User Profile: TommyGuns


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • November 25, 2015 at 11:16pm

    It’s fine to complain about the laws, old, new, or special interest. The solution, however, is to change the law. If you cannot get satisfaction from the members of the council, your solution is to target the members, one by one, and get them recalled or defeated in the next election. Cities and counties have general police powers derived from the state in which they are located. That means they can regulate things that the feds, for example, cannot, What’s more, because of this power, the courts will always defer to them unless they contravene the state or federal constitutions or laws. Many laws on the books are there for only one purpose, to provide a pretext for the state to do something they would not ordinarily be entitled to do. For example, in some states it is unlawful to use foul language. Generally speaking, these laws would be thrown out as violating the 1st Amendment. They remain on the books to provide a pretext for law enforcement to detain, search or question somebody.

  • [2] November 21, 2015 at 6:19pm

    I’ve read where it takes upwards of two years for a refugee to be approved. Seems to me that they’ve already reached a place of safety and security. Why would they want to come halfway around the world to settle in the US? Must be because they can become a ward of the taxpayer for the rest of their natural lives.

    Those of you who favor taking in these refugees, puzzle me this. Would you go and invite the first homeless person you meet to come into your home, to live with you forever, and feed them, clothe them, provide them an education and health care, all at your expense? Remember, you know nothing about this person, and may not even be able to communicate with them because they don’t speak your language. That’s essentially what we are being asked to do. Just how do you do a background check on someone from a country whose leader we’re trying to overthrow? I would think that even if we could communicate with them, they’d be more than willing to have those people out of their country because they represent a threat to them. This is lunacy – taking in thousands of people who are already in safe havens, and are wanting to come here for a better life. I applaud their initiative. At the same time, should we be borrowing money from China to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide health care to these people when we have 500,000 homeless people in the US, and countless thousands who go hungry every day? Think about it before you say, “Come on in. We welcome you!”

  • [5] November 21, 2015 at 6:11pm

    You’ve totally taken the quote out of context. Here’s the back and forth as it actually happened:

    Reporter: Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?

    Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we need to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen any longer.

    Reporter: Is that something your White House would like to implement?

    Donald Trump: I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.

    You have followed the CNN lead in trying to discredit Trump on this issue. Why would you do that? Are you now taking sides instead of reporting? Shame on you. By the way, I am not a Trump fan. If he’s the nominee, I’m not sure I could vote for him. He’s too much of a loose cannon. but he is saying a lot of things that Americans are thinking. And every time a sleazy journalist tries to take him down, his poll numbers go up. Seems to me that is a commentary on what the American public thinks about journalists!

  • [2] November 20, 2015 at 7:30pm

    Isn’t that a lot like bringing a knife to a gunfight? I read an interesting take on the issue of civilian casualties during WWII. Our attitude was that the civilian populations were in support of their government in Germany, and therefore were not ‘innocent victims’. We firebombed cities there, and we’re the only nation to use not one, but two, atomic bombs on civilian populations. Applying that logic to Syria, wouldn’t it apply the same? If the people remaining there are against ISIS/ISIL or whoever, then they should be fighting them or fleeing from them to a place where they can group together to join the fight against them. If they choose to stay there under their rule, as harsh as it is reported to be, then I think you can argue that they are supporting them, either actively or tacitly. If we’re not willing to do what Russia, and now France, are willing to do – bomb the bejesus out of them – then we need to get out and stay out of Syria’s internal affairs. Why is it that Assad is fighting ISIS/ISIL, and we want to fight Assad? What ever happened to that old adage, “The enemy of my enemy is my ally”?

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] November 13, 2015 at 8:05pm

    Time to expel the students. Parents paying tuition for their kids need to pull them out. Alumni need to stop donating money to the college. Time stop allowing the tail to wag the dog.

  • [2] November 8, 2015 at 2:29pm

    The school’s already having a losing season. Sit the rest of it out and rebuild the program. Those who think it’s more important to engage in a protest than get an education should leave. If they’re on scholarship, they have an agreement that requires them to play. If they fail to perform under the contract, they can – they should – be let go from the program and have their scholarships rescinded. Enough of the tail wagging the dog.

