leatherneck

Glad to do it. Just another friendly service from LN.

Zero truth to the rumor. Just more typical bad scoop that flies around from the FTGS. The school agreed to split the gate with X after expenses and season tickets.

So you're saying that every POTUS, regardless of how opposed his beliefs are to the beliefs of a private college may be, should be invited just because he or she is the POTUS? Do you honestly think that if some racial bigot got elected to become POTUS, he/she would be/should be invited to speak at some traditionally African American college? I don't. Would we/should we honestly expect the adminstrators at that African American college to say to its students: "hey, have an open mind about racial bigotry and consider all view points" ? Again, I don't. There are many issues and beliefs that we should have an open mind on. However, I do believe that there are some issues that are so central to certain institutions that there should be no room for consideration of opposing beliefs. With the Catholic Church, I thought that issue was abortion, but maybe I'm wrong and the Catholic Church is okay with some of its members supporting abortion.

As a former Catholic I may not be up to speed on all of the Catholic teachings, but I wasn't aware that the Catholic Church was as strong in its position against war as it was against abortion. Is that so? Clyde raised an interesing question: can you support abortion and still be welcome in the Catholic Church? Again, I'm no longer a practicing Catholic, but I thought the answer was no. Haven't Catholic priests refuse to serve Communion to Catholic politicians that voted in support of abortion rights? Another question: have Catholic priests refused to serve Communion to Catholic war vets?

For sure. :thumb: For some reason I thought he was only a junior last year. :confused: I know his father well and want to remember his son being on Boone's frosh team when they played Highlands when my son was on Highlands frosh team, but perhaps Jim and I talked at a JV game when his son was a junior and my son was a sophomore. Nonetheless, I still don't think that Boone can beat the likes of Trinity and X without a strong passing game to complement the strong running game.

6 classes may water down the competition and may make it easier for several teams to win multiple state championships, but I strongly believe that the kids playing in the state championship games and those on the champion teams don't even consider those thoughts before and after the games. If you believe that success begets more and greater success, then I think that having 6 classes will ultimately improve Ky football. I'm only using common sense here, but I'd think it would be much easier for the head coaches to get the better athletes out of the halls and onto the field if he could point out to them that the team last year won the region or won the semis. I think those accomplishments could help build a youth program. With more classes, that means more teams can have those accomplishments. It's very tough to build a strong football program at a lot of schools and often requires baby steps. Almost anything that the KHSAA can do to help that occur is probably worth it in my mind. Is there a point that the system gets watered down so as to make those accomplishments meaningless? Sure. I'm just not sure it's to that point. The counterpoint to the argument that you only have to be the best of 31 teams in your class to be the state championship in the 6 class system is the fact that the quality of football has improved so much. Back in the old days with 3 classes before Ky football had improved to the quality that it is today, as a state champion you may have been the best of 75 teams in your class, but if most of them were not making any committment to football, how was that a bigger accomplishment than being the best of 31 with a lot of those 31 making a real committment to football?

Not even close to being in that group and don't want to be. As a member, you should know that. :D:D. CovCath has it's PHM and Highlands has it's FTGS. :thumb:

Nice article about Willie's decision to step down in today's Enquirer if anyone wants to provide the link.

Did you hear that from a reliable source or from one of the members of the Ft. Thomas Gossip Society?

Even if they were the best backfield duo in the state this coming year, unless Boone develops a balanced offense, in my opinion they don't have much of a chance to beat teams like Trinity and X to win state. Not sure if Boone has a qb with a decent arm, but I know they have at least one talented receiver in Lokesak.

I think so. The kid's first love is bball. And you are right about expectations being high. They are high at Highlands in everything, but to the right type of people, that's not a negative; it's a positive.

A somewhat successful (tongue placed firmly in cheek) coach named Shields didn't think it was a "no-win" situation and won the region with a pretty good frequency. Seems like Code is quite the competitor and if so, I'd assume he would love the challenge of winning the region at a "football school". It has been and can be done. And I disagree with Mustang that the football animal has changed since Shields. I don't recall Shields teams being littered with football players. There were a few on each squad, but there has been a few on Willie's squads. And if Roller had not blown out his knee in a football game, there would have been one more. Perhaps I missed it, but has it really been confirmed that Willie is stepping down?

