bullets13

Bingo. I don't know this coach, don't know unwoke, don't know the relationship they have. But one guy telling another guy something and then that guy putting it online doesn't necessarily have anything to do with facts. The coach could've been 100% truthful, could've been mostly truthful but shaded things to support his own narrative or viewpoint, could be a little butthurt and is misrepresenting things to make himself out to be a victim, or any other number of scenarios.

she wasn't really my jug of tea.

Orangefield was a 7-4 playoff team in 4A last year, Anahuac went 9-3 last year and is on the rise in pretty much every sport, and East Chambers is always good. Kirbyville was mediocre last year, but seems to be coming up. Buna was bad and Hardin was worse, but half the district will be pretty good. Regardless of what you think of the district, Tarkington was by far the worst team in the district last season, and they were a long way from even stepping over the bar to next to worst. 6 of the 9 teams Tarkington played last season (0-9, 0-6) are on their schedule this year, and only one of their nine losses was by less than 30. The only game that I can look at on this schedule and think they may have some realistic shot at winning is Hardin. I think a great season is 2-8 and the majority of the 8 losses being by less than 30 points.

I'm all for fairness and equal opportunity. Nobody should be held back or intentionally disadvantaged for arbitrary reasons like race or gender. That said, this movement to level the playing field by cutting the legs out from under overachievers to bring them back towards the middle of the pack instead of just making sure everyone has the same opportunities to start with is a movement destined for mediocrity.

2wedge covered it better than I could, but made the point I was going to make. Anytime you have a community that buys into a certain coach or program, or even sport in general, you can see extended success. Little boys in Hardin don't have much to look forward to for football, but little girls who are athletic can start working towards that volleyball goal at an early age, and softball in Liberty is even easier with a great club program locally. One can even look at a school like WOS to see how one sport might be elite while others are average or bad. It's pretty mind blowing that with the athletes WOS has they can hardly put a .500 record together in basketball most years, even though their football team is perpetually in the running for a state championship. Another example, and one I grew up in. HJ has a really good basketball team pretty much every year, but the football team is usually bad. I remember playing little dribblers out there and each age group would have 10 or more teams. The average school class over there was around 125 students, and each little dribblers age group covers two classes. So two classes is around 250 students, and approximately 125 boys. Each little dribblers team would have 8-9 players. So out of 125 possible kids, close to 90 would play. By the time we got to high school most of us had been playing together for nearly 10 years. Out there it was just expected that you would play basketball, and we did. We actually had a special group of athletes while I was there, and our football team was pretty good for 3-4 years, but basketball stayed strong and football faded back into mediocrity until the next special group came along about 15 years later.

literally was getting on here to post this. pretty insane.

[Hidden Content]

Liberty is no-man's land. you lose athletes to the big city in one direction and the nicer rural areas in the other. apart from softball they don't do much in any sports out there on a consistent basis. with a little more talent during a 3-year stretch they had a decent run of seasons, but they're a mediocre (or bad, depending on the year) program that's had to play elite teams in district or early in the playoffs. Taylor didn't do badly at Liberty with what he had. If he can bring stability to Tarkington and create a little interest in the program, there will be some improvement. look at Tarkington's football history, and if Taylor does exactly the same at Tarkington that he did at Liberty I'd call it an overwhelming success. If he stays 10 years, goes 45-50 with a few 8-9 win seasons and a playoff win or two they'll be ready to name the stadium after him, and for good reason.

I gotta quit coming back on here and reading y'all's responses. The pro-life crowd certainly spends a lot of money trying to make sure these babies are born. i'm referring to after they're born. The same folks who are pro-life are typically anti-handout and anti-government support. There's no debating that. It wouldn't take a whole lot to go through old political threads on here and find quotes from the majority of your pro-lifers in this thread disparaging government aid and handout programs, all of which would have to be massively expanded when you start adding a few million mouths a year to the government teat. And let me just add this here because I really don't want to come back onto this thread: I'm all for added support to expectant mothers, counseling (for those who want it), etc. And I especially would like to see adoption not be a big money operation. Make it an easier process and you'll see abortions drop, and you'll find more families for more unwanted kids. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I celebrate abortion. I'm happy to see the numbers greatly decrease, but there's got to be a plan in place to support these kids. Getting them born is the first, easiest, and cheapest step.

