tvc184

Obviously it is unconstitutional to do so but I like they way think.

I understand emotionally polarizing. People hate it when you stick your finger in their face and say “I am better”. It doesn’t matter the argument. People hate being told they are wrong. But let’s step back and look at reality and history. Do conservatives think about pushing a more aggressive guns rights (actually just upholding the 2A) than in the 1970s? 80s? 90s? 2000s? No, it has pretty much been the same all along. How about cutting taxes? Is that a radical agenda? Has it changed? Securing our border? New and radical? In fact that is supposed to be such a priority under the Constitution that the right against unreasonable search and seizure under the 4A, doesn’t exist at the border. It is so important that under the Constitution, you have no privacy rights at the border. Again, is that a new and radical agenda? Is that pushing the hard right? Now that look at the Democrat side of open borders. How about Senator Obama saying that border security was important? President Clinton? They publicly stated that securi the border was a vital issue. How about President Obama saying the same and urging Congress to add more money to strengthen the border. [Hidden Content] But let’s compare that to now. Do the Democrats think more about securing the border down as they did when President Obama and President Clinton were in office? Obviously they want the borders wide open now, regardless of what it will cost the US taxpayers, regardless of what it will cost people looking for jobs that are American citizens, etc. The Constitution gives an absolute right to secure the border yet The Democratic now are bent on opening the floodgates. Has that been their position all along in the last 50 years or is this in the last couple of years because Trump wanted to build a wall? Who has become radical? How about men competing as woman from the Democrat perspective in 19070? 80? 90? 2010? Have conservative agendas made a radical shift? Have the Democrats? I hate to say liberal because I’m not even sure the current Democrats (leadership, necessarily voters) are anything approaching liberal. I think it is pure socialism if sometimes outright insanity. It seems like one side has gone off the deep end in utter stupidity it is not from the conservative side. Right now in Florida there is the bill that is making Democrats nationally go out of their minds. That is until they reach the fourth grade, you can’t discuss changing their sex from males or female on any of those types of conversations. The national Democrats are putting this up as a proof that the country is going down the wrong road because the Republicans want to keep sex change conversations out of the classroom until the children are about 10 years old. Horrible right wing agenda? How many of you remember as a first or second grader having a teacher discuss changing your sex? Is that a radical idea from conservatives to keep that out of the classroom until until…. Fourth grade? Horrible!!! Radical!!! Or perhaps the Democrats have really gone off the deep end of the pool? No, It is not some new radical kind of conservatism as opposed to agendas from the Democrats. It should be very clear to anyone that gets away from emotional issue of my team against your team, there’s something strange is going on with the national Democratic Party. If a Republican says yes, they will automatically say no, no matter the topic. I even think that behind closed doors or in the privacy of their homes or at least in their thoughts, some of the Democratic legislators are cringing but are not allowed publicly to be in opposition of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and others who ARE radical. Look what happened when Senator Mancin came out publicly recently and opposed to changing over a hundreds of years rules in the Senate about the filibuster. They would have forced him out of the party but it would have given the Republicans a majority in the Senate. Does anyone really think that 100% of the national Democratic legislators, and in particular the women, think it is good to have men competing as women in women’s sports, in beauty pageants, etc.? I think that even possibly a majority are totally against that. So how come they don’t join the Republicans in a bipartisan bill to ban this insanity? It is simple, they can’t. Like all of the insanity currently happening, they can’t be seen as agreeing with the “other team”. There is radical and dividing politics going on right now and it’s not coming from the conservative side. For those that believe otherwise, let’s say that the Republicans take over Congress and the next election in 7 months (which is entirely possible). Please list the radical agendas that will come from the new conservative and Republican Congress.

The old sailor had been thinking for a long time about getting the surgery. He had shore leave so he had a few brews to build up his courage. When he finally had enough alcohol to get the nerve, he went and saw the doctor and asked to be castrated. The doctor asked if he was sure that is what he wanted and the sailor said,”YES!! I have thought it over for a long time and that’s what I want!” So off to surgery he went. A couple of hours later he woke up in the recovery room and saw another sailor in the bed next to him. The old sailor asked the other, “What are you in here for?”. The second sailor said that he had just gotten a circumcision. The old sailor replied, “Yeah……. that’s what I wanted “.

