tvc184

You betcha.

I have been saying that about Democrats in presidential elections forever. For example..... "I will close Gitmo immediately". "I will never raise taxes a single cent and it won't be by calling it a fee or anything else". ........ and so on. I know this may come as a shock that politicians say things they believe their base wants to hear.

The only problem with that accusation is that officers defend officers that they know are correct by law or that there is no factual basis at the time for the claims or charges. The officers making those claims are very seldom wrong.

The people in Ferguson, MO were and in many cases still are facing a huge case of denial. They simply will not accept physical facts from the crime scene and testimony from witnesses that any reasonable person could see. That case almost pails in comparison to this kid's grandparents. While I might be more understanding of the denial and wishful thinking that a loved grandchild could not be a criminal or certainly not one that can justify the use of deadly force, even for them they have to have their heads in the sand. Like Ferguson, it is a government cover up and the shooter, his wife, his kids, the responding patrol officers, their supervisors, the crime scene technicians, the DA and the entire grand jury are all in on it. Upwards of 40 people have all come together to deny this child his rights and no one has come forward to expose the conspiracy. I say show them the video up until the point of the shots being fired and even that if they wish. I guess they will say the video was staged. They say that he was not illegally entering a home and was never inside of the home. How do they know that? Let's go way way way out on a limb and say that the kid never really "entered". What was he doing outside of the man's home at 2:00AM? He wasn't up to no good, he was merely outside of a school board member's home in the early morning hours looking to sell girl scout cookies. Again, they need to show them the video. Then have the KBMT hatchet job team show back up at the house and again interview the family and see if they retract their statements. I really feel for the family as they lost a loved one that they cannot convince themselves could ever do anything wrong. In this case the denial seems to be (in today's idiom) "over the top". I can understand a case of wanting to believe that an officer lied or his partner covered him up. In this case the responding patrol officers and their supervisors had to fake the crime scene on the fly, the crime scene techs had to fake photographs of blood including likely trails from inside the home to the body, someone had to plant evidence of duct tape and a cue stick, fake a video or simply say that one existed when it did not and then convince the DA and a group of grand jurors picked from the general public that did not know each other, to all come together for this cover up for a guy they likely had never heard of and all of it (except the grand jury) had to be done before all the neighbors came out and saw the scene. Quite a feat I'd say or the other option, ultimate denial.

Already been in front of the grand jury. No indictment but that is hardly a shock.

Meanwhile the Dems put all of their eggs in one basket, a woman that is almost 70 (coincidentally almost the exact same age as Ronald Reagan who the Dems said was too old to be a president) and who at the moment appears to be falling apart. To counter her possible demise the Dems have a 73 year old avowed socialist and a 72 year old vice president who is not in the race but people might be begging him as a last resort. I am sure there are plenty of young energetic Democrats out there but they were shoved aside in what was supposed to be a coronation of the new queen. ..... and the Dems are crowing about the GOP getting a bad deal?

The only difference between this incident and other such shootings is that we saw this one.

Sure they have the right to name a street. I haven't seen anyone contest that. But what were any accomplishments by some of the people discussed or others? Columbus is credited with helping to establish a permanent European settlement in North America. Was he an angel? Hardly but they honor his accomplishment. Andrew Jackson lost a case in front of the US Supreme Court stopping him from resettling Indians and moving them west from their traditional lands. He did it anyway (Trail of Tears) which led to thousands of deaths and said to the Court, let them come try and stop me. Even so, he sits on the face of one of the more popular bills, the $20. He isn't celebrated for being a saint but for being the president and being the hero of the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. How many ways have we honored George Washington but he owned maybe hundreds of slaves? William Travis, the commander and hero at the Alamo is reported to have fathered a child out of wedlock, been an adulterer and abandoned his wife. Even so, we have many things named after him including schools in this area. Those people are celebrated not because of sainthood or being well known philanthropists. They are celebrated for a meaningful accomplishment that generally tended to help their nation, state or community. None of us are without sin and many of our local leaders might have checkered pasts. So Columbus is celebrated for making a discovery that led to the country as it is today. Washington led a nation in war and became the first president. Travis (maybe against orders) voluntarily sacrificed his life in order to delay the Mexican Army. Sandra Bland as her big accomplishment..... committed a felony and killed herself.

Yes he did, right after he assaulted a constable that pulled him over while he was riding a horse without a saddle.

Since Mexico and most South Americans speak Spanish due to the invasions by Spain, another white European country, does that mean all Mexicans and other Spanish heritage people have to leave also?

Pretty funny yet lame attempt at justification.

