sheeeit
Legacy Members-
Posts
792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by sheeeit
-
I have debated commenting on this thread because of the predictable nature of the responses. It represents everything that is bad with todays journalism/twitter/political world. No one cares for the actual facts and by the time the twitter world and non reputable journalists and message board dolts are done the actual truth is long gone. Obviously, any type of sexual abuse is bad and the perps deserve punishment. As best I can tell, there are 2 former wrestlers that say that they voiced their concerns with a group that included Jordan and the Head Coach. No one has said that anyone went one on one with Jordan about the abuse and that Jordan did nothing. Both of the wrestlers that have come out in public have specifically said that they never had any direct conversations with Jordan. In fact, the Head Coach did contact the Dr. involved according to his testimony. And, from that time, there were not any other complaints from the wrestlers. So 2 wrestlers come forward and the Head Coach takes action and then no other complaints were made by wrestlers. What exactly should Jordan have done? He was the assistant coach and his head coach addressed the issue. From the Perkins Coie report, they estimate that there were potentially 1500 athletes across 14 different sports that were affected. But the biggest and certainly most public blame is going towards the assistant wrestling coach. It is also worth noting that just as many wrestlers say Jordan probably did not know of the abuse as there are those that say he did know. Also, the head coach and all of the other assistant coaches have declared that Jordan was not aware of abuse. Certainly an investigation into the whole escapade is warranted. And certainly Jordan needs to be part of that investigation. If there is actual proof that he knew of the abuse and did nothing about it, then he deserves to be punished and should resign.
-
My brother cohosted a reception for Beto recently in Dallas and I got to chat with him a little bit. Impressive guy. Will get my vote for certain.
-
As usual, this is not even remotely what I postured. First, even though you guys keep ignoring it, it is, in fact, within Flynn's legal rights to rescind his guilty plea. He is not bound by his plea until sentencing. He can rescind it and ask for a jury trial. The likelihood of him actually winning a jury trial at this point (after he has plead guilty) is extremely low. The govt could also add new charges. About all Flynn could argue is that the govt withheld evidence from his lawyers and that he would not have plead guil;ty if he knew of that evidence. I seriously doubt the govt actually withheld evidence but it is obviously very unusual for a judge to order the govt to turn over evidence to a defendant's attorneys AFTER the defendant had already plead guilty. All that I am suggesting is that it could give Flynn some perceived leverage. Any one of you can read the plea agreement that Flynn signed. There are general sentencing guideline recommendations in the plea agreement. Flynn could easily be trying to use new information to get a more favorable recommendation on his sentencing. That is neither unusual or uncommon. It is also not at all unusual for Flynn to want to see what happens to Trump in the mueller probe. IF Trump is vindicated by the Mueller report then Trump will have way more political capital to pardon Flynn. If the Mueller report is damning to Trump then he obviously has a lot less political capital and touching Flynn might be too much. Trump may have no intention of pardoning him in any event. None of us knows. It is just a factor to consider.
-
Maybe you can enlighten me on what I posted that would be in contrast with criminal law.
-
My guess on Flynn is that the sentencing keeps getting delayed because Flynn is wavering on his guilty plea and he may be trying to leverage his perceived advantage in the case as a result of the supposed Comey/McCabe/FBI investigators supposedly claiming that they did not think Flynn lied. If, and it is a big if, those agents did say that then Flynn may think he has leverage to get a greatly reduced sentence. Also likely hinges on what Flynn has to provide on trump collusion and whether or not Mueller finds any collusion. If Mueller does not find any collusion, as I predict, then I think it is likely that Flynn gets pardoned or gets a drastically reduced sentence. If Mueller finds collusion then Flynn will likely be dealt with more harshly.
-
What a beating.
