Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42441
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. That doesn't look like a Loreal special there.
  2. Factually, the game was January 10. Sark did not appear at Junior Day January 25. Bobby B reported flu. https://ontexasfootball.com/forums/topic/5734-note-on-junior-day/
  3. Let's add some more facts to the divorce scenario. They announced it last July. https://www.kxan.com/news/local/steve-sarkisian-wife-loreal-jointly-file-for-divorce/ The baby was born around April 2025. https://longhornswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/2025/04/04/texas-hc-steve-sarkisian-welcomes-new-born-son-with-wife-loreal/82898381007/ So, that's an amazing 9 months. I suppose it's credible that they kept boning right up until the filing and after, but . . . . The reconciliation was reported in October, just a couple months later.
  4. The implication is that he didn't know he wasn't the father until later. I disagree somewhat with Nicole that he doesn't want to be at Texas. I do agree that this is a massive distraction, under both scenarios and exacerbated whatever disconnect exists between Sarkisian and his offensive talent/coaches.
  5. The real substance is that he and Loreal announced an amicable divorce and then some months later reconciled over the fact that she was pregnant. That much is 100% public and factual. The additional gloss is that Sark is not the father. That seems to be at least semi-credible, but is not verified. Some other gloss is the rumor that Loreal is not well-liked by the administration.
  6. He's a fuckin loon.
  7. I could conjure a scenario where getting out of the Arch quagmire and getting away from his personal/marital problems means he's willing to do about anything to gtfo with some dignity intact. On the other hand, as a recovering alky I think he knows that geographical solutions are no solution at all. He's even tried one before.
  8. There's a giant disconnect somewhere between what Sark wants to do and what his players can consistently execute. Most especially on OL, but almost everywhere on offense. I'm no longer sure where that disconnect lies, but Sark needs to fix that shit and right soon. I have put a lot of faith in Sarkisian, but I am worried that the disconnect lies between his ears.
  9. The Manning thing is quite a quagmire for ol' Steve. I can't imagine anyone is content with it and it risks ruining Sark's reputation and recruiting.
  10. This is the most damning fact. The second most damning fact is a stint in the Texas AG office. Or maybe that's reversed. Otherwise, he's got pretty good UT bona fides. It appears that he's just smart enough, or has enough love for the University, to know that the sucking up has to be kept on the QT, at least for a while. You know damn right the pressure from Abbott and the BOR to bend the knee was withering.
  11. This is all true, but 956' point remains that they use this petty crime and disorder to great effect in arousing moral panic among those inclined to panic morally.
  12. Well, that's certainly unusual, to my knowledge. IIRC, you're in pretty far west Texas, where you might think most criminal defendants are of limited means. Oddly enough, with a smaller client, billing by the hour might tend to align costs with objectives better than an all-inclusive flat fee. But there's a big risk of non-payment if the work is billed after it's done. Using bail as an example. Under pre-reform schemes, there might be a sort of standard amount of bail in a court/jurisdiction for a certain crime that tends to be imposed in a cookie-cutter fashion, as in "oh, agg assault, that'll be 50k, please." And opposing that bail or asking for a reduction, might not be a very high-percentage of winning, absent some special facts. So prepping and making a bail-reduction motion takes four hours at $250, or $1000. While the bail itself is $5000. Could be very worthwhile if there are facts that support the reduction, but the attorney fees are sunk. But if you have a $10k all-inclusive flat fee, a low-percentage bail motion probably gets ignored in favor of trial prep/seeking a plea.
  13. Well, carbon black is too fine to be gritty, so there's that. But it gets everywhere and on everything, there seems to be no escape.
  14. Yeah Trump proved conclusively that behaving like a 14 year old boy wins elections. This America, man.
  15. 7-11 doesn't hire felons. At least not to work in stores.
  16. Well, past governments have been somewhat uptight about IP. But these tech oligarchs started as some form of libertarian and were all "too good" for IP. They have been dangerous on that front for 20 years. The proprietors of luxe "IP" could have shut down Canal Street many times over, and probably have. But it's one of those things that's going to crop back up again, anyway. I think those IP owners have decided to focus on more systematic larger-scale counterfeiters/infringers that do more damage than the motley group of Canal Street vendors.
  17. That Tim Burchett twat retweeted this. He's neck and neck with Tuberville for dumbest motherfucker in Congress.
  18. The most notable thing about tire plants is the ubiquitousness of carbon black. If you're not familiar, its very fine black dust like powdered charcoal. It's an essential ingredient in tire manufacturing and gets EVERYWHERE, like beach sand, but worse.
  19. Pretty sure that's jizz. Also, glad it wasn't actually a flashbang or the victim would be dead.
  20. Something GoLL said hit home. Trump has provoked an underclass revolt. And managed to target absolutely the wrong people.
  21. Brisket got his ass chewed by Edith? Niiiice. I'm fairly in awe.
  22. Well, he's right in the sense that they are able to use relatively minor "public disorder" as a proxy for actually dangerously high crime and maintain the illusion that crime is actually high when it's actually falling. Same with unrestrained immigration. The only real danger of truly open borders/unrestrained immigration is that we have no idea who's coming, or going. But that's an illusory problem, because most actually dangerous people that want to slide in here to do crimes or terrorism are going to be able to do so, regardless. Just like drug importation and illegal immigration are virtually unrelated. But the averages schmuck is easily wound up over these things with little understanding. I think a lot of Trump voters that were wound up about immigration truly thought they'd be able to deport a million illegals straight from criminal courts or caught in the act and not have to resort to these tactics. The truly depraved ones -- and there are a lot -- truly wanted this. But I think there are a fair number that were worked up about immigration that bought into the lies and thought this would actually be a different and good thing.
  23. I mean, I'm an IP guy and I don't really have a big problem with the counterfeit market on Canal Street, which has been there for decades, through tough on crime administrations and not so tough. But if some asshole was to make a big ass issue out of if during his campaign and generate a bunch of faux outrage over it, especially the "colorful" vendors in the market, well, we might have a different scenario. And it was a huge benefit to ratchet Jersey Shore chicks that want swap meet Louis. And their boyfriends and big gaudy Faulexes.
  24. Qualified immunity comes up most often in the context of civil suits for money damages (as opposed to injunctive relief). But it would also provide a defense to criminal charges against a federal official acting in his/her official capacity. There are a range of immunity defenses that might be available to a federal official ranging from absolute to "qualified." And, while "qualified immunity" has come to refer most often to the defense to constitutional torts (those officials are mostly absolutely immune under state law to state law torts and federal law to federal and state torts without a constitutional dimension), qualified just means not absolute. More than you wanted to know, but an accessible and contemporary law review article. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2006&context=wmborj
×
×
  • Create New...