PN-G bamatex

  If they're in Australia, I can guarantee you they're here. And they probably came across the border with Mexico. Want to guess where that most likely puts them?

I'm not. All the people who hated it there moved here.

[Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

Man. No wonder we're a blue county.   :D

Or that they aren't intelligent.

Were they looking at just the city or the entire MSA?

  25% is all? How many of those kids actually get much playing time?   The other schools you mentioned aren't commuter schools. Granted, Lamar is doing its best to fight that reputation and is having some success, but the bottom line is, Lamar's student population comes overwhelmingly from the Golden Triangle. I don't think you can say that of the rest of those schools. And even if you could, the fact remains that you won't find, collectively, the number of high school football fans in Huntsville, Nacogdoches, Lafayette or Lake Charles that you will in Southeast Texas. None of those areas have anything resembling a PN-G, and yet we've got three high schools I can think of off the top of my head that can fill up Lamar's stadium better than Lamar can. Use what you have to work with.   As for the coaching, I plead the fifth.

  Basically, all of that.   Earlier in this thread, it was pointed out that Lamar has wins over such vaunted teams as Texas College, Mississippi College and Grambling State.   A win is a win, but not all wins are equal.   If Lamar wants fan support, it has to stop beating up on smaller schools and start beating schools the average, reasonable observer would associate with Lamar. Teams like Sam Houston State, SFA, and longtime rival McNeese. Everyone loves a winner, but a small collection of wins does not a winner make. Until Lamar can effectively compete with the schools it should be on the same playing field with, it will continue to lag behind in fan support, school spirit and regional prominence.   Outside of that, the only thing Lamar can really do to put fans in the stands is to put local players on the field. Southeast Texas is one of the best places in the world when it comes to high school football fanbases. There are a lot of longtime high school fans who would pay the price of a ticket and concessions to see their favorite high school players take the field again. I can't tell you how many PN-G fans would happily go to Lamar games if they thought they'd see Brennan Doty back under center.

That's a recipe for political, social and economic disaster. And an explanation for a lot of California's problems.

[Hidden Content]   Those welfare statistics are pretty striking.

Simple. Win.

  As much as I hate to admit this, I think you're right.   On the upside, our offense seems to finally be getting some kinks worked out, but we can't do it all on the backs of Amari Cooper and TJ Yeldon. Jones isn't playing his normal caliber of football right now, and we aren't making effective use of the rest of our RBs. We have got to start spreading the ball around with some success, or SEC defenses will key in on our two best skills players and we will run into trouble moving the football.   On the downside, our defense is not where it needs to be. Our secondary is starting to scare me. Nobody in the secondary wants to keep their eyes on the football, just the player. They aren't trying to break up the pass, just bring the receivers down after they've caught the ball. We lack intensity and focus, and that's the last thing I ever thought I'd say about a defense coached by Nick Saban and Kirby Smart.   I'm confident we'll beat Florida, Mississippi State and Arkansas. I think we'll beat Ole Miss. LSU is a toss-up and I don't know how we're going to beat Auburn and Texas A&M if we keep playing like this. A&M will hand us a blowout in our own house if we don't make some major changes.   On the topic of the thread, I think A&M stands the best chance of winning the west. Alternates would be Auburn and LSU, but I really think it will be A&M. The east is pretty much a race between Georgia, South Carolina and possibly Florida. Georgia stands a better chance of beating Auburn and Florida both than South Carolina does, so I think the Bulldogs will take it. A&M would win that game, and represent the SEC in the playoffs. In that scenario, there's an outside chance of LSU going as well if their only loss is to A&M.   If it's just A&M, A&M wins it all. If it's A&M and LSU, we get another SEC rematch and it's a toss-up. And no, I don't care about how good Oregon is. Neither will the Aggies or the Tigers.

  Careful. You might be told that it "doesn't make sense" or that you're just "too stupid to understand" or that "you're a liar," my personal favorite. You know, typical troll responses.

  Yeah, and I'm sure the Democrats were just so hesitant to take those checks.

  You and I both know that's just the narrative they want to sell you. Have you seen how much GE donated to the Obama campaign? They don't want to give that up, they just want moderates, independents and libertarians, who generally all hate big corporate donations, to think they want to give it up.

  Because they know there's no chance it will pass now, and it gives them the opportunity to revive the Republican big business narrative. The Democrats are masters of controlling the narrative.

  I don't think occupying it until eternity is a necessity. The long term strategy in the region needs to be aiding in the establishment of secular governments, economic development and education. Terrorist movements like Al Qaeda and ISIS find ripe followers by virtue of the fact that the part of the world they operate in is filled with poverty and ignorance. That's why initiatives like PEPFAR are so important.

  Agreed. The fact that it was left out means he either doesn't want to talk about it or doesn't see the relationship between the two issues. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

Oh, and I'm glad he actually used the word "terrorist." That was a welcome change.

A few notes.   First, I can appreciate the refusal to commit American troops to combat duty on the ground. Given the circumstances surrounding the situation, I think that's probably the right move. That said, those circumstances are a direct result of our actions. In my opinion, the critical, and seemingly ignored, fact is that ISIS would have never existed had we not first pulled out of Iraq way too early with no effective security strategy, and then utterly failed to handle the situation in Syria correctly.   Second, while I understand that the president wants to work through international institutions to find solutions to these kinds of problems, I think that's a totally ineffective strategy. Working with Arab partners to increase security is a great idea. I'm glad to see him do that. Requiring the Arab nations to take certain steps on their own as a condition for American support is also a great idea. I personally really like that. Convening the UN Security Council to assemble a longterm strategy, though, is a joke. It's time we face facts and acknowledge that the UN is nothing more than a forum, and typically a great way to throw up a roadblock in responding to anything. If we want international cooperation in getting this done, we set up our own coalitions with our own rules and get it done. The countries that are committed to a solution will get on board and the countries that want to fuss and fight will stay in UN meetings so they can fuss and fight.   Third, and most importantly, this speech completely and totally ignored the threat here at home. I didn't hear anything about border security, which is now an even more critical issue given that some reports have ISIS agents crossing the border to conduct strikes here in the US. The president had a golden opportunity to call for expedited, bipartisan immigration reform as a matter of national security. Granted, that may have served to mire the issue more, but it may also have served as an opportunity to get something real done about the border and actually give him a real legislative win to go on his record, if he played his cards right.

  If I had it all to do over again, I would be a double major in political science and one of three things: business, journalism or criminal justice. I actually started as a double major in political science and civil engineering, and then spent two years finding out the hard way that I didn't want to be an engineer or anything close to it. So, I dropped engineering and transitioned to majoring in political science with minors in math and Computer-Based Honors. I do, however, write columns for UA's student newspaper and a few other publications.

  As the original poster, I have to admit that you were never one of the posters I had in mind when starting this thread or listing those criteria, and that this move is unexpected. However, I can't characterize it as anything less than admirable, and it sets an example a poster or two on this part of the board would do well to follow.

My major is political science.

  He's alright when he isn't arguing with Nash or smitty.