mspart

By then most people may be fed up with the Olympics and what they have done to themselves and it might not be too controversial if wrestling is kicked out and replaced by whatever new and up and coming hacky sack type thing comes along. BTW - I was at a wrestling camp as a kid. Guest was Fred Fozzard. The guy was an absolute specimen of natural athletic ability. He had this new game that the makers shared with him before going into production. He called it hacky sack and taught a few of the guys how to play. He was pretty good at it and it just wasn't around but he pretty much mastered it. I will never forget that guy, he was a machine. mspart

Bemidji PD gets them all and crushes them I hope. mspart

BBWWTAM - Biden's Border wall with Trump's appropriated money. Ha ha!! mspart

Yes, this probably won't change. Everyone can enter as an asylum seeker without cause and they'll work that out when the courts can get around to it. mspart

It is a nice city, just huge. Now I was there for 3 days only so I'm not a great resource. I generally just don't like big cities and the thought of living in them gives me hives. I live near Seattle, but not in Seattle. I lived near Minneapolis but not in Minneapolis. I lived near Honolulu but not in Honolulu. I have visited big cities all over, Singapore being one of them. The heat and humidity didn't kill me there and there is plenty of that. It was a nice place and I know expats that are very happy there. It's just not my cup of herbal tea. mspart

I've been there. It is a big city, clean too. But it is a big city. It was nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there unless I could live outside the city, and there is not much land there to do that. mspart

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-says-poor-kids-are-just-bright-just-talented-white-n1040686 Former Vice President Joe Biden told a crowd in Iowa on Thursday that “poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids," Biden said it so he must be racist. To be clear he said this as Candidate Joe, not President Joe. mspart

Well, it is a moot point now. Biden is building the wall now, all of the sudden, and ignoring all those necessary environmental laws. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4239648-biden-administration-waiving-federal-laws-border-wall-construction/ Truly a stunning reversal of policy. Obviously the border is not secure like they have been saying since 2021. mspart

Biden said there would not be one inch of wall ever built during his administration. Now it is a good thing. He campaigned on how horrible Trump was for building a wall. Now he is using Trump's money to build that wall, appropriated in 2019. But with Illinois and NY governor's complaining earlier this week, the WH is now listening. Their policies have been a demonstrable disaster. That is now being recognized and it is an emergency so Biden is going to build a wall in Star county TX and will waive all environmental laws that would stop this. Biden is now a hater, hating migrants. There is no other explanation. He said those against illegal immigration that they were haters and now he is the hater. But it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately for him, it is the R's idea and R's policy that he is now implementing. Apparently the R's were correct all along. TX and FL governor's tactics are now showing fruit. The D government is now doing a 180 on this. The border has been secure all this time remember. Just earlier this week that was the trope. But now it isn't secure and a wall needs to be built. Biden's approval ratings are now 36%. That's essentially only the D's in the country. That doesn't and won't win elections. So now they need to do something, and they have decided a wall is that thing. This is hilarious, except that it is so sad that it has come to the point that even Ds are complaining about this compassionate policy that they have promoted for years and years. Oh, we were wrong. The R's were correct. Devastating admission and too late to repair any damage done. mspart

This is important!! I mean it. I can barely handle the jalapeno. Ghost would kill me. mspart

Term limiting Congress folks has been tried and found unconstitutional. The Constitution does not specify how many terms a person in Congress can serve. It does however specify only 2 terms for a President and this by amendment. That is the only way to get this done. https://www.termlimits.com/term-limits-amendment/ The year was 1995, and the case was U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. With assistance from USTL, the citizens of 23 states had just passed laws putting term limits on their members of Congress. That meant just under half of all congressmen were term-limited, and Congress would soon be forced to propose a term limits amendment applying to everyone. But it was not to be. A self-interested politician in Arkansas and his donors made a court challenge to void that state’s law. Others followed. After the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled against us, we took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). SCOTUS opined that since the Constitution sets forth the criteria that determines the requirements for Senators and Congressional Representatives, only the Constitution can limit the terms of Congress members. The Court decided, in a 5-4 split decision, that citizens are not allowed to term limit their own members of Congress using state laws. They threw out 23 states’ term limits laws in one day. So you have to do this by amendment or the court could vacate the state laws again like in 1995. Now with the current court it might not happen, but it will be an expensive experiment. But future courts might look like the one in 1995 and call something similar unconstitutional. mspart

