Fastbreak

Time for a desperate last second long pass downfield for a score. Good thing they didn't ask me about a "Hail Mary" in a religious context... :lol:

I agree, Kellen is a great kid that would be an asset to many programs. Part of the problem at home is that Kentucky has fewer options than many other states. We have six Division I schools, that all compete at a high level... or intend to. This requires large and/or extremely athletic bodies (usually both.) There are many players right on that bubble with the size and athleticism to make these teams, but not quite the tools to be key players within those systems. They're faced with choosing to appease their egos and hype and going D-I, or being mature, and choosing a school where they will gain a great education and be able to have a greater impact for their team. It all boils down to what the kid wants. Some are content to sit the bench four seasons just to be a Wildcat, Cardinal or Hilltopper and only touching the floor during warm-ups and after a victory is well settled. UK has a long line of these players. Kids that were heroes on their high school teams, but lucky to get a minute or two on the floor for the Wildcats. Others understand that the NBA is a distant dream, and a solid education with no college debt is a wise choice. If they can do that in a program, where they will have a shot at being a key competitor for four years… all the better. Kentucky only has four D-II schools statewide, whereas other states like NC and PA have more than 20 each. In terms of recruiting, every D-II coach is looking for D-I caliber players. There are only four D-III schools statewide... (which I know cannot "technically" offer athletic schollys, but they do recruit players and put competitive teams on the court.) Some states have over 50 D-III schools. There just aren't as many opportunities inside Kentucky below the D-I level. The one area Kentucky stands out is the NAIA level with 14 schools. Some are highly competitive. Happy Osborne has built a career at Georgetown by welcoming disillusioned D-I recruits to the NAIA level. NAIA schools can offer athletic scholarships, but generally have much less money to work with than NCAA schools. NAIA coaches generally have to decide if they “really” want a couple of players, or if they need to spread the money between several, hoping that a couple rise to the challenge. The bottom line is, it takes a very special student-athlete to earn a “full ride” at any level. :thumb:

Kellen is a fine young man with a stong skill set and a good head for the game. I've had the pleasure of getting to know both him and his dad over the past several years. Great folks. I wish Kellen nothing but the best. Job well done Dad! :thumb:

I took this quiz when it came out Monday and scored 15/15... but then, I have spent a lot of time reading and trying to understand what I need to believe... and why others believe what they do. It goes back to the 80-some percent we hear all the time that claim to believe in God... but when we actually see what it is they believe or genuinely understand... that 80+ percent might actually be less than 40%. Not suggesting that anyone needs to be a religious scholar to believe in or have a relationship with God... in fact, I believe that a genuine relationship with God trumps all the book knowledge anyone could attain. I guess my point is, our relationship with God and our understanding why we believe what we believe is the very most important thing any of us could put our attention to... but for the most part... we don't. God is nowhere near "first place" in most of our lives. He should be. ( I'm preaching at myself first here... )

Well... I think every one of you is priceless... and considering what God was willing to pay for each of us... I'm confident I'm in the correct price range. :thumb:

Sadly, I know many Americans that fit this profile. I doubt whether one of them would actually admit they want things handed to them, but when I see "healthy" adults applying for and receiving government disability, while covertly putting in the manual labor to build a new house for their family... or living on welfare while sporting the latest $400 Coach leather purse, I don't know what else you could honestly call it.

LOL I haven't missed anything. The principle is essentially the same. It is unfair that some "won the lottery of life" and are able to earn more for their talents and efforts than others. This absurdity applies to all areas of life. I only used sports to illustrate the nonsense of this mindset. It amazes me the number of kids and parents that are in favor of "redistrubution of wealth" overall but would scream bloody murder if the high school coach played less gifted less committed little Bobby equal time with their more gifted more committed son. If it's unfair for a coach to play every kid equally, regardless of each kid's talent, physical attributes, work ethic, intelligence and understanding of the game... how is is remotely "fair" to confiscate the financial fruits of the successful and essentially hand it to the less productive? There is a reason we award As to students that study, understand and master various subjects, and lower grades to those who don't. How is it fair to give every kid an A regardless of understanding or effort to gain that understanding? The fact that the less productive have the opportunity to drive the paved roads, cross the bridges, and utilize the infrastructure, law enforcement and other perks paid for by the productive is totally unappreciated. Society benefits far more by rewarding productivity... or at the very least, not punishing it and rewarding nonproductivity with the proceeds.

