bullets13

yup. only the biased right-wing sites have merit.

I had a test done recently and they charged $300 for the test if i paid cash, and $500 for the test if i used my insurance. Needless to say, i paid cash because i had not reached my deductible, but that's also $300 that did not go towards my deductible.

you better be careful with that. If it's not summer, and it's between the two times listed on the sign, you better slow down even if the light is not flashing. But i get what you mean.

Hard to find stats on the Internet, but it happens. In the article for the Beaumont super gold team this year they said there were four area receivers over 900 yds just last year. That being said, I watched his hudl highlight tape, and he's got a nice jump and great hands, but not the separation speed needed for major college ball. If he can beef up a little, and gets a little taller (I've seen him live a few times this year and 6'4" seems generous), he might be able to make it at tight end.

Well, there you go. Not sure why I thought he was done this year.

I read through this thread, and i had the same reaction that some of the others did when it was stated that Mackey is one of the best receivers that has EVER come through SETX, and a great fit at ANY college. Once of the best in the area right now? Sure, of course. I looked for his stats online, and couldn't find them from last year, but he went for 28/523/6 the year before. very respectable, but even if he doubled those numbers as a this past season, that would still be a far cry away from all-time great numbers for SETX. Now, if he'd gone off for 80 catches, 1800 yards, and 20 TDs, i'd reevaluate my stance. I'm not hating, and i rooted for Silsbee in both the football and basketball playoffs this year, but i strongly disagree with that statement. Now, some of y'all are talking about next season for him. HUDL has him listed as the class of 2017, but i'm fairly positive he was a senior this year. So if he's gone for 1500 yards and 15 TDs over his junior and senior year, then those are very good numbers, but not anywhere close to GOAT status, or even in the argument to get into the argument.

Did LCM win two coin flips? Surely Huffman would prefer a 3-game anywhere but LCM.

you cut your grass and found a car.

elderly drivers who have no idea what's going on around them going 45mph in a 70 mph zone. I've had them pull right out in front of me, and turn across right in front of me as well. I've also been stuck behind them for miles upon miles, with no hope of passing due to the other dozen cars stuck behind them. I know it's tough for them to give up their independence, but many of them are as dangerous as 16-year-olds with a brand new license. I'd like to see mandatory driving tests for the elderly every few years starting at the age of 75.

Entitlements and big government spending are a major problem fiscally. Not abortions, forced religion, gay rights, etc. those are not major fiscal issues, but they are major hot button issues that are swaying the middle voters. Again, believe what you want, but ultraconservative isn't working for the white house. Heck, without Jeb giving the election to GW, there wouldn't have been a republican in office since 92. And that trend isn't changing this election with the Donald being the right's representation. I'm thinking about writing in Steve Nash or something. The thought of choosing between the Donald and the Hillary is the Nauseating.

He strikes me as too cocky and arrogant to surround himself with anyone other than those who are willing to kiss his arse and agree with everything he says. But i could be wrong. That's just how he comes off.

And Obama...

you're bringing up fiscal issues. A candidate claiming to reform those could do some good. I'm talking about gay rights, abortion, prayer in school, etc.... moral policies that conservatives would try to put into place. Look at the backlash they're taking in North Carolina right now for instituting discriminatory laws. you don't have to believe me, but those are the types of issues where the GOP is losing the white house.

Many people on here have repeatedly stated that the GOP was losing elections because they didn't have any real conservatives running in the primaries. Now you have one running in the primaries, and he loses to the punchline of a joke. So obviously that wasn't the answer, It's going to take a republican with a moderate social stance to get republicans back in the white house due to the electoral college. If you're not winning the swing voters, you're not winning the election. If you guys are willing to vote for Donald over Hillary, then y'all would've voted for a GOP candidate with moderate social views over her as well. That's what it's going to take.

there in lies the conundrum for many of us who have conservative ideals when it comes to fiscal policy and liberal ideals when it comes to social issues. Am i willing to vote for a politician who is willing to aggressively pursue conservative changes on social issues if it means getting a politician in that will try to limit govt spending and overreach? I have a hard time doing it. And like WE1 said, a lot of voters seem to struggle with it like i do as well.

There's a fractured GOP with the old guard wanting to continue as ultra conservative, and the new guard wanting a more liberal Republican party. Neither group has enough to clout to get a strong candidate the nomination, opening the door for a mouthpiece with a hairpiece to take it over instead. The Donald will be a horrible president, but he can't beat Hillary, so i'm not to worried about him. I'm pretty worried about her, though. I wish we could trade her for her husband. I think he'd do a pretty decent job, just as he did before. He's shown a willingness to represent the wishes of his party while working with the other party. You can't say that about many politicians on either side of the aisle.

this is a reasonable statement.

how many times has someone made a statement like the one REB just made, and YOU come on and be the one to throw those terms around? I know it happens an awful lot.

Several on here do that constantly. What's your opinion on the matter?

I'm saying that just because it's not something you or i would ever do does not, and should not make it a crime.

Wait, did you just say that common sense dictates that homosexuality should be a crime? That might be the most absurd thing I've read in this forum, and there's been a lot of crazy tinfoil hat stuff on here. Common sense would dictate that what two consenting adults decide to do is their choice, and of no concern to law enforcement, or anybody else, for that matter. Out of curiosity, should all sin be a crime? What about the ones YOU commit? Time to throw every teenage boy ever in the clink for lustful thoughts and masturbation! Or just "the gays" because they gross you out? And as for NAMBLA arguing that they're the same class as homosexuals, that doesn't mean it is, unless you're saying you respect their position on the matter. Westboro baptist church claims to be good upstanding Christians, but I doubt most Christians would agree.

I'm sure there will be a movement by pedophiles for that (I believe NAMBLA is a real thing that's been around forever attempting to gain rights for pedofiles with no success), but it won't be gaining any traction. I would not be surprised at all if the second hypothetical you suggest comes to pass. While I wouldn't support that movement, I must point out that you're lumping pedofiles and transgenders together, now the 3rd conservative to do so in this thread, and this after you feigned offense at my suggestion that conservatives were often guilty of doing so.

This is absolutely correct. Or maybe the Browns and the Titans.

The difference being that homosexuality should've never been a crime. You're equating homosexuality and pedophilia in your comparison, which is what I was talking about earlier in the thread. Interracial marriage used to be illegal as well, and slavery was legal. Some laws need to change with the times. Legalizing pedophilia is obviously not one of them, and the thought that "liberals will make that legal next because they support gay marriage" is ridiculous. the left being okay with two consenting adults marrying each other has absolutely no connection with an adult raping a child, and to suggest as much is absurd.

transgender behavior and pedophilia behavior are two totally different things. So while it may have been surprising to some when transgenders were given more rights, transgenders are not raping children. I do not at all see child rapists getting government protection. At some point conservatives, no matter how uncomfortable homosexuals and transgenders make them, need to at least learn to quit lumping them in with sex offenders.