TxHoops

Not one of the power players...the biggest power player. It is the biggest brand in college sports and has been since it passed notre dame years ago. And despite aggy wanting to believe it is sooo close, it is, as it always has been, one of the other schools in the state.

Yes you are.

  +1 for me on absolutely all of that.

I don't refer to myself in the third person. I did have the great fortune (although I thought I was very unlucky at the time) to learn the subject from Charles Alan Wright (God rest his soul). He is widely believed to have been the greatest constitutional scholar of the 20th century. Great man, even though he was a Republican. Never opened a book or brought a note to class and picked up the next lecture exactly where he left off the previous one. And he was in his late 60s at the time. I tell you this for a reason. The one thing I can tell you after a semester with Charlie Wright is that I am no expert in Constitutional Law. However, I can tell you that he did not believe that men 250 years ago could envision all the problems in the world today, much less foresee them. When the topic of whether the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document would arise, reference was usually made to the existence of constitutional amendments.

  Couldn't agree more.  On the polygamy issue as well (assuming it doesn't involve the FLDS types who use underage girls like currency - which I am confident you would obviously take issue with too).  I have the exact same basis for my belief as well.  Separation of church and state and religious freedom.  Some of the self-proclaimed constitutionalists on this site forget that little nugget of the very founding of our country. 

Big bad UT ruined the Big 12.  UT is greedy and toxic.  Blah blah blah.    I will give credit to the Aggies for at least having the balls to break away being the Longhorns' step child and making a bold move (although they promptly assumed the role that Ole Miss and Miss St and other SEC programs play of vicariously claiming the victories of the power programs in the conference).  OU had a chance but couldn't quite break away and left that annoying little wagon hitched to the Longhorns.    Ultimately, conference contraction is going to happen.  Probably sooner rather than later.  And when it does, you are a fool that has no idea how big business works if you don't think they will all come clamoring for the biggest brand in college athletics (I'm talking about The University of Texas for those having trouble following along).  "But the Longhorns are on the downslide and a lot of people aren't going to want to deal with them."  Last year, like the years before it, more Longhorn gear was sold than any other university in the country.  Last year, like the years before it, Texas had more revenue in football, and in athletics in general, than any other university in the country.  And guess what?  Even with that new SEC network, I will bet all you can bite off this year will be no different.   In the end folks, college athletics isn't much different than the pros.  It's about making money and UT is a cash cow (pardon the pun).  So when that day comes, watch all the conferences come calling and UT will be making the decision once again.  You aggies can take solace that there's no way the academics in Austin will agree to letting The University be the first "Public Ivy" to join the SEC.  But rest assured, publicly or privately, the SEC will be at the door with hat in its figurative hand.

You miss the point of my post and the OP''s with your "but what about them" finger pointing. I have no idea where you stand on social issues so I won't presume where you stand. However, ECO was asking how one justifies demanding less government economically but is all for legislating morality. Or at least that was my interpretation. Maybe I'm a "low comprehension reader" like Smitty.

Gay marriage yes. Abortion is a different matter because it at least arguably (and IMO) involves a "victim." Individual liberties end when you infringe upon another's.

It is why libertarians exist. They believe, consistently, that government should stay out of people's lives. The hypocrisy of many GOP'ers is that they scream and cry for smaller government (they mean fiscally), while at the same time forcing their way into our homes and bedrooms, telling us what we should and shouldn't do and wih whom we should or shouldn't do it.

Just added this one to my list. Thanks for the info. Brisket is the principal means by which I judge a Barbeque place. I would help with the second part of your post but I'm much better at eating it than preparing it!

Oh, one more thing that shouldn't be overlooked - the diversity theory works both ways. In my mind, it is just as important for the minority group. They too might have preconceptions of the majority group which can be debunked through the relationships fostered. Harmony works both ways. And whether in the university setting or the workforce, education goes a long way to ending the ignorance with which one was raised, regardless of what color they may be.

Trojans - I agree with your reverse situation switching the races in the example given. In many instances, socioeconomic considerations are very relevant, regardless of race. Bamakid - assuming the job is one requiring a degree, and assuming the exact facts you state, I wouldn't quibble with your argument. However, I think diversity even in the workforce is important and is certainly a worthy consideration in tiebreaking situations. And many of you are too quick to dismiss biggirl's arguments IMO. If you don't believe there is still a significant portion of the population, especially below the Mason-Dixon Line, that wouldn't hire a person of color vs a white person unless forced - well, you are either naive or dishonest. With each generation, I believe we are coming closer to eradicating racism. But it still is very much alive. I see it weekly, often in business dealings with people who own or hold high positions in the corporate world. It is a comment here, or an action there...it does still exist. I think we all hope there will come a day when race won't matter in these discussions. But sadly, I doubt it will be in my lifetime. However, I do take solace in the significant progress made from my parent's generation to mine. And I firmly believe affirmative action and similar programs played a huge part in the progress we've made.

