PN-G bamatex

I couldn't agree with you more. Noone is jumping the gun or making accusations. Everyone seems to be waiting for the facts before they start doing anything controversial. This is a much better way to handle things.

Yea, it was Bushes fault. Funny how Obama is changing his mind on a lot of security issues...... acting a little like Bush. Bush was not as dumb as the left plays him. For a dumb guy, he sure got a lot of things done. Correction: played him. They can't play President Bush for dumb when President Obama starts doing the same things President Bush did while in office. Oh, wait, they're liberals. They don't have to make sense. Nevermind, then.

It is a big deal. It was a big deal when Hitler was conquering lands. The Constitution DID NOT guarantee everyone freedom because at the time it was created...not all were free. The fact that you state you see no slaves today is how it should have been from day one. Didn't many people come here to escape religious persecutions and to be able to form a democratic society where all should have the rights to all that the Constitution represents? I guess all of the formerly oppressed groups should just feel blessed that we've come so far? Sorry, but if the foundation of our country states that ALL are guaranteed freedoms and liberties...ALL is a fairly defining word. While I am glad that I am here, the fact that one group of people profited at the expense of another through oppression, abuse, neglect, murder, separating families...that turns my stomach as I type this. I think that walking in other's shoes "may" change people's views. Kind of gives a new perspective on things. No, the Constitution did not create slavery...in an indirect way, I would have to respectfully disagree that it did not condone it because through inaction, that's essentially what happened. The fact that slavery existed...so. Religious persecutions and dictators and all of the other potentially harmful ways of the world were also here before the Constitution was here, but again...those were also ideals and things that our forefathers believed should not be a part of our America. The United States might not have lost 140,000 lives had slavery not been allowed to become a disgusting part of who we were supposed to be. We just executed Saddam Hussein because of how he treated his countrymen (and others) and the atrocities that he masterminded and followed-through with and we want to lead these other countries to be a democratic society where freedoms are a "guarantee"...yet, it took us how long to guarantee those freedoms to our own citizens and countrymen? How would you feel if you were a slave (a mother) whose "master" stole her child and sold that child to another owner because he was so determined to break her? Not much different than what Hitler and the Nazis did during WWII. I would ask you to think about that for a little more than a minute. Slavery was accepted back then. I'm glad we abolished it, but it was not just in the United States. When you say selling a mothers child, they did that in Africa as well. No matter what Country, it's still wrong. America figured that out over time. There is still slavery in Africa. I never hear blacks speaking negatively about Africa. Dick Vital actually thought African groups never took over lands. The more you look at both countries, the more we "were" the same.........now we are different in many ways, such as America has no slaves. Accepted you say? By who? It shouldn't matter that "it was not just in the U.S." Our U.S. was supposed to be better than that. Who cares what they did in Africa? Atrocities have happened all over the world, then and now...that does not justify (or at least should not justify) the atrocities of slavery in this country in the past. And, you are right...the more we look at both countries and others, the more we were the same...except that America was supposed to be founded on the notion that EVERYONE was guaranteed FREEDOM and EVERYONE did not include EVERYONE until not so long ago. From the initiation of the Constitution...America should have had no slaves. How would we feel if white people had been the slaves? I know I wouldn't be a happy camper...or slave. I would have a hard time believing that anyone would. Of course, I would have probably been lynched or hanging in the next tree because what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, no matter how convenient it may be to say...well, look at that country...they were doing it. That's not very mature. The nonchalantness is kind of disturbing...almost as much as the post about not caring about car bombs and children being killed. Well, we could always justify our participation in slavery and oppression and all of the sins committed to keep it intact with the people setting off the car bombs and killing INNOCENT people. NOT! I would like to point out that no slavery would have meant no Constitution, meaning a very loose union working under the Articles of Confederation and probably an eventual breakup, meaning no United States of America and making the eastern seaboard easier for the British to take back. All of the states had to ratify the Constitution, including the southern states. Do you really think that the southern states would have ratified the Constitution if it meant giving up their slaves? Our forefathers were already under fire for not having a bill of rights in the original Constitution and had to make a promise to add them post-ratification. They couldn't afford to make another controversial move. They had to make some concessions or face the loss of our then-infant nation. I believe that slavery is morally wrong. Now, that being said, this argument is about decisions made before our great, great, great, great grandparents were even gleams in the eyes of our great, great, great, great, great grandparents. There's no use in arguing the ethics of a 220+ year-old decision. This thread is about the best decision/action President Bush made/took during his presidency. Let's get back to that. I'll start: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This action organized all of our nation's various security agencies into one functioning body, increasing efficiency. It laid down department-wide standards that had to be upheld and precautions that had to be taken. DHS played a pivotal role in protecting a post-9/11 nation. Anyone else care to offer something along these lines into the record? Remember, we're talking about the best thing President Bush did while in office.

