tvc184

Yeah, can’t rule out leaves everyone open to every potential accusation. We can’t rule out that a person posting in this thread is not a child molester…… It reminds me of the Mueller report on Trump collusion with Russia. We cannot rule out the Trump was illegally involved with Russia, we just can’t find any evidence to prove it. I guess with the rationale of some people reading this forum, everybody is guilty of everything until it can be proven otherwise.

Very stupid questions. What next, which city eats the most celery per capita?

And that is the consistency of the method.

It isn’t really a time matter. Steaks don’t take long whether grilled, on cast iron or slightly slower, reverse sear then oven finish. Sous vide obviously isn’t for everyone but any real time is about 5 minutes of setup a couple of hours before you eat. The benefit is the temperature you want it such as warm red center and nailing it every time. Then throughout the steak. Oh yeah, and tender. If you want to grind your teeth into a steak in order to eat it, don’t use sous vide I can sometimes knock it out of the park in cast iron coming straight from the fridge. That used to be my preferred method. But sometimes…….. About a year ago I had a couple of ribeye steaks that I was going to make sous vide the next day. My wife on a spur of the moment decided she wanted them today. No resting, no waiting for it to come to room temperature or anything else. Just SPG and straight to the pan. It was a home run, deep into the upper pavilion in the outfield. (left field side) I tried it a couple of weeks later and overcooked it to medium and not medium rare. It wasn’t bad but it could have been a good bit better.

Watch the video at least to about the 5:20 mark to see the finished steaks. They did ribeye and picanha. This was sous vide at 129° and then finished over charcoal for a sear. Whether you like it rare or it maybe 135° for medium rare or 140° for medium, look at the consistency of the steak throughout. Look at how juicy.

Sous vide is for perfection. The example a steak 1.25” to 1.5” thick cooked exactly medium rare edge to edge. There is no trick or grill-master secret to cooking medium well to well done. Just keep cooking by any method until most of the juices are cooked out. I grew up eating well done T-bone steaks that my parents could afford about once a month and they were about 1/4 inch thick. A little bit of salt and plenty of black pepper and they were quite tasty. An inch and a half steak cooked like that would be shoe leather in my opinion. If someone likes it like that, great. There is no trick to cooking it however. Rare, medium rare and medium or a completely different issue. There are all kinds of methods to try and get the perfect medium rare steak as an example but not many people can do it every time or maybe even consistently. If someone can then that is awesome. Over a charcoal flame, in a cast-iron skillet, on a griddle, reverse sear in an oven, etc. There are plenty of methods however heat and timing are critical. If the cook time is too short, you have it more rare than you wanted. If it’s too long then it might be more cooked and tough than what you wanted. And is your cast iron skillet is your cast iron skillet 350° or 450°? If you’re going by timing, that matters. Even for a perfectly cooked medium rare steak over charcoal or on cast-iron, maybe the center 1/8 inch to 1/4 inch might be medium rare. On either side of that it goes from well done at the surface to medium well to medium and fades into medium rare. So if you have a 1.25”thick steak, about 1/4 inch is what you were looking for. With sous vide it is about 1.25”‘medium rare or all the way through. There is no guesswork for doneness. Even though his method in the video is crude and absolutely not exact, what the guy did was correct. The bag keeps the meat sealed and the water controls the temperature throughout the steak. In a real sv cooker, you control the temperature to the degree. If you want to set the temperature about 128° - 130° for rare, set it and forget it or 134° - 136° for medium rare and so on. The steak can never cook more than the temperature of the water surrounding it. The timing is also not critical. I could leave a sv steak in the water cooking for 90 minutes and up to about three hours. The steak will never get hotter and it will never cook anymore than the temperature you set it for. It will get more tender the longer you cook but that could be a bad thing. Cooking a sv ribeye for about five hours might turn it almost into baby food because it gets so tender. Let’s say for example somebody wants to eat about 5:30 PM. At about 2:45 PM to throw some steaks in the sous vide cooker and walk away. At 5:30 PM people are not ready so you just leave them in the water bath. 6 PM rolls around and people are ready, take the steaks out and sear them for a few seconds and they are ready to go. Try that with a reverse sear a steak in the oven or throw some steaks on the pit expecting company to be there in 5 PM and….. they aren’t but the steaks have already been cooked. With sv, take the steaks out, pat them dry on the outside and then sear by whatever method you wish. You want some charcoal glowing white and want to toss the steaks on the flame for a few seconds to get that char on the outside, do it. A screaming hot cast-iron skillet for about 20 seconds on each side, go for it. The internal part of the state, literally edge to edge besides this year you put on the outside, will be whatever doneness you wanted. That is long winded but what is the advantage? The temperature in the middle of the steak is done exactly the same every time and throughout the complete steak not just a little strip in the center.

