Leaderboard

When their castoffs start enrolling at LCM.

My youngest grandson may change your mind. I mean he's 3, but he's a bad 3. Lmao.

[Hidden Content]

Pretty sad and pathetic and probably demonic that people actually think that a male can be a female and vice versa. this is what happens when people fall away from the Word of God…. It trickles into our leaders and governing officials.

Also, on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter. Articles I, II and III in the Constitution list the separation of powers. Article II gives the president complete control over the Executive Branch of government. The FTC is under the authority of the Executive Branch. It is therefore controlled by one person, the president. Trump came into office and fired two members of the FTC because they were appointed by Democrats and they did not agree with Trump‘s position. For that reason, Trump said, you’re fired! One of them, Rebecca Slaughter did not like that. He filed a lawsuit saying that you can’t fire me. A 1935 lawsuit ruled on by the Supreme Court said that Congress funds and created the FTC so the president cannot fire anyone on a commission that he and only he is ahead of. So basically, he cannot fire his own employee even though the his employee said, I don’t agree with your agenda, Mr. President. So Trump took to court and the circuit court said, yes, Mr. President, you were prohibited from finding members of a commission that you and only you are ahead of. You are forced to work with people that do not want to work for you or for your agenda Trump has been appealed to the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision said, what kind of nonsense is this. Sure, a president can fire a member of an executive commission that he alone controls. Who wants to work with a subordinate who can basically tell you to get screwed? So just because Congress does not like it, under the separation of powers, they do not control executive committees and commissions. Congress can create committees but once created, they are under the authority of the president and can be terminated. Again, the vote was 6 to 3 that the president alone in Article II, controls the Executive Branch. Any guesses on which 3 justices said to heck with Article II, the president should not be able to control all aspects of his administration?

Falcon needs to jump on over to the political forum. They'd fit right in.

If Jasper beats WOS…I wonder how long until a special board meeting is called…

Alvarez Grand Slam lead 6-4. Nice way to break out of slump.

Probably a slow year this year as stated several times already,I would imagine recruiting is in full swing though!

This morning the Supreme Court issued another ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. WV was being sued by a biological male (B. P. J.) wanting to play on female teams. The question was, does Title IX of federal law on sex based discrimination, keep states from banning biological males from female sports. Title IX wasn’t originally for sports but at least that seems to be where the main impact and attention has been. The law says that in educational benefits from grade schools through college, sexes must have an equal access in educational programs. For example if a high school had 10 boys sports and only 2 girls sports, it was seen as not having equal access. It has obviously improved funding for girls sports in schools and in college and that’s a good thing. Look at some of the popularity of some female sports now. But this case was not about that. West Virginia, Texas, Idaho and other states have passed laws banning biological males from female sports. Also the NCAA recently banned males from female sports. Lawsuits were filed saying that banning males from female sports violated Title IX by discriminating against the males by denying them access to sports. So a West Virginia case made it to the Supreme Court to see if it was a constitutional violation of male rights by banning them from female sports. To me it seemed like a simple answer. Men are not denied access to sports. They are only banned from joining female teams. So a male does not have to be allowed to join a female basketball team. He has equal access to sports and can join the men’s team. It’s so simple, right? Not so fast!! The Supreme Court had to settle this decision. It was not unanimous. The vote was 6-3 that banning males from female sports was not discrimination against males. This is like beating a dead horse…. 🫪 Can anyone guess which three justices voted that it is discrimination if a boy is denied playing on a girl’s team by claiming that he is a girl and he apparently has no access to sports? Is he denied educational (usually sports) access? Here is a hint and this is a spoiler alert. One of the justices who voted that males should be able to play on female teams and it is guaranteed in federal law and the Constitution by way of Title IX, is not sure what a male or female is anyway.

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Manchurian Candidates.' Terrorists don't have to be citizens. Although, it could be argued that some members of our current government are already terrorists.

