PN-G bamatex

[Hidden Content]

  Well, this was a pleasant surprise.

Children, please stop arguing.

I would actually personally prefer that A&M win this because I like it when the SEC West dominates the East. Plus I don't like Steve Spurrier.   That said, Cocks take it, 45-24.

  Are you as big of an arse in real life as you are on this website?

I only glanced through the description of the research, but if I understand this correctly, they're trying to determine the best fanbases by loyalty and dedication based on a number of factors. One of those factors is the stability of fan support during seasons where the program doesn't perform well, or at least as well as expected.   That's a double-edged sword for both UT and A&M.

Interesting study.   [Hidden Content]   [Hidden Content]

  Correction.

And there it is. She can't deny that her question was answered anymore, so she has to dismiss the answer as though it's completely fallacious simply because it doesn't support her side.

    I've literally already explained this twice, but fine. What's a third time hurt?   The Local Government Code in Texas cites intoxication as a specific grounds for removal of a district attorney. A DUI, obviously, constitutes intoxication. However, while it makes that cause explicit, it does not explicitly charge a specific public entity with carrying out the removal. Instead, it places the burden of filing the petition for the removal of a DA on those grounds on the residents of the county in which that DA resides who have lived in said county for at least six months and are not under indictment by that DA at the time of petitioning.   The Travis County DA's office houses the Public Integrity Unit, which was created by a former DA in the 80s specifically because of the high incidence of public corruption cases in Travis County due to its hosting the state capitol. To paraphrase Ronnie Earle, the now-retired Travis County DA who created the unit, it is specifically charged with investigating cases of corruption and prosecuting corrupt officials in Travis County. By default, this would include officials at the municipal, county and state level within the county's borders, including the DA herself if necessary, as it obviously would be in this case. And, since the PIU is bound to follow state law, it would, by default, be required to file the petition for removal of its own boss as prescribed in the Local Government Code. It never did.   The Public Integrity Unit is not something that every DA's office in every county has. It is in fact unique to Travis County. So, by default, that renders Travis County a special case. In the other two counties where those other two DAs preside, there is no division of their office charged specifically with investigating public corruption or, as necessary, those specific DAs. Does that change the fact that those two DAs should be removed from office? Absolutely not. What it means is that there's effectively nobody there to remove them except the citizens they serve, unlike in Travis County. And, by proxy, it means that there's no specific unit that Governor Perry could threaten to veto funding for to try and force a removal, which effectively renders your question irrelevant.

I'm not going to get up here and defend the entire profession, but I do think there are people in office whose sole goal in life isn't to simply get reelected. I think they're outnumbered, but they do exist.

  I have already answered that question in a separate post.     No, she doesn't. Which is why I get tired of arguing with her. It's like going in circles. She brings up a point or some irrelevant bit of information that you completely trump with fact, and then two posts later, she's bringing it up again. She either doesn't read it, or she doesn't truly think through what she's reading.

  In light of the full circumstances of the situation, no, I don't. I think it's odd that the same agency wasn't trying to remove a DA facing DUI charges when Texas state law requires that she abdicate the office.   And since we're talking about things that are odd, how about we discuss some of the other odd characteristics of this specific unit of the Travis County DA's office. Like the fact that it's investigating the creation of a cancer research organization instead of removing a drunk DA like Texas state law requires.

  First off, depending on the county, the DA's office in those other two cases may not have anything resembling a public integrity unit. In fact, the only one I know of is the one in Travis County, which was formed by a long-time DA there specifically because Travis County is the site of the capitol. If that's the case and those other two DA's offices don't have a public integrity, Governor Perry wouldn't be able to handle it the same way, or really at all given that, once again, the governor's office has no express power to remove DAs.   Second, you make this out like the governor personally threatened the Travis County DA. He did nothing of the sort. What he said was that if the PIU in Travis County didn't do its job, he was going to veto its funding. When they didn't, he carried out that promise. He didn't make any personal threats against any specific person. All he said was that he expected the DA to either step down or be removed from office as the Texas state law requires, or he would veto funding as he saw necessary if the law wasn't carried out. That's not a personal threat, and thus, this isn't coercion.

You can't judge a president against any president but maybe the one that preceded him during his time in office or anytime shortly thereafter. If you want to rate a president against all of the others, you need to wait at least a couple decades after his presidency has ended before doing so.

  To my knowledge, the governor's office itself has no authority to remove a district attorney. The only way one can be removed is via the filing of a petition for removal by a resident in the county over which that DA presides who has lived in said county for at least six months, as explicitly outlined in the chapter of the Texas Local Government Code I gave you. While Governor Perry lives at 1010 Colorado Street in his official capacity as governor, his permanent residence is not in Travis County. Therefore, he has no authority to file a petition for removal either as governor or as an average citizen, and such a duty would thus be left to a Travis County resident or, as mentioned, to the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County DA's office.   I told you in my previous post that the Public Integrity Unit refused to file such a petition. So, with a DA refusing to step down on one hand, and an office charged with holding her accountable that refused to do its duty on the other, what was the governor left to do? He has no express authority to remove her on his own, so he attempted to motivate the office that is supposed to remove her to do its job. While I still think the action is inappropriate, calling it "coercion" is an asinine political charge (as is this indictment), and I can completely understand both the governor's motivations and his methods.

[Hidden Content]   ... is in a state where the average gun owner has six guns and a small mountain of ammunition.

  I would call it an inappropriate but well-meaning use of the governor's veto power to uphold the integrity of the office.

  Alright, let's back up a minute.   [Hidden Content]   That is a link to Title 3, Subtitle B, Chapter 87 of the Local Government Code of the State of Texas. You know what that chapter covers? The process of removing, among other officials, a district attorney.   Look at Section 87.013, entitled "General Grounds for Removal." Three examples are given under this section. The third is intoxication. The Travis County DA was pulled over for driving with a BAC three times the legal limit. That's not only intoxication, that's putting others at risk while intoxicated. According to this particular statute, that's more than enough to have her removed from office.   Under this chapter, the first step in the process of removal is filing a petition for removal that clearly states the underlying cause for the action in one of several courts, depending on the exact circumstances of the situation. Now let me ask you something: who do you think would typically file a petition like that?   Would it be - oh, I don't know - the public integrity unit of the DA's office, which is charged with ensuring the integrity of public officials?   And when said unit doesn't file said petition despite having a blatantly obvious reason to, don't you think it's reasonable to assume that maybe - just maybe - that unit is either ignoring the issue for political reasons or simply isn't doing its job?   On that note, when we have a government agency that isn't doing its job, is it not reasonable to try and light a fire under its arse with something like a threat to veto funding until it gets to work? And, if they don't get to work, is it not reasonable to carry out the threat since, obviously, giving them the funding is a waste of taxpayer dollars?   I said in another thread that I don't think Governor Perry used appropriate means to try and have the DA removed. I stand by that. But to call it "coercion" is, at least in my mind, a stretch.

  Like they were in 2011?

  Go look at every conservative page in existence on Facebook. They're all, without exception, posting picture after picture of a drunk-off-her-arse Travis County DA, and a picturesque Perry mugshot some are describing as "stoic" and "defiant."   Trust me. I know the conservative base. That appeals to it. And while I don't think Perry will win the primary either way, this will be a vote-earner for him during the process.

  8-Team was definitely the way to go.

  Nobody's hiding behind anything. The point is, the SEC is the toughest conference in the country. All I was saying is that I expect Texas to have more wins than Texas A&M because they play in a weaker conference and have a weaker strength of schedule.

  I think you're probably right, but that's as much a comment on the caliber of the two conferences as it is the two teams.

  ^ That.