User Profile: TommyGuns

TommyGuns

Member Since: August 31, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [20] October 25, 2014 at 8:34pm

    If they are going to go to these places and have contact with Ebola patients, they need to be quarantined for the 21 days. Just because this nurse did a good deed, it does not mean that she should be able to come back to this country as if she couldn’t possibly be a medical risk and threat to her community and family. This so called enhanced screening at the airport is pure bull squirt. Until a person is displaying symptoms – fever, vomiting, or what have you – they are presumed to not have the virus. If they are allowed to enter the country before the symptoms hit, we then have to rely on them to report their sickness. In the meantime, from the moment the first symptoms hit, they can be infecting anyone around them. We need to close the borders now, void all visas from all of Africa, and tell all the airlines that if they try to land here with a passenger who has come from Africa, they will be denied the right to land except to refuel and then get out. The way to stop this disease is to first isolate it and then control it.

  • [2] October 20, 2014 at 4:14pm

    My computer crashed should be the go to response from everyone who is subpoenaed by government. If it’s good enough for the IRS, the EPA, and God only knows what other agency of this totalitarian regime, then it should be a complete defense for anyone to use against them.

  • October 20, 2014 at 4:10pm

    Girlish hips, a club foot and buck teeth. My what a handsome specimen! Just goes to show what all that inbreeding will do for you!

  • October 20, 2014 at 4:01pm

    I wish someone would explain how two people of the same sex, being married by a Justice of the Peace or other functionary of the state, diminishes the marriage of two opposite sex persons being married in a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. I just don’t get it. How can two gay men, let’s just say they’re atheists, violate the principles of a religion they do not subscribe to, or a God they do not believe exists? The real problem is one of equality. Once the state has provided special status to a group of people, in this case to heterosexual couples, and allows them certain tax advantages and benefits, they cannot deny those same privileges and rights to same sex couples. The argument that marriage is all about procreation really is nonsense, since the state allows abortion, permits people who cannot have, or those who do not want, children to marry, and the marriage of an elderly couple is not dissolved once they fail to produce children, or become unable to do so. The arguments against same sex marriage just do not measure up logically. They are, for the most part, based on religious beliefs and taboos, or on faulty science – like the canard that two men or two women cannot raise a healthy child. The easiest solution to this matter is to take away the advantages of marriage from everyone. No special tax credits or incentives, no special rights, etc. How many people would get married if that were the case?

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 3:49pm

    Shouldn’t this story line be that Obama had his spine operated on? I mean, Valerie Jarrett is the spine of Barack Obama, not to mention is brain.

  • [2] October 20, 2014 at 3:47pm

    There’s no such thing as widespread voter fraud anywhere in America. It’s only the GOP that tries to keep honest Americans from voting early and often. From the days when Lyndon Johnson won his first election in Texas, and Richard Daley asked Joseph P. Kennedy how many votes John F. Kennedy needed out of Cook County, it’s been a long and proud Democratic tradition to stuff ballot boxes with absentee votes from the local cemetery and nursing homes. This guy in Arizona is just carrying on the tradition.

  • [2] October 17, 2014 at 8:13am

    My understanding is that it is illegal for the teachers to strike, either formally or informally through a kind of sick out. Do what Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. Fire all of the striking/protesting teachers and hire new ones. If the kids refuse to return to class, expel them. Mob rule cannot be allowed to stand. Maybe they’ll be happier if the city goes bankrupt like Detroit, just so a small segment of the population can have what it demands and screw everyone else.

  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 8:06am

    You cannot blame the GOP for inaction on this. They have been screaming from the rooftops, at least some of them have been, but they are powerless. The President has the sole authority to ban flights, cancel visas, etc. Even if the GOP controlled House could pass a bill requiring these steps – cancellation of visas, flight bans, etc. – it would go nowhere in the Senate, since Harry Reid would never allow it to hit the floor. Passing such a bill would embarrass Obama. And he has already proven that he just ignores laws that he doesn’t agree with. I’m afraid we’re screwed for another two years until the next presidential election cycle. The House could impeach the President at any time it wanted to do so, but there is no way that he would be removed from office by the Senate. Even if the GOP wins a majority in a few weeks, they won’t have the 67 votes necessary in the Senate.

