tvc184

Yep, he is a whiner and a crybaby when he doesn't get his way. Apparently that is what a lot of people are looking for although we already have one in office now. In a lot of ways he reminds me of Obama but merely claims to be from the other side of the aisle.

As to tonight's debate, Trump's hard core followers will still be following him tomorrow. The only issue is how much of his support will drop by fence sitters or independent voters. I think it is a coin toss. It might hurt him badly as in maybe a 10% drop in support but with Trump, it could result in an increase by the same amount with absolutely nothing to justify it other than his rock star status, much like Obama.

Yes, Fox threw Trump out and refused to................. In truth Fox had nothing to do with the Miss USA pageant controversy. Uuuuultra liberal NBC dropped the pageant and the some (or all) judges dropped out after Trump made comments about illegal aliens. Fox had nothing to do with anything other than reporting it like every other news media.

Except the good team that could actually earn one ..................

Is what they did against the law? If not how are they "above the law"? Not liking something doesn't mean that it is illegal or above the law. Rollover is a man made pass that changed the ecosystem for fun. People that are adamant about keeping it always talk about the memories like that is a good reason not to change. I am not sure that closing it won't result in better fishing and end the unnatural erosion that man put in for "fun". I am not against the pass but kind of like the idea of going back to its original condition.

It might be hard to believe but the above post was in humor.What is not a fallacy is that I did shake hands with Ronald Reagan at the same airport and I would never mess up that memory by putting Hillary in the same category.

I didn't have time to do a live thread of the event. I was too busy taking out a bank loan so I could donate $2,700 to my hero and get a photo with her. Now I will be working for another 5 years to pay it back but well worth the sacrifice.

No I don't understand that. Let me google it. Wow, I thought it meant definitive or factual. Now I find out it is akin to a supposition or theoretical. Or perhaps you don't understand the term "facetious" which is a caveat I put after my statement. So how you can google facetious and caveat.

Taste might be the most subjective thing to discuss. One person can absolutely love something and another might think it is the worst tasting food on the planet. That being said......... If you aren't eating at Chaba Thai on Lucas in Beaumont...............

You are bordering on the ludicrous..... unless you are being facetious.

Walk down the street yelling USA USA and you might end up in the back of a patrol unit on the way for a mental evaluation.

Therein lies the issue. Can you imagine HJ playing HF and start chanting USA? What is the point?

Now that I could understand like when Vidor was playing the school from Florida in football.

I don't think they are chanting USA at the other team. I am sure that clapping for the National Anthem isn't offensive either. Can you think of a reason that two high school teams should be using that chant during a game?

I never understood the USA chants unless it is taunting unless it is at the Olympics or similar event where the team actual is USA. I think it is stupid. Maybe it shouldn't be a penalty just like booing is part of the game but to chant USA in a high school game is obviously meant to say that someone else isn't. I have seen many Nederland and PNG games in various sports over the last 50 years and have never seen someone break into a USA chant. What would be the point?

One of the keys to survival in a deadly encounter or potential deadly encounter is not the will to survive but the will to prevail. Maybe even most officers do not have that will which is mental and thought out well ahead of time. Many, particularly younger officers, tend to think of how to get out of an encounter and that is good if it can be done before the action starts. It is always better not to fight rather than to try and win a fight. Once it starts however, there needs to be a mindset to attack and prevail, not merely survive. I bring that up not because of who shot that officer, the reason he did so or any other factors. That officer was shot multiple times at point blank range and could have stayed in or near his car and waited for responding units and it would be a perfectly understandable response. He chose not to sit back and wait for help but after being seriously injured, charged at the suspect and tried to keep him from injuring any other officer or civilian. It was an awesome job by the officer for not only surviving a horrific ambush but finishing the job like he is supposed to. People sometimes toss around and overuse hero or heroic actions like everyone gets a trophy or every action is heroic. I think this officer lived up to the heroic actions and is a credit to the police service.

Everyone thinks that it is a living document as long as it is lawfully amended. The typical "living document" criticism is against the progressives that do not want to amend it but merely change the meaning from original intent without such an amendment.

