TxHoops

I know this is somewhat old news but haven't seen it discussed. One of the most brilliant conservative minds in the GOP has had enough. I don't often agree with him but he's always been one of my favorite columnists, conservative or liberal. Trump calling Will a dummy is is like Gloria Steinam calling the Donald a feminist. He really is a little child. [Hidden Content]

Diversion noted

My apologies. Posted the wrong article. [Hidden Content] To be fair to Mr. Trump, very few billionaires in this world became so without playing fast and loose with the law. Maybe I'm cynical but to state Mr. Trump isn't a criminal (which I can only surmise to mean something other than a criminal conviction since Ms. Clinton hasn't been convicted of anything either) is naive at best.

I would argue that his presidency has merely exposed a divide that already existed in this country. Fortunately, that divide is dying off a little more each year...

Committing a crime = criminal. As far as inferences, I am not inferring anything that the great Senator Cruz from this State hasn't already inferred. But to provide examples: [Hidden Content]

I agree. You should bet me that the Trumpster will pull it out. A lot...

Trump will lose this election. His is a message of divisiveness and that is NOT what this country needs. I firmly believe he would be an unmitigated disaster As for Vegas and the pundits perhaps being wrong, I stand by the initial statment in this post. In fact, I stand behind it to the point you can line up as many dollar bills as you can muster and I will be glad to take them off your hands. After all, as the late W.C. Fields once said, "It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."

If you believe that...

Yup

No way! I didn't say that. I am looking forward to paying up on that one anyway

Texas is a national brand. Charlie just completed the #3 recruiting class in the country after coming off a losing season. You can't keep a giant down. He will either right the ship in short order or someone else will. Arkansas cut the purse strings a quarter century ago and has been largely irrelevant since. Instead of strengthening their recruiting in Texas the opposite became true. They did help OU though. (Ironically, OU seems to get the concept and is decidedly attached to the UT teat.) Aggy, however, is bad with history, like most things, and decided to try the Arky route. After a momentary blip, they are heading back to their long honored tradition of mediocrity. Thus endeth tonight's history lesson...

Not exactly the government taking anything away. This involved a company making a settlement within a lawsuit where they were sued by 2 individuals. The court merely approved the settlement. HOWEVER, the lawsuit itself was BS in my opinion. Most of you know I am left of most of the folks on this board and support most of the laws many of you oppose, including same sex marriages . But if a private company does not want to facilitate same sex dating or relationships, they shouldn't be forced to. In addition, as my buddy BS Wildcats points out, it is a faith-based business which brings in some freedom of religion issues as well IMO. It's akin to what we've discussed before - a preacher should be allowed to marry a same sex couple if he or she chooses; he or she also should be able to say no thanks. In the end though, you can't pin this one on the government. We will never know how it would have come out. And it seems to me an economic decision was made by the website. Sometimes the almighty dollar is more important than principles...

That may be the coolest avi I have seen.

^ had forgotten this one!!

Found it:

True dat! I swear to God I once saw him, in a down to the wire game (lsu trailed by a score or less), try to call time out after an LSU interception (change of possession). An assistant had to jump in and stop him...true story.

He never beat Mack at either place

If he signs. That has to be 50/50 at best. After all, Charlie hasn't offered. I am sure he will make a decision about whether or not to let aggy have him between now and Feb. 1.

I didn't mean to imply he didn't play everyone. But his substitutions varied more than this 5 playing with this 5 is what I meant, especially in the 2nd half. So when you are only playing 8 deep in the 2nd half, that's not 5 in, 5 out. His subs were different than normal in a game I saw in channelview and in the championship game, even with McCain out with injury, I can think of one kid who was in the regular rotation who played little, if any, in the 4th quarter. Again, a good coach should be able to make adjustments in any given game, which is exactly what he did.

I'm not a fan of 5 in, 5 out in general in any game you are actually trying to win. I've seen coaches basically use this rotation when they were maybe only 7 deep. Sigler is deeper than 10 relative to many teams he plays and could use a 15 man rotation in many games and win going away. The one drawback no matter how deep you are is that a different set of 5 kids may mesh better on a particular night a different 5 on another. If you play 2 groups together and sub them in and out with the same 5, you won't see this. Of course when you are playing teams you will blowout regardless, it doesn't really matter. I did notice in a playoff game I attended and at State, Coach Sigler substituted in a more traditional manner and didn't play 10 kids an equal amount of time. And I think he does a tremendous job of managing the depth with which he is blessed.

Oh, and I realize that was a technical and somewhat cynical answer, Nash. If you're asking me what I would do, I don't know the intricacies of her relationship with the Clintons. I think once you get past the initial legal issue, it becomes a personal moral one. To put it in perspective, I would not feel comfortable leading an investigation involving you, REBgp, or a number of people on this site who I know and with whom I am friendly. It would not be a legal obstacle but certainly a moral one to me. Therefore I would absolutely recuse myself from the situation and appoint someone independent to do the job. And hopefully one with more of a moral compass than Ken Starr

If anything was discussed regarding the investigation, she has a legal and ethical obligation to appoint a special prosecutor. If it was small talk and pleasantries, no such obligation exists. Obviously when an AG has to investigate the President who appointed them, a special prosecutor should be appointed due to the inherent conflict. However, many will do so in situations like this to avoid the "appearance of impropriety." Ultimately though, all they need to do is get someone appointed who is "friendly" to their particular party and the appointed one does not hold office and is actually has less at stake professionally. The effect is often just passing the buck to accomplish a certain end without the public scrutiny to the officeholder. So to answer the question, first it really depends on what was said (legally and ethically). Second, if nothing was discussed about the investigation, whether Lynch believes she can do the job she was appointed to do without bias (which is a moral issue to me). And I think we can safely assume her position there.

Prayers buddy. Take your time and you will be fine.

To be fair, probably 1600 or so of those posts were completely incoherent* *to team first and other $ec folks, "incoherent" means incomprehensible** **to team first and other $ec folks, "incomprehensible" means people have no earthly idea what you were trying to say in your post