Jump to content

DDD Dad

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12719
  • Joined

Everything posted by DDD Dad

  1. Does anyone know whether the old series from the 1970's "Porridge" is available anywhere to watch? I have fond memories of watching that show with my father and uncle when we visited my uncle in Norwich back when I was young. I had never seen my dad laugh out loud at a television show before and he was in tears watching it. Wondering if it holds up after all these years. Plus as an added bonus Kate Beckinsale's dad starred in it.
  2. Detectorists is such a wonderful show. Sad they didn't keep it going longer.
  3. Well, he's sure trying to look like TTom.
  4. I will be getting both of mine this week.
  5. Yeah Manny’s has a weird fast food/Luby’s vibe to the interior. Patio is fine if the weather cooperates.
  6. E-Bar or Eddy’s both close by and very good (original owner of Primo’s).
  7. Basically the entire golden corridor of north Dallas (including Park Cities) all the way into Downtown, Lake Highlands, Bluffview/Preston Hollow etc., and then on the east side it includes the M Streets, Lakewood Heights & Wilshire Heights (basically between M Streets and Lakewood), and the western half of Lakewood proper (from Abrams to about half way to the lake).
  8. Yes because rank and file Republican Party card-carrying Texans won't care how fascist/crazy their candidate is, so long as he or she has an R beside the name, they'll get the vote.
  9. I don’t think I’d hitch myself to JWP as the bastion of ethics.
  10. My point was to speculate whether Patrick may be trying to appear to be deferential to Paxton for appearances (hence re-election chances) if the ultimate outcome is in the bag against him. Albino did not appear credible.
  11. I wonder if Danny G is sustaining all of these objections so when Paxton gets curbstomped by the senate vote he'll have nothing about which to complain as to the proceedings.
  12. They're going after the "prosecuting attorneys pro tem" language in the articles again.
  13. So yesterday it looked like perhaps the House managers may have screwed up one of their articles with a technicality. Buzbee made a big deal of reading the article in question to the former Austin DA. IIRC the point I think he was trying to make is that the article complained that Paxton acted improperly by making Cammack a prosecutor pro tem, but that specific position can only be used when the state DA recuses itself (which it did not do). Instead I think he instead used Cammack as some sort of "special prosecutor" whatever that meant. Any ideas on whether that distinction might trigger a successful motion to dismiss (it certainly could garner votes for an acquittal on that very technical point).
  14. Goeb said that both sides had matters they wanted to raise (presumably evidentiary motions of some sort) outside presence of jury.
×
×
  • Create New...