tvc184

Indoctrination is always best when started at a young age.

I hardly ever understand the RINO claims when it comes to votes. Cornyn will vote to confirm any Republican nominee, etc. Cornyn supports a few issues that I don’t agree with like red flag laws. For that reason I want another Republican senator if possible. But if he get it again, he isn’t going to be caucusing with the Democrats. As far as the Trump claims, the term RINO and its meaning did not start nor will it end with Trump. For some reason (maybe it’s all the have left) the left side of the aisle claims that Trump supporters are a cult and blah blah blah. No, they are not. It’s not like pro Second Amendment, shutting down the border, having a strong military, heavy support for law enforcement, doing away with business restrictions and so on started with Trump. On some social media platforms that I read, you would think that the Republicans and Democrats were nearly in a lockstep and only had minor differences. Poof! Along came Trump and all of a sudden there were huge divides and differences! Uhhhh….. no.

Looking at criminal records and such, the left finds some questionable people to support. I think the “mother of 3” had at least 2 of her children taken away. Surely being a possible terrible mother doesn’t justify any use of force but there sometimes seems to be a pattern of who is supported.

The local police chiefs in some cities have been disgusting. They are an embarrassment to the profession. That’s because police chiefs are often chosen for political reasons and not law enforcement reasons.

Okay, some new information to look at. I watched a video from Nate the Lawyer on YouTube. It covered the view from the a cell phone that the agent was holding (not a body cam). We probably all have seen it. But, looking at it again, it changes part of the narrative. The officer is did not step in front the vehicle as some on social media have claimed. He was being taunted by the wife as she was trying to get in the vehicle. The driver turned her wheels to the left and backed up. That swung her vehicle to the right and pointed her car at the officer. She then put it in gear and drove at him. Intentional? Accidental? I don’t think it matters. There have been so many claims, however, that the officer stepped in front of the vehicle in order to justify shooting. Looking at it again, it does not appear to be true. He was standing near the headlight to the passenger side of the vehicle. The driver backed up the vehicle, pointing it at the agent and then turned into him and drove forward. So many of the accusations from the start seem to be jumping the gun or wishful thinking to make ICE look bad. I know that for the people who have made up their minds, it will not matter. The decision on fault was likely made immediately and it won’t change. We sometimes get the qualifying comments of, I support the police but the agent should not have stepped in front of her. Well…. it turns out that he didn’t.

What you posted says nothing about trouncing Cornyn (not made by you) and the article that you posted was there site’s believe in a win and but the poll numbers. I remember on election night in 2024 the NY Times kept an updated likelihood of who was going to win. Later in the night as the swing states started coming in, the “likelihood” of a Harris win kept going down. It wasn’t the point spread but the odds of winning. I don’t doubt that Paxton has a better chance of winning. The latest poll that I saw from 3 weeks ago had Paxton at 29% and Cornyn and Hunt both having 25%. If anything neat that holds, there will be a runoff. I have seen no poll showing Paxton with 50% in the last several months. So a company thinks that there is a 2/3 chance that Paxton holds onto his lead. Probably. However, Paxton’s biggest challenge might be if Hunt edges by Cornyn and sets up a Paxton and Hunt runoff. Psrt of Paxton’s negatives certainly come from the perception of his legal dealings, accusations of corruption including bribery, impeachment and divorce. In fact that is probably keeping Cornyn close. Paxton likely isn’t seen as favorable as much as Cornyn being a bigger negative. Hunt could potentially upset the applecart if he can gain some late traction. Paxton and Cornyn are probably seen like Hillary Clinton vs Trump in 2020. Both were unpopular but who was seen with the least amount of negatives. If it comes down to Paxton and Hunt, Hunt might be seen as the shing light Just points to ponder…. .

It seems like he is upset that the people shot weren’t citizens heading to work. Oh my gosh, it’s horrible! The agents didn’t shoot innocent citizens! 🤣🤣🤣

In Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on a police vehicle chase that ended up in a parking lot with the suspect vehicle stopped briefly and surrounded by police cars or officers. The driver backed up in a U-turn and took off again, almost striking officers. The vehicle was then past all officers so none were in direct danger. Officers opened fire into the back of the fleeing vehicle, killing the driver and passenger. The ruling was unanimous that the use of force was lawful. Even though no officers were in direct line of the vehicle at that time, to continue the chase would endanger the public and officers. In Graham v. Connor the police mistakenly thought that Graham might have been involved in an armed robbery. When they stopped him, he was acting irrationally and jumping around outside of the car. The officers used force on Graham and I believe broke his foot. It turns out that Graham was having a diabetic crisis and was completely innocent. So the officers mistakenly stopped the vehicle that he was riding in and then mistook his serious medical crisis as resistance. Graham sued all the way to the Supreme Court. A unanimous Supreme Court ruling said that the officers’ use the force was reasonable under the circumstances as they appeared to be to the officers actually at the scene. In their writing, the Supreme Court said that the officers had to make split second decisions and it was not something that could be decided calmly months later in a judge’s chambers. It’s not difficult. If you use force against officers or if you are told to stop and you don’t, you might be opening yourself up to having lawful force or deadly force used against you. The Supreme Court does not appear to be sympathetic to people who resist because they believe in a cause. The First Amendment guarantees the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Blocking or obstructing the police or using force against them is not a peaceable assembly. Just sayin’…..

