tvc184

Would the "dog" be NHS class of '72?

Nonsense or to cut it short..... BS.

The foreign policy deal is not much of a deal breaker in my opinion. Unfortunately in the days of mass and instant media intelligence or ability has little to do with the presidency as much status and the ability to look good or fire up a crowd. I wonder how many of our former presidents (even some believed to be great) would have even gotten the office had the public had more access. Out of the almost 2 million people that voted for Abraham Lincoln actually heard him speak? What dirt would they have on him that could not be told or gotten out to the mass public at that time? Would he have been a good debater with today's moderators? A president has a cabinet of who he believes to be experts in given fields. A president doesn't need to know every detail of the military at all times. He doesn't need to know what diseases might spread this year or what flu vaccine needs to be distributed. That is why he has a cabinet that he can go to in order to get that information and then have them do his bidding. If the president knows it all, why ever call a cabinet meeting? Carson is certainly smart enough (as are others) to understand the importance of a strong cabinet and would have surely appointed a strong Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc. I trust his opinion once he hears what is on the table to make a reasonable response. That doesn't matter however. It is how he appears that is the key. Carson would probably have made a good president but he has no experience in politics. He does not know how to make the people like him for something more than his intelligence. Unfortunately that might be the most important qualification. I am sure nothing above is earth shattering and everyone pretty much understands it. I just felt like saying it.

"I am so sorry........... that I got caught".

1. If there are price hikes and you don't like them, do not shop there. 2. If a company could make a bigger profit while hiking their prices then they likely would have already have done it. I don't see this as a McDonald's coming in to an area and paying all of their employees at least $15 an hour. Although anyone would like incentives, McDonnells does not need them and will not pay under that circumstance. I think this is just a way of targeting certain higher end companies to bring a better job to an area. It is not forcing otherwise minimum-wage jobs to pay twice the normal rate. Companies simply will not do that as they will not make a profit. If I was on the city Council and wanted to bring a business into my city in order to improve or help the economy then I would rather a manufacturing company that will hire several skilled people rather than another 7-Eleven or Whataburger. I think that is what this is trying to accomplish. The title of the article posted and this thread are both misleading. San Marcus did not adopt a minimum wage. They only said that if we are going to give taxpayers money to a company to expand or come into the area, we want better companies not more minimum wage jobs. No one in the city is required to pay any increase in salaries. I agree on any attempt to raise the minimum wage for what should be those kinds of jobs. This does not appear to be that kind of situation. In a way it looks to be a form of legal discrimination. Anyone can apply for a city break however in order to get it you have to be a benefit to the city and a couple of minimum-wage jobs it's not that.

Sure. This appears to be a contract issue. The city is giving tax incentives to entire companies to come into the city. Cities in such situations almost always add stipulations to the contract like giving city residents priority for hiring. A company does not have to comply with the incentives and can simply turn down the money and hire all minimum wage employees. The entire reason that cities give those incentives is to get companies to move inside the city. The intent it to hire more local people, bring in sales tax money in many situations and when the incentives run out, make long term tax revenue increases for the future. I can see where a city doesn't want a company to come in and only hire people that will need additional city services due to low wages. I am sure the city will welcome any business including fast food minimum wage jobs but when they are going to be handing over their own money, want something in return. I see no problem with it. If a company doesn't like the deal, turn down the free handout.

The whole thing has been spiraling in a whirlpool down the toilet for a long time. What has the TEA done that has made it worse? With all the scams discovered (such as changing grades) and the people indicted, convicted and sentenced to prison from the former administration, please name all the bad things done by the TEA. Again, you want then in a little over a year to correct years of corruption. I am sure they aren't perfect but I fail to see where it has gotten worse. Since you appear to have such inside information on all these atrocities committed by the TEA, please enlighten us with their faux pas and how much better the previous felons were.

1. They chopped off the head of the snake and others. 2. It has only been just over a year. What kind of results were they supposed to have in something that took years to create? I am assuming that you would have a coach take over a perennial losing team, keep most of the same players and coaches and win the state championship the first year.

It is much easier to be wealthy when you can run up massive debt and be forgiven, only to repeat the process and be forgiven again. I am not knocking they guy doing what the law allows but if I could buy a $500K home, fill it with $100K in furniture and then by $250K in toys (trucks, cars, firearms, boats, etc.) and not have to pay it back, I might be a lot better off right now. His companies have run up billions of dollars in debt and in the Trump Taj Mahal alone, he had almost $1 billion worth of personal debt. Oh, if I could only draw a nice fat salary and have that available.............. Again, all legal and many others have done it but I don't think it speaks so favorably of his great business dealings and still being very wealthy.

Trump has a built in advantage over almost everyone else in the race. If anyone says the wrong thing or gets caught in some lie or scandal, his/her career is over. Trump is in a nothing to lose position. Be is a billionaire and will be so when this is over. For an office holder, a slip of the tongue, even if it is true or half the people agreed with it, can bring a quick end. Trump isn't brave or being truthful. In fact he says things off the cuff that are certainly wrong. He is like a comedian that uses profanity just to do so to get laughs. It doesn't change the joke but we all snicker like junior high school students that heard a no-no. Trump does the same as he is in a no lose situation. His money and property holdings will be there if he wins or loses. No matter the outcome, it will not hamper any future real estate deals. That is a huge advantage that has nothing to do with knowledge, skill, stance, etc.

