scooterbob

Fine suggestion. It is far past time to move on from what might have been but wasn't. It will be interesting for fans in that the region should have different schools leading the way. However, team wise and individual wise, it will be a large drop in talent over the last couple of years.

I do not wish to dismiss your level of "involvement". However, I must conclude that it is all second hand and heresay. In other words, all you know is what others have told you or that you have heard somewhere. I have been watching as the Reds beat the Astros 11-2. I have listened to eveything said by the announcers and have observed each and every play- pitch by pitch. However, that, in and of itself, does not make me an informed individual as to the real process and workings of baseball. As some may put it, you are talking the talk but you have never walked the walk. I would also submit that, if you are being honest about all these conservative political science teachers you have been subjected to, you have obviously attended Liberty University or some similar institution. You don't find more than a token conservative in the political science departments of 99% of our colleges and universities. For you to imply otherwise is less than informed.

I have never heard Winston Churchill's philosophy described as "cute". I suppose that only a fledgling student would make such a statement. Part of what Sir Winston was saying, quite correctly I will add, was that one needed to learn from real life experiences rather than from textbooks written by those who have never been a part of the real world. In other words, one must have had the opportunity to function in the real world rather than in the unrealistic world of the textbook with its never ending theories. The danger of college professors, quite often, is that most of the highly influential ones have never done anything in life other than gone to school and taught in the confining halls of academia. They "play" life on paper. Real life is not played on paper. Also, did you ever wonder why most wierd and/or oddball movements usually start on some college campus? It isn't by coincidence. Now, before you come back stating that I know nothing of which I speak, let me say that I have been, among other disciplines, a college professor for a goodly number of years.

True.

Probably both. When one support programs that are paid for by someone other than him/her, he/she tends to be idealistic. However, when the greenbacks are coming from that person's wallet, the idealism is replaced by realism. In other words, charity begins at home, so to speak. The brain takes over sometime between 20 and 40.

Merle Kidwell would do a fine job in straightening out the program. I hope he will apply and receive serious consideration. He is a fine coach.

My goodness. I never realized that two trips to Bowling Green could cause such lasting and continuous pain. I just hope that losing those two regional tournaments hasn't marred you people for life but, alas, it appears that that could be the case. Let me recommend a nice bottle of Jack Daniels (Black Label, of course) to, at least, temporarily ease your obsession. Good luck to you, also.

Actually, goherd96, I am flattered that you feel it necessary to try to read my mind. However, I wouldn't have said much of anything in this matter. All the "issues" have been sufficiently spinned out of control. It does strike me that I have apparently gotten somewhat under your skin which is amusing. I really am sorry that you didn't get the chance to play at Bowling Green. As I have said before, Jessica Fortman deserved the opportunity and it would have been nice to see Coach Kidwell perform on the big stage. But, then, the fact is, you guys somehow managed to blow it. I'm sure that it must have been because of some clandestine activities of Coach Euton and her girls. Surely, you didn't just get out coached and out played both years. There was no real need to repeat the Russellite Spin Doctrine since it has been posted so many times that it is losing credibility. I'm glad that you people feel so good about yourselves for losing. But, it is all over now and Brittie will be moving on to U of L to join her sister. No more need to feel "cheated" out of your "entitlement". All of those haunting memories of what could have been should be exorcised. Isn't it time for you Russellites to move on? Good luck.

Winston Churchill said (to paraphrase): "If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

Pitiful argument. The "mother" has a moral responsibility to carry the child and to bring it to term. The "father" has a moral responsibility to support the child. There is plenty of responsibility for both. If they aren't willing to assume the risk that responsibility will result, they should keep their pants on.

Not incorrect at all. If she exposes herself to the possibility of pregnancy, then she should responsibly live with the consequences. If I speed, I expose myself to the possibility of a speeding ticket. In the law, it is called "assumption of the risk". She assumed the risk. She is not a victim. The developing child should not be the victim. You may think my analogy is not realistic. I agree. If I get caught speeding and receive a speeding ticket, it will only cost me some money. However, if she gets pregnant and aborts the baby she has taken another life. Twist it all however you choose but that is the bottom line.

Well, now, if one never knew she was pregnant and that she lost a child, I would have to admit that she most likely wouldn't be in a position to grieve the loss of a child. On the other hand, it is obvious from your posts that you have no personal knowledge of such painful losses. In regard to abortion, I am, as I said, all for women having a choice. However, that choice is to either get pregnant or not to get pregnant. When she chooses (or allows) the former, she has brought another being into the equation. Some matters of existence are absolutes. In reality, they can't be changed to suit the whims of modern day life and greedy and manipulative medical practitioners don't alter truth. I am always amused at the argument that all such decisions shopuld be left to "the woman and her physician". Contrary to what many of them believe, doctors are mere humans. A woman can always find a doctor to conclude whatever she seeks to have as a conclusion to her "malady". Greenbacks are never a drawback in the medical profession.

Congratulations to Emily Queen for being named as a member of the AP All State First Team. This is quite an accomplishment since she doesn't play in the 11th Region and actually lives east of Lexington.

I can assure you that, if you and your spouse have suffered a miscarriage, you do, indeed, consider it equal to the death of a child because a child is precisely what you have lost.

