RobertNashville

I'm not sure if what I posted was so obscure/poorly worded that you really don't understand what I was trying to get across or not.  :confused:    Anyway, I don't know how to make my point any clearer so I guess we'll have to just leave things as they are.

  I'm sure that plays a large part in why the signs are there but I know very well that for some employers, their desire to search vehicles has nothing to do with employee theft. I'm also sure that most employers only want their property back and then fire the employee but perhaps there were be less employee theft to worry about if the thieving employees had more to lose than just their job?   My main point is that short of criminal activity, there is no logical business reason for an employer to search a vehicle and they have a way to make that happen if they chose to use it, without requiring every employee to pre-consent to a search as a condition of employment.   If companies could articulate a reasonable business reason for "searching" policies I would have a softer view but at it is, they can fire a person for any reason they chose or for no reason at all; that's a lot of power in their hands. As such, I don't think changing TN employment law so that employers can't compel or ask to search an employee's vehicle is all that much of a concession and would go a long way to cleaning up the problems with the current "guns in trunks" law while still leaving employers with a viable to address employee theft/criminal activity.  

Yes, every vote cast or not cased has an impact but I think you misunderstood the intent/subject of the section you highlighted, Mike. What it doesn't change is the status quo of two major parties, two major candidates, one of whom will win - it doesn't make the inconsequential third-party any more consequential...it doesn't force the Republicans to select better candidates, etc. etc...that's the waste.  

We don't need "Republicans" or "Democrats"; we need men and women with conservative principles.  In the meantime, however, I'll settle for a Republican controlled legislature who knows they had better not do anything to take away our firearm rights over a Democratic controlled one that likely would be trying to do exactly that following Sandy Hook.

It's not a matter of believe; it's a math. When there are only two candidates with a legitimate chance to win an election; voting for anyone other than those two (or not voting at all) is a wasted vote because it does absolutely nothing to change anything.

In the last two (and frankly all presidential elections, at least in the modern era), there has been two and only two candidates who had a legitimate chance to receive enough votes to actually win the election. Mathematically, voting for one of the inconsequential candidates or even not voting at all had an impact on which of the two legitimate candidates would win...which of the two was impacted the most and whether they were negatively or positively impacted depends on many factors and not really worth going into here.   As to what many grasp or don't grasp...if anyone is refusing to grasp anything I think it's those who refuse to grasp that their third-rate third-parties do absolutely noting to solve the problem the members of those parties claim they want to solve. Moreover, the notion that any of the third-party candidates ever offered up were actually "better" than the two main choices is laughable.   Now, if someone wants to vote for whatever warmed-over politician the third-parties put up that's their business but if they believe they are actually affecting change by doing so then they are fooling themselves.

  Give up what?   As far as I can see, the only thing an employer would be giving up would be the right to compel a search for whatever made-up reason they want because (while I"m not sure of the specific mechanism/procedure that would need to be followed) I'm sure that if an employer believes an employee is steeling from them or engaged in any other illegal activity and they have some evidence of same that filing the appropriate complaint with the local LE would then kick-off an investigation of the alleged crime which would include, compelling a search of whatever they (LE)  needs to search (employee's locker, vehicle, briefcase, home, etc.).   Other than suspicion of illegal activities I see no legitimate business reason for an employer to need to conduct a search of an employee's vehicle...if it is to be searched, it should only be done by LE with probable cause or a warrant.

Sounds like exactly that kind of people decent people have to defend themselves against.   We long ago stopped actually punishing people for criminal activity; the ultimate impact on society was entirely predictable except for those who refused to see.

I'm still wondering what "personal responsibility" you are referring to because I don't see it??? I agree, people ought to have personal responsibility but if they did this thread would have no reason to exist..   People aren't exercising much personal responsibility which means it falls to the rest of society to step in and stop the carnage.   I'm all for forgiveness for one time (if no one is actually hurt) with mandatory (at the perp's expense) school...after that...5, 10, 20, then life sentences for each repeated conviction...I'm also for lowering the BAC limit even further...in fact I'm okay with 0 being the limit.

They Republican party may well become nothing more than a completely meaningless distinction from the Democratic party but the only hope I see is for the Tea Party movement to infiltrate the Republicans and seize control of it. If they can't do that...if the current power brokers (the Rockefeller Republicans) retain control then it's over.   At that point, if they try to create an actual political party out of the movement to run against Democrats and Republicans in races then it will likely become just another inconsequential "also ran" party like the Libertarians and Greens and all the rest are.

So in other words,neither way works to elect anyone worthwhile?  That seems to be the logical conclusion.   In any case, I think working within the Republican party and trying to electing the best candidate that can win has a better chance of electing a worthy candidate than to vote for someone who cannot win.  :shrug:

How's that worked out for you so far?  Doesn't seem like it's helped anything but maybe I"m missing something. :shrug:

That's sort of they way it used to be.   Today, I'd say a modern equivalent would be that before you are allowed to vote you must no be on any direct government assistance (food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc)...in other words; limit voting to "producers" rather than takers.   Not the it will ever happen of course but if I could change that law I would.

If she wanted to run for NYC mayor she is too late and I doubt she'll wait another four years (or challenge a Democrat running for re-election in four years).  I'd say she either runs for Pres or she may as well just retire; there isn't much left for her at this point unless the next Dem President gives her a "we feel sorry for you" appointment to something.

