TxHoops

One of the few universal truths...

I guess I didn't directly. The point being that it is my opinion that most politicians have become beholden to the money which gets them elected/re-elected. For a great many, the purse string are held by big insurance. My point was very similar statements were made about health care if we could just stop these silly lawsuits. However, according to some of my friends who are doctors, despite being sued less, they pay as much or more in malpractice insurance premiums as they did before tort reform in this state. This country is continuously being sold a bill of goods by insurance companies and their puppets in politics. Whether or not he believed it or was repeating what he was told by the so-called experts, I wouldn't call him any more naive or incompetent as the majority of those making these decisions for us on a daily basis. And the result is having a guy like Trump on the footsteps of the White House.

Dang, I opened this hoping to see mugshots of his harem...

Sounds like the bill of goods that was sold to us in Texas a decade ago with Prop 12...

My teenager was the first to make me aware. Although he knows I'm no Cruz fan, I did remind him we are innocent until proven otherwise in this country. (i realize this isn't criminal but it's the same principle to me.) However, like in so many cases (Bill Cosby and Kevin Johnson recently - their alleged conduct IS criminal though), it just seems when their are multiple different sources and allegations, you are bound to find some credibility in there. Again, like you, for his family's sake, I hope it's all false. As for Trump, I guess I'm as bad as you and the media. I can't help but think he or his people are somehow involved. The timing is just too convenient. Again, I guess I can give him the benefit of the doubt but I can't help but be suspicious. But man if it is him, and even if it's true, you talk about glass houses. Would be just another shining example of his hypocrisy. But as you and I both know, my friend, hypocrite and politician seem to be synonyms these days...

You hit the nail on the head basically with pick and choose. Technically, all those operators of marijuana joints (no pun intended) could be prosecuted federally and most, if not all, are well aware of it. Although I don't believe (unless I've missed something) that there has been an official position released by the Feds that they won't prosecute, it's basically understood at this point. Of course, if that were to happen, there would be a prolonged battle in the courts about whether the states have the right to legalize something that is illegal under the federal statutes, or whether the federal government is overstepping its bounds in prosecuting an activity that is mandated legal by a particular state. Although we undoubtedly differ in our views on particular issues, I fall more in line with LRF's position above. I know a local judge who often tells people who are arrested and charged with marijuana possession, "if you feel you have to have marijuana in your life, move to Colorado." And he's right. On a somewhat related note, the courts have ruled that there is no double jeopardy in state and federal prosecutions for the same offense. For example, I have seen a person charged and convicted of bank robbery in a federal court, and to be likewise indicted by the state. Fortunately for this person, the DA in that county ultimately dismissed his case, but he certainly didn't have to. This particular "nuance" in the law drives me absolutely crazy.

I think we have a Tiger'esque situation here. Cruz doesn't have the skeletons that say a Rick Perry has but I've heard this type of story might surface at some point. It always seems worse to me when you wear a certain cloak which turns out to be a fraud. Personally, I would never have voted for Ted to begin with but if I was a supporter, it wouldn't change my support one iota. QB, Coach, CEO of a company I invest in, or a politician, their personal life is not something I care about. God knows I would be a hypocrite to cast stones at the Senator after one guy in particular I am quite fond of. But for his sake, I do hope it's all a bunch of made up lies. I don't wish the pain it will inflict on his family on anyone. But my guess is there's a fire behind this smoke. Interestingly, the Donald has a libido that would rival Slick Willy's. And if the same story came out about him, I doubt the majority of his supporters would be surprised or care that much. Again, be careful what you do when you like preaching.

Fair enough

I think you were misunderstood for sure if that was what people took from it. And looking at the tuition numbers, one thing jumped out at me. It can certainly be argued that a middle class family might have the biggest burden in sending their kid(s) there. What else is new in this world?

I really like Caruso too. But you are getting a kid with so much more game who also has so many intangibles. He's a leader, a dog, and handles the ball, sees the floor, and distributes the ball probably unlike anyone whose put on an Aggie uniform.

You trying to argue Cal is a better coach than Coach K is not only laughable, it also demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding of the game. Here's a tip for you: never state that opinion in an interview. Even those football minded ADs will know you're clueless

And as many a coach has quipped when Cal to the NBA has been mentioned, why would he ever leave Kentucky to go to the next level when he would have a salary cap in the League?

I think Coach K has some equity built, don't you? When you are the all time leader in wins and tied for final fours, you kind of are above the criticism. Especially when you just won another natty last year in a year when Kentucky had "the best team since UNLV's." Remember, that other team Coach K stole a Natty from? As for Izzo and Ryan. Cal has as much talent on a given team as they've had in their entire careers. But as I said, watch out for Izzo with this class coming in. Going to be scary.

Serious question because I am not opposed to your statement in general. Just genuinely curious as to your thoughts (and feel free to tell me you'd rather not answer): This position is uncommon, especially among many I know on the "right." I get the basis and reasoning of it. But are you okay with a state legalizing marijuana? Or same sex marriage? Especially if it is passed by proposition?

I appear to be one of the few who think A&M will be better next year. I think they could be a final four team year after next, assuming Davis is still around. The best thing is they are going to have ready made offense next year at the point. It will hide any coaching deficiencies to a large degree, if you are in the camp that there are some (which I still kind of feel, despite the SEC coach of the year award). Gilder, Hogg, and Davis all with a year under their belts, and arguably the most talented players on the team, just young. Just wish Thomas hadn't transferred. Still think that was foolish on his part. Regardless, if you are an Aggie and love basketball, it is a long awaited turnaround for you.

He's not a bad coach. In fact he's a good one and a great recruiter (for whatever reasons you want to attribute). But he's not in the same class of coach on the bench as the ones I named. Sorry, he's not. He consistently gets the best talent and that certainly helps. If Michigan State gets Josh Jackson to go with what they already have coming in, they will have a Kentucky type class to go along with Izzo's coaching. Going to be scary. Duke will have as much talent as Kentucky next year so write the Cats off next year. Coach K plays chess to Cal's checkers. I hesitate to compare Cal to Mack Brown because they are not the same type of person. But both they are similar models in recruiting/coaching. But to say Cal only makes choices for the betterment of the kid vs the program is naive at best. And between the two of us and knowing what we speak of, I'm pretty sure only one of us has been to games at Rupp. And I am very sure only one of us has been to a Kentucky practice. Hint: not you.

Bingo. Calipari is all about Calipari. The first people who can tell you that are people who have been involved with his programs. He also consistently has the best talent in the country (for whatever reason). And in every season but one, proves to us why when it comes to Xs and Os, he is still no Coach K, Izzo, Bo Ryan, etc.

Or the fact that he consistently gets "less with more"?

I am sure many on here would think so.

I think you may have smashed the nail on the head. Some theories are they hope he doesn't get confirmed. Because as Rebgp pointed out, he may look like a neoconservative compared to who Hillary would appoint. I share that opinion.

You will probably get more criticism but this is literally one of the best posts I have ever read on this site. Well done.

As for the original question in the thread, as long as Clay Davis is the coach, the Hawks will be successful. To define what I mean by successful, they will be a playoff team, a threat to win any playoff game, and the kids will be well coached. Period. I know a LOT of parents who would love to have their kid play for Clay. I've seen HJ play several times over the past two years and thought they were well coached on each and every occasion. Just as important (and maybe more so), he is the kind of person you want your sons around. Bottom line: there aren't many basketball coaches around here who are in the same conversation with Davis.

Quick question: the team that eliminated the team you picked to win it all is from which conference? I'll wait...

Parquet to Kelly is a done deal apparently.

Smh. Fool had Kentucky winning it all.