tvc184

Silly NY laws that have no bearing in TX anyway. 

  Corruption is interesting and when many people see what they feel is corruption, it is great to see the monster fall.    Why were so many people hung up on a jury trial with millions of people being ecstatic at the outcome for a local crime that didn't happen in 49 states? Many felt that Zimmerman was being railroaded and it was great to see the verdict. On the opposite side, many felt that he was guilty of murder and would have jumped with joy with a conviction..... and again, for something that had nothing to do with this most places in this country.    When we see corrupt public officials (or anyone we think is corrupt) being held accountable, it is awesome. Look at the councilman being arrested in Kountze for felony theft a couple of days ago. There were plenty of comments on the various news sites and Facebook and none seemed favorable to the councilman and said how great it was that he was caught. Most of those comments came from communities that are bigger than Kountze and not even in the same county, so why should we even care?   What all of these have in common is a vindication of people's feelings. It has nothing to do with Beaumont (as much as many Beaumont people want it to be) but the feeling that corrupt people are actually about to pay the piper.    In my opinion.

You have been hung up on this TX dream act for days. It has nothing to do with federal control of immigration. The. TXDA allows people living in this state to pay in state tuition. Stunning right? If you live in the state, you get to claim that you live in the state. It has nothing to do with the proposed Dream Act where it grants citizenship to illegals based solely on attending college. It also does the same for illegals that join the military and I agree with that. If you serve 4 years minimum in the US military and get an honorable discharge, you get a permanent resident card/status (which my wife has) and can then apply for citizenship. All of which (again) has nothing to do with Texas allowing people living in the state to claim they are a resident of the state. Great attempt at a smoke screen though.........

Sounds like a federal government problem, not a state which us trying to enforce federal law.

  It might not be a true indication of actually "making up lies". Maybe it comes from getting opinions that a person takes as facts from sources such as MSNBC.    I am sure that all knowledgeable people knew that there was no requirement for a birth certificate and they weren't deporting people. In fact the detention of a suspected illegal alien is still legal under the contested AZ law and the SCOTUS upheld the right of local officers to detain and check for immigration status with the feds. Of course that is a meaningless point at the moment with Obama and Eric Holder running the show as they refuse to uphold the law but the law was allowed to stand. The part of the law that was thrown out was the making of a federal crime, a state crime also. In fact federal law requires aliens to carry documentation to this day. I have arrested aliens for not doing so but was required to call ICE and letting them confirm what I already knew and approving the arrest, which I made.    Of course that will again fall on deaf ears for those ignoring the truth and it is currently a moot point as the current administration will not even enforce immigration laws even after the local police make a lawful arrest such as for DWI, assault, etc. 

  I figured it would go over your head but at least I tried. 

Trolling only makes the troll look bad. 

  ..... besides, as a person that claims to have medical knowledge, you don't see the difference between a mental illness and a person having sex and wanting someone else to pay for it or an abortion drug at their discretion?    It is not even apples and oranges. It would be like asking the government to pay for tattoos or piercings since they penetrate the skin and you have to have a license based on knowledge of prophylaxis in order to legally perform them on someone else. 

  ........... with good reason.

I think that hinging the constitutionality of a birthright on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a losing argument.

  Assuming that is what he said, therein lies the problem. The SCOTUS is not supposed to rule on women's health. They are for make rulings on the law. It is not supposed to be a body performing think tank debates or social engineering but a legal device to rule on constitutionality of a law.    But, that would not fit the mantra of the left. 

    I am not sure why many many on one side of the bar because he consistently rules on that side. I am assuming that those lawyers think their own opinion is wrong? 

  ............. and the next week after the settlement 85,635 people will fall asleep in stadiums across the country. 

  Not according to WebMD and several other sites that I viewed like plannedparenthood.org, www.planbonestep.com (actual manufacturer of the pill), etc.    They all say that it "may" prevent fertilization but can stop implantation of an already fertilized egg and can be taken up to five days later and be effective but it is suggested no more than 72 hours. I am guessing that the egg is usually fertilized before and sometimes way before the five days pass. Therefore the suggesting that it does not stop implantation of the already fertilized egg is nonsense. Again, it could stop fertilization but if doesn't or it is too late, it will still stop implantation and allow a fertilized egg to die which just happens to why Hobby Lobby objected.    Of course, I am just looking at doctor websites and the people that actually make and push the pill so what do they know? They probably did not consult Big girl before publishing their information............. 

