User Profile: TommyGuns


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [10] February 1, 2016 at 6:00pm

    She says the microagressions because none of her professors look like her? Do we go to central casting to find a Filipino, Portuguese, Chinese and Cuban mixed race/ethnicity professor for her? And she’s also stressed by college itself, although it appears it’s costing her nothing to go to a premier university. Where’s the stress? Could it be that she’s expected to step out of her professional victimhood persona and actually learn something? I always want to ask these people who object to being taught by professors who do not look like them if that attitude applies to other aspects of her life. Would she object if a white firefighter rescued her from a burning building? Would she only consent to be treated by a Filipino, Portuguese, Chinese and Cuban mixed doctor?

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] January 31, 2016 at 3:44pm

    You can go to UConn and major in puppetry? Seriously? When they graduate, will the puppet be the one to ask the customer, “Would you like to supersize that girlfriend?”

    I generally applaud the effort to increase graduation rates among black males, but I question whether segregation is the way to do it. Is the problem that they don’t have a study and living space of their own? Or could it be that they weren’t prepared for college in the first instance? If it’s the latter, which I think it is, then the money would be better spent before they come to UConn.

  • [8] January 31, 2016 at 3:36pm

    And once again we have a political system perverted. The purpose of the caucus is to have the citizens express their support for a candidate, not vote as a bloc, or a part of a bloc, for somebody else in order to gain advantage over somebody else. It just goes to demonstrate how our system has become so perverted that the founding fathers wouldn’t even recognize it. If the Establishment has its way, we will be faced with the unpalatable choice between two poisons – Hillary vs. Rubio. Both of them will be indebted to their party and not to the people. Both of them will do the bidding of the party, not the people. Both will be aided and abetted by a Congress who no longer represents the people who elected them. The voice of the people has stopped being listened to, except to figure out what special interest the candidate can pay lip service to in order to get their votes, and then forget about them once he or she is sworn in. We have become a one party system – the Establishment Cabal, and we have a choice of who will screw us, not who will represent us. As my partner has my spouse has said many times, “If voting made any difference, it would be illegal too.”

  • [1] January 24, 2016 at 3:38pm

    I have a problem with both sides of this debacle. First of all, when did the Federal Government become such an entity that they can rent my land out to somebody? Yes, Virginia, like the song says, “This land is my land. This land is your land.” What it doesn’t say is that this is the government’s land. This person from the Center for Biological Diversity or Tree Hugging, or whatever the hell it’s called, wants my land, and your land, set aside for his or their purposes only, depriving us of the right to use our land.

    Then we have the other side. Since when do the ranchers have the right to deprive me of the use of my land? Do they get the right to set it aside to graze their cattle only? What if I want to use the land for hunting, or perhaps to ride my snowmobile, or whatever. It is, after all, as much my land as it is theirs. If the government can charge them rent to graze their cattle, on my land, how come I’m not getting a piece of the action? It’s no more Bundy land, or government land, than it is my land, and every citizen’s land, even those living in New York or Florida. This is all nonsense.

    The one thing the Bundy’s have right is that the government is out of control. It has been for a long time, and we are allowing ourselves to be shackled by them. Every regulation, every limitation on our freedom, takes away a very precious commodity from us. They need to stop, and so do the Bundy’s. Both of you, get off my land!

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] January 8, 2016 at 6:20pm

    I want the Presidential candidates to address this issue. When a church violates the law, at the very least, their IRS tax exempt status should be pulled. The pastor who is spearheading this needs to go to jail for aiding and abetting a crime. Somebody who can make a claim for standing needs to sue the government to compel them to enforce the deportation orders, even if it means entering the churches and arresting the immigrants and anyone who tries to prevent them. This has gone far enough. We are a nation of laws, You cannot pick and choose those which you will obey and thous you will flaunt.

    Responses (1) +
  • [19] January 5, 2016 at 5:14pm

    Senator, you haven’t a clue what a Senator or Representative is supposed to do under our Constitution. You are so unqualified to be President it’s astonishing. I can only believe that you’re a shill for the GOP Establishment Cabal, and will take your marching orders from them and not the American people. I would rather vote for that socialist, Bernie Sanders, than waste my vote on you. I’ve been following you closely in the media. You may be in your first, and thankfully only, term as a Senator, but you apparently have the game down. You say what any group of people want to hear to get their vote, contributions, or whatever. You have no principles sir, other than getting yourself elected. We have seen through you, now please go back to Florida and annoy those folks.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] January 2, 2016 at 5:00pm

    America under Obama is not taking this fight seriously. The problem is that Iraq is not taking the fight seriously. If you armed forces cut and run at the rate the Iraqis do, why should America spend its treasure and risk the lives of its most precious resource – our young men and women – to fight their fight. I’m all for letting hajis kill each other off. What’s the down side? If and when ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic groups present a real and present danger to the United States, we then go after them with everything we have, everything. You cannot fight a war without some collateral damage. Trying to do so only leads the enemy to use hospitals, schools, private homes, and other places to hide and store weaponry. If we’re not going to fight to win, then don’t fight them at all. Use our men and women on our southern and northern borders to keep out the illegals and terrorists.

