OlDawg
-
Posts
1,324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Posts posted by OlDawg
-
-
Not a fan of omnibus Bills. I think they’re a cop out by Congress and always lead to pork. That said, I wanted the tax cuts to stay & reduce spending to pay for them.
Reps are gonna have a hard time explaining because taxes never went up again from the 2017 cuts. People won’t notice a big change except for—possibly—medical. Dems & media will have a field day with that. Grandma will be dying daily.
-
Looks like Alijah Bright (RB/LB) may be at Goose Creek Memorial now? That would be a loss for LP. Also, don’t see the DC’s name. Big loss there…
Interesting.
-
21 minutes ago, Matthew328 said:
LaPorte/Angleton is probably going to be a total toss-up on paper....
Angleton did lose a lot on defense, but I expect them to be much better on offense, especially getting Jammer back healthy after the season ending injury......the other thing about Angleton is they know how to defend LaPorte's offense better than most...so they have in inherent advantage..
LaPorte's got to develop some weapons aside from Simon....what made them great last year was they had 3 guys who could hurt you...moving Sandolph to wingback really made that offense dynamic....is there a guy like that they can plug in? Saenz has the experience at QB, but the young kid is uber-talented....how the staff handles that QB situation especially if the youngster impresses will be vital for LaPorte...
Right now I have LaPorte in the state championship game...they've got that kind of potential...but Angleton is right there with em.....should be fun
Wells could be a key. But, don't want to kick Saenz to the curb. He's paid his dues and been consistent running the offense. Pretty low mistake ratio. Just not really an offensive threat. So, it's a lost offensive position weapon. If they could find a way to move Saenz to receiver and utilize Wells, that would be a luxury. To my knowledge, Bright is still another RB weapon as well. So, you could have Reynolds (TE), Smith & Saenz (WR), Simon & Bright (RB), and Wells (QB). Will have to see.
Losing the leadership of Barnes and Sandolph will be tough to replace.
Last year, they were also fortunate to enter the PO's relatively injury free. That will be key again. Region 3 is gonna be a war.
-
Sean Simon, La Porte Soph RB (5’-11”/195) Offers:
- Arizona State
- Houston
- Nebraska
- SMU
- TCU
- Tennessee
- Texas Tech
- Lamar
- New Mexico
- Tulsa
- UTEP
- UTSA
-
- Angleton O/D 8/4
- Crosby O/D 8/6
- Friendswood O/D 4/4
- Kempner O/D 4/7
- Kingwood Park O/D 4/4
- La Porte O/D 7/7
- Pasadena O/D 8/5
- Porter O/D 5/5
Texas Football’s Prediction:
- La Porte
- Angleton
- Friendswood
- Crosby
Personally, I’d reverse Friendswood & Crosby due to returners. I think the Cougars could be a surprise spoiler. La Porte has 8 home games this year. If the Bulldogs can get the QB position to be more of a threat along with the running game, the offense could be more potent than last year. Someone will need to fill the leadership roles to continue the program ‘rebirth.’ Angleton returns a ton of talent on offense. But, they lost a lot on defense. I look for them to be more explosive this year with more high-scoring shootouts.
Key Game-Angleton at La Porte
Texas Football’s Pick for Region 3 Finals:
- La Porte over Angleton
Preseason State Rankings:
- La Porte (6)
- Angleton (7)
-
1 hour ago, DCT said:
Wow! Prayers coming your way.
43 deceased is the current count. 28 adults & 15 children. At least 27 more missing (girls at Christian camp) with an unknown number of others that may have been there for the 4th long weekend.
Saying Guadalupe River rose 26 feet in 45 minutes.
-
44 minutes ago, Reagan said:
I doubt the Parliamentarian is constitutional. We need answers on this!
Parliamentarian rules aren’t binding. The position was created because Senators spent more time arguing procedure than policy. It’s an advisory position created in 1935. Supposedly non-partisan. But, the current Parliamentarian was appointed by Harry Reid in 2012. Parliamentarians can be fired at the whim of the Senate Majority Leader. Some called for her firing over some of these rules. But, they backed off for some reason.