Here is one of the most stupid rationales about gun laws and in particular gun free zones to stop mass shootings. I have brought this up in various forums several times and maybe this one. If a person is about to kill multiple people, he is facing: 1. Death during the incident by suicide or the police. 2. if he survives: a. Life in prison. b. Death Penalty. There are no other outcomes. I guess there’s a possibility of escape but that is about 99.999% unlikely. If a person is facing certain death or life in prison, what penalty can you threaten him with? “Let’s see, I am mad at the I’m going to indiscriminately kill as many people as I can, hopefully dozens at least!! Then I will kill myself but wait… this is a gun free zone. Oh well maybe I’ll just go get me a Dr Pepper milk shake at Whataburger.” All that gun free zones do is keep people from defending themselves.

Yes, because we know that better laws would have stopped this…

This is another attempt to make it appear that something was actually done. 1. It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to make marijuana legal in states. They simply don’t have that authority because states can still make it a crime. 2. When states have legalized marijuana, the DEA has not shut them down even though they could. Under current federal law, the DEA/US Attorney could arrest and indict every store owner/manager in Colorado and probably every employee at retail marijuana outlets. They choose not to and leave it in the hands of the state. 3. The DEA doesn’t go after recreational use of marijuana even in states where marijuana is still a crime (a majority of states). Again, they leave that to state law and local authorities. When they do get involved it is for kilos. 4. Even in states where marijuana is completely legal, possession of anything over a couple of ounces is a crime and to sell without state consent and licenses is a felony under state law. So this bill is….. meaningless. It only makes the federal government not prosecute minor possession amounts of marijuana…. which they don’t anyway under current law. It is a smoke screen. Don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain…..

Just killing time….. If what I got from various articles is correct….. The guy had two girlfriends. One is age appropriate and one was a child. He got the 16 year old child pregnant or believed that he did. Other girlfriend finds out and decides (with or without the boyfriend) to kill the child to keep him from being sent to prison. Other girlfriend then shoots and kills the possibly pregnant 16 year old. The guy helps to hide the body. It is actually a relatively simple case and is not infrequent assuming the above is correct. My questions now are…. Not only being a despicable murderer, why did the woman who appears to have committed the murder, want to stay with a boyfriend who got a 16-year-old child pregnant? It seems like a logical response would be to break up with him (which is how this all should have ended ) or if she was determined to shoot anyone, why not shoot the guy that caused it all and cheated on you? The woman that committed the murder should have dumped her boyfriend and let him go to prison for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old even if it was with consent. Case closed and we might not of even heard about the sexual assault case. Next, was the boyfriend involved before the murder occurred? What if this a situation where he did not want it to happen but after it did, went along with his “other” girlfriend? Or perhaps he was in on the whole thing including the planning and luring the 16 year old to where she could be shot? Another thing is, was the 16-year-old girl pregnant? If she was then by Texas law it was Capital Murder. If convicted of that crime, a person faces only too possible sentences. That is life without the possibility of parole or the death sentence. In either case the person will never walk as a free person again and will only leave the prison after death. Either would be acceptable to me. This is not a question but just a statement. Let’s say the DA does not have the evidence of or the guy can put up a defense to show that he was in no way involved in the murder including the knowledge that it was going to happen and only got involved after the fact. I believe by Texas law the murder charge against him will not stand up unless there were other people involved. That goes into organized crime but I’m going to at this point to assume it is just two people. He then make a plea deal for tampering with evidence being a body, accepts prison time but at a lesser rate and not face the death penalty if he testifies against his girlfriend? If I remember correctly, organize crime requires three or more people to be involved, even after the fact and even if they don’t know each other. Under organized crime, unless the law has recently changed, all people involved can be charged with the highest crime. An example of organized crime might be a couple of guys want to rob a store and one of them asks his buddy to loan him a handgun. The buddy knows what it is for but wants no part of the robbery itself. While robbing the store, the clerk is shot and killed. While only one person may have done the shooting, all three would be guilty of capital murder. So in this case (without googling the Penal Code), was there other people involved making it organized crime and more arrests are coming?

People don’t have a clue what goes on today. I would estimate that PA and Beaumont in Jefferson County, there are probably 50 of what the FBI classifies as major crimes such as aggravated assault, murder, sexual assault, arson, burglary and robbery. That doesn’t include the 3 Mid County cities, the county jurisdiction outside of those cities and all of Orange and Hardin counties. So let’s say the immediate Golden Triangle area has 75 major crimes “each day”. That is over 500 per week. With the talk of the Internet spreading the word, how many of those 500 major crimes do we hear about? In truth a lot more crime was covered in the 80s and 90s than there is now. Anytime the police make a report, the basic information is public record and anybody can access it almost immediately. Back when the newspapers and the television stations actually had several reporters, they would show up at many of our scenes. It was common practice when I was a Night Shift patrol officer that when we had a major scene such as a bad vehicle accident, a house fire, a shooting, etc., once the scene was secured, we started looking for a place to stage the media. We knew all three television stations and both newspapers were going to show up and maybe some other people. I did many newspaper interviews and several TV interviews at that time. That was including things that happened at 2 AM. If I went to a major scene today and grabbed a couple of patrol officers and said, find a place to stage the media, they would look at me like a three headed monster and wonder what the heck I was talking about. Better yet would be me asking who wants to do the on camera interview. Even new newspaper reporters were given what is called the police beat or maybe blotter reports in large cities. On many nights they would show up at the police station about 9 PM and request all of the police reports from the previous 24 hours. We would give them a stack of maybe 100 reports in PA. They will flip through the reports and find 2-5 things that looked interesting to write stories. They would then go to the newspaper office and write their articles so they could finish them in time for the midnight printing. Good luck if you can find that in today’s Internet media reporting.

