HoustonSker

Does Tyler Gabbert have any eligibility left? /sarc

Good to see Grant was back to teach the importance of pounding nerds!

I was just down in Mississippi yesterday and saw the I 59 exit for Hattiesburg, it’s a sign!

Damn it, there was some serious talent on that D, mid 90s level talent.

Don’t worry guys, I live down the street from Taylor High, I’ll close this out yelling Husker Power as I drive by the high school tomorrow morning.

Well, he didn’t produce much so I’m not too miffed. I checked his rivals profile for fun...holy sh*t, his offer list was ridiculous.

Travis Lewis perhaps? From San Antonio if I recall correctly. He was a Callahan recruit who flipped to OU towards the end. He was great for them, I remember he was fast as hell.

Hell yes, look at effing Eric Anderson, has that 40 yr old suburban dad vibe with definite dad strength. Jesus, those guys were beasts.

Best of luck to Chase, I was excited to see him as a Blackshirt on the field and rocking that sweet ass retro 90s windbreaker off the field. I guess he’ll put it back on eBay.

Holy sh*t, I randomly watched this clip at work today...it’s a sign!

Perfect balance of the Signet with Hamms, cheers!

I think scotch is more diverse in flavor versus bourbon/Tennessee whiskey. As NM previously stated, there are different scotch producing regions and this equates to differing flavor profiles - smoky, honey sweet, a mix, and some are finished in former casks that housed rum, sherry, or some other spirit which lends itself to more complex flavor. I am no expert as I recently got into scotch at the age of 33 and wish I had started sooner. The below link should be helpful for anyone interested in scotch: https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/scotch-whisky101-a-beginners/ I am a Glenmorangie fan myself, a nice single malt for drinking neat at a reasonable price. Cheers

Agree. I was livid when Prukop basically ran over Gerry on a scramble. It didn't go for long yardage but he's a GD Safety, he's supposed to deliver the blow.

Great pickup and especially like the Thrasher t-shirt. Reminds of my middle school skater days!

Here's a bit of random for the day...former Husker Johnny Mitchell is coaching a football (American that is) team down in Brazil. I might have to start following the Maringa Pyros. http://news.yahoo.com/american-football-growing-quickly-brazil-182351977.html Cheers!

Haha! Sorry to say? It's amusing the lengths that you're going to find something to criticize about him even when you agree with a policy he is making. There must be no good that he can possibly do in the eyes of some - since doing so would invariably indicate election-year pandering to demographics. I'm glad you got a laugh, cheers. I don't think I'm stretching when I agree with the proposal, but questioning the timing. Sure, BHO might issue this statement, but what is the probability that this will actually take effect...slim, I would conjecture. Reference his recent gay marriage evolution as another example, oh yeah, and the war on women. I can't possibly think why he would bring up those topics at this point in time...these are simply sideline topics that have no real chance of passing aka a waste of time. Jesus, I've wasted too much time already just thinking about it haha. Just so I don't come off as some completely biased dbag...BHO's foreign policy tactics have impressed me. I'm glad he added HRC (and the always peppery BC) to his lineup. She's probably been the best teammate and adds a lot of credibility to his administration. Anyways, I'll agree with the proposal's broad objective, but I think it will be possible to enact especially at this point in time with Congress, the election, and the economy. I doubt legal citizens would be willing to add hundreds of thousands of newly legal competitors to the ranks of job seekers given the weak recovery.

I'm sorry to say that this may be a reasonable proposition, but given the timing, BHO is ginning up the Latino population. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm unsure if this would be legal...does this count as an Executive Order because there's no way it would pass Congress. However, it is similar to something Marco Rubio proposed so perhaps BHO is manuvering should Mitt pick Marco as his VP. Lastly, this should also ignite a fire among Repubs and a good number of independents...giving work visas to children of illegal immigrants in the midst of a pathetic economic recovery... BHO has had a bad two weeks and has to hit up all of the interest groups...women, gays, celebs, Latinos...I wonder who's next...?

Opportunity for all? Yes, for legal those individuals who take the time and are responsible enough to progress through the immigration process, legally. Key word, legal. Using your logic, what is the use of having a country if it's open to all? There's the risk that society would devolve into chaos if we let anyone in for 'opportunity'. Think about what you're saying, you're essentially advocating for a free for all. Check out some of those great border towns if you want a taste, and feel free to pay for all of those great government services that illegals suck money out of. Yes, we are an immigrant nation that promotes opportunity. However, we are also a nation that respects the rule of law and those laws stipulate how immigration is to be conducted. Simply because a majority of us are descended from immigrants, think 1700-1900, does not translate into open borders in the present day.

Good question, I often wonder that myself. I think it's to make himself and his vision of Russia feel relevant, like the old days when Russia (USSR) was number two in the world. Instead of acting in good faith and assisting to put an end to the conflict, he'll act against Western interests partly just for the sake of of it, and because Russia can milk a bit more money out of Syria while the Assad regime is still in power. Coincidentally, the old USSR did something similar during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s...backed the leftists, even though it was a losing position, but managing to capture a large amount of Spain's gold reserves as payment for their services before Franco's fascists took over. Win!

The newly released video is interesting...it doesn't to seem to exhibit the injuries that were originally reported. However playing devil's advocate, one of the officer's appears to be getting a good look at the back of Zimmerman's head and his nose still could be broken in the video. Just because his nose isn't gushing blood everywhere does not mean it is not broken. I assume that when a person is treated my medical staff, the staff would clean you up a bit. Having never been in a similar situation, I don't know what the standard operating procedure is. If in fact Zimmerman was treated at the hospital as previously reported, I assume some record would have been kept and the staff would be subpoened if this goes to court. If these records were brought forward I think it would shed some more light on the alledged attack on Zimmerman.

