tvc184

There are always crazy views from someone. It doesn’t matter what someone thinks. It matters what they can legally do or have support for. Griswald makes it pretty clear that SCOTUS doesn’t have an issue with contraceptives. That is purely a private medical decision. Abortion is not as if can kill another human. That isn’t a religious opinion but a law opinion. There will always be kooks out there with some running for office. The Constitution keeps them in line. There is no support from Republicans for banning contraceptives. I am not talking of individuals but support from the party. For those that see overturning Roe/Casey (if it happens) as freedom to do practically anything, they haven’t been paying attention in class…..

I know there are hot button issues for people and I have mine. Mine starts with the Second Amendment. I don’t want to compromise on that. But abortion? For one it is not a listed constitutional right. Secondly it is a human life and thirdly there are so many to stop it beforehand from the Plan B pill to birth control. I can’t imagine how many Democrats or moderates are watching this whole institution fall apart in front of their eyes, having never had to make a decision on abortion and likely will not have to.

Bored so I will try to answer. For those aforementioned, if you were leaning toward voting for the conservative candidate this time due to…. supply chain issues, an incompetent president, runaway inflation, all time high gasoline prices, longest downturn in the Dow Jones since 2001 (or 1923) depending on last week), leaving American troops and civilians to be abandoned and some murdered, giving up a strategic Air Force base, leaving billions of dollars of high tech military equipment to terrorists and so on…. does this potential Supreme Court ruling change your mind or in the previous short version, does some living babies trump all that?

Before the world went woke….

Maybe he was truly offended by it. Maybe the guy that said it had no ill intent and did not know it would wrongly received. Maybe the guy that received it took it the wrong way and it was meant as a compliment. I know that if you’re looking to be offended, you will be offended whether it was intended or not. I was complained on one time as a police officer because I told a minority woman she was admirable. I was immediately called in and told my exact words. Her son had been assaulted by a couple of bullies after school. I asked if he did anything to get away or fight back in self-defense and the child’s mother said she does not allow him to use violence even in self-defense. I said that while I thought it was admirable the way she was raising her son, maybe at the very least she could teach him to get away and not just absorb the beating. I did make the police report for the investigation. I had not been gone a couple of minutes when I was called in for the investigation on me.I was complained on because I was concerned about her son’s welfare but said it was admirable that she was teaching her son not to be violent. I would not be shocked that 20 years later she is probably still telling the story about how a white officer was abusive to her and a racist. If you were looking for a reason to be angry, you probably will be. There are obviously plenty of reasons to be angry with someone but if you walk around with a chip on your shoulder, “how are you doing” might be offensive.

I wonder if we would’ve had the disinformation board back then, if they would’ve caught this. Sure they would have come forward to show that the Steeler dossier was fake.

The Peter Doocy question, did disinformation do away why the disinformation board question for the press secretary was hilarious.

She was entirely correct, yes woman or not. I saw plenty of comments supporting her. It was a 4-3 vote. Were the other 3 voting with her, yes people?

This is what happened when a lawyer asks a yes or no question and the person does not only answer yes or no. I got lucky because I did not anticipate the question but I pretty much destroyed a defense attorney’s case when he ask me a yes or no question and I blurted out a short answer. His defense was that I made an arrest because a person filed a complaint against me. That was notwithstanding the fact that they were about 10 people civilian witnesses but the defense attorney was going to try to sway the jury that it was all because of me. I guess I had magical power over 10 witnesses that did not know me. His question was, aren’t you familiar with my client because she filed a complaint against you? I said, “Yes, that and other things”. He passed the questioning back to the district attorney who asked me, can you name those other things. I had arrested three of her sons for felonies which prompted the complaint in one instance. Of course the defense attorney quickly objected the moment I mentioned an arrest and normally that would be correct. I cannot talk about her or her family’s history as it is not relevant to the crime at hand. EXCEPT!!….. under the rules of evidence, if the defense opens with a line of questioning, it opens the door for the district attorney to follow up. When the defense attorney objected, the district attorney in response said, Your Honor the defense opened with “are you familiar with my client” and the officer said yes that and other things. I believe we are entitled to those other things. The judge looked at me and said, officer you can testify about anything you wish relating to the defendant. The defense attorney literally put his face in his hands and sat there. When I finished the defense attorney asked me one more question, but you have never arrested the defendant for a felony? I gave a one-word answer, no. The witness is excused.

Talk about setting a trap but you ended up walking into it yourself.

I saw a new story or an exposé on that a few months ago. It seemed like a pretty good deal but you would need some dedicated men to be involved and also some serious safeguards and training in place.

