For The Record - Tonight 8pm est

User Profile: TommyGuns


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [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!

  • [2] September 7, 2014 at 10:47am

    Let’s see now. You commit an unlawful act or two – coming here illegally and remaining here illegally, but it is somehow the fault of the President, the Congress, and the American people who refuse to give you everything that you demand as a ‘right’. How pitiful. What we need to do is insist that the Congress do whatever is necessary to make it impossible for these people to remain here on the public dole. No more welfare, food stamps, free education, housing and health care. Give huge fines to any business, which hires or retains an illegal. When an illegal is charged with any offense, deportation needs to be immediate. The only question is whether or not the person is in the country legally. If not, they are then deported right away. This nonsense about breaking up families – most of whom are also here illegally – is not an excuse that pardons their behavior. At most, it is the reason or motive for them to chose to come here illegally. This crap has got to stop, and any charity who aids and abets the behavior needs to have their tax exempt status pulled and fined for their illegal act. Any state, county, city, or other political subdivision that proclaims itself, or acts as if they are, an asylum locale for these illegals needs to have all federal funding pulled from them, and their political leaders charged with the offense of aiding and abetting an illegal act.

  • [2] September 7, 2014 at 10:36am

    As far as I can see, we owe this moron nothing. He voluntarily went to North Korea and said that he wanted asylum. That, to me, is a renunciation of his American birthright and citizenship, and we owe him absolutely nothing. If the North Koreans decide to deport him, after a nice stint in one of their labor camps for the betterment of their socialist paradise, let him try and find another country that will take him in. On the other hand, he could always come back here by way of Mexico and live as an illegal until the President grants them all amnesty to ruin what’s left of our country.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] August 25, 2014 at 1:16pm

    Let the market forces figure this one out. When Walgreens figured out that the bad PR from moving would cost them business in a very competitive market, they gave up on an inversion scheme. Now if Burger King starts seeing a loss of business, I mean a serious loss of business, they may reconsider. It’s not worth much to pay lower taxes on greatly reduced income. I have a better idea. Let’s bring Tim Horton’s down here. I really, really, really like their doughnuts!

  • [2] June 26, 2014 at 10:47pm

    The cops had no probably cause to enter the man’s yard in the first place. When nobody answered the door, they had no exigent circumstance that would permit them to trespass on private property. It is most unfortunate that they were looking for a largely non-verbal missing child. That still does not give the cops the right to violate this man’s right to privacy, his right to be secure in his person and property, and the right not to have police shoot his dog. I hope they nail these cops, and they wind up paying a lot of money. I’d sue the city and the police force as well.

  • [-7] June 20, 2014 at 2:13pm

    The arguments against gay marriage simply are not logical. The reason for the prohibition against same sex relationships in biblical times was the need to have children. Think about it. The Jews wandered in he wilderness for 40 years, enough time to raise up two generations and create an army to take on and defeat the Canaanites and others who were the dwellers in the Promised Land. Same sex relationships cannot result in procreation, ergo they should be prohibited in order to keep the tribe growing in numbers and strength.

    I personally favor allowing any two consenting adults to form a legal union in order to secure the rights, privileges and immunities that the law provides to opposite sex couples. Conversely, if you want to take these same rights, etc., away from married opposite sex couples, then I have no problem with that. The issue is equal rights, not the genitalia of those who choose to form a marital union. If the word ‘marriage’ is such a problem, than call it something else. In reality, most of the noise on the issue is coming from religious folks, but their clamoring is misplaced. Marriage is a state issue, not a religious issue. You cannot marry without a license issued by the state. You are not married unless and until that marriage is registered with – let’s say it together – the state. Regardless of who performs the ceremony, a priest, rabbi, minister, imam, or a judge, it is the state that recognizes marriage. It is all about equal rights people!

    Responses (2) +
  • [-7] June 20, 2014 at 2:05pm

    So does that mean that two people who cannot procreate, say a man and woman who are biologically well past their ability to have children, or a couple who choose to abort children conceived during their marriage, should be barred from marrying? This argument has been used several times in the courts to support constitutional bans on gay marriage. It has failed each time it’s been raised, by judges from all political stripes.

    Responses (10) +
  • June 18, 2014 at 11:33am

    I hope this guy fights the citation. He’ll win if he does. The courts have ruled time after time that such conduct is free speech, and the police cannot infringe upon that right.

  • June 18, 2014 at 11:23am

    I hope Dan Snyder stands strong and fights this decision. There must be a way to sue the group that brought the action for defamation or something like that. Let’s see if they have the resources to back up their claim. Meanwhile, Snyder can keep appealing this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. The ruling that allows a younger group of intolerant a-holes to bring this action is nonsense. What the means is that no company’s trademark is safe any longer. What will the KC Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves, and other teams do? Please Mr. Snyder, stand strong and fight these PC creeps as long as it takes. And, by the way, see if you can find a way to bar Harry Reid and his fellow a-holes on Congress from attending your games. They want to be PC, let them do it somewhere else.

