Englebert

Now all that is left to do is get 1st team all district picks back to 26 picks total and not damn near 60 on the first team lists . Shameful !!!

I agree. but that being said, it's very obvious why they didn't, and for her to try and make it a racial issue when it's a common sense issue is equally dumb.

That argument is too asinine to respond to. If you are only looking at number of wins, then Marshall is in the top 5? Why not, since it doesn't matter who you beat or lost to, only number of wins. (Ok, I felt I made to respond to a dumb argument in case you are actually serious.)

As for the conference championship argument, the Big 12 is not allowed to have a championship due to having 10 teams...

They were 6-6 this year. If money was the problem I'm sure they could have filled their schedule with SEC teams and gotten some big paydays.

There was no problem bringing the full force of the fed gov down on Cliven Bundy but for some reason can't intervene to save businesses from being destroyed by thugs.

I have seen a lot of comments and questions on why there was no indictment (mostly from Brown family attorneys) so that Officer Wilson could defend himself in open court and prove his innocence. There have also been comparison with OJ and why he was indicted and had to “prove his innocence” (I have no clue about that one).
 
There are provisions in state and federal law for using deadly force in self defense. There is no requirement that you prove that you are innocent under those laws. The burden is on the state to prove that you did not have valid self defense.

I have been to several instances of self defense in my 31 years in law enforcement where the person that used up to deadly force was not arrested or ever charged. That is because there was not even enough proof to indict. They didn't have to prove they were innocent in court when there wasn't enough evidence that they weren't in the first place. Remember that the burden of proof on an indictment is the same as an arrest. In other words, to have enough information to indict then the state would have the same information at the scene to arrest Wilson. They did not.

The laws on self defense have the built in provision that the state has the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense did not exist. It is not enough to merely say that a guy is dead so there has to be a trial. It is not that way for anyone.

While it is easy to say that causing the death of someone is some form of homicide and it only takes probable cause (meaning more likely the person is guilty than innocent) to indict, that is not taking self defense into issue which does not exist for most other crimes. For example if a person is indicted for a robbery, there is not defense to prosecution that the robbery was justified. There can be no claim that yes I committed the robbery but it was justified so don't indict me. That is not true in use of force which has such defenses that have to be overcome by the state/DA.

People say that the officer got some kind of special treatment but as I stated above, I have seen many people that were not arrested or ever charged. They were not police officers and the last one that I was at which was early this year, it was a black man killing another black man in what was basically a street fight. The man that shot and killed the other was not arrested and was never charged. Why? Because he had a claim of self defense and there was not enough proof that he did not have the right of self defense. If he was not ever arrested in a crime or later charged for a homicide and made to prove that he was not guilty, how does it show Wilson got special treatment?

In the OJ case, he did not claim self defense and his claim was that he was not even there. For that reason his case has nothing in common with the Wilson case other than someone died. Wilson admits to killing Brown and his version was backed up by several witnesses and the physical evidence. As the DA stated last night when questioned by a pot stirring reporter, all of the witnesses that saw Brown charging at Wilson were black.

There was no indictment in the Wilson case because the burden of proof was not met and probably not even close. It is also the same reason that the special prosecutor did not go to a grand jury in the Zimmerman case because she knew that there was not enough evidence to indict by a grand jury, much less convict, but she wanted a trial and FL allows an indictment without a grand jury.
 
So when did this country change from the state having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty to you have to prove you are innocent? I am not talking about public opinion such as in these forums but in court. That is exactly what some people wanted in this case, for Wilson to prove that he is not guilty. Sorry but that is not the way the system including the US Constitution and Texas Constitution are written. 

I find it hard to listen to a group of people say it's unreasonable to believe that someone would punch a cop for no reason while they're in the process of burning people's businesses for no reason.

I know that it is easy spit out that "others did it" but what was the orders under Reagan or Bush that gave blanket amnesty to aliens by declaring their status? 
 
While it is easy to say "others did it" because you read it all over the internet from quips made by Democrats, what was those orders? They never name them. 
 
Congress under Reagan passed a bill that he signed into law, which strangely is the way the Constitution says that it is legal. Again note, Congress passed an immigration law and Reagan signed it. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
 
Parts of that law did not specify how to obtain the results and Reagan is reported to have issued orders on how to execute the law passed by Congress and signed by him into law legally.
 
I have been a police officer the entire time that G W Bush was president and also under Obama. When Bush was the president we could detain and bring in any illegal alien for something as minor as a traffic citation. I even arrested some working at chemical plants that had been here for years late in Bush's term and they had not violated any law other than being in the country. When I contacted ICE agents they had me bring them in for deportation. So where was the executive order from Bush stopping enforcing of laws? Again, it is easy to say it because Nancy Pelosi and others have put out this information on the various news channels. But what is it based on? Name the order that Bush gave that stopped deportation of millions of illegal aliens and gave them legal status to stay in the country by coming forward and declaring they were illegal. 
 
Under Obama and even before this executive order we can no longer detain illegal aliens that commit crimes that can land them in jail for up to a year. I can arrest an illegal alien DWI, get him convicted and serve time, arrest his again and have him serve time again and he will not be deported. All the talk is that we are now stopping more than ever at the border which may be true. But if they get past the border, there is no enforcement.  It is like a cop saying that if he catches you in the act of shooting someone he can arrest you but if he finds you two blocks away with gun still in hand, he cannot. That is ridiculous but it is the current rules we are under. It is no wonder that the Obama administration was against of detaining illegal aliens and reporting them to ICE, which by the way the Supreme Court found was legal. 
 
