SmashMouth

22 hours ago, bullets13 said:

If the republicans get some decent candidates who are actually decent people into the next round of races they should gain some seats back, because stuff is about to get silly.

If you are waiting on "decent people" who are or become politicians then good luck. Decent politician is an oxymoron.

On 11/4/2026 at 7:38 AM, AggiesAreWe said:

He already has.

Said Abbott being a RHINO is why he lost.

SMH

That dude never takes any blame. Always passing the buck.

Please point me to a politician that takes blame while in office. If you scrounge something up, it's few and far between.

On 11/2/2026 at 11:10 AM, UT alum said:

Voted 86% for Trump. That does not translate to 86% Republican. I would guess at least 20 - 25% of that 86% were independents. Careful how you count.

According to the Texas Secretary of State, Elections Division:

"About 77% of adults in Hardin County typically vote, above the U.S. average of about 62%. Among adults in Hardin County, ~12% vote Democratic, ~64% Republican, and ~24% don't vote."

So of the ones who vote, 83.12% generally vote Republican, 15.58% vote Democrat and the other 1.3% vote otherwise (Independent).

Oh ye of little faith…

Good win Mustangs 

I think this is a testament as to how bad Lumberton played, not how good Bridge City looks.

On 9/22/2026 at 8:28 PM, 89Falcon said:

Carthage is not a good opponent for a "bounce back week". 

Sure they are. Any opponent is. As long as they stay healthy and fix mistakes from the prior weeks, then they have done their job. I didn’t say they needed an easy win week. 

22 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

He did have the Mustangs only TD thru the air. Yardage not yet posted

Probably lowest of his career 

They need a good bounce back week. And to stay healthy.

14 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Massey projections has this one 41-14 Carthage

Hope not, but fair.

13 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I got a feeling Caveman has first hand knowledge (aka a son currently playing) and attends all games.

And often times, this point can cloud a critics objective judgement. Been there.

8 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Proverbs 27:17

Iron sharpeneth iron

So one person sharpens another. 
 

The mustangs are not expected to win this game. But at the very least, this will be good preparation for district. They just need to stay healthy and work on getting better. If they can do those two things, that’s a win in my book.

Give me the Raiders by 7

7 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

How much time is left?

Update?

How much time is left?

They’re killin Lee!

Good job H!

On 7/12/2026 at 10:00 AM, baddog said:

Since I know you’re a gumbo cook, I thought you might like this one….

 

Being a coon-ajun, that’s spot on!

On 7/1/2026 at 1:20 PM, OlDawg said:

It was basically 5-4 on the Birthright Citizenship via the 14th. Kavanaugh said birthright citizenship didn't come from the 14th, but from a previous Law passed by Congress, and that made the EO illegal. So, he was in the minority opinion (4) along with Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas on that issue. He left an avenue in his split decision that would have allowed Congress to pass another Law defining citizenship without needing an Amendment because--in his view--the 14th didn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.

Like I said, 6/3. Based on constitutional law. 

5 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

It was a 5/4 decision

It was 6/3, I'm pretty sure.

While I don't really like the outcome, I believe it was the correct ruling based on Constitutional law.

20 hours ago, UT alum said:

The law is the law, unintended consequences and all.  

It's hard to disagree with that statement. There are two things you can do: Live with it or change it. The votes aren't there to change it, so....

On 6/14/2026 at 12:22 PM, tvc184 said:

… and yes, 4 year olds aren’t usually that bad but you can see it coming sometimes. 

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

23 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

Read my last sentence in the comment you quoted. 

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...

16 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

The release authorizes the new employer to conduct a background check. It does not release a "former employer" to say things that are confidential outside of what was identified. In the event that a former employer provides unsubstantiated (rumor based or opinion) information that prevents a person from getting hired there is exposure regardless of any signed document.  

I'm sorry sir, you are incorrect on this one. I do this for a living. I'll keep the explanation as short as possible, but as long as your replies as the former employer are fact-based and not purposefully inflammatory, you can relay certain info about a previous employee to a prospective employer. Especially if the prospect in question has signed a release.

Chapter 103 of the Texas Labor Code protects from defamation liability an employer who releases information about a current or former employee to a prospective new employer, unless "the information disclosed was known by that employer to be false at the time the disclosure was made or that the disclosure was made with malice or in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information disclosed."

Follow my guidelines, and it will serve you well:

Release only factual information

Supply Only What Is Requested

Tell the Truth

Avoid Inflammatory Terms

Use a Written Release Form

6 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

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. If they reveal unsubstantiated or unverified rumor type information that prevents a former employee from being hired, they can be subject to lawsuits. 

Not necessarily the case. If you're a prospective employee and you sign an "Employment Information Release" or "Authorization for Release of Information" with a prospective employer so they can vet you (pretty common practice these days), the document gives past employers explicit written permission to share details about your work history. It also acts as a liability release, protecting the previous company from lawsuits (such as defamation claims) for the information they provide.

15 hours ago, AHUDDLESTON said:

Sadly, a lot of school districts choose to let the pervert resign so they don't have to report it and take the time to go to court.  If you remember several years ago a Memorial coach was jailed for this and when it came out that there were allegations at other schools, the girl sued those schools.  I don't remember the outcome of the lawsuits. My favorite professor at Lamar, Coach John Payton, always told us to never be alone with any of your students.  I have lived by his advice now for 33 years.

I took Coach Payton’s coaching class at Lamar in the mid/late 80’s. What an awesome class and teacher.