tvc184

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Heck, naw… y’all want to get rid of anybody that won’t do what the radical right tells them.  Just ask those 15 Reps from Texas that just got primaries by Abbott, Paxton, Patrick and the rest of those kooks. 
 

Manchin gets it, though. And you’re right- we need a lot more thinkers up there, not followers. 

Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?

 The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws.

Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws.

I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed. 

That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa. 

Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous?

Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops!

Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum  

So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?

 What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 

2 hours ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

I like Manchin! He don't walk that straight line and do whatever his party wants.. we need more of him

He almost singlehandedly saved the filibuster in the Senate by siding with the Republicans in what would have been a stupid move. 

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Phelan won’t be Speaker again… SETX neutered themselves. 

Hopefully….

Maybe I am missing it but…..

There is no debate that the policy is purely based on race or ethnicity.

However….

 If the non- minority (White) financial institutions charging fees and making probably millions of dollars collectively but the minority owned institutions are not, are the minority owned businesses being deprived (screwed) of an easy profit??

So while the minority (and White) customers might be saving $2-$3 a transaction at minority owned institutions, those minority owned businesses are losing possibly large amounts of money.

Are am I missing something?

9 hours ago, baddog said:

I wonder if he’s with 72 virgins. The Muslim thinks giving his life against the enemies of Islam will get him laid. What a perverted concept. 

As soon as Raisi died, George Washington appeared and started beating him with a cane! Then Thomas Jefferson did the same  Next it was James Madison, then James Monroe, then Patrick Henry…..

Raisi yelled, “What’s going on here!?”

 He was told, you must have misunderstood. It was 72 Virginians….

46 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Yeah… I was on a jury for a custody modification where the dad was accused of being inappropriate with the child by mom. Law enforcement wasn’t involved. The first thing one of the jurors said when we began deliberating was “I’m sorry… but they (the dad’s counsel) didn’t prove that he didn’t do it.”  Were you even listening to the instructions?

No. 

I have sat in the jury room on three trials.

The rationale that juries can come up with after listening to testimony from the witness stand, is at times amazing.

I don’t care how good of a case I could make in defense and how much the evidence was on my side, I would never want my fate in front of a jury.

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

If I recall at that time you had protestors all all over the country jumping on cars while people were in them......While I agree it was stupid shooting him, how do you know what a guy is going to do walking up to you with an exposed gun? At the time I thought it was justified simply because you can't know the drivers level of fear......

 

The law on self defense in Texas says that the use of deadly force is justified if the person using the force reasonably believes that it is the force is necessary.

Of course a jury will look at it and determine if the person had a “reasonable” fear. In my opinion, by law it is to be viewed from the perspective of the person using the force at that moment. That is why it says that “he” reasonably believes. Then under Texas law, a person isn’t required to prove self defense. The state is required to prove that it wasn’t and beyond a reasonable doubt.

So there was no reasonable doubt of fear when your car is surrounded by a mob and a guy is walking toward you with an AK47?

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Tough case all the way around.  The guy had a lot of online activity come out where he made racist statements and statements about killing BLM protesters and looters.  So when he then goes out and does it, it looks really bad.  I've seen a lot of videos where people have driven through protestors, defended themselves against them, etc., and didn't bat an eye.  This feels different, but that doesn't necessarily make it murder, either.  His account of the events that happened vs. the witness accounts were both very different, but I'd also expect both sides' accounts to be self-serving and inaccurate to fit their narrative.  Not really sure what to think on this one.  

I think that his comments is what he was convicted on. Had they not had that, he probably wouldn’t have been convicted.

 That is one reason that I do not talk about what I would do. If you make an off the cuff comment like, “If that happened to me, they wouldn’t need an ambulance, they would need a hearse”…. then later you are in a maybe different situation but resort to deadly force, don’t be so sure they someone won’t find that comment and use it against you. “He has obviously been waiting for the opportunity to kill someone” or worse…. the opportunity to kill one of those people. (whoever “those” may be)

1 hour ago, navydawg31 said:

You are close to me… season tickets been in the  family name since the 70s… 

Back about 1966 my father had season tickets for just me and him. He gave them up when I started playing football in the 8th grade and got the free passes. When I was about 11 years old and all the kids were playing under the stands, I was in my reserve seat watching the game…. 😎

1 minute ago, Bigdog said:

Nice, do you use all of them?