  • [2] October 17, 2014 at 8:01am

    The incubation period for ebola is apparently up to 21 days, and a person is asymptomatic during that period. So puzzle me this Mr. President. How do we figure out that a person who is asymptomatic has the virus in him or her, and is thus allowed on a plane. I do get the idea that people in affected countries may just go to another and fly from there, which is why we need to ban all persons from coming to this country from the entire continent of Africa, unless they are willing to be voluntarily isolated, at their expense, for a minimum of 21 days. If they test positive for the virus they are sent back home. We clearly cannot safely treat Ebola patients here with our current state of preparedness and training, as the cases in Texas have demonstrated,

  • [-4] October 16, 2014 at 4:32pm

    I don’t agree with the subpoenas at all. They are overly broad. I do, however, agree that when a church or other religious tax exempt organization gets into politics, regardless of what their point of view is, they really are crossing the line of separation between church and state. When you boil it down to the basics, you are asking those who are either not religious, or who do not subscribe to a particular church’s point of view or teachings, to subsidize it. That’s simply wrong. Then again, I do not believe that there should even be such an entity as a tax exempt organization of any kind, unless they can prove that they do not use any government provided services or institutions, such as police and fire protection, roads and bridges, etc. When an organization does not pay its fair share of the tax burden to maintain these services, it shifts the responsibility to everyone else. That is also not fair. Now if that was the rule, i.e., that there are no longer any tax exempt organizations, then these subpoenas would be a violation of the First Amendment, but not because it’s churchs involved.

    Responses (4) +
  • [16] October 13, 2014 at 11:53am

    This LGBT organization is an embarrassment to those of us who simply want to live our lives and have the equal protection of the laws. When you single out an organization, a company, an individual, or other entity, to target in order to get them to deny you a service, you’re inducing that entity to commit a tortious act so that you can sue them. It’s disgusting. This organization, like a lot of other LGBT groups, is not interested in equality under the law. They’re interested in being special. I would hope that this company fights them all the way to the Supreme Court. The problem with actions like this is that the people who initiate them can do so with impunity because it’s easier to settle than fight for right. Time for a change in that attitude.

    Responses (1) +
  • October 8, 2014 at 11:21pm

    Oh, good. So this means we’re not going broke as quickly as we thought. It’s strange that we would call this ‘good news’.

  • [-1] October 7, 2014 at 3:32pm

    Many of the comments here concerning the Tenth Amendment, First Amendment, etc., are on point to the issue, except there is another wrinkle to consider. Article IV, Section 1, provides “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” For those who argue states retain the right to define marriage, you run into the problem of every state having to recognize a gay marriage performed in a state that allows it. One of the major appeals brought by the proponents of same sex marriage is that they are entitled to have their marriage recognized, and to secure the same rights, privileges and immunities enjoyed by every other married couple. If you want to end the whole thing, all you have to do is have all of the states, and the federal government, get out of the marriage business altogether. It would also require that all of the special rights, privileges, etc., that married couples enjoy need to be eliminated as well. If religious groups insist in conducting marriage ceremonies, let them continue to do so, but without the incentives that go along with them.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] October 5, 2014 at 2:09pm

    Our President and his Administration are being intellectually dishonest, or want to perpetuate a double standard. Are mainland Americans permitted to move to and build homes in places like Guam, Samoa, Virgin Islands, etc? Are we about to hand back the land we took from Native Americans and Mexico in the wars we fought with them? Would the government tolerate one ethnic or racial group in this country prohibiting another group from building or buying homes in the neighborhood? For the Palestinians and Arab nations to demand that Israel abandon and return back all of the land it conquered in a series of wars the ******** started and lost, is a lot like saying you want your money back when you bet it all in a poker game or a roll of the dice and lose. For our President to side with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Arab nations who refuse to accept and recognize the legitimate reality of Israel, is a repudiation of an important ally and what we stand for as a people.