Actually, not true. Both were compromises because they had to clear Democrat controlled senates. While Ford knew what he was nominating (he wanted to avoid a fight), Bush was "hoodwinked" in regard to Souter, who was known as the "stealth candidate". Warren Rudman and his associates assured Bush that Souter was a Conservative. Warren Rudman and his associates were less than honest. Bush trusted the wrong group and we are all suffering because of it. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were appointed to be conservative. So far, so good. Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton to be liberal. They are thoroughbreds. Stevens was appointed to avoid a fight. Actually, he is even more liberal than expected but, as I said above, Ford neither wanted nor needed a fight. Souter is what he is but Bush failed to do a thorough investigation of his track record. Kennedy will, most likely, be the fifth vote in all closely decided social issues. As a devout Catholic, I feel sure that he personally opposes abortion. However, he, more than the others, has divorced his personal beliefs from his decisions. It is little consolation but he shows a tendency to be a little more conservative (strict construction)than liberal (broad interpretation) in his overall voting record. Before I am called a narrowminded rightwinger, let me say that I am totally in favor of a woman's right to choose. She can choose whether or not to become pregnant. After that, another being must be protected. This belief is as much constitutionally based as it is religion based. I would cite, among other arguments, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The preborn are deprived of both.

Stevens was a moderately liberal Democrat. Ford needed to compromise to get through the Democrat controlled US Senate that was ready to embarrass Ford after Watergate. While you are correct that Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, associating the decision with President Reagan is a bit of a leap. I could point out that a compelling dissenting decision was written by Justice White. Justice White was appointed by Kennedy. Nonetheless, neither of those associations are pertinent. I would also add that Blackmun's opinion in Roe v Wade is poorly written. Lots of verbage. Lots of history going back to the Babylonians but very little substance. Read it sometime.

Not likely although there are many in the 64th District hoping you are correct.

Absolutely. It must be remembered that, although the president nominates candidates, the senate confirms (or fails to confirm) them. Any nominee must get a majority vote from the senate. Therefore, if the senate is controlled by the other party, the president must compromise to get a candidate confirmed. That clearly happened when Ford nominated Stevens who was actually a Democrat. It also happened when GHW Bush nominated Souter. Thus, the two liberal justices appointed by Republicans were, by necessity, compromises. The other two liberals, Ginsberg and Breyer, were nominated by Clinton. Legally speaking, the real tragedy of the loss of the senate for strict constructionists (Conservatives) is that, when GW Bush makes any nominations to the federal bench (US District Court, US Circuit Court of Appeals, or US Supreme Court), they must now be compromises or the Democrats will not confirm them. On the other hand, if a Democrat wins the White House, he/she will have a blank check to nominate liberals and will face only token opposition since, most likely, the Democrats will still control the US Senate. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats are painstakingly careful to nominate "thoroughbreds" who will carry out the agenda of the leftwing of society. The only weapon the Republicans will have is to make sure that the Democrats dont have 60 votes and to filibuster just as the Democrats have done to Bush. The problem? Republicans don't seem to have any backbone.

Merle Kidwell would be an excellent choice.

No. However, the door is always open.

More than you know, I wish I had an answer that would be meaningful for you, Heresay. I have none. As one who has suffered a tragic loss, I can say that my experience has taught me that all of those "feel good" explanations are meaningless and baseless. I have found God, assuming He exists, to be both silent and absent. Nothing more. The statement used in the title of this thread is, to me, trite. It certainly is not true. The other popular "comfort sayings" are, I believe, no more helpful than is an aspirin for a broken back- or broken heart. I hope your friend, Curtis, finds comfort and answers. I strongly suspect he will find neither. This is not a pleasant post but it is honest.

My bible indicates that one is a separate being from the moment of conception. Thus, this is what I must believe. It is not credible for a group to claim to support the poor, needy, and vulnerable when it condones and aids the destruction of our most dependent. Of course, we all know that the preborn don't vote and, therefore, cannot provide that group with power.

A man was hungry. The Democrat suggested that society provide the man with a fish each day for the rest of his life. The Republican suggested that society teach the man to fish so that he could provide for himself. Simple but still a good and telling analogy of the philosophies of the parties.

Now, 3ptshooter, Rose Hillers aren't that sensitive. As you know, small schools (particularly the smallest of schools to successfully compete) operate, at best, in cycles. You don't have the student base to produce a highly competitive team every year. Rose Hill just finished a most successful three year run which includes the accumulation of a goodly amount of hardware and considerable statewide recognition for its program and for its girls. Now, it is time to rebuild with a group of promising youngsters. Are there any Terrys or Queens in the wings? Probably not. But, throughout history, there have been very few Terrys or Queens in this region. There will certainly not be any for the next few years anywhere in this area. Nonetheless, there is potential for a good future for Rose Hill and, at a small school, that is all you can expect. Of course, it will make scheduling of games much easier for Coach Euton since our "good neighbors" will, unlike the last two years, find open dates to play the young Lady Royals. All in all, you can count on two facts. First, the fans who have followed the girls in the past will continue to follow them. Second, a portion of its "good neighbors" will still resent Rose Hill. :thumb:

Although your statement is quite true in many cases, it couldn't be more incorrect in regard to Coach Euton and her family. I must assume that you are not acquainted with the family.