tvc184

  They can successfully impeach him at any time they wish. I am sure they already have the votes. He will not be removed from office however but that is not even the issue.   Obama claimed in his first election that he would have the most transparent administration in history. That has shown to be a monumental lie. He claimed that he would not raise any taxes on the middle class, period. He said that it would not be disguised as a new fee or any other name to try to hide that fact that it was a new tax. That might be the biggest lie.    The issue on Benghazi is not to get him removed from office, it is to show what a scam he is and especially with his favorite (at the time) henchman, Hillary. It really doesn't matter what happened but the obvious cover up does. There was a concerted effort to lie to all Americans when knowing that they failed in either their response to a threatened terror attack or their claim that they had the terrorists on the run and they did it for an election.    Obama will not be removed from office and I don't think any reasonable person believes that. What they are hoping for it for the truth to finally come out (although most of it already has) to show what a disgrace and liar that Hillary is. 

  I don't understand the rationale of what she is being paid to do. It has nothing to do with it.    If a person does not want to carry a gun, great. I don't want that person to do so because if it is unwilling, it will be more dangerous than being without one. The idea of "I am not getting paid" however seems like a union stance of, "That's not my job". You know, where a guy asks another to hand him a hammer on a construction site but the guy near him is a pipe fitter and not a carpenter so he won't do it. Get the "someone that is in the "right" union to hand it to you.    A teacher does have the job of protecting students. When they have fire drills or meetings of what do when something does happen like a lock down or shelter in place, does the teacher get to opt out because, "My job is to teach"?    Again, if a person doesn't want a gun then that person should not carry one or be made to carry one. That should not stop someone else from doing so. Teachers or administrators that are armed have not changed their duties and become police officers, they just now have a way to respond in case something very bad does happen other than simply sitting in a classroom saying, "That is not what I am paid to do so I will sit here and die along side the rest of you". 

  I don't think people are really opposed to background checks. They are opposed to registration.    If they pass a law that says I have to get a background check even to buy from an individual and pay a $10 tax/fee to get it, great. I am all for that and so would most people. The government is using the background check as a back door means of registration. They don't want you to merely get checked but want you to list the gun that you are buying for their records. The fear of that is confiscation.    I don't have a constitutional right to a television yet I have several and the government is not having me document my serial numbers or keeping a record of how many I have. I can name any number of other items that come with serial number that I have no constitutional right to own yet the government does not care nor requires anything from me. I have the constitutional right to own firearms and yet the government wants to know how many and how they can track them by serial number. Name the logic in that.    It isn't the background checks that people are in fear of. Even the NRA is not against banning felons from possessing firearms. Background checks is a code phrase for registration. 

I think there is a big difference between not having a good image and something so blatant as Sterling's rant. 

  What PA does is to contract with PAPD for off duty officers and it would cost almost $800,000 to staff every campus (if there are 14) with a single officer for 40 weeks a year. This however is cheaper than having their own PD since they don't have to provide vehicles, insurance, matching social security and medicare taxes, etc.    Our officers work for $35 per hour off duty or roughly a salary of a person making almost $73,000 per year. There would be savings because they would not have to be there when school was no in session. 

  Yet the state in the last session created teacher police officers with full law enforcement powers on campus except for traffic. 

  I am not sure where the baiting comes into play but it is still likely murder, according to what the state law says where it happened.    The problem is with the words "reasonable" or "reasonably". Those words appear 52 times in TX Chapter 9 of the Penal Code that deals in self defense. TX is fairly open on the ability to use force or deadly force when needed and reasonable. How reasonable is it for a guy to say that he is in fear of his life, yet entices a person to come into his home? It seems a ludicrous claim of reasonable fear when you are essentially inviting the person in. 

    I have never seen anything about "baiting" but you cannot set a booby trap that causes a substantial risk of death or serious injury and the person who set the trap had to have a justification for protecting property just as if it was the actual owner on the scene. 

  That is a fairly big gamble but whatever floats your boat. He went by the comical old saying of judged by 12 and will now serve the rest of his natural life in prison, probably being somebody's Bubba. 

  What do you do? You hold them for the police. At a bare minimum, after they were shot and down they were no threat and he put admitted kill shots into them. He simply wanted to play executioner and will hopefully pay with the rest of his life.    Killing a person that is a threat is legal (in most scenarios). Killing because you are angry is murder. 

It is clearly murder and not a lot of ambiguity. The man was rightfully convicted and sentenced to life.    Even under TX law there would likely be the same outcome. The only thing that might help him would be if he was out in the sticks and some jury decided on jury nullification because they were glad that two criminals were dead. 

  I cannot agree with this at all.    It should be regardless, not irregardless. 

Which has what to do with Obamacare?    Nixon tried to cover up a burglary by some of his henchmen. Clinton lied under oath to cover up sexual harassment.    What does any of that have to do with the thread?

It is also a good place for bulgoki, kim chee, galbi, mandu...................

  ........... or northwest Houston around Longpoint in the Korean district. 

There were two adults present and they were both arrested. If you consider underage drinking a scandal, then you threshold of a scandal is fairly weak. Maybe we can toss jaywalking in there as a scandal. What you call refusing to cooperate means someone isn't jumping up and proclaiming they are guilty. The last time I checked it, we had the Fifth Amendment of thr US Constitution that protected us against such "cooperation".

  I doubt that it is about agreement. It looks like it is trying to be made into some kind of big scandal when it is just high school kids drinking.    Wrong? Yes.   Shocking or scandalous? No. 

    All misdemeanors have a 2 year statute of limitations..... so yes, they can be cited well after the fact. 

  The officers likely wanted to file additional charges on who rented the bus. It could have been an 18 year old on the bus, one of the student's parents, etc.    Who is going to give up his friend, parent or whoever? 

  I could never figure the escape excuse.  

  They take the risk because it always happens "to the other guy". No one would get in a vehicle if they were reasonably certain that they would be in an accident. 

The fact that the bus got stopped and what was found was a decent news story.   This latest attempt looks like a non-story and trying to fill some space on a slow news day. 

   I think that it would matter to some. It is like workers at any location. Maybe 20% will always do the right thing, 20% are impossible to manage and will always do something wrong and the rest will follow how they are led.    There are people that will simply chose to not drive intoxicated. Others will drive DWI and nothing will change them. Others might slow down and look at their options and at the very least, not get into a vehicle where they know the driver is intoxicated.    The only ones that can be changed are the ones in the middle and that goes for employees at a company or kids deciding to drive or ride with someone while DWI. Those are the ones targeted as nothing can change the other two extremes.

  And I forgot to say, they could have ridden with Hippie in his former life and seen some nerve shattering scenes................. 

They could come ride with me and I could show them live and in person.