David Crockett

So had I read your posts, I would have realized that my opinion was in error? Or are you assuming my post was in response to or in rebuttal of your posts? You're one arrogant cat, I'll give you that.

Who says I agree with Citizens United? You created the straw man; you whack away at it. I'd also offer that you're not making as much of a parallel argument as you think you are.

No, I didn't. But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation. Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function? Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so. And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.

Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so. You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead. You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being. That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct. And now you're doing it again. "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it." First of all, I never read any of your previous posts. My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read. Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution. For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it. "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero. I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site. I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here. I can live without either.

And I'm an asshole because I disagree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here re: the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade? I think one could say some of y'all's reaction to someone not falling in line makes YOU an asshole. Even if that's true, have at it if that's what gets you off. It makes no difference to me. It's the internet.

We'll never know since he appears to be uninterested in making a point, instead choosing to posture in front of his e-friends. The dynamic here is amusing. It's not my "house" though, so I have at it.

Is that the internet version of a bunch of pussies acting tough? If that's what brings you satisfaction and gives you a little dopamine hit, then have at it, big guy.

If you're looking to be the recipient of a virtual handjob from your internet friends, then based on what I've seen so far, your current approach of the intellectually shallow drive-by is likely the most effective. If you'd like to make your point about about corporate personhood, then by all means make it.

Because it's a straw man. If he wants to make a point regarding the Constitutionality of corporate personhood, he is free to do so. And I might even agree with it. Who knows?

Thank you for the reasoned argument instead of taking the shortcut of passive aggressive smart ass comments from behind a keyboard. Much appreciated. Passing amendments is supposed to be difficult. Maybe not to the extreme you indicate, but difficult nonetheless. The reason that's a good thing is because most issues, especially contentious ones, should be handled at a level closest to the people. Californians decide for Californians, Texans for Texans, and so on. It's not supposed to be easy for State A to impose their beliefs/values/desires on State B, thus the difficulty in amending the Constitution that covers us all. As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand the "throw people in cages" reference, but yeah, some sort of solution that makes everyone happy would be ideal. In the absence of that though, "let the States decide" is the best alternative (because it's the Constitutional alternative).

Nor should you.

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]." You don't even know my stance on abortion. It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling. Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.

Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?

Is the hobbies forum the place where people make arguments based on calm, rational thought and reason in lieu of simply emoting?

Can you quote/cite the right to abortion in the United States Constitution?

Pussy.

Don't be passive aggressive. Say what you mean. It's the internet; you're safe.

Regardless of one's views on abortion, it's disheartening to see the emotionally-driven ignorance with regard to how the government/Constitution works. Roe v. Wade was bad law. There is no Constitutional Right to an abortion, therefore the issue should be handled at the state level. It's a 10th Amendment issue, so sending it back to the states is the Constitutionally correct decision. The Supreme Court didn't "ban abortion." Individual states might, but the Supreme Court didn't. Nor did they overturn the "Constitutional right to an abortion", because there is no constitutional right to an abortion. There SHOULD be discussions/debates/"fights" over the issue of abortion. Those fights should happen within the states, at a level closer to the people impacted by whatever decision they make. Unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then the matters of State A belong to the people in State A. Want abortion? Knock yourself out. Don't want abortion? Okay. Also, Supreme Court justices should not be left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. They are there to do legal work, not political work. It should be one of the easiest legal jobs out there. Hear the case, refer to the Constitution, ask "is it in here?", if yes/allow it, if no/send it back to the states. It's an open book exam.

I was being sarcastic; just forgot the smiley. Agreed on the OL; Sark's bringing them in (as he should) and we should be looking good in that regard. Sark's also a very good QB developer/coach. Just look at the laundry list of QBs he's coached who've gone into the NFL. Could be simply correlation, but it's hard to say he had nothing to do with it. If we can get a defense, we'll win more than we lose for sure.

I'm not saying they suck, just that they may not be insta-Heismans. I know quite a few people in Louisiana who know football (not just fans, but KNOW the game), know the Mannings, and have watched the kid play every week for years. These are people who deify the Mannings, and they still say - when they're being honest/frank - that he's 85% baller and 15% hype from his last name. The word is that Howard Walker (the kid LSU got) is a better QB - and again, this is from people who worship all things Manning. All that being said, don't misunderstand me - I'm thrilled we got him and I think he'll be a helluva QB if he's got tools to work with and a little protection. I'm not being negative here, just not ready to start counting the trophies just yet. As for the SEC, I wouldn't call my comments concern. I'm being realistic based on personal experience. I played a little bit of collegiate athletics, am still in shape in my 40s, and can still perform at an elite level (in what I do now). I SEE what my eyeballs are looking at, and there's a difference between large/strong/mature kids and 20-year old grown ass men. I walked into a gym in SEC country and thought I was looking at a bunch of 27-30 year old athletes. Nope. 19-20 year olds who were redshirted, on the practice squad, not dressing out that week for whatever reason, etc. I had been around Big 12 athletes and I, myself, scoffed at the idea that the SEC was a different level...until I saw it with my own eyes. The play on the field is faster, harder hitting, you name it. Does that mean they always win? Of course not. Like I said, it's a team sport where coaching and execution still play a major role. If it was ONLY dependent on raw athleticism, then yeah, they'd probably win every time. Texas can and will compete, BUT they will have to move from Big 12 athletes to SEC athletes and change their style of play to mean/nasty/tough. Otherwise they'll win a few, but lose plenty as well. If we want consistent 10-win seasons, they can't be the old Texas. My opinion only, of course.

I don't think Arch Manning is quite as good as the hype. But he IS still very talented and while Sark's record as a HC ain't great, he has an incredible history with QBs. I think the combination will result in an extremely good QB in the end. AND the Manning name/hype will bring recruits. UT just needs to beef up the guys in the trenches on both sides and they'll be a competitive team for awhile. The same can be said for Ewers. They may not win the Heisman, but they'll be good enough at QB to give us a chance in any game (assuming we get them some big guys on the line and a serviceable defense). I remember the Big 12 in its heyday and how I used to scoff when people said the SEC is just different. And then I lived in SEC country for a few years and believe me, it's just different. The raw athleticism (size/strength/speed) is a cut above what you see anywhere else in the country, including the Big 10. It's still a team game that includes coaching and execution, but in terms of the raw building blocks (the individual athlete), there's no comparison. We will have to step up our game on the OL and DL to compete.

"You’re getting at least 2 out of each of them and probably 3 out of at least 1." He meant championships.

If you ask an aggy, they'll tell you that their school and ours offer comparable academics. One is top 50 globally and the other barely makes the top 200. Yep, virtually the same. 🤣

Can't wait for football season so we can celebrate another year of mediocrity.

Bet aggy doesn't waste a runner on 2nd with no outs.