Englebert

That video is full of misleading half-truths and downright lies. I had to cut it off midway through it because it follows the tired old scheme of praying on the public naivety.
 
How come that (supposedly) 97% of "scientists/climatologists" agree man is causing harm to our earth through global warming, but not one will submit to an uncensored debate with "global warming deniers". (The 97% of agreement is probably the biggest lie in the video.) There is a group of climatoligists that have begged and offered to pay Al Gore and his legion of scientists a substantial amount of money for an uncensored/unscripted debate. Why do the "believers" always refuse? They just consistently say that the debate is over...which is as far from the truth as possible. They say that their research has been peer reviewed. The problem is that the "peers" are just other "believers". The "deniers" we are called are not deniers at all. We just ask to be shown empirical evidence that man is causing climate change (including data that hasn't been altered). The "believers" can't do it. So the "believers" resort to disparaging and belittling the skeptical.
 
They talk about how the ice is melting in the Artic, but yet never mention the growing volume of ice sheets in the Antarctic. They say the Earth is warming, but don't dare mention the fact that the Earth has NOT gotten warmer in the past 15 years. They espouse their global warming models, but don't dare speak about how every one of them (yes, every single one) has failed. Not only failed, but failed miserably. They don't ever mention the effect sun flares have on the planet. They don't even mention the effects of volcanic activity. But yet somehow the people who question them are somehow "less evolved".
 
And anyone who believes these piece-of-crap "climatologists", all you have to do is follow the money. In fact, by just doing a little research you can find more than enough evidence that refutes and puts into question every single talking point the "believers" can muster. I'm not going to post all the refuting links out there...they are easy to find. I've done the research years ago and have not seen anything since then that remotely resembles new or improved "evidence".

Both parties are full of idiots and megalomaniacs, leading them to believe that not only is their party's way the best way, it's the only way. The news media doesn't help either. Anybody who is caught working with the other side to try and get something accomplished is destroyed by moronic propaganda machines that mislead, misrepresent, or downright lie to push their agenda, but who have enough pull to ruin candidates if they so choose to.

That video is full of misleading half-truths and downright lies. I had to cut it off midway through it because it follows the tired old scheme of praying on the public naivety.
 
How come that (supposedly) 97% of "scientists/climatologists" agree man is causing harm to our earth through global warming, but not one will submit to an uncensored debate with "global warming deniers". (The 97% of agreement is probably the biggest lie in the video.) There is a group of climatoligists that have begged and offered to pay Al Gore and his legion of scientists a substantial amount of money for an uncensored/unscripted debate. Why do the "believers" always refuse? They just consistently say that the debate is over...which is as far from the truth as possible. They say that their research has been peer reviewed. The problem is that the "peers" are just other "believers". The "deniers" we are called are not deniers at all. We just ask to be shown empirical evidence that man is causing climate change (including data that hasn't been altered). The "believers" can't do it. So the "believers" resort to disparaging and belittling the skeptical.
 
They talk about how the ice is melting in the Artic, but yet never mention the growing volume of ice sheets in the Antarctic. They say the Earth is warming, but don't dare mention the fact that the Earth has NOT gotten warmer in the past 15 years. They espouse their global warming models, but don't dare speak about how every one of them (yes, every single one) has failed. Not only failed, but failed miserably. They don't ever mention the effect sun flares have on the planet. They don't even mention the effects of volcanic activity. But yet somehow the people who question them are somehow "less evolved".
 
And anyone who believes these piece-of-crap "climatologists", all you have to do is follow the money. In fact, by just doing a little research you can find more than enough evidence that refutes and puts into question every single talking point the "believers" can muster. I'm not going to post all the refuting links out there...they are easy to find. I've done the research years ago and have not seen anything since then that remotely resembles new or improved "evidence".

That video is full of misleading half-truths and downright lies. I had to cut it off midway through it because it follows the tired old scheme of praying on the public naivety.
 
How come that (supposedly) 97% of "scientists/climatologists" agree man is causing harm to our earth through global warming, but not one will submit to an uncensored debate with "global warming deniers". (The 97% of agreement is probably the biggest lie in the video.) There is a group of climatoligists that have begged and offered to pay Al Gore and his legion of scientists a substantial amount of money for an uncensored/unscripted debate. Why do the "believers" always refuse? They just consistently say that the debate is over...which is as far from the truth as possible. They say that their research has been peer reviewed. The problem is that the "peers" are just other "believers". The "deniers" we are called are not deniers at all. We just ask to be shown empirical evidence that man is causing climate change (including data that hasn't been altered). The "believers" can't do it. So the "believers" resort to disparaging and belittling the skeptical.
 
