tvc184

  No but the sanctions are what led to the attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor in WWII to crank off our direct involvement.   Also, the way this has started is what led to WWI and strangely enough, in the same area.  WWI was a screw up of alliances where one country was obligated to attack another in what should have been a border war and one by one different countries stepped in to back up one side or the other. Strangely, some countries has alliances with both sides of the conflict and had to choose which side that they would enter the conflict on.   In WWII, Japan had an embargo against it from the USA after Japan refused to end their occupation of China. They were running out of resources and had to either give up China or attack other lands to get what the USA was not sending them. They really didn't care about conquering us but knew that we would attack them if they invaded various new locations so they did a preemptive strike to take out our fleet.    And no, I do not think this is likely to cause WWIII mostly because we will not get involved other than sanctions and I don't think that Russia is prepared to take over other countries to gain what they lose in sanctions. 

Hey wait.... maybe Beaumont is that good. I see that Port Arthur just had a magazine (must be the same magazine) rate that city as one of the top 5 small cities in Texas to live in.   [Hidden Content]     Maybe we are just missing the point on BISD and they are really awesome.  :D

  After 5 years without passing a budget or even bringing one up for a vote in the Senate, NOW you want to worry about the economy?   Interesting.............. 

  FIFY

It doesn't really matter if the USA should or shouldn't get involved. John Kerry said that all options are still on the table.    Does anyone in the world believe that is true? That has to be one of the most hollow threats ever made.    Oh yeah, the Navy SEALS kills OBL, so Putin is shaking in his boots................... 

  .... as a failure.    I remember all the gloating a few months ago because some magazine rated BISD as something like one of the top 10 districts in the nation. Now it appears as though they are the only district in the entire state that has not been accredited. 

When I first started voting, there was no early voting unless you signed a waiver saying that you would be out of town on election day. It was not "early" voting, it was "absentee" voting.    Then you had to vote on election day.    Now they send out mail ballots where you really don't know who sent it back, many days to vote, complaints about showing an ID, etc.    I don't care who votes but some people are trying to make it easier and easier to skew the results and if you complain, you are trying to disenfranchise someone. The Democrats appear to want to make it where the less verification there is, the better. 

  It means nothing as they were all elected locally.   It means for example that Nancy Pelosi probably has an approval rating nationwide of about 10% but she won reelection in her district with about 85% of the vote.    The nationwide approval does not matter because the people in her district love her. What the people are voting on is not how good their congressman is as they may love him/her. They are rendering an opinion on the rest of Congress that does not agree with "their guy".    In other words, the congressional approval is a joke. If it meant anything, every incumbent would be voted out every two years. How's that working out for you?   In the case of the president, it is a one person issue. When Obama came in with a 60+% approval rating, people had high hopes. Those hopes have vanished.   

I don't see this poll as anything outstanding anyway. Obama's polls are pretty far down from the mid-40's to the upper 30's in percentages of approval. That alone means that a good percentage of the people that voted for him are no longer satisfied and would not vote for him today.  It is not like earth shattering news that he has lost support. 

  eg. - CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times

Which also leads to a great chance for a whistle blower lawsuit. 

A comedy of errors.    Now we know (if we didn't already) why Butch decided it was time to go.      No organization is immune from stupidity from individuals but this looks like institutional misconduct or in other words, a lot of looking the other way and not wanting to be the rat or being threatened if they did. 

I don't think numbers tell anything. Content and authority are the issues, not numbers.    Numbers is a cop out.    It would be like if a president signed an order ending the First Amendment. I guess the argument would be that it is okay because it is the only order that he has signed and the previous guy signed dozens more. 