Like all laws, each are different determined by the state or federal government who passed the law in the first place. For example one state might have a 5 year limitation for a sexual assault and another might have a lifetime or no limitation. To know the limitations on any accusations against Cosby (or anyone else) you first have to know what the accusation is (since slight differences can make a different crime) and then what state it is in. To make it simple... are there limitations? Yes. Does any of them apply to Cosby? It depends on the accusation and where.

Then Trump is getting close to 95% of the vote? Look at some Real Clear Politics polls (they compile other polls) from Friday. In the what is usually a Democratic state of Michigan (won by Obama with 57% in '08 and 54% in '12), it shows Trump up over Clinton by 1%, Bush over Clinton by 1%...... and Rubio over Clinton by 9%. The point being the support over so many Republicans is obviously scattered but in head to head votes (at only this moment in time) Rubio is seen as way more conservative than Bush or Trump and is a pretty good bit out in from of Trump, Bush and Clinton in head to head type polling. While Trump is getting much of the "throw the bums out" attention at the moment, it still leaves almost 80% for other people. I still don't count him out but as the candidates start to drop out (likely soon after the first of the year), Trump will have to convince the people that he really does lean conservative and is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. Maybe it can be done but currently he has a lock on nothing and I think it is more likely that he will fall rather than rise. You only have to look at Clinton and the lead that she had a couple of months ago and is now hanging on.

I heard the same thing about Reagan. I had a good friend that was almost in tears one day because her teacher told her that Reagan looked like he was going to win and we would soon by in WWIII. Quite to the contrary, I think he prevented WWIII, ended the Cold War and shut up Libya when he bombed them after they supported terror attacks. It is my opinion that people will more likely attack you if they think you are weak and especially if they think you won't hit back. Kind of like..............

What makes us illegal immigrants? What laws did we violate?

How did you figure that?

I think it is a way of them trying to move on and heal without the need to call their child a potential monster. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and maybe 98% of the time this kid was (as said) the life of the party and a clown. So was Ted Bundy. Better from their perspective to look at a kid as they knew him, kind of apologize for his actions, offer sympathy to the family whose home was broken into, note that they are not seeking legal action and move on with their lives. I can see their point. I don't agree with their assessment of him but it isn't for me to step into their shoes.

I think we understood it the first time. This appeared to be a premeditated felony, likely a 1st Degree felony equal to murder or up to 99 years in jail. I (and probably hippy) don't think it is "one bad decision". The "I heard" from family members is hardly credible and is offered from distraught people that naturally are having a hard time facing that the truth may be that a family member might be more than just another nice kid with an adventurous spirit. One bad decision sounds like not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign and causing a fender bender or quitting a job in anger and regretting it the next day. This kid at the very least was committing a burglary (up to 20 years) and looking at what he had in his possession, might have been doing something far worse. That hardly speaks of a police officer being a bad cop because of one bad decision. If an officer plans and carries out a scheme to kidnap a woman and sexually assault her on a traffic stop, that is an extreme felon that needs many years or life in prison. That is hardly "one bad decision". I have made some bad decisions in more than 30 years of law enforcement and none of them involved committing felonies of any kind, much less against innocent people. I think that is the problem with your attempt at some kind of analogy in comparing this kid and an officer making a mistake.

i started typing and then thought better of it at the moment.

You've got to be kidding.

Tried the Philly Cheesesteak today. No complaints. Also grilled fish (wife) and grilled chicken (mother) and both were also good. What at least to me is surprising is the amount of food served with each order.

.... or do they fry the shrimp in the same grease as the gizzards?

My mother and now sister in law will be almost demanding it. I did not notice it either but my mother's radar locked on it about 15 seconds after we went in. She even said, "Order me some livers". My response was, "Where do you see that". I guess that shows my opinion of liver.

I will be. If I like a place I might eventually get everything on the menu (except liver or gizzards).

I went yesterday. Between mother, wife and I we had chicken liver (yuck), fried shrimp, stuffed shrimp, fries, coleslaw, green beans and red beans and rice. My mother loved the livers. Things like coleslaw are so subjective by personal taste but my mother and I really liked their version. The red beans and rice tasted almost identical to Popeye's but the were whole and not blended. The stuffed shrimp were good but not great. Mostly it was a texture thing as the stuffing is fairly mushy. Good taste but kind of strange texture. The shrimp I really liked and they were different than the typical Viet fried seafood places in that they were dipped in flour and not corn meal. Both ways are good but these tasted more like what I grew up with when we cooked them at home. The place is kind of a cross between Long John Silver, a Viet fast seafood place and Popeye's. I got three meals which all included two sides and a roll for about $28 driveout. I will be eating there again. I wouldn't drive from Nederland to Beaumont for just that but if in the area........