1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Boys Don’t Play ‘Soldier’ Anymore

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 13 hours ago (6:07 PM)
No need for cowards like you to thank real men who volunteer to defend our country. We do it inspite of cowards like you, not for you.
In response to:

Houston's First Amendment Problem

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 18 hours ago (1:26 PM)
But procedurally if the preacher says “homosexuality is an abomination and people should sign a petition to over throw this civil rights law AND there is a guy at the door with the petition and he expects everyone to sign it on the way out”, then those pages could be tossed. Personal opinion is that is fine to collect signatures that way but the ordinances on their collection do not allow it to avoid force or coercion in the gathering procedures. But the bottom line to Dan’s question, is the politicians wanted the sermons et al to fish for anything that could invalidate the signatures and that is an unconstitutional thing to do. They DID NOT ask for them to attack religious liberty, to stifle speech, punish people for signing petitions and ballot initiatives nor push a “GAY AGENDA” . They wanted them to find an excuse to cover up their chicanery in tossing out ballot initiative petition pages. And that by itself is bad enough.
In response to:

Houston's First Amendment Problem

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 18 hours ago (1:26 PM)
Dan107 Wrote: 3 hours ago (9:26 AM) Why would progressive politicians even attempt to do something like this? The answer to Dan’s probably rhetorical question, is what is most often left out of the discussion or even worse falsely misrepresented in the discussion. I agree with Dr Carsons excellent article and just about everything he said. But too many articles on this subject, to include his, leave out the basic answer to Dan’s question of why did the city request the info and sermons etc. In part it does not matter, why because it is unconstitutional for any reason. But part of having the discussion that Dr Carson writes about is the understanding of the reasons for an action. It starts with the city of Houston passing an unpopular civil rights law. I am against most such civil rights laws when they impose on business but that is not germane to the discussion. Some groups including church groups and ministers put together a petition to have a ballot measure that would undo the civil rights law. The City threw out most of the signature pages in the petition on technicalities and procedural issues. The church groups then sued the city for invalidating the signature pages and challenged that the city did not have cause to throw them out. A law firm on behalf of the city, sent out an overly broad and unconstitutional subpoena to “fish” for anything that could justify throwing out the signature pages. A simple statement during the sermon that homosexuality is an abomination and people should sign a petition to over throw this civil rights law is perfectly fine and not a reason to throw out the signed pages. CONTINUED
In response to:

Houston's First Amendment Problem

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 18 hours ago (12:34 PM)
Why? Maybe it gave hope to the idea that two old men could find love and pursue happiness without having their government tell them their relationship is inferior?
In response to:

Houston’s Mayor: Endangering Civil Rights

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 19 hours ago (12:21 PM)
Sorry but I see no relevance to Neal's Comments to my comments. Of course I support the ability of the people to get signatures and challenge bad laws at the ballot box. And Like I said I oppose the chicanery that the city used to disallow the signatures in the first place and that they compounded by issuing an overly broad subpoena. So that makes me curious as to what in the heck Neal is talking about and what it had to do with my post
In response to:

Houston’s Mayor: Endangering Civil Rights

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 21 hours ago (10:20 AM)
I very much dislike the chicanery pulled by the Houston City attorney office in throwing out the ballot signatures. It is a clear sign they know how unpopular their law was with actual voters that they feared putting it on the ballot. Of course I do not like most so called “civil rights laws” in the first place. A business should be free to serve or not serve any customers as they wish. The problem in Houston was compounded when the attorney issued an overly broad Subpoena as part of a fishing expedition looking for irregularities in the way that the signatures were collected. The mayor herself admits that was a mistake by the attorney and that only the records pertaining to the actual collection of signatures on the petition should have been requested. But there is also intellectual dishonesty displayed by many who defend the churches. And please note, I am not attacking the churches and stand with their religious freedom and speech rights but I see so much ‘garbage” being put out there that is misleading or false. Example when this author writes “This is a clear attempt to intimidate Americans and prevent their exercising their Civil Rights. Only after an international uproar did the Mayor and the City Council back down from their demand that Houston pastors, priests, and rabbis submit their sermon texts to the government. For what? Censorship? Fines? Threats to their tax-exempt status?” Is he misinformed or lying? It was neither an attempt to intimidate nor censor, nor fine nor threaten tax status. It was to find information that could be used to justify throwing out the ballot signatures since several religious groups are challenging throwing out the ballot signatures by suing the city. I probably disagree with most of the rules on the signature collection process but they are the legal rules. And the city is correct from a purely legal standpoint to collect that information which shows the ballots were improperly collected. Again, that is not a defense by me of the city , it’s ordinance, or the overly broad subpoena Process. It is an attempt to look at the facts of the issue. It just strikes me as intellectually dishonest to claim these subpeona’s had a nefarious intent of silencing freedom of religion or free speech when the truth , that the requested info was going to be used to justify throwing out the signatures of voters, is bad enough by itself.
In response to:

Boys Don’t Play ‘Soldier’ Anymore

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 21 hours ago (9:36 AM)
Some people don't just play war. The Soldier in the picture in this article is wearing the Same Unit patch as Audie Murphy, the 3rd Infantry Division Patch , the mighty Rock of the Marne THis is another 3 ID Soldier Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith's extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division "Rock of the Marne," and the United States Army.
In response to:

The Good News About Offshore Oil Rigs

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 22 hours ago (9:09 AM)
You could have asked any good salt water fisherman and he would have told you the same thing. In the gulf coast area, the oil rigs are targeted by fisherman as the best spots. Off the coast of GA we have a series of artificial reefs such as sunk ships, concrete pallet balls, old M-60 tanks, NYC Subway cars, and other rubble that has been sunk in key spots. Further off shore, about 40 miles out we have old navy towers. Sink some bait down over the artificial reef and you will catch fish nonstop. Here is an old video I made catching some Sea bass over an artificial reef from my boat. I am narrator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yQY-uADfj4&feature=youtu.be
In response to:

The Good News About Offshore Oil Rigs

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 22 hours ago (9:08 AM)
You could have asked any good salt water fisherman and he would have told you the same thing. In the gulf coast area, the oil rigs are targeted by fisherman as the best spots. Off the coast of GA we have a series of artificial reefs such as sunk ships, concrete pallet balls, old M-60 tanks, NYC Subway cars, and other rubble that has been sunk in key spots. Further off shore, about 40 miles out we have old navy towers. Sink some bait down over the artificial reef and you will catch fish nonstop. Here is an old video I made catching some Sea bass over an artificial reef from my boat. I am narrator. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yQY-uADfj4&feature=youtu.be
In response to:

Criminalizing Innocent Christian Behavior

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Oct 21, 2014 10:11 PM
Wayne, I have supported equal rights for ALL since long before my son was born. But that does not mean a baker should have to bake a cake, a photographer should have to take pics or these ministers will have to perform these weddings So i support peoples ability to get married in a CIVIL marriage which is an affair of government but not to force businesses to serve customers and never to fore a religious institution to do anything or deny the ability of anyone free speech if you are asking if I donate money to any causes the answer is no and I vote Republican with the very occasional libertarian at the most local levels an only if they are TRUE libertarian and gain that is local not Federal levels. In GA I will be voting Perdue for Senate (R) and Deal for Gov also an R
1 - 10 Next