tvc184

..... and it was usually a good pick. 

PNG is so good that the other two teams line up 22 players on the opposite side of the ball. 

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that.

When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works".

Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare.

They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck.

The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules.

Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months.

His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control. 

If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules.

But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas.

And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

Bullets13 and I fished when I got off work last night and boxed out in about 90 minutes. We left 'em biting.................. 
 
 

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that.

When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works".

Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare.

They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck.

The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules.

Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months.

His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control. 

If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules.

But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas.

And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

:lol:

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that.

When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works".

Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare.

They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck.

The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules.

Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months.

His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control. 

If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules.

But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas.

And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that.

When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works".

Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare.

They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck.

The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules.

Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months.

His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control. 

If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules.

But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas.

And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that.

When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works".

Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare.

They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck.

The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules.

Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months.

His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control. 

If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules.

But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas.

And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

Yes, off topic is a rules violation. Almost everyone throws in a tidbit from time to time that is not exactly on topic but when the entire thread turns into nothing but bashing and not only bashing but for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, it is time to lock it or be removed. 

Giving him a pass? My response was that I don't think they should be here at all and whether they pay in state or out of state tuition doesn't matter. 
 
Who are you claiming that backs up Reagan in the amnesty deal? I have never mentioned that as being a good thing and I have not seen anyone else say so. It was one of the worst decisions of Reagan's presidency and although he was promised that it was a "one time deal", many of use thought that it was the proverbial foot in the door.
 
You often bring up these straw man arguments. 
 
You ask questions about, why do you not disagree with (fill in the name of any Republican) when in truth, no one has claimed support for those issues. You only assume that we support all issues by the national party.
 
The reason that Bush's popularity waned in his last year was his support and ultimately signing of bailouts like TARP and the auto bailouts. It is a given that the Democrats didn't like him but his late policies changed his own party's opinion as well. You see, therein lies evidence that we don't support only party but what is done. The fact that the Tea Party sprung up within the Republican Party is further evidence that we don't all accept things to toe the party line.
 
Yet you will likely continue to come up with..."But why did _________ sign _________ and why did you Republicans support him/her?". 
 
The truth is that maybe we don't as I listed above.

Let's refresh our memories in this thread. The comment that I made was about the article and its likelihood of it being wrong and rarely (in my opinion) is it ever true. In other words, I have little belief in its accusations. 
 
The mention of race was only brought up by bigcam in post #3. The terms race, whites, black, racist, African American, content of character and others were brought up. Hippy was called out to clarify his statement or beliefs.
 
In fact hippy made no statement and only copied/pasted a local website that claims to be "news".
 
 
I only responded to the post. I said such bad things as content of character does matter and we are talking about a federally convicted criminal. If you want to think that the US Justice Department falsified evidence or targeted someone and it is a scam, your are certainly free to feel that way. I still merely stated facts. 
 
In fact you made the comment:
 
 
 
.... bring up both Black and "Hood Card". Oops! I guess we forgot about that one but it may have only been a joke so it doesn't matter? I can imagine the response if I had said something like that. 
 
All that I have said in my posts is that race does not matter (like hippy, after being called out.. "So I ask TVC, are the scales balanced??") and listed reasons why I feel that way but Walker's pleading guilty does matter. Apparently some take that as offensive after I am asked a direct question. Again, feel free to think any way that you wish and not agree with me but please look back and see who brought up what. 
 
Again, hippy posted a political opinion from another website with no further comments of his own and I immediately (with the first response) said that the site rarely has any truth to it and it calls rumors as fact. If that is too difficult to comprehend, it is saying that I believe very little from the website unless I see something else other than his opinions. In other words, I did not accept the additional claims made by the website against Walker and possibly politicians without further proof as it is often wrong or skirts around the truth. 
 
Feel free to fact check the thread.  
   

I answered your last question and got two "likes" so I will note that as three responses.
 
How many do you need? 

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other. 

I doubt that a guy with millions of dollars in his account and with a high profile attorney pleaded guilty after a hung jury because he was worried about being wrongfully convicted. Especially when the plea makes him pay back millions of dollars.  We aren't talking about a guy found with a rock of cocaine or a small baggie of marijuana on a traffic stop and with a court appointed attorney. Either way, he stood up in front of a judge and he proclaimed his own guilt.
 
