Jump to content

The UT Alum " noose is tightening" theory


stevenash

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Yeah, more than one channel, too. Read newspapers, as well. What’s your point?

You seem to think the investigation is still about collusion when even Democrats know it isn’t anymore, you don’t seem to be aware of the Muslim issues in Europe that they are acknowledging.  Don’t care how many channels you watch, lol, but whichever ones you are watching seem to keep you ignorant of what’s going on.  By your one channel shot I’m guessing you’re in the hate Fox crowd without even knowing why.  Try it, at least you’ll maybe figure out the collusion investigation is nonsense.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

You seem to think the investigation is still about collusion when even Democrats know it isn’t anymore, you don’t seem to be aware of the Muslim issues in Europe that they are acknowledging.  Don’t care how many channels you watch, lol, but whichever ones you are watching seem to keep you ignorant of what’s going on.  By your one channel shot I’m guessing you’re in the hate Fox crowd without even knowing why.  Try it, at least you’ll maybe figure out the collusion investigation is nonsense.  

News reference is because 90% of the links I see on here are foxnews links.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Bottom line ( even though you will never acknowledge) is Trump DID NOT collude with the Russians and the election results are legitimate.  There are no spin possibilities left and the only "believers" are the Trump haters

Did I miss the release of the final report?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please

One is an opinion by Trump’s ex lawyer, the other one addresses the Senate Intel committee report. Did you get to the part where they reported that the Mueller investigation could reach different conclusions? Let the report speak for itself when released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, UT alum said:

One is an opinion by Trump’s ex lawyer, the other one addresses the Senate Intel committee report. Did you get to the part where they reported that the Mueller investigation could reach different conclusions? Let the report speak for itself when released.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, UT alum said:

One is an opinion by Trump’s ex lawyer, the other one addresses the Senate Intel committee report. Did you get to the part where they reported that the Mueller investigation could reach different conclusions? Let the report speak for itself when released.

Do you think it will ever be released?  Two years not long enough?  Of course the Mueller report will report a "different" conclusion.  But I suspect that it will not implicate Trump in colluding with the Russians.   Please state to me that you believe that Trump was a willing participant in colluding with the Russians to rig the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Do you think it will ever be released?  Two years not long enough?  Of course the Mueller report will report a "different" conclusion.  But I suspect that it will not implicate Trump in colluding with the Russians.   Please state to me that you believe that Trump was a willing participant in colluding with the Russians to rig the election. 

What's willing got to do with it? Influencing and rigging are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

One is an opinion by Trump’s ex lawyer, the other one addresses the Senate Intel committee report. Did you get to the part where they reported that the Mueller investigation could reach different conclusions? Let the report speak for itself when released.

The mere fact it's been 2 years and Mueller has NOTHING!  If he did, we would have heard about it.  Second:  The mere fact Mueller has to stage these side shows (Ex; Roger Stone's early morning harassment) also indicates he has NOTHING!  So -- after a lot of wasted tax dollars -- he still has NOTHING!  It's only a matter of time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Reagan said:

The mere fact it's been 2 years and Mueller has NOTHING!  If he did, we would have heard about it.  Second:  The mere fact Mueller has to stage these side shows (Ex; Roger Stone's early morning harassment) also indicates he has NOTHING!  So -- after a lot of wasted tax dollars -- he still has NOTHING!  It's only a matter of time!

How do you know what he has? If it was nothing, it would be over. You must be confusing this investigation with Benghazi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...