I think it was a Stevens manufactured and marketed under J. C. Higgins. At about 16 years old my parents bought me a Sears .22 tube fed Ted Williams rifle which was a Winchester. A friend had the Winchester Model 190 and mine was the Sears M90. Both were destroyed in a house fire.

I made a comment on Reddit which is absolutely the worst social media but it is entertaining. It is so far left that it fell off the left side of the Earth. A person call me a murdering Nazi pig. My comment in response was, check FBI statistics. There was no profanity, no threats and not even a snide comment. It was literally just, check the FBI statistics. I got a warning and my comment was removed as hate speech. I sent a note to moderators and asked about being called a murdering Nazi pig and was told that is not hate speech. 🤣 They can’t help themselves….

A friend bought the Marlin 1895 45-70 from Gibson’s in Beaumont. I bought the Marlin 1894 in .357. I still have it. I think that I bought it in 1976 so it’s probably 50 years old this year.

I had a break open .410 that belonged to my grandfather and then father. My father would hunt with it probably around 1935 during the Depression. I loaned it to my cousin so that he hunt rabbits. His father was an alcoholic and got drunk and traded it for a bottle of whiskey. It would probably by about 100 years old by now.

My first was a Sears .22 single shot when I was about 6 years old.

My first shotguns had paper shells. When they came out with plastic shells, I thought technology in the world had come to a peak.

What’s wrong with a gun discussion? I was referring to the KFDM article and seeing all the judge and city manager defenders. I saw yesterday that attorney and Beaumont city council member Cory Crenshaw posted on his Facebook page that paraphrased said, clearly this gun buy back is against the law. But I’m up for a gun discussion. I have shot one or two of them.

Just when the World can’t get crazier, a grave robber in Pennsylvania found with hundreds of skeletons on his home….. 😳 [Hidden Content]

What is a plato and who cares if it’s banned?

Does anyone think this proposed buy back is illegal?

Not only complete junk but from people who are almost no danger to society. Grandma finds a gun that grandpa had but he died 10 years ago. Grandma is not likely to use that RG .22 short to rob a store or do a mass shooting. It’s actually probably a good deal for her because that piece of junk couldn’t be sold for $10 but she’ll get $100 for it. 🤣 And NOW the streets are so much safer!!

It’s claimed logic that I don’t understand. Let’s see, he is in a patrol vehicle with lights, he is wearing police gear, he has a badge and patches that say police but I can’t see his face so it might not be the police. Oh wait, I can clearly see his eyes and nose now, yep, that’s a cop because I can see his eyes and nose!! Because you can tell by a person’s profession by his face? That would be like me walking through the mall and pointing at someone and saying, that’s a firefighter, that’s a nurse, that’s a secretary……

I doubt that the Feds will release body cam footage but it wouldn’t matter. I have already seen a usually complainer make the accusation that no one was in danger. Then when video clearly showed that the woman drove at the officer, the same person ignored the previous claim and started in about the officer had other options. If a body cam video shows that he had no time to move, don’t expect an admission of ignorance in the situation and the complaining will go in another tangent.

I was agreeing with you. I was using your using the article that you posted and my comments were taken from the article accusations and comments. The article made the claim of the mayor saying that she was caring for a neighbor. The article cited reporter asking about when shots were fired.

Yep… it’s that little bugaboo in the law that says a person has a reasonable belief. People want it when it refers to them trying to defend themselves, but don’t want it when is the police.

She hit him. The second video clearly shows it. It’s kind of funny and interesting that you bring up the mayor making up stories. My previous comment before I saw yours brought up the fact that the media and politicians can simply lie and then deflect any follow up.

She was caring for her neighbor…. by illegally blocking a road? The media in the article asks Secretary Noem if the officer fired before or after he was struck (felony assault) by the vehicle. Does it matter? Maybe one of the great things about being a politician or a member of the media is that you don’t have to make sense. To heck with the law, to heck with a reasonable belief, etc., just spit out nonsense and then usually deflect any follow up questions.