Leaderboard

One of the lowest ranking individuals in the entire intelligence community leaked more classified material than all leaks in history combined because he felt as if he was an outcast because he was queer. No, when our government can go more than a week without a substantial intelligence leak then I might start to worry that they're getting competent enough to do something sinister.

Which leaves about 175 million armed individuals, some heavily armed, and most already pissed off.

Both are to blame. A perfect example of this is the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act with it's infinite detainment clause. Not only was it signed by Obummer, it was supported by McCain. The federal government overall has become drunk on it's own power. I heard it said that Ron Paul was our last chance for constitutional freedom. I agree, but he was not able to get the job done. Now we are right back in the "lesser of two evils" vote.

Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is the cowards way out, in my humble opinion. Just like I refuse to reward negative behavior of my child's, no matter how inconvenienced I may be, I refuse to reward either of these lying scum with my vote for the presidency. I am prepared for this downward spiral which our country is in to come to a crashing and burning end. I am convinced the only way we will once again become a great nation is to start over from scratch. I am prepared and unafraid. I refuse to set aside my convictions for fear of evil, the lesser or otherwise. We, as spoiled Americans, have allowed our once great nation to be overtaken by the devil of many disguises. Now it is our duty to bring her back. You'll not convince me that continuing down the same roads will accomplish that goal. We cannot continue to treat our elections as a 'may the best liar win', contest. And that is exactly what a majority of you are doing. You look just as stupid as the asshats you are voting for. As I think I've said in the past, at this point in time, I am certain many of you would vote for a convicted child molester, if you thought it would be best way to keep Obama from getting re-elected.

What an idiot. He makes a youtube video of himself confronting a girl that makes minimum wage and he feels purposeful? If he wanted to feel purposeful he could have taken the money he used to buy his camera and donated it to a worthy cause. Have fun collecting unemployment jackhole.

Debra Maggart's maneuverings this past session would have made Jimmy Naifeh proud...the head of the scheduling committee keeping sending a bill to "summer study" to keep it from being voted on because they don't want it to pass is exactly the kind of stuff the Republicans complained about for years. Democrats were eventually replaced for that kind of garbage and there is no reason why Republicans should be immune. This is what truly frightens the Republican leadership at all levels; more and more people are voting based on what incumbents have done rather than what they've say they want to do...if you want to tell me you are a staunch Constitutional Conservative then don't go sell your vote to the highest bidder; at least be honest that you are for sale.

Don't forget to drop by in support today. Here is the text from the Chick-fil-a Apperciation Day Facebook page, http://www.facebook.com/events/266281243473841/

Thanks for the reply Tim. BTW...., Nice Work!

There is also the logical argument that Homosexuality is in fact natural and happens in many species of animals not just with human beings. There is the equally logical argument that homosexuality is a evolutionary or "divinely inspired" form of population control. Controlling population to ensure the long term survival of the species would still be survival and therefore moral. As far as marriage having biblical beginnings, well that's just simply not true. Marriage existed long before any known book of the bible was written. Yes it has always been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman, however its beginnings were transferring ownership of said woman to the husband. Gay marriages are not in fact absent from many parts of world history to include a roman emperor who had two legal marriage ceremonies to two men circa 58 A.D. in the second and third centuries they were extremely common place in the worlds largest empire. Not saying we should model our society on ancient Rome, just saying there is plenty or historical evidence to support it.

The only way that any law can be enforced is if the vast overwhelming majority of the people are willing to obey the law thus allowing identification/incarceration/eradication of those few who don't abide. We could destroy the income tax system, property tax system, sales system or any other system in very short order if people simply refused to pay (which is why most taxes are collected automatically before you get what's left).

I would be very interested to have a conversation with Ms. Harwell in a Public Forum to discuss her statement from the article: "I don't think the NRA will have any more influence then they have in the past. There are some members that are quite frankly very angry with how they conducted themselves". I was personally involved in most of the face to face meetings on the Hill about this issue, and at no time did anyone with the NRA or TFA say or do anything that could be construed as being other than civil. The consortium of 2nd Amendment supporters, consisting of TN NRA members, TFA members and Tea Party groups who decided to combine their efforts to replace a member of Leadership who chose to obfuscate and be less than truthful in her dealings with the Citizens of this State have not gone away, they simply become more dedicated in their efforts to see that the Constitution is upheld instead of allowing Corporate dollars to decide how our children and grand children live.

Yes.

