tvc184

Not so fast. If the article is correct (and I read it on more than one website including the Washington Post to see how credible it was) then current law says that if you go to a foreign nation and take up arms against the USA, you have constructively given up your citizenship. 
 
ISIS is not a country but they are rebels trying to be. It appears that by the a stretching of the law, Americans can go fight for ISIS against the USA or against our interests and because ISIS is not a country (yet), the law does not apply. I believe that the intent is to say that if you take up arms against the USA, you lose your citizenship period and not say that it only counts if you take up arms against the USA..... but it has to be attached to some known country. 
 
I don't care if you are Catholics, Muslim, gay or atheist. If you leave this country's borders and join a fighting force against the USA, you should lose your citizenship and I think that is all that the bill is asking. 
 
Under that idea, I am all for it because now it appears that traitors can get around the law by simply saying that ISIS is not a country but in every other aspect, it is the same as if they joined the Syrian or Iranian army. 

Not so fast. If the article is correct (and I read it on more than one website including the Washington Post to see how credible it was) then current law says that if you go to a foreign nation and take up arms against the USA, you have constructively given up your citizenship. 
 
ISIS is not a country but they are rebels trying to be. It appears that by the a stretching of the law, Americans can go fight for ISIS against the USA or against our interests and because ISIS is not a country (yet), the law does not apply. I believe that the intent is to say that if you take up arms against the USA, you lose your citizenship period and not say that it only counts if you take up arms against the USA..... but it has to be attached to some known country. 
 
I don't care if you are Catholics, Muslim, gay or atheist. If you leave this country's borders and join a fighting force against the USA, you should lose your citizenship and I think that is all that the bill is asking. 
 
Under that idea, I am all for it because now it appears that traitors can get around the law by simply saying that ISIS is not a country but in every other aspect, it is the same as if they joined the Syrian or Iranian army. 

I agree. Plus, these voters are pretty open-minded people, from the few that I know. They have a system and it works for them. If you don't agree, start your own discussion. That's why this site allows people to create their own threads. For discussions and debates.

Then it would become a popularity contest. You can make a post similar to it and let people vote. Kind of like the Pick em.

Newton has an awesome history and every expects them to win. But what have they done this year? Their only win is against Bridge City, a team that gave up 130 in the first three games while going 0-3. 
 
Likewise Nederland hasn't been beaten in district in almost 4 years and a couple of years ago knocked of the #1 ranked team in TX in the third round. Like Newton, they were ranked high in the preseason polls most likely looking at past history. They got no votes this round and deservedly so. Past history counts a bit in preseason before anyone plays but once you hit the field, your performance dictates the outcome, not past history. 
 
I suspect that Newton will start climbing in the polls again very soon but they have to win some games. Until then................

I wonder what "inappropriate" or "relationship" is?
 
The TX law in such cases is very clear and there has to be a sexual act. The Penal Code is very specific and detailed on what is the crime and having a "relationship" or being "inappropriate" is meaningless. Without a sexual act, it might be and likely is a school rules violation but not a Penal Code crime. 
 
If someone gave false information about the accusation (as defense attorneys are almost obliged to claim) then that person(s) needs to be held accountable. It is nonsense that someone claim such a serious charge and get away with it both criminally and civilly if it isn't true. On the other hand, if the accusations are correct.............
 
 

The question in the OP was about private industry operating more efficiently than the USPS. 
 
I fail to see how they can and I think my numbers are correct or nearly so. While the contract carriers may be good at delivering a limit quantity of parcel post items, they hardly deal with anything near the quantity of the USPS. 
 
I see a FedEx truck on my street about 15 times a year and a UPS truck about one a week. Even when I see those, they usually deliver to a single home and then leave. That is a far cry from stopping at virtually every address in the US six days a week. If they can deliver a first class letter at less than the USPS then let them do so, noting that the USPS delivers to all addresses for the same cost so a letter to Guam or Puerto Rico is still 49¢.  I am all for free enterprise and if FedEx, UPS and others can do that, feel free to jump on it. 
 
Lastly, since you are talking about efficiency...................
 
