texanabroad

6 hours ago, new tobie said:

Should Ted Nugent be prosecuted for threatening to kill the president?

Tobie, should he be prosecuted? What do you think? I really don't think prosecution is the answer. I think this as well as the other incidents mentioned above were all in very poor taste. I think comedy or political activism can do fine without crossing these lines with personal threats. The problem goes back to our moral decline in this country. I can't imagine 75 years ago, mainstream comedians and celebrities doing the same thing. I don't think they would have ever worked again. Now, we are debating about which is acceptable and which isn't. None of it is acceptable. I condemn it all. 

1 hour ago, Kountzer said:

I only worked 8.5 hours today.  I've been working 9 + hours every day.  I hear they may lay off 108 full time workers, perhaps this summer.  You can call it getting laid off or you can call it retirement.  If I get laid off I may go work p/t somewhere.  I work at a DPS driver license office.

Kountzer, I hope you are one of the lucky ones who keep their jobs. I hate to hear about this kind of stuff. Your profession is already difficult enough with the long wait times. I suspect it will only get worse.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

So you think guns should be less available. My question is who should be denied the right to defend themselves, family and property based on an arbitrary set of rules that have no measurable set of statistical results. That is, how the hell do you think you, or anyone else, can determine who should be denied the right of self protection. Please enlightened us on this set of criteria that you would implement that would determine who is competent versus who is incompetent to own a means of self protection. Keep in mind, when you list these qualifications, use the simple test of "would Stephen King be disqualified" with your qualification test.

I've asked this question on this site at multiple times, and not one single person can come up with a comprehensive, or even partial set of qualifications that indicate the slightest evidence of future violence. To be fair, no one on this Earth has done any better.

Forgive me, but I've just heard a few incompetent Liberal nut-cases spouting off about more gun control, and I apologize for attacking your post. Yours was the first I saw on this topic, and I would have started my own topic if I couldn't find a thread to attack. Having said that, let me restate my question. What laws would you enact to disqualify someone from self-protection? (This is not directed specifically at Fee Dee, but an open question for everyone on this board.)

This is a tough issue. I am very pro gun. I own many myself and won't give them up to anybody. I have had to take serious thought as to whether we still deserve the right to keep and bear arms due to these idiots shooting everyone up. I did research to convince myself that guns should be outlawed and I couldn't change my opinion on it. Looking at all the evidence from around the world and the US on places that have enacted gun bans, I determined that the constitution got it right. However, I have no problem with more thorough background checks and I suspect most conservatives have little problem with that as well. On a side note, I find it ironic that liberals support better background checks on gun purchases, but don't want them on people coming from countries with large numbers of people hoping to blow us up. Be consistent people That is another subject though. Anyway, back on topic. I feel that many gun related issues have to do with mental health issues. I believe that is where everyone's energy should be directed rather than at the VAST majority of gun owners, who are no threat to anyone. And no, I don't believe more laws are the answer. 

48 minutes ago, new tobie said:

I didn't do the shooting and I don't have a party. I only argue against republicans because the board is so one sided. I don't even own a gun, I look to you gun toting texans to protect me. Although i don't see many stories of gun toting Texans protecting anyone or stopping any violence!

What is there even to "argue" against on this issue? Some jacka** started shooting a bunch of innocent people and you want to "argue" because this board is one sided. You are a sick *%$#. Why not come out and say that everyone should tone down the violence rhetoric and that this is unacceptable. But no, you gotta go against those nasty conservatives. If I get suspended from this board for that, so be it. 

Reb, I didn't know that about Europe's leaders. I'm not saying they do things because they don't worry about the future, but I figure they make decisions from a different perspective than a parent would. 

This is my biggest complaint with Trump. He can't shut up. The Comey hearings overall were pretty good to him. Now, he has an axe to grind with Comey and runs his head about tapes that might exist. If he would just keep his mouth shut, this whole conspiracy is close to going away. Now, he has probably started a new conspiracy.

14 hours ago, new tobie said:

Beaumont is the #3 city in Texas for murders, none commited by muslims. Most everyday murders in the United States are committed by blacks and whites.

Apples and oranges. Those problems are already here. My thought is to vastly improve the vetting process of those coming in to prevent additional violence. 

TVC, a couple of thoughts for you. One, I never got to serve due to health issues, so I am not a veteran. WIth that being said, I feel we should all hold our soldiers and public servants in higher regards than the general population. Yes, most haven't had a bullet fired at them,  but they all sign up knowing that they might. In my mind, that demands tremendous respect. Now, whether his soldier had ill intentions or not, it is irrelevant in my opinion. He is serving and represents those who serve. To that, I owe him respect and gratitude. It just hurts me that in today's time, this isn't a given. And to your and your fellow officers, I feel the same way even if some have ill intentions. Your service to our community is something to be forever honored and revered. 

17 hours ago, REBgp said:

My opinion of Comey is that he's a pretty good guy, but a little wishy washy.  And his "truth telling" is sometimes accomplished through avoidance, but I guess that's politics.  Personally, when the DOJ didn't want to go after Hillary, he should have grown a pair and told the American people, instead of, "She's guilty as Hades but we ain't gonna do nuttin'".  I'd love to see him grilled about that, but we all know the Clintons are off limits.  Are more precisely, above the law.