I can break it down in one acronym "TDS". It was a 5/4 decision and one of those in the majority cannot define what a woman is. There is no telling how many terrorist will come back as an adult and us citizen and get away with an attack.

I was commenting on some of your other sentences... "For clarification: schools run a background check from the DPS database. If that comes back "clear", the school check references. Former employers are only technically allowed to provide 1. dates of employment 2. eligible for rehire yes/no 3. they may also provide safety info for DOT sensitive positions. Anything beyond the above listed information can expose the former employer to legal trouble." And my comment was they are ok to provide any factual information as long as the prospect signed a release and it is truthful and non-inflammatory. Your limitation of only 3 things that an employer can "technically" provide is incorrect. I've tested it in court. A few times...

Wouldn’t find me betting against you.

100% - my guess is he retires under a Democrat President

Yep. I'd enjoy hearing some insight after listening to the BU coach interview with Stepp. He seemed like he has the temperament to really help the program over there.

I’m gonna keep posting these clips because they make me realize how we, as Americans, take things for granted. We don’t appreciate how good we have it. Even with inflation and high gas prices, Europeans are so impressed with A/C everywhere, variety in our grocery stores, the size of our retail outlets, portions served in restaurants, and our hospitality. To put it in a nutshell….Americans are spoiled.

The inning from hell was all it took. 6 run 4th.

The Supreme Court just granted certiorari or review to two cases for the next term. These cases deal with the ban on AR-15 and other “assault” rifles. The Supreme Court has finally decided to step in and rule whether a government can prohibit semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. By the time they schedule oral arguments to hear the cases and then write an opinion, it will probably be near the end of the term at about this time next year. So the can is no longer going to be kicked down the road. We are about to soon find out if about half a dozen states are violating the Constitution by prohibiting the possession of certain semi automatic weapons. Did I mention that I think this is huge?

Cornell won’t return for money. He’ll probably return out of loyal commitment to Foreman. The salary could be reduced to offset the TEA cost, for multiple years.

And our government is so useless and inept they never changed it after all these years. Imagine that.

I agree with you on the 90% 10% thing, but I do think most argue against it because the think of the 24 second clock. That IS for ELITE players. But watching it in other states and college a 35-40 second clock won't change the game much but will stop the holding of the ball at the end of games like you stated. Many coaches got away from emphasizing free throw shooting.

They do it in football dont they. They have a play clock keeper at all levels. At most you raise the door ticket $1.

Me personally idc if there's a shot clock or not, but after reading this post he's not wrong. 🤷🏾‍♂️

I understand the district‑talent argument, but let’s be real — lack of talent isn’t the other team’s fault. Every coach has to build around what they’ve got. Some schools have hoopers, some don’t. That’s the nature of high school sports. But that’s exactly why a shot clock doesn’t hurt the game. It doesn’t force anyone to play fast. It just forces everyone to play basketball. You can still run deliberate offense. You can still control tempo. You can still grind out possessions. A 35–40 second clock gives you more than enough time to run multiple actions. What it removes is the ability to stall for two minutes without any intent to score. That’s not “strategy.” That’s hiding behind the clock because you don’t have the talent to compete straight up. And diversity doesn’t disappear. College has a shot clock and you still see: • Princeton offenses • Ball‑screen heavy systems • Motion teams • Post‑dominant teams • Pack‑line defenses All completely different identities. The clock doesn’t erase style — it erases stalling. Most teams who want a shot clock already shoot within 45 seconds anyway. They’re not asking for help on offense. They’re asking for a rule that keeps the game competitive and keeps kids developing real basketball skills. High school players deserve: • More possessions • Real end‑of‑game situations • Preparation for the next level A shot clock doesn’t make everyone play the same. It just prevents one team from turning the game into a freeze‑tag contest because they don’t have the talent to compete possession‑to‑possession.

Brookeland hires Bryce Gaston - head baseball Coach Gaston has been an assistant under Shawn Mixon at Huntington for the last two years.