Yeah but he paid $20 extra for the bone and then threw the bone away.

Imagine that, people are committing crime without having to worry about facing consequences. You reap what you sow. They have to look no farther than in their own mirror. Maybe Mayor Lightfoot from Chicago and Mayor Cantrell from New Orleans can meet up and strategize on what is working in their cities. The rest of us can take notes from the meeting because obviously they have things well in hand.

You can sous vide and char broil. This guy’s technique sucks but…….. If you do a sous vide correctly, you can finish it by charring on a grill, over charcoal, in a cast-iron skillet, or steel skillet with a torch. I found a little bit of humor that you pay a good bit extra for a tomahawk steak because of the long bone but then this guy cuts off the bone.

I haven’t cooked sous vide in…. 3 days.

That…. Is… HILARIOUS.

Nope because DeSantis is sitting out there waiting….

That is since bs questions. Citizenship: How much pizza does Americans eat Where was the first Ferris wheel built? I could go on but really?

The GOP needs to win 6 more House seats and one more Senate seat to take over both houses. Neither party in the foreseeable future will ever have enough to override a veto.

The president doesn’t put forth legislation. Legislators do. I think in the last Texas legislative session in 2021, the governor made a statement that if you send me a pro gun bill, I will sign it. He does not submit bills, he does not debate bills and he does not vote on bills.. That is not his function. He can let his feelings known however. Several pro gun legislation bills were sent to him and he signed each one. If they could not have come to an agreement, he could not have signed any of them but that is not because he did not wish to. Governor Abbott is just lucky that for the moment Texas has a super majority of Republicans. I could assure you there are many pieces of legislation that if they would have gotten to Trump’s desk, he would have signed them. I could assure you that if the Republicans had a super majority in Congress, like Obama had for his first two years (which lost him control for his remaining 6 years), they would have been stacking bills on Trump’s desk. A super majority that the Democrats had for the two years which is almost unheard of history, was completely squandered because of Democrats pushed Obamacare which a majority of the public was against. I guess I’m glad because much of what they wanted to do, they were not able to because they were so wrapped up pushing their disastrous healthcare bill. How divisive was Obamacare from the Public’s opinion? The Democrats held 255 seats in the House when Obama came into office and the Republicans had 180. The Democrats had a stunning 75 seat majority. Right after Obamacare passed, the midterms came up. The Republicans went from 180 seats to 240. The Democrats Dropped to 191. Currently the Democrats hold the House by 10 positions. The Republicans have to win six of those seats to take back control. The first two years of the Obama presidency they lost over 60 seats. If the Dems lose at least six seats, nothing will pass legislation for the next two years without Republican approval. If so we will see how Biden does in signing laws that never make it to his desk.

Everything is brought up in Court. When is debatable.

The reason I do not believe you are entirely correct is because that government could not operate. Even a city has a city manager that is hired by the city Council to basically do the day-to-day operations of the city. Can you imagine having to convene a city Council meeting for every decision have to be made? Look at a city the size of Beaumont. There are a couple of openings in the public works department. The manager of public works hires two people and the city manager approves. But wait, the city Council has to be called Into session to debate and have a vote whether those two people could be hired. In the same week however there are five new employees in the water department, four new police officers, two new firefighters, five roads that needs to be repaired, etc.Even in a small city, government operations would have to completely shut down if every single issue had to be debated. People or commissioners have to be given the authority to act without calling for an act of Congress. Another example is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. They have been given the authority by the Texas legislature, signed into law by the governor, to regulate hunting and fishing licenses, bag and size limits, etc. Can you imagine calling the legislature back into a special session every time there is a devastating freeze that damages the fish population of South Texas or something similar? Then you are going to have a bunch of locally elected politicians the say what fish limits and size should be? There is some information that just came in about possible violent protests tomorrow in a city. The police chief who has the authority decides to put extra officers on the street just in case. No, let’s contact the city Council and have them convene at 2 AM the day before the protests, that we just found out about, and see if they wish to pay the overtime. No. They give that authority to an appointed government body or person.

There is a constitutional (and I think sometimes controversial) principle call substantive due process. That is where the Court rules that you have a right when that right is not exactly spelled out in some part of the Constitution. It is not a literal translation of the Constitution but a subjective, kind of, we think this may be what they meant or would say.