  • [2] June 18, 2014 at 11:18am

    Still no reason that I can see for the US to get involved again in that cesspool of a failed state. We already spent more blood and treasure than it was ever worth, or ever will be worth. Time to let the hajis kill each other off. If necessary, we can take on the winners, but only if they threaten, I mean really threaten, our national interests. Why send troops there to prop up a racist moron, when we can just turn the entire area into a glass factory. The US needs to stop intervening in countries where we have no national security interest, and particularly in countries where their military is comprised of a bunch of cowards. We’ve already seen what it it to live under the leadership of a coward. We elected him twice. You know what they say. You may not get the government you want, but you always get the government that you deserve.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] June 15, 2014 at 4:27pm

    Stop complaining about the slaughter over there. Let the hajis kill each other off. It’s not our fight, and never was. You cannot expect to bring democracy and Western style civilization to an artificially created nation that is tribal. They have no loyalty to a central government. Moreover, the Iraqis are cowards, as are most Arabs in that part of the world. All you have to do is watch the videos of the soldiers shedding their uniforms and gear so they can run away faster, and you see what we spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars to protect. Let the two sides decimate one another. Then if the winner threatens our national security – not our oil interests – we bomb that back to where they came from, the stone age.

  • June 15, 2014 at 4:14pm

    I really have no idea why anyone would get worked up about this slaughter in Iraq. It’s like a bad Greek Tragedy, where you know the ending when the show starts. Many of us knew the outcome of Iraq when the US decided it wasn’t going to pull out right after toppling the regime. Instead we decided that we had to bring democracy to a bastard nation created out of three distinct areas with different cultures and religions. The only things they had in common was their loyalty to tribe first and foremost, and hatred of a central government that would try to supplant that tribal loyalty. Now some want us to go back in to this morass and separate the two sides who are doing us a favor. No hassles over rules of engagement. No worry about what the folks back home will think. They just kill one each other without conscience or pause. Good for them! We do not have a dog in this fight. If anything, we let them decimate one another and we take on the winner if they threaten our national security. Sorry Senators McCain and Graham. We do not need to go in there again under the shaky premise that the boogeyman might be coming to get us. It was shaky when W went in – but at least he had the premise of WMD and a dictator who kept violating a peace accord – it’s even a shakier proposition now.

  • [12] June 14, 2014 at 10:50pm

    I’m on the side of the school. She knew the dress code. It’s immaterial that she wore the same dress on several occasions without any problem. That’s like saying a cop shouldn’t ticket you for illegal parking or speeding because you got away with it before. We expect our kids to come out of school with a sense of responsibility, if not the ability to read, write and cipher these days. Doesn’t matter that it was the last day of school. Doesn’t matter that there was only two hours left in her senior year. What does matter is that she learns a lesson on responsibility. And Mom needs to learn that it’s okay for her daughter to sand on her own at some point, and suffer the consequences for her actions.

  • [5] June 10, 2014 at 8:02pm

    Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about the separation of Church and State. The First Amendment merely states that the Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs. It guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The latter is a construct established by the Supreme Court based on something found in the Federalist Papers. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has recently carved out exceptions to the blanket prohibition against prayers at public meetings, crosses and other religious icons of historical significance, and I suspect that if there continues to be a conservative majority on the high court, we may well see prayer in school – or a moment of silence – once again.

  • [1] June 2, 2014 at 3:09pm

    The Principal’s comments are absolutely constitutional. He was not conducting group prayer, and every word he uttered was couched as a lesson in our history, or relating his personal belief. At no time did he utter a prayer in the traditional sense. I applaud his ingenuity, and urge the atheists among us to get a life. I always wonder just how they can be damaged by somebody else’s prayers. They really, seriously, need to get a life.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 16, 2014 at 2:58pm

    Oh good! More fruits and vegetables for the kids to throw out on their school lunch trays. They already appropriate more than enough money to fund school lunches, a lot of which goes in the garbage thanks to Mrs. Obama’s interference in the program. If fast food, like cigarettes and alcohol, are so harmful, why are you interested in taxing them? Just outlaw them and deal with the blowback from parents whose kids will only eat Chicken McNuggets! These two clowns are a stain on the reputation of a once proud institution – the US Senate.

  • [1] May 16, 2014 at 2:45pm

    I would think that the Koch Brothers would have an action against Reid for defamation, slander, etc., for anything which he said outside of the Senate, where his speech is protected. Somebody needs to nail this moron, and nail him good. Perhaps when he has to give up some of those millions of dollars he and his family have made by sucking off the public teat, he’ll come to his senses. On the up side, he’s likely the best reason for people to vote for the GOP this time around to get rid of Harry as Majority Leader, and make sure Ms. Botox – Nasty Pelosi – stays in the minority in the House.

123 To page: Go