MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF

Except the main difference: U.S. citizen taxpayers were not subsidizing their kids' breakfasts and lunches year round or giving them subsidized rent and other goodies just for crossing the border. Understood that you will never be able to weed out all of the crazies. However, this guy - suspected of having terrorist ties - is different. The FBI did interview him several times, but backed off. That is different than the autistic kid in New Hampshire and the racist in South Carolina.

The problem now - for us and UTSA - is hanging on. If these guys have solid senior years, it's possible that those higher up the food chain eventually offer them. This is where Littrell & Co. will earn their bones - making the early commitments stick.

Exactly! And, here is the other piece of the puzzle that is different, that socialists tend to ignore (wilfully?): for immigrants 100 years ago and before, there was no welfare system, which began during the Great Depression. Immigrants - and, their kids - now get all sorts of benefits courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Back then, they didn't get jack squat. Immigrants then knew that coming to America, they'd have to work hard. But, then, that was the lure: in America, you could work hard and get ahead. Not so in the countries they left. Immigrants now, to get the basics of living, don't have to work. They merely need a kid - who will get free education, breakfast and lunch, year round, lowered/subsiduzed rents for you, etc. To compare immigration pre-Great Depression/Welfare Era, to post-Great Depression/Welfare Era is to compare apples to oranges. It's not the same, or even close to the same. It's disingenuous at its core to say that immigrants 100 years ago were in the same state as those today. It's simply a lie. Immigrants used to come for opportunity to be successful due to their own hard work. Immigrants now flood the border, then demands rights and handouts. It's sickening to watch.

More Messi free kicks. Ridiculous angle at about 1:50, and...knowing the opposition will try to head the ball at about 2:20, kicks it on the ground. F*cking ridiculous:

In case some non-soccer Mean Greener wanders in here and has no idea what we are talking about, here is Messi free kick goal against us: If you've never played soccer, you have no idea how difficult - impossible - this kick is to make. And, against Brad Guzan, one of the few truly international-level U.S. soccer players. Guzan was f*cking playing the corner Messi netted! This is a Premier League goalkeeper protecting the part of the net that Messi targeted. It's an insane goal. But, that is the difference between international football and American soccer, in a nutshell. One of our best can be doing everything correct...and, still be burned.

The problem with U.S. soccer will always be the same: the best athletes in this country do not play soccer. In other countries, the best athletes do play soccer. The highest paid athletes in the world, according to Forbes: American baseball players - 26 in the Top 100 highest paid American football players - 21 American basketball players - 18 Soccer - 12 So, 77% of the Top 100 paid athletes in the world play either America baseball, football, or basketball - or, are international soccer stars. There isn't one American soccer player on the list. Among the Top 25 paid athletes, five are international soccer stars. American football players have six in the Top 25. Golf has four. Tennis, Racing, and American basketball, three. Boxing, one. All you have to do is watch Messi's penalty kick goal against us to understand how far apart international soccer talent is from U.S. soccer talent. It's f*cking mesmerizing. You have to look at Messi's three goals in 19 minutes two games prior (yes, one should have been nullified by a hand ball penalty, but still...no American soccer player can net three in 19 minutes against anyone internationally). As a substitute. (Actually, I think that was unfair of Argentina...unleashing a fresh Messi on a squad that has already been toiling in the heat for over an hour? It's already unfair enough with Messi starting. Stick him in when 2/3rds of the game has already been played in America's summer heat? Come one, Argentina...you know that's not fair!) So, taking the long view, I always have to kind of chuckle at people who criticize whomever the latest American team coach is. The truth is, in countries like Argentina, you probably have the best two dozen of so athletes in that country playing on the same team! With American soccer, by contrast, it's doubtful that any player on the roster is even one of the best 250 athletes in America. So, answer this: how is that the America coaches' fault? No America coach can magically makes the best athletes in America play soccer. American soccer has wracked its collective brain since the 70s trying to crack the riddle of how to get kids as interested in soccer here as they are in baseball, basketball, and football. It's a problem for American soccer that other countries simply do not have! Other countries' soccer programs, like Argentina, basically get the best athletes in their country by default: there is no other legitimate competition for their youths' sports attention. If you ask me, then, anytime America makes it past the first round or two of international soccer matches, the coach has earned his keep. He is having to do with an America roster whose players likely wouldn't even crack the roster of another international squad. And, listen, I love soccer. Played club soccer all the way through high school. My dad had season tickets to the Dallas Tornado as far back as when they played at Ownby Stadium. I bought season tickets to the Dallas Burn the first four years of its existence until I moved to Oklahoma for grad school. The point is, when you are watching the U.S. Men's National team, those are the best athletes in the world. It hurts to say that. But, you see what happens when they match up against a country like Argentina. Lionel Messi is enough. But, every other player on that roster, almost to a man, is a world class soccer player. You can say that about only a handful of America players. Baseball, basketball, and football - and, golf and tennis...and, even boxing and now MMA...get better athletes than the American Men's Soccer team.