Even you must realize that to passed legislation, you have to have the votes. It takes at least 60 votes in the Senate to override the filibuster. It is the same reason now that even though the Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate, they cannot get any legislation passed without at least some Republican support. Every single Republican could vote for overturning Obamacare and it still cannot get to the president’s desk.

Yes and no. The legislature can pass a law, just like any other law, and it could override a presidential executive order. The president still retains the right to veto that law. The legislature can then override the veto but it takes a 2/3 majority of both houses. It will take at least 67 votes in the Senate and 292 votes in the House. Since only one third of senators are up for election each two years, I believe only 14 Democrats seats are up for reelection. That means if the Republicans won all 14 races, including California, they were still not have enough to override a veto Unless they were joined by at least a few Democrats. I think the odds of that ever happening would be like winning the lottery. Twice On the same night…

I have just read blurbs about this case and not in depth. I’m not so sure how this will go. The Supreme Court has, correctly in my opinion, ruled that unelected officials have the right to make rules with the effect of law. That includes onthe state local and national levels. The issue is whether an elected legislative body gave that committee or agency that authority or if the authority was given, did they overstep the bounds of the legislation? During Covid we often saw claims that the governor’s executive orders were not law. That is completely false. During a declared emergency, the governor of the state of Texas can issue an order that has the full effect of criminal law including jail and a fine. That is because during the regular legislative session, the Texas legislature enacted such a law and it was signed by the then governor. Unless it is changed by a new law, the governor has the authority under emergency powers. If I remember it correctly, Biden ordered OSHA to mandate that all companies with at least 100 employees, have them all vaccinated. The Supreme Court stepped in and said that OSHA definitely has the authority by passed legislation to make rules to make a workplace safe however that does not include medical decisions that affects a person once he leaves the place of business. The issue was not whether OSHA had that authority to issue mandates, they do. The issue was if OSHA had a right to make medical decisions that affects a person’s life after he leaves the job. The Supreme Court ruled that they do not have that authority. From the brief summaries that I have read, this case appears to be similar. Did OSHA overstep their authority or did they do so after an executive order by the Trump administration to cease? I haven’t read anything in depth about the argument from both sides so I just kind of know the basic claim. I think…..

From the way I have read this case, this is what it comes down to it. We all know Supreme Court decisions have said that teachers in class or at school functions cannot lead prayer. The Supreme Court has said however that everyone has a right to pray at any time as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. So if you’re in the middle of English class, you can’t walk up in front of class it’s start chanting verses because that disrupts a class and interferes with rights of another person. You can sit in your seat and pray anytime you wish. If I am reading yes case correctly, a football coach has a duty to the school and the law. His team played a football game and it is over. He could have just as well walked up to the district superintendent in the stands and asked, “Am I now off duty and free to go where I wish?” I cannot imagine any other answer other than, yes. You can go to the locker room and talk to your kids, you could drive to a fast food place and get your burger or you can go home. So the coach walked to the football field, kneele and says a brief prayer. Did he violate the constitution? Did he interfere with anyone else’s right to go about their business or have their rights violated? The game is over and some players have headed to the locker room. So are hanging around and mingling with a crowd, talking to parents etc. Some have gone to where the coach is saying a prayer and decided to pray with him. did they violate anyone’s right? Since they are now free to go, can they pray as they wish? Just just not seem like a difficult decision. A coach on his own time and within his own constitutional right, he decided to pray. He interfered with no one else and he’s not compelling anyone to do anything. Fo that he was terminated. It seems it was the coach who had his First Amendment rights violated, not any students or anyone else. Not a constitutional right but written federal law in the EEOC, it appears that he has a job discrimination claim against the district. Federal law bans discrimination at work based on sex, race, national origin, religion, pregnancy and age (which is over 40). So was he off duty and they completely blew his rights out of the water by saying that he cannot pray on his own time or he was on duty and not allowed to pray when it does not interfere with his job? Either way this coach should get a hefty settlement of the school district. The strangest part of this decision was the fact that three liberal judges felt that he had no right to pray and he violated someone else’s constitutional rights when he did.

It went that far because the school board denied his right to pray on his own time And fired him for up holding his constitutional rights.

I noticed even on Facebook that a D&C would now be against the law. At least one, if not several people, that does not like this ruling likely came up with that scenario. Like, “Oh yeah!! No abortions!? Well a doctor can no longer treat a medical condition!”. Nonsense Then it goes viral as if it is fact. A D&C can obviously be used as an early stage abortion but there are other medical reasons for the procedure