If you quit bringing up all those points, then maybe we could agree on some things........but your the one that brought up Race! Agreed. If you (DickVitale) would stop making false accusations, we wouldn't have a problem here.

I wouldn't mind seeing PN-G take on Dayton. It'd be interesting to see how things would turn out now that we have a new coaching staff and a new system. Another good game would be PN-G vs. WO-S. Both Dayton and WO-S would be challenging teams, but I think our new coaches and players could leave those games with a lot of experience.

(A) Bullying use to be called The Manifest Destiny and ( An example? Sure, remember "Shock & Awe? In response to (A), thanks for proving one small part of my point. In response to (, Shock & Awe wasn't "bullying," it was a military operation designed to demoralize the Iraqi army by putting on, literally, a fireworks show by repeatedly bombing strategic targets or the remains thereof, causing a decline in the will to resist and ultimately saving American lives. "Bullying" suggests that the operation was pointless violence, and it most certainly was not. Virtually no lives were lost in Operation: Shock & Awe on either side. It was just a way to "soften up" Iraq, much the same way we did in Vietnam with Operations: Linebacker, Linebacker II, and Rolling Thunder and in WWII with the intense bombardments of Normandy immediately previous to Operation: Overlord and the various Pacific islands we took during our "Island Hopping" campaigns. You are characterizing me as a racist based on the area I live in, and, frankly, I find that characterization insulting and slanderous. You, sir, are the ignoramus in this situation. You make claims with absolutely no evidence to affirm them and do so based solely on emotions and hearsay. I have nothing against President Obama based on his race or questionable religous background; my only concerns are based on his political positions and agendas. The idea that I am a racist is something that you are inferring with no factual basis whatsoever.

Anyway, she's about as truthful as Cheney...... Well then that makes it ok, huh? When does one stand on one's own two feet and stop pointing fingers? She has gotten herself into the same place as Obama....between a rock and a hard place. Bush's poilicies are looking better all the time. Maybe now, the ''fickle finger of fate'' will be pointed in the right direction. Those policies in 'Not so Real America' still stink. I could care less what she knew and when she knew it. It wasn't Pelosi who said "we need to go to the dark side....." and it darn sure wasn't NP who gave the torture orders, okayed the memos---pre writing of them. All Dick 'The Penquin' Cheney---former Vice Chicken Hawk. Pelosi, as well as other Dems at the time, went along so they wouldn't seem 'soft' on terror in 'Real America' Like I said earlier, when GWB gave the orders for the CIA to go into Afganistan----teaming up with the 'Northern Alience'(which had the help of Iran btw), they did good running the Taliban(remember them? they took credit for 9/11)out of Afganistan. Then the NeoCons step in and Conned us all.... A car bomb ripped through a packed street in Pakistan's city of Peshawar TODAY and killed 11 people, including women and children, near an ice cream shop and Internet cafe Saturday, officials said. The blast exploded in the densely populated Kashkal area of Peshawar, the northwest city where people have sought shelter after escaping a Pakistani military offensive against Taliban militants in three districts further north. For those of you that think the war is over and that America is safe is living in a fantasy world. Bush has a lot to do why those car bombs are exploding in Peshawar and not in our own backyard! For some of you, it's going to take another 9/11 to make you understand that. Making excuses for Pelosi shows how far the left will go to protect it's own. You do realize she said she did not know, then she kinda knew. Do you really believe that????? Pathetic! Well you seem to be speaking for all the Chicken Hawks on this board. Get off the keyboard and do something about it. Go enlist and say you want to go to the Stands ASAP to protect 'Real America' To be honest, I sometimes wear a 7.25 inch size tin hat. Since Pakistan has no oil(that we know of), there won't be another hit here. No need for the Carlyle group and others to use the Shock Doctrine to set up shop in Pakistan..... ;D ;D Thats really your response?? I guess I messed you up when I post facts. thetragichippy, some people are just looking to blame someone else for the world's problems. It's sad that the man who protected us is taking the blame for doing his job.

