Englebert

Lawd I'm way more scared of Washington than everything Mother Nature has ;)

I'm going with #3
 
3) Coach who has his secretary do push-ups with the kids

And it is a great system because the worker has the right to go somewhere else and seek a better situation instead of some bureaucrat telling you and the company how much you are to make, how many hours you are to work, and what your job description is.

Funny how they wanted loyalty from you after telling you, you would be unemployed......That would be like leaving your woman for another woman, but still wanting her to have sex with you until the other one moves in.....

No matter which one you think is smarter, both get significantly dumber when you put them in a social situation with a large group of their peers.

The SEC Network is on Ch. 408 on DishNet. Right after my favorite channel on 407. :)

I don't want to get into too much detail on this topic, NSA is watching

Most of the tweets are gibberish from people that have no clue or are speculating. 
 
I have addressed a couple above and could do so on many of them. I understand the questions but they are put forth as rhetorical statements of guilt on the part of the police and that does not always square with the law or procedure. 
 
Merely saying someone was a suspect in a robbery that may have just happened means that he fits the general description. I have seen many people stopped and released on scene (and have done so myself) or at times arrested for something else other than the original intent of the stop. When a radio broadcast goes out that a small white car similar to a Honda or Toyota just left the scene, every small white car will likely be stopped in the immediate area. It doesn't mean that they are all guilty, it means they appear to be a possible suspect. 
 
Michael Brown might have fit the description without being the person the police sought, if they were actually looking for someone. By saying that someone talked to a store clerk and having him say that Brown was not the person means almost nothing except that he wasn't the person. It does not negate Brown looking like a description given or the police having lawful justification to detain him. 
 
None of that means that the police actually broadcast a description or if Brown generally fit that description but it is lawful for such a scenario to exist. The police should still release the tapes of the 911 call of the robbery, the radio broadcasts given to officers, etc. In fact the outside agencies looking into this incident probably already have it but it doesn't have to be immediately be released to the public. Not releasing it is seen by some as an admission of guilt which is incorrect. 

College rankings that really matter

http://universityprimetime.com/top-50-schools-attractive-college-females/

Plenty of posters have tried to say that this board has gotten silly.  It was always ignored.    Hoops actually did a good thing by showing just how bad this forum has become.

They ain't laughing all the way to the bank. They hired someone to go to bank for them  ;)

and you can't read.....
 
But stupid people need attention to

😂😂😂

Did you find a list ranking the actual academics of the football team??? Texas ranks higher than every school on that list. Lsu as the 11th ranked academic school in the country?? Where is the sec school that they hang their academic hat on - Vanderbilt? Please tell me you were joking when you hit enter and didn't believe you were actually posting a serious list of the best academic schools in the country. Since you didn't post a link - I will assume you were going for comedic relief.

And for the record - Self Regulation has never worked anywhere.

Donations would be great, but many are skeptical because of prior misappropriation. The trust just isn't there yet. Hopefully the new folks can restore faith & our District can stand Tall again

That's where I was going to go with the abortion issue depending on the answer to the question.
 
As for gay marriage, I believe marriage is a religious institution at its core, and thus can't be redefined by a government entity. It wasn't instituted by government, it was instituted by religion and then the government basically tried to take it over. The first time it ever became a government issue was when the king of England decided he wanted a divorce, and even then, he split the churches to be able to do it. A couple of centuries later, several states, Alabama being one of them, only started issuing marriage licenses as a way of regulating the institution to prevent interracial marriage, and many others only instituted marriage licenses for tax purposes.On that note, in this state, marriage licenses weren't even issued until the 1960s; both of my sets of grandparents received marriage certificates from the Methodist church, not marriage licenses from the county.
 
My thoughts are that there never should have been any marriage licenses. Leave marriage to the churches to sort out. Some of them, undoubtedly, will be willing to confer the institution of marriage on same-sex couples, and some won't. At the end of the day, however, it's up to he individual churches, thus preserving religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
 
And no, for those who are wondering, I don't have anything against polygamy, either.

I'm sure that there is still the occasional case of discrimination that it remedies, but I believe it perpetrates many more cases of reverse discrimination, which goes against the purpose it is supposed to serve.

The real point is that you will defend him, even if he does something wrong. And when your article by the biased liberal writer implying that the administration had done no wrong was proven false (no intentional culpability does not mean no culpability), you attacked the guy who proved your article wrong, rather than admitting that your article was misleading. I have a long history of going after those on this site who post misleading articles to try and attack Obama (in fact I just did before I responded to this post). But your article is just as bad, and IMO someone who will defend the president on issues where he doesn't deserve defending are no better than those who attack him when he doesn't deserve attacking.

