PN-G bamatex

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.12212/full
 
And we'd be one of the least corrupt states if we could figure out how to turn BISD over to Louisiana.  :D

First of all, learn how to spell "inanimate" correctly.
 
Terrorism isn't an inanimate object. Hippy already pointed it out, but I'll say it again: you tell that to anyone who lost a family member to terrorism. Nederland lost a longtime resident to an act of terrorism in Africa last year - why don't you go tell his family it's an "inatimate object"? Let's see the reaction you get.
 
Terrorism is pattern of behavior predicated on a philosophy that the masses are best subjugated and conformed to a particular ideology through the use of fear and intimidation. It's the vehicle through which cowards, idiots, psychopaths and radical ideologues force their views upon the world. And it's contrary to everything we as a nation believe - contrary to the very principles of liberty, of freedom, and of the individual pursuit of happiness according to his own beliefs this country was founded on.
 
Now before you run off trying to reinforce some assinine point that this country has never fought a behavior, let's understand something: the history of military conflict in this country is very much a history of fighting different systems of beliefs and even to some extent, the predecessors to terrorism. The very incarnation of this country came through a war fought against oppression - political, economic, military and religious oppression carried out by a despotic monarchy halfway across the world. And after we beat it the first time, we fought it again a quarter of a century later and beat it again.
 
What's the next major war that sticks out in the minds of most Americans? A war against, in very many ways, a different kind of oppression carried out because of economic necessity, tradition and populist democracy run amok that applied our system of values in new and unforeseen ways.
 
And then we had the world wars. Are you really going to tell me those weren't wars against a different way of thinking? Those were wars against European and Asian imperialism, Nazism and ultimately, genocide. They were followed by a different kind of war against perhaps the most radical form of economic and political oppression to come out of the early twentieth century: communism.
 
What do all of those have in common? There different branches of the same tyrannical tree, and terrorism sprouts from it as well. You may think that wars prior to this one were wars against nations, but they weren't. They were wars against morally inferior ideologies that we typically didn't even start. This one is no different.
 
 
 
Yes. He did. And that's singular. Thank you for proving my point about how many wars we're fighting.

You know, I was hesitant to respond to one of your posts at all. Statements like that are why.
 
Sorry folks, I don't have enough respect for the opposition to carry this debate any further.

You know, I was hesitant to respond to one of your posts at all. Statements like that are why.
 
Sorry folks, I don't have enough respect for the opposition to carry this debate any further.

First of all, learn how to spell "inanimate" correctly.
 
Terrorism isn't an inanimate object. Hippy already pointed it out, but I'll say it again: you tell that to anyone who lost a family member to terrorism. Nederland lost a longtime resident to an act of terrorism in Africa last year - why don't you go tell his family it's an "inatimate object"? Let's see the reaction you get.
 
Terrorism is pattern of behavior predicated on a philosophy that the masses are best subjugated and conformed to a particular ideology through the use of fear and intimidation. It's the vehicle through which cowards, idiots, psychopaths and radical ideologues force their views upon the world. And it's contrary to everything we as a nation believe - contrary to the very principles of liberty, of freedom, and of the individual pursuit of happiness according to his own beliefs this country was founded on.
 
Now before you run off trying to reinforce some assinine point that this country has never fought a behavior, let's understand something: the history of military conflict in this country is very much a history of fighting different systems of beliefs and even to some extent, the predecessors to terrorism. The very incarnation of this country came through a war fought against oppression - political, economic, military and religious oppression carried out by a despotic monarchy halfway across the world. And after we beat it the first time, we fought it again a quarter of a century later and beat it again.
 
What's the next major war that sticks out in the minds of most Americans? A war against, in very many ways, a different kind of oppression carried out because of economic necessity, tradition and populist democracy run amok that applied our system of values in new and unforeseen ways.
 
And then we had the world wars. Are you really going to tell me those weren't wars against a different way of thinking? Those were wars against European and Asian imperialism, Nazism and ultimately, genocide. They were followed by a different kind of war against perhaps the most radical form of economic and political oppression to come out of the early twentieth century: communism.
 
What do all of those have in common? There different branches of the same tyrannical tree, and terrorism sprouts from it as well. You may think that wars prior to this one were wars against nations, but they weren't. They were wars against morally inferior ideologies that we typically didn't even start. This one is no different.
 
 
 
Yes. He did. And that's singular. Thank you for proving my point about how many wars we're fighting.

What an insult to the men, women and families of 911.

You know, I really get tired of this whole "two wars" thing. By what standard are we fighting two wars? Is it the fact that we invaded two separate countries?

In World War II, we liberated what, 20 or 30 separate countries? While fighting three relative superpowers and committing millions of troops - not a mere few hundred thousand - to the fight? Did you know we lost more men in those four short years than we've ever had on active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan together at any point in thirteen years?

