tvc184

If you are just looking for "hot" wings or Buffalo style, I'm not sure. If you are looking for the best wings, Salt and Pepper from J&J on Bluebonnet and Gilham Cl in PA.

A waste of perfectly good meat.......

It is terrible...... That the whiners that are up in arms about this dead gorilla, can't trade places with that child and explain to all of us the correct course of action while being slung around by an animal that can rip your head off the moment he gets a notion. Tragic? Absolutely. The correc response? Same answer.

The CA senate just pass a bill that keeps a gun with a detachable magazine from being reloaded without tools to take it apart. They are like the frog in the boiling water. Heat it slow so he doesn't notice rather than toss him into hot water and letting him jump out. No, they don't want our guns. They are fine with us using flintlocks .... for now.

The NRA doesn't sell guns. Speaking of foolish.....................

There is no such thing in the law as protecting your family. If that was true I could shoot a guy walking down the street because he might have been a threat to my family. There are specific situations where for or deadly force is legally possible but nothing by relationship. If someone is trying to kill you or anyone else, it is lawful. If there is an armed robbery in progress, you can protect yourself or another person and so on. The idea of something dropping on you is ludicrous. The only way it would even remotely be a danger is directly overhead. So your response to something being directly over your head being a danger.... is to shoot it down while it is over you? Oooookay, that makes sense. The bottom line in the law is there is no self defense reasoning to shoot down a drone unless maybe a person was trying to ram you with it.

...... or at the Democratic convention coming up.

Except that the part you quoted is not correct.

No, you cannot legally kill a man for peeping in your window or for trespassing on your property.

Five years in prison seems like an expensive clay pigeon but that's just me.

Hmmm...... This took about a 30 second search on google to find the Tennessee state law on vandalism. 39-14-408. Vandalism. (a) Any person who knowingly causes damage to or the destruction of any real or personal property of another or of the state, the United States, any county, city, or town knowing that the person does not have the owner's effective consent is guilty of an offense under this section. Let's see, "causes damage.. to any real property". Yeah, I can see where an officer couldn't find out a law.... that every cop learns about two weeks into the police academy......... I am assuming that he didn't want to do the paperwork and came up with an "ignorance of the law" defense. I wonder if that works for other people.

I am kind of curious that the article says the responding deputy sheriff could not figure out any law that had been violated. I wonder if he has ever read his state laws on criminal mischief or vandalism.

I don't see the problem with them and I think the complaints are for the most part nonsense. If it is hovering over your back yard at 30 feet and videoing into your window I can see an issue. Most of them have GoPro type cameras and at 200 feet you almost can't even make out a person. You can see into someone's back yard on Google Earth although not in real time. Unless you have a privacy fence of 6 feet or more, there is nothing that you can't see from the neighbor's yard. I have read many comments on another forum where people talk about "my air space", the drones is "trespassing" and I have the right to shoot it over my property. I hate to tell someone but I can fly a drone over my property and take photos of probably 95% of any of my neighbor's back yards. I can fly it over public property such as roadways, alleys and other right of ways and do the same thing. Both from cost of the units, from federal law on aircraft and possibly firing a gun in a neighborhood, a person that does so might be guilty of up to 3 felonies for shooting one down.

What did you expect on a sports forum, group hugs? I can see the discussions now.......... TEAM A - How is your team? TEAM B - Well, the kids on my team are going to give their best. TEAM A -Yes, that is what ours will do. TEAM A -Your kids are all great and so are the coaches. TEAM B - Thank you and so are yours. TEAM A - My team has won several district championships but I don't want to talk about them. TEAM B - I hear you, my team hasn't won 2 in the last 50 years but I am sure they will start winning this year. TEAM A - I sure hope so because I hate my team winning all the time and the poor fans from my home town taking pride in a long winning tradition. TEAM A -My team will play its best but if we lose it is because the other team was just awesome and all calls went well for both teams. TEAM B - Yes, so will ours and hopefully can all go 5-5 and tie for first place and have 635 state champions. Yep.... that is what sports forums should be!! No more homers. No more bragging. No more talking about past accomplishments.

Cause and effect..... Also known at the Butterfly Effect or the Chaos Effect. This goes as far back as 2008 and Bush signing TARP into law. His approval numbers were already waning and they hit a low (25%) in October 2008 right after he signed the law. His low numbers allowed Obama to be an anomaly that kept Hillary Clinton from taking the nomination. The deal was cut for her to drop out and be nominated to Secretary of State. With a black president out of the way, a woman being deemed up next and no one (of any consequence) in the Democrat Party wanting to take on the Clinton machine, she was given a clear path to the nomination... or so we thought. She will still likely win it but Sanders is even with her in CA which was to be her crowning jewel. There are obviously some bright young stars in the Democrats but no one would risk it. Why does that matter? Hillary was seen as receiving a coronation without much of a race. She was such a bad candidate, it caused 17 Republicans to jump into the race. Why? Because Hillary was so unpopular, almost any conservative, even moderately so, would have an easy win in November. While we could expect several people jump in, there would not have been almost 20. Trump who would not have risked his only political career against Obama, decided this was his one chance at not only the top of the heap in business but to be so in politics also without having to work his way up. Trump then caused this mess. It doesn't matter if he won it fair and square or if he is the best candidate. Had there only been half a dozen Republicans, we might not be looking at Trump. Until the very end, Trump almost never had more than 35% of the popular vote. The other however got split between 16 people. In a normal year another Republican would have won and would most likely have positive poll numbers. I don't think Trump was oblivious to that. So this perfect storm of political moves caused an unpopular Clinton and Trump to come out on top. Hillary alone could have caused it by encouraging so many Republicans to enter the race. It would not have mattered if Cruz, Rubio, Kasich or Christie was the winner, he would have come out with an eventual popularity among at least the Republicans. Hillary is what caused Trump to jump into the race. On any other year he would almost have certainly not done so. So here it is abbreviated........ Hillary will win because of her husband, being a woman and no one (of any serious consequence) wanting to challenge that except an old stodgy white guy at the end of his career and nothing to lose. That caused Trump to come in and split the Republican field. That cause and effect is what has resulted in two candidates that almost no one wants. So you can blame this on Bush and him siding with the Democrats.