-
Growing rejection of religious traditions by religious adherents
sheeeit replied to Lucid's topic in Cloak Room
I can only speak to what Catholics currently believe. I am Catholic. I think that many of the more ardent evangelicals are the biggest hypocrites I know. And many are great people with great messages. But, as to your question, the Catholic church, today, is welcoming of gays and the Pope is on record as saying God made them (gays) that way and he loves them that way and so does the Pope. On marriage, people just want to play gotcha and twist words and meanings. The Pope is on record as being supportive of any union between loving people. The Catholic church does not oppose these unions at all. People like to make a big deal by saying something to the effect that the Catholic church does not "recognize" gay marriage but that is disingenuous. It is no different than Jewish marriages or Muslim marriages or Baptist marriages as far as the Catholic church is concerned. The catholic church does not recognize those marriages either as Catholic marriages but it certainly respects the marriages and unions. The Catholic church can only "recognize" a marriage between 2 practicing Catholics of opposite sex. -
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July
sheeeit replied to Hugo Stiglitz's topic in Cloak Room
This is sooo typical of this place and all of you guys. The only reason there is even any kind of "smell test" is because, as usual, the media print a small part of the actual story and you guys just lap it up like dogs. Do you ever get tired of relying on half truths in the media to form opinions? Hugo asked what he posted that wasn't non-factual. Actually, almost everything that makes this look suspicious is un-factual. The only facts are 1) At one time Kennedy's son worked at De, and 2) Trump made development/construction loans with De during part of the time that Kennedy's son was there. That is it. Everything else being discussed is half truths and outright lies that are very easy to investigate. The biggest claim that is non-factual is this supposed claim that Kennedy's son was Trumps personal banker or something like that. It is a complete and total falsehood. Kennedy never made any construction/development loans and he never had any role in that side of the business. Kennedy was a trader. He traded in mortgage backed securities. Traders do not make loans. It is a completely different division of the bank. Kennedy had exactly zero input in any of the De loans to trump co. Zero. Trump started his relationship with De before Kennedy even worked there. Trump did have a relationship with a De banker and that was the guy that basically started the commercial real estate lending office in NY for De. Lots and lots of articles about it. The guy knew he was taking a risk on Trump but did it anyway. Your Citizens United point is incredibly stupid. Citizens United was decided in January of 2010. Kennedys son was long gone from De at that point and was running a small real estate investment firm that, according to the only records I could find, made exactly zero political contributions. Your point is absurd. Yes De was fined for money laundering related issues. From what I can tell they deserved to be. But the division in question was based in Moscow. Just like every single other big I Bank had offices there. De is a massive institution. This happened in 2017. Of course, Kennedy never worked on anything russian related or had any connection whatsoever to the russian division when he worked there and he had been gone from the company for 8 years when the fines were handed down.. It appears that Kennedy has a friendly relationship with the trump kids. That is neither unusual or surprising considering their backgrounds and work. -
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July
sheeeit replied to Hugo Stiglitz's topic in Cloak Room
I actually thought you were better than the usual suspects here. My delusion? I pretty clearly said that we have no idea who would have won the popular vote. I have no idea if trump would have won that or not. The point that apparently went over your head was that to try and use the popular vote result to draw any type of conclusion is aggy since the game that was played was to get the most electoral votes. You seem to be backtracking a bit now. Sheeeit never even suggested that trump was doing "america's will". Sheeit was calling you out for suggesting that trump being potus was against the will of the people based on the fact that he got fewer votes. I mean this was your post right? "They did in 2016, and the candidate with 3 million fewer votes than his opponent became president. These are some of the consequences of a system that doesn't reflect the will of the people and a president who tells the majority who voted against him to fuck off on a daily basis." You are clearly saying that our electoral system does not reflect the will of the people because trump got less votes. There was a contest to see who gets the most electoral votes. There was not a contest to see who could get the most total votes. You can not make assumptions about results from a contest using data that was not the intent of the contest. -
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July
sheeeit replied to Hugo Stiglitz's topic in Cloak Room
Mojo- Your arguments about the popular vote and electoral college are sort of the epitome of Aggie. It is like Aggie arguing after the football game that they had more offensive yards and therefore they were the better team and should be considered the winner. You have absolutely no way of knowing who would have won the popular vote if that was the way the election was set up. The candidates would have campaigned differently. They would have rallied in different states. They would have spent their advertising money in different ways. How many Hillary supporters in Texas did not vote because they knew that Hillary would not win Texas? How many Trump supporters in California did the same thing? If you want to argue the popular vote should be the way we choose going forward, then that is a decent argument. But to suggest the will of the people was different than the outcome is just very flawed. The contest was not to get the most popular votes it was to get the most electoral votes and that was the goal of the candidates and that is what determined their campaign strategies. -
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/06/28/political-murders-push-120-in-mexican-elections/ Amazing. Hard to even grasp this. If we had 1 or 2 pols killed there would be rioting in the streets and the police/military/ would be in full force. 130 in a year. Mexico does not know what to do.
-
We shall see. My take is that the people of NK are tired of starving. Un realized that and knew he had to do something. You guys seem to be suggesting that just because he had a summit with trump that his power is stronger. I do not see that at all. His power was supreme before the summit. I think that it is impossible that the people of NK did not hear the talk that the world would feed them if Un gave up his nukes. If 6 months from now, Un has done nothing and the people are now dying instead of just starving, then I think his power is much more tenuous. I think only a naive fool would think that China or Russia or anyone would risk access to the financial behemoth that is the US to trade with NK.
-
I have not been to a kfc in years, may have to make a trip. Also, I can not imagine the shitstorm that would rain down on the first politician that espouses legalizing meth and heroin. That is the biggest reason why it wont happen. Maybe an idiot like trump would do it because he just doesnt care about the fall out.
