tvc184

I wonder if the founding fathers even believed that any government in this country (local, county, state, federal) would try to regulate the size of drinks that could be served. I think they would more likely have envisioned machines that can fly to the Moon and devices that can be carried in the pocket where you can talk to a person in another country..... which video and that long before the delivery of electricity was invented. This is how far the nanny state has progressed.

Since apparently you have a fixation on the RNC and doing what it "right", how about the DNC? It is right to have 719 superdelegates out of 4,770? Bernie Sanders can go into the convention winning in popular votes and delegates.... and then losing? It likely won't happen but the Dems have it set up just to make sure a Sanders does not win. A state could have 100% votes for one candidate and yet 15% more can go to a loser that gets no votes. Here is the scenario under the DNC. Sanders goes into the convention winning by 2,325 votes to Hillary's 1,726. Neither has more than 50%. The superdelegates step in and all vote for Hillary and she wins 2,445 to 2,325. While it may not happen, why even have such a vehicle in place to overturn the will of the voting public? Both parties require more than 50% of votes/delegates to win. It isn't set up for the mere leader to take all. If that was the case you could have 7 candidates go to the convention with each averaging only 14% of the delegates. Both parties want to have the most popular person on the floor of the convention to pick the winner if it hasn't been done by the people by convention time. Both have floor votes if no one gets to 50%. It is then open for debate. The Dems add the extra superdelegates to potentially go against the will of the people by stopping any floor fight. They do so by simply having the "leaders" (apparently that is only a bad word for the GOP) tell the superdelegates how to vote that can overturn the majority of delegates just as I lined out above. So.... wondering if your angst against potentially blocking the person with the most delegates... but not a majority, is only directed at the RNC or does the DNC with the added superdelegates in place to overturn the will of the people also included?

Yes.

It is completely true. If you are a slug, third generation welfare recipient and high school dropout.... moving to an area where affuent people live will change your life. You will see the folly of your ways and after years of government dependency and free stuff will turn over a new leaf and become a productive member of society.

Oh the comedy of your response. You aren't interpreting the Bible for us, you are translating it. The point that you are glossing over is that you are adamant that the Bible does not say the world is flat but ignore that nowhere in the Bible does it describe pillars as continental shelves. You have the belief that it must be, probably because you have been told that by someone or read it somewhere.... but wait, that would be another person giving their interpretation what the word "pillar" means. No wait, that would not be an interpretation, it would be a translation. I have a question for you. Why do we attend church or go to Sunday school? I have been to church in many denominations and in every single one, including some non-denominational churches, has had a person giving a sermon. That person is not only reading from the Bible the verse but explaining what it means. Under any word you choose to use, isn't that an interpretation or translation or whatever as given by man? If the word of God is so clear that we merely need to read the verse and it stands alone, why do we need church or Sunday school at all?

We have generations and communities where the government is the answer to literally everything. Last week the police received a call locally because a woman's 10 year old girl was being rude and disrespectful to her. When you were being raised, would your parents have even imagined calling a government official (in this case the police) because you were rude.... when you were 10 years old? That is how far we have degraded this society. It reminds me that if you take a wild animal at birth and raise it completely in captivity and give it food and shelter and all needs. Then two years later throw it out in the wild, it will likely die. It has not learned what might have been centuries of behavior passed down from generation to generation of wild animals. It has learned only one way, to be completely taken care of. We have created that same scenario with people that are used to using government handouts not in an emergency but as a way of life.

All you have to do is watch the Democrat debates to confirm all you need. Give me... You owe me.... I want free (meaning someone else to pay for it).... I owe you (when said by a politician).... And so on.

Here is the problem with your statement. You claim that man cannot interpret God. Okay, I can understand that. The problem is that the Bible is not a text book that explains every details. A lot is left open to interpretations or if you don't like that word, teaching. As as example of this in your response about the Earth being flat because there are "pillars" you correctly say that the Earth being flat is not specifically stated in the Bible. You then go on to say that the "pillars" means the continental shelves. Okay..... so my question to you is, where in the Bible does it say that "pillars" are continental shelves? Perhaps that could be an interpretation? I was reading one "interpretation" that the pillars are the mountains. In either case the pillars would be a feature of the earth but both likewise would seem to me to be an interpretation.... which you claim cannot be done. Where in this truth of God's word does it say that pillars means continental shelves? The irony is that you say interpretation is not allowed to follow God's meaning and to back it up you give an interpretation. I can only assume that you mean only your interpretation counts.

Are they idiots simply because they have been raised in a situation where someone else is always responsible for whatever they have? When someone else pays for your home, you food, your clothes, your utility bills and just about anything else you can think of............. I arrested about a 12 year old child maybe 18 years ago. He was on a stolen bicycle and tried to get away but did not. He was as angry as anyone that I have ever seen that was arrested and that includes adults that I had to fight. This kid's conversation with me on the way to be booked for the theft were something like, "You owe me!!". When I asked him why he was owed anything that had to be stolen his response went like, "My mother said that you people that have good jobs owe me whatever I need. If I need to take it then you just lose it and I should not be put in jail because you owe me!!". And yes, that is a true story and what I was told. He was taught by his mother (according to him) that if he needed something, then he should be able to take it because other people can afford more than she could and other people should be responsible for what he needs.... in addition to all the government handouts. .

No one likes the "good ol' boy" system..... Until he is the "good ol' boy". Then he loves it.

An impressionable and spoiled brat is talked into a lawsuit by a shyster attorney. She should have the crap slapped out of her even after she came to her senses (brought on by a judge in court) but then brought back in to the family environment. Hopefully in the more than two years since this lawsuit was dropped, she realized how childish and selfish she was.

Good catch. The Constitution doesn't allow for the assassination of a candidate. It does allow the killing of the candidacy of the person by simply rejecting the nomination. Hopefully Chief Justice Roberts won't read my comment and think that he has the option of murdering the nominee.

Sure they would.... and a Democratic congress would not pass the nominee. Obama can nominate anyone that he wants. The Constitution (which apparently the Democrats only want to enforce they parts they like) says that the president has the sole authority to nominate a justice. The Senate has the sole authority to accept that nominee or reject him/her. All the Republicans have said was that if Obama nominated someone, they would likely kill the candidate.... just exactly like the Constitution gives them the authority. But.... that is just going by the law.

I know that both sides take their snipes at each other but figure this....... This woman voted for Obama but the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare almost tripled her insurance. Is she angry? Apparently not. She is upset in the astronomical cost increase in the private market and states that the Obamacare exchange was even worse.... and I can assure you with her huge increase in premiums came way less coverage. The funny part is not the realization that Obamacare was and is a scam. It is that this woman is trying to convince herself to stay the course and continue to vote for the terrible policies that appear to be placing a huge financial burden on her family. Another almost equally funny part is Hillary babbling for several minutes saying almost nothing that was true but trying to sound presidential. From her point of view, the woman just hasn't looked enough. Hmmmm...... so much for keeping your own insurance and your own doctor...... but let me keep voting for the system that suckered me in. Oh the blind faith.

Is there a point to this or did you simply decide to say that everyone is crooked?

I once saw a bumper sticker with your sentiments. "My Jesus is better than your Jesus".

If Condi Rice would not run as a Republican where she held the second highest office available next to the president and would have just about been a lock on the nomination, why would she run as an independent? I could see where someone would want her to run but my question is, why would she run?

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.