So was World War II really "two wars"? In fact, shouldn't it really be three, since we were fighting Japan, Germany and Italy all at once? Or maybe a couple dozen based on how many different countries we fought in? Should the same standard apply to World War I, since we were technically fighting three different countries there, too? How about to the Spanish-American War? We fought the Spaniards in Cuba, Guam and the Philippines. That's three separate countries. Was that really three wars?

Cut the "two wars" crap. It doesn't support your argument and it's at best a poor attempt to vastly overstate the amount of men, material and money we've committed to the front.

That having been said, do you know how much the Global War on Terrorism (meaning Iraq, Afghanistan and every other counterterrorism operation we've carried out everywhere - that's right, one single war) is estimated to have cost? The most liberal estimates out there put it between $4 Trillion and $5 Trillion. That's less than $400 Billion a year, and well below the amount of debt added since President Bush took office.

What's the source of this discrepancy in the numbers? Reality, that's what. And the reality of the situation is that we spend more than 50 cents out of every federal dollar on some sort of social program. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, stipends, this education program, that after-school program or whatever, the bottom line is we've spent fifty years putting together unfunded liabilities that we simply can't afford anymore.

Also the fact that a racially equal jury convicted her in less than an hour pretty much threw the "race card" out the window.

Recruitment drive.

I thought that reaction was underwhelming as well. But Bush still didn't back down on missile defense, and Putin didn't annex Georgia or any part of it like the situation we're presented with now.

He actually kind of likes the name. It's on his license plate.

He actually kind of likes the name. It's on his license plate.

Soul, we call ours Big Cav.

Been a long time since I posted, but Wednesday was a Mount Rushmore day of my career as an educator.
At the 2014 George Ranch HS Spring Athletic Banquet I presented the first ever ALWAYS BELIEVE IN YOURSELF scholarship.
 
It is amazing how my life has been blessed, and how hard it still is at times to know what I left at Dayton, but I know without a doubt my future potential at George Ranch is greater.
 
Look for the Toups Graphics website to return this fall to post commentary on the top 5A football games in Region III.  Looks like the west side of Houston will be loaded next year with George Ranch, Elkins, and Ridge Point fielding good teams.
 
Also in the beginning stages of writing a book on how to teach others to "Always Believe", this came after about three of my student parents emailed  encouraging me to do this.
 
I have had an amazing year, my students are among the top test scorers on their benchmark tests in all of Lamar CISD (which has four high schools), I gave away an "Always Believe" Scholarship, one of the campers at Camp Cayuga Face Book messaged me and told me she had an English assignment to write about their hero, and that she would write the paper about me, because whenever she was sad she could always think about my positive attitude, and I can not count the number of amazing parent emails I have had on my impact of their kids.
 
Miss all of you on the east side of Houston, but at least with this site, I can stay in touch.
 
ALWAYS BELIEVE
Mr. Toups
 


 

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher
 
Thanks, hippy.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher
 
Thanks, hippy.

This just shows your one sided view.....They can bring up specifics when asked, and you can't come up with something other than talking points, so you call them stupid.
 
Just like the gun control thread.......crickets when the facts don't match up to your talking points.....
 
and PNG-Bama kid has been on this forum since High School. If you would take the time to read his post, inspect the way it is written, and the knowledge in them.....you would realize he is FAR from stupid, and one of the most intelligent on this forum. If you don't realize that, maybe you're the one that's stupid.

I actually agree with the "you don't know what the President knows".  I often brought that up when the Bush haters would disagree with his actions. Obama made that come to light when he did not close Guantanamo Bay like he said he would do.
 
However, while we might not get the same information as the President gets, we can see the state of the union and the other countries responses......

And you think you know more than the rest of us. No matter what we say, you're going to spin it around to say that we're only opposing President Obama's actions because he's president or because he's black or because of something arbitrary and irrelevant.

And you think you know more than the rest of us. No matter what we say, you're going to spin it around to say that we're only opposing President Obama's actions because he's president or because he's black or because of something arbitrary and irrelevant.

No. He's pulling them out because there's a fully armed, pro-Russian faction starting a civil war in the Ukraine that can do his dirty work for him.

Glad to know I can count on your vote.

Since you know so much, maybe you should be president. Smh

Uh, maybe because he wanted to invade Crimea and there was no fully armed, pro-Russian military faction in Ukraine to do it for him at the time?

Let me interject here.

Let's say he was making 150k a year at SLC. Went 16-0 4 years. At UNT he made 1.1mil a year. Went 0-10 3 years.

At SLC he made 9k per win. At UNT he made 100k per loss.

And since UNT pays into teacher retirement system...his retirement is a % of those 3 years that he "jumped from hs to college"

So not only did he win...he's laughing at statements like this.