Started By
Message
re: Texas A&M lockeroom goes crazy after beating Ole Miss
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:24 pm to Phil Wenneck
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:24 pm to Phil Wenneck
quote:
Why the hell do all of the MSU posters on the Rant hate A&M?
I don't know what you are talking about. Half my family is from there. I like a&m. They are also the dorkiest fanbase I have ever been around.
1
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:24 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
Imminent domain=\=EEOC, but his EEOC question isn't very well thought (wtf autocorrect) out.
That being said, I leave school at school.
That being said, I leave school at school.
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:25 pm to r'dx
quote:That's from 2012, brah.
U.S. News & World Report does not rank nuclear engineering and petroleum programs every year. The last time the magazine surveyed these areas, Texas A&M's nuclear engineering program was third (second public) and petroleum engineering was first.
Also: Stanford is primarily a graduate institution, they have less than 5000 undergrads and almost all are on track for grad school. Texas is usually second to us in Pet E.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:28 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
quote:
I guess Texas state residents would be the ones to know.
No.
The most famous modern case on takings is Kelo v. City of New London, whereby a city in Conn. was the condemning party.
Texas affords more protection to the private landowner than probably any other state. Public entities -- and their corollaries -- have a nebulous maze to work through before they can take.
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:32 pm to 13-0 Branding Iron
I really hate that I'm still responding but screw it. Like I said I hate rankings to begin with.
Also, it seems that what you're saying about Stanford makes it to where if somebody had Stanford on a resume for Pet E and somebody else had Texas A&M, then Stanford would look better.
Also, it seems that what you're saying about Stanford makes it to where if somebody had Stanford on a resume for Pet E and somebody else had Texas A&M, then Stanford would look better.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:33 pm to Al Bundy Bulldog
Oh look. A thread started by Bundy that blew up in his face. This never happens.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:34 pm to DWag215
I was making a joke on the Mexican-American war. I actually do know about land ownership rights in Texas.
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:35 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
I understood what you were trying to do with the joke, it just doesn't work.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:36 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
somehow, reading this thread feels like this
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:37 pm to OldSulRoss
I was actually hoping getting seriousface in this thread would make it die like others do most of the time. Didn't work.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:40 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
quote:
I was actually hoping getting seriousface in this thread would make it die like others do most of the time. Didn't work.
Before we start the dick measuring, all these lawyers are going to have to arbitrate whether we're using the metric system or the American system, and whether we're talking length or volume.
The seminal case, I believe, is Johnson v. Trojan Condoms, 45 S.T.F.U. 235 (U.S. 2012).
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:44 pm to OldSulRoss
This is weird.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:46 pm to OldSulRoss
quote:
American system
Never heard of this. Is it like the English system?
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:47 pm to Tds & Beer
quote:
They are also the dorkiest fanbase I have ever been around.
Guilty as charged
Also, never met a grinder I didn't like 
Was wondering when/if the locker room celebration vid would make it over here. Forgive us for celebrating like it's not 2011 anymore. Hell, folks were giving us shite for blowing the 2nd half lead against florida. That was a huge monkey to get off our back, regardless of the opponent.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:48 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
quote:
C. Wasn't part of imminent domain a clause that states that taking ownership of land is only constitutional if declared by the federal government?
Wrong, but good guess.
The Correct Answer is:
b. Parker will prevail, because the 2004 law unconstitutionally impairs his rights under the Contracts Clause.
a. is wrong because a federal court DOES have authority to nullify a state law.
c. is wrong because the law that has been repealed, while it may be unconstitutional, was not deemed so at the time, so Parker DOES own the land under the law that existed at the time.
d. is wrong because it confuses issues. The case is NOT moot, because the land dispute still exists, regardless of whether the 2001 law was probably unconstitutional or repealed.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:49 pm to OBReb6
Sorta. The American System uses toe length, dip weight, and gay cooties as standards.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:50 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
his EEOC question isn't very well thought (wtf autocorrect) out.
It's an evidence question. It must be hard to have to answer questions with something other than "frick OFF AND DIE OF CANCER" type responses.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:50 pm to Slippery Slope
quote:
This is weird.
Was going for this.
Got this.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:51 pm to Slippery Slope
What are the units of gay cooties?
Posted on 10/10/12 at 4:51 pm to OBReb6
Aggies
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 4:52 pm
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News