tvc184

Henry Johnson certainly earned the honor. 

Don’t forget that the Vaccine was announced and given for the first time four weeks before Trump left office.
Maybe some people’s memories are short or TDS takes over.  Trump wasn’t the president when the data started piling up on the vaccine, he wasn’t the president when many in the military were discharged for refusal, he wasn’t the president who ordered OSHA to mandate that private companies order vaccinations under their authority, later overturned by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional mandate.
Trump announced the vaccine had been developed… and it had, and then left office. The damage came under the Biden administration.

Don’t forget that the Vaccine was announced and given for the first time four weeks before Trump left office.
Maybe some people’s memories are short or TDS takes over.  Trump wasn’t the president when the data started piling up on the vaccine, he wasn’t the president when many in the military were discharged for refusal, he wasn’t the president who ordered OSHA to mandate that private companies order vaccinations under their authority, later overturned by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional mandate.
Trump announced the vaccine had been developed… and it had, and then left office. The damage came under the Biden administration.

Don’t forget that the Vaccine was announced and given for the first time four weeks before Trump left office.
Maybe some people’s memories are short or TDS takes over.  Trump wasn’t the president when the data started piling up on the vaccine, he wasn’t the president when many in the military were discharged for refusal, he wasn’t the president who ordered OSHA to mandate that private companies order vaccinations under their authority, later overturned by the Supreme Court as an unconstitutional mandate.
Trump announced the vaccine had been developed… and it had, and then left office. The damage came under the Biden administration.

Stop and frisk without reasonable suspicion is unconstitutional.
 

I was referring to WOSdrummer asking about Klein being the Rodney Dangerfield of SETX and maybe making someone mad, not this particular law. 

The first mistake is it's a Klein piece.

If I understand the bill correctly, it’s still have to pass both houses and be signed by the governor.
 
Then it has to pass a constitutional election this coming November.

Maybe but she always, you know, has done that and uhhhh…. doing that is why it is done, so by doing it, it will be done. Haha.. and uhh….. 

I have no problem with someone changing but it strangely seems to be a one way street.
So this guy Byrd wasn’t just on the fringe of racism, he was a leader and a major recruiter. But heck, what was in the past doesn’t matter. You know, he is different now. 
So I looked at Wikipedia, hardly known for its conservative spin. It showed that he filibustered the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Byrd started renouncing his views on segregation in the 1970s. Then “by the early 2000s, he had completely renounced racism and segregation”. Yes that is a quote.
Ancient history? The 1964 Civil Rights Act? In the 1970s decided that segregation was wrong? Not long before his death in 2010, he had completely renounced racism. 
Apparently any transgressions more that 10 years ago don’t count, you know, that is past history.
Well, unless you are from the other side of the aisle…. Then it goes back 160 years.
So do we count the past or only selectively? 

There are reasons.
Okay can you name the reasons?
We could talk about it but there are reasons. 
Are they capable?
Well yes but there are reasons.
 What are they?
 There are reasons…

It sounds suspiciously like a violation of the 14th Amendment….

It sounds suspiciously like a violation of the 14th Amendment….

It’s just what we do. It is like looking at a lot of things that might be disturbing to many people. I think it is like some medical professions, members of the military in a war, etc. You knew it going in. Of course we have had people quit in training.
 I have arrested a teenager who admitted to sexually assaulting his 7 year old sister. I have arrested a man for continually doing it to his 12 year old step-daughter and then caught in the act. After he was in jail awaiting an indictment and trial, his wife (child’s mother) came to me and recanted her statement. I guess she didn’t want to lose her husband’s paycheck and that was more important than her daughter.
 Things like that are disturbing. 
 The things we see…….

Yes, the article looks at outcomes and not causation.

The where did he get it from question reminds me….
About 30 years ago I had arrested a guy for Public Intoxication. After the arrest I found a little marijuana in his pocket and arrested him for that also.
 Public Intoxication is a class C misdemeanor so goes to city court and marijuana possession is at least a B misdemeanor and anything above a C has to go to the county or district courts run by the county. A class C carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine. 
So the guy I arrested for Public Intoxication actually went to a trial in the city court. He decided to act as his own attorney and then took the witness stand in his own defense. The reason that in most situation is a lawyer does not want you to take the stand in your own defense is because you cannot refuse to answer a question. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow a person to make a statement from the stand but then refuse to answer questions from the prosecution.
So the guy took the stand and gave his scenario of what happened. I guess you could say as his own attorney, he questioned himself.
After he made his statement, the city prosecutor got his chance to ask questions. The judge had admonished the man that if he took the stand in his old defense, he couldn’t refuse to answer questions for the prosecution. So the city prosecutor ask him something like, you said you were not intoxicated but didn’t you have marijuana on you at the time? The defendant said yes. The prosecutor then asked, where did you get it?
The defendant said, it’s none of your business. The judge then told the defendant something like, I told you that once you take the stand, you have to answer questions or make a legal objection as to why you should not have to answer it. So where did you get the marijuana?
Defendant….. It’s none of your business either!
 Within about two seconds the judge slammed the gavel and said, Guilty, $500 fine… next case.
And… he still had to go to trial for the marijuana possession.  😂