Not always. Like one is for my wife and she doesn’t always go. My friend is in the same situation but this year her grandson is playing so he may or may not have an extra each week.

I had season tickets for maybe 20 years… but they were in another person’s name. When one of his sons got married, all of a sudden the in-laws wanted “my seats”. Poof…. they were gone!

When Nederland removed the band from the stands to open up more tickets, I grab some online in that new overflow area just to make sure I could get in the game.

One year later (last year) after I had renewed my seats, I went to the trade-in day. My friend and I who had seats together and sat together in the new expanded section last year, were in the 2nd and 3rd spots in line for trade ins. We got lucky with the 50 (literally) yard line seats with him having four seats on one row and me having three matching seats on the next row.

We just wanted to improve our seats a little each year instead of those end sections. We got very lucky with prime seats in one year. 

Talk about cutting a big hog in the butt with a little knife……

Perry was stupid… but was it murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

My friend and I have 7 seats on rows 15 and 16 on the 50 yard line…. 

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

The problem as well as that all of the social justice warriors, influencers, and instigators repeat these lies in the immediate days after the event, garnering outrage.  But when they're proven false they never go back and rescind their outrage-causing posts, they just move on to the next one.

They aren’t exactly standing in line to recant. 

On 4/26/2024 at 1:20 PM, NDNation said:

Got mine! The new site seems to be more user friendly. 

 

Anything is more user friendly than PayK12. 

Just sayin’…….

4 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

Just read the article. That was certainly unfortunate on several levels for both parties involved.

It’s terrible no matter what happened.

I am always concerned with the news media and social media outright lies or incorrect information that is put out, maybe in a rush to be first. Watching the video, it is easy to see that some of the earlier claims are simply nonsense.

The officer might be cleared or he might face trial but we should be disgusted with the misinformation. Having been on scene or shortly after an officer involved shooting three times, I can say that some information that comes out is a complete fabrication.

This is a horrible situation no matter who was at fault. I wish that the nonsensical false information would stop. That won’t happen…..
 

On 5/7/2024 at 6:49 PM, BS Wildcats said:

Tim Scott

On 5/7/2024 at 12:47 PM, thetragichippy said:

The smart move would be Rubio.....

Trump walks to the beat of a different drummer so he could very likely pick a person that is on no one’s radar.

Going by typical political logic, assuming that a VP pick might bring 0.5%-1% votes, who should it be? A half to one percent is not much but in a potentially razor thin election, a couple of thousand votes in a state could decide the presidency.

Biden won AZ by just over 10,000 votes. The most recent Beaumont mayoral election, where almost no one votes, had over 15,000 votes cast.

In GA it was 12,000 votes and Biden did not even get 50%.

In WI it was 20,000 and again Biden didn’t get to 50%.

 There are other states in that area of percent point difference. How important? If any two AZ, GA and WI flip, Trump would have won.

So while the VP probably never matters…. can it this time? I think that it could. What then does the VP pick bring to the table?

FL and SC were both won by Trump in 2020 so a favored son vote for Rubio or Scott won’t help Trump. Both are in a fairly comfortable position within the conservative community so they will neither hurt nor help with strong conservative voters.

 What about the few fence riders that could and likely will determine the election by either sticking with Biden or switching from the last election? What about the people who did not vote in the last election, but may come out to vote in this one just to support the VP candidate?

Could Scott sway a percentage point or two from Black support? Could Rubio help draw a percentage point or two of Hispanic support? Possibly on both counts. Like I already mentioned, they won’t help in their own states because Trump already won those in 2020. I personally think that either would actually do a good job as president (although VP picks are about the politics of being elected and not the “best” possible president) and might be the difference in a few votes but a few votes more is all that is needed.

 Or….

My outlier, Tulsi Gabbard.