Yep, they call that a "sting" to catch someone in the act of breaking the law.

Suggesting that a goodly portion of the organization is typified by this guy is the problem. It is guilty by association. That is the exact problem of BLM when they want to associate 900,000 police officers with half a dozen questionable fatal police shootings a year. Returning the favor toward them seems mighty hypocritical. If the OP wanted to suggest that this guy typifies the BLM membership then it should be stated. The OP has responded by saying that it is "simply a news story". I should be able to assume by that response that nothing was intended or suggested by the OP toward the membership. Again, the BLM movement is based on a lie, is disgusting and had chants that if they were returned, would cause an uproar. Unfortunately there are probably a lot of people involved that are the victims of racial propaganda. They in my opinion have been wrongly convinced that the police are the problem facing that community.

I do not know any laws that I deal with that has anything to do with those issues.

How do politician "allow" society changes? Can they stop it?

Yet again, I believe if you read my statement that is exactly what I sent. He is arrested for something totally different from the group, has absolutely nothing to do with the group.

There is a huge difference. One is a person representing himself. The other is a group of students, wearing school uniforms, at a school event, over a school PA system, and in the case you are talking about having signed documents saying that any time they were in uniform they were representing the school. Representing a school is different than representing yourself. The church and state issue might be one of the most misunderstood constitutional concepts. That goes from both sides of the argument. Some people incorrectly believe that merely mentioning anything about religion on government property is somehow illegal. That is nonsense. Some people believe just the opposite, that you can say anything you want anywhere you want and it is legal. That is nonsense. I was reading about a case one time where a teacher had students, as a class assignment, write an essay on anything. It was just a writing assignment. One student turned in a paper about God and she said that it was not allowed and was illegal under separation of church and state. She was shown to be incorrect. A teacher cannot say you can write about anything that you wish… except God. While a teacher might not be able to demand that you write about God, he/she couldn't likewise restrict you from it either. A student voluntarily writing a personal essay on his or her beliefs as a class assignment is not unconstitutional because the word God appears in it. That is an example of personal and not government. Cheerleaders representing a school district is not personal. Signs themselves are not illegal. Who is showing them and under what conditions might be.

Good for them. Governments cannot sponsor or sanction prayer but they cannot stop individuals from practicing it.

If you read what I wrote, I said almost exactly that. I said that I have little respect for BLM and that it is based on a lie and continued lies. This guy's arrest has no bearing on it one way or the other. Republicans and conservatives love to wear their religion (usually Christianity) on their sleeves. Does one of the many flawed clergymen being arrested for sometimes terrible crimes such as child molesting make Christianity, Republicans or conservatives wrong? I'll bet you think not. You likely want to apply that standard to BLM however. If so, I think that is hypocritical. If any organization or belief is judge by every single individual in it, then they are all corrupt. Using that standard we can say that all educators are crooks and care nothing of students and BISD proved it.... right?

The last three sentences are the best part of the article. "There is only one answer. Keeping the heavy hand of government as limited as possible in the public square. This will allow, at least, the healthy parts of the country to prosper."

Here is what I think about his arrest. So what? If he is guilty of what is claimed, he is a dirtbag of the worst kind. If so he needs to have a nice long stay in government housing, specifically in the prison system. I have little respect for BLM as an organization. It is a movement based and started on a specific lie and continued through other falsification. The idea of people needing to be treated equally is great and honorable but they do exactly what they accuse others of doing. The do not want a race lumped into a group but they are willing to do the exact same thing for the police. Now as to his arrest, again, so what? Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the beliefs of BLM, his arrest should have no bearing on those beliefs or worthiness. That tactic is used o both sides of political arguments and they are always bogus. It is easy to find a person that is a crook in any organization or a belief. If Nancy Pelosi is indicted next week and eventually convicted and sentenced to life in prison, does that negate Obamacare? Whether we agree or disagree with it and her being maybe its biggest proponent, that doesn't make the law flawed. I think the law is flawed in itself but not because some Democrat might a crook. We can turn that around the other way. I believe in conservatism in most instances. Richard Nixon resigning from the presidency in disgrace has no bearing on my beliefs or the validity of wanting less government, less taxes, less gun control, etc. Yes, Nixon was guilty. Does that make my beliefs wrong? Not in the least. If the BLM guy is guilty as charges, does it does it make the BLM movement wrong? No. Those movement, beliefs or organizations should stand on their own and not be tied to some idiot, even at the top, that might be a criminal. Both sides play that game by pointing out flaws in people and using that to disgrace an entire organization. They are both wrong. Again, I think the BLM movement is stupid. The chants of fry the pigs (police) are disgraceful. They want to toss each one of us into one big basket. They do not want the same done in return however. To look at BLM as being a bad organization because of a guy in a leadership position is simply wrong just as much as it is saying that Republicans are crooks because Nixon lied and covered up evidence. In my opinion.