Englebert

You might want to switch to numbers, as we only have 26 letters. 😀

Wow, you just sunk below childish. As everyone knows on this board, I have no inhibition of going in the gutter with a piss-poor poster. You have continually ran from the discussion. But what is sickening is that you tried to mock other's opinion, but refused to expose yourself to ridicule by withholding your own beliefs. And even more disgusting than that, you claim that you did adhere to debate standards by giving your opinion (an outright lie). You can continue to try to weasel out of this "debate" by sinking lower, and it will work for most on here...as they have an admiral mode of decorum. I'm not afflicted with such civility, and will follow you down into the gutter as far as you are willing to go. So far you have not resorted to outright personal attacks, so I haven't either. But that can only be the next step, as you have no other option other than admitting defeat...or actually doing the civilized thing and articulate your "theory" of the economy...opening yourself to righteous and deserved mocking. Apparently you think you can dish it out, but not take it. Let's see where you go. DoTheCon knows where. You can PM him for advice...then do the opposite.

Well then I must have missed it. Please restate it, or point to the post(s) that outlined your opinion. All I've seen from you so far is that you made a statement, was refuted by many with commentary based on fact, then retreated to a defensive posture one step away from playing the victim card. You are following the tired old tripe of ridiculing others' opinion without offering your own...based on fear of ridicule. How are you not embarrassed with yourself? I have read some of your previous posts on here, and you have not stooped to this type of childish banter. Why now? Are you afraid to admit you are wrong?

Jibberish! Why are running? Better yet, why are you running, but yet keep replying. This would be really, really embarrassing for most people. Let's shift the topic to a discussion on your own insecurities and defense mechanisms preventing you from exposing your deeply held beliefs. Are you afraid you will be ridiculed? Are you afraid your conclusion will be mocked with overwhelming facts causing you extreme public embarrassment? We can discuss your inhibitions, or you can give your in-depth analysis of why the economy behaved the way it did under the last few presidents. Your choice. Neither one sounds palatable right now do they.

Well I guess you will have to if you can't articulate your own theory. Does the word sheeple ring a bell? Is there a reason you refuse to answer the question but continue to respond with jibberish?

This is pretty much what every legitimate economist has concluded, but yet you somehow try to say it sarcastically. How drole. Let's hear you interpretation of what led to the economic fall, rise (or lack of), then explosion in the last 16 years. I have a strong suspicion that you have nothing to offer...just the same old tired "Obama good, Trump bad" mantra. Prove me wrong with an intelligent, well thought out theory. Hell, just wing it. Let's have this discussion analyzing the pros and cons of each. I'm fairly certain your version will not be supported with any modicum of factuality. Please surprise me.

I can understand that you don't want to offer your opinion, thus the "Nope". I'm not sure what the "You got it" statement means. Please explain.

Very legit. The natural progression was a moderate to aggressive recovery. Obama's policies reduced the natural progression to a very, very weak uptick due to stifling regulations. Trump removed these barriers, which allowed the economy to flourish. Would you care to offer a refuting causational theory?

The growth under Obama/Biden was abysmal...that is...it naturally moved forward at a snails pace despite Obama/Biden's policies. Look up why S&P gave the US our only downgrade in the history of our country. Trump removed the ball & chain, resulting in, well you know. (I have to link Biden to Obama because, well, you also know.)

Yes. As soon as he started rolling back stifling, job killing regulations imposed by the previous administration.

I'm curious, if this new technology is implemented, then as a result the trees/plants start dying off from lack of CO2, who will get the blame? If this new technology is implemented, then as a result the environment starts to cool, who will get the blame? If this new technology is implemented, then as a result the environment shows no changes, who will get the blame? If this new technology is implemented, then no matter what happens, who will be hailed as heroes? Who will suffer the wrath? Everyone on this board knows the answers to each of these questions. Shouldn't we study the problem before offering solutions?

The Liberals know law enforcement is necessary. They are trying to demonize the cops in order to instill Federal control over them. Get rid of local enforcement and nationalize it, just like a national healthcare system. Can you imagine a Federal government that controls your housing, your healthcare, your education, your job, and your personal protection/law enforcement? We are very close to being there.

I'm did not see anywhere in the article where this guy gave any evidence of Man Made Global Warming. He basically said most people were ignorant of science (which I don't really disagree) and he was forced out of NASA for sticking to his Man Made Global Warming mantra. I didn't see any evidence in the article that should warrant giving credence to this guy's beliefs. If you know something more about his research/evidence, please share. A possibly disgruntled former NASA employee in no way persuades me to join the Man Made Global Warming cult.

For not reading them, you sure do reply to all of them...and as usual...your replies are off topic. I actually complimented you on your post. YOU derailed it like you always do. Now will you stay on topic or retreat to your safe space as you fling insults at everyone. Call me out again then try to play victim! It's exactly what got you booted the previous times.