You know, I used to think Comey was a good guy also. I just thought he was in a bad situation with the Clinton investigation("matter"). I now think he is a slimy politician just like the rest. Good riddance. Wouldn't it be funny if he were guilty of violating the espionage act by leaking the memos. A man can wish, can't he. 

I know Putin is controversial but there are things about the guy that I respect. He isn't afraid to say it as it is and isn't afraid to put his countries interests above all else. 

I can't side with the principal on this one. The young man will potentially risk his life to defend our freedoms. This is one exception that should not be controversial. I agree with what someone said above about the death of patriotism in our country. I don't even think schools do the pledge of allegiance anymore. It's a shame. 

4 hours ago, Englebert said:

Who gets to decide what is fake? new tobie posted a link from Politifact that rated various statements as lies, and it was easy to see their biased hate clouded their judgment enough that even 3rd graders could see the outrageous propaganda they are trying to peddle. So should Politifact be a judge as to what is fact? How about members of this board, are we good enough stewards to decide what is fake? Do you think you could perform this task?

I think the ultimate problem is the uninformed/lazy American public. Both sides on here agree that the media is corrupt. That is a fact! But, the average American is to lazy to verify what they are told with other sources. The phrase "sheeple" is so accurate. 

Well, he and I can definitely agree on not trusting the media. 

I think the hearing lays to rest the Trump/Russia collusion. Now, we get to hear endlessly about the new obstruction of justice. I haven't read anything that I believe supports that. I do think there is smoke, but no fire. I also believe that what Trump did is probably par for the course in Washington. All those people do is make back room quid pro quo deals. 

I would NEVER vote for that snake. But, I hope she runs again. 

11 minutes ago, Fee Dee said:

All I'm saying it didn't start in the Obama administration, of course, they are not going to tell everything they are doing to fight the drug cartels. I only mention Mr. Bush because it started under his watch, I like "W" even if he is a repub. They are probably doing a lot of things that we don't know about trying to fight these drug dealers and we may not like it, but you got to play dirty in a dirty game. Of course, they are not going to tell Congress everything.

Welcome to the forum Fee Dee. It's nice to see someone who doesn't just spew partisan talking points. I think you and I will disagree on a lot of policy issues, but it is refreshing to see someone from the other side who can think for themselves. I look forward to our future conversations. 

What have you been smokin Tobie?  You are way out there today. But yes, I agree. What a First Lady!

Tobie, I had to scroll up to remind myself what the thread was about. Are you that dense?  What the heck do those pictures have to do with Maher?

On 6/5/2017 at 2:04 AM, jv_coach said:

A liberal women all of the sudden getting tough...it is a ploy...she could really be mad about it, but that liberal sickness will not let her stay the course 

I'm afraid you may be right, but hopefully she has had enough. There has to be a breaking point in this whole fiasco. Eventually, we will fight back or be subject to Sharia law. These are the only two possible endings.

I personally think Bill Maher should be allowed to say whatever he wants and if HBO does/doesn't fire him, I'm ok with that. Here is the problem. As stated above, liberals have a different set of values than conservatives. Liberals should know that they lose all credibility with the right on an issue when different standards are given to different people based on politics. Just hold everyone accountable the same way. 

One thing that I have noted while living abroad is how unemployment is handled. I lived in an apartment complex one time that had a man who's only job was to keep the playground clean. It wasn't a difficult job, but he had to do it everyday. I soon realized that it was this way countrywide. Everyone was expected to do something to earn their stipend. For far to long in America, people have gotten something for nothing. If you are able to work in any capacity at all, welfare offices should assign you a job until you can retain employment elsewhere. 

22 hours ago, Fee Dee said:

Those of us who follow Bill Maher knows what kind of man he is and he is certainly NOT a racist, it what in your heart that count. I watch his show and in context, he used I was not offended. A racist would not have donated a million dollars for Obama's re-election!

So, according to this logic: I should become a lifetime member of the NAACP.  That way I can say whatever I want and can't be called a racist. Come to think of it, maybe I should join CAIR and GLAAD. Hopefully that will have me covered. 

I believe that history will not be nice to us on this issue. I can't understand why we won't call a spade a spade. WestEnd is quick to jump in and attack, but his solution seems to be to do nothing and continue letting innocent little girls be slaughtered. I'm all for individual freedom, but when a group of people declare war on you, you have to fight back. Put the pressure on the Muslim population. Make them choose. You are either with us or against us. Hopefully you are with us. If so, carry on. But if you are against us, we will give you a free ticket to Europe as a religious refugee. They seem to have a good handle on the whole refugee situation. And before you call me an islamaphobe, if a certain sect of Christianity were slaughtering people all over the world in the name of Jesus, I would support these same measures. 

Theresa May took a tougher stance in her statement regarding the latest attacks. I don't know if it is an election ploy or if she is serious. Either way, it is the first time to my knowledge that any major leader in England has spoken directly to the problem. 

Great season Cats!  You pushed CH like no other team. Congrats.