If you consider executive orders, the President does wield a good bit of power. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation; FDR's new deal and order against hording of gold and japanese internment; Nixon's creation of the DEA and stabilization of prices, rents, wages, and salaries; and Bush IIs creation of the Office of Homeland security are some biggies. Also consider that the President is a single voice that is able to direct public discourse.

Tim, With the slide cuts that you made, was there any change in the recoil spring setup? Thanks,

I'm pretty sure name calling isn't looked upon very highly on this forum. You wouldn't talk this way to someone face to face. Grow up.

What if that list of names was just who he was planning to vote for?

So would three police officers being in one car make it high capacity?

But this is how most of them act - like spoiled brats. If someone disagrees with their lifestyle, they pitch a damned fit. I can't STAND the entitlement mindset.

YES. Keep the Govt. out of it. At one time, unwed mothers were shunned, looked down upon. With probably the best of intentions, some idiot got the govt into it. The result? Look on any street corner in a large city. That gang you see? NOT products of a traditional family. Welfare? Exploded is too mild a term. There are several generations of unwed mothers living in the same house, using men as sperm donors and child supporters but NOT welcoming them into the 'family', 'cause it would endanger that government mailbox love. Rome fell to barbarians outside the borders. We're raising our own crop, no outside help needed. Promiscuity and permissiveness have given us the aids epidemic and new strains of VD that laugh at our pharmaceuticals. Welfare 'entitlements' have added trillions to our national debt. The destruction of the traditional family brings higher crime, lower property values, a wrecked educational system. None of these improve the survivability of our country, our way of life, and in the long run, our race. Theres' your moral argument right there. You don't need a purgatory after death - we're building our own hell right here. If you want to build something, you need a carpenter. The only hammer the government has is the size of a wrecking ball.

The only way to change it would be to use the law to enforce an ideology of what is "moral". Dangerous game that is. Besides, there were folks screwing out of wedlock all through the "roaring" twenties. My Grandpa has stories of when he was a young GI back in the '40s that make me look like a friggin' Chaplain. I'm not convinced things used to be different in the minds of folks, I think the only difference was the presence of shame, and that shame only existed in the public eye. Now, people don't feel as if they have to give the appearance of living up to certain expectations of society. Some would say that's a bad thing, and some would say it's a good thing. The thing is, there are still good responsible people out there that don't need to use the judgement of others as their moral compass. Their moral compass gets its bearings from within, whether that be good parents, religion or a conscious effort to do the right thing. The folks that don't have that, well, we allow it to happen by being lax about laws they break and allowing the government to be the nanny of the millions of welfare puppies that are squirted out each year.

If you look back say 50 or 60 years ago, living together was looked upon by the majority of society as wrong. Because of the immoral stigma attached to it, there were very few couples who shacked up. It's a very similar situation as we have right now with gays. Fast forward to today where living together is common practice, and hardly an eyelash is batted when couples do it. In my mind, this is just another part of the moral decay of society. I don't have proof, but my gut tells me that this has led to having kids out of wedlock, which leads to a lot more broken families since it is even easier for one partner to leave the other. It also led us to accept promiscuity among adults, which led to promiscuity among teens, which is responsible for a lot of teen pregnancy. It also has caused the increase of the spread of certain diseases. I'm not a prude, and I'm not condemning anyone for living together. Heck, my wife and I did it. But the older I get the more differently I see things. All I'm saying is that these morality concepts, whether they come from the bible or where ever, protect us as a society. When one crumbles and the opposite of it is allowed to flourish, there may be unintended results.

I don't want anybody to misunderstand what I am going to say. I think the NRA and TFA along with the unhappy gun owners in her district played a VERY large part in defeating Maggart. But we also have to give credit to another issue that was very instrumental as well. When I went up there to knock on doors, we encountered a lot of teachers who were VERY unhappy with Maggart. Remember Maggart pushed legislation to take away the collective bargaining rights of Tennessee teachers. It is good that the General Assembly is focusing on the efforts of gun owners, the TFA and NRA in bringing down Maggart because we want them to know that the same thing can happen to them. As for Harwell's making light of the influence of the TFA and NRA, I think she is way more concerned than she makes out to be. She just does not want to give public credit and wants to downplay the strength we have gained with with victory. But as I have said in other circumstances (I play league pool a couple of nights a week), when your foot is on your opponents throat, don't let up.

Yep. If they ever throw the rule book out the window, I figure everybody will follow their lead. An F16 is a serious weapon until it has to land.

