OlDawg

Do you agree this is almost identical to China—which we complain gives their companies an unfair advantage—and opens the door for future Administrations to blur the lines even more between private business and government intervention? Can you at least admit it’s a far departure from the free market system this country was founded on? Every business the Administration has taken an equity stake in has now—by default—become ‘Too Big to Fail.’ Any of their free market competitors in the U.S. have become expendable to preserve the equity stakes.

I think the crook will beat the creep by a slight margin.

Local news this morning said it may be illegal since Texas has a law banning aid for transitioning. I don't know all the details. I just saw the story on the morning news. First I'd heard of it.

I guess this goes here? Please move if it should go somewhere else. [Hidden Content]

This is actually hilarious. People are using another definition and justifying an economic system similar to China because the ‘S’ word is a big no-no. I guess ‘Too Big to Fail’, Soylendra, the Big Auto bailouts (of which GM still owes us $14B), and all the other wonderful ideas where the government invests our money, we’re still paying for with the interest on the debt, see no return, and have no say on when we can get our money back, is okay if we use another term to describe the interference in the market. It would be different if it were incentives. But, this isn’t. This is pure market manipulation by the government using our money to pick winners and losers. The only people winning are the companies, and their direct investors. Every other competitor is losing. Almost every taxpayer is losing. Even those not born yet. Yes. I’m a conservative libertarian in fiscal matters. Not a fan of market interference by the government in this manner. Very slippery slope.

Apparently, it came from an LLC registered in Wyoming. No affiliation to Texas at all. [Hidden Content]

A game between La Porte and Ball six weeks ago has absolutely nothing to do with a game between Lufkin and GCM this week.

You may want to start looking at I Bonds. As a banking employee, I’d think it’s something you have knowledge of, and can easily justify with your time window. A little protection can go a long way in this environment, and now would be the time to buy.

Trump has taken us one step closer to pure socialism by taking government ownership stakes in multiple companies and industries, and justifying them all with the umbrella of ‘National Security.’ He’s codified the Democratic Socialists’ agenda for them, and a bunch of Trump-loving stooges went right along with it.

Depends on the coaches. Usually, I wind up looking in multiple places, and I try to keep track during the year. Sometimes, I have to rewatch games or coach’s shows. Luckily—in this case—both staffs appear to be keeping their stats updated somewhere where Maxpreps can get to them. Because, they matched the individual games I had pretty close, and both were up-to-date. A lot of teams don’t do this.

A lot of people are using La Porte as a comparison for different things. For the record, La Porte just got their D personnel back for the PAM game. Then, they preceded to lose their NT during that game. I don’t know his status. LP had to shuffle their D, and many D players were having to fill in on the O as LP lost their entire OL and others in Games 1 & 2. Any comparison using the LP D before the PAM game is moot. LP even had Simon and Reynolds playing LB in addition to their normal positions against GB because they were so banged up. That’s when Simon got ejected. GB was taking cheap shots at him all game while he was doubling on defense. Apparently, he finally had enough at the end of the game. He had to sit the first half of the GCM game. LP has been through the injury wringer this year.

For those that think LP is still strictly a ground and pound team, here's a comparison. Many people aren't giving Wells the credit he deserves IMHO. La Porte (Offensive numbers in District play thru 5 games) Passing - 971 yards, 194 ypg, 14 TD's, 1 INT, 73% Comp. pct., 148.9 QB Rating Rushing - 326 ypg, 7.3 ypc, All purpose ypg - 582 PPG - 52.4 Beaumont United (Offensive numbers in District play thru 5 games) Passing - 1055 yards, 211 ypg, 14 TD's, 3 INT, 55% Comp. pct., 99.5 QB Rating Rushing - 120 ypg, 4.7 ypc All purpose ypg - 404 PPG - 32.4

I think their D can shut Randle down. They would have a tougher time with a team like LP that has multiple D1's to defend, and can run or pass effectively with either. LP's D is getting back into shape now that most of the young men are returning to their positions, and other tweaks have been made. Long way to go though.

Getting a first round game at home isn't going to make much of a difference. 11-5A & 12-5A are still too much in the air to really project Area matchups/easier paths. But, no path in Region 3 is going to be 'easy'. Then, SV is just steamrolling folks.