TripleSevens

How come there is a 13 this time? Doesn't that number usually get left out?

If I am a coach...and I am not...but if I was, I would want my team to be efficient with few mistakes, play unselfishly and play together, execute the offense with focus and not turn the ball over, play physical in your face team defense, win the rebounding battle, and make at least 40 percent of their shots. In other words, I would want them to play well and with intensity. This desire would have nothing to do with being proud, nothing to do with running up the score, nothing to do with pouring it on, and nothing do to with not having mercy. In all reality, it would have NOTHING to do with the other team. It would, however, have everything to do with the team I am coaching and doing what we are supposed to do on the court. I think fans have this same opportunity. They can observe the game and come away saying - wow, we didn't play as well as we could have or we didn't do a very good job at certain parts of the game. That is a lot different than saying - Dang, I wish we would have beat them by more than 27. The difference is on one hand, you are wanting your team to play the best they can, verses the other where you are wanting something bad for the other team. Let make it simple - When Walton played Boone, I am sure there are those that wanted them to play better and with more intensity at certain points of the game. When Walton played Owen, again, I am sure that some folks wanted them to play better and with more intensity. The same goes for when they played Notre Dame. If you are a consistent fan, wouldn't it be correct and ok to want your team to play better and with more intensity on all the other games too...Williamstown included. You can't tell me that is is ok to call for better play and intensity in games that are close wins or losses, and its not ok to call for better play and more intensity in games that you are heavily favored in. Whoever your playing - it isn't any different.

And oh yeah...for those who didnt read the article...John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

James 4:6 "But He gives more grace. Therefore He says, God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble James 4:10 "Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." 1 Peter 5:6 "Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." As I read these verses, we must conclude that humility is perhaps the most grace and favor producing attribute. And not just humility in general but humility before God which is most truly proven and measured by humility before men. Have you ever seen a more humble person that has won national championships, won the Heisman, and now won a playoff game in the face of critics? I haven't. His humility is no doubt allowing God to raise him up, NOT mainly for winning football games, but for God's glory AND because God cares about the dreams that He puts in our heart. I truly believe that if we put God first in our life, humble ourselves unto Him as Lord of our life, He will pour grace or favor our way. Remember the rivers of grace flow to the lowest (humble) places. I don't think Tim Tebow is using God as a weapon. Tim is doing what he loves and putting God first in it - something that is very Biblical and is proven to bring God's favor and blessing. This goes for a person in the NFL, just as it goes for anyone else, as well as a nation, a community, or a household. Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. IN ALL YOUR WAYS ACKNOWLEDGE HIM, and He shall direct your path." I don't think God cares about football, But He cares about Tim Tebow and God sees Tim's heart and humility toward Him. I also think that God cares and loves all people, so yes, from time to time He raises up people, with a certain demeanor and personality, with certain gifting and platform, for the sake of sharing and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ...the only hope for salvation for all people. What is so amazing to me is how many people have put their thoughts toward God, even if is just to argue, just in a few weeks of Tebow Time. And this morning, I read and article on foxsports.com that had John 3:16 quoted in the article, and I thought wow, how many people are going to read this scripture (Word of God) that would have not read it at all otherwise...just because God allowed Tim to throw for 316 yards. Summary - God cares about people, and He will use anything, football, Tim Tebow, whoever or whatever for His purpose of love and redemption to mankind.

Well said on both accounts!

I suppose there is always a chance....

Sorry gang, I have two response posts to VOR. The first one I thought I was editing and adding more thoughts, but I actually posted it. Go with my latest, it is saying more thoroughly what I wanted to say in the first response. Sorry for the confusion...if a moderator wants to delete my first shorter response to VOR, they may. The second response above is the one I'll go with.

