tvc184

Dayton 1-10 at Nederland 35 Pass to Nederland 10. On 4-12 Dayton attempted fg is good

Dayton gets 1 first. On 4-3 Dayton calls timeout. Dayton lines up to go and Nederland calls time. 4:32 in 1, Dayton 7-0

Kickoff is touchback punt on 4-4 to Dayton 38

!!score:7/0/1

Dayton returned kickoff to Nederland 32. 3 plays to 1-10 at 18 2 plays to 1/goal-5 Touchdown rushing

I don’t think it is liberalism but socialism. It is what the left has become but it isn’t liberalism.

To respond to the threat, on cue the opposition in Italy is claiming that she is the fascist and is trying to be a new Mussolini. Sound familiar?

They absolutely should face even harsh criticism. People should start petitions, play jokes like for sale signs, complain to the school board or anything else that is legal. Who has ever suggested otherwise? That is a ridiculous accusation. Also, criticism is allowed, bashing is not But like Clint Eastwood said in Gran Torino, “Get off my lawn! This is a voluntary family site. Feel free to do anything elsewhere as the coaches are public figures…. just not on the setxsports lawn.

They do elections differently with a coalition, but he likely new. Prime Minister of Italy is the first woman ever, Giorgia Meloni. This was not her acceptance speech but listen to her words. Parts of it, why is the family an enemy…… everything that defines us is now the enemy…. they have attacked our gender, our religion , have attacked our families…. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No! She ends with a partial quote from G. K. Chesterton who died in the 1930s.. She cut it short but it is: “We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening mob with the news that grass is green”. How prophetic…

Well it’s on twitter so it must be……

According to them they are trying to save it. From what I don’t know. Prosperity? History? Personal Freedom?

Shocking!!

The process is the problem. Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can set limitations on constitutional authority of a president? Everybody in the fact check article, even the Democrats who claim the “process” said that ultimately it is the president’s call on what is classified. Their claim is that he has to come ask first even though they cannot intervene. It is like I explained on the Trump impeachment by the House. It was questioned by the Republicans if anything brought up rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as “required” in the Constitution. In other words, if Trump did everything that was claimed, is it enough to constitutionally remove a president? The Chief Justice said that it doesn’t matter. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine what is a high crime or misdemeanor since it was not defined in the Constitution. No one else including the president or the Supreme Court, can change that. The Republicans asked Chief Justice Roberts to step in and end the trial in the Senate. His response was that he has no such constitutional authority. The Constitution clearly gives the House the authority to impeach and he cannot change that but he has to, by the Constitution, act as the presiding judge. As an example, if the Republicans take back the House in a few weeks, their first action in January can be to impeach Biden. If the Democrats argue, there is no good reason, the Chief Justice has spoken. He is the presiding judge in the Senate for removal and he said that he has no authority to step in on Congress’s constitutional authority. What might be comical if that happens, the Democrats who laughed at the Republicans for claiming that the House didn’t have the authority two years ago, would now claim the exact same thing that they previously hailed as the law. It is the same with presidential authority. You questioned Ihe “process”. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to tell the president what to do as the commander in chief? The Democrats claim is that yes because Obama said so. And no, I am not kidding. Does Obama have the authority to override the Constitution because that is the claim from the Democrats, Obama set out a process. As an example then, could Trump has cut an executive order that future presidents could not make treaties with other countries where the Constitution says ONLY the president can make treaties? Does the Constitution say, this is the law unless a president doesn’t like it for future presidents? As I said in my first comment, the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on presidential authority or a congressional requirement on classified documents, much of which is likely constitutional and goes into the separation of powers. Whether Trump can verbalize it, put it in writing or merely take a briefcase home with him (his thoughts), can Congress or a former president ban him from doing so? So far there is no legal answer from the Supreme Court.

Brought to you by the same county that brought us Michael Brown and hands up, don’t shoot….

I was using deductive reasoning on that one 🙂 but that wasn’t the information being put out.

According to factcheck.org, under the title of dubious Trump orders, set out in an apparent attempt to prove him wrong… but couldn’t. Former prosecutors in the article made the claim that classification is not relevant, making it appear that it isn’t an issue. The conclusion was that no one knows and the Supreme Court has not made such a ruling. It might be a huge constitutional issue and the separation of powers. Can Congress impose restraints on constitutional guarantees of a president as the commander in chief? As an example: In the impeachment of Trump, it was questioned whether the accusations against him rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution and in a comment (not an official ruling) Chief Justice Roberts said that the Supreme Court had no say so on the issue as it is an authority under Article I of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can’t override a constitutional guarantee with another branch of government. So can Congress as a branch of government, order a president, a branch of government, on what to do as the commander in chief? [Hidden Content]

If they aren’t ready, then the company and/or the school district isn’t/wasn’t being honest previously. Two weeks ago for the home opener, it was reported to be almost a game time decision on whether the stadium would be ready. Of course they had to know by Wednesday so they could get Lamar if needed and they did. We have now had two weeks of perfect weather for construction. If it still not ready, how was it “we might be able to finish by Friday”…. two weeks ago?

Watering the field doesn’t help anymore.

Notwithstanding the fact that WOS’s claim to fame is defense and Faircloth strips his defense to bolster his offensive?

Man In The Arena, Teddy Roosevelt My all time favorite quote.

Their is a term used in both Texas criminal and civil law. It is “material” or “materiality”. So while a person might not be exactly truthful, would it have any real bearing on the case or issue. If I am giving a statement to the police about some incident that I witnessed like a murder, and during the questioning the office asked, what were you doing at the time? Let’s say I told the officer I was coming back from the beach and I caught the biggest redfish of my life while I was there. Let’s say I gave a completely true statement about what I witnessed in the murder but lied about the biggest fish of my life. Would that be material as part of the investigation? Or being a banker, what if on a loan application a person said he makes about $150,000 a year gross? During a search of the records it was determined that he only made $145,000 a year on average. Is that really material? What if he claimed $500,000? So while a bank might not be a victim, if a person grossly exaggerated his worth, it could still be a law violation in falsifying a document…. depending on state law.

It depends on the laws in that state. You cat be jailed for some civil actions. A state can classify or enact a law in any manner as long as it doesn’t violate the US Constitution or their state constitution. It would be their decision by their supreme court if it follows the state constitution.

You are correct. It doesn’t take me to clear it up. Anyone can claim that they are investigating someone. Look at the big news (or comedy skit) this week about a Texas sheriff claiming that he is investigating Governor DeSantis of Florida for the Martha’s Vineyard entertainment. Sure, investigate all you want. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an indictment on that case.

Haha!! Joined just now and this if your first post?? 🤔 🤣 Either feeling very confident or trying to inspire WOS!!

Then they didn’t bump their butts….