PN-G bamatex

It's not clear to me what their goal is. And I should be, though I may drop out from time to time as work picks up.

We beat Nederland 41-21 in 2016, Larry Neumann's last season.

I remember how they kept shaking those things to try and drown out Cherokee, but every time the band played it, they were shaking the ball bearings in beat to Cherokee by the end of the song. It made for a neat effect.

I've grown up watching the Indians play. I've watched the Indians take the field in the Astrodome, the Alamodome, Reliant Stadium and beyond. Over the last twenty years, I've seen Indian squads with much less talent than this one play tougher district schedules and still find a way to claim a share of the district championship. I've also watched an arguably tougher Barbers Hill program lose to a lesser PN-G program five times in four years. Nobody in this district should be overlooked, including Barbers Hill. Crosby is stout, no doubt. And we always have to play a lights out game against Nederland, even if they're 0-9 going into Mid-County Madness and we're 9-0. But I know my Indians, and I know when the rest of district should and shouldn't be wary of them. As I said in my last post, the top three are the top three.

1. PN-G 2. Crosby 3. Nederland 4. Barbers Hill 5. Vidor 6. Dayton 7. Santa Fe 8. Baytown Lee Your top three and your bottom two are all but certain, though the line-up could change among them. The real fight will be for the last of the playoff spots, which I could honestly see going to Barbers Hill, Vidor or Dayton. Top to bottom, this is the toughest district in 5ADII. There will be two teams sitting at home at the end of the regular season that will easily be better than teams that made the playoffs from other districts.

The site is having a problem with Japanese spammers getting through our registration process and posting dozens of threads at a time. We're cleaning them up as fast as we can.

I see the burnt orange god complex is alive and well.

I may be a little jaded after seven years of living in two different major university environments, but I am of the opinion that college campuses are bubbles. The nature of a college campus demands that it be dominated by the views of 18-22 year old kids with little to no real world experience, many of whom have never had to hold a real job or actually support anyone other than themselves on anything but the cash their parents hand them. Most of them come from similar, upper middle class, suburban backgrounds, most of them have never had to worry about having a place to stay or food on the table, and most of them have never had to deal with a real crisis on their own because they've always had their parents or somebody else around to handle those for them. For the vast majority of them, this is their first experience living away from home. When they're confronted with a real conflict for the first time, their first inclination is to look around for someone else to handle it like their parents would - hence why you see so many college students demanding that college administrations overreact to issues most would consider relatively benign or inconsequential. Most of them are also looking to establish an identity of their own apart from their family or their parents - it's sort of the ultimate culmination of teenage rebellion - and attempts to do so can reach levels the average Joe considers eccentric, absurd or obscene, because the normal adult authorities that are present in every other facet of our society aren't around to keep that in check. As you might expect in an environment dominated by adolescents, these spheres in our society are probably the most susceptible to being overtaken by the latest fads and trends in everything from fashion to politics; social status is just as much a factor on these campuses as it was in high school, if not moreso. And when these kids hear or see something new and thought provoking from a professor or another student, they don't have the real world experience necessary to really critically analyze what they're hearing, accept the premise of whatever's been proposed more easily just because it sounds facially reasonable, and take some pride in the fact their individualism is being reinforced by the unpopular viewpoints they now hold. So, when more and more students adopt what the real world would deem a crackpot theory or stupid idea or illogical opinion out of hand, and more and more students are hearing more and more of their peers repeat these crackpot theories, you get, in essence, unfettered groupthink, completely untempered by any of the normal dynamics present in ordinary life that would keep it in check and reinforced by a sense of superiority stemming from the belief that they are the "higher educated." One might call it "elitism," and I would agree from my own experience that many university employees out there arrogantly assume that their own views are morally and intellectually superior to those held by the "less educated," but I prefer to think of it as the natural side effect of being far too sheltered for far too long. The more time people spend in those bubbles, the more removed they become from the real world. Your typical four years for your average college student are bad enough, but the lion's share of those students graduate and get jobs in the real world; by the time they're 30, most of those kids have, to some degree, been brought back down to reality. But living in the bubble never stops for your career academics - they're there every weekday for decades on end. Some of them will only leave that environment in a pine box. It doesn't take long for those folks to lose all their sense of reality, and after years of exposure, it becomes almost impossible to get that back. That's how you get academics who are outraged that Donald Trump would get caught on tape saying something you'd probably hear in every middle school boys' locker room in America. It's how you get academic officials who demand that persons of one anatomical sex be admitted to the bathroom reserved for the other anatomical sex, never bothering to consider, much less recognize, how that right of access can and likely will be abused by immature teenage boys or bad people with ulterior motives on the side of town that college professors never go into. Generally speaking, it's why employees of universities across the country totally overreact to what 80% of Americans experience on a daily basis and consider completely normal, and make crazy statements with little factual basis which the rest of society finds, at the very least, counter-intuitive. Some universities are worse than others. UT is far, far worse than Alabama would ever dream of being and is likely worse than I'd imagine A&M to be. I'd argue that schools which are more liberal arts-oriented are generally worse than schools which focus more on business, science, engineering, history or law. Trade schools hardly suffer from this problem at all. But it's out there, and as social media becomes more of a mouthpiece for people in our society, you can expect to see a whole lot more Twitter rants and YouTube videos of people doing and saying things on college campuses they'd be immediately dismissed or ridiculed for anywhere else on the planet.

