Jump to content

La Porte is Open


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, D3zii said:

That whole area headed south of Houston towards Galveston as a whole is going through a major change and not the football powers they use to be

(La Marque, Hitchcock, Galveston, etc.) 

A lot of people like to point to demographic shifts as the reason for the slides. The bigger reason is because there's just not anymore money down there, look at the facilities for instance. I looked up the numbers on Ball and 76.4% of their students are classified as "economically disadvantaged", what type of staff can you afford/build/retain with numbers like that? Everybody capable has been moving to north Galveston County to the Dickinson and League City/Clear Lake areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cougar14.2 said:

A lot of people like to point to demographic shifts as the reason for the slides. The bigger reason is because there's just not anymore money down there, look at the facilities for instance. I looked up the numbers on Ball and 76.4% of their students are classified as "economically disadvantaged", what type of staff can you afford/build/retain with numbers like that? Everybody capable has been moving to north Galveston County to the Dickinson and League City/Clear Lake areas. 

Galveston is dangerous to live in.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

Galveston is dangerous to live in.   

Everywhere that a large percentage of the population lives below the poverty line is going to be dangerous, especially with the ease of access to weapons. Baytown has some good neighborhoods to live in but they also had 5 murders in December alone. Even when your community is relatively safe like Crosby you can still end up with a situation like the three bodies they found yesterday. Galveston has some rough areas but I'd much rather be caught there than Texas City, La Marque, Hitchcock or parts of Dickinson.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cougar14.2 said:

Everywhere that a large percentage of the population lives below the poverty line is going to be dangerous, especially with the ease of access to weapons. 

Both sets of my grandparents came from Louisiana to Beaumont a century ago. My Dads dad was gassed by the Germans in WWI. He barely survived, but his lungs were severely burnt up, and could not do much more that get out of a chair to walk across the room. He had 8 kids and never worked again. Moms dad suffered from heart failure and repetitive hernias. He tried to run a filling station, but never made much money at all. Mom was one of 5 kids. Both my parents were "depression era" kids, and survived by planting gardens, making their own cloths, and eschewing real medical care. The babies were born at home, not in hospitals. I grew up in a tiny home without air conditioning. Dad worked hard, but it took time to build things up because him and Mom had to start from literally nothing. 

My grandparents were beyond poor. They nearly starved during the depression. However, they, and my parents, were devout Christians who never, ever even thought about using poverty as an excuse for committing killings, drug abuse and other crimes like the "poor" do today.

I fully reject "poverty" as an excuse for crime. The breakdown of the nuclear family and the associated immorality lifestyles are to blame.  
 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

Both sets of my grandparents came from Louisiana to Beaumont a century ago. My Dads dad was gassed by the Germans in WWI. He barely survived, but his lungs were severely burnt up, and could not do much more that get out of a chair to walk across the room. He had 8 kids and never worked again. Moms dad suffered from heart failure and repetitive hernias. He tried to run a filling station, but never made much money at all. Mom was one of 5 kids. Both my parents were "depression era" kids, and survived by planting gardens, making their own cloths, and eschewing real medical care. The babies were born at home, not in hospitals. I grew up in a tiny home without air conditioning. Dad worked hard, but it took time to build things up because him and Mom had to start from literally nothing. 

My grandparents were beyond poor. They nearly starved during the depression. However, they, and my parents, were devout Christians who never, ever even thought about using poverty as an excuse for committing killings, drug abuse and other crimes like the "poor" do today.

I fully reject "poverty" as an excuse for crime. The breakdown of the nuclear family and the associated immorality lifestyles are to blame.  
 

 

   

Lol, I wish it would've been as easy for my grandparents. My grandpa was born in 1906 to a freedman, you really don't want to go there. Your story sounds like a fairytale. Our difference in understanding is the reason I cheer for the underdog in the hopes sports can change their lives and elevate them above the stigma you so clearly expressed. 

It's not February yet though so back to hoping Coach P isn't interested in going to Pearland and seeing who Crosby will donkey stomp on La Porte's sideline next year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cougar14.2 said:

 Your story sounds like a fairytale.

I don't know why you say that. You really think I just made that up? A fairytell? Seriously? 

No one is pointing at your grandparents. What I am doing is contrasting the privileged poor of today that gang bangs and commits the vast majority of crimes then uses "poverty" as an excuse, to the preceding generations that were FAR poorer than the poor of today, but were solid, law abiding citizens. The world has changed. Fathers are mostly absent and the welfare generation is running wild. Over the past year many cities have became war zones. Its not mostly isolated to Chicago, NY, and LA anymore. Sad days for whats left of America.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...