I support this wholeheartedly (and this really is my last post on the thread). A big part of the exception I take with the pro-life crowd is how seldom most of them put their money and time where their mouth is. Even being pro-choice, I want abortions to be cheap, safe, and most importantly, rare. Anything states can do to improve the situations and mindset of pregnant women in bad spots is a win in my book.

I'd really like to have a conversation with this guy, just so he can explain a few things to me

Security footage shows suspected lawn mower thief mowing victim's grass with it | KFDM

anywho, i'm done on this thread. The same usual folks made the same tired arguments (myself included), nobody's mind was changed, and nothing was accomplished. It's always kind of a waste of time when 90% of people in the conversation are coming from the same demographic, as it leads to an inflated belief of how representative your viewpoints are to the majority of the country. That said, carry on, and we can find something else to agree on (Biden sucks)

well, by your point, the fetus and the egg are in the same predicament as well, because a small dose of medicine renders both inert. But there's still a much larger difference than "one is in the womb, and one is out". while in the womb at an early stage, the fetus is still fully reliant on the mother, and will die without her, and not just without her, but without her body. The baby outside of the womb (and even a fetus of 24 weeks or so) will die without care, but can be cared for by anyone. That child no longer needs the mother's body to survive, and at that point (IMO) there is no argument to be made for "my body, my choice". I get that many on here don't agree with me (this board is overwhelmingly old, male, white, and conservative, and that's by far the #1 anti-abortion demographic), and i honestly don't care. but his comparison was as equally outlandish as my rebuttal.

I could be wrong, but I think perhaps Lumberton's growth has not kept up with the growth of the cutoffs for higher divisions. I really don't want to go back and research enrollment cutoffs for 5A for the last, let's say 10 years, but I would assume it has risen dramatically.

I think you missed the point I was making there. He compared the near instantaneous termination of a tiny fetus inside of the womb that has no chance of surviving on it's own to letting a fully formed baby that has actually been born starve to death by not taking care of it. I was simply countering with an equally preposterous comparison.

If you're against abortion then why are you okay with birth control? same thing, right?

My mind won't be changed any more than yours will.

that is correct. I still consider it a fetus or an embryo, depending on the stage of development.

Age of viability is well-established. If the baby can live outside of the womb, or even has a chance to, it's viable. That's my moral cutoff, whereas some of y'all are at heartbeat and some are at conception. I don't know why nobody chooses at egg. Seems as reasonable a standard as some of the others.

At what age should a child be able to make the decision for themselves to be on birth control? Honest question. I've noticed a pretty dumb cycle of parents not wanting their kids on birth control and then having to raise their own grandkids. Growing up in the church, and even graduating from a college with the word Baptist in the name, and one thing I saw first hand was that religion didn't really do much in the way of stopping us young, dumb kids from getting busy.

I bring up that point over and over again, and the response is always basically "nuh uh." The truth becomes obvious anytime there's a thread on here about welfare and social handouts. The ironic thing is that I actually agree with them on welfare reform and reducing handouts. Folks just don't like it when you point out the disconnect between fighting tooth and nail to make sure these babies are born, but then fighting tooth and nail to reduce the services and money provided to them as they're forcefully born into poverty and crime-ridden environments.

I agree that adoption is tough. but the types of adoption you're talking about doesn't really do a whole lot to help with the problem. go through the state and take some kids that are living in poverty, that have been abused, that have been forgotten. The majority of folks trying to adopt are trying to get a newborn, same-race child with no issues and no strings attached. That becomes more a business deal than actually helping with our country's overwhelming unwanted children crisis. I wholeheartedly agree that it should be a lot easier though, and it should be a lot more affordable.

I think that's great, and I'm not attempting to be disingenuous. But what your church does is just a drop in the bucket, and what all churches collectively do isn't much more. infinitely more unwanted babies thrown into an already broken system where not nearly enough is being done by churches and charities is going to make things significantly worse.

They're a big step in the right direction. I don't want grade school age kids indoctrinated, and I don't want sexual preferences and gender identity taught, but I don't at all have an issue with kids who're going to have sex while in high school either way (pretty much all of us did) having easy access to birth control and a little education into how things work and the risks involved to help reduce pregnancies.