Here is a link to an article about warring tribes in Africa: [Hidden Content] Most notably, the British. Here is a link to a list of indigenous Australian tribes that have fought over territory on the Australian continent for centuries: [Hidden Content] Are you suggesting that a white actress should not be allowed to play the part of Cleopatra simply because she is white?

That was a well thought out remark......... typical That generally means, "I have no other comeback against the facts so I'll have to make some silly quip". Exactly. Notice how not one of them have refuted what you posted. Why argue with the brainwashed Bush followers?....Waste of time...Thats the SE Texas way.. Once again if you folks think that the economic situation that we are in is not a DIRECT result of your boy George W., then you are dumber than I thought you were. HOW can you go back to the Clinton years and attepmt to blame THEM? Our economy was BOOMING during those years! Bush was a BULLY....Just like your forefathers were BULLIES back in their day...Thieves, liars, and backstabbers! ALL OF THEM....Sad. Wanna refute that fact? Didn't think you would. Just thought they could just TAKE what they wanted...JUST LIKE GEORGE W. Were these not your forefathers as well? Back then, it wasn't called "bullying," it was called "nation-building." It was deemed acceptable and it was something that every nation on the planet did. Can you prove that President Bush was a "bully"? Can you offer me one tidbit of evidence that might even remotely incriminate him? No, you can't. All you can offer is a few, very questionable "documentaries" that were directed and produced by some very questionable characters. It could be argued that the very same people who have given you these "facts" were the true criminals. It could be argued that they were the ones with the personal agendas, that they were the ones with their own interests in mind, and that they, or, at least, several others of the same political connotation, have played a bigger part in the recent decline of our nation than any other party or politician, including President Bush.

National Security

I don't like it, but, with a $9 Billion drop in the budget, I guess we've got no other choice.

Who did they play?

Maybe, but LC-M has had a rough few years. They've got a lot of rebuilding to do.

I knew you of all people would agree with me, but I was only refrring to TJ High in Port Arthur, Texas How do you bullets13 or you BLUEOVE3 possibly KNOW that? I'm following along with this thread because like you, I think it is important. But please tell me how you have the knowledge that NO BLACK MAN (insert the number of Black Men in the USA) has NEVER beaten up a white man (insert the number of White Men in the USA) solely on the basis of race. HOW DO YOU KNOW? I could be wrong, but I think that bullets13 Q was being sarcastic. I don't know about BLUEDOVE3, though.

Did I say that all poor people are useless? No. I pointed out that there are quite a few who would rather sit at home and live off of our tax dollars than work (because, for some stupid reason, we enable them to do that), but I also said that there are working poor out there. These working poor have my respect moreso for their character and values than their importance to our economy. Those are the ones who, even though they know they can just live off the government like so many others, deserve the assistance and even commendation of our society.