This executive order issued by Obama grants legal status to about half of all illegal aliens. He has no such authority under the Constitution under Article I, Sec. 8 which says all naturalization laws are under the authority of Congress. The exact same Sec. 8 says that Congress can assess taxes. Under Obama's reasoning, he can simply issue an executive order and raise your taxes. He can use the same reasoning, that Congress has not acted and we are running up debt. I have a funny feeling that if he did that from the same section you might feel that it is unconstitutional as the president has no authority to enact legislation but in this case of illegal aliens that is exact what he has done. 
 
What is really revealing in the Supreme Court case of AZ v. US when Arizona passed their own immigration law, the Obama administration contested the law under Sec. 8 saying that only the US Congress could pass naturalization and immigration laws. Hmmm..... when it fit their argument, they used the Constitution saying that only Congress could pass laws but when the Dems just lost the last election, the same administration is making the opposite argument for Obama. Go figure. 

Here's a look at how #4 seeds did against #1 seeds. Obviously you are going to have upsets when you have 64 of these games take place, but I believe the numbers show 4A and below should only bring three teams to the playoffs. There were so many games that were a complete embarrassment and probably should not have been played.
 
3A D1
 
One seeds went 14-2 outscoring their opponents 666-263 for +25.2 per game.
 
3A D2
 
One seeds went 14-2 outscoring their opponents 746-225 for +32.6 per game.
 
4A D1
 
One seeds went 14-2 outscoring their opponents 774-274 for +31.3 per game.
 
4A D2
 
One seeds went 15-1 outscoring their opponents 710-224 for +29.9 per game.
 
All together One seeds went 57-7 outscoring their opponents 2,896-986 for +29.9 per game with a an 89.1% winning percentage.
 
We should take note that two of the 4 seeds have advanced on to the third round, but I believe it is a bad idea when looking at the overall picture.

Already done.....they were called "Redcoats". Read your history.

It seems we have a bunch of offensive gurus on this site. I can tell because every time I read posts from just about any game, a few will ultimately go on and on about being out coached, called the wrong play that cost the game, etc. You have to be a guru to be able to determine this without watching any game film, without going to the daily practices or without being involved in the game-planning. I wonder if Bridge City will consider hiring someone out of this pool of geniuses.

So, no ding ding winner for my entry? And they did it before Lake Travis. :D
Fort Hancock: 88-89-90-91-92
They were also the first to win 4 straight titles: 88-89-90-91.

Seriously. I heard he asked a cop for a C-note to sign a speeding ticket! :D

If scarborough wins the toss they should elect to concede.

My premiums went up 31% and my deductible went way way up. Every employee in the company I work for had their premiums and deductibles go up substantially more that in previous years. The company where I'm currently located has over 4000 employees and everyone's premiums and deductibles went substantially up. Many dropped their coverage. I know this for fact because I've been working with the Benefits Director on their 834 Benefits file. Contained in the letter that went out to all of the employees regarding the increase in premiums, was this little gem: "Due the changes in healthcare coverage under the Affordable Healthcare Law, a significant rise in the cost of coverage premiums is unavoidable..."
 
Every single person that I've talked to since the ACA was implemented has had their premiums go up. Until your statement, I have not heard of a single one going down. And based on your track record on here, I'm highly skeptical of anything you say. I decided to not respond to any of your posts a while back, but for some reason made an exception for this one. I will now resume my boycott of your posts.

Myself, if they do repeal obamacare I don't want them to offer any alternative.  The fed gov has absolutely no business providing healthcare.
 
Let the states handle it how each sees fit.
 
The problem is that too many see the fed gov as the only entity that can provide solutions to all our problems.

In 4A DII, 64 teams make the playoffs out of a field of 87 teams...which is 74%. You don't have to be in the top 25% to make the playoffs, you have to be in the bottom 25% to not make the playoffs. This is shameful on the UIL's part.

I give Open a better chance of winning this week than Scarborough next week.

Trap game

ENJOY

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-football/2014/10/42559/first-look-espn-college-gameday-in-east-lansing-ohio-state-michigan-state

Steve, it's my very strong opinion that if the republicans regain control, they'd do very well to remember why they do... economic problems, some scandals, and a dislike of presidential policy. if they forget that, and go overboard trying to push social agendas, we're liable to see another flip flop again in the next 4-6 years, if not sooner.

No one knows his personnel or wants to score worse than the guy calling the play. Let him do his job.

Any truth to the statement I heard that HJ was originally supposed to play Bye Week this week, but Dubois chickened out and scheduled the much weaker Off Week instead?

AMATEUR - noun
1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for   financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional. 2. an athlete who has never competed for payment or for a monetary prize. NO, it's NOT a stupid rule, NO, it shouldn't be changed. It's been the rule for ever, and it's been a good rule, and it's been there for a good reason.........the only problem I see here is it's not enforced more consistently.
 
The whole argument about other players getting less punishment for bigger or worse crimes is very legit, but that's another discussion in it self. 
 
In this instance, the reason the university suspended him was for self protection - they don't lose scholarships for " crimes" they would for NCCA violations....

Wow. Disparaging of Baylor, when the Aggies have beaten only one FBS team with a winning record...Arkansas with their mammoth wins over Nichols St, Texas Tech and N. Illinois for a 3-2 record.