn't mean much in that case. I think the bias is just how much they predicted someone to win by. So they could be 100% on all polls but if they picked a Democratic candidate to win by 20 points and they won by 2, they're biased towards Democrats.

Having unarmed officers would be fine... If it was done gradually over 100 years and we still had emergency forces with guns.

Except that it's clear from all of the surrounding words in my post that I'm not asking how the two predictors are different. I'm asking him to explain how the claim of 100% probability would differ between the two. (In both cases it's wrong). Also, most people reading this know there is no argument.

Isn't Iowa's class decent this season? Or at least a lot better than usual. They didn't have a lot of time to capitalize for the 2016 recruiting class?

It's not a shock. Rasmussen has consistently had Trump up when every other poll had Clinton up. I'll take it by itself as seriously as I take the Clinton +11 poll.

I've been thinking about Clinton and the perjury investigation. I don't want it to come to anything before the election because I don't want Trump to win, but I was thinking I don't care that much if she gets elected then impeached as long as her VP is good.

I think most agree with Psycho, that recruiting is very important. What people don't agree with is the stuff he's saying about prediction/probability that has no basis in reality except what exists in his own mind. I've found the original topic and have come to the conclusion that this guy will never realize he's wrong. Until the pattern is broken, at which point he'll pretend it didn't happen. http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/78379-why-recruiting-matters-and-the-importance-of-signing-day/?hl=%20100%%20%20probability

Right. I think McCain was attempting to do what I'm saying Trump should do, but unfortunately he hadn't seen her do an interview yet and didn't realize how ignorant she was. I don't think he would've won with any other VP, though.

A long day of constipation?

So he shouldn't pick the best PERSON for the job, who ever that is regardless of gender? I should've known someone would go there. Trump's goal is to win the election. I think he should choose a woman to give him the best chance of winning. Many women (and men) think he's sexist, and it might help him with that. This has nothing to do with how I decide who to vote for, or who I think would be the best VP for the country, or how nice it would be if how good the VP will be at the job was more important than how much they'll help the candidate win the presidency. We don't live in an ideal world where we pick politicians based on how good they are at their jobs or how good they are as people. We pick people like Trump and Clinton. I want Trump to pick Christie because in my opinion it will give him less chance (however slight) of winning the presidency than if he chose a woman.

You can predict, just not with a 100% probability I would say the magical number is over 9000 but apparently Psycho is easily satisfied.

Nope... it means ]b]there is a 100% probability that the winner of the National Championship will be one of the teams that met the metric.]/b] Each year somewhere around 7 teams in the country meet the metric. This last season Alabama met the metric and won the National title. The year before Ohio State met the metric and Oregon did not. Ohio State won the national title. It's been that way for the last 12 years. This brilliant research is proof of the critical importance of high level recruiting in college football. It's mandatory if you want to win a national championship. You may not like this fact... but unfortunately for you... it's a fact. If Nebraska or Oregon or Notre Dame or Iowa or any college football team wants to win national titles... very high level recruiting is mandatory. You don't understand prediction or probabilities. It's a fact that thing happened the previous 12 years. But it's a very easy prediction to make (as I've shown in my previous post) and it doesn't mean it will happen next time. I rarely agree with cm but he's right here and I'm pretty sure the 3 of us had this argument 6 months ago. He thinks you can't use the past traits of national champions to predict who might win the next one. You think there's such a thing as a 100% probability for a prediction. The truth is in between. You can use the past traits of national champions to make a very confident, high probability prediction for who the next national champion will be. It will never be 100%. In 2009, EVERY. SINGLE. TEAM. who won the national championship since 1985 had been ranked in the Top 20 in the pre-season AP Poll. Every team in that 24 year range. Explain to me how that in any way is different than what you're saying about this, and how Auburn managed to win the championship when they did not possess that trait, when, according to you, they had a 0% probability of winning it. Maybe you should re-read what cm said about White presidents because he made the exact same point. It's the exact same thought process you're using. In 2007 you would have said it's a 100% probability that the next president will be White. You would have been wrong then, just like you're wrong now. Now that said, I've used those 3 variables and the new coach variable to predict one of these teams will win the national championship this upcoming season (although I had to use the pre-pre season AP poll so I may have to change it): Alabama Arkansas Florida Florida State LSU Michigan Notre Dame Ohio State Nebraska only made it for 3 of the 4 variables, so we'll have to wait until next year. Sorry, I mean there's a 99% chance we'll have to wait 'til at least next year. If you agree with CM then you just don't have the intellect for this. The color of someone's skin is not an achievement ! This metric is about achievement in recruiting and it's affect on the probability of a team winning the national title. The color of someone's skin has nothing to do with achievement in recruiting or winning a national title. Now I'm done discussing this with you as well. Everyone is free to read the article. They may not like the facts contained in it but they will be a much more informed football fan and will be much more able to understand the performance difference between teams. It's not relevant here. We're not arguing which is the better predictor; race or recruiting. We're talking about whether it's possible to predict something with 100% probability. If you can't understand that it's not possible, you shouldn't be discussing this at all. It's a very simple concept. I sincerely hope you NEVER talk probability with any impressionable minds. To someone (99% of this forum) who has a basic understanding of probability, you sound like someone arguing that 1+1 = 3. Why don't you ask the authors of the article about this and see what they say. Also, you didn't answer my question about Auburn. For 24 years no one ranked worse than 20 in the preseason AP poll won a national championship. Using YOUR logic, there was a 0% probability Auburn would win the next one. Tell me how that happened.

