Search the Community

Nah, not anymore from me, that went away after we stopped playing each other. I do miss the ole 21-6A days. Some epic trash talk back then.

Yes!!!! Me and @BMTSoulja1 talk about this very often. 😁

A talk with Sam Pittman and his relationship with linebackers coach Michael Scherer helped linebacker Jordan Crook’s decision to commit to the Razorbacks on Saturday: [Hidden Content]

My 93 (94? 95?) year old Mother in Law is coming Monday from Georgia to spend seven days. Talk about Hell Week. She lives with my well off Liberal Sister in Law, who’s a Liberal . She’s been inundated with CNN 🐂💩 and I’ll spend all week trying to explain to her what’s actually going on. Keep me in your thoughts.... 😂😂😂

As an employee of Sheffield Productions, I am very excited by this season's webcasts of the Nederland Bulldogs. Our vision is to showcase the students and communities of both schools at the game. We have reached out to the school districts and chambers of commerce of the Bulldogs' opponents offering free time to show videos and promotions. Remember how ABC used to televise the big college football game on Saturdays? Each university had a powerful promotional segment. That's the style we'd like to emulate with our Friday Night Experience. I'd love to again hear the legendary Keith Jackson talk about "Texas and Alabama..."

Any of those committees are a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. The politicians like to hear themselves talk, pat each other on the back and what will happen? Well - at the end of the day those that did that on January 6th will still be charged and have to face the music for decisions they made. Remember all of the Russian Collusion hearings - nothing happened but wasting money.

So, just ignore the facts concerning the creation of the FHA and GI bill, which systematically discriminated against black citizens and veterans with their various red lining strategies? The deed covenants that forbid resales of homes in many developments to “ non Caucasian” individuals? The greatest contributor to middle class wealth accumulation in our history was denied the African American community until after the Don’t talk about it and it’ll go away? I don’t think so.

I’m still around….Not much to talk about so far. I really like Coach McGuire, and the kids are responding positively. Looking forward to the season.

I think you have a personal problem with Coach Davis. Nobody said he’s the best coach in the area but if underachieving is wining 20 game and making the playoffs ever year that’s crazy. That’s tuff to do at any school. Give credit where credit is due no matter what think of the dude. We are beating a dead horse so let just move on. Who we gonna talk about next?

Forget the money, I want to see the rivalries of old renewed. It's insane that UT-A&M and UT-Arky don't play every year. It's crazy that aggy and ou don't play every year. This is a massive disservice to the institutions, players and us as fans. I miss the real trash talk and bragging rights. I want this to happen. But I'm a selfish a-hole so what do I know. I did talk to a few Bama and lsu buddies today and they're pissed for obvious reasons. They know if this happens, the recruiting advantage is diminished pretty quick like.

….and you talk about other people’s mindset. This has got to be the biggest load of poo poo I have ever heard. Notice the victim mentality? Everything he does is someone else’s fault……bravo.

He’s also had to coach in the era where 4A has become a big city classification, with all of these houston and Dallas schools somehow fielding 4A squads. Not to mention the insane talent silsbee has put out. It’s kind of funny that you talk about the talent he inherited, but want to give Mitchell full credit for making the playoffs 3 years in a row with a D1 player (something I’m not positive Davis has ever had, except for a couple of seasons with Parquet).

Gonelsons, we need a pep talk. Lol

Nobody brought that up in 2019 after that start yall had, funny it came to be talk again after the WB loss, plus there was friction within that staff, oh wait a minute: there was friction within the new staff last season too. So um: which version of United we gonna see this year, Central version or Ozen version? 🧐

So, sorry it took so long to get back to this. This one is really multifaceted, but yes, sex sells. Most of these women, to quote @PAMFAM10are eye candy. They are not being hired because it’s the “right thing to do” (which I’m not sold that it is), they’re hired because the largest demographic is a group of testosterone filled, sexy women loving, American males (of all colors) who like to look at these women. They are virtually no different than the ring girls at a boxing match other than they get to talk and get to be fully clothed (form fitting and sexy please). There are a few exceptions (did someone say Michelle Tafoya), but she’s not in the majority. Honestly, I’d rather have a guy that played the game, that understands what it’s like to have your ribs broken as a TE when getting hung out to dry on a drag across the middle to pick up 4 yards for a 1st down. It’s not a gender thing. It’s not a racial thing. It’s “who is best qualified to convey that play” thing. Just like I wouldn’t want Troy and Joe calling a Women’s softball championship. So here we are in the world of commercial wokism. Coca Cola could give a rat’s arse about racial equality or equity. But right now that sells. ESPN decides to join in along with all the others and promote racial equality…only because they think it will help their brand and their bottom line. Where were these people even 10 years ago? Well, it wasn’t selling 10 years ago. And if it’s not selling 10 years from now, you won’t see it then either. Finally, by forcing this so-called “equality/equity”, these companies are turning blacks into a side show. It’s wrong and for the wrong reason. I love listening to players (like Charles Barkley), who played the game, commentating an NBA game. Not because they’re black or white or male, but because they’re the best ones to do it.

