Jump to content

Local Murders


bullets13

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

Beaumont is on fire.

I was at my (retired from) department tonight and we were hearing about it a few hours ago. As far as I knew at the time, none seemed to be connected. Certainly information can change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

This is the hidden content, please

 

THREE, yes THREE murders on a Tuesday night.......in Beaumont.

Keep saying it happens everywhere.......it doesn't 

Wrong!!

Location doesn’t matter. 

Take Mid and South County for example. In the last 5 years, PA has averaged 14.5 murders per 100,000 people. The 3 Mid-County cities with almost the same population as PA (56k-pa  v. 50k-mc) has 2.5 murders per 100,000 people. Adjusted for the slight population difference, it is 2.75.

So cities literally across the street from PA have  the same murder rate of about 3 per 100k people in MC to about 15 in PA. 

Oh wait…….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
28 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

Which begs the question: what was this guy doing in a parking lot in the middle of the night with three young children in the back seat?  thankfully none of them were hurt.

AS my Father would say - doing something he should not of been doing.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

Which begs the question: what was this guy doing in a parking lot in the middle of the night with three young children in the back seat?  thankfully none of them were hurt.

Judgmental?

He was probably there for a parent-teacher conference (maybe the only time the teacher was available) and brought his kids to get their side of the issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • 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? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...