DoubleEagle
-
Posts
180 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Points
950 [ Donate ]
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
GoMeanGreen.com
Posts posted by DoubleEagle
-
-
..will be looking to have the ESPN3 telecast (streaming) on the big screen TV's as well...
Have you confirmed you will be able to stream the ESPN3 feed?
-
To add to a little scientific vocabulary and context, gravity is currently nothing more than a theory. It's not proven, just supported by lots of data, and bruised knees, and dropped passes.
Adding to this, here is a quote from the National Academy of Sciences --
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
-
2
-
1
-
-
No offense to your girl friend but not believing in evolution is not believing in science is bunk. Only a little more than half of the biological scientists say that they believe in evolution and that number is decreasing even in the face of being denied research funds. In fact, that is purportedly the major reason that scientists won't deny evolution because it would cut them out of research money. (Research funds are the backbone to discoveries, especially in medicine, so they remain essential). There are elements of microevolution in Darwin's theory that are sound but none of that substantiates how man evolved from a simple form to the complexity of the human body.
I would be interested in seeing the source for your first claim (% of biological scientists who believe in evolution). While it is true that roughly half of Americans reject evolution, the theory is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. In 2007 the Discovery Institute, founded to promote the teaching of intelligent design, was only able to identify 700 scientists out of over 480,000 U.S. based earth and life scientists that gave credence to creation science:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2732
Also, in 2006 the International Council for Science, an umbrella group for 120 national scientific bodies, released a statement regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution:
http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/teaching-of-evolution-june-2006
-
3
-
1
-
-
I received a call from Natalie Jakopin on the swim team. I really appreciate the effort to reach out to the donors. Well done.
-
1
-
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what is "ST role"?
Special Teams
-
I'd like to think that you and I had something to do with the value they got out of our watching parties there. Good job to you sir.
X2
-
1
-
-
SO WHO'S COMING TO RUDY'S???
I'll be there.
-
1
-
-
Maybe you should try the US treasury site... more reliable than Wikipedia and an odd Wikipedia site at that.
I used the Wikipedia data because it was straightforward, easy to understand and, at least in this case, accurate. Regardless, I am glad to see you reference data from a reliable source. My issue with your data is that it is irrelevant in the evaluation of the burden of debt across time periods (i.e. different administrations) because it excludes the impact of two critical variables...size of the economy and inflation. To account for both variables you need to adjust the metric to debt/GDP, which is what the graphs I referenced represent. The national debt after World War II may have been only $257B, but that amount represented 80% of GDP at the time. Alternatively, the debt at the end of 2011 was $14.8T, which represented 68% of GDP...a significant, but lower burden. The link I provided to the White House OMB data provides a yearly breakdown.
.... quote reliable sourses. ... not surprised you ignored this one....
The data I posted is accurate, regardless of the site it came from.
-
It's on wikipedia...good enough for me.
Does data published by the White House meet your standards?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Table 7.1, column "I"
-
1
-
-
Dare to explain how you think the era-2001-2009 was conservative financially... Don't mention 9-11, even World War II didn't add as much to the debt as that era did
You need to check your facts. World War II drove the national debt to the highest level in U.S. history:
http://en.wikipedia....t_1790-2009.png
Also, for a more objective look at debt to GDP take a look at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia....t_1901-2010.png
Based on that graph, the debt expansion under Obama far exceeds anything that occurred under GWB...or any president since 1901 (excluding World War II).
-
2
-
-
Thanks for the link. Do visitors park in the garage? That is the only lot I saw that didn't require a Cougar Pride donation.
-
1
-
-
I live in Allen and this issue boils down to two points:
1. Did Allen need a new football stadium?
Yes. As much as any high school needs a new stadium Allen was desperately in need. The old stadium (1976) had 7,200 permanent seats and temporary seating to bring the total to 14,000. Attendance at most games was standing room only. There were 900 parking spaces, 27 individual restroom facilities and 6 concession lines to accommodate these crowds.
The new stadium will provide 18,000 seats, 1500 parking spaces, 242 individual restroom facilities and 42 concession lines to accommodate 8,000 season ticket holders, a 700+ person band and the second largest student body in the state (5,300). The opening game against Southlake Carroll will be standing room only.
2. Did Allen spend too much on the new stadium?
I don't know. The stadium will drive incremental economic activity in the form of higher attendance as well as additional events we have already secured (a few non 5A regular season football games, likely a few November playoff games, the Tom Landry Classic beginning in 2013 and the NFL Network's "Texas vs. the Nation" all star game). The all star game is estimated to bring in $750K-$1M in annual economic impact. Additionally, ten local businesses have signed on as sponsors including Market Street, MetroPCS, Texas Health, Dr. Pepper, Chick-fil-A and Dickey's.
Ultimately, the taxpayers of Allen decided this facility was a worthwhile investment for the community as well as a reward for the outstanding Allen Athletic program. Time will tell.
-
Posts like this make me want to put my head through the wall, as it reminds me of our arguments against the narrow-minded people who were against building Apogee.
First, Allen ISD is an exemplary school district based on requirements by the Texas Education Agency. The high school is the second largest in the state with an exemplary rating.
Second, the bond issue to build the stadium only after bond money had been spent to improve educational facilities at each and every campus within the district.