If Musk is so frustrated he wants to start his own Party—which is nigh impossible because of rules created by Dems & Reps (the UniParty I think he calls them)—he’d be better off funding the Libertarian Party. His thoughts seem to align with them the best anyway, and they already have ballot access & Party structure set up. A few more Rand Pauls wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing in my mind. Make the 2 major Parties have to form a consensus with a third Party. Pretty sure some of the fiscal conservative Reps could be convinced to join as well. Wouldn’t take many. Eleven total would probably do it in the Senate. Just where neither side could get 50.
-
Better believe Dems will harp on people losing healthcare while never mentioning that 14 of Dem led States can still provide insurance of some level to illegal migrants, and we all pay for it because of the Senate Parliamentarian.
That part will never come up.
-
Some items the Senate Parliamentarian shot down. Were going to be cost saving offsets. But, she thought they violated the Byrd Rule. (There were a lot more. But, this article had $$$ attached and the other varied articles didn’t.)
I bet these rules are some of what Musk doesn’t understand, and leads to his frustration. Can’t say I blame him. To avoid the Byrd Rule, must have 60 votes. Don’t see that happening anytime in the near future.
-
2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:
Kicking illegals off.
Would have been good. But, didn’t accomplish it. 14 states plus D.C. offer Medicaid to illegal immigrants. All of them are Democratically led States. The Senate Parliamentarian stopped the Bill from not paying for any because of procedural issues. All the Bill was able to do was to cut Fed matching from .90 of every dollar to .50 of every dollar for uninsured ER visits. (So, taxpayers in Texas will still be paying for medical care for illegals in CA and 13 other states.) Thus, one of the major reasons the Bill costs more than originally planned. That, plus some last minute pork they always find a way to slide in. Dems or Reps. Both do it.
-
-
1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:
Is the military recruitment skyrocketing, or jumping, because apparently, there’s a difference. 😉
Depends on if you’re Airborne or Space Force. By the way, we had the grunts, the squids, and the pukes. What are the Space Force people? Space Pukes?
-
3 hours ago, Big girl said:
Ok. I read that Medicaid cuts dont go into effect until 2027, after the midterm elections. Hopefully something will change. Food stamp cuts start in 2028
Not sure how much Texas will be affected by Medicaid & ACA cuts at this time. Texas wasn’t one of the 40 states that expanded coverage & took the Fed bribe money for Medicaid expansion. So, the hit will be a lot less than other states.
The ACA looks like it will roll back the extra money for premiums that were added during COVID unless addressed before end of year in a separate measure. So, costs will go up by a decent amount. Also, the original requirement of income verification every year is coming back. (This was the original requirement anyway. You had to prequalify for a plan every year.) The sign up period has also been shortened.
For ACA coverage, my recommendation is to use a broker. A good broker won’t charge you anything as they’re paid by the insurance companies via a ‘headhunter’ type fee. We’ve always used TXInsurance.com LLC. Husband & wife team. Been around a long time & provide a great service. They handle everything for you. No cost and you never even have to fight with Healthcare.gov. They do it all.
-
1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:
I’m just curious. We’re at 37 trillion or so in debt and interest payments on that debt now make up the second largest component of our federal spending.
The BBB raises our debt ceiling (the amount that the federal government can borrow, and every scoring of the bill shows that it’s going to make our current deficit spending levels increase by 3.5-4.5 Trillion. Meaning, “we’ve been blowing through cash like drunken sailors, and we’re about to crank up our spending by a couple of notches.”
How do yall, as supposed conservatives, come to terms with your elected officials being anything except fiscally conservative? I’m genuinely confused. Is it a case of “taxation is theft, so I’m for anything that means people pay less in taxes, even if it destroys the country?” Or is more of a “well… it doesn’t seem right, but DJT is a billionaire so he must know what he’s doing” way of thinking?
I’m just confused because most of the somewhat observant people that I know who lean conservative have kinda been like “this is a mess… we can’t keep borrowing to pay our bills. It’s gonna kill us” or something along those lines.
Were y’all never really fiscally conservative (less spending and less taxes), just focusing more on conservative social issues?