Yes, I agree and that is one point I have made. Sure, society already has its social problems. The question I ask is this...Is casino gambling going to help those existing problems by strengthening people and families, have no influence, or make societal problems worse and run deeper? My opinion is simply, the third choice. Opening casino's will allow for those citizens, who would not gamble otherwise, to be drawn to an attractive and marketed facility, and begin gambling, something that is proven potentially become addictive and unhealthy for some people. In other words, it would tend to make our existing societal problems worse. That being said, I AM NOT saying casinos would be the direct reason for a cesspool mess. Here is how I put it in an earlier post... keeping casinos out of KY is not the answer, but putting casinos in KY is not helping with issues beyond money. Again, since gambling does nothing positive or productive for a society, and in my opinion the best it can do beyond financial gain for a company and the state, is make matters worse on society, why is it that important? Is money/state income more important than making societal issues worse? Someone said to look at Indiana and other states to see that gambling has not caused any society problems. It would be interesting to see before and after averages of suicide rates, bankruptcies, divorce, and theft in those counties and neighboring counties. Did they go from bad to worse, and get swept under the rug, because...well, we were making a lot of money and having a good time?

Yes, that is what I am saying. I will re post what I posted earlier... keeping casinos out of KY is not the answer, but putting casinos in KY is not helping with issues beyond money. Again, since gambling does nothing positive or productive for a society, beyond money, why is it that important?...Unless money is most important.

Thanks doomer.

Congratulations to her and many blessings be upon her future!

Lauren Tibbs Scott HS - Marquette

I think we can agree that there are problems that are NOT directly caused by gambling and they run deeper than gambling. I can agree with you on that. I just can't agree with what seems to me to be the, "ah, there going to do it any way" approach. Would there be monetary gain? Sure. I just think sometimes, monetary gain is not worth adding to what we agree is already a host of problems. Its like the old cliche "not all that glitters is gold" and what the Bible says "what profit is to gain the whole world, and lose your soul?" I can tell you this...keeping casinos out of KY is not the answer, but putting casinos in KY is not helping with issues beyond money.

Wasn't talking about you...not at all. Please don't make this about you. I was talking about personal families I know that had very bad pain due to gambling specifically, and they started or got severely worse when Indiana casinos became available. Obviously, if you keep your eyes on yourself and your own situation, then perhaps it doesn't seem like a big deal. Its not to me personally either. I have never been, and have no plans to go to the casino. Could care less as far as myself goes, but I don't have the liberty of living my life all about myself and what works for me alone. Although it may not be a problem for me, (one person) their are many others that it was/is a problem for. My argument may not work for you, because the only person you are considering in the argument is yourself and your experience. If you had the experience of knowing first hand the people who's situation is not at all like yours, perhaps you would see it differently.

Sure, why not, but why stop there. Legalize prostitution, then tax that heavily. And legalize marijuana and tax that heavily. Who cares...let's legalize it, so we can rake in the dough. If revenue is the highest priority, let's not hold back. I mean, to hold back would be silly, why leave money on table with just casino gambling. Let's be cutting edge and make our state the one everyone would want to come to and spend. Then some day when more families are destroyed and peoples lives are a wreck due to addictions, families breaking up over gambling away the weekly paycheck, and the society as a whole goes deeper in bondage, it will be fine, who cares because at that point we will have plenty of money. Sorry folks for the attitude. I just know to many people personally, and have counseled with some that have had their lives and families torn apart by going to Indiana for some casino gambling. Yep, started out fun, but ended up in bankruptcies, divorce or their children going without some food and other necessities. Way to personal for me, and it makes me way too angry. Honestly, I would rather lose money, than to see what happened/happens to these families. But it looks like I am the minority on this thread- and I am ok with that. I am a "vote of the people" guy, but this one, I can't understand why we would even want. Beyond revenue, jobs money, it is more destructive to our citizens/families than it is helpful.