Great job Coach and boys. :thumb:

I assume CovCath's spring football has ended. Any thoughts and observations about what people observed: i.e. any one take the lead on the qb competition? who is going to be the featured running back? is Wirth installing his version of the spread? etc., etc.

I'm sure TOG knows that. Independents are public schools.

For those expecting CovCath to again really struggle, the Colonels will be a surprise. I'm not saying they will win state, but they will have improved considerably over last year.

On second thought Clyde, don't bother. I'm firm in my belief on this issue and so are you. It's actually kind of foolish to keep going back and forth trying to convince one another that they are wrong. I'm done with this forum for a while. Have a great day my friend and Go Bulldogs!

First of all, I was responding to Clyde's comments, not Rockmom's. Second, Rockmom's point actually may confirm my theory; that the growth of the govt safety net has caused what what was an important function of the church to deteriorate. Furthermore, doesn't Rockmom's post confirm that the current use of the govt to act as the safety net isn't working? So let's forcibly take more of people's money in the form of increased taxes and throw more money at the problem? It's worked so well with education, I'm sure it will work with entitlement/welfare/social programs too. But what the heck, if you're not in a tax bracket that is going to get socked with higher taxes, who cares. Give it a shot. Sorry but I'm not buying it. Clyde, you found those percentages for me yet?

Surprise me and give me the answers. I'm genuinely curious to know what percentage of people in this country have no family that would be willing to take in another family member's child to help out for a while as the parent looks for work. If you can document that there is a large percentage of people in such a position, I'll be more willing to accept your point. But I seriously wonder if that really is the case. Furthermore even if there is a large percentage of people in that position, do you think the present govt safety net has been partially responsible for that occurring? Unions no longer have the position of importance they once held because of all the laws that serve one major function the unions used to fill, which I feel has directly led to the shrinking of union membership; and I feel the growth of the govt safety net has likewise lessened one of the needs for a tight family which has resulted in the breakdown of the family. I think it's had the same effect on the church.

How big was the crowd?

It's House Bill 229, not Senate Bill 229 I believe, if anyone is looking for it.

Every little bit helps.

I'm still chuckling as I type this. A little more graphic than I'd like, but you made your point well.

Why don't they belong to a church? How many people in this country have no family?

And that's what I love about you rockmom. You are a very caring and compassionate person. Kudos to you. :thumb: However, I'm of the mindset that bad decisions are made when the heart controls the brain and I don't mean that in an offensive way. Didn't some/many of Bush's detractors claim that the only reason we invaded Iraq was to get back at Hussein for allegedly attempting to assassinate Bush Sr? If true, wouldn't that be an example of making a poor decision based on emotions? As I've oft stated, I truly love and respect liberals because their political philosophies are based on compassion and wanting to help people. But I think that such emotions can go to far and can cloud good decision making. I truly believe that if the govt continues on a path of wanting to take care of every one in need, more and more people will become dependent on the govt. You may disagree, but that's scary to me and my principles of personal responsibility and self dependence. When I see more and more people exercising the mentality of "I'm going to take govt benefits because I've paid so much in taxes" that alarms me. And if people are going to be forced to pay even more into the govt system, I'm concerned that such mentality is going to grow and I worry that at some time in the future whether we'll have more people taking money out of the system than are placing into the system. Sky is falling thinking on my part? Perhaps. But from my experience and knowledge, most businesses don't fail because one sudden mistake; rather it happens gradually caused by a pattern of mistakes and mismanagement. I don't claim to be some great historian, but I want to recall that dynasties and empires haven't fallen because of one sudden mistake, but rather due to gradual decay and erosion of the values and principles that those dynasties and empires were built upon. I guess the bottom line with me is wondering whether I'd advise my sons to spend a lot of time and money going to college and risk their personal savings to start a business and make money if I felt that the govt was going to take large portions of that money to provide for other people. The larger the portion taken by the govt, the less likely I think I am to advise my sons to do those thinks. With most things in business, it's a risk-reward thing. If the rewards become too small in relation to the risk, then you don't do it. Should you feel guilty for thinking the way you do? No way. Not one iota. I'd only ask that you consider some of the concerns that I've raised. There has to be a fine balancing act done between helping people and placing too much of a burden on society to provide that help, and I'm concerned that the pendelum is swinging too far to the side of creating an excessive burden that will eventually be counterproductive to the best interests of America.