RobertNashville

Lifestyle, genes, cosmic dust...I don't care what makes someone homosexual or heterosexual...how about we just do away with all benefits government bestows on "married couples"? If that wont' fly then as I already said earlier that I've no problem with "civil unions". I am also all for doing away with any special tax benefits/breaks for "married couples" or any other group...regardless of whether it's the "fair tax" a flat tax or whatever; tax policy should be about collecting taxes, not manipulating social policy.

I agree but I don't think anyone here was suggesting otherwise...I think the point of departure is when any class of people want "more rights" than another. People need to be treated equally but no one deserves to be treated as a special class.

Good guess...it was, in fact, my representative (Rick Womick)! I'm not the least bit surprised at nothing from Speaker Harwell...wasn't really expecting anything from Ron Ramsey but I know from speaking with him in times past that I don't think he would ever be a problem anyway. Senator Ketron was a bit of a disappointment, however as he/his office has always been very good in the past about responding to contact...it's usually almost immediate!

Obviously your wife is a very intelligent woman.

Perhaps it's time to get rid of the "extra laws". I've nothing against civil unions or "domestic partnerships" but "marriage" is a concept rooted in religion. I don't think it's an issue that the Federal government should even involved in. Even civil unions are rather unnecessary...proper legal contracts can "grant" pretty much any significant benefit that a "marriage" license can (property/equity rights, etc.). Most people could not care less whether someone is or isn't homosexual - where problems often begin is when homosexuals (usually "activists") start throwing their sexuality into the faces of others which is often followed by not just demands for "acceptance" by heterosexuals but dictates regarding what others are supposed to "think" about homosexuals.

I am as conservative as they come and I absolutely believe in and am a proponent of "homosexual rights" - the same rights enumerated in the Constitution. Other than that they don't deserve nor does anyone deserve "special rights".

You and I still need to get out there together some time.

There are far, far too many people in this country who vote "party line"...moreover, there are far, far to many people who vote party line only because their "Mommy" or their "Daddy" was an "R" or a" D". I saw this operating in full force when Mr. Tree was running against GWB in 2000...I could go down issue by issue with many of my friends and by the time we were done, there was not question that Bush was the candidate that most closely matched where they stood on the issues yet they insisted they were going to vote for Gore because he was a Democrat and they always vote Democrat. I absolutely support people voting as they wish but I do wish people would put some actual thought into the process.

I appreciate your service as well as your point of view...I do wish, however, that you would try not to run your words together quitesomuch.

Maybe the proverbial fat lady hasn't sung yet but I think she is doing her vocal exercises. While I don't know for certain, I will paraphrase a quote I once heard attributed to Benjamin Franklin which is "I tend to be a pessimist; then, when the better things happens, I am pleasantly surprised"...whether Benjamin said it or not that tends to be how I approach many things in life; especially when it comes to politics. I've written and called my Reps and Senator as well as Lt. Gov Ramsey and Speaker Harwell...only one took the time to even write back; the rest didn't even acknowledge my contact.

Good observation...I stopped associating and contributing to the Republican party about 20 years ago. If I call myself anything these days it's "conservative" with strong Libertarian leanings (I'm simply not as "let it be" as true Libertarians are!). I suspect that even a majority of those folks who call themselves "Republicans" or "Democrats" are really neither one but rather, tend to vote as they think best in any given election (which is as it should be IMAHO).

So it looks like we'll go another year either being disarmed five days a week or risking dismissal by breaking company policy. What a nice choice - I'm so glad we've finally got a "real" Republican majority in both chambers now...it's mas SO much difference.

No one that carries a little 9mm is scary regardless of political persuasion.

Hillary was never "hot"...she may have been slightly acceptable once but that was before my time.

What would you do if such a section existed...would that be the only place you would post? Even if such a section existed; unless one had to declare his party affiliation (assuming he even had one) and all but Democrats were excluded from entry into that section, you would likely get both Democrats and Republicans in such a section (alone with just about ever other political flavor and those who hold to no political flavor at all). In which case, what would be the point??? Bottom line is, if you are looking for a place to post and share ideas on the internet that doesn't also have folks with an opposite position, you would be hard pressed to find that anywhere and you certainly won't find that here. Hell, we can't even get pro-gun folks to agree on the very obvious position the the 1911 is the single best handgun design that has ever existed or ever will exist! If we can't get agreement on something so obvious how would we ever get agreement on anything controversial?

