SmashMouth

Let us pray.

No real argument there including band, drill team, twirlers, flag corps, etc. - except - at least for cheerleading (I can't speak on the others), all the uniforms, matching work out clothes for camp (5 outfits), many travel expenses, and other things are not paid for by the district. It's the parents who foot the bill.

Well, I got a whole house full of 1 football player that played in college, 2 cheerleaders one of whom cheered in college. Football games are super important for the cheerleaders, but I would say 80% of their efforts (and my money) went to competitions.

1. Kinda brings us back to the good ole days of Bill Clinton... Lol! 2. They're both extremely ignorant, so you have a lesser of two evils situation. Pick the ones that won't tip so far left that we have to let dogs and cats vote. Pick the ones who don't have a She/He/It in a cabinet spot with no credentials to just check a box. And let's try and drag this country out of the ditch while we're at it, so our kids can afford to raise a family. Finally, let's start drilling for every oil resource available. I know you don't like the guy, but do what you KNOW gives us a better shot at those issues listed above (among many others). Don't even have to tell anyone you did it. Vote for Trump and move on. It'll be fun...

Here's the real thread title: "So this is one more crappy topic to throw around until football returns - PLEASE HURRY!"

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but drill team and cheerleaders have competitions too - many of them - and camp.

Agreed. 100%

It's pretty self-evident that an injury can hurt a player's recruiting stock.

All I heard is the dog killed chickens. How was it also dangerous? I missed that part.

Who would want the legal right for a woman to have to dress out and compete against a biological male with a penis and testicles? It has nothing to do with discriminating against gays. It has everything to do with fairness and respect and safety towards girls/women. It's the "transgender" part that's an issue. Isn't it discrimination against girls who aren't allowed to compete solely against other girls? They're being forced to not only compete in a co-ed league, but to get naked in front of biological males without any choice in the matter. Normalcy is being discriminated against.

That's a silly reply...

Like I said, I don't really care, but I'm still trying to figure out why someone wouldn't just give the freaking dog away... If it's dangerous, bit a kid, has injuries and needs to be put down, terminally ill, etc, shoot it (or put it to sleep if you want). If it likes the taste of chicken - give it away. WHY NOT???

Understood. I'm just saying, give the dog away to someone who doesn't have chickens. Lol. It seems pretty self-evident.

No doubt. It's definitely intriguing enough to watch how this all plays out...

Ma'am, I don't think he said all Muslims were like that. If I'm reading this right, he's referencing the terrorist Muslims. You know, the ones who commit murder & have no regard for anyone who doesn't follow their jihadist beliefs...

Interesting. I hadn't heard that. I bet it's hard to set up a new city. I wonder if Baton Rouge would be best served to appeal with the caveat of allowing the new ISD in the St. George area.

I don't really care what she did with her dog, but couldn't she have just given the "worthless" dog away to a loving prospective owner? I'm sure it was probably a purebred animal that was at least somewhat trained and therefore easy to place in a non farm home.

I have several dogs (inside/outside), cats (inside/outside), have had a plethora of pets (ponies, quail, rabbits, gerbils, mice, fish, ferrets, the list goes on and on). I am an animal lover; however, I would not base my voting decision on whether or not Noem killed her dog, Obama ate a dog, Biden ate a chocolate chocolate chip ice cream with dog crap on it. None of that resounds with me like National Security & Defense, the Economy, Taxes, Spending, Budget... With that said, Noem should have never brought it up.

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can literally say whatever you want whenever you want. Never has. We all have heard the old "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater" reasoning. Exception to free speech examples (of course these are very broad and are restricted in certain instances): obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, child pornography...

Generally speaking, that's pretty true.

It doesn't bother me a bit. It was just unnecessary and foolish to not consider the repercussions. No doubt it also reflects on where we are as a country. That's why she needs to be better at "reading the room". Save the story for your "after political career" biography.

Didn't think I'd get a response...

I understand what you're saying, and I get it. But that's not literally outlawing free speech. Every American still has that right.

It's called Executive Order.

1. Depending on the circumstances, I don't have a problem with it. I've had to do it myself for certain reasons more than once. 2. Probably would've suited her best to leave it out. Be ready to defend it if it comes out later, but don't invite the opportunity for criticism. There'll be plenty for "them" to go after without giving "them" something else to bloody her nose. 3. She should have considered if the possible backlash would outweigh the positive message she was trying to convey (which apparently it has). If that's what she has to use as an example of making tough decisions (just what I heard on here - not sure if that's why) then she has led a sheltered life. The phrase that comes to mind is "What were you thinking?"