They talk about how the ice is melting in the Artic, but yet never mention the growing volume of ice sheets in the Antarctic. They say the Earth is warming, but don't dare mention the fact that the Earth has NOT gotten warmer in the past 15 years. They espouse their global warming models, but don't dare speak about how every one of them (yes, every single one) has failed. Not only failed, but failed miserably. They don't ever mention the effect sun flares have on the planet. They don't even mention the effects of volcanic activity. But yet somehow the people who question them are somehow "less evolved".
 
And anyone who believes these piece-of-crap "climatologists", all you have to do is follow the money. In fact, by just doing a little research you can find more than enough evidence that refutes and puts into question every single talking point the "believers" can muster. I'm not going to post all the refuting links out there...they are easy to find. I've done the research years ago and have not seen anything since then that remotely resembles new or improved "evidence".

The Constitution is just fine.....it's just not being followed, and WE are the ones allowing that to happen....we don't need a "new Constitution for a new age".....we need to get back to following the OLD ONE......

Here is a good flow chart that tells you all you need to know about Tweeting recruits.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B87IyX6CEAEx_Ir.jpg

Any ranking that cannot put teams in it's proper classification loses all credibility.
 

..... and in doing so led the Democrats from a super manority lead to an all time historical Republican majority in the House and close to that in the Senate.

BOOM!!

What do you mean by "you guys"?

The Big XII was screwed this year because the conference as a whole was down. UT and OU both cratered. The 13th game is just an excuse.

You guys know I'm liberal when it comes to stuff like this, but I disagree with someone being fired for doing something like this in their own time. Had he been using public resources to print the book I would feel differently. The one thing I DID notice when I looked up an article from a REAL news source is that he got in trouble originally for internal distribution of his book. In my opinion that would have been a very reasonable reason to fire him, as it is NOT okay for a boss to force his beliefs on his employees like that, and it would be reasonable to assume that employees under him who do not share his beliefs would still feel obligated to accept and possibly even read the book out of fear of retribution or losing favor with him. That being said, the reasoning behind the actual termination was based on his beliefs about homosexuality. even though I disagree with many Christians and conservatives with their beliefs and treatment of homosexuals, as long as this guy was not actively discriminating against them in the workplace, I don't see how he can be fired for holding common Christian beliefs and writing a book about them OUTSIDE of work.

The strict constitutionalist in me says the federal government should be reducing its involvement in education, not increasing it.
 
The fiscal conservative in me says that we should be figuring out a way to turn this deficit around, not to spend more money.
 
The social conservative in me says that giving away more free stuff is just going to perpetuate entitlement ideology and make people appreciate things even less.
 
The economist in me says that educating the workforce is generally a good idea that yields a proven economic benefit if done correctly.
 
The pragmatist in me says that most of the vocational training that community colleges offer which actually benefits the economy should be offered at the high school level anyways, and agrees with the constitutionalist on how that's a state responsibility and not a federal responsibility.
 
That's four negatives and one toss-up. Any questions?

I used to tell my PeeWee football team that if the Ref's cost you the game, you didn't practice hard enough......

If you resist, stuff can happen. I saw a case where a man ran from the cops, wasn't wearing a belt, and reached down to pull his pants up, and was shot because to multiple officers it appeared he was reaching for a gun. He didn't have a gun, and it was a tragic event, but he wasn't "killed for resisting". He was killed because he put officers in a situation where they had to make what they believed at the time to be a life or death situation. You often hear people say "someone shouldn't be killed for resisting." They're not being killed because they resisted, but their resistance HAS lead to their death. Had they complied with officers, whether the officers were right OR wrong in arresting them, not one of them would've died.

Then I just cheer her on from inside the truck....

Depends.......
 
Would you call this guy a redneck?
 

 
Would you call this guy a skinhead?
 

 
Image is everything.......
 
If you dress like a certain way, you should expect people to treat you a certain way. If I wear a cowboy hat and boots, people assume I like country music.....fact of life.....
 
Sooooo, if you dress like a thug/gangster, be prepared for people to assume.....