I'm just "yanking your chain". Why do you continually try to belittle everyone on this board? Why did you call me out on a post you started with "you low IQ posters"? Are you actually trying to play victim? Do you think you should be the only one that can insult people then retreat to your safe space? All I'm doing is replying to your asinine posts using your same asinine playbook. How can you not see this? You are just like a kindergartner who calls his teacher stupid. And are you really still trying to act like this scenario hasn't played out before? As bad as your previous performance was, I guess I would repress that memory also. How long do you think you will make it this time?

Wow, you actually responded to a post without trying to tower over with your self-proclaimed intellectually superiority. What a refreshing way to air your opinion. Maybe you should stick to this form of response. You actually don't sound quite (scaled) as stupid than you do on the other ones. Thank you for your contribution...literally.

I was reading about the judge still not dismissing the Michael Flynn case because Flynn pleaded guilty to lying...twice, and this oldie came to mind: Farmer Angus A farmer named Angus had a car accident. He was hit by a truck owned by the Eversweet Company. In court, the Eversweet Company's hot-shot lawyer was questioning Angus. "Didn't you say to the policeman at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine'?"asked the lawyer. Angus responded: "Well, I'll tell you what happened. I had just loaded my favorite cow, Bessie, into the..." "I didn't ask for any details", the lawyer interrupted. "Just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine!'?" Angus said, "Well, I had just got Bessie into the trailer and I was driving down the road...." The lawyer interrupted again and said, "Your Honor, I am trying to establish the fact that, at the scene of the accident, this man told the police on the scene that he was fine. Now several weeks after the accident, he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question." By this time, the Judge was fairly interested in Angus' answer and said to the lawyer: "I'd like to hear what he has to say about his favorite cow, Bessie". Angus thanked the Judge and proceeded. "Well as I was saying, I had just loaded Bessie, my favorite cow, into the trailer and was driving her down the road when this huge Eversweet truck and trailer came through a stop sign and hit my trailer right in the side. I was thrown into one ditch and Bessie was thrown into the other. I was hurt, very bad, and didn't want to move. However, I could hear old Bessie moaning and groaning. I knew she was in terrible pain just by her groans. Shortly after the accident, a policeman on a motorbike turned up. He could hear Bessie moaning and groaning so he went over to her. After he looked at her, and saw her condition, he took out his gun and shot her between the eyes. Then the policeman came across the road, gun still in hand, looked at me, and said, 'How are you feeling?' Now just what would you have said"?

On the DVD edition, you have the option of turning on subtitles, or subtitles just for Brad Pitt's character.

My two favorites are (in no particular order): Snatch Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels If you watch one...and liked it...you will love the other one. If you didn't like it...you will hate the other one.

I bought a gun. Thank you Nancy and Chuck.

If he makes a comeback, I will be poised to make mine. I'm sitting back waiting for him.

I want to be the clock operator for this game. Hit start, kick back and relax. Easy money.

1. Deer Park 2. Port Arthur Memorial 3. New Caney 4. Crosby 5. Port Neches-Grovers 6. Vidor 7. Little Cypress-Mauriceville 8. Splendora 9. Jasper 10. Shepherd 11. West Orange-Stark 12. Liberty 13. Coldspring-Oakhurst 14. Orangefield 15. Buna 16. Woodville 17. Corrigan-Camden 18. Newton 19. San Augustine 20. West Sabine 21. Burkeville 22. Lovelady 23. Barbers Hill 24. Huffman Hargrave 25. East Chambers

From the way I understand the tie-breakers, in a three-way tie the point differential only determines the first team in. Head-to-head determines the second and third place seeding. Therefore, if HF beats WOS by less than 7, WOS gets the first seed based on point differential and Silsbee gets the second seed based on head-to-head against HF. If HF beats WOS by 7 or more, HF gets the first seed based on point differential and WOS gets the second seed based on head-to-head against Silsbee. This is the way most districts have determine the tie-breakers in the past. I don't know for certain, but haven't heard of any district changes.

We lost Hornsfan86 last week to a fatal car wreck. He was one of the most loyal and passionate fans around. You could count on one hand the number of Hamshire-Fannett games we have missed in the last 30+ years...through rain, shine, sleet or...well, I don't remember any snow. I had to chuckle when talking to a bunch of friends this week. More than one person told me that when they got to the football game, they would look in the stands to find us...then proceeded to the other end of the stands. We didn't call each to other to asked if we were going to the game, we just asked what time do you want to go. Even after Harvey and Imelda, in which both of our houses were flooded, the conversation was still "what time are you going to pick me up to head to the game". I'm not sure how many people on here knew him, as he did not engage too much on this forum. But every ref that has called a Hamshire-Fannett game has surely heard him. But after the game, on the ride back home, our conversations were strictly on who we were playing the next game. He did not dwell on play calling, referee calls, or plays made or not made. Prayers to his wife and three kids. RIP Hornsfan86...you will be missed.