  • September 23, 2014 at 3:51pm

    Fact: The overwhelming majority of new AIDS/HIV cases are among straight men and women, particularly in Africa. FACT: It’s only a very small, albeit a very vocal, minority of LGBT people who want to ‘sue the churches into oblivion’ or otherwise use their perceived ‘special protected status’ to take advantage of the situation. FACT: If you eliminated all marriage, there would be no viable claim that LGBT partners are denied the equal protection of the law. FACT: Sociologists and psychologists have testified that there is actually no significant benefit to being raised in a household with opposite sex parents as opposed to same sex parents. FACT: Most gay men and women live their lives quietly, contributing to their communities in very much the same way as straight men and women. FACT: What a person does in the privacy of his or her own home has nothing whatsoever to do with who they are as a person, a father, a citizen, etc. FACT: The first Purple Heart in the Iraq war was awarded to SSgt Eric Alva, USMC, before he felt compelled to reveal that he was gay. Did his being gay somehow lessen the value of his contribution to the effort of the war? Did the blood he shed on behalf of his countrymen somehow become worth less because he was gay?

    I believe the real reason there is a leveling off of support for marriage equality is because of the the in your face gays and lesbians, who threaten all of us, both in the straight and the LGBT community.

  • [-1] September 23, 2014 at 3:42pm

    So does that mean that we should prohibit marriage to anyone who does not want to have, or who cannot have, children? You may also want to check your church history. Marriage was never a religious ceremony or institution. It was not even recognized as such until fairly recently in history. When a woman was given to a man, she became property of the man, much like his camels, goats, etc. It was also used as a means of cementing relationships between families and sovereigns – an alliance if you will. Should these all have been proscribed as well, since they were not, first and foremost, for the purpose of procreation?

  • [2] September 16, 2014 at 3:41pm

    You cannot have it both ways. If you want separation of church and state, you cannot just demand that the state stay out of your business, but you are free to enter theirs. I have no problem with a church, or it’s pastor, or any religious organization for that matter, getting up and giving sermons about issues, or even endorsing candidates. What I do want them to do at that point, however, is give up their tax exempt status. Why must taxpayers subsidize the political beliefs of a particular religious organization? For that matter, why should taxpayers foot the bill for police, fire protection, maintenance of roads and bridges, etc., for organizations who use them but do not pay to provide or maintain them?

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] September 16, 2014 at 3:33pm

    It’s all about free speech people. I do, however, think that those who post billboards with messages like these ought to be willing to give their name. The whole idea that speech can be suppressed because it’s unpopular is nonsense. The way to fight hate speech is with more speech, not less. And if you don’t like the message, you can always boycott the messenger. It’s what they wanted to do to Chik-Fil-A and want to do to Target. If you’re willing to stand up for what you believe, you should also be willing to take the neat and loss of revenue that comes from expressing your opinion, i.e., exercising your right to free speech.

    Responses (2) +
  • [4] September 14, 2014 at 9:43am

    This guy expected our government to come and rescue his sorry a*s after voluntarily entering the country on a ‘mission’ that he knew would get him into trouble or, as he apparently put it, get him into prison so he could ‘experience’ it and report on it. After he’s done his prison sentence, we should let him come home and experience our prisons – there is a federal law against committing a crime in a foreign country – so he can better compare the two. How crazy can this kid be? We won’t lift a finger to help a Marine imprisoned in Mexico for no good reason, and he thinks we should help him? Besides, when you go to a foreign country, particularly one where you know you’re not exactly welcome, you take your chances. We shouldn’t even consider sending in the Marines to rescue him or anyone else who goes to one of these places. You bought your ticket, and need to now take your ride boy!

  • September 7, 2014 at 10:55am

    One group of ******** killing another group of ********. The problem would be what, not enough of them gone to visit Allah? I have yet to hear any coherent explanation of how a government is supposed to defend itself against terrorists who hide among non-combatants – if there is such a thing in the toilet they call the Middle East – without some collateral damage. How things have changed. We no longer hear how the United States used nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the fire bombing of Dresden during WWII. Somehow that was a good war, and the deaths of the civilians was a means to get Germany and Japan to surrender to avoid more loss of life. Sound a lot like fighting for peace, or screwing for virginity to me!

123 To page: Go