tvc184

  Since we have no clue what it is, I guess the speculation can be wide open. If it is poor construction then you have to wonder if a lawsuit is a more appropriate venue.    No matter what happened, it appears that someone must have messed up if the construction was not up to code or if the planning was poor. I don't believe that there is some big expansion of student population at play. I think Memorial is losing students, not gaining them. 

  Yes, the taxpayers will pay for it under the proposal. The "no cost to taxpayers" means no raising of taxes however that means that not passing the bond should lower taxes. We know that a government agency does not want to lower taxes once people are used to paying them.................   From what I read in the PA News article, part of the bond is to renovate DeQueen Elementary and Memorial High School. Those facilities just opened in 2010 as brand new buildings. They now need renovating?    That seems to be poor planning if you build a brand new multi-million dollar school and four years later you need a bond for renovations. 

  No. Like I said, it is a yes and no answer.    Yes murder is not lesser included (that is your yes).   In the same sentence you went on to say, "prosecution is not barred". I believe that is your "no". Attempted Murder is the lesser included offense and that bars any further prosecution for that action. In my opinion prosecution is barred.    The level of the offense has no bearing.    If it happened in a place that has dual jurisdiction (federal and state) and only one gets a guilty on a lesser included offense or even a not guilty verdict, the other jurisdiction can prosecute. For example if a guy kills a president, he can be tried for murder under federal law and under the state law where it happened, no matter what happened in the other jurisdiction. I don't think DC has any state jurisdiction over it so only the feds can (and already did) file charges. 

  Which is huge either way.    I can't tell how many times I have heard that a witness "saw the whole thing" and then start giving a statement like, "I heard a loud crash and ran around the corner to see.............." or "I heard three quick shot and ran outside to see...........".   My answer is always, "No, you didn't see the whole thing". Most of the time they want to argue but it really doesn't matter in the long run. What they did see might still be very important but it will never be front the start and likely will not show the cause. So many of our witnesses start their story with hearing a noise (gun shot, crash, yelling, etc.) and then looked to see what was happening.   

You are right but you are wrong. Murder is not a lesser included offense but that has no bearing. Att Murder is the lesser included offense and if a person is convicted of the lesser included offense, those elements can no longer be used against him. It would be double jeopardy. All of the lesser included offenses discussion seems to be a moot point however. In wikipedia it says that John Hinkley Jr was tried on 13 federal counts. I am assuming that the shooting of Brady was one if them. The article says that he was found not guilty by reasons of insanity. If he was found not guilty, he can no longer be tried for any of those charges. That is assuming that not guilty was for all counts and that shooting Brady was one of them.

I have been a Missouri police officer for the last week including today. Fortunately it is on the other side of the state. I have read several news articles on the incident and all that I have found out is that there are no facts released other than an 18 year old is dead, a police officer killed him and the community says that the police have to be at fault.

......and yes hippy, you got sucked in to arguing with the baiters, trollers and outright idiots.

There is no evidence that I have seen that shows his throat was cut or any other injuries caused by another person. There is plenty of speculation and wishful thinking of some people that for various reasons want it to be true. One woman on Facebook yesterday was stating that he had been dead less than 24 hours when found. That apparently proves that he was kidnapped and held for days. There is no way that his body would be that decomposed after such a short time frame yet this becomes another believed "fact". I am sure however that hundreds of people read her comments and a few will then repeat that as a fact.

Lots of news stories on this case so I have no clue which ones you may have read. I never saw NYPD deny the hold but said that it was not the cause if death. That may or may not be true. You bring up a good point though because the NY coroner ruled it a homicide. So even though a police department claimed one thing, another government agency came up with a different conclusion. In the Wright case we have the county sheriff, the DA, the Jefferson County coroner (who is from out of state and has no connection to this area), the Texas Rangers, the FBI, a second private autopsy hired by the family and the US Attorney's office under Eric Holder doing independent investigations and none have come up with evidence if a homicide. In NY it took only the next step to say that one human killed another (even if justified). In the Wright case it has gone all the way up to Obama's Justice Department and they all ended up with the same conclusion.

LSCPA (I think it was LUPA then) made an offer through the state to buy Woodrow a few years ago. PAIISD was swimming in a few million dollars of a budget shortfall and LSCPA needed more room including a gym and performing arts center/theater. I think the state offered $4 million for the old school and would put quite a but of money into renovations to the old facility. It was a one time take it or leave it offer and PAISD rejected it. I seem to remember a public outcry about a traditionally black neighborhood school being bought out by the college for other people. In any case, the offer was rejected and LSCPA used the money for the sale and renovation along with some donations to build the Performing Arts Center and the Parker Center, both of which are outstanding facilities. Woodrow meanwhile, sits empty after a bunch of money went into fixing it after Hurricane Rita. I have no clue what their future plans are for that vacant campus.

