Englebert

Any proof to that generalized statement? Sounds like profiling to me.

Why do you say that? You've hinted a few times about knowing something about Ted Cruz. I'm very curious to know what that is. Maybe share the enlightenment on why you seemingly hate Cruz.

That's the same thing they said about Ronald Reagan.

It doesn't bother you that Gen Petraeus was prosecuted for showing classified documents to his biographer, but Hillary is given a free pass for doing the same thing on a much larger scale? We all know that Hillary's lawyer had a thumb drive containing backups of Hillary's emails. Did he steal these thousands of "now classified" emails, or did Hillary provide them to him? Hillary also has publicly stated that her and her staff reviewed her emails and separated the personal emails from the State Department business emails. What is the security clearance of all of the people reviewing her emails? When you build an email server, someone has to physically setup that server. Someone also has to run regular maintenance (such as installing Windows updates) and maintain backups. These tasks all require administrative rights to the server. And anyone with administrative rights to the server also has full access to the data and everything else on that server. Does all of the personnel she hired to perform these tasks have top level security clearance? Hillary's camp is also trying to use the bogus excuse that the documents were not classified at the time. Does it not bother you that the Secretary Of State, one of the key players in designating what documents should be classified, does not have the skill set to recognize classified data when presented with it? And we should reward that deficient set of skills with a promotion to the White House? I don't think so. Hillary's camp is also trying to justify her actions by saying that all previous Secretary of State's have done the same thing. That is a blatant lie. Not one previous Secretary Of State hired a private company to build a private email server and conduct their business through that outside server. Hillary has done so many things that should disqualify her from public office, including lying to the families of the Benghazi, that it is baffling to me how anyone could support her. Apparently her followers are just like Trump's minions in the fact that it doesn't matter what they do, the good outweighs the negatives (in their minds). I'm curious as to what degree that threshold is. What actions could Hillary (or Trump) take that would preclude one of her sheeple from supporting her. She has already performed numerous of these actions, but the support continues. Amazing and disheartening. At least some of people have disavowed her (Yay)...and turned to a socialist. But that is the options on the Dem's side: a socialist or an unconvicted felon. On a side note, one of the things that bothers me the most in Hillary's email scandal is the incompetence of the federal investigations. Hillary claims she has endured 50 bipartisan investigations into Benghazi. As far as I know, not one of the previous investigations has revealed the fact that Hillary was conducting her State Department business on a private email server. How is it that 49 of these investigations have failed to discover this? How is it that any competent person/people performing the task of an investigation fail to discover this fact? And in the course of many of these investigations Hillary was not even interviewed. I have reached the point now that anytime I hear that Congress or any other governmental agency is performing an investigation, I just laugh and think about what incompetent boobs are going to be running this dog and pony show.

Since you brought up conference, in the last 2 seasons UT is 9-9 in conference play and A&M is 7-9. I know, I know, A&M plays in a waaaaaayyyy tougher conference. In the last 2 seasons in conference UT is 3-6 against Top25 teams and A&M is 3-5 against Top25 teams. So in the last 2 years UT has played against more ranked conference teams than A&M, and has a better conference record. But I know you will hang your hat on that conference thing.

I feel the same exact way. If Cruz or Rubio win the nomination I will happily skip down to the polls to cast my vote. For all others, especially Trump, I'll drag myself to the polls not to cast a vote for them, but to cast a vote against the Dem nominee.

I'm surprised by that myself. In fact, I'm surprised this is not a hot topic. I'm guessing that maybe many people are torn between the thought of giving up their freedom in return for safety. I personally am not prepared to let the government deprive me and all fellow Americans of our privacy because they can't retrieve data from one phone. And I sure don't want the government thinking they can order me or anyone else to perform work for them.

I'm surprised more people are not extremely worried about what this judge has ordered Apple to do. (Maybe many of y'all are and just haven't responded.) This judge has ordered a private company to create a product for the federal government. Since when can the federal government force a private company to perform work for them. And as far as I know, the government does not have to compensate Apple for their work. And what's really appalling, not only is the judge ordering Apple to create a product for the government, for free, he/she is ordering Apple to create a product that is detrimental to the integrity of one of their own products. I'm all for national security, but I'll be damned if it means throwing the constitution out of the window. I've heard today a few people saying that the FBI should send the phone to Apple and let Apple crack the phone to retrieve the data. This would still be detrimental to the integrity of the iPhone 6 and all future products. As of now, no code exists to decrypt the phone. Once the code is written, it proves it can be done and the code exists. This opens Apple to hack attacks and bribery attempts. Everyone will know that the code exists, and even if Apple destroys the code, someone or some people have the knowledge to hack the iOS. And every (potential) consumer knows that the decryption code exists.

