tvc184

Which is what I meant in my first post. Looking at it, I guess it can be taken two ways. One is, "how could they do that" and the other (which I believe) is, "why not put a little humor in an otherwise sad affair".

I think that is exactly what it is. Might as well go out with a laugh.

I guess if a family can see humor in death...............

In TX a property representative can ask you to leave and if you do not, you are trespassing. In Chapter 9 in the Penal Code under defenses to prosecution, you can use any force necessary short of deadly force to remove someone from trespassing. I believe in TX the shopper would be arrested and charged with trespassing (assuming the guard told him to leave) and there would be no charges on the security person. Therein lies the difference between property rights in TX and liberal land in DC, et al.

I am curious as to what legal standing the city has to sell public lands or any property without an auction.... unless they had an auction and no one paid attention to it.

Great. Go to jail then. I am not and will not question a person's faith. I will comment on the law and what I believe to get its constitutional standing. And the governor just vetoed the bill saying that it would not stand up to constitutional challenge. Hmmmm..... maybe she read my post about the law..

Great. Try that as a defense in court.

I do not disagree with that religious aspect of it however we were discussing law.

It isn't. What does fault have to do with it?

I am wondering if the governor will sign it or allow it to become law. Then I wonder if a federal judge will issue a restraining order to keep it from being enforced until it has a chance to go through the federal system, Although Roe v. Wade is not absolute in allowing abortions, it seems to make it a requirement that the state allow abortions up to a viable fetus or one that can survive outside of the womb. If this does become law I think it will be almost immediately stopped and will eventually come to some kind of federal court ruling.

I suspect that most are not but for the ones that feel obligated to protest, they are offended that someone disagrees with them.

People that aren't Christians perhaps?

Illegal on both counts and the state will take action.

I kind of hear what you're saying however for the most part you're wrong. Fishing without a license is a state law and whether you could be arrested varies from state to state. In some states you cannot be arrested for an offense that allows for a citation. Immigration is under federal law per the Constitution and has absolutely nothing to do with state law as does fishing licenses. Illegal entry into the United States is seen much like trespassing. In Texas for example you're never trespassing unless you have been given proper warning as described by law. It is the same with entry into the United States. If a person comes over the border without proper documentation and is caught, he should be sent back by law and given a warning. If that person reenters the United States he has committed a felony. We have people they get caught time and time again. The problem is not the law but the person in charge not enforcing the law. Like many of these political arguments, the person writing them has no clue of the law. They make these memes/photos and post them on Facebook and get 10,000 likes… But the law they talk about is not factual. Go figure. So here is the answer. Texas (and other states) has autonomy to make it's own laws. . Texas have a law where you can go to jail for most things that can be issued a citation including things like no fishing license, having a burned out license plate light or not using your blinker when turning in the vehicle. The United States has a law that says you can be charged with a felony if entering United States illegally as long as you have been given that first warning. Texas law and United States law are independent and do not depend on each other. Any comparison between the two is a folly to begin with and one has nothing to do with the other. So I understand the complaint that the current occupant of the White House does not wish to enforce the laws that he does not like. That has nothing to do with Texas having the authority to arrest minor criminals or the United States having a law that allows the arrest of the illegal aliens but the guy at the top just doesn't like it.

I don't think so. I thought the education money came out of the general fund or in other words, from federal taxes paid. The state doesn't send them money per se just so they can send it back. The Constitution (I think Article I) says that taxes must be apportioned among the states. I believe that roughly means under the way it was written, equal. So if California sends in 5% of all taxes, they should get about 5% of anything given to states. Along came the 16th Amendment (I think because of some Supreme Court rulings making income taxes illegal) and part of that amendment was to officially allow income taxes and to end apportionment. Assuming that I am correct, that means that the US Congress can collect what they want in taxes and can give it out as they please without regard to who paid it in...... assuming they pass a bill that is signed into law by the president. I believe that by the Constitution, including amendments, allows the federal government to levy taxes and spend them where they wish. The key being there has to be a law. That is what I was talking about above where the federal government did pass a law allowing highway funds to be slightly restricted if the states do not go with the suggested drinking age but there is no federal law that requires restroom accommodations for transgender or gender identification.

I have killed many deer and eaten plenty of others where I helped clean it. I have never had a gamey tasting one. Almost every one that I have cleaned or been on scene were done within about an hour of killing and we don't usually gut the deer.... even while cleaning. Hang 'em by the back legs, strip the hide and but off the shoulders, back straps and hams. Dump the carcass and the meat goes straight on ice. Someone might not like the taste of deer but how it is handled might be everything. I know that my mother has served it at church and no one has ever mentioned it anything other than it tasting great. With roast, chicken fried and hamburgers......... she has never told them it was deer.

The only leverage the government has is to withhold funding. I cannot remember the case but at least once in the Obama administration they tried to withhold funding from a state for some reason. The federal court decided that they had no authority to withhold statutory funding because they didn't like something. They can withhold funding if it is a federal law allowing it within their taxing authority such as the national drinking age of 21 such as in the case of SD v. Dole. They cannot force the age law on the states but can withhold funding as the federal law states where a whopping 5% of funding can be withheld. In that case the federal law was upheld as passing the taxing authority of Congress and because it was no coercive and because it complied with a written law. There is no such law on the federal books and there is no mention in Title 9 of transgender or sexual orientation. Those are made up by this administration or amounts to legislating from the administrative branch which is unconstitutional. Nederland might not fight it but I'll bet that the state of Texas does as will other states and I can almost assure you that a federal court will toss it out. Then it will depend on the circuit courts and possibly eventually the SCOTUS.