No trying to get banned, but talk about a Dumb butt

Well all that talk may not matter. Haven't heard that Buckner was taking the job. As of today it's still open. Along with head baseball, Jh/elem principal, and HS principal. So they still only have 3 boys coaches on staff.

The REAL definition is simply a female named Karen...it's the racist crowd that gave it new meaning. Oh look, she's mad about something, she must be a white privileged female. You got no room to talk about others being racist when you throw that crap out.

I can make that assumption based off hundreds years of oppression. If the shoe fits cardinalbacker. All the talk about affirmative action it’s ashamed how we had to have things like this in place. Think about it we had to add the 13th 14th &15 . And that’s not a assumption. I thought you was one of the wiser ones

it was a very good question. I think that is one of the misconceptions in the law. The feelings of the other person are basically irrelevant. It goes by the intent of the person committing the crime, not how it was received. Like if I walked up to you in a stern voice and say, “hey we need to talk” while pointing a finger at you. That is not a threat. A person might say it is threatening in their opinion but that is not a crime. If you walked up and said the same thing to me, should I be able to place you in jail and the answer is no. Well, “I felt threatened” does not make it a crime. Now swap the scenario to the opposite direction. Let’s say I try to scare you and call you on the phone and say I’m on the way over with my shotgun, I will be there in five minutes and I’m going to kill you. Would that be a crime? In my opinion, yes. It could be harassment (often called telephone harassment or making a threat on the phone) or terroristic threat. I made a threat to kill you in fairly short order with intent to scare you. That is a crime. But what if…. Let’s say you answer on the phone, good, I have my gun and if you come at me I am going kill you. I’m not afraid of you. Legally your feelings do not matter. Just because you are not afraid, did I still commit a crime and the answer is yes. The crime was my intent to make you scared. Whether you were or not is irrelevant. That’s why, the feeling of the victim does not really matter under the law. It is the type of a mental state of the person who commits the crime that matters. If you get in a legal discussion and really want to impress your friends, tell them that it is the “mens rea” or Latin for the “guilty mind”. Also… Some crimes do not specifically mention a culpable mental state. I think public intoxication is one of those crimes where it just says that you’re in public and you’re intoxicated and you’re a danger to someone, it is a crime. It does not specifically mention your mental state. One is still required however. The law in Texas says that if no mental state is specifically mentioned in the crime, then the prosecutor must prove that you were reckless. To put an easier, if not noted, the minimum of recklessness is a requirement to be proven. The only a mental state lower is criminal negligence. So if a crime does not mention what your mental state was , then the prosecutor has to at the very least prove you were reckless. The difference between recklessness and criminal negligence in itself is interesting. In both of them you did not intend for the consequences. What happened was really an accident. But what is the difference? Criminal negligence is a complete accident but you should have known better. Maybe you ran a four way stop sign and caused an injury. What if you never saw the stop sign because you’re not paying attention as it required by law? In my opinion that is criminal negligence. You had your head up your butt. Now let’s say you ran the same stop sign but you did so intentionally. You sure did not want to get in a wreck and damage your own car so it was an accident. The act of running the stop sign however, was intentional. In both situations running a stop sign was the initial act or crime and the result in both was an accident causing injury. With one you intended to run the stop sign and the other one you negligently ran a stop sign. I call recklessness as an intentional accident. The act was intentional but the results were an accident. Another example might be let’s say you were in the woods target practicing and shooting at a tin can on top of a hill. You did not check out the area and your bullet goes over the hill and hits somebody on the other side. There was certainly no intent to cause that injury but in my opinion you’re darn sure reckless. You were reckless because you intended to fire the shot but did not intend the results. It was an intentional accident. Now let’s say you were walking through the woods with your gun off safety and your finger on the trigger. You trip and fall and your gun goes off accidentally and you hit the same person on the other side of the hill. In my opinion that is criminal negligence because you should have known better than to have your gun off safety with your finger on the trigger walking through the woods. You sure did not intend to fire the shot however your head up your butt caused someone to get shot. In fact in Texas law the only difference between murder, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide is a culpable mental state. Clear as mud? Again, great question.

They have no clue how to handle it!! They want to talk gun control. Newsflash, this is the scum of the earth committing these crimes, they have no use for your gun laws. All this does is make it harder for honest people to own guns.

