94 Camel

At what point does goose stepping correlate with a socialist agenda, since fascism is on the far right of the political system?

What service industry in this country doesn't have a provit motive. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COMMAND ECONOMY.:eyeonyou:

He is taking money from one percentage of the population and giving it to another against their will. They are stealing money.:puke: BTW, I am not in the economic group that will be stolen from, but it is still stealing by the simple definition of the word.

Booker's or Blanton's over ice.

Congrats to the young man.

This method has been a proven sucess. This makes entirely too much sense. Instead, no child left behind doesn't allow tracking of any kind. The old everyone is college capable. It just doesn't make sense when you take into account differing human ability and interest.

Does it not bother you that this source, if accurate, is giving statistics from the early 90's? Once again, how much redistribution has to occur for it to be unjust? What is 1% of 3,000,000,000,000?

:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

Sounds familiar. From what I hear, some addition by subtraction when it comes to the roster might improve the team. As I recall, the coaching staff had a team finish very close to the state runner ups just a few years ago.

I was refering to Locke, since we are living under a Lockian government and not the Leviathan. Even under the change to pursuit of happiness, the key word is pursuit. People living in abject poverty are not hindered to pursue economic status. Children are provided with a free education that also includes free meals and trasportation. Many do not make the decisions that engage them in that pursuit, but it is far from being hindered by the government, unless you include enabling bad decisions. An 8-15 year old can better themselves if they are living in poverty, but they frankly all too often choose to follow the example of the people that have placed them within that poverty. On the other question that I asked, is the government not approaching unjust when they relieve once citizen of their property and give it to another?

I believe that social contract theory states that governments are formed to protect the natural rights of their citizens, aka life liberty and property. How is the government protecting the right to property when it takes it away from one citizen and gives it to another. Under social contract theory, these actions would make a government unjust.

Most of the guys I know from Cov better get to the gym.

Sure, why follow rules?

Why so picky over a couple of zeros?:jump:

I would say it makes the parents a victim of their poor parenting.:idunno:

As I said before, I totally agree about addiction.

There are no doubt contrasting views, but I don't understand the contrast any more than if people were to suggest that it is ok for a child to grow up in a household with addicts for parents. I am positive of the endgame when it comes to abortion. The results at least vary when it comes to children growing up in an addict household.

I totally agree that a bonus should be based on sucess, and non existant without it.:thumb:

Agreed, but does abortion create no victim?

Why? The kid is willingly attempting to break a state rule. This would hurt one program and benefit another. The kid and his parents made this decision.

Why do we beat around the bush. We are talking about income redistribution. I should simply slot 5% of my income for those that don't take care of their own financial situation. This is due to the fact that our society has made it impossible for people to pull themselves out of poverty. :puke: Wait a second, we are the only society in the world whose poorest people are its most obese. We supply the poor in this country with housing, the ability for an education, and even some disposable income. From what I gather in the conversation, they just need a little more disposable income.:ohbrother:

Boyle county ran a two back set many times, Highland's base was divide gun, and X ran many formations with major sucess being in pro, con, I, and offset I. All three of these teams ran the ball well with two back in the backfield.

If you believe that the debt brought about in the 80's had a larger negative impact on the condition of this nation than a positive one, I am begining to wonder where you get your information. Republican tax cuts and deficit spending changed the world situation in the 80's.

We agree about how you win a football game, we just disagree on whether or not Tony Franklin either invented or promoted it. I have heard the words come out of his mouth that you lengthen the game to give yourself more chances to go to the air and score points. I think a good spread offense still runs the ball 50% of the time, whether it be qb, tail, or a motion reciever. As for this past season, neither the 4a, 5a, or 6a champions were base spread teams. Spread formations were a small part of their offenses, and were overall the least sucessful parts.

Very true. However, I think there is a big difference in running the system and running a spread offense. Franklin's push was to throw the ball 90% of the time, convert one out of three passes for a first, and lengthen the game to give you more plays to go to the air. I think you will find champion teams that run the spread believe, and are able, that they have to run the football well. There was not one team that one state this year that could not run the ball well. I think the term the "system" is overused in confusion with running a spread offense that relies on a 50/50 split of air and ground.