I might agree with you given everything is equal. But let's use a university setting as an example. You have a black kid who is the same class ranking and gpa as a white kid. Black kid graduated from an inner city school with historically poor academics. White kid graduated from Monsignor Kelly. White kid has higher SATs. Both are bright but the white kid obviously had the fortune of being born into a family with the finances to ensure he had a top education. Black kid has done as well as he could with the hand he was dealt. Do you have a problem with the admissions picking African American student over the white student?

The part of this process that people miss is the diversity goal. In my opinion, and experience, diversity benefits us all. It destroys harmful stereotypes that have long existed and shows members of all races that our brothers and sisters of other races and backgrounds are pretty much just like us. They have similar hopes and dreams. They are vested in our children's futures. Segregation in most forms fosters ignorance and animosity among people who shouldn't have any.

They actually won in '69 and '70. Back then, one of the two major polls (ap or upi) prior to the bowl games.

Take it easy on Smitty. He's a low comprehension reader.

At least he was truthful about not reading the links. If even Nash isn't reading the barrage of links Smitty inundates this board with, who is? That explains why the majority of his threads don't even get a comment.

😂

  I do too.  Funny but true.

Very interesting. Good example of how "labels" can be tricky. (Except for "teabaggers" of course; that one is air tight and very fitting ;) )

Very good analysis there. Interesting side note: I am guessing you also looked at the 5th circuit Hopwood decision? That was a case that involved my class at UT Law. A few students who weren't admitted to my class, sued UT in what was essentially a "reverse discrimination" case. A few more rejected students later joined. I learned more than I ever wanted to know because my Civ Pro professor was one of the lead attorneys defending the University, Sam Issacharoff (now at NYU). He talked about the case incessantly for the entire year. Without getting to deep into the case, here is what happened there: The legendary Judge Sam Sparks ruled in The University's favor after a bench trial, and the case went to the 5th Circuit Coury of Appeals. Essentially, the 5th Circuit found Bakke to be unconstitutional and struck down UT's policy. The Supreme Court denied cert (refused to hear the case) and the ruling stood basically for 7 years (until the Gratz and Grutter decisions you discussed came down out of the Univ of Michigan).

Actually that's exactly how it works. I have known more than one white person that got a full ride to a historically black college on a "minority basis." One of the goals in institutions of higher learning is diversity and that cuts both ways.

  I don't think the actual quote was intended to replace the "founding fathers," or any subsequent president with a Muslim.  In fact, the "founding of this country" wasn't mentioned.  But to give an example, wouldn't Muhammad Ali be someone who made a "significant contribution" to the "fabric of our country?"  He was probably the greatest athlete of his era and was arguably the most famous person in the world during the height of his career.  And an argument could be made that his stance on the Vietnam War "strengthened the core of our democracy."  I know you ultra-conservatives would never concede that but I would argue that standing up for something you believe in regardless of the costs is at the heart of democracy.  And, in the end, many would argue he was entirely correct about that conflict.

That part is not so much outdated. If a woman is in the workforce and accumulating assets, the man is entitled to half her assets too. Community property is much better than what some states have. The area that is way outdated IMO is child support. It is pretty much locked in at a certain percentage and judges refuse to look at anything else. Here's the rub: A father who has visitation with his child(ren) pursuant to the standard possession order pays 20 percent of his net income for 1 child, 25 percent for 2, 30 percent for 3, etc (assuming all kids are with the same mom). When these percentages were set, the standard visitation was about 20 percent of the year. Now, if a father maximizes his times with his kiddos, it is approximately 40 percent of the year. This is great for co-parenting and allows fathers to see their kids more. However, the child support percentages never changed. So a dad has his kids twice as much (and obviously is spending more money on them when they are in his care) and is still paying the same amount of child support. This is why I believe when both parents are good parents, the equal custody arrangement tragichippy has is optimal. It's 3 to 4 days a month more for dad than the extended SPO and then child support is figured by computing both people's child support and the higher earner paying the difference. My 2 cents...

Great example of the danger (and ultimately fallacy) of stereotypes. And this makes me think about whether they can be "flagrantly liberal" and anti-women's rights. I need to chew on that one...