The where did he get it from question reminds me….
About 30 years ago I had arrested a guy for Public Intoxication. After the arrest I found a little marijuana in his pocket and arrested him for that also.
 Public Intoxication is a class C misdemeanor so goes to city court and marijuana possession is at least a B misdemeanor and anything above a C has to go to the county or district courts run by the county. A class C carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine. 
So the guy I arrested for Public Intoxication actually went to a trial in the city court. He decided to act as his own attorney and then took the witness stand in his own defense. The reason that in most situation is a lawyer does not want you to take the stand in your own defense is because you cannot refuse to answer a question. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t allow a person to make a statement from the stand but then refuse to answer questions from the prosecution.
So the guy took the stand and gave his scenario of what happened. I guess you could say as his own attorney, he questioned himself.
After he made his statement, the city prosecutor got his chance to ask questions. The judge had admonished the man that if he took the stand in his old defense, he couldn’t refuse to answer questions for the prosecution. So the city prosecutor ask him something like, you said you were not intoxicated but didn’t you have marijuana on you at the time? The defendant said yes. The prosecutor then asked, where did you get it?
The defendant said, it’s none of your business. The judge then told the defendant something like, I told you that once you take the stand, you have to answer questions or make a legal objection as to why you should not have to answer it. So where did you get the marijuana?
Defendant….. It’s none of your business either!
 Within about two seconds the judge slammed the gavel and said, Guilty, $500 fine… next case.
And… he still had to go to trial for the marijuana possession.  😂

It's the districts we cover here full time. Post schedules, records and district standings.
We are not a state site. Have to draw the line somewhere.

Why, SF is not a guaranteed loss. 

Why, SF is not a guaranteed loss. 

You are not in the Constitution, the president is. The only constitutional requirements are being over 35 years old and not having served more than two prior terms.
 I always find humor in the idea of the protest vote as in, I am not voting because whatever or I will not be voting Democrat or Republican this election.
You can skip voting altogether, go into the booth but turn in a blank ballot, vote for a third party, stomp your feet, hold up protest signs outside of polling places or if your state allows, write in any name, even Mickey Mouse.
In January 2025 either the Republican or Democrat candidate will be sworn in as the next president however. 
Both Republicans and Democrats often use the phrase, “he’s not MY president!”. Yes, he is because no matter who you support, you are stuck with the policies of the person currently holding the office.
So every four years we have a percentage of people who deny the legitimacy or ability of the president. Unlike boycotting a product out of protest though, where we can simply choose not to take part in it, we are stuck with the president. Voting for a third party, refusing to vote or whatever, in January 2025 a Democrat or Republican will be sworn into office.

Who is complaining? I have never been concerned about college admissions rates but I applaud the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution  
I am only putting out facts.
So while putting out facts, the 2020 census has the White population at about 62%.
The same federal government shows that Whites in college are at 55%. 
Nice cherry picking on Baylor. Maybe I could choose Texas Southern where out of 7,015 students, 139 are White.
A country which has a population that is about 38% minorities, has a college population of 45%. So according to your percentage based analysis, Whites are underrepresented in college according to the federal government. So who is complaining about the Supreme Court decision?

You are not in the Constitution, the president is. The only constitutional requirements are being over 35 years old and not having served more than two prior terms.
 I always find humor in the idea of the protest vote as in, I am not voting because whatever or I will not be voting Democrat or Republican this election.
You can skip voting altogether, go into the booth but turn in a blank ballot, vote for a third party, stomp your feet, hold up protest signs outside of polling places or if your state allows, write in any name, even Mickey Mouse.
In January 2025 either the Republican or Democrat candidate will be sworn in as the next president however. 
Both Republicans and Democrats often use the phrase, “he’s not MY president!”. Yes, he is because no matter who you support, you are stuck with the policies of the person currently holding the office.
So every four years we have a percentage of people who deny the legitimacy or ability of the president. Unlike boycotting a product out of protest though, where we can simply choose not to take part in it, we are stuck with the president. Voting for a third party, refusing to vote or whatever, in January 2025 a Democrat or Republican will be sworn into office.

Why should they do that, Big Girl say the ruling only applies to two universities. 

It seems like a stupid law but using the “wrong” pronoun is not a crime in the proposed law. If it was, it would be nullified by the First Amendment.
Basically they want to add pronouns to hate crimes.