There is a very clear, but detailed answer for your question. "A well regulated militia" is speaking of a militia, not the right for citizens to bear arms. These are two different things. When the 2nd amendment commands NO infringing, it is speaking directly of the right of the citizens to bear and keep arms and is not speaking about a well regulated militia. Again these are two different things. A militia is a military force raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. The right to bear arms is just simply that - the right for citizens to bear and keep arms. A citizen has a right to bear and keep arms that the 2nd amendment says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, however that doesn't mean, he or she joins a militia. That as stated, is a totally separate thing. That being said, the words "well regulated", that you asked about are directly referring to a militia, a separate thing as the "right to bear and keep arms." The definition of regulate is as follows - Control or maintain the rate or speed so that it operates properly. When the 2nd amendment states "a well regulated militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state", it is saying simply this; A militia that is well regulated or maintained and controlled so as to operate properly is necessary to the security of a free state. This makes sense. A militia that is not maintained or a militia that is not operating properly is useless to the security of a free state. In comes the command to not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. The best way to regulate or maintain the usefuleness and quality of a militia is to protect fully the right to bear and keep arms for the citizens that the militia is derived from. Imagine a militia made up of citizens that have infringed rights to bear arms. Imagine during the American Revolution, when militia's were highly important in our countries Independence, if the citizens said, I would love to help and join the militia, but I am waiting for my paperwork to clear and my background check to come through. The point is that a well regulated or well maintained militia, that is necessary to the security of a free state, BEGINS and ENDS with NOT infringing the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. Regulating a militia, or keeping a militia maintained, functioning and operating properly IS absolutely done by keeping the citizens who might make up the militia freely and uninhibitedly armed. Simply put...What good is a militia made up of citizens with no guns? Again, don't get mad at me, I didnt write it, however I am going to follow it.

The Second Amendment - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It could not be more clear. Infringe means to act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on. Any type of regulating or controlling gun ownership, even in the name of so called safety, is a direct violation of the second amendment. To make guns harder to get by paperwork, waiting, taxing or banning IS infringing the right of the people, or limiting and undermining, which is something that is clearly stated SHALL NOT BE DONE! The Bill of Rights is part of what forged, shaped and defined who and what we are as a free nation and people, and we should never let fears, lack of knowledge and the progressive thoughts of some people infringe, ignore or change this document and therefore the rights that were clearly viewed as invaluable and mandatory to a free nation. To restrict, regulate and hinder gun ownership in the United Stated is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment and those who are proponents for restrictions, regulations, and infringement of rights are clearly in violation of our defining and sacred second amendment. Don't get made at me, I didn't write it, I am only trusting, choosing to believe and holding onto what was clearly put before us by wise people who were clearly defining what a free nation shall hold onto and look like. If we cherish freedom, I mean truly cherish it, then we will be courageous enough to stick with, protect and FULLY live by what was written to be our guide and ensure and provide our freedom, even when we think we have a better idea. We can't let progressive thinking, drift us away from our foundation, simply because getting away from the foundation is to move away from freedom. Simply put - to remain free - we must follow the bill of rights, without any compromise or infringement.

:laugh:

:laugh:

Thanks for the info. I suppose that means that each of those four can control their own placement then and it makes districts even more important. Take care of business in districts or else get an even tougher road in the regional.

Concerning Walton, Anderson, South Oldham and Owen, perhaps winning the eighth region tournament could come down to who gets the better draw. Each of these agreed upon top four in the region represent a different district. Is it possible that 3 of the 4 get put in one side of the regional tournament brackets? If so, this would create an inconvenient tough first round game for two of these teams and cause one team to have to beat the other 3 consecutively in order to win the region - that is assuming that any of the other three does not get upset. That would be a very tough road. If this is possible, I would definitely like to be the one of the four that is in a bracket a part from the other three.

Don't know the exact score, but can tell you that Simon led from the get go until Walton made a 4th qtr comeback from 10 or 12 down and tied the game with a couple of seconds left. Game went into OT where Simon was able to win by 8 or so.

Great video. Did anyone else happen to notice SK's #24 with the baseline blow by on Whitfield? Wow, that was a quick move.

I believe number 11 is Abby Owens, a sophomore. She is very, very quick. Not much size, but definitely makes up for it in heart and athleticism, and can get hot from outside. If I am not mistaken, number 23 is Hannah Stephenson, a senior, and yes, she can shoot, among other things. Simon, as usual, has got some great guards, especially in their sophomore class.

Very simple...Sundays and weekday snow days are not the same thing.