I like duck and brussel sprouts..... and asparagus, broccoli, rutabagas, cilantro, sushi, tofu and so forth. There is little that I won't eat and most things I love. But I can't stand liver and I cannot develop a flavor for something that I cannot get down, I don't care how you cook it. It doesn't bother me what it is as long as it is blended enough that I can't get that distinctive liver flavor.

Change you can believe in!!

That is what people say about everything. I hate liver!! You haven't had it cooked right. I cannot stand wild duck. Gag!!! You haven't had it cooked right. Brussel sprouts are just plain nasty!!! You haven't had it cooked right. I hate............... No..... it just doesn't taste good!!

If it is anonymous, how can we even believe that it is really a Democrat or even a member of Congress? If could be a low level staffer or a person not even in DC. Unless the book names names and and can back it up with verifiable facts..... it is just another political spin paper. I could be completely true or it could be wishful thinking.

That is true. It is only true because of the likes of the NRA, GOA, Second Amendment Foundation and others. If you really think that Hillary and others of her ilk would not take guns if they could, you are living in an alternate universe. As an example I will offer not some political pundit or the tin foil hat crowd but Washington DC itself. In our nation's capital, handguns were banned even inside of your own home. Dick Heller was a licensed police officer and could not even own a handgun at his own home. As was brought up, he could lawfully carry a handgun into federally controlled buildings..... but couldn't own a gun in his home. Any long guns in DC had to keep a gun lock on it or be completely disassembled. Why would a city not even allow a police officer to have a handgun in his own home? Talk about insanity. Oh yeah, and these are the legislators that you don't think want our guns right or to take away guns? Heller got it all the way to the US Supreme Court in the case of DC v. Heller. In that case they ruled that the Second Amendment applied to individuals and not only being in a militia. Hmmmm..... you mean that a government entity in our capital city said that gun rights are not individual? You bet that is what they stated, you as an individual have no gun rights. Of course that goes directly against your statement about it being all puppet strings. But DC v. Heller wasn't good enough. Even though the Heller case showed that gun rights in the Second Amendment were for individuals (strangely enough, just like the other rights), the state of Illinois refused to issue handgun licenses and the city of Chicago, like DC, banned handgun ownership. Hmmmm...... Their statement was, Heller was about a federal district and we in Illinois and Chicago do not need to comply with individual rights and can still ban handguns and have crazy restrictions on long guns. So we get another case the US Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago. Again the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to everyone .... again strangely enough, just like the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and so on. Wow, what a strange concept, that the Bill of Rights actually belongs to the people in states also. So yeah, at this moment in time I don't think anyone will come for our guns. If you really believe that they wouldn't if they could, I have the Statue of Liberty for sale,.. cheap. I just named two recent cases (Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010) where cities and a state said that they could outright ban lawfully purchased handguns in your own home. These weren't some ancient history but recent decisions. Care to demonstrate why you think that won't happen if given the chance and if groups like the NRA weren't active.

I agree with one thing completely. You used the correct term of "a lot" instead of "alot".

I think when you are angry at someone you tend to look at them in the lowest common denominator possible for criticism. A person might have absolutely nothing against women but I can think of some pretty crude terms to speak of one if I was angry at her for any reason including politics. In fact the person uttering such words might in fact be a woman. Does that make a person a sexist or just crude? Obama has to be considered one of the wimpiest and weakest presidents ever. His crowning achievements in almost 8 years in office are Obamacare which appears to be a disaster and at the very least burdened the average working American which huge increases in healthcare and the killing of Bin Laden when he gave consent to the UN Navy to do the job that it was trained to do. There is a lot in between to criticize. Is it really based on his skin color for a majority of his detractors? James White is the representative for the 19th House district in Texas. He isn't just black but graduated from historically black Prairie View A&M. White in in a district with a white population of almost 80%. This is a part of Texas where you can almost hear the banjos playing when you drive through part of Newton, Jasper, Hardin, Tyler and Polk county yet the overwhelming majority white population voted for him. Is race a factor? Maybe it was because.... he was a military veteran, believes in strong gun rights and pushed hard for and voted for open carry? What about Mia Love from the US House and from Salt Lake City, UT. Her district has the massive black population of.... just over 1%. Hmmm...... race didn't seem to deter her. Skin color in many cases is an excuse on both sides of the coin for being far or against someone. The notion that there is racism out there is almost stupid to bring up. Sure there is. If we could view the future 300 years from now I would be you can find that people still hate people based on skin color, religion, national origin, regional hatred, etc. It goes in all directions and many times, within the groups in question. In a country of more than 320 million people, will we get a bunch of crude comments? You bet. Currently about 72% of this country is white. That comes out to about 230 million white people. If on 5% are really troubled by race, that means that about 12 million people are out there to fill bulletin boards with trash. Of course we could go to 10% and make it well over 20 million and so on. It is to the benefit of some people to dwell on those people which may be very many in number but very small in percentage. Are there people that detest Obama due to race? Absolutely. Did he win an election in a country two times with a black population of only 13%? You betcha. Are there blacks that are elected on the Republican ticket in overwhelming white districts? Yes there are. Do a LOT of people hate Obama due to his race? I doubt it percentage wise but certainly in raw numbers as I pointed out. Also the reason that I brought up his record above is because I think he has a lot there to hate and it isn't the amount of melanin in his skin. Hillary is about to get the Democratic nomination with probably the lowest favorability rating for any Democrat nominee in history. Is it due to her sex? The only other person in the race that can match her in historically low numbers is Trump. Maybe they hate him because he is white or rich.....................

There sure must be a lot of rednecks..............