TxHoops

(Too many serious threads on this board, not that barbeque isn't serious business.) Go!

And please pray for Stevenash, Craig S. As he has told us how financially successful he is on many occasions, he may be too rich to get into Heaven. (Nash, you may be many things, but dumb isn't one of them. I know the point of my posts didn't go over your head.)

FIFY

You should be all for higher tax rates on the rich, Craig S. After all, you have it all figured out on who can be a Christian and who can't. And I'm sure you are familiar with when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Shouldn't your solution be to tax the wealthy more so they won't have as much, thus they will be able to go to Heaven?

Start by reading biographies of Ronald Reagan. The moderate that Fox News/Limbaugh have convinced their sheep was an ultra-conservative...

Multiple gyms from what I understand.

Just what they need. Another "me first" perimeter player who plays no D. Smh

Dang, you're right. It's hell getting old.

Groveton would give us our 3rd to 4th round exit every year I was in high school. He was a year younger than me and a super nice, humble guy. Saw them play Cooper in the state semis the year after I graduated (bam morris was a senior for Cooper). Rodney and Groveton won 82-6. Yes, 82-6 in the state Semifinals. #Rip

Gig em [Hidden Content]

I was worried about that game.  Seems like UCI just beats whoever you put in front of them.  Given the way this post season has turned out, wouldn't be surprised to see them make a run and win it all.

Of course this is a less formal and less important setting. I don't disagree. However, I was just pointing out I am a creature of habit and my brain is wired a particular way.

Let's be clear about something because I can see you believe my motives are something they are not. I have been trained to be sure of what is being asked before answering a question. So if someone asks something that could have more than one meaning, you ask for clarification. Ambiguous terms by definition could have a multitude of meanings. Second, I have been taught to not make presumptions about what someone else is thinking or at least not to articulate them without confirmation from that person. They are the best source for that information and I really think assumptions/presumptions are a slippery slope. So it's not an attack on your interrogatorive skills, which I see you practice ferverantly on this board. It's simply habit from years of practice.

When someone resorts to a spelling argument, you know you have them. Sorry I misspelled a word in one of my posts. If I spent my time correcting spelling, grammatical errors, etc. on this board (including some of yours), I would likely have time for nothing else in my life. But congratulations on your find!

It's not an ambiguous argument. It's a "I won't presume to know what someone's motive was, if any, in a non-action." That's why I suggested you ask them. I don't know westend, never met westend, and I certainly don't think it's my place to jump inside his or her head and tell you whether the data was not mentioned intentionally. For their to be motivation, intent must first be established. Again, the best source for the question would be westend. Better? (Footnote: it is, of course, perfectly within your right to ask questions on a message board so long as they are not violative of the board's rules. And I have never seen you ask a question or post which would be. It is also acceptable for a person not to answer a question for any reason they choose. Although they do not have to, I do generally give you a reason if I do not answer, and it's never because I don't like the answer. Now you can resume your Macaulay Culkin style questioning ala "Uncle Buck.")

Why don't you ask the person who posted it rather than someone who doesn't even know them? Would you agree that is the best source of information for that query? Would you agree you do a lot of ASS.Uming?

Biggirl - leave them alone on the birthplace issue. It is obviously quite embarrassing to them that they greedily gobbled up that stink bait several years ago. Except for Smitty - it appears that hook was set in his medulla oblangata and is unable to even have it surgically removed.

So the part about over half the Americans believing the President is moving the country towards socialism is unbiased?

Oversimplify much? Your heart is in the right place - your brain is stuck in neutral. Although you bring up good ideas, it's the implementation which is lacking. Again, education cures a lot of ills. Starting with ignorance. And if you think there is nothing wrong with our education system, your standards are exceedingly low.

Truer words. I wouldn't agree with your solution being the only problem we have. I would also not argue with you and say that it is not a real problem we have (although our definitions of family values would probably differ somewhat). I think we would also agree, by your statement, that "success" is not defined by wealth. I have also been very blessed financially but it has little, if anything, to do with my happiness.

By the same token, our society has become more and more about instant gratification. The "quick fix" is what everyone searches for. We fall into being short sighted far too often. Ultimately, I believe the lasting solutions are long term methologies. It's not unlike you advising someone entering the work force and starting a retirement plan. So while I can appreciate your assertion that we need something that more immediate with our economy, I believe more important is finding solutions that will last for generations.

Ted Cruz is as likely to win the nomination as Rick Perry is/was. My thoughts on the tea party is not germane to my point. My point was these candidates are not electable in a general, national election (in my opinion anyway). They seem to be seen as radicals who are very off putting the moderates who now comprise the majority of the voters in this country. I believe for the foreseeable future, the presidency will be won by who garners the most votes in the middle. A tea party candidate will not accomplish this. The GOP's best bet in '16 will be a Chris Christie type. And the nominee has to be careful not to jump in bed with the radical right (as the last two nominees felt it necessary to do). It is a great help in securing the nomination. It is a great hindrance in winning the office.

You're first sentence here was my original point. And I agree with most of this statement in general.

You may not like his manner of stating his point but he actually makes a good point. If the tea party could succeed in getting one of their candidates nominated for the presidency, they would be handing the keys to the White House to the Dems for another 4 years. The good news for you is there is almost no chance that will happen because the majority of the Republican Party realizes this.

I was correct in my presumption after all (happens every so often). The answer is that the first president to allow social security funds (I.e., money deducted from the work force's for the social security trust) for a purpose other than funding the social security trust is the same president that created the program.