-
I dont disagree. It has to be to the point that the mexican citizens really want change and the elected folks realize they cant do it themselves. Might never get to that point. But, I also think there are some prudent folks in mexico that really care about the future of their country. I do not think they would be afraid to swallow their pride if they thought help from the US could seriously help the problem. It could be spun a lot of different ways. Maybe a joint military operation with a mexican figure head at the top. The mexicans can spin it that it is the us and their appetite for drugs that is causing the violence and, therefore, it is only right that the americans help pay for and die for the solution. This approach would clearly be a last option. Legalizing would hurt the cartels the most.
-
I realize that this is just fun speculation, but you guys need to differentiate between who you want as potus and who has an actual chance of beating trump. If the economy is still humming then he is going to be very hard to beat, especially by the same old tired people that have been around forever. If the economy is humming, the only way a dem beats trump is if that dem is has good economic credentials and will essentially espouse many of the same economic policies as trump. Then they can make moves away from trump's idiocy on other things. But if the dems run a fairly liberal candidate and their approach to the economy is tax the rich, higher min wage, bad ceos and tax companies then they are going to get bludgeoned.
-
Ha. repped you. FDA.
-
I have thought about the solution to the mexican drug problem a bunch. Like all things, there are no easy answers. But I think there are only 2 choices. 1) The easiest and least violent way is to legalize most drugs that come in from mexico. Weed, cocaine, meth, heroin etc. I realize that this is highly unlikely to happen, but we have made progress on weed. I have no idea what it would look like but I envision stores similar to liquor stores that sell narcotics. Let US companies manufacture the narcotics and let the FFA regulate the quality and then let them sell to retailers that are also well regulated. Heck, I would even let mexico supply much of the drugs if they can compete. have them sell to licensed dealers here in the us. Likely a pipe dream but it would eliminate a ton of the profits for the cartels. 2) Negotiate with mexico (tell them basically) that the us military is coming in. The drug trade is just too lucrative and the state and local police are in a horrible spot. Take money from the cartels or get killed and have your family killed. That scenario is never, ever, going to eliminate the problem. The cartels make so much money that they have arsenals of weapons, more than the local police. So, imo, an outside group has to intervene. It would be unbelievably brutal in the short term. The policy would have to be scorched earth. Assaults on cartel locations. Total burning of fields and plants and equipment. An eradication of the trade. Then, help mexico to police the areas so that it never grows so big and out of hand again. In a large scale operation, you essentially eliminate all of the known bad guys and wipe out all of their supply. Make it very, very difficult for someone to come in and start from scratch. Obviously, solution 1 is the best avenue. Maybe some combination of both. But I can not blame the local police in many of these mexican communities for not stopping the problem.
-
I would vote for Bloomberg over anyone that has run in the last 20 years except for maybe Romney. He may just be too old. It is going to be hard for the people mentioned to beat trump just from an oversized personality standpoint. Bloomberg is certainly smarter and much more polished (not exactly a high bar) than Trump. He is also not an ideologue. I hope he runs.
-
You are truly a weird little man. You are also so full of shit it is amazing. I have little hope that anyone will call you out for calling me a liar and then using total bullshit lies to justify it. This just seems par for the course for this place and people like you. The daily estimate of people crossing legally everyday is about 1,000,000. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/19/opinion-million-people-cross-border-legally-every-day-and-that-good-thing.html Seems a little higher than 50,000. But I will link several articles from left news agencies that all agree that the monthly number arrested/apprehended is 50,000. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-southwest-border-triple-in-march-from-year-ago.html http://time.com/5303831/trump-illegal-immigration-border-arrests-may/ https://www.npr.org/2018/06/06/617750865/may-marks-another-increase-in-border-arrests-despite-trump-crackdown I wonder if anyone will call you out.
-
Maybe. It still doesn't make much sense to me. If the generals were ready to pounce pre-summit and then Un gets some perceived respect from the US then what does that buy him? 6 months? A year? I think it is much, much more likely that Un has risked way more on the summit than the us. If he doesn't deliver change now, then the people will be much more inclined to revolt. Un played his trump card (no pun). I think a coup of the generals is much more likely as a result of them not wanting to get executed by unruly mobs than trying to take out Un to get power.
-
Jesus. You guys are high strung. I made a mistake when typing. Meant to say month not day. I based it on this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-for-third-month-in-a-row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.9893499e8685 My point still stands. If 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people were crossing the Canadian border every MONTH then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada.
-
I am curious, what do you think would be the reason that the well-fed generals would stage a coup?
-
Which race would they be against?
-
If there were 50,000-75,000 poor, unskilled, non-english speaking people crossing the Canadian border everyday then I absolutely think the same people calling for a wall with Mexico would be calling for a wall with Canada. Personally, I am against the wall but I can certainly realize that it is a complex situation with no easy fixes.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!