 She had some decent support when are ran for the presidency in the Democrat primary. Could some people follow her because they support her and not necessarily the party? I’m sure that’s true for all candidates. Could she bring female support? As a strong mentally and physically person and a member of the military who was deployed into a combat zone into Iraq. Then she went to OCS and became an officer, then deployed to Kuwait.

Can that military history, including deployment into a war swing some votes?

As of late, she has been on a one person tirade against Biden and the Democrats. Let’s remember that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat and so was Texas governor John Connally. Connally was not only a Democrat governor in Texas but also Secretary of the Navy under JFK. Both ended up switching to the Republican Party so there is a fairly strong history of former Democrats switching parties and being successful, all the way up to the presidency.

Gabbard is a pretty fiery campaigner and doesn’t mince her words. She would really be a thorn in the Democrats’ hopes and has the inside knowledge of the party.

Could she potentially swing more votes than Scott or Rubio? I think so.

But….

I don’t think that Trump would pick her and I’m not sure that she would accept if offered. Her odds of being Trump's pick are at about 1%.  Scott or Rubio at about 10%.

Trump being Trump, will choose someone who no one has ever heard of. 

5 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

1.  They won’t get elected. 
 

2.  Trump is going to turn on them like he’s turned on every person that’s ever worked with him. 
 

3. It doesn’t matter who he picks… y’all will be on here calling them a traitor before it’s all over with. 
 

4. Trump’s VP (or attorney, for that matter) is career suicide. If they’re lucky they won’t end up in a cell. 

🤣🤣🤣

 Right on schedule!!

7 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

We can debate the strategic importance of Israel. But certain talking points are crazy like Israel being our most important ally. How? In what way. We just spent 10 years in Iraq where was Israel. The UK will always be our most important ally. Intelligence wise military wise political wise everything. Israel thinking on Christianity is not far of from Muslims. 
 

Christ is king.

You’re quibbling over the word “most”. 

I agree that the UK is our most important military ally but we have overwhelming other support from Europe through NATO. 

 What other support do we have in the Middle East?

 What are the “most” important issues? Military strength or intelligence that might head off the need for military action? It’s certainly debatable. 

I honestly wouldn’t argue with any points on which if the most critical to our interests. I am sure that people can make valid arguments from different points of view. Military? The UK. Middle East intelligence? Israel. 

As far as Israel, SmashMouth said that they “may very well be” the most important.

”May be” is not an adamant statement but a suggestion. They might be… depending on what the discussion is about.

Worrying about the word “most” (especially “may be”) seems to be the definition of trivial. 

I am surprised that this is not been covered yet.

A deputy received a call of a disturbance in the apartment. He knocked on the door and announced that he was with the sheriff department twice.

 The man opened the door with a pistol in hand.

Of course the news articles give a different take on the incident. Once such comment in the news article below was from the family attorney who said the deputy busted into the apartment. Then the police released the video and showed that the deputy did not open the door, the resident/Airman did.

I guess to inflame the public or create click bait, false or uncorroborated information is immediately released. I have read or viewed accusations that the deputy never announced that he was outside, that he forced his way in, he covered up the eyepiece on the door so that the man couldn’t look out, etc. Much of that has already been squashed by releasing the video. 
 

They need to delay it until Wednesday.

Since I can’t be there tomorrow…. 🤔

12 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:

See Aunt Jemima syrup and Uncle Ben’s rice

The “Boy Scouts” ended 5 years ago and realistically about 4 decades ago.

Yes, they allowed girls in the Explorer Scouts probably 40 years ago and in other groups later. If you don’t think that girls should be in scouting, I won’t argue the opinion. 

 In this case they only changed the name. If you remove Boys from Boy Scouts of America, it is Scouts of America. So now it is Scouting America instead of Scouts of America. 

Because…..

14 hours ago, Englebert said:

 

How many times are you going to try to peddle those lies?

Wolf in sheep’s clothing….

There are always exceptions but I have worked with/mentored children and young adults (still) from 15-19.

I would be shocked if they knew anything prior to maybe 2010.

History?

Current news?

 Not unless it’s on TikTok….