Third, the bond issue included expanding the high school for a new fine arts center and career center.
Fourth, the bond issue was approved by the voters of Allen ISD. If they are scratching their heads, they did not make an informed vote.
Fifth, the state of Texas requires bond money to be spent on what the voters approved, in this case a stadium and expansion of the high school.
Sixth, by state law and fiduciary responsibility to the district’s bond holders, the money must be spent as prescribed by the bond election. It has nothing to do with the state’s budget problems.
Finally, the district has committed to reducing administrative staff before reducing classroom teachers.
When facts are not required, it is much easier to make a point. Unfortunately, the point has little or no value. Allen ISD, just as all school districts in Texas, has an operating budget, funded from property taxes, that pays salaries, provides educational and support services, an allows the district to operate. This funding is set by the state and is the fund that is in danger of being drastically cut by the current session of the state legislature.
The District also has a Capital Budget fund that is used for construction, land purchases, and items such as school busses. This money is generated by the sale of bonds which are voted for by the residents of Allen. Once approved by voters, bonds may only be sold by the district if certain state mandated financial conditions exist.
It is against the law for the district to use operating funds for capital projects or capital funds for operating the district. It would be a violation of Texas law if the funds for the stadium were used to pay teacher salaries or fund educational services.
To say that District officials are being dismissive, to question their decision to spend money on the stadium vs. teacher salaries, or to imply that their hands aren’t tied is just ignoring the facts and state law.
The facts are that Allen residents voted and approved the sale of bonds to fund the football stadium, the district has met state mandated financial requirements to sell the bonds and the bonds are being financed without raising local property taxes. It is also a fact that stadium or not, the financial challenges faced by Allen and all school districts in Texas would not change.
BTW, I live in McKinney and have no dog in this fight, but I think the facts are important.
Thank you for posting this. I will also add that in October of last year, Allen held a tax ratification election to increase it's ISD M&O tax rate by 13 cents per $100 of property valuation to offset the reduced funding from the state. The increase passed 60.5% to 39.5% and will raise approximately $10M per year which will primarily be used to hire additional teachers to accommodate student population growth as well as reduce class size.
-
2
-
1
-
-
This is not that different an issue then the State of Texas (and almost all states) requiring drivers to have auto insurance.
Actually, it is completely different. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states which powers the federal government may exercise. All other powers not delegated to the federal government fall within the purview of the individual state governments.
By extension, a state such as Massachusetts can require it's citizens to purchase health insurance but the federal government's attempt to do the same is questionable legally.
-
2
-
-
I should be there around 5:30. Thanks for setting this up.
-
1
-
-
DE, where have you been?
Good to hear from you!
Rick
Good to hear from you too Rick. I've been around, just not posting much. I hope all is well with you and your family.
-
It's really time for the automotive industries to really push for cars not relying on gasoline. Call me crazy but I do think the governments can play a big part in making this push and basically mandating these firms to invest more non gasoline cars. The technology is there and has been there for a very long time.
The automotive industry, like any industry, should produce goods that are in demand. If there was sufficient demand for non gasoline cars, automotive companies would respond by developing more products for that market. As it stands, the few available models on the market have not met sales expectations (1) and that includes the impact of a $7500 federal income tax credit, without which sales would be even lower.
(1) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4c53d1c-2c02-11e1-98bc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1nKsQeXi3
-
Banquet was excellent. I would say we had 300+ in attendance, and I can tell you that the room is too small to hold all who would like to have attended.
I heard the number 420 and that the University had to turn people away.
As for the individual awards:
Defensive Lineman - Brandon Akpunku
Defensive Back - Ryan Downing
Linebacker - Forlando Johnson
Most Inspirational- Ivan Delgado & Ryan Boutwell
Special Teams - Will Atterberry
Offensive Lineman - Matt Tomlinson
Offensive Back - Lance Dunbar
Defensive Player - Zachary Orr
Offensive Player - Derek Thompson
Team MVP - Lance Dunbar
-
It was just announced during the women's bball game that the football banquet is a sellout.
-
The banquet is this Friday @ 6PM.
-
Well done.
-
I'll be there.
-
Bank of America would have made more money with the $5 debit fees than they ever did with the law that Dodd-Frank sought to cut down. It was a moneygrab, pure and simple. Stuff like the OWS movement and a massive amount of people moving their accounts to credit unions made them kill the idea too. A small victory for the consumers for once.
The Durbin amendment (effective Oct 1) to Dodd-Frank reduced debit card swipe fees from 44 cents to 24 cents. If the average BofA account has 25 monthly debit transactions then BofA would forego $5 in revenue from this reduction, thus the imposition by BofA of a $5 debit card fee to the consumer. The debit card fee isn't a moneygrab, it is the unintended consequence of bad legislation.
-
1
-
-
Didn't Starbucks put a lot of small businesses out of business in order to become the global power they are today? Or is that an unfair claim?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Starbucks customers put a lot of small businesses out of business? After all, it was the consumers that abandonded local coffee shops for the Starbucks brand.
Thoughts on health insurance in America
in The Eagles Nest (There Should be Pie For Everyone Forum)
Posted
Most republicans? I am not aware of any republicans, or democrats for that matter, that consider defaulting on our debt an option. The US will not default, regardless of the government shutdown or debt ceiling debate.