Yes, it is true. Certainly nothing is 100% but as a general comparison, yes.

People can only relate to what they experience. Although in history books, no one reading this forum was there for slavery, Indian displacement and for most people, not even segregation laws in the 50’s and early 60’s. I will be 67 on my next birthday and I was 3 years old when the 60’s rolled around. Just like I wasn’t around for slavery, almost no one reading this was around for Jim Crow laws either. Yes times seemed better in the “old days” or maybe “better” is more appropriately described as “simpler”. Not locking your door, kids not coming home until after dark because their parents didn’t have to worry that they hadn’t seen you all day, some stores having blank checks at the checkout because you forgot yours and you were trusted to fill in your correct name and bank account number and so on. Some people (most?) even left their cars unlocked and many left their keys in the car. That includes the Black community. My best friend’s first cousins lived in Riverside in Orange and I used to go there a few times in the summer to play. We played hide and seek and other games with the Black kids living there and I don’t recall them being in before dark either. I don’t think their parents were worried about them getting stopped by the police for selling drugs or them being the victim of a drive-by shooting. It was a simpler time. Was there racism? Discrimination? Sure, but there was also a lot more freedom to move about without fear. Obviously there is now much more freedom technically/legally and merely acceptance. But is it better? Yes in a strictly legal and acceptance sense. When I first became a police officer in the mid-80s and even until the mid-90s, there was violent crime and n PA but it was mostly located in small pockets and they could easily be avoided. Now? There were no drive by shooting or violent crimes like robberies in neighborhoods. The local Stop and Rob convenience store? Sure and in those limited neighborhoods and I am not talking Black neighborhoods. There were several areas in Black neighborhoods in PA that I never went to for police services. There was simply no need. They were quiet and generally self policed. The violence was mostly concentrated in the areas of short Texas, Sally’s alley and a short strip of Houston Ave. I don’t think parents are less worried about their children today because it is different. Quite the opposite. Violent crime isn’t concentrated in a couple of small pockets of a city. People are not wise to leave their doors unlocked or even your car door if you are out of it for even a minute. I was probably in my late 20s when I first started thinking about locking car doors. So while it is easy for a 40 year old today to say it is better now, what is their experience time frame? A person turning 40 this year was 15 years old in 1997. That person has no direct knowledge of the “old days”. I could only guess but I think the Black kids that I played with in Orange who are approaching 70 years old, might long for the old days but without the discrimination. Maybe like, I wish it was like 2022 but back when I was a child in 1963. So yes things are bad now and they were bad then but for different reasons. It goes by a person’s experience. For all its faults, some of the previous generations had a much simpler life. It depends on if you look so the glass as half full or half empty. In my opinion….

To say that she was animated would be an understatement.

No, “Republicans” aren’t entertaining it. With about 275 million adults in this country, it is easy to find some minuscule group that believes something stupid. The further stupidity is when anyone believes that the tiny group represents nearly the entire race/party/ethnicity/etc. You might as well toss in, “you people”. Democrat US Representative Hank Johnson asked in a hearing if the island of Guam might capsize if we get too many Marines stationed there. If I suggested that “Democrats” or Blacks are so stupid, they entertain the idea that an island can (in his words) tip over and capsize, what would you think? Want evidence? There is a Black Democrat member of Congress saying it for all the world to see so it must be true….. right? When you start painting with a very broad brush, be prepared to get splattered.

Golf carts don’t park??

Pretty much. Every state has different laws but I doubt any prosecute when no one wants to file charges. Unless the victim is dead, there aren’t any likely automatic prosecutions.

Cultural appropriation is a silly premise.