What you are seeing is America being destroyed, little by little. The future of America is Detroit. You call it pessimism, but it's reality. Socialism doesn't work in places where there are too many ignorant. poor people. What gets dragged out for examples of successful socialism are countries like Sweden, whose population is 80-90% Swedish, very small at less than 10 million, with very little immigration or foreign influence. America is different. The huddled masses now come mainly from Mexico, and Central and South America. There are more illegal immigrants in America than there are inhabitants of Sweden by a count of almost 2 to 1. And, they are not wealthy or educated. Add those poor to our already expanding welfare class, and you get what you get: the seeds of Idiocracy - the world here not becoming better with time, but worse and poorer. The poor choose politicians with the most pie-in-the-sky promises. But, look around. For all of the money thrown into ghettos by local, state, and federal politicians, has anything changed? No. Again, your model is Detroit. It's been run by socialist exclusively for almost 50 years now. It's a sh*thole. America is becoming the same - and, more and more, by judicially mandated and protected acts. Because those who treasure safety and education have fled Detroit-like cities, the courts are now mandating that poverty and those who practice the lifestyles that lead to it, be foisted upon suburbs under threat of federal penalties. You are no longer allowed to move to a safe place, mind your own business, and get on with your own life. Doing such is now deemed, "covert racism/subtle racism/systemic racism, etc." All you've done is set up your life in the safest possible place to live, work and raise a family. You are now that target of a government bent of making the mistake of punishing you with socialism. You can't tell the poor to stop smoking dope, committing crimes, and having kids out of wedlock. That's racist. You don't understand. You got it? You don't understand. The government understands - you have things that the poor want, but won't work to get. You don't know you're racist. You're too ignorant to understand that what your community needs is a little Detroit in it so that you can understand the poor. Buckle up. The Electoral College is against the GOP. Barack Obama proves that poor candidates with no track record can be elected by the jealous masses of socialists. Hillary is a shoe in. The 10th Amendment has already been rendered moot, even by Justices such as John Roberts. Once Hillary appoints her choice, what has been a gradual decline toward socialism will become more rapid. Look at Venezuela. People don't demand change until they are starving. And, still - STILL - they may not get change because of the jealousy and sloth instilled into the masses in poverty. In spite of all its abject failures wrought for decades by those who run it, Detroit still elects politicians of the same stripe. Ghettos remain ghettos. And, because you won't move to the ghetto, the politicians and the judiciary that back them, will move the ghetto to you. And, so what is the GOP answer to all of this: let's fight about a slam dunk background check for those on terror lists? Stupid. Utterly stupid and shortsighted to the end. RIP, GOP.

The Republicans couldn't even stop a candidate as weak as Barack Obama. How did you expect them to beat Hillary Clinton? The major cities in each state control the Electoral count. Do you see the pattern - the candidates of both parties keeps getting worse, but the Democrats still win? At some point, you have to look at demographics and admit that we are on the slide towards the type of governments they have in Mexico, and Central and South America. The middle class keeps shrinking, the rich buy the political class in power. The political class in power stays in power by continuing to make promises to the ever growing poor populace. We have creeping socialism. Everyone will be equally poor, as in most socialist countries in this hemisphere. Be happy if you are old, and weep for the young. America's best days are long gone; it's institutions are corrupt to the core.

You have to be realistic about the Electoral College. Forget, for a moment, about Trump. How in the world do you think a Republican, with demographics now being what they are, wins Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania? And, even by some miracle a GOP was able to win one of those again, how do they win the Electoral College while still losing the other two? It's not going to happen. Because of St. Louis, Missouri is on the verge of being nationally blue forever as well. Texas will be within 20 years. Trump simply makes what will be a victory by a very poor candidate in Hillary Clinton that much easier. The fact of the matter is, Republicans, with these votes, had an opportunity to have a hand in how gun laws would be tweaked. Once Hillary is elected, you can throw that out the window. Her Supreme Court nominee will be as Liberal as those Obama appointed, and will interpret the 2nd Amendment far differently than the NRA and its politicians and members. It's common sense legislation scuttled by special interests and sick, slavish devotion to those special interests.