I'm not going to bother posting a link because this is all over the news right now, a Bing search can get you the info.. In short, Apple is "defying" a court order to create code that will decrypt the data stored on an iPhone owned by one of the San Bernadino terrorists. I've never been an Apple fan. I learned about them illegally tracking and storing customer data a long time ago (I'm guessing 7 or 8 years ago). They paid a substantial fine (multi multi million dollar fine but not near enough in my opinion) and then changed their user agreement to state that they will still track and store your data. I've boycotted them and in fact have hated Apple ever since. So now that you know my feelings of Apple, IMO the judge in this case needs to be disbarred immediately and should never hear another case in his/her life. Specifically, how in the hell is Apple responsible for retrieving a customer's personal data. Apple doesn't own the data. Apple created a tool that encrypts the data for which Apple has no decryption tool. What is illegal about that? How is Apple liable for the data? And if Apple complies they potentially compromise the very thing they marketed the iPhone 6 on. In fact, I am seriously considering breaking my boycott of Apple for this one feature alone. If Apple complies, I will no longer consider their product. I hate using analogies on blogs, but this analogy fits. Let's say I am a safe manufacturer, and I build a safe and market it as the combination being totally user controlled...that is the user buys the safe then creates their own combination. I have no way of using any method of opening that safe after the user purchases the safe. The customer buys the safe, creates his/her combination and later dies. The subsequent inheritors cannot find the user created combination. So they sue me and the judge says I have to create a back door way of getting into the safe. This is total bull! Another thing in this argument that has me livid. I've heard quite a few pundits today saying Apple is "Un-American" for not creating this decryption code and that by not complying it puts America in danger. I think that if this country's existence and safety is solely dependent on data from one iPhone, maybe we shouldn't be a country anymore. That argument is so over the top it makes all campaign promises sound reasonable. Maybe we should get the people that approve immigration requests to retrieve the data, because according to the Obama administration, they can determine who is a danger to America based on data that doesn't exist. If they are that good at deciphering unknown data, I'm sure cracking a cell phone shouldn't be a problem. Thoughts?

I'm sure Schumer has "evolved" since that speech.

Thanks.

I have a question on this. TVC, you can probably answer this one. Is a woman culpable in the death of an unborn child if she is the one that causes it? Instead of getting her boyfriend to stomp on her stomach, if she would have, say, dropped a sack of cement on her stomach to cause the same result, could she be prosecuted for murder? (It feels creepy just typing that scenario.)

Are you the same person as LastCall?

I was not defending the coach or the parents. I was simply replying to the "fact" that LastCall called HF coaches quicksand and to the "fact" that he said people at HF aren't the brightest. The HF coaches were cleared of criminal charges, but I think there is a UIL or TEA investigation still going on. This whole situation does sound like a bunch of whiny parents complaining about their out-of-shape kids. I guess for some this is justification to make inaccurate generalized statements about the rest of the HF community as a whole.

Three coaches that had losing records were "ran off" in the last 2 decades and you want to characterize that as coaches quicksand? Can you name any school that retains a coach for many consecutive losing seasons? Your posts seem to be long on negative generalizations and short on facts.

Apparently the former HF superintendent lied to you or you made up the story. The only fact you got right was that in 1974 HF was #1 in the state and Newton was #2. Newton was not in the same district as HF. Newton was in 17-2A and HF was in 18-2A. Newton started the year as the preseason #1 team. HF and Newton played a non-district game the second week of the season in which HF won 13-8. HF moved up in the rankings and took over the #1 ranking in Week 6. By the end of the year HF was ranked #1 and Newton had moved up to #2. Newton beat HF 14-13 in Bidistrict on their way to winning State. The following year (1975) HF made it to the Semi-Finals where they lost to eventual State Champion La Grange 20-14. Head coach Les Keonning was then hired by 4A (largest division in the state) Spring Branch Memorial as their head coach. I remember when the announcement came over the intercom in school. Everyone at school and in the communities was sad to see him go. And your statement of HF being fairly un-noticed ever since in nonsense. HF won 3 district championships under Phil Danaher. And no, Danaher was not run off. Like Koenning, he also took a higher paying job, going to Corpus Christi Calallen. During the late 80s through the 90s, HF had one of the best winning percentages of any team in the area under Claude Tarver. And no, HF did not run Tarver off. He took a higher paying job at Bridge City. After Tarver left is when the HF program started going downhill. Paul Walker had 5 subpar years. He was followed by Walt Mangum who had 3 very subpar years. Don Price left after 2 years for a higher paying job. Which brings us to Kane Harris, who has 1 winning season in 4 years. The only coaches "ran off" have had losing records. I find it very hypocritical that you say HF people aren't the brightest when you follow that with inaccurate statements.