When it comes to drugs, yes, I have probably seen just as much of it from families that aren't dependant on the government, but, when it comes to violent crimes (i.e. murder, gang-related violence, assault, etc.), I have yet to see it out of economically independent families on the same scale as we see it in government-dependant families and housing complexes. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen; however, in my experience, it's less common. Southeast Texas may be ignorant, but that is a societal problem, one that can (and probably will) work itself out in (a lot of) due time. The government has no place in telling people what their opinions should be, even on the race issue. Teaching people how to remain respectful, perhaps, but not their views on other races. I am not a racist, I just believe that people have a right to their opinion on anything for any reason at all, no matter how stupid that opinion is or that reason is, and that the government doesn't have the right to force people to have certain opinions. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, for whatever reason, and may freely express that opinion, so long as they do so in a respectful, courteous manner, and do not harm another. That's one of the founding virtues of our nation. We've created a system for the "less fortunate" to sustain themselves with money from others while not actually earning money, themselves. Paychecks are earned, not given. We sustain ourselves through the fruit of our labors individually, not collectively. That's the beauty of America; we have the ability to chart our own course, put our own food on the table, clothe ourselves, and ultimately determine our own destiny. That's the idea this nation was founded on, and, in that light, the idea of providing for a class of people that refuses to provide for themselves is absurd. That doesn't mean we need to do away with the welfare system, but we do need to revise it. We need to be rolling our able-bodied, able-minded welfare recipients, regardless of race, religion, or gender, into workforce development and place them in jobs, not allow them to sit at home (typically in Section 8 housing) and feed off the system and the hard-earned money of the working classes. The only people we need to take care of are the old, the orphaned, and the disabled (And when I say "disabled," I don't mean substance abusers. Other than the money used to throw them in jail, they have no business with our tax dollars.), and that's only if they can't afford to take care of themselves. Again, and as I stated earlier, I don't believe that all welfare recipients are "freeloaders," but a great many of them are, and they have no business feeding off of our tax dollars. In other words, if you are physically and mentally capable of providing for yourself and intend to live off of government welfare, then you will work, you will contribute something to society, you will stay clean (mandatory drug tests all the way), and you will, eventually, become independent, regardless of whether or not you want too. Welfare should be about teaching capable people how to provide for themselves (much like the education system, which also needs some work, and I don't mean that we need to just throw money at it in hopes that it will go away), not providing for them.

what will you do now smitty that the bond is over? Next i guess you will finding other ways to talk down about the School district and the people that are in favor of improving their town. smitty, you can only fix the leaks in the hull so many times before the ship finally sinks. You guys need new schools. Sometimes, the maintenance department doesn't have the equipment to fix the problem, and sometimes the school district's administration doesn't have the money to buy the equipment or to hire people who have the equipment. At some point, the school district will have no other choice but to replace those schools, and you're getting closer and closer to that point every time you fail a bond. I agree that this one seems like a little much (although I still thought it would have passed), but you're going to have to get new schools sometime soon.

I think just as some of us bring up racial issues there is an opposing side who are in denial about how race affects our society. Just the fact that you have students in this area who have never had contact with kids from other races until they enter college still is hard for me to imagine. Bridge City, Lumberton, Vidor, etc. Race is real! Race denial is real too! I lived in Port Arthur for 27 years. It was a 50 50 mix of white and minorities. When I was in High School it was not a black white issue, it was a blacks/whites being racial against Asians and Vietnamese. You are the opposite extreme of white racism. Based on all your post, you use emotion to form a conclusion instead of facts.....OR you use one fact (a man is dead) without looking at any other facts. S what does your statement have to do with my post above? Its a very true statement I say above. I thought my post was pretty clear. You claim that Bridge City, Lumberton and Vidor kids never have contact with other races. While maybe not in school, they do go to other places besides school. I brought up my history to let you know I grew up in a diverse school district with friends of all races. So, my comments are not from a guy that was raised by the KKK. As for Laws, rules or anything pertaining to the black race you see the glass half empty. I reviewed your post and not one positive thing about race has been brought up by you. You have only supported the black side. I am trying to weigh out both sides and choose the side that's right. (not being political). Dove, you seem to be passionate about your beliefs, and I like that. More people might give your beliefs a second thought if you would look at all sides. And, again, the very action of saying that they have not come into contact with people of other races just because of the area they live in is a characterization that is no better than one based on race. You've just replaced the race factor with the area factor.

And the point that we're at today is a point of being poised for a turnaround, one that the school board, in part, got us to. That idea was the point of my entire comment. As much as I hate to say it, this school district has been going down since the 80's, and that decline was accelerated by the "Robin Hood" chapter and the recent hurricanes. We've been trying to turn that around for the last few years, we're about to do it, and that school board helped to get us this far. I just think that people took some things that the school board did out of context. Some assumed that there were ulterior motives when there was no evidence of such. It's just a little controversial.

History and everyday events tells us that most individuals are selected based on their popularity or who they know. Or better known as the good ole boy system. I think the timing was just right for a person like Obama to come in and win (obviously). What I didn't like was the hatred that came out towards the man. And I just think that he had a very effective, successful marketing strategy. Much better than McCAIN & Palin...obviously Like I said, sometimes slogans and plays on emotions are the best kinds of marketing strategies. Although it does sound to me like you're admitting that President Obama won just because he said "Change," "Hope," and said that Republicans were bad.