As an Alabama fan, the SEC West team I’m most concerned about from the 2019 season forward is Texas A&M.

Ohio State is the least of UT’s Title IX concerns right now.

Then if Urban knew and they can prove it, he’s done.

Was Smith's wife also employed by Ohio State? Or Florida, when they were in Gainesville? I keep hearing different answers and that may be the deciding factor in whether Meyer had an actual responsibility to report anything or take any action at all.

UT System has a new chancellor: [Hidden Content] Dude apparently left CUNY while they were facing a series of criminal and administrative probes regarding waste and abuse: [Hidden Content] Don't want to take anything from a recent cancer survivor, but I think it says a lot about the state of affairs UT is in right now when they were once putting feelers out with former cabinet secretaries, and now they're settling for the guy that was ousted from New York City's community college thanks to corruption. Meanwhile, A&M has John Sharp.

Are you sure you want to have this discussion?

I’ve read about the USC case. I’m also aware of another case USC got sued over. Kid got just shy of $112,000, including attorney’s fees. You have to really upset the court to get attorney’s fees. UT-Arlington is getting sued right now over a case where a gay guy claimed another guy in his classroom typed something offensive into the search bar on his computer. It wasn’t even directed at the gay student, per that student’s own allegations. But he reported it, and the other student was barred from campus and told he couldn’t contact anybody from the class to discuss it in order to gather witnesses in his own defense. The kid denied it but was later suspended. He then promptly committed suicide.

“Newbie.” Lol

I listened to the second half of the game. Who in the heck is this Preston Hughes kid, and where was he when I was in high school? The statistician on the radio said he had racked up well over a hundred yards before halftime.

Take a look at the headline in that clip. "Hillary Clinton Reveals 2016 Timetable." Here's an article about that very story. Notice the date. It's from June of 2014. [Hidden Content] You'll notice that Cuomo kept making comments to the effects that donors feel she needs to jump into the race, and then talks about "freezing pockets." This was back when Hillary was the only presumptive candidate for the presidency on both sides of the aisle, a year before anyone else had even declared. What Cuomo's referring to by the "help" the media was giving her was the excessive amount of press coverage she was getting in relation to the presidential race because she was, at that point, the only person in the race, making her the topic of interest any time 2016 came up on any news network, whether it was CNN, MSNBC or even Fox. Essentially, he was making the point that because she was the name everyone brought up whenever the the election was mentioned at that point, she was getting loads of publicity for nothing, and that amount of press would have the effect of making her name synonymous with the presidency, which would effectively, and inevitably, benefit her later on. He was right. She was getting the same kind of help Trump gets when the media spends inordinate amounts of time discussing every stunt he pulls. In neither case is the media making some kind of conscious effort to help one candidate, and that's not what Cuomo was somehow revealing. He was just remarking on the inevitable effects of excessive press coverage for one person. Remember the old saying. "All press is good press." That's all Cuomo was saying.