So...what...we should vote for the America-hating, socialist because the Republican candidate isn't enough of "this" or enough of "that"?   Or maybe we should vote the Green party or one of the other meaningless third parties that, even all combined, never garner more than abut 1% of the vote?   Given the choices presented in all the presidential elections I've voted in (11 in all); I don't regret a single vote I cast even though in all of those elections I voted for the Republican candidate (whether he won or not).  There wasn't any doubt in my mind then or now that the Republican candidate in each of those elections was a far better choice than his Democratic opposition; even knowing that the Republican candidate was often far from perfect.   At the end of the day, if I don't vote for a candidate who doesn't match my way of thinking then I'll never vote because the only candidate who will match my way of thinking is ME and I'm not running.

Who put our two wonderful Republican (RINO) senators into office?  Is it there fault for being in office or the voter's fault for voting for them?   It should have been obvious a LONG time ago that Alexander was a full-fledged RINO; Corker perhaps not as easily identified given what he had to say last time around but in any case, when people vote in tomatoes there is little reason to be surprised that you get tomato soup.

  Regardless of what one thinks about the "guns in parking lots" issue, private property used for private purposes (your home, etc.) is simply different, both in the law and in fact, than business property used for business purposes; most especially so with regards to business property where employees and/or the public are invited to be.   Equating business property as private property or refusing to make the obvious distinction is a BS argument I"m getting tired of and ignores a very long history of such business property being treated differently than actual private property.   Further, my vehicle IS my private property and, unless what I have inside of it is illegal it is no one's damn business what I have inside of it whether that's a firearm, fishing tackle, cigars, yesterday's McDonald's wrappers, a copy of the Bhagavad Gita or a King James version of the Bible.

We should probably be thankful for Obamacare...had Obama's desire for universal, government healthcare not been such a high priority for he and the Democrats we would likely have firearm laws on the books right now that would make those recently passed in NY and Colorado look wildly free!

I think you are being slightly insulting just to be slightly insulting.   The "rank and file" have only one opportunity to pick their party's candidate and that is in the primary. Once that process is over IT'S OVER.*   At that point, you either vote for the best choice (which in most of my adult life has been the Republican candidate) or you just don't bother to vote because there aren't 'other possible options"; at least not options with a snow ball's chance on hell of wining the election. Now; you can complain about it being that way all you want but complaining about it wont' change the simple truth of the situation.       * I do remember the days when conventions still had a bit of excitement and when there was at least a chance that the final nominee of the part was not decided weeks or month before the convention date but it's just not that way any more (even though some of the RP faithful claimed it would be during the 2012 convention).

Of those who bother to vote in the Republican primaries (except of course for Democrats to cross over to screw things up); I suspect very, very few of them care or even know who the favorite Republican candidate of the mainstream press is. If I were to actually listen to the press it would only be to easily identify who not to vote for.

She was a "shoe-in" in 2007 as well until the almost unknown socialist who "cleaned up and spoke pretty well for a black man" (per then Senator Biden) cleaned her clock in the primaries.   As this point, trying to predict who will be on the ticket for either party is sort of a worthless endeavor (other than for entertainment value)...I'm sure there are other Democrats out there who could take the nomination but I think Hillary is the logical front runner at this point if only because most Democrats still love the Clintons   

Just wait until interest rates rise back to their normal levels...when that happens we won't have enough revenues to even service our debt (assuming anyone would continue accepting dollars as payment).

What personal responsibility???  Even if we haven't already passed that tipping point we are certainly very close to where a majority of people in this country don't exercise personal responsibility in ANY area of their lives...should it surprise us that they don't exercise it in this are either?   It won't matter how many times they are put in jail or if they lose their license; the people who continue to drive drunk will continue to do so unless they are in jail forever and we aren't even willing to keep violent felons in prison for forever (or even all of their incredibly short sentences for that matter).   Laws and punishment can not work unless a significant majority of the population are willing to follow them (and really for those folks, they would almost do the "right thin" whether there was a law/punishment about it or not). That's one of the reasons the so-called "war on drugs" has been such an abysmal failure (as was prohibition).

Which changes what? Having a half oz of weed on your person is still just a half oz of weed and it's pretty obvious that you don't have it because you are a major supplier whether you are found with it three times, one time or ten times. I know a man from Cincinnati who, over a period of three or four years, wrote three bad checks for a total value of less than $20 but because of the "three strike laws" was convicted of a major felony and sent to prison for over 20 years...is that person really such a danger to society that he should never again be able to own arms?   There are all sorts of laws on the books even today that would be ridiculous were they actually enforced; it still doesn't prove your original assertion...our founders started building prisons almost immediately after the revolution (to complement the British ones that already existed)...they didn't need prisons if they were going to just execute everyone and when those former prisoners left prison they weren't denied their basic rights.   I think you will find that the parole system has existed long before we had overcrowding issues but regardless of whey the system exists or why it's used today, it has part of our criminal justice system and successfully competing parole, if granted is completing a sentence.   I was curious. Most people who support the 2A as written (i.e. shall not be infringed) are opposed to background checks because the only purpose they really serve is to infringe on our right to arms (and provide revenue and power to the government). However, many of those who are opposed to BG checks also say that convicted felons who have completed their sentence should not have access to arms which seems a significant contradiction to me since the only way to know if someone is a prohibited person is with a BG check.   I guess I just wonder if those in favor of restricting arms to specific classes of people but are opposed to BG checks for transactions are comfortable with the knowledge that without the BG checks all those "prohibited people" would be able to walk into any gun store and buy whatever they wanted.

It may be uncaring of me but I won't shed one tear for anyone who voted for Obama and is negatively impacted by Obamacare. - they are getting exactly what they voted for.