Things always remind me of jokes….. After Osama bin Ladin was killed, he awaited his 72 virgins, promised to those that waged jihad. Instead he was confronted by George Washington who began beating him with a cane. He left but immediately Patrick Henry appeared and started doing the same. Then came Thomas Jefferson, then Robert E. Lee and on it went. OBL asked, what’s going on here as he continued to get the crap beaten out of him. He heard, you must have misunderstood, it was 72 Virginians.

The mistake is people that thought they were named after a large feline….

Probably everyone knows the old saying, be careful what you wish for.

Everybody knows it is wrong. It is sometimes easy to tolerate a transgression when it is “your team”.

I think “already planned” if the key. Maybe you missed it. The trip is scheduled and Disney will get their money (or may have already gotten it) whether or not any protest shirt is worn. While there however, why not stick a thumb in Mickey Mouse’s eye? An even better touch might be a selfie with Mickey wearing the PNG shirt…. Maybe with Cinderella’s Castle in the background.

They did get away with it. You can’t and won’t get anything against Disney. People line up to pay $100 must to get in the gate. A family of 4 who stay all day, eating a couple of meals, will probably cost $2,000. What do you suggest as a blowback against them? Maybe 25 people from this area go somewhere else and they move 5 minutes of operating expenses for the year? They wanted to wash their hands to show that they are woke. They are entitled and they did so. Nothing will change for them and probably nothing will change for PNG. Both sides have said their piece and hopefully it is over.

However…. Going by my legal experience and knowledge (which I think is pretty good in this area) and by a comment (I think by Chief Justice Roberts) during the Trump impeachment), it can be whatever. During an impeachment/removal trial in the Senate, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presides over it. (Again) I believe it was the Chief Justice who said when asked what was a high crime or misdemeanor, the response was that it was completely up to the House during an impeachment. In all aspects of laws, definitions are everything. It can be from common language (typically defined in a dictionary), specifically defined or statutory/written law, common law or case law. As an example, “premises”’ is generally defined in the dictionary as any buildings and its land. In the Texas Penal Code under carrying a handgun under an LTC it says that it is a crime to carry on the premises of a school. So if you were out shopping and legally carrying a handgun under and LTC and you picked up your kid on the way home in the parking lot of the school, you are then a felon? No because…. (c) In this section: (4) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. So even though the common and dictionary meaning of premises includes buildings and land, criminally in carrying a handgun under an LTC, it only means buildings. Why is that important? To say that is huge would be an understatement or the difference between a noncriminal act and a felony. As we say in teaching the Penal Code, to check any word or phrase in a law we look for in the order: a. The phrase “in this section” b. The phrase “in this chapter” c. PC Section 1.07 (definitions applied through all Texas laws unless otherwise defined as above) d. The dictionary. So the example of premises under an LTC, it says in this section premises means….. What does that have to do with impeachment and the Constitution? High crimes and misdemeanors is not defined as justification for impeachment. Again I believe it was Chief Justice Roberts who made the statement that it was entirely political and could be defined in whatever the House and later the Senate wished. The separation of powers in the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to make rules for the other two branches. They can only interpret the Constitution as written and that definition is not written. . The reason that was brought up was that people supporting Trump, including me, said that the claimed collusion was lawful for the president so it could not rise to a high crime or misdemeanor. Basically even if he did everything as accused, it is still not grounds for impeachment. That’s when CJ Roberts made the comment that high crime or misdemeanor was not defined and could be whatever political reason they wished. After all, we might assume that high crime means felony but what about the undefined “misdemeanor”? So when asked, what could a president be impeached for? Whatever the House wishes. That is likely why it takes a 2/3 vote. You could impeach a president every week but unless 67 senators agree, it is meaningless. Under the Obama administration, the Senate Democrats made a mockery of the cloture rule for a filibuster. The Dems didn’t have enough votes to pass Obama federal judge appointments so they changed the longstanding rules with what is called the nuclear option. Mitch McConnell told them that was a mistake and they would pay for it in the future. They did when Trump was able to get three Supreme Court justices without enough votes to get past the filibuster. It is my opinion that Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats made a mockery of impeachment when they twice impeached Trump, once within about a week of him leaving office.. Just like their vote on the filibuster rules, they might in the future be paid back for the silliness. I don’t really expect an impeachment of Joe and the #$& but what could it legally be for if the Republicans take back the House and so desired? Anything.

You quoted “legally” in your opening but summed up your post with this… ”Now, the question is, how bad does it have to get before something like this becomes reality.” I answered that.

So will the moderates not vote Democrat since that is exactly what the Dems did for 4 years including trying to impeach Trump after he had lost the election and within days of him leaving office?

The part where you believe that it is even remotely possible that maybe 12-15 Democrat senators will play along.