  • [2] December 13, 2015 at 6:33pm

    Stick to being a lousy QB Colin. There’s a certain irony to the fact that a prime soft target for terrorists is a sporting event – the aborted attempt at the soccer stadium in Paris is one example. There’s also a fundamental difference between discrimination against your own citizens – your example of racial discrimination – and those non-citizens who may want to do your country and all of its people harm. Just in case you were wondering, there is no problem with discriminating against anyone who wants to enter our country, whether on a visitor visa, or want to immigrate. Our constitution only applies to those who are here already. Better to keep out the fanatics before they can claim those rights that we hold dear and they want to take away from us.

  • [4] December 8, 2015 at 10:36pm

    Don’t just think about it. DO IT! Time for these pampered children to grow up and smell the coffee. Life is not how you want it to be. It’s how it is. Can’t stand a little self inflicted micro aggression? Wait until you experience some macro aggressions in the real world! Stop looking for ways to be offended, and start doing what your parents are paying you to do – and/or the taxpayers of Tennessee and the rest of the country. Study and get a degree in some field where you can actually make a living. There’s not much call out in the real world for professional victims!

  • [4] December 3, 2015 at 10:12pm

    I’d be a lot more impressed if they were willing to go the distance on repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood. Going the distance would mean attaching the two issues to the upcoming omnibus spending bill. It already has things that will cause me to vote against the GOP – like funding the refugees Obama wants to bring in, continuing to fund the illegal amnesty, and on and on. If they balanced the repudiations of their promises to the voters, by attaching these two issues, I might reconsider. But I suspect that Boehner Junior – Paul Ryan – will still be the RINO he’s always been. He will still find ways to sell out the taxpayers. It’s a shame that we no longer have a representative form of government – at least not in reality – since the GOP Congress does what it wants to do, and not do what the people elected them to do.

  • [18] December 2, 2015 at 4:55am

    O’Reilly is leaving out the other part of the equation. The GOP has control of Congress. They have done nothing to stop illegal immigration, nothing. They promised to end amnesty by withholding funds. The first thing they did after the election was to pass a monstrous spending bill that funded amnesty and all the other programs that make the US a target of opportunity for everyone on the planet seeking a place to be cared for. They told us they voted for the spending bill because the new Congress would not take over until January, when things would change. Did that happen? No, it didn’t. McConnell flat out says there’s no way he will allow the government to be shut down over immigration, Obamacare, or any other issue. His reason? Why, he didn’t want the GOP to be blamed for it. Boehner finally resigns and is replaced by? We now have Boehner light – without the sallow complexion, cigarette smoking voice and open tear ducts. Paul Ryan is pro immigration, and pro amnesty. His only promise was to not bring it up until 2017. The GOP wants more immigration, legal or illegal, because their real Masters – the Chamber of Commerce and big business – want cheaper labor to enhance their profits. What better way to get it than to have a surplus of able bodies willing to compete with each other and race to the bottom of the wage pool while doing so? There’s no difference between the parties on immigration and amnesty.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] December 1, 2015 at 7:24pm

    I was living in Brooklyn on 9/11, across from the WTC. The only national network that seemed to be providing good coverage – many of the broadcast antennae were on top of the WTC, which resulted in outages of TV, radio, cell service, ATMs, etc. It was very hard to get news that was reliable. I well remember Shepard Smith on Fox doing a great job of bringing the news, good and bad, from both Ground Zero and the surrounding areas. It was Shep’s reporting that first got me hooked on Fox News. I recall seeing reports of cheering and partying going on in paces like Patterson and Newark, NJ, where there apparently large Arab populations. I have a recollection of even seeing a video, but for the life of me I can’t recall much detail, only that there appeared to be a partying atmosphere over the attacks. I seriously doubt that the number of celebrants were in the thousands, as Trump claims, but I definitely remember there were some anti-American taunts and celebrations going on. They would not have been very public at that time, since it would have resulted in a heck of a lot of New Yorkers trying to get across the river to exercise their Second Amendment rights! I think this whole controversy comes down to his, Trump’s, tendency to be hyperbolic, nothing more. For Christie and the other candidates to say he’s not telling the truth, that’s their way of trying to beat up on him. I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump. I don’t even know if I’d vote for him if he’s the nominee of the GOP.

  • 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.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love