User Profile: TommyGuns


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [-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.

  • [-1] May 15, 2014 at 5:15pm

    Where in the Constitution does it protect traditional marriage? And while you’re figuring that one out, could you please explain how same sex marriage makes a mockery out of straight or traditional marriage? I’ve been looking for that answer for years now. Seems to me that the couples in traditional marriages are doing a fine job in mucking them up, between the ever increasing rates of divorce, infidelity, etc. As for the argument that only opposite sex couples can naturally conceive a child, what the heck does that have to do with marriage? If a couple does not want children, or cannot have children, should they still be allowed to marry?

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] May 15, 2014 at 5:10pm

    You’re confusing state’s rights with state’s responsibilities. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize and give full force and effect to the legal acts of its sister states. Under that provision, DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that ostensibly allows states to opt out of recognizing same sex marriage, is itself unconstitutional. If one state chooses not to allow two people to marry, provided that prohibition is not based on an illegal class discrimination, the state would still have to give full recognition to the same type of marriage performed in another state. For example, the age of consent to marry varies in several states. If Johnny married Jane in West Virginia, and neither was of legal age, no state would have the right to either declare their marriage null and void, and they would have to accord them all the rights and privileges of any other married couple.

  • [-1] May 15, 2014 at 5:05pm

    I would add to your query. How is allowing two opposite sex persons to marry when they have no intention of procreating, or unable to procreate, not in some way weakening the sanctity of traditional marriage. Moreover, how about the couple that uses birth control after they’ve had as many children as they want, or are able to afford? SHouldn’t their marriage then be terminated?

  • [-1] May 15, 2014 at 5:02pm

    So by your reasoning, blacks should still only count as 3/5 of a person, women should not have the right to vote, and segregation of the races is is just dandy? And just how do you square the fact that, in at least a couple of states, the issue was decided by referenda and those states opted for equal marriage rights. Under our Constitution, the legals acts of one state must be recognized and given full faith and credit by any other. Oh, that’s right, our Constitution wasn’t voted on by the people, so we get to ignore parts we do not agree with.

  • May 15, 2014 at 4:57pm

    Apparently “gays are icky” isn’t enough anymore to uphold bans on same sex marriage! There’s a sea change happening today. Arkansas overturned the ban, and even Idaho has had their laws against same sex marriage, supported by a constitutional amendment, thrown out by the Federal Court here. In a matter of hours now, the second or third most conservative state in the country will start granting marriage licenses to same sex couples, unless the Ninth Circuit or the Supremes grant a stay pending appeal. The comments in the state’s largest, and arguably most liberal, newspaper was more about how much money the state is about to spend to defend the indefensible, than it was about the ruling itself. Go figure! It is kind of amazing to me that the states are using the same arguments over and over again to defend their position, even though no court is agreeing with them. I’m still waiting for the explanation of how same sex marriage demeans or diminishes traditional marriage. And I’d still like to know why gay men and women shouldn’t be allowed to give half their stuff away in a divorce, just like straight couples get to do!

    Responses (1) +
  • May 15, 2014 at 4:47pm

    Make them register I say. I also want to see them collect and pay sales taxes and income taxes on the proceeds of their sales. Time to stop the special treatment for any group, regardless of how you may feel about their politics. We’re too broke as a nation to keep carving out exceptions, whether they be for a church, a school, fraternal organization, etc. If you take in money, from whatever source, pay your fair share of all licensing fees, taxes, and on and on. Of course, if these organizations can prove that they do not use any government services, like roads and bridges, police and fire protection, emergency services, etc., then by all means give them a rebate on their taxes.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go