Englebert

If you did take us serious then you would have to admit that your side has made you look foolish...and you don't want to look foolish do you. In fact, you will continually parrot their anti-American rhetoric (like a good little sheeple) just so you can keep some semblance of dignity (i.e. failure to admit your mistakes). Here's a little hint, we've already seen you for what you are. Nancy and Chuck thank you for your blind support.

Cuero beat SFA in the 1986 Semi-Finals 34-7. I highly doubt that SFA team would have won State that year if not for Straight, considering Jefferson shutout Straight and Cuero the following week 24-0 to win the title. It's possible, but I guess we will never know. Edit: I guess I should have finished reading the posts before responding. I would have seen others had already responded to this..

Do you actually think posting a link about news that a federal judge struck down Obamacare...news that affects over 300 million people, was done as a distraction from Trump? The entertainment value of this board is on the rise. I did get a hearty laugh at that one. Are you intentionally trying to be funny or was this an accidental faux pas? Either way, please keep posting.

CNN and the Liberal media are making you look foolish. You really need to take your own advice and just stop...stop exposing your sheeple tendencies for all the world to see. I hope you keep posting though, because, yes, you know it...it is so entertaining...but kind of in the way you feel the overwhelming need to look when passing the scene of a accident. Your main concern seems to be "the focus turning on campaign violations". If paying hush money to silence a sexual dalliance is impeachable, please calculate how many sitting Congressmen are in dire need of removal. Again, the Liberal media is making you look foolish.

Wow, you attempted an answer (lame as it is), which is shocking considering your past behavior. Not only can you not backup your original contention, you double down with laughable claims that you still cannot backup. How are you not embarrassed? It's like a kindergartner calling his teacher "stupid". One day that kid will grow up and realize how childish he was back then...but then again, maybe not. See quoted post.

Please elaborate on what you find entertaining. You seem to make these condescending posts a lot, then run like a frightened schoolgirl when called out. Let's wait with anticipation on what you do this time. We know, but maybe you will surprise us and actually attempt to backup your delusional point of view. Your statement that we "believe everything that comes outta his mouth" pretty much solidifies the concept that you have no perception of reality. And would you like to go toe-to-toe comparing the fear mongering, fabricated, race-baiting, divisional tactics employed by the Left? Yes, there is entertainment on this board. Too bad you are about the only one that can't appreciate it without a mirror.

The most telling part of the article: "Watch that online and you will see how "SCIENTISTS" are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate." But somehow, skeptics of the Manmade Global Warming theory get labeled as the "science deniers". Now who is really attempting to play "scientist".

I hate this also (from a fan perspective), but I hope it catches on like a California wildfire. If a 8/16/24/32 team playoff was enacted, I'm guessing these players would choose to play until their season was over. I could care less about bowl games...give me a playoff. I think the players would agree and would participate rather than sitting out a meaningless game that puts their future in jeopardy. The more players sit out, the more attention is brought to the senselessness of these games. I would love to see practically every potential draft pick boycott these games, which would accelerate the implementation of a true playoff.

One of my favorite examples of having socialists living by their own rules is a classic tale. I don't know if or how true it is, but I partially remember the scenario. A college professor (no doubt either now forcibly retired or fired) told his students that his class would be run in a socialist manner. When the results were posted after the first exam, students were shocked...some elated, some dismayed, and some ready to riot...due to each and everyone receiving a C+ grade. The "smarter" students complained that they had worked their butt off to ace the test, while fellow students slacked off and did not study at all. The professor assured them that their superior performance was due to "privilege", and must accept and acknowledge that "fact". And furthermore, they must be ecstatically willing to share their grades with the less fortunate. Any complaints would have to be directed solely to the one that made the rule...the ruling class (him). He then took a vote...should the class be continually run on collectivism or switched to an individualistic manner. The vote was close, but the "less fortunate" students slightly outnumbered the "more fortunate". Almost half of the class dropped the coarse immediately. The remaining "socialist dreamers" who voted for collectivism then failed the next exam, due to the "smarter" students not present to bring up the average. The "socialist dreamers" finally realized the fallacy of their logic, and subsequently dropped out also. The course ceased to exist. Again, I don't know if this is akin to a Canterbury tale or not, but thankfully I didn't have to be slapped directly in the face to learn a simplistic notion. If anyone would like to debate the pros and cons of collectivism/individualism as it relates to innate and/or learned behaviors, I am more than willing to engage in a civil discussion. But fair warning, I will have no problem thrashing in the sewer if that is where you want to take it. Hopefully I'm not hijacking your thread baddog, but this reminded me of the old classic (to me, anyways). The perfect setup for an actual debate.

With Okie Lt beating West Va, Texas now controls their own destiny. Win out and they are in the Big12 championship game.