I have a friend that guides and he has been finding them all over but not in a good way. One day he finds them at the jetties or in the channel near Chenier LNG or at various parts of the lake. It is line they are out there and feeding but no specific pattern to rely on.

The article is a straw man argument (I read it). The author only quotes a Democratic member of the committee. The author's bio at the end of the article states that he is an "unfortunate liberal soul" that is in the midst of a "conservative hellscape". He has a "deep-seated" hatred" of "bigotry", "hatred" and "lies of the Right Wing".   Yep, that is a well thought out and objective article...............     

Looks like the stock market. 

Bullets13 and I fished when I got off work last night and boxed out in about 90 minutes. We left 'em biting..................     

Your last statement is likely true and it might spell doom for the Dens this go round.

Yep.

All presidents use executive orders. The use or how many is not the issue.   The issue is what is the order about and is it legal? An example is that Obama is now threatening to act if Congress does not on immigration reform. He legally cannot do so under the Constitution. There is no executive authority to pass immigration and naturalization laws. The Constitution specifically gives that power to Congress. Of course the president can veto legislation but can't create it.   It is not a question of if they can issue orders or a question of who wrote the most but what does the order pertain to. 

Trump does hate Americans..........  dying from a horrible disease that is intentionally brought to this country under the promise from government that is say, "Don't worry, trust us!". 

  Proud to state the truth? Not really.    Happy that the American people have stripped Obama's power after he and the Democrats went against the will of the people in passing Obamacare and promptly made a 63 seat swing in the House of Representative? You bet.    I won't make any predictions on what the future may hold as we don't know what will happen in the next 24 months that can change it one way or the other. Obama might just be recreating the circumstances that got him in power in the first place but in reverse. Bush made some political moves that were not popular at the end of his last term and he lost support of the people. It made many people angry and created the perfect storm for a junior senator with almost no experience to leap to the forefront (along with some inside politics since Hillary actually got more popular vote in the primaries). The next Republican candidate whoever it is might be walking into the same angry public on the other side. 

"Haters" is one of those code words that some people like to talk about like "thug" or "undisciplined". Thank you Mr. President for stooping to that level. I guess in the waning days of your power and no more elections to face, it is time to take off the gloves and let your true feelings out. 

Yes Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck and there is nothing we can do about that. When Obama was in his first two years of office the Republicans tried to block several pieces of legislation, most notably Obamacare. That is when the Dems had the super majority and could pass any legislation it wanted but the Republicans kept trying to throw up roadblocks. Representative Elijah Cummings (D) a couple of times in a fairly angry tone got on the television and denounced the Republicans by saying something like, "We won and you lost and we are now in control. That is the way this works". Yes Elijah, that is the way it works. Historically there has been compromise on legislation being passed but now the Dems had the ultimate power for two years. Of course they wasted it and passed only one piece if real legislation, Obamacare. They were promptly hit with the midterms in 2010 where the public greeted their legislative prowess with a stunning reversal in Congress in a historic switch in the House. Yes, Obama is the president for another two years of being a lame duck. The Republicans made good strides in the Senate and took away their filibuster proof majority. The only reason the did not take over the Senate was because only 1/3 of senators is ever up for reelection at one time but that again is the rules. Since Obamacare the Republicans have held a firm grip on the House. The president or Dems can get nothing passed into law for the last six years of Obama's presidency without Republican consent and it is driving them crazy. Simply put, House elections are local to each area and a majority of the American public has rejected the Dems leadership in passing laws. Yes, Obama got a huge 51% if the vote in 2012 and will now finish out his term however he faces the prospect of losing the Senate also in a couple of months. His power has been stripped and he has resorted to illegal executive orders, some if which have been thrown out by the Supreme Court with likely more to follow (3 losses in the last month). That fact has Obama and the Dems outraged but in the words of Elijah Cummings (now coming back to haunt the Dems), we won and you lost. The Republicans now hold a solid majority in the House and (thank you Mr. Cummings) that us the way this works giving the Republicans overwhelming control.  If the Republicans take over the Senate in November and take full control of Congress, Obama can get his pen in hand (as he loves to say) but this time to issue veto after veto as the Republicans will be sending him law after law. Remember, that is the way this works as Mr. Cummings so eloquently pointed out. But wait, can't the Dem senators simply filibuster? Oops.... Harry Reid and the Dems voted a rules change when they didn't like the Republicans legally blocking legislation (again within the rules) so they changed the rules in mid stream. They were warned not to let the genie out of the bottle as it would come back to haunt them. Now they are desperately praying to hang on to the Senate or face a nightmare in legislation that they created when they couldn't play within the rules. But Obama will still be the president. Let's see how that works our for him with his poll numbers now down into the 30's in many areas. And again in the words of Dem spokesman Elijah Cummings, Obama won and is the president........ but he will be stripped of almost all power except the veto and that is the rules.