    Did you ever try reading the decision or just the headlines? The decision states that it only covers 4 out of 20 birth control possibilities that abort or stop a fertilized egg from attaching. Stopping conception was not an issue. Stopping a life after conception was the problem.    You might be interested (but probably not) in this quote from the opinion....   "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-  dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it  provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

  They get birth control pills or one of the other 15 paid for methods. 

  I have no clue about the BBQ but I liked the looks of almost anything at Florida's. The problem is that their portions are too big. Don't get the large whatever...........   I ordered the catfish dinner. They had large and small and I figured the small was a fillet or at the most, two. Then the large would have three full size fillets. Hmmmm......    The large was five that covered the platter. I asked a friend that lived there and he said all of their meals were like that. The people that I was with had likewise large portions of their various entree's. It is rare that I can sit at a restaurant meal and not finish but Florida's did me in.   

    I don't think Clinton would do quite as bad as Mondale but I agree it won't be pretty. 

  Actually race does matter but not like you are portraying it. In 2008 13% of the vote came from African Americans. Obviously most supported Obama. Going back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 (as far back as I could find stats), they usually voted in the total vote at 8%-10%. That means that Obama go an additional 3% of his votes (5% more than Clinton) from African Americans to support a black president.    The questions seems to me will be whether that same enthusiasm will remain to vote for a white person as it was with Obama. Even going to the most recent election in 2008 where Obama got 51% of the popular vote, can the next candidate for the Dems take a 3-5% hit and still win?    We can somewhat toss all the Tea Party, conservative enough and other stuff aside if Hillary or whoever can't keep up that 13% show up at the polls. 

    I was going to bring up in the other thread that the ruling was in favor of federal law and not a constitutional issue per se but figured it would fall on deaf ears. 

Wait... rich people getting richer and there will be no trickle down.... Go Obama???

    I would like to see who the candidates are on both sides (not sure that Clinton is a lock) but I think that the Republicans are sitting for an easy win and basically in the reverse situation that allowed Obama to win in 2008. Looking at the congressional elections since 2008 have done nothing to change that outlook. I think the "throw the bums out" will hit heavily in 2016 and the Dems will suffer for it. 

You can hardly dispute the truth that for many decades the Golden Triangle area has been run by unions, mostly from chemical plants and therefore voted straight party tickets on the side of the Democrats. For that reason, the only way to get elected in his area was to run on the Democratic ticket. I have known many elected officials and several that are in office now. After talking with some of them it is my belief after hearing their political opinions that they are not very supportive of the Democrats but joined the majority party in the counties in order to be a viable candidate. Now that some demographics have changed, there is way less influence and loss of union jobs and because of politics in general have changed in some areas, some may have switched parties out of political expediency which seems to be okay because that is why they originally chose the opposition party in the first place.... in my opinion. 

Mitt Romney got one million more votes than McCain did in 2008 or before the Tea Party movement even started. No matter what else happened and with the Tea Party out there, Romney got more votes with a Tea Party in existence than McCain got before they were even formed. Hmmmmm.......   Obama on the other hand lost almost 5 million of his supporters in his reelection. In fact, you have to go back 70 years to a 3rd and 4th term of FDR before finding any reelected president that did not gain votes.    Since then Eisenhower gained 1.5 million votes in his reelection. Nixon while being beaten up in the press and faced the beginning of the Watergate Scandal and gained more than 10 million votes in his reelection for the largest landslide in history to that point. Reagan gained 10 million in his reelection and surpassed Nixon in the largest landslide in history and Clinton (while he never got 50% of the vote) gained 2 million. G W Bush after being slammed by the left who were particularly still angry after the 2000 election and Florida contested election, gain 12 million votes.    Then along comes Obama who lost almost 5 million in support from his first election and Romney gain 1 million...... and the question was about the Tea Party being thrilled? A better question would be how a sitting president for the first time in almost 4 generations and only the second president in history to lose any votes in a reelection.    The question about the Tea Party has some basis in that Romney was not their main person to support but if we are talking popular vote, Hillary got more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and only internal rules of the Democratic party gave him the primary, not popular vote. Let's sit on that for a few moments. Obama did not even win the popular vote in his own party in getting nominated. Meanwhile Romney won by 6 million popular votes over his closest Republican challenger. So it seems that the enlightened person's question is based merely on trolling rather than some historical basis or true political question. With all the claimed non-support of the Tea Party, Romney won his nomination by 6 million votes and Obama when he had a challenger in 2008, lost the popular vote in his own party and as an incumbent president in 2008 won with a bare majority of 51% of the vote and in doing so lost 5 million of his own supporters.    Of course, that is just looking at facts.