bullets13

I'll say this. Romo is one of the few qbs that can win a game where he's run out of the pocket constantly, which we can count on happening next game. With our running game and improved defense, i like our chances against the Seahawks a lot more than I did a few weeks ago. But still, I don't give us much more than 20% to win

The better team won, but Houston never gave up. They're going to be a lot of games like this this year. Gonna have to ride foster and watt

Unfortunate. The boys shoulda already locked this one up. Anybody's game now

Well, I was right that the texans couldn't beat the cowboys if they scored 24, but the boys are at 17, having left at least 6 points on the field. More of a knock against the boys than a credit to the texans on that account.

A good answering drive here, but if they take 8 minutes to kick a FG it's gotta be considered a win for the boys defense.

Imagine if Sean Lee could stay healthy. The defense would be pretty dang good. But so far this year they have been anyway

That's not a horse collar. But I can understand why they originally threw the flag. Good that they got that right.

This game should be over. If the boys can make this a two score game does anybody really think Fitz can come back through the air?

Texans run d is not very good.

Fitzpatrick has an impressive molestache.

That's better. Romo just made JJ look like a rookie free agent.

Dallas gotta get some points. Houston D picking up some momentum after some breaks in the first half, and the Dallas D finally starting to show some holes.

The cowboys are dominating both sides of the ball, but two stupid turnovers and one missed PI call and you'd never know it by the scoreboard.

And? Two years ago the redskins were a playoff team. Do I judge them on that or on last year? Seems like last season is more relevant. My point was that he acted like the cowboys being "who he thought they were" meant that the Texans were going to win. Who we've known the cowboys to be for the past several years is still a team that is more than good enough to beat the texans. Although it would've been impossible to be as bad as last year, I don't think Houston is anywhere near the team they were two years ago. Both teams look improved from last year, but an improved 8-8 team is the likely winner over an improved 2-14 team.

It could happen, but they gave up 17 to the bills, and 30 to the giants... Dallas is lightyears ahead of Buffalo, and saying theyre better than the giants is a pretty easy argument, and playing at home.  Also, Houston is ranked 24th in the NFL against the run, 14th against the pass, despite having played nobody near the caliber of how Murray is playing, and only one QB that could even be argued to be as good as romo (i might take Manning if it was 2010).  But these are the types of games where with it being a state matchup, anything can happen.

realistically, the cowboys have a much better offense, and the Texans have a much better defense.  that being said, the cowboys generally put up numbers against everyone.  there aren't too many games where they're held under 20, regardless of the opponent.  in the past, they've lost games because 30 points wasn't enough to win, or they had no running game to run out the clock up 10 in the 4th.  Dallas' defense has actually been pretty good this year, and regardless of what you say about the Aints, that was an impressive performance to hold them to 17.  The houston offense is nowhere near the caliber of the saints (or the 49ers, who the D also played pretty well against), so this matchup will come down to how well the Houston D holds the cowboys offense in check.  I can see them getting pressure and creating some turnovers, but i don't see them keeping dallas under 24. Even when they do get some stops, Fitzpatrick is liable to throw the ball back to them once or twice.  If that's the case, it's up to Houston to put some points on the board, and in 4 games against mediocre teams, they've only broken 17 once (not counting JJ's defensive TD).  Year in and year out, Dallas has consistently been 8-8 DESPITE the fact that their defense has given up ridiculous amounts of points.  The offense has carried them, and this year the offense is much more balanced, with the BEST rushing attack in the league, which is making things easier for Romo to work as well.  So in review, the offense is better than last year, and so is the defense.  The Texans have a solid defense, but an average offense that does not light up the scoreboard.  Identical records, weak schedules, with Dallas having played a slightly tougher schedule.  I honestly believe Dallas wins this one.  I'm not knocking the Texans, I just think that Dallas is better suited to putting up more than 20 points against a good defense than Houston is to coming out on top in a game that might take 30 to win.

    it's not like the texans are some really good playoff team.  they're coming off a 2-14 season and have a mediocre qb.  Dallas could be exactly who YOU think you are and still win by two touchdowns.