  That is what I was wondering. 

  Giving him a pass? My response was that I don't think they should be here at all and whether they pay in state or out of state tuition doesn't matter.    Who are you claiming that backs up Reagan in the amnesty deal? I have never mentioned that as being a good thing and I have not seen anyone else say so. It was one of the worst decisions of Reagan's presidency and although he was promised that it was a "one time deal", many of use thought that it was the proverbial foot in the door.   You often bring up these straw man arguments.    You ask questions about, why do you not disagree with (fill in the name of any Republican) when in truth, no one has claimed support for those issues. You only assume that we support all issues by the national party.   The reason that Bush's popularity waned in his last year was his support and ultimately signing of bailouts like TARP and the auto bailouts. It is a given that the Democrats didn't like him but his late policies changed his own party's opinion as well. You see, therein lies evidence that we don't support only party but what is done. The fact that the Tea Party sprung up within the Republican Party is further evidence that we don't all accept things to toe the party line.   Yet you will likely continue to come up with..."But why did _________ sign _________ and why did you Republicans support him/her?".    The truth is that maybe we don't as I listed above.

    Let's refresh our memories in this thread. The comment that I made was about the article and its likelihood of it being wrong and rarely (in my opinion) is it ever true. In other words, I have little belief in its accusations.    The mention of race was only brought up by bigcam in post #3. The terms race, whites, black, racist, African American, content of character and others were brought up. Hippy was called out to clarify his statement or beliefs.   In fact hippy made no statement and only copied/pasted a local website that claims to be "news".     I only responded to the post. I said such bad things as content of character does matter and we are talking about a federally convicted criminal. If you want to think that the US Justice Department falsified evidence or targeted someone and it is a scam, your are certainly free to feel that way. I still merely stated facts.    In fact you made the comment:       .... bring up both Black and "Hood Card". Oops! I guess we forgot about that one but it may have only been a joke so it doesn't matter? I can imagine the response if I had said something like that.    All that I have said in my posts is that race does not matter (like hippy, after being called out.. "So I ask TVC, are the scales balanced??") and listed reasons why I feel that way but Walker's pleading guilty does matter. Apparently some take that as offensive after I am asked a direct question. Again, feel free to think any way that you wish and not agree with me but please look back and see who brought up what.    Again, hippy posted a political opinion from another website with no further comments of his own and I immediately (with the first response) said that the site rarely has any truth to it and it calls rumors as fact. If that is too difficult to comprehend, it is saying that I believe very little from the website unless I see something else other than his opinions. In other words, I did not accept the additional claims made by the website against Walker and possibly politicians without further proof as it is often wrong or skirts around the truth.    Feel free to fact check the thread.      

    I doubt that a guy with millions of dollars in his account and with a high profile attorney pleaded guilty after a hung jury because he was worried about being wrongfully convicted. Especially when the plea makes him pay back millions of dollars.  We aren't talking about a guy found with a rock of cocaine or a small baggie of marijuana on a traffic stop and with a court appointed attorney. Either way, he stood up in front of a judge and he proclaimed his own guilt.   On the other hand I notice that you conveniently missed the point of the post and that is that the prosecutor was an Obama appointee and the head of the Justice Department that prosecuted him was the US Attorney General, Eric Holder. I guess Eric Holder's Justice Department and an Obama appointee had it out for Walker due to race.... which is what is being stated or implied.    So I am wondering how many people realize that it was the FBI and US Justice Department that gathered the evidence and filed charges and ultimately got a conviction on Walker? Do they think that Eric Holder's Justice Department and a Barack Obama appointee targeted or allowed Walker to be prosecuted due to race because reading posts in this forum and in other online debates, that seems to be the claim?