Yes, I know that. That was the reason for the entire post. You have polls showing that over 80% of people who identify as Republicans and Democrats saying they want some sort of ban on gun purchases for people on a terror list. This is low-hanging legislative fruit. But, instead of actually passing a common sense measure, the two sides have again decided to protect their interest groups and go into full posturing mode. In the end, it won't matter because the GOP is lost to the point of having Donald Trump as their nominee. Hillary Clinton, with a mixture of Donald Trump and changing demographics favoring Democrats in the Electoral College, will win the elections. And, I predict now, that one of her first Executive Orders will be expanding restrictions on who can purchase firearms. And, because the Supreme Court is now, and will be in the future, in favor of more Liberal legislative and Executive act, it will uphold the Order. The NRA will weep and gnash their teeth, of course. But, few beyond their paying donors and bought off politicians will care.

That's not a third option - I've already said that's what the two parties do: (1) protection their paid interests first and foremost, (2) attempt to gain PR advantage on every issue.

I forgot which terrorist organization Adam Lanza pledged his support to. And, what terrorist organizations the Feds found him to be communicating with. Refresh our memories, please.

Yes, and so why aren't the two sides compromising and getting it done? That's my point. It's clear that both sides want to pass legislation of some sort to prevent people on terror list from purchasing firearms. But, it's also clear that neither side will compromise to actually get it done. That's right. So, don't sell guns to terrorist. He agrees because he voted for Cornyn's bill.

I don't think the answer is ever to make everything free. Mainly, because it's not really free. You are shifting the cost onto the middle class. (Yes, yes...I know politicians say they've "taxing the rich" when they raise taxes to pay for things. But, the truly wealthy don't have to keep making money on their annual tax returns. So, it's a burden that falls on the middle class. SEE Affordable Care Act.) Part of the problem is that the government doesn't really know what the f*ck to do. They forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't handle mortages under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. That "make it easy for the poor" scheme crashed hard in September 2008. Hard work is certainly an integral part of the equation. What I think has to change, fundamentally, is the education system. There has to be something in place to teach kids not to be swindled by both private business and the government.

So, which Senator do you want to get rid of first, Cornyn or Cruz, because they both voted for Cornyn's bill which would have created a three day waiting period for people on terror watch lists?

I mostly thank God for the Inquisition because my ancestors were Huguenots forced to flee France for the Netherlands, then England, then America, because they were Protestants. If not for the Inquisition, our family would likely still be living in godforsaken Europe. (And, yet...all these centuries later, I married a Catholic. A Mexican Catholic; but a Catholic, nonetheless. Sorry, ancestors.)

Hard to believe how petty those two groups are over the gun control tweak. Republican Cornyn's bill would have flagged people of terror lists. So did Feinstein's. Cornyn's had a waiting period for "due process?" Three days. Who the f*ck thinks due process is a three day thing? And, Cornyn has a law degree? Feinstein's bill would block anyone on a terror list from buying a firearm, period. So, f*cking stupid. Cornyn's bill: 53-47 vote...not the 60 needed. Feinstein's: 47-53...not the 60 needed. GOP's Grassley and Jackass Party's Murphy also had bills, but they also failed along similar vote line. Utterly stupid. For the sake of seven votes, the Senator's of both parties can't do the right thing. It is more important for the them to "be right" and "win" in the eyes of the most extreme wings of their constituencies than to actually do some good. God forbid that each side's talking heads can't get on CNBC, CNN, FOXNews, and MSNBC and claim "victory." That's what it's really about these days; and, that's all it's about. And, people wonder why I haven't bothered to vote in a decade. The 21st Century politicians in America are worthless f*cking PR machines for whomever bids the most for their interest. The whole lot of them, both sides of the aisle, have divided up the country for the sake of unions, insurers, Planned Parenthood, and the NRA. Not one of them is worth a squirt of goat piss - politician, union, insurer, Planned Parenthood, or the NRA. Not one. It doesn't matter. When the GOP totally implodes during and after the 2016 elections, Hillary and all future Democratic presidents will simply rewrite the laws via executive order, as Bush and Obama have spent the last decade+ doing. And, you know what? I don't f*cking blame them, Bush or Obama. We have three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. If the legislative branch has decided to opt out for the sake of their own (union, insurer, Planned Parenthood, and NRA) PR battles, then they have no one to blame but themselves when the laws of this country are written by the president and tweaked by the Supreme Court. Congress is dead because the parties are too stupid to cooperate even on issues where the vast majority of the electorate agree. Pathetic.