  I'm not sure where you read that i said the preamble granted anything.  I just said that it lists the purposes of the constitution.  Perhaps you can direct me to the part of the constitution allowing for the subjection of one's religious beliefs onto another that does not want to hear them?

this whole analogy makes no sense. but the one part I would bring out of it is "if they don't want a God or want to believe that one doesn't exist, or that it is a made up being... great....but that doesn't mean our REAL (or made up) GOD should not be allowed to be worshipped." and my response is that nobody is telling you not to worship God... nor are they trying to keep you from doing so. again, the only thing Christians are not being allowed to do is expose Christianity to others who do not want to be exposed, or who's parents do not want them to be exposed to it. School, a place where children MUST go based on law, is not the place to do so anyway. There are measures in place to ensure that Christian students have the right to worship, both alone and in groups while at school, so apart from Christians just REALLY feeling like their Christianity puts them above following the Constitution, I don't really understand what they feel like they're losing when they aren't allowed to expose people who aren't interested in their beliefs.

My dad and I got off of our lease, which sucks, but we were having some issues with the owner. We should get on a new lease next year, but I'll have some hunting opportunities (we got drawn for two draw hunts through TPWD) and with a buddy and in-law, but it sucks being at their mercy to hunt at their convenience. I was hoping I'd have some deer on my new property in Fannett, but where I am is slim pickings, while I've seen big bucks a few miles down the road. if you guys get anything noteworthy, be sure to post some pics.

what difference does it make? if you don't believe it exists, you still don't want your kid ingrained with it at school, anymore than you would if you were muslim. why do Christians who don't believe in evolution not want their kids to hear about it in science class? If it doesn't exist in their mind, they should not care, right?

although differently worded, it is one of the six purposes of the constitution listed in the preamble.

All that said, I think that programs like Hawks For Christ and other similar clubs are valuable and important, and do have a place in schools. It is just important that schools make sure that they are operated in ways that are constitutionally fair to those who are not interested in being involved.

The wedding cake argument is a tough one for me, to be honest, but it's not the same issue. Denying someone.a service because of their sexuality is on one hand, the same as denying service because they're black, which is completely wrong. In this one instance, however, I actually agree with you. Because if you're a Christian who has strong beliefs about homosexuality, I think it's reasonable to deny this particular service, as it goes against the cake maker's religious beliefs. This is similar to a church choosing not to perform a same sex wedding. On the flip side, if a restarant owner denied service to homosexuals, I would have a huge problem with it, as eating is not something that he could claim as a pillar of his religion reserved only for heterosexuals. All that being said, denying someone a service based on religion is completely different than denying someone the right to force religion at a place where the government forces other people to go, or at an event sponsored by a place that is an extension of the government. The government does not have the power to stop individuals from partaking in religion, as this is their right, no matter where they are. But it does have the power to keep the majority, no matter their beliefs, from trampling on the rights of the minority. And when people claim their rights are being violated because they are not allowed to pray over a loud speaker or a school is not allowed to sponsor a Christian event, they're making a claim to rights that they in fact do not have.

I hear a lot of these statements, but then every time I see one of these "anti-Christian bigots" actually doing something, at least locally, it's because Christians are violating the constitution. I've never seen any of them trying to stop a church from having church, or even kids being able to worship at school. Children are always allowed to pray at school, can meet in groups and pray, are provided places to do so, can wear Christian shirts, etc. etc. But a public school, which is a public entity, may not endorse religion or religious activities. And IMO, a 2nd grader is not old enough to make that sort of decision on his own. So while it's great for a kid who's grown up in the church that his school is violating the constitution in the name of Christianity, it's not so great for the child who's parents don't agree with the religion, or God forbid would like for the child to grow a little older and then choose for himself. As long as the school clearly separates itself from promoting the program, then I don't see a problem. As Mat said, perhaps parents could organize it. I personally think a parental permission slip for children that age should be necessary, so that no parent who doesn't want a child to attend has to worry about their child being influenced into going. But seriously, enough with the "woe is me" victim card from Christians on this issue. the only right being taken away is that of forcing religion onto others, and lets be honest, if China Elementary advertised an Atheist activity on their FB page, the same people who are unhappy now would be even more unhappy, even though it would be the exact same thing.