tvc184

But the VA Governor and Lieutenant Governor are now Republicans.

Allowed is much different than having children say Christian prayers at the beginning of every day in public schools.

I did not see any of it but I hope so. Had this been locally, I don’t think he would have been indicted.

It seems like they are trying to Weaponized the DOJ. From the Attorney General and it is true, this was not sent to parents it was basically interdepartmental. It was a DOJ prosecutor memo. But…. Unless the congressman lied, he read the phrase, annoying phone calls. The AG deflected and started talking about intimidation which is a threat and we all understand. But apparently the memo said annoying. Annoying just means something I don’t like. If a school board member gets an annoying phone call, is the DOJ even going to contemplate prosecution? Then it goes on to emotional distress. Again, that is like annoying. A person disagrees with me so that causes me stress. Federal crime? He talked bad about me on Facebook, indict him! There is too much to take apart but the AG says, we are concerned about violence and the threat of violence. Sure, we all agree about that. If that is all this was about, do they really need an internal memo to explain to professional prosecutors/lawyers what a threat or what an act of violence is? I was a police supervisor for 20 years. Maybe I’m wrong but I’ve never felt the need to tell one of my patrol officers that if someone shoots someone or threatens to kill them, that is a crime. Apparently in the DOJ at some level, feels the need to remind these professionals of what the law is. I understand that the AG might not have personally seen that memo. It still concerns me that some prosecutor in the DOJ felt it needed to be written after getting complaints from the school board. The AG has now found out about this memo which he apparently disagrees with it by saying he did not know about it, deflecting it to one of his subordinates. Now that he knows what his prosecutors are doing, I wonder if he is going to take action against them. Don’t hold your breath…

I find that on occasion on Facebook because you can always edit or delete your post. It starts when one person will make a really stupid post. People will complain about it and the person making the offending post will change it. Then someone else will come along and say you’re a bunch of idiots because the person never said that. In fact the person did say it and then changed or deleted it.

Unless there is a big improvement within the next year, which I don’t anticipate, it will be a replay of the Obama administration. During his first midterm the Republicans gained 63 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate. Right now the Dems have an eight seat margin in the House and it is 50-50 in the Senate. For all practical purposes, there’s a good chance the Biden administration will be effectively finished within the next 12 months. There is an equal likelihood that the 2024 presidential election, whoever the president will be from whichever party, will have to deal with a Republican Congress.

No. Why should I?

More than likely, that is all he has to offer. He could attempt to run on the coattails of the current administration but appears for some reason not to want to do that.

If they get away with that, the prosecutors should be indicted.

Testing…… I was reading a thread in another forum and the fight was, Waving HIPPA rights. I did not but I want to start out saying to begin with, you had two misspellings in your title.

Voice recognition…. And no matter how many times I proofread it, I usually have to go back and make corrections. For some reason it is easier to see once it has been posted. I will leave it for dramatic effect…. 😂

It depends on the person receiving it.

According to Wisconsin law I believe he was committing a misdemeanor because he was under 18 years old. I don’t know if that negates self-defense, it should not but you can never tell with a state law or what a DA will try to convince the jury to believe. If he was committing a crime that caused the attack on him, I believe that probably negates it. Like if he was breaking into someone’s house and they attacked him and he used deadly force, it would be unlawful because he cannot use a deadly force to further a criminal act. On the other hand if he was smoking marijuana which is also a misdemeanor and someone tried to kill him, does he have the right to self defense or would he lose it simple because he’s committing a misdemeanor that has nothing to do with the attack? I believe that him unlawfully carrying a rifle does not negate the right to self-defense but you could never tail about another state.

I am really not sure where people come up with their conclusions. Obviously different states have different laws and different requirements such as should you be required to retreat if it’s possible? I am sure that maybe even a majority of the people commenting have absolutely no clue what their state law says or in this case, the state law where you do not live. Even if they do they make up scenarios in their own mind as to what would be legal and not going by the letter of the law. Yes, this should be entertaining. Hopefully it will be not guilty

Now if they could just figure out a legitimate vaccine that would last as long as this thread……

He is just a pediatric brain surgeon, what does he know……

It’s kind of like seeing a typo and fighting the urge to respond. And I look back at many of my posts and see typos….. I have been commenting on another forum the last couple of days and I think the title of one thread was…. Waving HIPPA rights. I had to fight my emotions to keep from saying, first off, it’s waiving and then, it’s not HIPPA, it’s HIPAA. That was before I even read the thread. 😀

😂😂😂

Juries don’t set precedents but it is an interesting verdict.

This poll was done a year ago when much of the turmoil of defunding the police was really raging or about 3 months after George Floyd died. The narrative pushed by some (perhaps many) is that the minority community doesn’t want the police in their neighborhoods. This Gallup poll shows relatively true same response between black, white and Hispanics. On the question, do you want the same amount of police coverage or more, whites were at 88%, blacks at 81% and Hispanics at 83%. Apparently there’s not this huge divide between the races as the media and some politicians portray. Asians at 72% that had a more significant gap but even then a large majority wanted the police to stay. [Hidden Content]

In City after City the police force has been reduced or in some cases maybe like Baltimore, the police quit being proactive in some areas. I think some officers have a attitude, if you don’t want me in your neighborhood, fine. I believe in most of those cases we have seen a spike in violent crime and sometimes a huge spike. That kind of negates the claim I have seen so many times in various forums, The police do not prevent crime, they only respond to a crime scene after being. If they do not prevent crime, why all of a sudden we are having some significant rises in crime when the police are not there? If they do not prevent crime, why do we have them patrol? Why not just have them park on a street corner somewhere in various parts of the city and wait for a crime to happen?

CK got a deep pockets settlement so I guess you could call that a win. He did not beat the NFL in court and doubt that he could unless he had a recording of two or more owners claiming they were going to stop him from getting a contract. In the deep pocket theory, you sue someone that has a lot of money and make it more expensive for them to win than to settle. For example you could sue the NFL for $100 million for discrimination, then drag it out in court for a decade and cause $25 million in legal fees….. or they could make an offer of $10 million to just drop the whole issue. The NFL can spend $25 million to win and prove their case or they can spend $10 million to say, just go away. It is like, you have no case and we can beat you in court but to beat you will cost twice as much money. Now ask why insurance rates are so high…

This sends to be the premise of the federal lawsuit…. “The lawsuit alleges San Marcos Police chose not to provide the Biden bus with a police escort despite multiple requests, and even refused “to take reasonable steps to protect both Plaintiffs’ safety and their foundational democratic rights.” Maybe their lawyers haven’t read the Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. In CR, it wasn’t feelings or we were scared and you wouldn’t provide a safe space. In CR a woman had a restraining order against her estranged husband. A few weeks later he kidnapped them and the woman called the police and urged them to go find her husband because her children were in danger. The police refused and told her to wait until later to see if he brings them back. He did not bring them back but rather murdered all three children and brought them to the police station. There he died in a shootout with the police. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional guarantee of police protection. There might be statutory state laws that demand the police respond to a situation but there is nothing in federal law nor the United States Constitution guarantees protection. So let’s see, the murder of three children with the police refusing to look for them is not unconstitutional but having feelings hurt is?