Running scared over gun control? The last meaningful gun control was under Bill Clinton with the assault weapon ban in 1994. That bit of legislation caused an 108 total swing in the House. The Dems had a huge 82 vote lead in the House and the AWB changed that to a 26 vote loss. It also led to the Senate going for the Republicans in a 16 vote swing (with only 1/3 of senators up for election). This huge statement from the voters allowed the Republicans to completely control Congress for the first time since 1953. A 42 year complete or partial control of Congress by the Dems ended with the new weapons law. Add to that Obama's landmark legislation, Obamacare. The Dems went in holding both houses, riding in on Obama's coattails. Just like Clinton's legislation, it cost the Dems big time with them going from a 77 vote lead to a 49 vote loss. It was a net swing of 126 votes even exceeding the 108 swing from the AWB. Every time the Dems come up with these kinds of schemes against the wishes of the people, they get slammed back down. Gun sales and have exploded under Obama and some gun manufacturers have had their stocks soar with him in office. The saying is that people vote with their pocketbooks and I think it is certainly true in this case. In 2006 S&W stock was as low as $3.84 a share. It now sits at $23.45 or more than a 600% gain. Anytime the Dems bring up a huge change in public policy, they take a beating. The GOP isn't running scared and I imagine they wants gun control to be a major issue in the upcoming campaign. These polls that show people want background checks are almost meaningless because they don't ask real questions but just a blanket, do you want checks or felons with guns. Heck, most of the Republicans would vote for the idea. It isn't background checks however but gun registration that is the ultimate goal and that is what rubs people wrong. The Dems want every gun by to go through an FFL or in other words, registered. Every time a person advocating gun control is asked if any current suggested reform would have stopped any of the big shootings in the news, the answer is always the same...... no. So why even have it? I saw Obama on the tube this week when he drug out the tired old mantra, "If it saves one child". The only problem with the talks of gun control is not the Republicans running scared but it causes a run on ammo every time and it gets scarce and more expensive. After Sandy Hook a $700 AR-15 jumped to about $3,500. Speaking of Sandy Hook, the next election was in 2014 and that caused the Republicans to gain even more seats in the House (+16) and took over the Senate with the net swing of 18 senators. Yeah, running scared..................

I need to go back and look at the video but when he was directly asked if he invited the NRA to be there his response was something like, well... we have asked them several times. It sounded like he was not referring to being at that specific CNN event but is claiming to wanting to debate them but they will not. Obama then followed up with some kind of gibberish that he would debate them but then through out the caveat that he would only allow "facts" to be brought up. I guess he will determine what the "facts" are not simply not answer or will ignore any question that he doesn't approve of as his facts. I understand that he doesn't like guns and can speak his peace but the whole, the NRA won't debate me is nonsense. I think several people in the NRA would love to debate him in a truly open forum.

It sure seems like it. I guess they are mind readers. I went back and viewed the video and compared it to the (what appears to be) a single sentence out of the affidavit. I don't see the crime.

I may be ironic but it is surely not strange. It is the person with the knowledge and/or access that is involved in such crimes. How many bank employees have ever been convicted of embezzlement? Look at the Beaumont PD lieutenant a few years ago convicted and sent away for many years for selling cocaine from the police evidence locker. Perhaps it could be another person with access to public funds or knowledge such as a school district employee. I remember not so long ago a Beaumont dentist was indicted for drugs and using his doctor's access for personal use. People in such places are in the position to see the opportunity that no others have and some unfortunately succumb to that temptation. If it more unfortunately when it is a public employee. I would also think that it is very much in the minority of employees in all situations and definitely when it comes to officers. You will note that the police arrested him and are filing charges. I and others have said it before but no one hates a bad cop more than a good cop.

I don't see it. I would think it would be easy to beat in court.

It is occupational knowledge. I don't know much about being an operator at a chemical plant or bank loans (other than being rejected). I will say this, knowing what actual laws say is not so important to most people as most can figure out what most laws are such as assaults, theft, property damage, drug possession, etc. I honestly don't expect people to know the exact details of such laws in our state, much less that of other states. Your question above is such an example. It is a great question out of common knowledge. Even being directly involved in laws and enforcing them I don't expect most people to know about bail. Heck, most officers don't know as it has no bearing on how they do the job. That is a job for judges and to be contested by lawyers. What sometimes has me wondering is the total lack of knowledge of procedure or rights even in general terms that is severely lacking. People often spit out the idea of "my rights" when in truth they have no clue what those rights mean. I (and others on here) could probably list a lot of legal issues and court rulings that would have people baffled or stunned.

Typically bail is denied in very limited circumstances on capital crimes. I believe the idea that you may be put to death adds to the risk of flight. Looks at the SC Penal Code, this does not appear to be a death penalty case.

I understood it.