tvc184

Ted Cruz doesn't know how to follow the rules. A junior senator is expected to be seen and not heard. Cruz has the audacity to speak out when he sees laws being violated or stupid decisions being made. I guess that makes him a radical. 

I check G W Bush executive orders and found three orders on aliens. One was signed June 6, 2008 and published June 9, 2008. It reaffirmed that federal contractors were to try and make sure that "unauthorized alien workers" did not work on projects. Two other alien orders that didn't seem to fit amnesty either. One was to make sure that Caribbean nations had the authority to detain suspect illegal aliens at any place they wished signed and published on November 15, 2002 and the other sets terms on trials for illegal alien combatants that was signed and published on February 14, 2007.   If someone wants to peruse all of his orders, here they are. Maybe I missed something.    [Hidden Content]   Maybe someone else can find the place where Bush did "the same thing" when he was president. I couldn't find it. 

Fact checked a parody?

Let the riots begin... it's go time!

Almost a non-issue.

  I know that it is easy spit out that "others did it" but what was the orders under Reagan or Bush that gave blanket amnesty to aliens by declaring their status?    While it is easy to say "others did it" because you read it all over the internet from quips made by Democrats, what was those orders? They never name them.    Congress under Reagan passed a bill that he signed into law, which strangely is the way the Constitution says that it is legal. Again note, Congress passed an immigration law and Reagan signed it.    [Hidden Content]   Parts of that law did not specify how to obtain the results and Reagan is reported to have issued orders on how to execute the law passed by Congress and signed by him into law legally.   I have been a police officer the entire time that G W Bush was president and also under Obama. When Bush was the president we could detain and bring in any illegal alien for something as minor as a traffic citation. I even arrested some working at chemical plants that had been here for years late in Bush's term and they had not violated any law other than being in the country. When I contacted ICE agents they had me bring them in for deportation. So where was the executive order from Bush stopping enforcing of laws? Again, it is easy to say it because Nancy Pelosi and others have put out this information on the various news channels. But what is it based on? Name the order that Bush gave that stopped deportation of millions of illegal aliens and gave them legal status to stay in the country by coming forward and declaring they were illegal.    Under Obama and even before this executive order we can no longer detain illegal aliens that commit crimes that can land them in jail for up to a year. I can arrest an illegal alien DWI, get him convicted and serve time, arrest his again and have him serve time again and he will not be deported. All the talk is that we are now stopping more than ever at the border which may be true. But if they get past the border, there is no enforcement.  It is like a cop saying that if he catches you in the act of shooting someone he can arrest you but if he finds you two blocks away with gun still in hand, he cannot. That is ridiculous but it is the current rules we are under. It is no wonder that the Obama administration was against of detaining illegal aliens and reporting them to ICE, which by the way the Supreme Court found was legal.    This executive order issued by Obama grants legal status to about half of all illegal aliens. He has no such authority under the Constitution under Article I, Sec. 8 which says all naturalization laws are under the authority of Congress. The exact same Sec. 8 says that Congress can assess taxes. Under Obama's reasoning, he can simply issue an executive order and raise your taxes. He can use the same reasoning, that Congress has not acted and we are running up debt. I have a funny feeling that if he did that from the same section you might feel that it is unconstitutional as the president has no authority to enact legislation but in this case of illegal aliens that is exact what he has done.    What is really revealing in the Supreme Court case of AZ v. US when Arizona passed their own immigration law, the Obama administration contested the law under Sec. 8 saying that only the US Congress could pass naturalization and immigration laws. Hmmm..... when it fit their argument, they used the Constitution saying that only Congress could pass laws but when the Dems just lost the last election, the same administration is making the opposite argument for Obama. Go figure. 

  Sure and we already have. With that said, that is one big IF. 

You betcha. 

It is modest considering that it hasn't been raised in 23 years.    Unlike most other taxes that are based on a percentage, this one has to be raised by a law. Based on an average yearly percentage, a $10 increase equals to 2.2% compounded annually. 

I think this was nothing more than a police officer on patrol doing his job. He stopped a couple of guys for blocking traffic and knew nothing in the first moments about any robbery.   He was brutally attacked, the attackers started to flee and then one came back maybe to finish the officer off and the officer had to defend himself.    It seems like a pretty clear cut justified use of deadly force.    For some reasons, a few facts were taken out of context (probably with intent) and used as evidence of wrongdoing. It is like reading a couple of words out of a statement. You can read the Gettysburg Address by Lincoln and see the words, "our poor power" and "died in vain", making it look like an apology and degrading the armies when in truth it was just the opposite.    I think the same thing was done here. You see independent issues that are not linked together in a totality of circumstances based on facts. Instead of the true picture you get blurbs like "unarmed" and "arms up". 

  NIMBY's perhaps?   Maybe wanting their 15 minutes of the spotlight?   More money to run it?

