Jump to content

Kid’s are off Limits


Recommended Posts

It really don't matter. The point is Port Arthur is he playing with illegal kids without waivers and the league has chosen to do nothing about it and the coaches don't care that they are breaking the rules and cheating. Ned knows he did not go through the proper process and get the waivers required. But whenever the head of Ethics Committee is from Port Arthur I guess things get swept under the rug. There are at least two kids on Peewee red that go to school outside their District and I know for a fact one of them was told not to sign up in Port Neches and to come play for Port Arthur

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BIG STEPPER.... said:

Hi Mr. Ned I see ur point, it has been in every post he talk about PA JRs(RED) none other well somewhat PA BLK cause he feel he can just beat them! Funny thing is didn't you once coached his starting RB I believe his name is POPPA? I may be wrong. It will be hard losing back to back to PA the chiefs beat up on NED as a whole last yr on PW.... NED-Gold ( a lot to none) NED- Blk ( 28-14) maybe and SB smh sad showing NED-White( a lot to 6).... With that being said I try and get you kicked out too "oh well" he maybe tired of making excuses on why he cant beat you guys!

If I remember right the pee wee white game was a touchdown difference. Pretty good game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, BIG STEPPER.... said:

Hi Mr. Ned I see ur point, it has been in every post he talk about PA JRs(RED) none other well somewhat PA BLK cause he feel he can just beat them! Funny thing is didn't you once coached his starting RB I believe his name is POPPA? I may be wrong. It will be hard losing back to back to PA the chiefs beat up on NED as a whole last yr on PW.... NED-Gold ( a lot to none) NED- Blk ( 28-14) maybe and SB smh sad showing NED-White( a lot to 6).... With that being said I try and get you kicked out too "oh well" he maybe tired of making excuses on why he cant beat you guys!

Lol funny guy. Also Poppa has played football in Nederland since he was 5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DEM BOYZ said:

He DOES NOT have a waiver. I verified with NYFA president who is also on the ethics committee. I was told he was the only one who thinks it's a big deal. The rest just want to sweep it under the rug.

Someone said maybe in another thread, that all you cryers, whining, "cheat card" users  are afraid of them. Just take a look at yourselves. In all of "lil ole PA," you ADULTS made a whole thread about one kid. (9 maybe 10) This is outrageously ridiculous. You'd swear this kid was a senior at MHSthe way people are on here crying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, thaghost said:

Someone said maybe in another thread, that all you cryers, whining, "cheat card" users  are afraid of them. Just take a look at yourselves. In all of "lil ole PA," you ADULTS made a whole thread about one kid. (9 maybe 10) This is outrageously ridiculous. You'd swear this kid was a senior at MHSthe way people are on here crying. 

Nope just about not following rules. You're missing the point. I'm sure if you take that kid off the team PA Red wouldn't lose a step. Not about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thaghost said:

Someone said maybe in another thread, that all you cryers, whining, "cheat card" users  are afraid of them. Just take a look at yourselves. In all of "lil ole PA," you ADULTS made a whole thread about one kid. (9 maybe 10) This is outrageously ridiculous. You'd swear this kid was a senior at MHSthe way people are on here crying. 

You just cant admit PA is cheating. Deflect and deflect some more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, DEM BOYZ said:

Nope just about not following rules. You're missing the point. I'm sure if you take that kid off the team PA Red wouldn't lose a step. Not about that.

I totally get the point of the whole situation. My point is this, if a person doesn't know what's going on, ASK!  Don't get on the internet behind the keyboard OR sneak up to the school and take pics of people's kids. There's a problem that nobody "outside PA" is willing to discuss. See coach is good, I would've had the school renamed "Eddie L Anderson Elementary School" had some stalker lady took pics of mine. It's also says a lot about the safety and security of that school. Oh and Heaven forbid it was a teacher. See with that stunt, folks made it more than FOOTBALL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been following this for a couple days. I do not have kids in Pee Wee or anything, just a bystander. Kids should play in their zone if possible. If they don't, a waiver should be signed or whatever. That really should be for any youth sport. Hopefully nobody was really driving up to schools to take pictures of little kids to show where they go to school. That's nuts. What has gotten lost in this conversation is that its Pee Wee Football. 9 and 10 year old football. Nobody is getting paid for winning or getting a scholarship or getting an AD job for their tremendous game planning. It should be about the game, kids learning techniques and what not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...