Moiraine

I'll go with Henery. Seems like he got it inside the 5 many times. Punt distance average may not be the best measurement to look at. At least not by itself. A 41 yard punt that's downed at the 19 is better than a 60 yard punt that's a touchback. Sexiest punter goes to Foltz.

I don't think he would have been drafted if we'd had the previous offense in 2015. They could have run him even more than they did but the amount he got to run it really helped him.

What would his race have to do with anything? No one thinks Gerry is less of a football player because he's white. It was ignorant of him to even bring up.For once I don't disagree with cm. Anytime questions about speed or quickness come up, they're usually about the "High I.Q. Guys" or the "coaches on the field" or the "real team players" or the "hard workers during the off season." I.e. the White guys. That doesn't mean Gerry's not slow and it doesn't mean that's what's happening here but it happens often enough that there probably is something going on there. It also happened with Westerkamp in this thread. Maybe it's not that it happens with White dudes but that you don't often hear people saying a Black player is slow.

Or maybe he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, like a lot of people. Pigeon holing someone to into a single label rarely if ever makes sense. Like knap was trying to get at, it ultimately kills discussion and progress.Except he's not a social liberal. Not even close.Well obviously I don't know him, but... if he defines himself as a Democrat because of his stance on weed, then I would think that issue means the most to him. If he were to be defined off of that single issue then it would be a pretty socially "liberal" idea. A lot of people do define their party off of one major issue. For me it's taxes and the budget. I would probably be considered a moderate conservative in reality (but socially liberal), but I disagree with tax cuts for the rich, and want to cut defense spending... so I typically side with the Democrats overall.I think a lot of Republicans define themselves as Republican because of abortion. That's how my mom was but in the past 12 years the party has annoyed her more and more on many other issues and she hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since '96 or 2000. I also think many of these same Republicans disagree with Democrats because they think they must be evil or crazy due to this one issue.

Or maybe he is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, like a lot of people. Pigeon holing someone to into a single label rarely if ever makes sense. Like knap was trying to get at, it ultimately kills discussion and progress. Sounds like he's pigeonholing himself by saying he's liberal.

I think there are a lot of people like this on both "sides" who don't realize it. Although I contend that PC is just a word used when you don't know how to argue with someone and you disagree with them. Being "politically correct" if there's a true meaning to the word and we believe it's a thing, is not Republican nor Democrat. It's just a label used more by Republicans. I mean, going back to what I said in the transgender bathroom post, it's actually "PC" that we have to use different bathrooms at all and can't just pee together in the woods. But NOOOO we have to protect peoples' damn sensitivities! This country is going to the dogs!!!!1111one

Hopefully they can find some defensive linemen.

It would be per adult, though. Which would make it $4100. But as has been mentioned, there is more cost to the system we have now. So it'd be a little over that. It makes more sense to me to redistribute the wealth (uh oh I said some bad words) and give the 1 trillion to 80% of the people, the ones with the lowest wealth. That would make it $5160 per adult not including the cost we'd save by getting rid of the complicated system. One major issue I have is, is disability considered welfare and part of the 1 trillion? 'Cause those who truly need it have to keep getting a living wage. JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results. The problem with introducing a "means test" even if 80% qualify under it is that it undercuts one of the fundamental best aspects of a NIT/GI, in that it creates another welfare cliff. It would be unfair to give person working at an office in the 80th spot an income, but person in 81th spot who is working as a slightly senior person at the same office no income. That reminds me. If my salary was 1 cent lower I'd be paying $800 less/year on health care

They should've impaled the poachers using the tusks.

It would be per adult, though. Which would make it $4100. But as has been mentioned, there is more cost to the system we have now. So it'd be a little over that. It makes more sense to me to redistribute the wealth (uh oh I said some bad words) and give the 1 trillion to 80% of the people, the ones with the lowest wealth. That would make it $5160 per adult not including the cost we'd save by getting rid of the complicated system. One major issue I have is, is disability considered welfare and part of the 1 trillion? 'Cause those who truly need it have to keep getting a living wage. JJ - things usually start out as vague ideas. No one's putting this up for a vote yet. I believe there are some European countries doing this for a small part of the population and doing analysis on the results.

Yup. Corn should absolutely not be subsidized. It's used for unhealthy food and cow feed. Americans eat too much beef anyway and cows are not meant to be on a diet of corn.