How cute. You can't answer a single thing, but here's kudos for trying...and a condescending participation trophy. How are you not ashamed? Let me know when you develop a functioning cerebral cortex, maybe then you can engage in a 2rd grade conversation. But since you decided to posts links, pick one for a more engaged conversation in which you are not qualified. I will not embarrass you, as I am incapable of attaining the level that you do upon yourself. Please, please pick the "minorities who whiten job resumes". But alas, I will let you decide how you want to embarrass yourself. Go ahead and pick.

Do you really believe these hate crime statistics? Do you believe the assault statistics perpetuated on law enforcement? Or any other group? If a White guy says the "N" word, it is a hate crime. If a Black guy says the "N" word, it is just a normal day. Do men frequently not report assaults committed by women? How does this affect the statistics? If you live in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis...are you really that much more worried about a crazy White thug shooting up a school? Does race play a role in that? If a White person said Minorities shouldn't be allowed to vote, and even be exterminated, would this generate more vitriolic "news" than if said vice-versa? See above. If a Minority is chosen over a White person for a job, does the White person file a discrimination suit? Statistics please. Has White supremacists garnered enough power to influence Congress into repealing Civil Rights legislation? You've previously made this accusation, but failed miserably in producing any evidence. Here's your second chance. As far as your domestic terrorist attacks claims, plane crashes garner more news attention than car wrecks. Which mode of transportation is safer?

Libs always trying the equivalency ploy.

1. Nederland/Port Neches-Groves 2. Lumberton/Little Cypress-Mauriceville 3. Shelbyville/San Augustine 4. Beaumont United/Deer Park 5. New Caney/Porter 6. Port Arthur Memorial/Houston Austin 7. Barbers Hill/Santa Fe 8. Baytown Lee/Crosby 9. Dayton/Vidor 10. Bridge City/Splendora 11. Huffman Hargrave/Livingston 12. Coldspring-Oakhurst/Palestine Westwood 13. Huntington/Shepherd 14. Jasper/Center 15. Hardin-Jefferson/Liberty 16. West Orange-Stark/Hamshire-Fannett 17. Crockett/Franklin 18. Buna/Kirbyville 19. Hardin/Woodville 20. Orangefield/Anahuac 21. Warren/East Chambers 22. Anderson-Shiro/Newton 23. Hull-Daisetta/Groveton 24. Lovelady/Evadale 25. Tomball Rosehill Christian/Beaumont Legacy Christian

I had a personalized sign made for my house, which Hurricane Ike took. I keep meaning to have the sign remade, but haven't got around to it yet. I kept seeing signs that said "This house protected by Smith & Wesson", or "This house protected by...(this or that)". So I had a sign made that said "This house protected by whichever gun I grab first". I would not want to be in your house when "The Judge" was fired. I would either be dead or deaf.

I'm not going to cock my shotgun...I'd lose the shell in the chamber. Then I would only have four left. The only time someone will hear the cocking of my gun is immediately after the blast. I kept waiting to hear one of the media personalities comment that Tucker's wife should have taken Joe Biden's advice and fired off two rounds from the porch. Odd I didn't hear that mentioned.

Come on now, that's all you can muster. You think I'm deciphering nonexistent "pesky legal terminology". I did get a good laugh at that one. I'm going to assume that was your intention. I didn't know I had an element, but I can sometimes pick up on blatant condescension, even though I will be the one later accused of engaging in such drivel. Your turn again.

Scalia's opinion does not matter in the overall opinion of others. I'm shocked that you did not here about the many accusations of Kagan not being qualified to be on the Court, but was appointed because the Court needed more diversity. Like I said, I do not know her qualifications, but distinctly remember many people making that charge, irrespective of Scalia's opinion.

I guess it is my opinion that the opinion of others is not congruent with your opinion.

I mentioned her because I've heard enough rumblings from others that say it is widely known that she was appointed strictly due to her lack of the Y chromosome and Liberal ideology. That's not my opinion, as I do not have one of her...yet. She came to mind when you mentioned Thomas' "qualifications" as Black and Conservative.

Ditto. And you know less about me than I know about you, but I will refrain from offering a "scientific" opinion. As for the rest of the quote, that's still an opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that Thomas is not widely considered a lousy justice.

Where would you rate Elena Kagan in your "hall of fame" list? I really don't know anything about her or most of her decisions. I'm curious as to if you think the same about her as Thomas...that her nomination/confirmation to the Court was due more to characteristics outside of judicial qualifications.

I have not heard of Scalia's "private" thoughts about Thomas. I guess my opinion of Scalia's opinion is not based on opinions developed from other's opinions. To clarify, I do not know Scalia's private opinions of Thomas. I do know that it is not widely considered that Thomas is a lousy judge, which was my only point.

Scalia chastised pretty much everyone, included other SC justices...in public, in written form. That does not mean he thought they were all lousy justices, including Thomas. He sided with Thomas on many more decisions than he dissented.

But you also wrote he is a lousy justice. That is something the late, great Scalia would disagree. But I'm sure your opinion is more learned than Scalia's. (I can't see this emoji, I just copied yours.)