To put it in perspective, $16 Billion per year even at the cost of taxpayer's money (which in this case everyone actually benefits), is 0.004% of our annual budget. So even if you are paying $15,000 a year in income taxes, only $60 goes to the USPS to make up for their shortfall. Just think of it, you will only pay $14,940 instead. I would bet that most people reading this forum are not paying $15K per year in income taxes so their cost for the USPS would be less and sometimes a lots less than $60 per year. So for $60 or less for an entire year (a bit over $1 per week) you get delivery of any number of letters and packages, usually to your front door and six days a week. If we give FedEx $16B a year in tax dollars, can they deliver to every address, six days a week, including Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.? No wait, they would have to do it cheaper so they need to do it for a lot less. 
 
I just don't believe it that it will be any more efficient in this case by contract carriers and even if so, only by a couple of pennies per item.  Out of all the stuff we pay for with our taxes, it seems like the USPS is the least offensive and has a benefit for virtually every person. Compare that to where other places our money is spent. 
 
A comparison with Solyndra is meaningless. Solyndra was a private company that tried to manufacture a product that would be used by a minuscule percentage of people. I got nothing out of Solyndra and likely would not have if had they made it. I benefit from the USPS daily and I would bet that you do also. 
 
And lastly, I ran FexEx for a 10 pound standard rate package from Houston to NY (no overnight or emergency delivery). It was $14.71. The same 10 pound package from the USPS Priority Mail is $10.65. Hmmmm............ 
 
Maybe if the USPS charged "private" for profit rates, they wouldn't be in the red. 

Please do not use words that need to be disguised by using symbols such as &%@$ as it is against the rules of this forum. Also do not use people's names in unsubstantiated rumors or flame individuals, again against the rules of setxsports.com. 
 
.......... and the Open Meetings Act (Texas Government Code Chapter 551) applies only to governmental bodies such as city councils, school boards, TX legislature etc., and certain private but public boards such as as some homeowner's associations and non-profit groups that receive federal funding. Unless the federal government is funding the STJFL, it does not come under open meetings laws. 

The question in the OP was about private industry operating more efficiently than the USPS. 
 
I fail to see how they can and I think my numbers are correct or nearly so. While the contract carriers may be good at delivering a limit quantity of parcel post items, they hardly deal with anything near the quantity of the USPS. 
 
I see a FedEx truck on my street about 15 times a year and a UPS truck about one a week. Even when I see those, they usually deliver to a single home and then leave. That is a far cry from stopping at virtually every address in the US six days a week. If they can deliver a first class letter at less than the USPS then let them do so, noting that the USPS delivers to all addresses for the same cost so a letter to Guam or Puerto Rico is still 49¢.  I am all for free enterprise and if FedEx, UPS and others can do that, feel free to jump on it. 
 
Lastly, since you are talking about efficiency...................
 
To put it in perspective, $16 Billion per year even at the cost of taxpayer's money (which in this case everyone actually benefits), is 0.004% of our annual budget. So even if you are paying $15,000 a year in income taxes, only $60 goes to the USPS to make up for their shortfall. Just think of it, you will only pay $14,940 instead. I would bet that most people reading this forum are not paying $15K per year in income taxes so their cost for the USPS would be less and sometimes a lots less than $60 per year. So for $60 or less for an entire year (a bit over $1 per week) you get delivery of any number of letters and packages, usually to your front door and six days a week. If we give FedEx $16B a year in tax dollars, can they deliver to every address, six days a week, including Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, etc.? No wait, they would have to do it cheaper so they need to do it for a lot less. 
 
I just don't believe it that it will be any more efficient in this case by contract carriers and even if so, only by a couple of pennies per item.  Out of all the stuff we pay for with our taxes, it seems like the USPS is the least offensive and has a benefit for virtually every person. Compare that to where other places our money is spent. 
 
A comparison with Solyndra is meaningless. Solyndra was a private company that tried to manufacture a product that would be used by a minuscule percentage of people. I got nothing out of Solyndra and likely would not have if had they made it. I benefit from the USPS daily and I would bet that you do also. 
 
And lastly, I ran FexEx for a 10 pound standard rate package from Houston to NY (no overnight or emergency delivery). It was $14.71. The same 10 pound package from the USPS Priority Mail is $10.65. Hmmmm............ 
 
Maybe if the USPS charged "private" for profit rates, they wouldn't be in the red. 