… and after a few years of 6 high schools, then what seems like the never ending saga of combining, splitting and creating new schools started. I can’t even remember the sequence now. It started… Beaumont, French, Charlton-Pollard, South Park, Forest Park and Hebert. I’m sure I will mess this up but… At some point Beaumont and CP combined to be BCP. Forest Park and Hebert combined to be Westbrook. SPHS later combined with WB. French then combined with BCP to become Central. Ozen was then created later. Was it then Central and Ozen that combined into United? I’m sure I botched some of that but it should be reasonably close.

I believe it was actually three districts in Beaumont. Beaumont, French and SP. SP voted not to join BISD so BISD (board I think) voted to dissolve the district and forcing the merger. That set off some federal lawsuits about diluted Black votes and SPISD eventually merged with BISD. I think French ISD was small and absorbed by BISD.

Denise Wallace-Spooner: “…….if Dr. Thomas' name is placed back on the stadium, more people will continue to leave the district. She says his leadership is not something to be celebrated. She says to "honor a man who profoundly failed the community" is the wrong message to send. She says the district may never recover from the damage if it makes the change”. Ms. Spooner said people on the outside and apparently many people within the district scratch their heads about. Why the celebration of a man who led the district during so much corruption that both state and federal prosecutors got convictions on his staff or people contracted by his staff? Why would some board members push for someone that anyone should clearly be able to see is divisive? Even if the vote went the other way. Gee, this vote might split the community. .. let’s do it!!!! Is there any wonder why the state had to step in?

There’s no drama in PA…..

The Democrats don’t like or support him either. They are now stuck with him however with the fear that Harris might have to take over. They are stuck having to either remain silent or defending him for fear of what may be coming in November.

Pretty hard hitting and damning bit of commentary against the entire covid response including the vaccines. Yes it is on the National Institute of Health website which is part of the same organization (US Department of Health and Human Services) of the CDC who is spitting out some of the ever changing nonsense. So a doctor on a US government website rips apart the US government, doctors, people pushing a vaccine against all established protocols, etc. Some quotes from the article: We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence. For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient—including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators. Neither Anthony Fauci, the CDC, WHO nor any medical governmental establishment has ever offered any early treatment other than Tylenol, hydration and call an ambulance once you have difficulty breathing. This is unprecedented in the entire history of medical care as early treatment of infections is critical to saving lives and preventing severe complications.

I would say that if it was explained better or maybe with less wokeism, it might have made sense. Either the guy that conceived the statue or was in its design, was an abolitionist. By then the Civil War was over however. In the design they put the broken chains of bondage but very inconspicuously coming from under her robe. I don’t think you can see it from ground level. So, was there a reference to freedom including freeing slaves placed into the design? Yes. Was the statue designed to commemorate the end of the Civil War and freeing slaves? No. The statue was given to the USA as a token of friendship and alliance between our nations after France helped us beat the common enemy, Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. In doing so the French helped us show freedom to the world by creating a republic instead of a monarchy.

Yes, their actions seem trivial and like spite. Seriously, what is the purpose for this seemingly great push for his name like he is a savior or left some kind of lasting legacy? Looking at this article, it shows the mismanagement, not following policy and deception by Thomas while he was superintendent although there article was written after he left [Hidden Content]

And don’t think that Biden shutting down millions of acres of oil exploration immediately on taking office and the skyrocketing of gasoline prices was merely a mistake. This has been calculated before he took office. Anyone with a smidgeon of intelligence knows that releasing a few barrels of oil from the strategic reserves would have no effect on prices. That was only an attempt to divert the weak minded into having a talking point on how he is concerned. With the crunch on baby formula, it would be like me saying, the national is saved, I just found two cases in my pantry so the crisis is over!!

Call it, “The Preacher”.

The National Park Service (who runs the park) website says it was a gift from the people of France to commemorate the alliance with the USA in the Revolutionary War. The inscription on the tablet is July 4, 1776.

Revisionist history.

If the city council decides to remove it from their cars, that is completely lawful. It is their decision to make. To leave it however is not unconstitutional going by federal court rulings as authorized by Article III of United States Constitution.

The comments on one Facebook forum are comical from both sides. I like on occasion like to throw barbs (typically easy to back up) at certain comments. I pointed out that In God We Trust is the national motto. One more on pointed out that there is no such thing as a national motto. When I cited the exact law, he changed the argument like he never said it. Then it was (it is hard to understand this rational) The law was only enacted in 1956 so it should not count. Huh? Obamacare is less than 15 years old so I shouldn’t have to go by that disastrous healthcare bill because it is too new?