TxHoops

You two don't hurt yourselves trying to get a grasp of science. FoxNews and Rush will tell you all you need to know ;)

Going to be Coleman from what I hear. But definitely agree with you.

I'm no scientist either. But I completely get what you are saying and couldn't agree more. I think this was bullets' point as well.

We laugh and mock what we do not understand. It's okay, you know what they say is bliss ;)

riiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhht.

[Hidden Content] Interesting article. Of course, it is rooted in science which many of the hard core right almost view as evil. And, indubitably, the scientists on whose work it is based are likely no match for the geniuses on this forum.

Excellent post.

It's the SEC. They were merely following lead. Like steroid users in baseball. But it's usually the Ole Miss's who take the bullet.

​You never know. TJ had some offers one might think he would have taken instead of Lamar. He chose to stay at home and play with a program on the rise instead.

TJ Atwood committed to Lamar today. Big congrats to a great kid who has worked his tail off! And don't look now but Tic is methodically signing some great local talent. Lamar is on its way.

You don't believe I studied under Charlie Wright? That's a pretty random assertion for one to make out of the blue. But I can easily prove that one, obviously. One of my classmates (same law school class) was Michael Berry. He and I have many opposing viewpoints (obviously) but respect each other's opinions and remain friends. If you don't listen to him on the radio, you should start. He will provide you with many thoughts and arguments for you to regurgitate.

This is why you clearly do not understand the issue/discussion. One can be a Christian and believe in separation of church and state. There are many of us who do. On the other hand, there are Islamic countries who would support the opposite. Of course Madison was not "a (sic) anti-religious bigot." Although there is a lot of evidence suggesting he was more of a deist. But let's not get you more confused introducing that subject. In the meantime, keep mocking. Irony can be quite entertaining. ;)

You constantly put down the "present day liberal's" intellect. You know, those dummies from Harvard, Yale, etc. The most laughable part of this is your own posts which clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge on issues where you mock other's understanding. Madison's writings are vast on the subject. In fact, he wanted much stronger language in the Constitution but settled on the verbiage which is contained in the final text. While you assert that liberals would not/could not understand Madison's position on the subject, I am convinced you are better suited to discuss "Green Eggs and Ham" than our Constitution.

​My point, I suppose, is that Mr. Madison's interpretation of the document is more relevant than Mr. Smitty's. You certainly implied that the "separation of church and state" is a concept super-imposed on the document by liberals. I have merely provided multiple examples of why that is not the case.

Wright was a staunch Republican, even representing Nixon during the Watergate scandal. You are welcome to use Google to read about him. I had him for Con Law in the Spring of '94. Probably the most impressive professor I ever studied under. But if you find this too amusing, you are welcome to read the quotes above from Mr. Madison, the primary drafter of the Constitution. I suppose he was just another liberal trying to put a slant on the document he actually wrote... LOL!

​There is a difference in belief in "God" and the "separation of church and state." I don't disagree that there is a great deal of interpretation that goes into any document. And I certainly agree that words can be "twisted" or interpreted in different ways to support different positions. But to propose that the "separation of church and state" is a concept invented by liberals to impose their agenda on the 1st amendment anti-establishment clause is preposterous (NOT talking about you here). "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." Who said this? Again, James Madison - "Father of the Constitution"

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"

I am well aware of the Constitution's position on religion and the reason for its inclusion in the document. I studied the document under Charles Alan Wright, a conservative that most legal scholars would tell you was maybe the foremost Constitutional expert on the in the 20th century. And he very much believed ithe separation of church and state was mandated by the Constitution of this great country. I guess he missed the memo that this was a "liberal" idea.

History 101. One of the biggest reasons this country was started... In other news, I'm fairly certain the sky is blue....

No it doesn't make you any of those things. To be honest, I can barely keep one woman happy some of the time. I have no earthly idea what would possess a man to attempt it with multiple women or why a woman would want to share a man with others. And it makes no sense to me why it's okay in that culture for a man to have multiple wives but not for a wife to have multiple husbands. But to each his own if it works for them.

It's not the 3 wives that are expensive to feed. Just don't let them bring their 27 kids.

Adidas should hire her.

Ditto. Especially when it is a basic principle of some religions, albeit one most fundamentalists disagree with. And plural marriage definitely has a basis in the Bible. You either have freedom of religion or you don't. When it involves underage girls, I think we all have problems with it.

Ahh, gotcha. Not sure. I would have thought he would have but I'm not sure. May be too happy over there. I can find out though.

This may have been posted earlier but I generally don't read this board much anymore. If so, my apologies. I have zero problem with this law because pastors obviously shouldn't be forced to perform acts that are contrary to their beliefs and convictions. [Hidden Content] Just as they shouldn't be prevented from performing acts that aren't against their beliefs and convictions and which do no harm to others. Here are a couple of articles I found interesting and insightful. And which, I believe, present food for thought. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]