Who's your puppet master!

This board is going to be what you make of it.

I first started commenting on this board as a sophomore in high school. That was a little more than five years ago. At that time, we had posters who would make smitty look like Larry Sabato.

One was DickVitale, who I've already jokingly mentioned in this thread. You think Big girl is bad about reducing everything to racism? DickVitale was a Houston area basketball coach who thought that everyone whose favorite color wasn't black was racist. You don't like President Obama? Racist. You think taxes are too high? Racist. You think we spend too much? Racist. You agree with the war in Iraq? Racist. You like vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate? Racist. You're white? Racist. It didn't matter what it was, everything was a matter of race to him, and he would bring up his racial commentary in every single thread regardless of the subject over and over and over again, just like smitty and some of the others do with Benghazi and Cloward and Piven and whatever else.

And Dickie V wasn't alone. We had another poster called stang4life who was very much the same way. She was never as confrontational as DV, but she was an expert at provoking people via emotional manipulation. BlueDove liked to get on the bandwagon too; he was much more active on this part of the board then than he is now. DV's most serious internet ally, though, was a poster named SFA85. He accused us all of "hiding behind our mother's skirts" in our "lilly white neighborhoods" because we wouldn't meet him outside of the World Gym in Beaumont to settle things with our fists like he kept demanding. Just about every thread he commented in contained some kind of emasculating insult or physical threat.

You know what kept this board going at that time? Do you know why most of us stuck around? Because most of the people here recognized all of that for what it was and chose not to sink to their level. Hippy, and tvc, and westend, and bullets, and baddog and a handful of others called the crap where they saw it, and then got back to the topic of the thread. There wasn't any of the trolling you like to do. And do you know what happened? DV and SFA kept trying to push the envelope until they got themselves suspended and, at least in DV's case, eventually banned. stang4life found her little petty tactics less and less effective and one day finally decided to basically tell us all we were beneath her and she was leaving the board.

For about a year and a half after that, this board couldn't have been much better. You would come in here and find a dozen different threads with real discussions taking place - no threats, no insults, no irrelevant tangents about this news source or that special interest group. Just real discussion. Granted, the cycle eventually restarted itself when a guy named True Blue showed up, but the point is, the longer you choose to emulate their tactics, the longer you perpetuate this cycle. Instead of saying this board of "FUBAR" and choosing to help keep it that way, I think we'd all be better served if we stuck to the substance of the debates and didn't delve into this political pettiness.

He's 2 legit to quit... Like Calvin Walker.

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that.

When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works".

Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare.

They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck.

The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules.

Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months.

His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control. 

If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules.

But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas.

And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

If you are referring about the one phrase "angry blacks", then I think you are mistaken on how Klein meant that to read. I think he was saying "everyone in the Black Community that is angry...". I don't think he was trying to stereotypye a group by saying "angry blacks" in a derogatory fashion. When I first read that sentence I was taken aback, but after re-reading it a couple of times I think it was just poor sentence structure. If your argument is on a different point or about the whole article, you can visit his website. There's a place to leave comments. Hippy included the link in his post.

Maybe you haven't kept up on current events but he already is convicted. He pleaded guilty in a deal for probation rather than risk many years in the federal hoosegow. The state has now come in and picked up the same charges that were for some reason not taken up by the last DA. 
 
Yes, the scales are balanced unless you are going to imply that a white guy can over bill a school district for several million dollars and then give different statements to the IRS so that he can pay less in taxes and everyone will let him go because of his race. If that is true you need to take it up with the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas who was appointed by Obama, was approved by the Democratically controlled US Senate and is under the US Attorney General. 
 
Unless something has changed, I believe that all prosecutions and surely all major ones from the US Attorney office have to go through Washington. They are not independent or nearly so much as a DA is from the state. A DA is locally elected and autonomous from the state, the US Attorney is not. What that means is that Eric Holder's Justice Department likely approved the prosecution of Walker. Perhaps you think that our US Attorney General was prosecuting Walker because of his race. 
 
The claim of race as a motivator is an easy way to divert blame. I am not involved in any part of nor have any knowledge of the state or federal investigations but (again), the Obama administration prosecuted Walker and doubt that race entered into the equation. Maybe you have some more inside information that says otherwise. I would love to hear it. 

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other.