tvc184

I think we are already at that point and have been for a few years.

JFK and Trump could almost be two peas in the same political pod but JFK was a polished politician and Trump doesn’t know when to shut up.

BUT, BUT... Trump said that his SOTU address was a record audience and that was not true. You know that Dims are hurting when they can’t talk about policy or results but only have tweets to discuss.

Not unless someone in the 9th files. I think all of those are in the 2nd Circuit.

This might be a stretch but the Dims need to read The United States Constitution Article I on the powers of Congress. What is comical is that Obamacare was upheld under that same article under the authority to tax. Apparently some of them like the Constitution when it fits their desires and wants to ignore it when it doesn’t.

[Hidden Content]

In Bible school way when I was about 6 years old (over 50 years ago) my teacher told us that the Sabbath day was Saturday, a day of rest. I don’t know any Christian religion that believes otherwise. Generally Christians gather for their main worship centered on Sunday. This was as I was told in the same lesson, the gathering to celebrate Christianity on Sunday, the day Christ rose from the dead or as we know it, Easter Sunday. As he told us, basically every Sunday is a celebration of Easter. That does not replace the Sabbath in the Old Testament. Not coincidentally most people, except shift workers, are traditionally off on both Saturday and Sunday or what we call our weekend. I believe that is why our traditional days off were S-S and not something like Tuesday-Wednesday. Saturday and Sunday are both holy days for different reasons. One in the Old Testament and one in the New Testament.

You are reading and believing too much gibberish. Let’s cut to the chase. Do you really believe that the USA is about to spring upon us a Sunday worship law, enabling the prophecy of the beast?

Yes it is a conspiracy theory. The Bible is not part of that plot (realizing the theory is based on verses) but the notion the there will be a national blue law is ludicrous. There will be no national law requing any worship, much less on Sunday or any restrictions. Dragging up laws attempted 130 years or more ago is tin foil hat stuff.

Got bored and started posting conspiracy theories?

It is bad, very bad. The people that have a lot of money will still have a lot of money. The people that made poor choices in life and do not want to work, will still not want to work. See how bad that is? Simply terrible.....

The national debt went up $4 Trillion under Bush. The national debt increased $12 Trillion under Obama or 300% more than under Bush. The notion that anything went down under Obama is ludicrous. The tax cuts will end in 10 years... because the Democrats wanted it to. It 8 Dems would have voted to give the middle class tax relief, it would have been permanent. I think the IRS needs to take a page from the Obama playbook (but actually tell the truth and mean it). They need to have a check box on the 2018 tax return and have it say.... “If you liked your tax plan, you can keep it”. If you check the box you can pay the rate and standard deduction from the Obama years. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!! The rest of us will gladly pay the new rate.

Daily comedy.......

Those darn trees are what’s keeping the property value down.....

That is the rule change game. THESE ARE THE RULES.....unless we lose the majority. Backed up by Pelosi and Schumer, I have seen several media oulets stated over and over, the tax plan got no Democratic support in committee or in the roll call vote. They will likely get no votes from the Democrats if this comes up for final passage. Somehow they forget that maybe the biggest boondoggle in US history, the notAffordale Care Act, passed into law without a single Republican vote Now they are really angry that there is no bipartisanship. And all of the stomping of the feet is based on outright lies. The middle class will get no tax break and this is all going to the rich is just nonsense. If this was a court of law or under oath, they would all be charged with perjury. No one likes the Good Ol’ Boy system unless they the good ol’ boy. The Dems loved it when they had the super majority but hate it when they aren’t the ones calling the shots.

This list is stretching pretty far to make an argument. Their highlight item is that 43% of households pay no federal taxes so they don’t get a break. Hmmm....... Let me see, they pay “no taxes” but want a better deal. Apparently the family that pays $18,000 a year and gets a $2,000 cut so is “only paying” $16,000 is screwing the family that still has to pay.... nothing. Horrible, simply horrible. It claims to possibly hurt charities. Not because donations aren’t still tax deductible but because of a simplified tax form. They raised the automatic deductions meaning that you don’t have to itemize as much. To say that is a stretch is an understatement. People that donate large sums of money to charity and get a tax break will see absolutely no benefit from raising the automatic exemption by a couple of thousand dollars. It is beyond ludicrous. It is correct that it will certainly not help the deficit but the same people decrying this plan made absolutely no noise while Obama raised it by $12 Trillion. This article is the classic smoke and mirrors. For all it says, it does not say that the middle class won’t get a good tax break. It doesn’t bring up the Pelosi / Schumer argument that only the wealthy will benefit. Why? Because it appears that the final bill will give the rich zero tax cuts. The ONLY THE RICH GET IT is an outright lue which is why that Democratic mantra isn’t even addressed. Other than pure politics, what is the problem with this tax plan? Nothing. Well, maybe that is not exactly true. It will show that the billionaire, Donald Trump, did not deliver breaks to the wealthy but to the middle class, which is exactly what he said in his campaign. The problem with that is that the Democrats are about to see that their leaders will sell them out just for a political point. I wonder if all the middle class Democrats will give back their tax cuts in protest.

One officer only should be yelling command. Typically you should have an officer or two to move it in handcuffs that do not have guns in their hand. The cover officer(s) only should have a gun out. I have never seen a crawl toward me command. What I was taught and do is to face away from me with hands over the head and walk backwards toward the officers. Then have the person drop to his knees and cuff him from there. That was a cluster of (in my opinion) untrained and mentally unprepared officers. Murder.... as in (by law) the officer simply wanted to intentionally kill a guy that he didn’t know and not even sure if he had done anything wrong? No, I don’t think so. Fired and the city pay a substantial penalty? Absolutely.

According to FBI statistics, the police in this country make about 33,000 arrest per day. That is going hands on and putting cuffs on someone. That does not include the many other thousands of incidents like this where no arrest would have been made but there’s no law broken but the police did not know that in the beginning. It had to be handled just as if it was a serious crime. With all of that, I would guess that this kind of scenario plays out a couple of times every day and no shots are fired.

Very scary. This wasn’t a guy that was resisting, or committing a crime but had surrendered or anything else like that. This was a guy that was going about his daily life and was innocent of everything. He completely complied with what he was told, even though they were stupid orders, and had an unfortunate twitch the cost him his life.

Oops! That little bugaboo of the facts when you see what the jury saw.

I disagree with the court system being the problem. If you want to do away with the right to trial by jury and our constitutional rights, feel free to say so. The court system indicted this officer and brought him to trial for murder. The state tried to prove that he killed a man without justification for self-defense. That is the system. Not liking the verdict is not an indictment of the system unless you want to give up your rights as I said before. The officer has rights also and looks like he had a very good attorney.

It is all starting to make sense now. It is not guns in particular that the Liberals are against, it is against any form of self-defense. To be able to defend yourself is to not rely on the government. That is totally unacceptable and this just gives credence to that thought.

A slice of the district championship, three rounds deep in the playoffs and lost to a very good team. That sounds like a great year for PAM.

Why does putting athletes on both sides of the line equal 5-5?

Play offense and defense and don’t stack all of your talent on one or the other?