They were accurate at picking it 12 years in a row. That doesn't mean only teams that meet the metric can win a national championship. It means there's a very high probability that the winner of the national championship will be one of those teams. Also, saying they did it 12 years in a row sounds neat but when you pick 10+ teams per year it's not all that amazing. There are probably lots of other ways that 10 teams can be picked and they've been correct many times in a row. In the last 15 years, every team that ended up ranked #1 in the final AP poll was ranked in the top 22 in the preseason poll. Okay, that's 22 teams. It's not as good, but it took me 3 minutes to find it. If Auburn hadn't won it, we could say teams ranked in the top 13 over the past 15 years. Nope... it means there is a 100% probability that the winner of the National Championship will be one of the teams that met the metric. Each year somewhere around 7 teams in the country meet the metric. This last season Alabama met the metric and won the National title. The year before Ohio State met the metric and Oregon did not. Ohio State won the national title. It's been that way for the last 12 years in a row. This brilliant research is proof of the critical importance of high level recruiting in college football. It's mandatory if you want to win a national championship. You may not like this fact... but unfortunately for you... it's a fact. If Nebraska or Oregon or Notre Dame or Iowa or any college football team wants to win national titles... very high level recruiting is mandatory. I would highly recommend you don't play Roulette. This is about achievement, not luck. Achievement that hasn't happened yet, so luck. Performance based on achievement over the previous 4 years of recruiting. It has noting whatsoever to do with luck. I hope you're just trolling; otherwise, you get an F in logical reasoning.Is there a grade of less than an F? If ever there was, this would be the time to give it.

She's looking into doing Track at Nebraska. I'm guessing she's looking into all the schools he's looking at, which means they're all possible. I mean, Pepin, is an OK T&F coach. His record doesn't mean she's not also looking at others

Nope... it means ]b]there is a 100% probability that the winner of the National Championship will be one of the teams that met the metric.]/b] Each year somewhere around 7 teams in the country meet the metric. This last season Alabama met the metric and won the National title. The year before Ohio State met the metric and Oregon did not. Ohio State won the national title. It's been that way for the last 12 years. This brilliant research is proof of the critical importance of high level recruiting in college football. It's mandatory if you want to win a national championship. You may not like this fact... but unfortunately for you... it's a fact. If Nebraska or Oregon or Notre Dame or Iowa or any college football team wants to win national titles... very high level recruiting is mandatory. You don't understand prediction or probabilities. It's a fact that thing happened the previous 12 years. But it's a very easy prediction to make (as I've shown in my previous post) and it doesn't mean it will happen next time. I rarely agree with cm but he's right here and I'm pretty sure the 3 of us had this argument 6 months ago. He thinks you can't use the past traits of national champions to predict who might win the next one. You think there's such a thing as a 100% probability for a prediction. The truth is in between. You can use the past traits of national champions to make a very confident, high probability prediction for who the next national champion will be. It will never be 100%. In 2009, EVERY. SINGLE. TEAM. who won the national championship since 1985 had been ranked in the Top 20 in the pre-season AP Poll. Every team in that 24 year range. Explain to me how that in any way is different than what you're saying about this, and how Auburn managed to win the championship when they did not possess that trait, when, according to you, they had a 0% probability of winning it. Maybe you should re-read what cm said about White presidents because he made the exact same point. It's the exact same thought process you're using. In 2007 you would have said it's a 100% probability that the next president will be White. You would have been wrong then, just like you're wrong now. Now that said, I've used those 3 variables and the new coach variable to predict one of these teams will win the national championship this upcoming season (although I had to use the pre-pre season AP poll so I may have to change it): Alabama Arkansas Florida Florida State LSU Michigan Notre Dame Ohio State Nebraska only made it for 3 of the 4 variables, so we'll have to wait until next year. Sorry, I mean there's a 99% chance we'll have to wait 'til at least next year.

They were accurate at picking it 12 years in a row. That doesn't mean only teams that meet the metric can win a national championship. It means there's a very high probability that the winner of the national championship will be one of those teams. Also, saying they did it 12 years in a row sounds neat but when you pick 10+ teams per year it's not all that amazing. There are probably lots of other ways that 10 teams can be picked and they've been correct many times in a row. In the last 32 years, every team that ended up ranked #1 in the final AP poll was ranked in the top 22 in the preseason poll. Okay, that's 22 teams. It's not as good, but it took me 3 minutes to find it. If Auburn hadn't won it, we could say teams ranked in the top 13 over the past 16 years. Edit: Found another: In the last 25 years, every team to end up #1 in the final AP poll was ranked in the top 17 for total final AP poll appearances. You could basically just use the metric that the only teams who can win it are the classically good teams. The teams that broke through that were Washington, Colorado, and Georgia Tech. If they want to make a prediction that's more meaningful maybe they should combine these 3 variables and only pick 3 teams.

Woo level 4. Wish I had more time.

For the hell of it, related to the 0% Trump votes from Blacks, I looked up the Romney/Obama vote in Ohio. 96% of Black voters voted for Obama. So 4% voted for someone else. I dunno how many people were in the Ohio poll but I'm going to assume 1000 with 130 Black people. The 95% confidence interval for that is: 1.26% to 8.75% of Black voters voting for someone other than Clinton. This is obviously a different election but it just shows that the 0% isn't crazy. The article says 90% voted for Clinton and 0% for Trump. So those 10% are picking someone else.