User Profile: a guy in texas

a guy in texas

Member Since: August 31, 2010


  • [2] December 20, 2014 at 1:57pm

    They should have done this in two parts, with the second part being a sheet to signup to volunteer to be one of the first batch deported. Then you will truly find the hypocrites.

  • [4] December 18, 2014 at 7:38pm

    What would you expect from the Film Actors Guild :)

  • December 18, 2014 at 7:53am

    For those who are hearing about DraftHouse for the first time, they also show spots like this before a movie starts:

  • December 16, 2014 at 8:43am

    There is a Federal law that prevents you from directly purchasing handguns (pistols and revolvers) in a state that is not your state of residence without being transferred through two FFLs, one in the state you purchase the handgun in and one in our home state, but it does not apply to rifles or other long arms. To the best of my knowledge there is no state law that prevents the direct purchase of long arms in Texas, though your state of residence might have restrictions on possessing out of state purchased weapons.

  • [7] December 13, 2014 at 12:35am

    Would that it be a soldiers income was tax free, but you left off deductions for income taxes, FICA, Tricare, figure 25% off the top easily.

    Also BAS is for his own food needs, not that of his family. Lastly, with BAH, he would have to afford a place for himself off-post since you cannot live in the barracks and draw BAH. This is called being a geographic bachelor.

    Nice that you can look up the numbers, but you need to learn how they actually work in the real Army.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] December 13, 2014 at 12:21am

    The Groves Apartments
    300 Arrowhead Dr., Central, SC 29630


    Responses (1) +
  • [6] December 9, 2014 at 3:46pm

    Here is his campus contact info:

    Dr Blake H Armstrong
    Assoc Prof of Psychology
    Mid-Valley Campus
    Phone: 956-447-6658

  • [24] December 8, 2014 at 11:35pm

    Since when are statistic racist?

  • [4] December 7, 2014 at 5:05am

    I guess there is a limit to the number of lies a human body is actually able to produce without causing physical effects, even for a politician.

  • December 5, 2014 at 7:16am

    Umm, Austin shares that disdain for firearms. Austin is a blue hell hole that has or is trying to do the following; ban single use bags, require all new housing be built to ADA standards, bike lines on every roadway, force all restaurants to compost, ban ALL cellphone use while driving, prevent land lords from denying tenant ship to people base don if they use subsidized housing vouchers, etc…

    Responses (2) +
  • December 4, 2014 at 7:19am

    The problem with your 10th Amendment argument is that Congress has the power to control immigration given to it within the Constitution itself and has passed bills singed into law.

    The argument here is did the President go beyond what Congress has authorized or did he step over the line of the Take Care Art 2, Sec 3, Clause 5 the Take Care Clause.

    There is a fine line between prosecutorial discretion and turning a blind eye to the enforcement, or lack thereof, with the law as written (which would violate the Take Care Clause). To the best of my knowledge SCOTUS has not developed one of their famous tests, like the outdated Jacobellis v. Ohio test which gave us the famous, or infamous, “.. I know it when I see it…” test for obscenity, which evolved several times to the current Miller test.

  • [1] November 16, 2014 at 6:49am

    And that my friends is why “eye-witness” testimony sucks. Multiple people can witness the same EXACT event and tell multiple stories about it, with every single one of them being altered based on the witnesses mood, state of mind, and conscious or unconscious desire to make their story fit some greater narrative.

    Body camera, body cameras, body cameras police department, with STRICT limits on how hey can be used. Make it to where you cannot troll camera footage looking criminal activity, and where they can be used as supporting evidence, not the primary source of evidence when prosecuting a crime.

  • November 16, 2014 at 6:39am

    Guess he really NEEDS that stiff drink with McConnell.

  • November 15, 2014 at 9:19am

    Penn and Teller Season 2 Episode 1 or their old show Showtime show BS, all about PETA: This is part 1 with links to the other 2 parts of it.

  • [9] November 8, 2014 at 7:30pm

    Why bother, we have a President and Congress ready to give them ours.

  • November 8, 2014 at 3:05pm

    He’s not wrong. Most of the time the police show up as and over-paid, over-powered evidence collection force after the crime has occurred. It is very rare you hear about cops stopping anything this felonious “in progress”.

  • November 7, 2014 at 8:05pm

    Actually that is not what they said at all. What they said was 1. The penalty for having a mandate did not exist as an Art1 Sec 8 power of Congress, basically saying that Congress cannot punish you for not engaging in private consumption of a good or service. 2. Since the government added to their argument that the penalty was actually a tax penalty, which puts it firmly in the realm of Executive power, it was constitutional there. 3. That states could not be forced to expand Medicaid rolls via a penalty if they choose not to.

    So contrary to your point, part of PPACA was found to be unconstitutional. This thing is going to get the death of 1000 cuts when it is all said and done.

    And I’ll take your bet, this is not a conceptual argument about whether this or that is lawful under the Constitution. This is a direct contradiction in the letter of the law vs its practical application. It specifically says States that setup their own exchanges qualify for federal subsidies. Not all exchange purchased insurance qualifies. Normally this is caught and corrected in the conference committees, but the Dems rammed this through to “…Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”. And even when stuff like this slips through it is usually fixed by simple legislation to amend the previous law, but that is only when the original law is completely read and understood. I will bet any amount of money in the world the no Congressmen that voted yeah on this bill has actually read it.

  • November 7, 2014 at 7:50pm

    There are only very few ways you could possibly be more wrong in your statement. SCOTUS has absolute jurisdictions over this, as it is a federal law. Unless you are trying to say Marbury v. Madison was a bad precedent?

    Now I will agree with your assessment in Congress having no Article 1 Sec 8 powers over this. But of course with an OWS name like OUTLAW_WEALTH, makes me wonder what powers you think Congress should have.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 7, 2014 at 7:45pm

    They would have to be impeached off the bench, just like any other Federal judge.

  • [52] November 7, 2014 at 4:47pm

    I really doubt I would try to hide in a house I broke into through a doggie door. Most people don’t get doors that big unless they have big dogs.

    Responses (1) +