Jump to content

Alvin Shadow Creek 49 Port Arthur Memorial 7/FINAL


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, BoGip7387 said:

Proud these kids, wasn't the season we wanted but it was the season we got. Fought hard and never gave up, as a fan. That's all I could ask for. 

Yup. I watched the game and was fine with the outcome considering what the season was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cougar14.2 said:

Not the year P.A.M. wanted but I would be more concerned about the next two after realignment. P.A.M. will probably draw the 9th district again. The only thing that will change in 5A-D1 district 10 is replacing Manvel for Shadow Creek 

Projected to be in Region 2 with NCISD, Magnolia ISD and Lufkin, it's gonna be worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never cared about who's in a district, you still gotta show up and play. The score may not have showed it, but I saw we can play with anyone in district 10. Talent wasn't Memorial's problem this year, and lack of execution was on offense. Blame it on whoever, 5 tds on blown coverages and we was able to move the ball. Every lose ball bounced their way. I was more impressed by losing to the #10 by 42 than anything I saw all season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

SC QB is nice!

That is former Galveston and Aldine Mac head coach Drones grandson. Coach Drones son is a coach Kevin drones at shadow creek. Their son, grandson is ranked as a junior quarterback. When I was with Jerry Stewart at Clear Lake we had some battles with the Drones led Galveston ball tornado. Casey Humphreys was a 280 lb middle backer. Nothing like playing on the island for district championship with ball and winning in sold out stadium. Great times, LSU bound quarterback Ryan Huffman was a stud for us.  Shadow creek is STRONG.

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

    • he'll 1000% abuse this if elected and given the chance.  he's like a petulant little kid.  again, I'm voting for his policy, but he's all about revenge against slights and wrongs, both real and perceived.  
    • 3 yrs ago LCM and Vidor played in Vidor for a play in game.  Game was on a Saturday and started around 1 or 2p.
    • It would shock me beyond belief if he tried to. Now, I hope and pray he appoints people that will investigate, charge, and imprison anyone found guilty of the crimes against him...including treason. I would be all for a special task force charged solely with the task of investigating crimes against Trump. Of course the Democrats will be screaming bloody murder that Trump is weaponizing the government against them. We all know the story. From a cursory standpoint, there seems to be a plethora of evidence to lock up many Democrats for a long time. Unless this is done, I see no end to destruction of our political system...and this country.
    • 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…..
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...