  With you not really caring, meaning you aren't against it, and a majority of the public for it, would that then mean that Obama is merely going against the Republicans just to oppose what they are for? Hey, if the GOP is for it, I will oppose it.    After this last (and the previous two) election, I would say that Obama and the Dems have reaped what they have sown. Maybe you missed current events but the Dems have taken a super majority and squandered it to the point of losing all control of Congress.    Again, I say keep it up. The next election is less than two years away and it is looking like the GOP might control the entire agenda. 

  I think E85 is just about the opposite of what is commonly called gasahol today. When you get gasoline at most pumps you will see the sticker that says up to 10% is ethanol so we are looking at 90% gasoline and 10% alcohol. In E85 is almost the opposite at 85% ethanol and only 15% gasoline.    I am no mechanic but I would think that in a regular gasoline engine, the E85 would be a lot less efficient. Alcohol being a lot slower at burning than gasoline or more like diesel. Add the problems with the ethanol on fuel lines, pumps, etc., I think it would be a lot better to have a vehicle designed to run E85 or other flex fuel. 

............ and one of them is about to marry Charles Manson but isn't getting enough press from that so is now claiming a Bill Cosby incident. 

  They are all probably just giving similar stories...............  :rolleyes:     :D

I was listening on the radio last week and they were talking about the gas price rating. They said that it was an average of several selected stations. I guess you could have $2.40 a gallon gasoline in Beaumont and yet their "average" runs higher. That might be to location and stations that they survey.    Doing an online search just now, I show the lowest listed for Beaumont is $2.39 and has several below $2.57.   You have to watch out for those averages as they may be misleading but not necessarily incorrect. If they only survey certain stations (especially considering location), it can skew the results to make it appear that it is something that it is not. 

How is it easy?

  Let's see, we need the oil, the Canadians will get it out of the oil sand whether we use it or not, the fuel will be burned and go into the atmosphere whether we use it or not, it will likely come into our country anyway on rail, truck and ship, it will create jobs that are temporary, permanent and supporting, we will have to import just as much oil from another source, even the rank and file Democrats (the working stiffs) are for it but Obama is against it.   Looking at all those facts and stacking them up against each other, the lone negative out ways all the positives and that means that Obama is against it. That will be the reasoning. 

It is easy to say yes or no. Ask for an explanation and see what comes out?

  Cost?   For me the five day bow hunt with three doe/spike plus a 125"-135" buck is $1,500. With no buck being hit it is $350. Doe/spike hunts are semi-guided with transportation to and from the blind, corning the area and tracking dogs if needed. 

  That is what Bill O'Reilly has always says on the evil Fox News. There is plenty of evidence that the earth is warmer over a long time period (however it might start trending the other way). The big debate is whether it is a typical cycle, man made or some kind of combination. 

  That could very well be true.   I am not sure what the current stats are but I know that years ago when I went to a few schools to investigate sexual assaults, it was believed that only 1 in 8 assaults were ever reported. Some of those were not reported for several years.    Let's not forget in the fairly recent past that we found out that a lot of members of the clergy were assaulting thousands of kids across the country and when it finally started going public, many kids came out maybe up to 20 years later. The Catholic church caught much of the heat but that was only publicly. They were not alone and I investigated and got convictions on other churches.    There wasn't a lot of people rushing out to condemn the children that were assaulted and I think a lot of people were calling for the heads of many priests and other clergymen. Change it around to a celebrity and people are drawing sides based probably on their like or dislike of the parties involved.   Did Cosby use his status and money to assault women? Are the women trying for a money play?   I say toss a coin as both are good options but when unrelated victims start giving similar stories, in police work we call that a clue. I have no idea in this case what the accusations are so we will wait and see. 

  Not exactly.    If you take DDC or pay the fine, the officer cannot get involved.    If you agree to take DDC and fail to do so, the judge will issue a warrant. Again, the officer cannot get involved.    The ONLY time an officer can get involved is in all of this sequence of events in its entirety. IF you go to court, plea guilty to a judge, get fined, ask for an extension to pay the fine that you just stood in open court and pleaded guilty to and THEN fail to pay for it in the allotted time frame. If "all" of that happens, the judge will then issue a Capias Pro Fine meaning you will be arrested and taken to jail until you sit out your time or pay the fine.   In that single situation, the officer can give you the option to pay the fine that you "already agreed to" pay when you made arrangements with the judge or go to jail.   A citation on the side of the road? The officer cannot collect a credit/debit card for payment.   A warrant because you never showed up after signing a citation? The officer cannot take a credit/debit card for payment.   You want to take DDC, pay the fine or fight in in court? You have to sign the citation and then go see the judge.   In none of those situations can the officer get involved other than writing a citation or serving a standard warrant. 

Simple amusement for simple minds. 

  My point was about the misleading articles (both headlines and poorly written stories) and then the people looking only at headlines or other comments and coming to a conclusion.    When you see claims of it being unconstitutional because cops can't assess fines and you can clearly read that it has to be a fine previously set by a judge, you can tell that the person posting (a majority of them that I read) has no clue.