The General Election

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

 

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

 

 

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

 

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

 

 

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

 

 

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

[ZRod]

I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view...

Therein lies the problem...

[HuskerNation1]

 

I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view...

Therein lies the problem...

 

 

If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too.

[ZRod]

 

 

I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view...

 

Therein lies the problem...

If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too.

Oh, I could take it as a joke if it weren't the norm.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view...

Therein lies the problem...

If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too.

Oh, I could take it as a joke if it weren't the norm.

 

 

 

What is the norm exactly? Me speaking my point of view and everyone else speaking their point of view?

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view...

 

Therein lies the problem...

If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too.

Oh, I could take it as a joke if it weren't the norm.

 

What is the norm exactly? Me speaking my point of view and everyone else speaking their point of view?

Not so much. I'm not necessarily speaking about you, but there are a few posters here (we all know who they are) who will not admit a single fault with their line of thinking, their party, or false narratives/data they preach. It's disturbing to say the least.

 

This country is known as the grand experiment for a reason. Nobody can honestly say they have the right answer tonour problems. There are always multiple paths to solve any problem.

[knapplc]

What are the odds that a Nebraska Football message board would be populated with SO MANY "liberals?" It's a conservative state. Most folks on this site are living in Nebraska, or expats, or direct descendants of expats.

 

I mean, one could presume the "liberals" posting here are like the only dozen or so liberals actually in Nebraska...

 

... or one could maybe think that they're a bit extreme in their conservatism, and maybe the folks they're labeling "liberals" so liberally are actually pretty moderate.

 

 

Of course, that would require quite a bit more self-reflection than typically is exhibited here so...

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view...

Therein lies the problem...

If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too.

Oh, I could take it as a joke if it weren't the norm.

 

What is the norm exactly? Me speaking my point of view and everyone else speaking their point of view?

Not so much. I'm not necessarily speaking about you, but there are a few posters here (we all know who they are) who will not admit a single fault with their line of thinking, their party, or false narratives/data they preach. It's disturbing to say the least.

 

This country is known as the grand experiment for a reason. Nobody can honestly say they have the right answer tonour problems. There are always multiple paths to solve any problem.

 

 

Yes, I have seen some of these posters active in this very thread today. I am certainly conservative but can readily admit faults or concerns with those within the GOP, whether we are talking Bush 43, Trump, or others.

[Landlord]

I think there is a way he could have gone about these discussions that would have brought the country together, but unlike MLK Jr, he did not do that.

 

 

 

You know, I've already proven your false revisionist history of MLK Jr. being perceived as this peaceful nice pleasant guy in the eyes of white moderates/conservatives before. Yet you never responded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the issue with BLM. Unlike the civil rights movement in the 60s where the wonderful MLK Jr was the clear and visible leader pushing for change and peace at the same time, there is not that same figure aligned to BLM today. MLK would have immediately and forcefully condemned the hateful rhetoric that has occurred at many BLM protests seeking they wanted dead cops. Those like Obama and Sharpton that claim they want to be champions for blacks need to use their megaphone to forcefully condemn those advocating violence...and not do it after the fact like we've seen in Dallas and now Baton Rouge.

 

 

Don't let actual history get in the way of your narrative. Have you forgotten that the United States government LOST a lawsuit to the King family being found guilty in his assasination? They didn't just plea out. They were convicted of killing him.

 

 

 

 

Just as we formerly pointed out that “hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions,” we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.

We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled. We urge the public to continue to show restraint should the demonstrations continue, and the law enforcement officials to remain calm and continue to protect our city from violence.

We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense.

 

From an open letter written to MLK Jr. by a group of white clergymen

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. King, who views himself as a kind of Messiah of the dispossessed, would be well-advised to heed the counsel of his distinguished colleague, Roy Wilkins, executive secretary of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People. Wilkins sees, as King apparently does not, the political impact of unrestrained violence on the streets. He sees it breeding reaction and giving encouragement to the hate-mongers, the white supremacists, the bigots. Wilkins believes there is a time and place for marches in behalf of open housing, but he knows that the violence-provoking forays into white neighborhoods will give rise to long-lasting resentment and lead ultimately to political defeat.

 

An article from the Californian newspaper

 

 

 

 

 

Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

 

 

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

 

 

 

 

A quote from MLK Jr. himself

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.

 

Another quote from the man himself.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Would just like to mention that you don't have to be a liberal to know that Trump is a piece of sh#t candidate for President.

[Red Five]

What are the odds that a Nebraska Football message board would be populated with SO MANY "liberals?" It's a conservative state. Most folks on this site are living in Nebraska, or expats, or direct descendants of expats.

 

I mean, one could presume the "liberals" posting here are like the only dozen or so liberals actually in Nebraska...

 

... or one could maybe think that they're a bit extreme in their conservatism, and maybe the folks they're labeling "liberals" so liberally are actually pretty moderate.

 

 

Of course, that would require quite a bit more self-reflection than typically is exhibited here so...

 

Going back to this poll, I've had this line of thought a few times. Nebraska is one of the most conservative states in the nation, hence I would think that the majority of Nebraska football fans lean to the conservative side. So why are there so many people on this board that are not voting for the conservative party's candidate?

 

As for the "liberal" thing, what makes one a liberal? Is it just voting for a D candidate? Is it believing in global warming? Is it thinking that LGBT people should have the same rights as straight people? Is it thinking that there needs to be greater gun control? Is it thinking that Obamacare is a good thing? Is it thinking that the free college should be enacted? etc, etc, etc.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

 

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

 

 

Fascinating.

 

I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have.

 

Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse.

 

Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin?

 

As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really?

 

Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken?

 

Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way?

 

And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims.

 

And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy.

 

Yay.

 

 

I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

 

 

I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor.

So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite.

 

Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context.

 

I guess you could call that arguing.

 

Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting.

 

But it's what you do. For the children.

[Guy Chamberlin]

What are the odds that a Nebraska Football message board would be populated with SO MANY "liberals?" It's a conservative state. Most folks on this site are living in Nebraska, or expats, or direct descendants of expats.

 

I mean, one could presume the "liberals" posting here are like the only dozen or so liberals actually in Nebraska...

 

... or one could maybe think that they're a bit extreme in their conservatism, and maybe the folks they're labeling "liberals" so liberally are actually pretty moderate.

 

 

Of course, that would require quite a bit more self-reflection than typically is exhibited here so...

 

Yeah. I've found this interesting myself. Not so much the partisan breakdown, but the overall quality of the debate, far more thoughtful and well-written than any number of sites I stumble into on the internet.

 

I'd prefer to categorize Nebraskans and pragmatists and realists -- an outgrowth of living in farm country. Being a realist can cut both ways in terms of party politics. i.e. I have never assumed a Trump critic or LGBT supporter considered themselves a liberal, or planned to vote for Hillary Clinton. Or that a Hillary critic was a mouthpiece for the Koch brothers.

 

I'd like to think we have a better nose for bullsh#t than most. But if we're not careful, we could turn into Kansas. Football AND politics.

 

Vigilance, my red-clad people.

[Landlord]

To be fair, the internet and messageboards do tend to have disproportionately liberal demographics, but also to be fair, as someone who is often called either liberal or conservative depending on who I'm talking to, conservative parties tend to (speaking in generalities here, friends) throw anyone that isn't as far right as them into the camp of "the liberals", while the left generally only uses 'conservatives' to designate people who are pretty far right, leaving room in the middle.

 

 

This unfortunately lines up with the Fox News fear-based cable ratings motiff.