  • [3] October 15, 2015 at 5:38pm

    Let’s take this theologian’s points as valid. The problem with his thesis is that he’s arguing a purely religious point of view on an issue which is legal. No matter how you think or feel about same sex marriage, the simple fact is that the a prohibition against it in the law – not religion – deprives a group of people the equal protection and advantages of the law. If you want to eliminate the tax advantages, survivor’s benefits, and the more than 1,000 other legal protections afforded to straight couples, then same sex couples will have no argument. I defy anyone to explain just how two committed individuals getting married somehow cheapens the marriage of traditional couples. Is it because it’s no longer special? If so, then traditional marriage has been in free fall for a lot of years. The divorce rates is higher than ever, more people are choosing not to get married at all, and still others are choosing to have children through artificial means and raising them without benefit of a father or the sperm donor.

    We are a nation of laws and a Constitution that separates church from state. It works simply because once you open that door to allowing religion to dictate law and policy, you open the door to religious beliefs – human sacrifice, genital mutilation, honor killings, etc. – that are wholly anathema to a free society.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] October 3, 2015 at 7:12pm

    Legally these judges are correct. The wording of the law makes the issuance of marriage licenses a discretionary rather than a ministerial function. If that’s the road they want to go down, the law is certainly on their side. There is ample precedent in the federal courts at all levels to support their interpretation.

    This whole issue of same sex marriage could, and still can, be made moot if the government would get out of the marriage business altogether. The problem arises when you create certain rights, privileges and incentives for one group of persons and deny them to anyone else. I get the concept that government uses the tax code and other incentives to foster certain behaviors and deter others. But I have yet to hear a single argument, not one based solely on religious beliefs – we do have separation of church and state – that justifies denying same sex couples the same rights as those of opposite sex couples.

    If you go down the religion route, then you have to be in favor of plural marriage, since it is also enshrined in the Bible. If you down the procreation route, then it follows that couples who cannot, or will not, have children, should not be entitled to the benefits of marriage – the tax benefits and other incentives. Best to eliminate the institution altogether, as well as the benefits and incentives.

  • [3] October 1, 2015 at 7:33pm

    The college was a gun free school zone. Didn’t work out so well for the victims, did it?

  • [3] September 25, 2015 at 6:05pm

    Share the joy Kim. It was such a joy to see you locked up for violating your oath of office. It was such a joy to learn that you adhere at least to certain parts of your bible, those parts that you agree with. I mean, you’ve been married far more times than any same sex couple ever has. I guess you don’t believe in that part of the bible that deals with adultery. And I bet you’ve never eaten a cheeseburger – can’t mix meat and dairy – or noshed on lobster tails or crab legs either – not allowed girl. Like you’ they’re bottom feeders. As for the rest of you sycophants and knee jerk constitutional experts, stop conflating civil marriage with religious marriage, and you may begin to get the point behind the decision. There is not a single valid argument that any of you can make to justify depriving one group of people the same rights that everybody else enjoys. If you want to end those rights, then end them for everybody. If your argument is that same sex couple can’t conceive, then end marriages for all opposite sex couple who can’t or won’t conceive. Marriage is a civil matter, regardless who performs the ceremony. If you priest, rabbit, imam, preacher, or what have you, says the words, you still have to have the state recognize that marriage. Get over it. It’s the law of the land.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 22, 2015 at 8:01pm

    After this, why would anyone buy a VW? They admit to knowingly installing a device to beat emissions tests. What other devices or software might they have installed in other vehicles in their line, whether gas or diesel? Probably the worst part of this is that the government will be the one to make out the best. Any fine will be paid into the US Treasury, not given as damages to the victims of the fraud. Nobody is likely to go to jail over it either. The only way to get corporations to pay attention and do the right thing is to make them pay, and pay dearly. VW should have to offer to buy back every single one of the vehicles they’ve sold in the US, at whatever the sale price was when it was purchased. Drive them into bankruptcy if necessary. The punishment is justified, and it will certainly deter other corporations from trying to defraud their customers and the system.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 13, 2015 at 11:31pm

    I have no problem with bringing legitimate refugees here. But I don’t think I want to pay to house, feed and clothe them when there are countless hundreds of thousands of Americans who are homeless, hungry, wearing tattered clothes, and in need of health care. If your Christian organization, or the churches, want to sponsor these people, do not, as they have in the past, put them on the public dole. Being Christian does not mean you get to bring them in and then forget them.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] August 19, 2015 at 10:46pm

    And Jeb Bush’s plan is to, at best, do nothing. He will, of course, move to give status and a pathway to citizenship to every illegal in this country. Sure, he’ll use a fig leaf of them having to learn the language, catch up on taxes, and pay a penalty. ALl of these will be waived. It’s another case of the Establishment GOP metaphorically p-ing on our legs and swearing that it’s just raining out. If he’s the nominee, he loses the base and a big share of Independents. We will then have 4 or 8 more years of progressive leadership in the White House. I’ve never seen an election where there are only two distasteful alternatives. It’s like asking you whether you want to be shot or stabbed.