I always talk about the what if scenarios but your comment made me think of another. What if… I have read so many comments about the guy had a knife or may have so it had to be self-defense and blah blah blah. but what if… Let’s say the guy did pull a knife, maybe in self-defense, maybe not. Let’s say the guy with a gun did not have it with him. He has the right to stand his ground (maybe) but what if he disengaged from the encounter, went to his car good distance away and then returned with a gun and shot the victim? Does self-defense or stand your ground mean you can go to another location and get a deadly weapon and return to kill a person when you were far enough away that you were no longer in danger? I can see a situation similar to that. What is the victim felt like he was about to be assaulted? What did he pulled out a knife as a threat just to keep the other guy away? The shooter left then he returned with a gun and shot the guy out of anger. I would call that murder. The Texas Penal Code actually addresses that issue. It says it is lawful to display a deadly weapon and not be considered aggravated assault (a threat while displaying a deadly weapon) if they displaying was in self-defense and the intent was to create the apprehension they deadly force would be used if needed. Basically the law says if you have to pull your weapon, it is lawful to do so if a reasonable person in your position would have done the same thing. Still without having any clue what happened, I can see cases where the guy that pulled a knife, even if he pulled it first, did so lawfully and the guy that got a gun and shot him committed a crime.

If I were you I would let this go because if you want to talk about racism I can go all day with cold hard facts. Lol. And not things others told me. Straight facts about my dealings with current coaches and athletic directors in this area.

Hmmm, so she can have her anti-white, anti-Hispanic, and anti-Chinese views - AND protest the flag but don’t dare talk bad about the poor lil’ misunderstood oppressed young lady.

It is that way because it is hard in an appeals case to address every one of 100 different variables. The courts are reluctant to issue Bright-Line Rules although they do in some cases. In BLR they issue a, this is the rule and that’s that!! Typically cases are based at the local level (trial court) and depend on phrases such as totality of the circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable suspicion and objective reasonableness. Those are for a jury or a judge to determine. That is why we typically have 12 jurors on felony cases and they all have to agree on guilt. At some point humans have to make the determination and we generally err on the side of caution. In most cases that is the problem with BLR. There are simply too many variables to issue a hard and fast rules in most cases. Even three strike rules which might seem fair for some people, might be very unfair. In Texas for example, any three prior theft convictions can be tried as a felony. So a person at 17 years old might be caught stealing something for $2. Later that year he does the same thing. When he turns 18 he had again gets caught stealing something for a couple of dollars. Then for the next 40 years he realizes the stupidity of his teenage years and leads a productive life. He breaks no laws whatsoever. He does not even get a speeding ticket. Then in a moment of stupidity in his late 50s, he takes a pack of gum from the convenient store. Does this guy deserve 10 years in prison for that pack of gum? While some people might say, he should have known the law, does the punishment fit the crime? That is a problem with hard and fast rules. Even though the law allows Texas to file a felony case, would a DA do so in such a case and if so, would a jury sentence a person to the maximum for a pack of gum? Compare that to a 30 year old being convicted of 15 misdemeanor thefts but the DA has allowed a plea deal for the misdemeanor. Finally tired of these $1,500 thefts (less than $2,500 in TX is a misdemeanor), the DA uses that same three strike rule. This guy steals the same pack of gum but has stolen over $30,000 worth of property in the last few years but has never been caught taking something over that $2,500 threshold for a felony. Same punishment deserved? I will give an example of a BLR. If you invoke your right to remain silent or your right to an attorney after being arrested, the Supreme Court has stated, not so long ago, that the right does not remain forever. In other words if you get arrested and say you want an attorney, the Police cannot legally ask you questions and in fact cannot even ask you if you change your mind. If five years later the police ask you, do you want to talk about that crime from five years ago and you confess, is that legal? After all, you told them you wanted an attorney. The Supreme Court has issued a BLR that if you have been out of jail for 14 days, your invoking of your rights goes away. It is not like you can say I wish to speak with an attorney when you’re 18 years old and then when you are 50 the police still can’t talk to you. In that case the Supreme Court came up with a BLR of 14 days. Even in the discussion of the rule (if I remember correctly) The Supreme Court said we have to give the police something to work with. So they came up with the arbitrary rule of 14 days saying that after 14 days from being released, the personnel basically returned to normal life. The basic shock of the arrest is over. That is an ironclad rule or a BLR. Let’s say you go to jail and you invoke your right to remain silent and then get out seven days later. The day you get out the police come to talk to you and you sign a full confession. That will be thrown out unless your attorney was present and they got permission from him to ask (which will not happen). There is no debate on whether you were aware of what you were doing, etc. The Supreme Court set a rule that you have to wait 14 days before you can speak with a person again and that is that. So yes there are places for a hard and fast rules however much is left up to human discretion within certain parameters. The appeals court and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States, sets those guidelines that we go by. in my opinion..