This is a bit of a loaded question and it may contain a bit of a false presumption (...the democrat vs republican thing...) which im sure is an innocent addition. As others have wisely said, the problem with government is with those who govern. Said another way, the actions of individuals determine how "good" or "bad" things are. In my mind, this aint a demorat of republican question when ya look back thru history. Each era or administration has to be looked at on an individual basis. Political parties evolve over time and morph into new organisms. In my view, the problem with the country today is the problem of socialist thinking and keynesian economics (...eg. the "Big Government, meddling in business way of governance"....); coupled with a good dose of autoritianism plus the self delusion of "we are the best and brightest and we know best" snobbery from the elite politcal class from both political parties. This concept started with Woodrow Wilson and came to its flower under the great god FDR. If ya look at things from this perspective, most all administrations from FDR forward followed the socialist-keynesian model to some extent with regulation of business, large government spending, government meddling in the free market, removal of freedoms, all for the "collective good" ya understand, etc. There are those here who say that democrats and republicans are simply different sides of the same coin; and im old enough to remember when they were. That time is long gone. It died in the late sixties with JFK. LBJ pushed the democrat party left toward socialism again with his "War on Poverty" thing. Fast forward to now; the demorats moved so far left toward the socialist model that the new demorat model that you are seeing today is anti business, anti freedom, and anti everything else. It is an attempt to bring back the "Old World Fiefdoms" populated by ruling elites, pure and simple. Its a complete destruction of everything this country was founded to get away from. It's the "New Old World" (...read that as europe...)masquerading as a utopia; governed of course, by a "governing elite; the political class. The republican thing aint much better, and that's why they are in trouble. I believe lots of folks are fed up with both sides of this. I will say, that when ya consider the demorat view, republicanism doesnt look so bad. At least the republicans for the most part are capitalists. They may be overbearing, snobbish, and aristocratic; but, again, at heart, they are capitalists. I think the birth of the Tea Party movement points out all the bad problems with both political parties. The fact is that the presently constituted political parties are both in trouble. Folks dont like what the major parties are doin and they are calling them out. The Tea Party folks (...and the Libertarians....) believe that the Constitution actually means what it says, and that political operatives should operate within the limits of the Constitution. The demorats and republican establishment stand for "business as usual"; which most folks dont like and are doin something about. The sad fact is that both parties are ratty and they need a housecleaning. I think ya saw some of the housecleaning in the 2010 mid-terms and i think it will continue in 2012. I think the demorats are dead because no one except the socialists and trash among us believes what they believe. They are, as a party, a bunch of anti liberty dimwits. The republicans are simply the lesser of two evils. I believe that if The republicans dont do exactly what they say they are goin to do this time around, they will be replaced by a new conservative party. leroy

I disagree. He might not be my perfect candidate, but most would say he is not hard left and that is the foo' we have now.

this should always be the result of choosing political correctness over common sense.

That is a good example that I can relate to in regard to the controversy over the religious beliefs of the owner. Folks were outraged and the media openly labeled him a "bigot" for believing that gays shouldn't be married. I'm certain that this man believes that it is just as much of a sin for an unwed couple to live together and share a bed. My wife and I lived together for two years before we got married. If this guy came out and said that I was a sinner or something of the like I don't see myself being offended or boycotting his company. I don't think I would care and would be in disbelief if there was national outrage over it. If I got pissed at every CEO that had an opinion contrary to mine I'd have to boycott 90% of the companies out there.

Ive been considering an online backup, guess this decided for me NOT to use Carbonite!

Believe it or not I'm not a moron. I'm familiar with a few of these cases. The photographer being sued is no different than Burger King being sued for refusing service on grounds of sexual orientation. The photog doesn't have a leg to stand on. As for the other cases out there, they haven't made it to the Supreme Court, so I don't believe what goes on in New Jersey has any bearing on states that haven't capitulated all their freedoms yet. But even the case in New Jersey didn't involve a church, but involved property that the church owned and rented out for events. I do know this, if someone wants to make a Supreme Court issue out of it then it would open things up for all faiths and I don't think it would stand for long. For example, if you're not a Muslim you ain't getting into a Mosque during services. If you ain't a Mormon you ain't getting in to temple. A buddy of mine wasn't even allowed into his own sister's wedding because he was no longer Mormon. So, as far as I see there is no precedent where the government has stepped in and demanded that a church perform a gay ceremony. Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Suing someone proves squat.