I did not say that people who voted for him, specifically, were ignorant. I said that there were ignorant votes on both sides, as displayed below. Never did I say that all freeloaders live in Section 8 housing. Again, my response was to BLUEDOVE3's judgemental comment, which is pasted below. I love how you're not calling out BLUEDOVE3 for his judgemental comments, you're only calling me out for my seemingly judgemental comments. What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? I've seen this ordeal countless times with my own two eyes. I've seen the freeloaders and the hard workers, and I've seen the children of the freeloaders who turn to crime and living off the system because they've never known anything better. I've seen all of it. Again, you're talking to the son of a social worker. I've grown up around this stuff, I've grown up going to the office with my mother and watching all of this unfold, and I can name countless experiences to back up everything I say. You're assuming that I have no experience in this field because of my point of view and the area in which I live and have grown up. You're taking the same judgemental action that you claim the good people of Southeast Texas do. You're characterizing me based on no factual information, whatsoever. Yes, we have been here for a long time, and it's been getting worse and worse with every election, but we've reached a new level, and for you to deny that can be construed as the epitome of ignorance, much as you, BLUEDOVE3, and DickVitale (a.k.a. Quanell XYZ) like to try and characterize Southeast Texas as. Oh, no ma'am. I don't feel this way just because Senator McCain didn't win. Most, if not all, of my opinions are based on my own real world experiences, of which I have many. I have felt the same way about these "freeloader" issues for most of my teenage years, and those opinions and feelings come from my own experiences with the welfare and social systems.

History and everyday events tells us that most individuals are selected based on their popularity or who they know. Or better known as the good ole boy system. I think the timing was just right for a person like Obama to come in and win (obviously). What I didn't like was the hatred that came out towards the man. And I just think that he had a very effective, successful marketing strategy. Sometimes, I think that life experiences are as important and vital in a leader as experience as an elected official. And, I would have to agree that his "marketing strategy" was very successful...but that doesn't mean that he will be any less effective than Bush. Besides, every campaign (presidential or not) is a marketing strategy Yes, all elections are marketing strategies, but President Obama's was, to me, more effective than most that I have seen in my lifetime. Why do I think this? Simple. Like most good advertisers, President Obama played more on slogans and emotions than he did points, plans, or experience. That, to me, is the single biggest problem with this election. I believe that more people cast an ignorant vote for both sides than in any other election in our history, and it saddens me to see our nation hit such a time in our history.