Pro-secession sentiment has been growing in Texas for years, and it's going to continue growing regardless of this election's outcome. That 25% number, which revealed the number of people in favor of secession regardless of who wins, tells you everything you need to know.

I'd advise you to be skeptical about the same thing I've been advising everyone on this site to be skeptical about for three or four months now. Ted Cruz's portrayal of himself isn't as authentic as one would hope. The article does admit there are no facts to substantiate the accusation. I would dismiss the article on those grounds were it not for three things. The first is how typical it is for this type of thing to happen in politics, which, as I pointed out earlier, the Enquirer has an uncanny history of discovering. The second, and more pertinently, is that Katrina Pierson didn't flatly, directly deny the accusations. She dismisses them without ever explicitly saying they aren't true. Knowing Katrina and how she operates, that raises my eyebrows. The third is the donation to Carly Fiorina's PAC back in the day. I remember when that happened, and how odd it was. It was a fairly common theory that it was hush money for something, but nobody knew what. This would be the first plausible explanation I've seen. I don't actually think the Trump threat really bears on this; the title of the thread is more jest than anything else. Trump said he would spill the beans about Heidi, not Ted. I actually think I know what Trump might be referring to in that, although I have no idea how he ever obtained any proof. Now, I never stated anything as fact. I merely made a suggestion. That's a distinction I thought you were intimately familiar with.

Perfectly fair point. But, it's worth noting that the Enquirer is rarely wrong when it breaks the news on political figures' affairs. [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content] I told y'all to be skeptical.

As I said, the perception may be mistaken, but it nonetheless exists, and I get why it does. As for how to change that perception, I don't think you start with who or what created the environment, and I don't think you can wholesale write off everyone who gets involved in organized crime in these neighborhoods as evil and leave it at that. A lot of them just get involved in the wrong crowd, a lot of them are attracted by the glamour of the culture that's cropped up around urban violence, and a lot of them are pulled in by the cash you can make in neighborhoods struggling with immense hardship where there aren't that many other economic opportunities, among other things. If you want to address the perception of the gun, specifically, my thoughts are that you do gun safety courses in the schools. Honestly, I don't get why we don't do that already. In Texas, we have CHL instructors all over the place. It doesn't seem like it would take much to broaden their training and expand the privileges of a CHL instructor's certification so that they can teach basic gun safety to kids in a classroom. If these kids, who grow up with nothing but violent experiences with guns, suddenly have an opportunity to see guns in the hands of an average person like their parents who's responsible with a gun and is willing to teach them how to be responsible with one, you give them an experience that flies in the face of what they see on the streets, and start turning back the tide on that perception. As for the other issues, it'll take some different approaches.

It's not just safe for you to assume it, I've made numerous pro-gun posts on this website in the past, and have a lifetime membership in the NRA. That having been said, I get why there's another side on this issue too. It's easy for most of us, who live in small, conservative towns in Texas where everybody owns a gun and hardly anyone we know ever misuses one to accept the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are perfectly safe, sane, law-abiding people. For people who live in urban neighborhoods with high crime like the streets of Chicago, it's a hard concept to grasp. The perception that the gun itself is inherently dangerous may be an erroneous one, but it's one that's reinforced to these people by the environment that surrounds them.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Would I prefer that we just call terrorism terrorism and be done with it? Absolutely. And I think that kind of term-switching isn't productive, and just frustrates people. But, I don't think it's culpable, if that's where you're going with this. While I may not agree with the decision, I get why a guy who grew up dealing with prejudice in his own life would try hard not to tie an evil action too closely around the neck of a religion of mostly innocent people.