Not successful yet: None of the Shanbour Faction have yet waded into the discussion.

Agree. This is essentially what happened with Houston in 2011. Opening the new stadium. Texas school with more pull as an opponent. We actually miss a bowl bid by one game that season, but what thereafter? I do think there will be value in the SMU series if we win more than we lose during its span. SMU is not Houston or Tech, but some think its more visible nationally than us. Win SMU, and I think every season sets up pretty nicely for us. Army is not ever going to be competitive because of their constraints. So, with a serious coach, wins there should be relatively easy to come by. Ditto FCS schools. It just sets up well. We can get half of our wins needed to be bowl eligible every year just in OOC games. As I've said before, then, just breaking even in C-USA would have us bowling every year - and that would add butts in seats without all of this caterwauling about Tech and other schools not coming to Denton. Take advantage of what we do have coming to Denton: SMU, Army, and winnable FCS games. It's really not as bad as people make it out to be. It's not like we're Kansas football sitting at the bottom of the Big 12 trying to untangle the Gordian Knot of how to compete with Texas and OU.

He won't see the field unless Morris is injured or to take snaps and hand off at the end of blow outs, so the question is moot.

I'm not sure it's all just government. Too much government is always bad. But, too much capitalism is as well. And, by "too much," I mean unregulated. Then...you have the Chinas of the world where "too much government" meets unregulated capitalism...so, you get child labor. If you think the rich get richer under capitalism, go look at the chasm between the rich and poor in countries like China and our Southern neighbor, Mexico. Anyway, I think the point of the article is, when you step back an look at the whole situation, the Millennials have had a far more difficult set of circumstances than the Gen Xers (me) and Baby Boomers (my parents). A key pieces, to me are these: -Baby Boomers grew up at a time when America led the world by default - the rest of the industrialized world had just been ravaged by WWII. We could be inefficient and still lead the way. We saw that change in the 70s and 80s. -GenXers didn't quite have the benefit of competing against post-WWII destoyed/rebuilding nations, but did benefit - for a while, anyway - from the Soviets and most other communist countries tapping out. Money was then freed from defense expenditures. Millennials have come up in the era of these free trade agreements that lessened America's lead in economic growth. At the same time, you have big business finally marrying up with Democrats at the same rate they used to with Republicans. The result: two foxes guarding the hen house. There is no party, now, to "stick up for the little guy." On the one hand, Republicans guard the small businesses, whose Chamber of Commerce is okay with open borders for cheap labor. On the other, Democrats keep big businesses guarded with a steady stream of government-to-business players between Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. Finally, Millennials have grown up in an era where terrorist have replaced standing, uniformed, easy-to-identify enemies. Whereas we feared a far away country send nuclear missiles our way, Millennials have grown up with the reality that they could simply to go a movie, to church, to a dance club, or to work and be massacred by "homegrown" terrorists of all stripe. Millennials surely bring much of their woes upon themselves. However, the landscape they grew up in was vastly different socially, economically, and geopolitically than for us.

True, as always. I also think, as I posted before, that our alumni just didn't put alma mate athletics #1 on their to-do lists. Is that good or bad? Don't know. If you crave what OU and Texas have, it's bad. If you are fine with college football being a social event you hit every now and then to see old friends, it's good. It can be both. But, our alumni historically has simply had a different train of thought about athletics.

This Agree about the distances. The bottom line is, we are all programs - those of us in the Sun Belt and C-USA - whose leadership in the late 80s and early 90s didn't recognize that the college arms race was heating up. So...I mean, we can pretend to be many things. But, the reality is, we are what we are: schools whose alumni didn't pony up enough money fast enough - and, largely, still are not ponying up enough money - to get to even Tulsa- or Cincinnati-like status. And, that to go along with school leadership that didn't understand what was happening in the broad college football landscape. It just didn't happen, and still isn't happening. So, again...look reality in the face and get us into a conference which makes more sense regionally for the sake of, at minimum, cutting costs for our already cash-strapped athletic departments. In short, what happened to our schools beginning in the late 80s to now is the real life illustration of Nice Guys Finish Last. We never pushed, fought, and clawed anyone to work our way up - not conferences, not schools, not the NCAA, not our own alumni.

The demise of The Flying Tomato was the beginning of the end.

We'll go at least 2-2 in OOC games. So, 3-9 is too bleak. Littrell, Morris, & Co. will win at least four. I think the ceiling for 2016 is seven wins. At that point, many of you will either: (1) Eat crow, or (2) Become fans of another school