He could. I don't think he will win all of the Super Tuesday elections but he doesn't have to win them all.

Again, what will it hurt? When discovered, the ad was pulled. You have to wonder about someone that digs into actor's backgrounds in a political ad to try to find some dirt on the actor. I wonder what would happen if we vetted every single staffer or other person involved in any manner in all people's campaigns. Out of the thousands of people working on the Bernie, Hillary, Trump, Cruz, Rubio, et al., campaigns, I wonder if any have dirt in their past. Care to take any wild shot at it? I think anyone supporting Cruz (yet again) will not be turned away because an actor hired at random was in soft porn movies. If they find out that she was hired because Cruz was having an affair with her, his future in almost any political nature is over. Merely pointing out that she was in some suggestive movies is meaningless to about 99.9% of voters except ones that will not vote for him anyway. Look what happened to Bill Clinton's support when he finally admitted that he had oral sex from a staffer inside of his residence while he was the president.

I don't see it hurting Cruz at all. By it being Rush Limbaugh or a comparison to Ronald Reagan might help with some and will not matter at all to anyone else. I find it very unlikely that anyone that will vote against someone because Rush Limbaugh likes them, will not likely be voting for a Republican anyway. Anyone that will not like a candidate because that person is compared to Ronald Reagan, will not likely be voting Republican anyway. On the other hand Rush Limbaugh has the largest radio following in the country. Some people listen purely for entertainment value however some listen and take what he says as gospel. If Limbaugh endorses someone then there are certain people that will use that as marching orders to vote for that person. I believe there is a slight possibility that it could help and almost no possibility that it will hurt.

I was going to say..... In another newsflash, Obama wins second term!

Kind of interesting, I taught Penal Code last week at the Lamar Police Academy and that part of the law was covered.

Finally.

True but that is a completely different issue.

She is not culpable. There are many such protections under the law. For example when a woman has in vitro fertilization, fertilized eggs might be intentionally or accidentally destroyed. Do we charge a doctor with Capital Murder and sentence him to death? I am sure by some if the responses here that would be a good option.

No it isn't. I disagree with many of their decisions from abortion to eminent domain to Obamacare, etc. It is however the law and people including the states must comply until overturned. That means the article, like I have shown, is bogus in its claims or implications. Instead of commenting on your article you are now hung up on a SCOTUS ruling from 160 years ago. So here is the deal. At the moment TX is forced to comply with the mandate. TX has even gone so far as making it as difficult as possible to get abortions by passing a law that has reduced the number of locations where one could be performed. The article that you posted specifically brings up a 13 year old law that protects unborn children except in the case of those required abortions. Apparently you agree with the article and think that law is ridiculous.

What was shocking about the performance?

Yep. What does that have to do with this? Texas has to allow abortions. Unless the SCOTUS changes their ruling, that is the law. The Texas laws are like other states and other situations where there is a distinction between parties to an offense. Like I showed, by the letter of the law a doctor commits either a felony or misdemeanor every time he/she gives a shot or performs many other medical procedures. For that reason laws have to have stated exemptions. That same is true for parents, football players, various workers, etc. They all violate the law if those exemptions were not built into the law. In this situation where the law must allow abortions and must therefore have those exemptions for doctors and the mother, should the killing of children by other people then be exempt? Let's a relative of yours is pregnant and some criminal commits a crime against the her and it kills the unborn child. It could be an assault, traffic accident, attempted murder or anything else. Should that person get away with the killing of the baby because abortions are legal? That is roughly the point that the article is making. If abortions are legal, how can you charge another person for criminally killing an unborn child. If that is your belief, great. Since abortion by a medical professional is legal then any killing of an unborn child should be legal.

A bunch of ultra liberal Yankees vote for two guys that were born in NY, NY. Stunning............

I don't completely disagree with you but it is a common statement in many discussions to say, "how far we have fallen" or "today we blah blah blah". In truth people have always been that way. I think you might find some eras in the past where there was much more debauchery than in current times. In the area of abortions, I would not be surprised to find abortions before Christ was born. There are no new sins. Some may be more in the open now.

This is a typically slanted article that ignores reality or many other similar laws or situations. It is made to look like TX has stupid laws.... which they may but not in this instance. Of course if you are anti-abortion then this seems like some valid point, which it isn't. First, like it or not, the US Supreme Court has said that abortion is legal and must be legal in all states. Since that is a legal fact, do you then let another person get away with murder simply because abortion is legal? Do people believe that life does legally begin at conception allow a person other than a doctor to kill an unborn child? But let's forget about abortion for the moment. By the letter of the law, if your doctor gives you a flu vaccine, he can get a year in jail. If he gives your 10 year old child the same thing, he can get up to 10 years in prison. If a police officer arrrests a 16 year old, the officer can get 10 years in prison and so on. If your son tackles the quarterback on an opposing high school team then he can spend years in juvenile detention or the county jail depending on his age. All of those laws say something like "this law does not apply to_______" or "it is an exception to this offense if committed by a _________" or "it is a defense to prosecution that _________". This is typical in all laws and it has to be that way. If not and a guy breaks into your home and you have to kill him to defend your family then you might go to jail for life. Again however, the law says killing in that situation is lawful. I am against abortion in belief but this article is for the most part nonsense.