If you are not defending cashless bail, but think the system is not fair currently, what do you propose? mspart

Which means that there is zero consensus that the US debt is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. Which means they are all idiots or we are for voting them in. I think it is both. mspart

Thank you for the information. I'd say the pressure is on whoever shows up. mspart

Plasi, By not prosecuting crime, as you acknowledge, crime has soared. It is a known fact that the majority of crime is committed by a few actors. If they are incarcerated, their ability to commit more crime is diminished. And thus for that time crime will go down due to their exploits. I don't disagree with your last statement I quote above, but if they do another crime after they get out, back they go to the pokey. Incarceration doesn't deter crime? I disagree. It will as long as the bad actor is incarcerated. He won't be committing crime which deters his/her ability to commit crime. And no one wants to be incarcerated. Horrible situation to be in. So like we had in earlier decades, crime is low when the criminal element knows they will go to the pokey if they are caught. Right now, that is not the case. They can get caught and not get prosecuted so there is no deterrent to crime by doing that. It's like the 16 year old I noted earlier or in another thread that was amazed by the judge holding him for armed robbery of Asians in their homes in Seattle. He figured he'd get home detention. Nope, staying in jail. He was dumbfounded at this new (relatively new as in the last couple of years) situation of hard time for hard crime. mspart

In general I agree with Bob's message. But Paul158 has a very good point. You need to play the hand you are dealt. And right now, the House is almost even split R and D, and the Rs are not voting together so some D's must be brought on board to pass anything just in the House. But nothing of substance will get through the Senate or the WH. And there is no, "well we passed legislation to reduce the debt, but it went nowhere because the Senate is D" excuses that are palatable to anyone. Votes like that are just for show and do nothing but waste time. But Bob has some good points that do need to be worked on and are not. But note, everytime the Rs have the House, Senate, and WH, this kind of good work does not get done. Do they really want to or is it just for show? I think the latter. mspart

So this is what I have for weights that are qualified: 74 Dake 86 Taylor 97 Snyder 125 Parris What are the qualifiers for 57 and 65 that we need to win? Pan Am? Is there some other tourney? mspart

Ha ha, me too!! mspart

It will be a surprise I'm sure. mspart

This is true, but are any council members R? Is the Mayor R? Those are the people that will be funding the justice system for city criminal activity. The Feds oversee some of activities true but not that. That is a city function and the council and mayor run that, like any other city. Out of 13 on the council 11 are D and 2 are I. Look to them for leadership or lack thereof on the infrastructure to deal with criminality. So far, not doing so well. mspart

Wouldn't that be something!! I would laugh hard if that happened. I think he generally did a good job but doesn't have enough of a cohesive group to work with. The D's are all 100% together and the R's are demonstrably not. mspart

So who will be the next speaker? R or D? I don't think there is an R they will rally around and all D's will rally around their leader. This will be a waste of time for the next week or so. mspart

All democrats voted to remove McCarthy. This after he got them to agree not to shut down the government. The D's were mostly for that bill over the weekend which was done by McCarthy. They obviously did not like that he reached across the aisle and got something that they desperately wanted done done. Or maybe they voted him down because he essentially forced them to vote to keep the government running ruining their ability to blame Rs for shutting it down. Because they were all ready to blame the R's for shutting down the government. And oops, he presented a bill that they had to vote for because it kept the government open. mspart

It seems the US attorney is basically saying there is not enough resources to prosecute. So why has it increased? Because a crime lab lost accreditation 2 years ago? This is a democrat run city - if the D's are soooooo interested in prosecuting criminals, they would have that lab up and going by now. Why isn't it? "The community should be assured that we continue to prosecute violent felonies as aggressively as ever, and we will continue to do so," the statement to News4 said. "The increase in declinations is being primarily driven by challenges unique to misdemeanors and some of the unique factors related to non-violent drug offenses and weapons offenses.” So please feel assured, they are prosecuting violent felonies, just not the misdemeanors. How about non violent felonies, are they prosecuting those? I hear all these liberals on this board saying our fantasy driven complaints of criminals not being prosecuted is pure bunk. But here it is explained. It is because Ds don't fund the criminal justice system. Period. If they had the labs to do it they would prosecute, is what the US attorney is saying. So why do they not have the labs? Funding. Why do they not have 360- degree body cameras? Funding. Who controls the funding? Democrats. The math here is not difficult to figure out. mspart

How do you know he killed many of them? mspart