This is inviting all rapists and potential rapists to assault any man or woman who has had any alcohol or drugs. What a great idea. There was also a story this week about a girl (I think in Oklahoma) who was orally raped while passed out after drinking. The court decided it's not rape if it's oral and you are super drunk. But HuskerLaw says we should blame the people who were raped. So let's do that.

I'm pretty sure, without finding the article, that there has been documented proof, including physical check stubs, that Alabama has been paying players for years, and nothing's ever come of it. There's even been former Bama players on twitter admitting to taking money in college. The NCAA is way too scared to come down hard after they went after USC and started losing lawsuits. We should probably start doing it then.

I think we should leave Stringfellow alone unless we know for certain he didn't just go to the highest bidder between us and Ole Miss Maybe I'm being naive but I just don't think we do that. When I tutored they were total adamant sticklers about not even giving a pencil to any student athlete. I'm not saying we never have but I don't think we did it under Pelini or do it currently. I guess we could get a rogue coach who wants a raise and starts doing it behind everyone's back.

If you redistribute the $1 trillion, each American would receive approximately $3... The topic is paying $20-30K to every adult... Yeah, lots more government spending. Check your work..... You mean there aren't 333 billion people in the U.S.?

I was having a good Friday until I came here and realized it's all caps day again.

I guess the two best men from each party will be facing off. Trump isn't a man and neither is Clinton.

Looks like it'll be Trump vs. Clinton. Here's a nice chart showing their predicted % of votes. It includes lots of polls. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

I'm not sure if you're reading my post correctly. I have a full time job. What I'm saying is 30k is more than enough to live on for one person. It would be enough for me if I wasn't thinking about having $ when I retire and if I wasn't getting married soon. Therefore if it was given to me for free I wouldn't need to work except to make money for retirement. I lived on a lot less than 30k for 5 years while getting my B.S. and M.S., and I didn't find it difficult nor did I feel poor. I've calculated and I basically need $24k per year to feel comfortable if I give up my dream of traveling a lot and having any money after I retire. Luckily I don't have to do that. Therefore it would almost be worth it for me to sit around doing nothing if I was making $30k for it. Bump it to $40k and I wouldn't work at all and I'd put $10k per year into retirement. It wouldn't be a great retirement but, hey, I'd still be making $30k/year until death. Not bad. My guess is you're thinking of having $30k plus kids and/or a spouse that doesn't make that much, but I dunno. I can't imagine thinking $30k is dirt poor when you don't have to do any work for it, heh. It's not what I make now but it's enough to live on.

I'm not against having a stipend and having it replace many of the welfare programs. However I don't see why it would be $30,000. It's not hard to live on $30,000. Are people given this $30,000 for doing nothing really going to go out and benefit society? If it was me, I'd sit in my apartment all day playing video games and occasionally going on bike rides. Maybe I'd work a part time job to build a retirement fund. I believe giving this amount to everyone would cause lots of prices to raise. If everyone had a free $30,000, businesses would know they could charge more, because the people getting that $30,000 AND working would have a lot more money. When I think of stipend and "good idea" together I'm thinking it has to be less than what you'd make working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, so people still need to try to get jobs.

I only skimmed the article but Nebraska has required a minimum of 20 hours work or community service in order to get snaps for awhile now.

Funny. I'm excited but then I remember that we had satellite camps. They're just not not not banned. However it is funny to think about Saban's reaction to this.

Not true whatsoever. Allowing people to choose which bathroom they want to use is a legitimate threat to individuals' safety. Example: A guy "feels like a lady" on Tuesdays, so he chooses to enter the women's restroom so he can be a peeping Tom. Not OK. Stop being sexist. Women can be peeping "Toms" too. I guess they're just less scary because they're less likely to be able to overpower another woman. I thought maybe you were referring to womens peeping @ mens too, in which case, most men would probably be ok with it, Nope. Women peeping on women.

Uh, no it's not. The sample size is much too small for that. It'd be pretty amazing if all of us in this thread were exactly average, and were also representative of the population. Seeing as most of us are from Nebraska we're probably smarter than the average and lean to the right. But those two things aren't associated Now that being said, average probably wasn't the best statistic to use. I'll go with mode. The mode voter isn't thoughtful and intelligent. Things that shouldn't affect a person's vote affect the mode voter's vote

I feel like they have to do that though. Now if the average voter was thoughtful and intelligent, they could just pick the best person for the job. But if that was the case we wouldn't have almost exclusively lawyers as our representatives. People who are somewhat attractive and good at public speaking/arguing get elected. I'll ignore the anomaly who is Trump.