I'll second that Mich, the match between the Pharoahs (Egypt) and Desert Foxes (Algeria) is known to be one of the most intense, and often violent games among soccer rivalries. I think last time around, Egyptian fans were throwing stones at the Algerian team bus as they left the stadium. You're probably spot when you say this mentality carries over to the national level. I would also conjecture that this was more likely to happen because...well, it's the ME/Arab world, a place not known for stability and rational thinking. I'm not suggesting other countries don't have fan violence, but 73 dead is extreme.

So you accept a company like Bain making a $16.5 million profit by buying a company, slashing promised benefits (to the point where the federal government had to step in and make up for a $44 million shortfall), firing 750 people . . . and driving the business to close? In my opinion that's not the way the market is supposed to work. And this would be one of those negatives. In this case, I absolutely don't agree with what Bain did, but let's not take this example and project it to all of Bain's deals or to all of private equity. I'm not saying that this is your intention, but we don't want to assume. For my own understanding, please include the company's name. Private equity serves a valuable role in growing and optimizing businesses, and what I accept is that sometimes the deal is a failure for employees, management, and investors like Bain. On the flip side, sometimes private equity is instrumental in growing start-ups or revamping existing companies to help them operate more effectively. Are their particular rules that you think would help create a better private equity industry? Off the top of my head...maybe set a limit on the amount of debt (% of assets for example) that the private equity company can issue and place on the company's balance sheet.

Have you read about how Bain made money? It was hardly as benevolent as what you are describing. I should have been more specific, I wasn't meaning to include Bain & Co in my comment, but I see how that could happen given that I mentioned Romney's name. Scratch Romney, I'm talking about anyone who receives interest, dividends, capital gains etc from investments. For example, when my wife receives a dividend from Shell, she's not leeching from anybody, they are paying her what she is due on a quarterly basis. Concerning Bain, I'm aware of how private equity works. My wife's company was recently bought by KKR. Do I like it? I see the positives and negatives, but I accept it as the way the markets work.

Mitt and others who derive most of their income via dividends/capital gains etc, don't earn that money in the traditional sense...going to work each day and performing a job. Formerly, he did have a day job where he made a salary. The money he earns now is a product of him taking that salaried income, investing, and receiving a return. I'll disagree though on the premise that he and others leech off the system. They are not taking money from anybody except other willing investors in the case of stocks via buying/selling, munis or corporations via interest or dividends payments, or banks via savings accounts. What he has done is a great example of what someone can do throughout their career, save and invest so that some day you can quit work and live off of your investments. I understand your dislike of the capital gains tax level, but many ordinary people rely on their investments for income. I’m not trying to get hyperbolic, but would assign the leech label anyone else who collects income from investments (brokerage accounts, 401ks, savings account etc)? I haven’t heard of SONGS, is it the San Onofre facility? Post a link and I’ll take a look.

The purpose of a taxation plan is to pay is to fund the budget passed by congress. It should be done in such a way to minimize any disruption to the economy, and fairness should be a lesser consideration. Income taxes, consumption taxes, tariffs (all gevernment revenue) should be included, as well as the amount of deficit spending that is acceptable. At this point in time having low earners pay a higher percentage than higher earners is strangling our middle class and is a treat to the nation. I have, and I would still tax capital gains at a higher rate. Can you make an argument to tax them lower? "Class warfare" is one of those catchy terms uses to defend the illogical and obfuscate issues. Why do you "think we should increase taxes on the poor"? Great, money to the middle class who then spend is beneficial. However, I’m torn by whether or not I think this makes for good policy given that this money is not earned, either borrowed by the government or funded by the wealthy via taxes. It is likely borrowed, so that means we end up paying for it down the road regardless of whether or not the new stimulus worked, and with interest. Agreed, money for infrastructure is great, provided the improvements are actually needed and not simply repaving a road that was repaved two years ago. I don’t think with our current debt load and recent credit downgrade, that it would be a good idea. Stimulus one was just short of a trillion and you think that’s way too small. Adding a few trillion on to our debt load probably wouldn’t sit well with the markets or citizens, but I could be wrong. Infrastructure spending tends to act more as an investment with measurable returns in the future. However, I don’t think the notion that these jobs would have to be union. Overpaying for goods/services in order to provide a particular group of people (construction workers) higher than normal wages doesn’t make for sound financial policy. I know the government overpays for things all the time and we somehow lose billions of dollars of shrink wrapped 100s in Iraq, but for clarity’s sake, I’m simply talking about these proposed union infrastructure jobs. On class warfare and wealth confiscation, fine, let’s scratch that. Strigori used it “class warfare” previously and I continued its use for continuity. I understand that you feel the wealthy have gained disproportionately and perhaps unfairly in the past decades. I don’t think the government chose to favor the rich, the rich simply benefited more. I would argue when someone benefits more than another when both have equal access/opportunity regarding a specific tax policy, that isn’t picking favorites. It’s impossible to ensure that person X and person Y benefit in exactly the same proportion. Concerning capital gains taxes…I would be ok if they were taxed equal to other types of income, however…this would be contingent on whether the tax code can be simplified and flattened, although not completely flat (even Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist concede that), perhaps 3-4 levels with the highest rate at 25%. I think using Mitt Romney’s, Buffet’s et al tax rates to illustrate how utterly ridiculous our tax code is serves us well as a nation. I think demonizing them is wrong, they’ve done nothing wrong. However, I hope this encourages more people that tax overhaul is needed, both for corporate and personal taxes. In the end, entitlement spending will doom us unless we’re willing to pay for it meaning increased taxes or we revamp and begin to cutback on the benefits…less for the wealthy, increasing eligibility age etc.