I say we begin with pro sports. Let's let everyone who dreams of playing in the spotlight have their fair turn. No more distinguishing between those with amazing talent and hard work... and no more paying millions to the superstars. Everyone gets paid the same... and what's the big deal about awarding trophies to winning teams? Why do we even keep score if every one is equal? That should be fun to watch on TV. Then we can do the same thing with doctors. Why should the folks that went to school an extra 12 years get all that extra money for doing things like brain or heart surgery? And don't carpenters use drills too? Why should dentists get paid more for using tiny drills on teeth? After seeing American Idol, I'm aware there are many people who want to sing and have their own albums. Why restrict it to the few who can actually sing in a way our ears can tolerate? Shoot, there's a whole list of people that make lots more more than other folks. It just isn't fair.

Allow me to open with the statement that I consider it my good fortune to have met you in person and I consider you a friend albeit long distance and infrequent. You and I would both concede we are in many ways polar opposites in terms of our politics, but entirely respectful and civil in our interpersonal interactions. I actually enjoy visiting with you when the opportunity permits. That being said, and genuinely expressed… the ongoing attempts to denigrate the Tea Party as nothing more than a bunch of uptight racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, redneck, ignorant cracker astroturfers misses the entire thrust of what they are and what is going on. The media is missing it. The Democrat party is missing it. The Republican party is missing it. For you to continue to assert that there are "more" of these types in the Tea Party than in any other mainstream Party indicates to me you may be missing it too. I have yet to attend a Tea Party rally or donate to a Tea Party candidate, but I certainly relate to the frustration the majority of them express with our government and political process. There is not a racist bone in my body. My feelings and motivations have nothing to do with race. BHO could look like Johnny and Edgar Winters and possess a pristine Anglo-Saxon pedigree for all I care… his policies and vision are IMO horrible for this nation. I would feel the same toward Al Gore, John F. Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, “Fill-in-the-Blank” if they were POTUS implementing the same reckless policies. My feelings have absolutely zero to do with skin color, gender, sexual orientation, hair style, zip code, tax bracket or otherwise. Washington has indeed become a swamp, and it’s time to drain it and evict some of the fattest gators, leeches and parasites… in ALL parties. The ongoing drone by the media to frame the Tea Party as mere Astroturf racists is merely making the media less relevant than they already are to many of us.

And that makes Republicans racist?

So... are you of the opinion that the modern Republican party and the Tea Party are refuges for racists, bigots, homophobes and other just really rotten people?

Okay... I'm a conservative, so clearly I'm a little slow. Please explain to me how 80% of Republicans voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to only 63% of Democrats FOR the Act, and as a result disillusioned Southern Dems switched to Republican and Blacks shifted to the party that was more against the Act?

Or 136 years ago when Abraham Lincoln (another dirty Republican) signed the Emancipation Proclamation leading to immediate freedom for thousands of slaves, and eventually freedom for over four million slaves resulting in the 13th Amendment making slavery illegal. From Lincoln through the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the present, a majority of Republicans have been on the correct side of significant race issues. To attempt to state otherwise is disingenuous both historically and ethically. There is no legitimate basis for labeling the republican party or the tea party movement as racists, especialy by those whose opposition party has historically tended to resist such Kumbaya changes.

Since I wasn't confident you'd have time to look up the votes along party affiliation for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I went ahead and did it for you: The original House version: Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%) Cloture in the Senate: Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%) The Senate version: Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House: Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%) Combining all votes for each party, this works out to: Democratic Party: 395-231 (63%–37%) Republican Party: 328-81 (80%–20%) The whole notion of Republicans as a bunch of elite racist bigots should begin and end here. Without overwhelming 4 to 1 Republican support, (versus only 3-2 Democrat support) LBJ would have had a much more difficult time getting this landmark legislation pushed through. :thumb:

While you and I agree entirely on your garbage bomb concept for Middle East combat... this makes little sense in light of the fact that republican support for Civil Rights legislation far outweighted democrat support in 1964. It's a fact, you can look it up. The whole tactic of labeling those with whom one disagrees as ignorant, racist, bigot, homophobe, rednecks that just aren't smart enough to "get it" is beyond tiresome. I may be wrong, but I for one believe you are better than that. :thumb:

You are most welcome Sir! :thumb:

I dunno... but I think that referring to her as some kind of whack job is entirely out of line given her resume as presented... :lol:

I agree... and I'm sure few were aware or even remember, Rove predicted Castle would win this one. As VoR states, folks are tired of business as usual and traditional party politics. It's time to get things done, and we need some fresh meat in D.C. that haven't settled in or been bought out. As far as baggage, how is it that Rangel won, Frank has won, or Reid, or... I think it's too early for the Dems to start breathing easily on this. One way or another the O train is being diverted.

Perzackly... :lol: The point I was attempting to present, but far more succinctly. :thumb:

In psychiatry the term “phobia” was coined to describe an irrational fear of something. As is the case with an evolving language, meanings of words shift and morph. “Phobia” today apparently encompasses feelings of “contempt”, “prejudice”, “general disdain” or in many cases simply a “disagreement with”. In this regard, I believe we are doing our language a disservice by broadening and weakening the “precise” meanings of descriptive words. In the case of “Islamophobia” our media is in the classical definition “Islamophobic”. The refusal to treat Muhammad on equal (pejorative) terms with Jesus Christ out of fear of reprisals by incensed Muslims qualifies as a “phobia”. Ironically, they are attributed by many as expressing appropriate deference out of sensitivity to Muslims, and it is the folks that speak out against the extremes of the religion that are Islamophobes… although, by the mere act of speaking out against it, they are not exhibiting an “irrational fear” or a “phobia”. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a specific mention or provision for abortion on demand… yet that has become the accepted law of the land. It is legal to purchase large quantities of alcoholic beverages and to then consume them. It is legal to drive down the road with a large Confederate Flag waving behind the cab of your diesel pickup, or to fly a 40 foot Rebel flag on private property across the street from a black church. There are many, many examples of things that are legal, but not very wise… not very compassionate… not very courteous to others. Just because something is “legal” does not make it the “best” or even the “right” thing to do in all circumstances.

No detailed comment on the wisdom of the FL pastor and his throng at this time. I do find it interesting that there is already video on the 24/7 news of protesters in the Middle East burning effigies of the pastor and our flag... and the pastor has yet to set an actual match to anything. I find it interesting that the New Black Panthers are in the pastor's neighborhood preparing to put a stop to the demonstration. I find it interesting that American media refuses to publish cartoons of the prophet muhammad or to air a South Park episode featuring the prophet, but they can't seem to get enough abuse of Jesus Christ and his followers. I find it interesting that we can all see the wrongmindedness of Fred Phelps bunch, or this pastor in Florida, but there are those that vehemently defend the Ground Zero mosque. I find it interesting that we defend the rights of protesters in America to burn our flag, or the Bible, or the Constitution under the First Amendment... but we all can stand together in agreement that what this pastor is proposing is probably not a very good idea.

It would be hypocrisy if C.K. were giving a glowing endorsement to the Reps here. I don't get that from this article. Nor have I gotten it from many of C.K.'s articles. He makes some valid points that cannot simply be brushed away by pointing out how the other guys got some things wrong too. Driving under the influence is wrong, whether the opinion is presented by a lifelong teetotaler or a persistent DUI offender. The introduction of hypocrisy does nothing to diminish the fact that drunk driving is very dangerous.

I got it from your statement, "...it's not like they needed Krauthammer to spell it out for them." There are a lot of people trying to get the Dems attention and they are not listening. I'm not disputing your comment on the Republicans... but politicians in both parties had better start listening to the people who put them there or they will be nothing more than voters themselves.

This is pretty much his point. The dems don't need anyone's help. They have it all figured out. They only need us to pay our taxes and trust them while they vote on bills they don't bother to read before they vote to make law. I can understand them not listening so some redneck from Kentucky, but to ignore one of the brighter political minds out there is at their own peril.

The very fact that liberal democrats in Washington do not get what C.K. is spelling out clearly for them is validation of C.K.'s prediction of a comeuppance in November. The potential problem for Republicans is going to be whether they learned anything from their recent comeuppance.