My thing is like this… we can’t keep ignoring our deficit spending and debt. They kinda threw the door open to wild borrowing during COVID and liked it, I guess… because they won’t stop. Raising taxes won’t do the trick when 1 out of every 3 dollars the govt spends is borrowed. Cutting taxes won’t spur enough growth in the private sector to allow us to borrow less, either. The only solution is a good old-fashioned belt tightening. We’re all gonna pay more in taxes and the govt will have to spend less or this thing will never get fixed. I just don’t understand conservatives who believe we can pay less taxes, borrow more heavily to cover our expenses, and assume it’s all going to work out in the end. It’s baffling.
It’s like my old friend who kept buying new vehicles. His plan was to buy high, sell low, and make up the difference in volume.
A financial explanation about the debt from someone knowledgeable. I’m for moving what can be moved to the State level after means testing to make sure it’s even necessary. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. It’s going to be a little painful because many have gotten used to big Fed socialism. A better job could have been done with cuts. But, you hear all the screaming at even what was done in this Bill.
-
5 hours ago, Big girl said:
DEI hire. If he was a minority, that is what you all would be saying.
Yes. DEI hire based on youth. Or, do you just see DEI through your personal racial lens?
-
They're thinking R3D1 with 7 of the Top 17? Wow. Going to be a tough row to hoe.
-
If we’re all access, where do you find the digital magazine? I’ve looked & can’t seem to find it.
-
18 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:
Trying to decide if that’s a xxxx, reformed skinhead, or a not yet grown conehead…
-
No matter a person’s stance on abortion, I think it’s an interesting dichotomy that the Party that wants American women to have the right to abort an American baby right up until birth is the same Party that’s fighting so hard to let illegal immigrant mothers who have children on U.S. soil have the right for them to be born, live, and be American citizens.
Seems ironic to me.
-
CBO has a credibility problem. They haven’t even been close in so long, they’re pretty irrelevant.
DOGE ‘em. Save some money.
-
53 minutes ago, tvc184 said:
Yes but it can be done.
There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion.
There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses.
So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision?
I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action.
I'm leaning more and more to the fact that--as people begin to understand the real idiocy of universal birthright citizenship for people in the country illegally as class actions are attempted to be defined--more may understand this wasn't the true intent of the 14th or the Nationality code. SCOTUS may have given us a bigger clue than initially thought.
A court would basically have to say their ruling is a pardon for breaking another law. Almost a chicken and egg scenario. Break the law, then get rewarded by the court system that's supposed to uphold the law? Are immigration laws any less important than the 14th?
To me, anyone who says, “Because it’s in the Constitution” is just being intellectually lazy.
Or, they really do have an agenda to change the electorate.
(Of course, I dealt more with contract law than this other stuff. So, no expert by any means.)
-
41 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:
This was a good ruling and fair.
Question, they are saying now they can do a "class action" and get the same result. Is that going to be more difficult to do?
Class actions require a few extra steps. Yes, can get same results. But, it will be interesting to see a court certify harm to a group of ‘future anchor babies’ since their parents are breaking the law. Create a law for those breaking the law by entering the country illegally? I could see the court easily certifying a class action for those here now. Especially, one of the judges that already ruled the EO unconstitutional. Future? Not quite sure that will fly. Will definitely take some twisting.
How would the court define and certify harm to anyone from anywhere at any time in the future who happens to have a baby while on U.S. soil?
Would seem overly broad for a certified class action.
This question will be at SCOTUS again this fall as Bondi said. Meanwhile, it will stop at a judgement from an appeals court since SCOTUS doesn’t return until October.
My thoughts.
-
Oh, the fear mongering for all the anchor babies over this ruling has been outstanding! 😂🤣
If you don’t get twisted in knots over that issue, apparently the entire public education system in this country is going to fail because parents can opt out of forced teaching their kindergartners about transsexuals and gay marriage in the public school system.
Heaven help us all…
Anyone for a little R.E.M. ‘End of the World’?
-
I think I’ll Pelosi this one.
A lawn boy and Model U.N. kid has been appointed to lead counterterrorism.
in Political Forum
Posted
Could care less. Unnecessary position anyway.