If we can't get enough support to secede, how about we vote on kicking New Hampshire out of the Union. While we're at it, I wouldn't be opposed to kicking out all of the northeastern states, and throw out the west coast states with them.

We are now down to one. Ted Cruz is now the only presidential candidate that wants to follow the constitution. I was torn between Rand Paul and Cruz as my favorite to win. Now with Paul dropping out I'm 100% Cruz. Of all of the candidates (on both sides), these two are the only ones that want to shrink government and get back on track to the America our forefathers envisioned. Rand Paul is the only one I know standing up for the rights of all Americans not to be spied upon by Big Brother. I salute him for that and hope he has a long future in government. Ronald Reagan had the most profound statement I've ever heard. He said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" If you listen to all of the other candidates except for Cruz and Paul, all you hear is how they will help. The focus should be on what they can repeal. This is a sad day for me, but hopefully Cruz will be the torch bearer.

I don't understand how anybody with more than two functioning brain cells can vote for Sanders or Hillary. Both spew non-sense of spending more and more on "free" stuff. Do either of them realize that we spend $220 billion a year on interest alone. If we got rid of our debt and kept taxes the same, we would have $220 billion extra dollars a year. But yet they want to increase spending. Stupidity does not even come close to describing these clueless voters. I'm also sick of all these pundits on TV talking about how honest and sincere Bernie is. He is a stupid, moronic, verging on the brink of retardism of a man. He actually believes what he is saying. He thinks that socialism will work. That is the zenith of stupidity. I don't care how honest or sincere you are, if you are that much of a wacko you should not be allowed behind any microphone. And anybody that "honestly" believes the crap he is spewing should get a one-way ticket to Rusk, TX (if that facility is still open) or some other mental facility. I actually don't know which is worse. Bernie actually believing his own non-sense or Hillary pandering her crap. She has the nerve to keep repeating the lie that women make less money than men for equal work. That lie was debunked at least as far back as the early 90s. When years of service is introduced into the equation, the disparity between gender pay disappears completely. This has been known for years, but Hillary will look you in the eye and tell you there's a gender pay gap. When Bernie says it, he is just too stupid to even realize he's lying.

That is definitely a plus with Trump. In fact, that was a key issue for me in giving him a look. But his policy on eminent domain is a deal-breaker for me. I'm also highly skeptical of many of his other policies, and I can't stand his childish antics.

I think this is spot on. When the Trump got in the presidential race I sort of liked him, but was highly skeptical of his quick flip from liberal to conservative. I then began to like him more and more as the race went on (although he was never my first choice). But over the past few months he has shown his true colors. He is a narcissistic thin-skinned crybaby that uses sophomoric childish tactics to belittle the other candidates, just like the current one occupying the White House. I have absolutely no clue as to how he is garnering so many faithful followers. A couple of weeks ago I was talking to a group of friends that were gung-ho on Trump. I asked them if they would support a candidate that would use eminent domain to take their property to give to a private company. They all started laughing and said they would never support someone like that. None of them even knew Trump is a firm believer in this tenant. They also didn't know that in the not so long ago past that Trump supported Obamacare and single payer healthcare (many of them didn't even know what single payer healthcare means). The Democrats are known for having low information voters, but apparently there's plenty of them in the Republican party also.

When this country is at a point where it is unpatriotic to question the president or any other politician, then it's definitely time to secede!

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you saying the government (and private businesses) do not encourage recruitment and hiring of minorities?

Do you actually think exercising our first amendment rights is un-American? Do you think the government taking half of everyone's paycheck and is still $20,000,000,000,000 (that is trillion) in debt is American?

I know plenty of white and black people who got positions over more qualified people. This is encouraged by the government and is actually legal, as long as you don't pick the white guy.