Her experience is a Governor for 2 years and a Mayor for 10 years. Name me some of those bright, articulate, accomplished GOP women who have been doing big things in government and in the business world for years. You have NOTHING to support that argument. : : Partial List of Republican Women More Qualified to be President Than Sarah Palin posted by Gatemouth Fri, 08/29/2008 - 11:04pm Senators: Lisa Murkowski, Alaska(?!?); Olympia Snowe, Maine; Susan Collins, Maine; Elizabeth Dole North Carolina; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Governors: Oline Walker, Utah; Linda Lingle, Hawaii, M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut Members of the House: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Florida; Deborah Pryce, Ohio; Barbara Cubin, Wyoming; Sue Myrick North Carolina; Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri; Kay Granger, Texas; Mary Bono, California; Heather Wilson , New Mexico; Judith Borg Biggert , Illinois; Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia; Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee; Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida; Candice Miller, Michigan; Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado; Thelma Drake, Virginia; Virginia Foxx, North Carolina; Cathy McMorris Rodgers, West Virginia; Jean Schmidt, Ohio Cabinet: Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State; Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor; Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education; Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation; Susan Schwab, US Special Trade Representative Judging by the way they've been voting recently, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins probably wouldn't have taken it and might not have been that committed if they had taken it. Kay Bailey Hutchison, although a very good candidate, is getting up in age herself, and would have added a card to the Obama Campaign's "youth and vigor" strategy. Besides, she's determined to run for governor. I doubt she would have accepted the invitation, anyways. Condoleezza Rice would have been the best pick, in my opinion, but the McCain Campaign was trying to set itself apart from the Bush administration, and she was in President Bush's cabinet, which could invalidate all of the women pointed out that were involved with the Bush administration. Then again, Condoleezza Rice would have made a great Presidential candidate, in my opinion. Kay Granger would have been a good pick, but I think that McCain was also trying to set himself apart from Congress in addition to the Bush administration. All of these points narrows it down to the four GOP female governors (your three plus Sarah Palin). Of these four, Sarah Palin was the youngest, and McCain was trying to add a "youth and vigor" edge to his campaign to counter the one the Obama Campaign had. Seems to me like Sarah Palin was the best choice, given the circumstances. Yep, she brought all the Goobers out of the beer joints And President Obama brought all of society's freeloaders out of their Section 8 housing. If we want to get into those kind of comments, we can go round and round. All I did was point out the strategy behind Senator McCain's VP pick. History and everyday events tells us that most individuals are selected based on their popularity or who they know. Or better known as the good ole boy system. And you think this was different with President Obama how? Actually, most people who are able to work who receive Section 8 assistance DO WORK. I'm sure that you probably don't know many judging by your comment, but there are actually some really good and decent people who receive various types of assistance...contrary to your view that they are freeloaders. : Ma'am, I assure you that I know several welfare recipients who reside in Section 8 housing, both good, hard-working people and freeloaders, and that my statement was not a blind one. Never did I say that all Section 8 housing dwellers were freeloaders, and I intentionally did not do so. That is something that you believe that I implied, and, I promise you, never did I do so. Please understand that you're talking to the son of a social worker. I've seen both sides of this ordeal, and I merely pointed out that President Obama's campaign drew out all of the freeloaders that happen to live in Section 8 housing, and I made this comment in response to BLUEDOVE3's rather judgemental comment.

While I typically don't like to tread on this turf, I will say that I think people have overreacted to some of the board's decisions, and that's why it cost these three members their seats. Our district is poised for a turnaround, and when I say this, I don't just mean in the athletics department. Our band has two fairly new directors at the high school and another fairly new director at GMS, and all four directors (two at PN-GHS, one at PNMS, and one at GMS) are very committed. Our high school band will grow by nearly 25 members next year, and the increase is only expected to sustain itself from year to year. In addition, the Indianettes are now marching with the band again, and their numbers are expected to grow accordingly. As always, we've got great academics departments. Our district ratings have increased over the last few years in that area, and with every new teacher we hire (and we've had several, lately) comes a plethora of fresh new ideas. Nearly every school in the district has a new or fairly new principal, each of which has made some much needed changes at his or her respective campus. And, as I'm sure everyone knows, we've got three virtually brand new coaching staffs at our high school and middle schools. These are great accomplishments, and, as I said earlier, our district is poised for a turnaround, one that could bring us back to that "Tradition of Excellence," but someone had to lead us in this direction. The superintendent (Dr. Lani Randall) and the assistant superintendent (Billy Curl) have done their share, but so has our school board, and this, to me, points to the opposite of the so-called "arrogance," "selfishness," and "good ol' boy system" that many claim that we have. I'm happy for the new members, but I'm also not sure that they were the best choices, and I think everyone has given the incumbants a "bad rep," one that I don't think was deserved. Just my two cents.

We had a discussion over on the PN-G forum about our next bond issue, which would replace our elementary schools. NDN fan 4ever, a member of our site, brought up an excellent point that may decide whether or not our next bond passes, depending on when it will go to the voting booth. I've copied and pasted it below. Two Questions: Was this a talking point for your bond's opposition? If so, looking at it now, do you acknowledge the possibility that NISD could have defaulted on its payments and TEA would not have been able to cover the payments, which may have forced NISD to resort to drastic measures, including (although I seriously doubt it would come to something like that) merging with PAISD? Please, don't take this as post-poll opposition for your bond. I agreed with your bond, and, honestly, for my Nederland counterparts' sake, wish it would have passed. You guys need the new schools just as much as we do. But these are still valid points, and I can see why the opposition was the opposition. I think you guys need to regroup, cut your bond up into multiple bonds, and hit the polls again ASAP. I hope you guys get new schools sometime in the future. It will be kind of weird having new schools over here if you don't.