This area is heavily industrial where people can make close to six figure salaries without a four year degree. A lot of it is simply supply and demand.

You doubt the Democrats are worried because of the Bible?

You want a legitimate answer?
 
The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no. 
 
Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.
 
If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".
 
There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

I don't really believe or disbelieve these polls but I'll bet the Democrats are sweating out the election right now way more than Republicans. 

You want a legitimate answer?
 
The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no. 
 
Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.
 
If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".
 
There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

You want a legitimate answer?
 
The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no. 
 
Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.
 
If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".
 
There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

You want a legitimate answer?
 
The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no. 
 
Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.
 
If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".
 
There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

You want a legitimate answer?
 
The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no. 
 
Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.
 
If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".
 
There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

You want a legitimate answer?
 
The Supreme Court said that limiting how much you can donate to a political campaign is an unconstitutional violation of the right to freedom of speech. The Democrats don't like that ruling and want to not create a new law (which would also violate our constitutional rights) but to change the Constitution and limit free speech when it comes to politics. The Democrats say yes to changing the Constitution and limiting free speech when it comes to elections and the Republicans say no. 
 
Ohhhh.... but let's not talk about free speech, let's call it what it has been called in this thread, bribery.
 
If you call it legal bribery as the title of the thread suggests, is less money just "a little bribery"? If you offer a cop $500 to drop a citation it would be a bribe but if you only offer him $250, it isn't? That is what the campaign finance laws say. You can donate to someone (bribe by the claim of this thread) and it is perfectly okay but you can only bribe to a certain extent. Tell me where that makes sense. The Dems don't mind donations and sure aren't turning down any money.... they only mind if you get more than they do. So it is okay to bribe people, just keep the bribing "under control".
 
There have been several such First Amendment cases that have thrown out campaign finance laws and in the most recent case (2014), the law (BCRA) allowed the "bribery"..... but you had to stop it 60 days before the election. Again, tell me where that makes any sense. Yes, you can put your money in electronic (television, radio, etc.) campaigning but you can't do it right at the end. Apparently the Dems think that bribery is perfectly okay to bribe 61 days out from an election but don't do it inside of 60 days.   And for that, they want to change the Constitution. 

I have seen more dropped passes this year than all of last year.

P0

3-15

2:26

CL 21-13

Punt to 32 run to 38. 1-10 CL

Needing a kicker.

I am guessing that the way these decisions are made is by looking at resumes' (seen it a few times in my city as they have changed city managers a few times). On paper some people look good but then you start digging. Pick out a few that look good, name them as "finalists" and then start weeding them out. 
 
I was listening on KLVI this morning (I think that was the station) and there was an interview with one of the people involved in the decision making up there. One of the things they were looking for was someone not carrying baggage. I think the way the guy put it was something like, "We are looking for someone that did not leave their last job under investigation or difficult circumstances". There seems to have been something on Chargois' packet that said he "resigned" from BISD and was looking for new opportunities or something to that effect.
 
While that may not be a lie, if that is what he wrote (and I think reported) then it seems at the least, disingenuous.  I think Detroit was looking for someone that wanted to be there, not someone just "looking for a job" after losing the last one. 

I am guessing that the way these decisions are made is by looking at resumes' (seen it a few times in my city as they have changed city managers a few times). On paper some people look good but then you start digging. Pick out a few that look good, name them as "finalists" and then start weeding them out. 
 
I was listening on KLVI this morning (I think that was the station) and there was an interview with one of the people involved in the decision making up there. One of the things they were looking for was someone not carrying baggage. I think the way the guy put it was something like, "We are looking for someone that did not leave their last job under investigation or difficult circumstances". There seems to have been something on Chargois' packet that said he "resigned" from BISD and was looking for new opportunities or something to that effect.
 
While that may not be a lie, if that is what he wrote (and I think reported) then it seems at the least, disingenuous.  I think Detroit was looking for someone that wanted to be there, not someone just "looking for a job" after losing the last one. 

The Nederland/Pearland Dawson game at Reliant Stadium in 2012 when PD was the #1 ranked team in TX and lost in overtime. 
 
Mid-County Madness in 2005 played in Pasadena Memorial Stadium after Hurricane Rita (first game after the storm and about a three week delay in the season) with several lead changes. It was actually one of the more exciting MCM games in the series.