Celebration penalties should incur a 95yd penalty, loss of down, loss of 7 points, immediate ejection, handcuffed and given a life prison sentence with no trial.
Punters who fake getting hit should share the same jail cell...or a least go back to soccer.
Receivers that beg for interference calls should immediately be sent to the NFL to run short over-the-middle pass routes for the rest of their playing days (which will be very short).
Players or coaches penalized for sideline interference should be forced to run the chains for the rest of the game.
 
Seriously though, the top priority rule change I would implement would be for all penalties to add. If a team commits a 5yd and 15yd penality on the same play, mark off 20yds. If TeamA commits a 15yd penality and TeamB commits a 5yd penality on the same play, mark off of 10yds against TeamA. I've never understood the concept of off-setting penalties.

Maybe... but does it really matter? What does a pattern prove?
 
There is a reason that you can't bring up prior history in a criminal trial. Because you were speeding several times in the past and paid for citations (admission of guilt) so I can give you a speeding ticket today solely on history. If a guy is a convicted felon that doesn't mean an officer can shoot him without further cause because of prior history shows that he had a violent demeanor. An officer that was punished internally doesn't mean that he can't lawfully use force to defend himself. 
 
What matters is what happened at the moment in question. Prior history might tend to show cause for people looking for a "reason" that something happened but it doesn't mean that a person is always right or wrong. That is also a reason that criminal charges do not require a "motive". The only issue is that the crime was committed and why is not an issue except at the punishment phase of a trial after guilt is established.  
 
What about from the opposing viewpoint? Most often brought up is bad history but if an officer or anyone else shoots someone and he has no history, does that then mean that he is right? I have 31 years in law enforcement and haven't had any disciplinary suspensions for any cause much less use of force. Does that mean that if I kill someone that is a two time convicted violent felon that I am automatically right because I have a "good history" and he has a "bad" one?
 
That is why I could care less what Trayvon Martin had for a history. What I cared about was proof that Zimmerman killed him without cause. There was none. 
 
Whether this officer had a checkered past or not does not mean that he is guilty of anything. What if the kid was a habitual criminal even at that young age and was accused of several crimes and convicted in juvenile court? Is that evidence that the officer is justified? 
 
About the only thing I care about in the area of history is a possible understanding of the person's thought process because we like to speculate on those kinds of things. In my opinion it is meaningless at the moment in question however it might give us that "ahhhh...." moment later. 
 
Ahhhhh... THAT'S why he did that crime. 
 
EDIT: "haven't had any disciplinary suspensions"

Celebration penalties should incur a 95yd penalty, loss of down, loss of 7 points, immediate ejection, handcuffed and given a life prison sentence with no trial.
Punters who fake getting hit should share the same jail cell...or a least go back to soccer.
Receivers that beg for interference calls should immediately be sent to the NFL to run short over-the-middle pass routes for the rest of their playing days (which will be very short).
Players or coaches penalized for sideline interference should be forced to run the chains for the rest of the game.
 
Seriously though, the top priority rule change I would implement would be for all penalties to add. If a team commits a 5yd and 15yd penality on the same play, mark off 20yds. If TeamA commits a 15yd penality and TeamB commits a 5yd penality on the same play, mark off of 10yds against TeamA. I've never understood the concept of off-setting penalties.

We already have the last thing this country needs.

Oh yeah, about the laughing (and it was more like smiling and an outright laugh). I have been to many very sad funerals and seen people smile or make some comments while about to speak. It is a defense mechanism that most of have built it. 

If the best teams come out in the end anyway, why water it down?
Could it be that the prestige of the playoffs is thrown away for the almighty dollar?

If the best teams come out in the end anyway, why water it down?
Could it be that the prestige of the playoffs is thrown away for the almighty dollar?

If the best teams come out in the end anyway, why water it down?
Could it be that the prestige of the playoffs is thrown away for the almighty dollar?

After reading three different websites including Wikipedia I only see two arrests for Barkely and none for resisting arrest. One was for assault after he was hit with a glass and responded and another for DUI. 
 
In fact after his last arrest and according to the police officers from the Wikipedia article......, "Gilbert police noted Barkley was cooperative and respectful during the entire incident, adding that he was treated no differently than anyone arrested on DUI charges". 
 
Then he pleaded guilty to DUI and was sentenced to three days in jail and a $2,000 fine. 
 
But (yet again), those are just facts. 
 
Feel free to make up yet more of your own.............