Englebert

But 90% of people polled believe the economy is in full recovery.

The last poll I saw was that 60 something percent favored increased background checks, and that poll was taken right after San Bernardino. Obama is lying when he says that 90% favor increased background checks. And I would love to see how the questions are worded on any of the polls. And if Obama is so enamored about polls, he should immediately repeal Obamacare, since an overwhelming majority dislikes the law. And the quote I posted above came from the same exact conversation you posted.

This was on The Kelly File last night: "Did we participate in CNN's event tonight? No, we didn't," Cox told Megyn Kelly. "We were offered one pre-screened question. Megyn, I know that you don't send your questions over to the White House, so I'd rather have a conversation with you that's intellectually honest than sit through a lecture and get one opportunity to ask a pre-screened question." [Hidden Content]

I'll start the conspiracy theory. Obama ordered the stock market to drop to distract from his outright lie yesterday.

I wonder if George Soros is financing this protest.

I believe that all laws passed limiting gun ownership should equally apply to the right to vote. To vote you must pass a background check. To vote you must pass a 5 hour course on how to vote. You must pay for the privilege to attend the class, bring the necessary documents and provide a valid ID. And before anyone says apples and oranges, I believe that an incompetent/uneducated voter does more harm than an uneducated gun owner.

If asked, would you participate in a "debate" in which you can only ask one prescreened question?

The only difference between a socialist and a progressive liberal is that a socialist will admit being a socialist.

His words were: "There's a reason why the NRA is not here. You'd think that they would be prepared to have a debate with the president." That's word for word. Here's the link: [Hidden Content] He did say in response to Cooper's question that the White House has invited them. I would bet the farm that the White House has never invited the NRA to a equal-footing debate. Obama can him-haw all around, but he unmistakably said that the NRA was not there because they don't want to debate him. That is a blatant lie. The truth is he wasn't going to allow a debate. I would love to see his reaction if FoxNews said that they were gonna have a live debate on national TV about Obamacare and would like for him to show up for a debate, but he could only ask one pre-screened question with no rebuttal questions. He definitely would not show up and he would let everyone know that is not how debates work. He would go on and on for an hour about how deceitful and misleading the show would be.

Obama stated on national TV that "we've invited the NRA to have a debate", when in reality he invited the NRA to submit ONE PRE-SCREENED question with no rebuttal. That is not a "debate" according to anyone's standards. I find it very difficult if not impossible to believe anything this guy says.

This is not new news. Many real climatologists have pointed this out as far back as the 90s. The media just chooses to ignore facts. I'm surprised this one got published.

They showed up in my driveway about 2 months ago with this same story. I didn't say a word, walked in my house, grabbed my shotgun and walked back outside. They left quite abruptly.

Liberals label anyone who doesn't tow the liberal line a racist or bigot who are clinging to their guns and religion.

None. How many voted for a war, based on the same intelligence that everyone else saw, then lied by saying they were lied to.

Or lied about classified emails, or intentionally and unlawfully deleted government documents, or was fired from legal counsel because of unethical behavior, and...oh nevermind. This list would get too long too fast.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make regarding strength of schedule. The factors you listed are all relevant factors in the hiring process. But if the company hired you because you have blonde hair and I have dark hair, then they would be just like the pollsters...ranking a team based on irrelevant factors like strength of schedule.

I have no idea what you are saying. We can just leave it here.

Are you actually asking the moderators to ban me?

I agree 100%. The rankings are opinions only. What irritates me is when one of the so-called experts tries to justify their rankings by saying strength of schedule is a factor. I wish they would just say "Hey, I think this team is better than that team and that's my opinion." I wish the SEC would have got shutout of the BCS, because that would have spurred a 8 team playoff for next year. LOL I won't be happy until we have at least a 16 team playoff.

How about reading the scenario. HF would beat the crap out of WOS, because HF would be comprised of the 22 starting Dallas Cowboys. You seriously think WOS can beat the Dallas Cowboys. You either didn't read the scenario or...nevermind. The whole question is on strength of schedule. I never said an undefeated team was better than a one loss, or even a five loss team. The question is: Why do people think one team is better than the next because of who they have played? If the #3 team beats the #1 team, and the #2 team beats Lamar, what makes a person think that the #3 team is now the best team? Why are they now better than the #2 team? Could the #2 team have beaten the previous #1 just as bad or worse? How does strength of schedule propel you in the rankings over a team that has a weaker schedule. The rankings are an opinion only. Justifying a ranking by saying this team is better than that one because they played tougher opponents is ludicrous. In my example, the Dallas Cowboys beat four of the smallest schools in the area. WOS beat the top big schools in the area. So by SOS logic, WOS is better than the Dallas Cowboys. Is that logical?

So what does it matter? How is any team better or worse for their OOC schedule? That was the original question and not one response has articulated the significance of strength of schedule.

It is a mythical/made-up scenario. Nevermind.

The question is: should a mythical UIL Selection Committee pick WOS, who has a stronger strength of schedule, over a HF team that is made up of the starting 22 Dallas Cowboys?

Whew. I'm glad I read the article. I was about start a boycott.

Using the above example, if the Texas UIL had a BCS type Selection Committee for the playoffs, shouldn't West Orange-Stark be picked ahead of Dallas Cowboys Hamshire-Fannett for the playoffs?