scooterbob

Outstanding. It makes me even more proud to drive a vehicle with a "Fred Thompson in 2008" bumper sticker on it. If traditional conservatives have any hope of winning the 2008 election, those hopes rest with Fred Thompson.

Let's not get too far afield. We are talking about convicted sex offenders who must register. We are not talking about streakers. To extend the discussion serves no valid purpose other than to dilute the real issue. Convicted sex offenders who must register are parasites on society in general and on our children in particular. Streakers are, for the most part, harmless although they are obviously quite foolish.

Are you equally critical of the "reverands" on your side of the political spectrum. Jackson, Sharpton, and the rest have provided an abundance of reasons for a discerning person to conclude that they are, to be kind, prostitutes of the first order. I suspect that many didn't like Falwell because, although he was abrasive and could have shown more reserve, he spoke enough of the truth to make them feel uncomfortable. I didn't always agree with him and I will be the first to say that he lived very well off his constituents. However, he did say a lot that needed to be said and it didn't need to be sugarcoated to please the rationalizers and the politically correct crowd.

If it is merely a job offer with absolutely no underlying motive on the part of the "offeror", I agree. However, all the"gymnastics" necessary for the move to be successful would cause one to question it. The first question might be, in light of the fact that BC has a well known coach who is not stepping down, why would a change be made? Nonetheless, it is good to see Coach Euton getting mentioned for other jobs- open (Ballard) and not open (BC). It speaks well of her and her ability to motivate young women.

Absolutely. And, if you choose to streak, you assume all that may or may not result from your act.

I have no doubt that Falwell made many statements similar to the above. However, he also helped many of his fellow human beings. I would suspect that we could come up with a list of controversial statements from most any person. Possibly we could start with some of the liberal "revs" and "do gooders". The point is that neither Falwell nor anyone else should be judeged by a few statements. If you pick and choose, ignore circumstances, and take out of context, you can do a real "job" on Christ, St. Paul, St. Peter, and all the others.

When all is said, I suppose it just depends on which group we wish to protect, which group we wish to regulate, and whose "rights" should receive priority. Although those concerned about streakers are, I believe, overreacting, if we "inconvenience" a dozen or so of them (and it would be no more than an "inconvenience" assuming they are not guilty of worse crimes) in order to save one child from a real sexual predator, I would say the end clearly justifies the means. As I said before, I support civil responsibility far more than civil rights.

This has been an interesting thread even though it has no factual basis. I have been particularly intrigued by the continual give and take about Coach Fraley and his coaching desires. I have been amused by the fact that there seems to be no one suggesting that, if such a scenerio were factual (which it isn't), no one finds an element in recruiting involved. In other words, would it be recruiting if School BC offered a job to the coach of School RH if a condition precedent was that the coach bring her son with her? Obviously, it would be illegal activity regardless of any venue considerations or job "betterment". I'm surprised that so many who are otherwise knowledgeable about recruiting have overlooked this element of the discussion. Does anyone dispute this?

In my opinion, Freeman-Longo's article is more of a commentary seeking to influence opinions rather than an article relating factual information. I am not familiar with Freeman-Longo so, although I have suspicions, I can't fairly conclude that he has an agenda. However, on the one hand, he severely overplays the mistreatment of "innocent people". Nonetheless, I am neither impressed nor moved by his commentary. I still come down firmly in support of the protection of children over the rights of convicted offenders.

And your point is that homosexuality is a healthy endeavor? As I said, he may have been abrasive (ie: not politically correct) but his message that homosexuality is "less than positive" is hard to dispute.

We can all post analogies. Most, including mine, are immaterial to the issue. The issue deals with convicted sex offenders who are on the registry of sex offenders. I am confident in saying that intoxicated college sophomores who "streak" across the football field while under the influence of JTS Brown or JW Dant are not included as convicted sex offenders appearing on the registry of such offenders. In this instance, I fully support the proposition of protecting the innocent, most of whom are children, from these convicted sex offenders. I don't give a tinkers you know what about protecting the freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of expression, privacy rights, or any whatever other right you may mention or create for these individuals. I don't ask anyone to agree with me although I suspect that many in society do so. I have often argued in various venues, formal and informal, of the need to put a little less concern on "rights" and a little more concern on "responsibility". I submit that such an approach would greatly benefit this country and its citizens. As for Heresay's recruiting analogy, I must admit that I don't personally oppose recruiting. However, I do understand that such practices violate the rules of KHSAA. Of course, as with the rest of life, some get caught and punished, most do not get caught and thrive, and still others seem to be above the law. Very much like life in general. But, then, that is another discussion which may well require a production of documents.:thumb:

Actually, I am not comparing the two. I am using an extreme example to make a point. You missed the point so I'll try another. One is not a little bit pregnant. She is either pregnant or she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant, she assumed the risk and, I believe, gave up her "freedom of choice" at that time. She must, or should, live with the consequences of her act. I would also question your analogy. I don't believe that, in reality, very many "streakers" are convicted as sex offenders. Your example is, shall we say, as extreme as is mine in regard to murderers.

I think that what he was trying to convey, though often in an abrasive manner, the fact that Christian principles do not change to suit the times. You may question the messenger but not the message. He also, by being willing to buck modern society with its "everything is relative" mentality, gave many traditionalists someone to rally around. I can't fault that.

Should one be able to use the excuse that he is not really a threat to society because he only murdered one person rather than thirty-two like the boy at VPI? I would use the principle of assumption of the risk.

I would agree that it is somewhat troubling to me. However, I come down on the side of protecting the vulnerable. Convicted sex offenders are, with few exceptions, still very dangerous predators on society. When it is all weighed, I believe that certain groups should, because of their past conduct, forfeit some of the basic rights that are preserved for the rest of our citizens. In other words, if you commit the act, you pay the price. And let me add that I don't buy into the argument of those who would say that this is merely opening Pandora's Box. That argument has no credibility and somewhere along the line we must protect the innocent.

If it is up to the historians who are writing the textbooks used in history classes in most of our public schools today, Brother Jerry will be, at best, omitted and, at worst, demonized.

Would you rather be in Gainesville or Lexington. Not a difficult choice for one with no ties to either school.

A very complex individual. He did a lot of good. He did a lot of harm. My main problem with him was that, although many on fixed incomes sacrificed financially to give to his groups, he never seemed to do any sacrificing himself. Of course, that is true of most all of the "television prophets". Still, the good probably outweighed the harm because it helped elect Reagan. However, you can be sure that the media will use his passing as an excuse to wear out conservatives, Christians, and traditionalists. If you don't want to see/hear it, you better avoid CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest. If you have any doubts, take a look at the "respectful" pictures of Falwell on the usual internet sites.

;) Could someone inform goherd96 that I am merely seeking closure of a matter that has long ago run its course. Surely, he can't disagree with post #48.

:thumb: :thumb: Surely, goherd96 cannot find fault with post #48. It is long past time for closure in regard to this "overexposed" issue.

Let it go, goherd96. Graduation is quickly approaching and it is time to move on. Each has his/her version of the facts. Those who are not directly related to the situation will choose to believe whomever they favor. As is usually the case, the full truth will never be known because everyone spins to suit his/her particular loyalties. There is no particular reason for anyone to believe either of the competing versions of the saga. You and the Russellites have your tale and others have a different tale. Neither tale is more believable than the other because they are spun by partisans. Many will believe your version merely because that is what they choose to believe. Others will not believe you. That is just how it works. Russellites are apparently pleased with how they handled it and Rose Hillers and the girls are, for the most part, satisfied with how it all turned out. So, goherd96, it is probably best for everyone to just let it go and to move on. No explaining, no remorse, and no apologies from either group. None are necessary.:thumb:

Asset for the exceptionally talented because it allows him/her to play against those of comparable talent and to be scene by college coaches who would possibly not travel to Harlan, Central City, or wherever just to see him/her. Of course it has its share of problems. However, high school teams are not always coached by knowledgeable individuals of stellar character either. I would also question the effect of KHSAA with its often political rulings. I don't necessarily blame KHSAA for this because it is sometimes just an unwilling player in how the "system" works.

Rationalize as it suits you, GoRadio, but you will find no apologies from here.

No, GoRadio, the Rose Hillers got to the Russellites. Look in the record books and trophy cases. Observe who starts the whining and excuse making. Check who attempts to play the "principle card". Yep, GoRadio, Rose Hillers got to their "good neighbors".

Raceland, Rose Hill, and Elliott County are, I believe, in the same bracket. This is true for both the boys and the girls. The tournament is at Menifee County.