  • [12] August 18, 2015 at 8:10pm

    If the cable companies were smart – they’re not – they would offer a la carte services. Who wants to spend upwards of $100 a month for a whole slew of channels you don’t watch and don’t want to pay for? The major networks that have cable channels force the cable companies to take a package of channels, many of which are just garbage and could not exist without being part of that package.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] August 17, 2015 at 10:10pm

    I am so enjoying watching Fox News back the wrong horse in this race. They’ve taken sides instead of letting the voters choose. That’s not responsible journalism. I only kept cable TV so that I could watch Fox News. Now I don’t have to. I choose not to watch news stations who tell me how I should think instead of just giving me the news from both perspectives, conservative and liberal, and let me make up my own mind. They are rapidly becoming the conservative MSNBC or CNN. Get back to ethical journalism, and leave the one sided punditry to the other guys!

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] August 17, 2015 at 10:05pm

    Build the wall first. Then rigidly enforce E-verify, and fine any business who violates it $50,000 per violation for the first offense. For a second offense, the business is seized and the owners charged with a felony punishable by not less than 5 years in prison. Change the laws so that all states are required to confirm citizenship of anyone who is applying for welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. If they are applying on behalf of an anchor baby, the parents get a choice. Go back to your country and leave your child here in foster care, or take the child with you when you go. The child is an American citizen and he or she has a right to stay, not the parents. Require all states, counties, cities or other political subdivisions to enforce immigration laws. If a person is stopped for an offense, and their is a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally, then an immediate check should be made with ICE. If they are not legally present, they are taken into custody and deportation proceedings initiated. Change the law so that anyone who is deemed deportable gets one fair hearing to demonstrate they are legally present. If they fail to do so, they get on the next plane, train or bus out of the country. No more lengthy appeals, and no more freebie lawyers at taxpayer expense. If states, counties and cities do not cooperate, all federal funding is stopped immediately, and no student may use federal rants or loans to attend any college or university there.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] August 9, 2015 at 9:42pm

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Trump turning off women voters Governor. You’re turning off all voters. I haven’t voted for a Democrat in nearly 40 years. Next year I will be voting for almost anyone except a GOP candidate. I don’t think I’m in the minority either. We dutifully turned out to give the GOP control of Congress, based on their promises of what they would do once elected – repeal and replace Obamacare, put a stop to the unconstitutional amnesty, stop the wasteful spending, and on and on. What we got was far different from the promises. To make matters even worse, Mitch McConnell has demonstrated that the GOP has no principle on which they are ready to go to the mats. His comment that he will not shut down the government gave up any leverage he and the GOP has in budget negotiations, including the CR that’s bound to come, and raising the debt ceiling. The GOP is no better than the Democrats. At least with the Dems you know you’re going to get screwed. With the GOP, you have to worry about being stabbed in the back. I guess that’s their version of having our backs!

  • [2] July 27, 2015 at 9:34pm

    Donald Trump is never going to win the nomination, never mind be elected, but he is saying things that the American public wants to hear the candidates talk about. I’m curious what a Senator is supposed to do when his or her party leader is telling lies, manipulating the system for the benefit of special interest groups, and is simply not doing what he promised when he was running for re-election. The most telling comment by Senator Cruz was that we keep electing Republicans to the Congress, but get leaders who will not do what they promised. I’m sorry Charles, but you are so out of touch with what matters to the average voter. The poll that shows 53% of the GOP base is not happy with Congress, is probably overestimating the level of support left in McConnell, Boehner and the rest of the Establishment GOP.

    Responses (1) +
  • July 22, 2015 at 7:22pm

    As the lyrics to a country song say, “You have to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.” Let the President veto the NDAA and explain to the American public why he is denying pay raises to military personnel, opening us up to hostile attacks, etc. If the Congress, acting on behalf of the will of the people – that’s surely a rare occurrence these days – says Gitmo stays open, then let the President explain why the American people are wrong and he’s right.

  • [1] July 22, 2015 at 7:16pm

    That’s not enough. If you want to change their policies, ALL FUNDING needs to be cut off to any state, county, city or town that bills itself as, or acts as, a sanctuary. By all funding, it should include direct funding through grants, loans, loan guarantees, contracts with state universities, even guaranteed student loans and education grants to attend any college, university or trade school in any state which does not clamp down on sanctuary cities. Let the people bring pressure to bear on their legislators, governors, mayors, etc., to change their policies.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love