  To my knowledge the federal government has not defined when life begins. The state of Texas has and it is at conception, even to the point of filing murder charges for intentionally killing a fetus. That appears to be under the Tenth Amendment under states' rights and I have not seen any constitutional challenge to that TX law of establishing life. So with the feds not defining life and TX has, it seems that the TX law is constitutional (and in fact is unless overturned) and as I have said, there has been no challenge or overturning of the TX law.   If life is in the womb, why is allowing the killing of the child allowed under the US Constitution? What part of the Constitution allows the killing of a person not convicted of any crime short of life saving? Remembering that a state could ban abortion before Roe v. Wade when the SCOTUS ruled that a state had to allow it to some extent but left most of those rules to the states. If a state rules that life begins as conception, what constitutional authority does any other person have to murder that child?    Obviously TX has law that says it is not murder IF it is by the mother's choice AND by a medical professional licensed to perform that procedure (due to Roe) but for anyone else, it is. By the SCOTUS overriding a state's right to make laws on when life begins, it is murder for a man to hit a woman in the stomach and kill the fetus even it if with the consent of the mother but if she hits herself in the stomach and causes the same abortion, it is legal.   Maybe I need to go back and read the Constitution again and find out where the killing of a person that is not convicted of a crime or to save a life is constitutional. 

  And Holder's statement/plan is a typical response to gain Democratic votes by allowing felons to vote after having that right removed long ago by their own actions.   You seem to want to play politics on one side of the aisle but give a pass to the other. This is nothing more than a vote scheme and everyone knows it. It is no different than the move to give citizenship to illegal aliens or to simply allow them to vote. If 65% of Hispanics or felons voted Republic instead of Democrat, the Dems would be fighting such a notion with every ounce of breath.    All you would have to show Holder that Obama won the last election by 5 million votes but allowing Hispanics to vote at 65% Republican would automatically doom the next Democrat in the presidential election by increasing the Republican vote by 10 million. You would bet that there would be no move by any national Democrat to allow anyone else to vote unless they gained from it. It is comical to claim that they are worried about rights. 

  That is why I said "I think".    I usually choose my words carefully and watch what I commit to.  ;)

  Until the upcoming rule change that only allows 5 specks in TX waters. 

Yes it is, especially when they are playing the Longhorns.

  TX allows deferred adjudication for felonies.    While on deferred for a felony, you are essentially still under indictment (charges still pending). For things like purchasing firearms, that is a no-no. Once they have cleared deferred adjudication, they are considered never to have been convicted with all rights returned.    Deferred is not a guilty verdict. The "judgment" of guilty or innocence is deferred to some time in the future. It is almost like pleading no contest and if your successfully serve out your time, charges are dropped. I don't think TX allows deferred once you have a conviction however. 

  You can legally fish if you have a license for the location where you launch. If you launch in TX to fish then you must have a TX license. If you launch in LA to fish then you need a LA license.    Under both licenses you can fish the common boundary waters.  I have a suspicion that LA might be about to make a good bit of money if TPWD passes their newest proposal to limit specks to 5 with a 16" (or larger) minimum. I think that many might simply go ahead and spend for the LA NR license and drive across the causeway bridge and be open to a 15 fish limit with a 12" minimum. 

  TX and LA have a boundary water agreement. It deals with common stream channels like rivers and bordering lakes. The jetties are not within that agreement as they are not part of the boundary waters. Once you get past the points of land and into the open Gulf, you are no longer covered by the agreement. The jetties are many made structures and not part of those boundaries.    A game warden within his discretion can choose not to cite someone for fishing inside of the jetties however that does not prevent them from doing so. 

While knowing full well that most felons are not Republicans.................... 

An 18 year old can be in possession of any legal firearm including a handgun.    And "assault rifle" is just a rifle with a made up term by the press. 

  It is according to if the numbers on the side of the drone start with a D or an R. 

[quote name="JRidge" post="1427413" timestamp="1377449253"] I don't care how you slice a pie it's still pie! Memorial has too many holes too fill in their running game and need of additional receivers! Central has talent coming out of the wood works and if their coaches can decipline them and put the right people at the right positions, that in it's self will give P.A. problems! [size=10pt][b]Just be glad all of BMT kids aren't in the same school! There would be no need for a prediction or even a game! [/b][/size]Lol, seriously though, I say Central by 14!  ;) [/quote] Wait a minute, are you telling me that the 5,318 students combined for the three Beaumont schools could easily handle the 2,460 students for PAM? Great call. I wonder if you combined Nederland, PNG and PAM for a total of 5,320 students how the "Beaumont" school would do. Just sayin'.................