Why would you think that Democrats need a separate section? If someone is a communist/socialist/liberal/progressive/conservative/anarchist/libertarian/agnostic/couch potato or of just about any other mindset one could think of what's the difference? If you post something here on just about any subject you are bound to get some who agree with you and some who wont agree with you.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else - I never asked you anything about Beck. Villain? Really??? Seems like you are being just a bit thin-skinned about this. Call me crazy if you wish but I doubt that it was simple "curiosity" that was the motivator for the thread - regardless of what any one person thinks about Beck, most people know that millions hate him and that other millions love and listen to him every day...so...when you entitle a thread "Glad to see Beck leaving" it's unlikely that you didn't already have a good idea about the type or responses the thread would generate.

I don't think anyone was asking you to agree with anything...all I did was ask a question.

I've no wish to get into a debate of what is "better" or "best"...what I will say is that after being a 1911 guy in .45ACP for decades as well as a lover of 10MM (I have a G20 and a Kimber Eclipse 10MM and I've had others in 10MM); my Glock 31 is becoming my primary carry weapon for many of the reasons cited above. My Glock 20 is the handgun in my nightstand and that is with me around the home until bedtime but for me, the Gloc,31/.357Sig is the perfect package of capacity, dependability and power for carry purposes. That said, let's keep in mind that NO handgun round is "best" when it comes to personal defense; getting the rounds into something vital is FAR more important than what caliber of handgun you happen to be using.

You may not have been suggesting anything but if you don't want anyone to ask questions; why post your opinion in the first place...this is a discussion forum isn't it? I agree you have no obligation to answer any question but since you seem more than a little dissatisfied with the news outlets we have today and the personalities on them; I don't think my question was an unreasonable one.

How one interprets or applies the facts Beck presents is up to them but I would suggest that most of the facts presented by Beck can be verified as correct through more than one source. In any case, Beck pleads with people to look at things for themselves; if they chose not to do so that's hardly Beck's failing. Really? So what would you suggest we do, go back to the "Big 3" networks for our news? Do you really want our sources for news to be Katie Couric and the Tennessian? You don't have to "like" any of the personalities who do opinion shows (and what is an opinion show vs a news show should be readily apparent to any but the most obtuse viewers) but the advent of conservative radio and cable news networks are the only real defense this country has against the rest of the media that doesn't even attempt to present a balanced view of the news.

I'm estatic that his hour long Fox News show is ending at the end of his currrent contract; now he'll be able to do a lot more on Fox.

I hear you and it's difficult do disagree. However, I used to be really pro-death penalty but I started to reconsider that when we've found people on death row who we now know (through DNA for example) that they aren't guilty. I well remember a case from my home town where a man was convicted of many, many rapes and was serving a life sentence but 20 years later, the state found out they convicted the wrong man...you can't give back 20 years of a man's life but at least he could still have some life after being released...I'd hate to think that we might have killed someone who was innocent. So...I'm hesitant to just "put 'me down"...if we can lock them away until they die of natural causes or at least until they are so old they can't be a danger to society again at least it gives us (society) an opportunity to release an innocent man if he happened to get wrongly convicted.

Actually; I'm probably equally angry that such felons were on the street and ever had a chance to commit this murder. I'm so pleased that these fine, upstanding citizens were able to get to Nashville and likely passed within a mile or two of my house on their way to Chattanooga. I'm not in any way negating the personal guilt of this thug and everyone in his thug family that helped him but this tragedy could well have been stopped before it happened if we treated violent, dangerous criminals like violent, dangerous criminals and locked up such scum (and kept them there).

I'm not saying it's "fair" but I wouldn't sell a firearm or buy one from somebody who truly looked like a "street thug" even if they might be the nicest, most law-abiding "good guy" on the face of the planet...in other words, someone's appearance does mean something (especially if you know nothing else about them). I can't put it in scientific terms but I suspect most people know the "nagging feeling" you can get...that "vibe" you can get from some someone that says "untrustworthy"...that's what I'm talking about...if I ever got that "feeling" when engaging in a firearms transaction I'm saying I would walk away. Maybe I'd be losing a great deal but I'd probably sleep better that night.