I think that anyone who disagrees with that statement would be suggesting infringement on your civil liberties to practice a religion. I don't think there are many folks on the opposite side of the debate that would want to force religious institutions to do anything. Remember that story about the JP who refused to issue a license to an interracial couple? He would have been fine doing so if he wasn't holding a post as a JP. I'm sure there are plenty of religious institutions out there that won't perform interracial marriages and no one cares. If gay marriage was legal I don't see how anyone could force a Church to perform a gay marriage ceremony. There isn't a precedent that I'm aware of that shows the government stepping in and forcing any religious institution to perform any ceremony in the name of civil rights. As far as "defining" marriage and gays cheapening the word "marriage" I don't see how that has any bearing on law or would even cheapen a word that is free for anyone to use. The word "marriage" isn't trademarked and as far as I'm concerned it was cheapened long before the gays wanted it. Here are some recent examples: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673495/kim-kardashian-kris-humphries-money.jhtml -From the morally bankrupt... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/holmes-cruise-divorce-suri-not-money-main-issue.html -...to the couch jumping cultists... http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48177946/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/t/dogs-get-married-record-breaking-k-wedding/ .... to the dogs... http://www.gayleslove.com/ .... to an already existing culture of gay/lesbos being wedded for convenience to circumvent the law.... http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html .... to the % of failed marriages amongst us non-sinners ... http://www.bridesagency.com/russian-mail-order-brides-prices ... and the industry of purchasing women from overseas and marrying them for sex and housecleaning. Could gays really have an impact on an institution that has historically been misused and abused? I'm married and none of the above stuff impacts my marriage in a negative way so I don't see how adding peter-puffers to the party will do any damage.

Members are angry at the NRA? Let's see how that works for them.

I've had the pleasure of meeting General Boykin on several occasions and even having a long conversation regarding his own rich history in service to our country. He is a great American. However, he is not known for thinking before speaking and has a history of being controversial to a fault. I don't believe his words on the economy or the likely outcome of the devaluing of our currency holds any more weight than anyone here on this forum.

The fact the "the majority" voted for Obama should be enough evidence that the majority isn't what it's all cracked up to be. Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

A lot of people used to agree that the world was flat and Zeus controlled lightning.

I noted that the WSMV report stated that one goal is to repeal the permit. I have never heard that there was an intent to REPEAL the permit. Yes, a goal is to get a Vermont or Constitutional Carry bill passed but that would go along with the permit. It would just make it so that a permit is not REQUIRED for Tennessee residents. We would still want a permit so that we could still carry when we travel in other states that still require permits and honor the Tennessee permit.

Wewoapsiak, hit the nail on the head with that first line. Regardless of your views, the workers are just that, workers. With this bad economy most are happy to even have a job. I really don't like my job but I won't risk it because I need it. I figure that Girl in the drive though window is probably going to be the new face of CFA if she wants it. She really handled herself very well.

Makes me chuckle that voting for the status quo, which has screwed us over and over for decades, is somehow the 'smart' decision. Y'all can bash me all you wish, I couldn't care less - but until you realize voting for the same crap over and over and expecting something other than crap is fruitless, we're all stuck with Groundhog Day. Not sure why I even posted, none of the panicked party voters here will think about breaking the pattern for half a second...

The way I see it is that all you partisan folk are what has ruined our country. The democraps want to regulate it's hated stuff and give money to it's pet people. The republicants want to regulate it's hated stuff and give money to it's pet people. All the while since I've been alive everyone votes for the lessor of evils. Accept responsibility for years of supporting parties that don't have your best interest in mind.

This is the PERFECT year to vote one's conscience, since we know an independent candidate has minimal chance, and if it's between Romney and Barry, many of us don't care which one wins, because they're the same. 4 more years of ODumbo or 4 years of Mitt - the results will be the SAME.

This "should" send a message to the Harwells, Ramseys, Haslams, etc., of the state, but some of these people are so arrogant they believe they're untouchable. A decisive vote can change that. Maggart stuck her neck out on this issue, and is now wandering around looking for her head. Like a lot of other folks, I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but they came thru like a champ here. I will renew when due.

Part of it is that depending on your lifestyle, half the places you go are no carry. And most folks obey the law and don't want their gun stolen from their car. - OS

Makes me a little sad. Have they been "beaten" into not carrying by their family, peers, or other gun control nuts. Or when they go to work and are they not allowed to have it in their office or car?

I'm embarrassed. I wore that much gear to the doctors office yesterday.

had breakfast there this morning

I’m sure he’s planning on a jury never hearing the case; Glock will settle. Next up…. Glock offers external safeties.