On the other hand I notice that you conveniently missed the point of the post and that is that the prosecutor was an Obama appointee and the head of the Justice Department that prosecuted him was the US Attorney General, Eric Holder. I guess Eric Holder's Justice Department and an Obama appointee had it out for Walker due to race.... which is what is being stated or implied. 
 
So I am wondering how many people realize that it was the FBI and US Justice Department that gathered the evidence and filed charges and ultimately got a conviction on Walker? Do they think that Eric Holder's Justice Department and a Barack Obama appointee targeted or allowed Walker to be prosecuted due to race because reading posts in this forum and in other online debates, that seems to be the claim?  
 

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other. 

Maybe you haven't kept up on current events but he already is convicted. He pleaded guilty in a deal for probation rather than risk many years in the federal hoosegow. The state has now come in and picked up the same charges that were for some reason not taken up by the last DA. 
 
Yes, the scales are balanced unless you are going to imply that a white guy can over bill a school district for several million dollars and then give different statements to the IRS so that he can pay less in taxes and everyone will let him go because of his race. If that is true you need to take it up with the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas who was appointed by Obama, was approved by the Democratically controlled US Senate and is under the US Attorney General. 
 
Unless something has changed, I believe that all prosecutions and surely all major ones from the US Attorney office have to go through Washington. They are not independent or nearly so much as a DA is from the state. A DA is locally elected and autonomous from the state, the US Attorney is not. What that means is that Eric Holder's Justice Department likely approved the prosecution of Walker. Perhaps you think that our US Attorney General was prosecuting Walker because of his race. 
 
The claim of race as a motivator is an easy way to divert blame. I am not involved in any part of nor have any knowledge of the state or federal investigations but (again), the Obama administration prosecuted Walker and doubt that race entered into the equation. Maybe you have some more inside information that says otherwise. I would love to hear it. 

As a governor he had no authority as many on the left point out when states try to enact laws dealing with illegal aliens.
 
I can tell you from a law enforcement standpoint that when i arrested an illegal alien for anything (even a traffic citation) we could put a immigration hold on them for deportation. I stopped a couple of guys one time working at a local chemical plant after someone thought that they were suspicious. I had no crimes to arrest either of them but called INS (now ICE) and spoke directly to a local federal agent on my cell phone. Both had been in country for a few years and had been working at the plant. Both were arrested for immigration violations and brought in for processing and deportation. 
 
Today we can catch an illegal alien in even fairly serious crimes and cannot put a hold on them. The local agents cannot makes such decisions and have to call Houston and ask for permission to investigate them. Previously any INS/ICE agent could detain a person for up to 24 hours to determine his status. Now they can hardly even talk to local law enforcement about illegal aliens because the current administration has changed the rules of enforcement.... not the law but merely how it is applied or more correctly, ignored. To put it simply, under Bush or even Clinton, we could get illegal aliens deported or at least investigated. Under Obama that is simply not the case. If they aren't being held for at least a felony, they are free to go. They readily admit that they are illegal as they have no consequences. 

You keep pushing the claimed TX dream act like it is the same as the proposed federal law and Perry supports one but not the other. In truth one has nothing to do with the other than a made up name.
 
Under TX law, an illegal alien that lives in this state, can pay in state tuition. Hmmmm..... any person that lives in this state can claim that he lives in this state for tuition purposes when applying to college. 
 
Wow.... that is almost the same as the federal Dream Act where if you go to college you become a citizen. 
 
NOT!

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other. 

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other. 

On rare occasion that rag is correct. Rumors are reported as fact but most of the storues fade into history never to be mentioned again with no follow up and that is true of stories that include a phrase like, "this one has legs".

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other. 

I would guess fishing. 
 
PA just hired a new superintendent so that it out and I doubt that their head guy wants Chargois for an assistant. They could be taking applications for principles or other admin types or even merely a teacher. Whatever it is, I think that it is not likely to be someone in actual financial control over anything significant. While looking for a new job, he might have put an application in at several places and someone might have seen on in PA and it all of a sudden became an event. 

No, I would be okay with them not being in the country. I don't want them here paying out of state tuition either. 
 
None of that has anything to do with you trying to make (for several weeks) a correlation between the Obama Dream Act and the Texas in state tuition law. You are trying to make it show that if Perry does it, it is okay but if Obama does it, it is wrong. You have the apples and oranges problem of comparing two different things where one has almost nothing to do with the other.