(11-12-2013 10:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Where does the federal gov't get its money?

(Here's where johnny zero gets confused )

Confused or changes the subject, it's always one or the other.

Well, sometimes it's right over his head or he completely misses the point.

Then there are the times he makes chit up. Or just flat lies.

(11-12-2013 09:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 09:50 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Texas National Guard falls under the laws of the state of Texas. Texas does not recognize same sex marriage/unions. They are not denying the benefits, what they are saying is, if you come to the Texas National Guard Base, they cannot under state law give the benefits, they have to go to a US Base.

True it's an inconvenience and the funding for the Guard is federal funded, the Texas National Guard's number 1 priority if this country is attacked is Texas, not DC. Because they are a state militia they fall under state law. However, state militias are to be ready if called up in the time of war, but that's after the Army, Marines, Navy, and USAF and their reserves have been called up and more back up is needed.

well the majority of states that have state laws that do not recognize same sex marriage/unions are not doing this.

thats a very weak argument

another prime example of a leftist trying to slide us into a direct democracy.

It's funny how the NYT and libs are obsessed with what goes on in Texas. They're frustrated because much of it is beyond their control, and they love control.

No one in Texas gives a rat's ass about what goes on in NY.

Texas is a whole another country.

(11-12-2013 12:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  It's funny how the NYT and libs are obsessed with what goes on in Texas. They're frustrated because much of it is beyond their control, and they love control.

No one in Texas gives a rat's ass about what goes on in NY.

It's not just the New York libs. It's all libs, and it has to do with how many electoral college votes Texas has. They see Texas as their biggest obstacle blocking them from the utopia. What they are doing is slowing trying to change the national opinion of Texas. They are also encouraging liberals from all over the country to move into Texas.

Make no mistake about it. It's not a laughing matter.

(11-12-2013 09:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/us/tex...l?hp&_r=1&

While the president has the power to call National Guard units into federal service — and nearly all Guard funding comes from the federal government — the states say the units are state agencies that must abide by state laws.

leave it to the cons to claim a state's constitution overrules the supreme court. are we still debating the states rights vs federal govt argument......

I'd have to remember the court case, but the Supreme Court already backed up the ruling that state Constitutions override the Supreme Court on anything that doesn't not involve NATIONAL issues.

That's why you on the left were so whiny when Bush didn't send National Guard troops into Louisiana, and then had to shut up because the then governor Landreau SAID THE FEDERAL GOVT needed to stay out.

You CANNOT have it both ways. THe National Guard falls under state jurisdiction. NO ifs ands or buts.

(11-12-2013 12:39 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 09:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/us/tex...l?hp&_r=1&

While the president has the power to call National Guard units into federal service — and nearly all Guard funding comes from the federal government — the states say the units are state agencies that must abide by state laws.

leave it to the cons to claim a state's constitution overrules the supreme court. are we still debating the states rights vs federal govt argument......

I'd have to remember the court case, but the Supreme Court already backed up the ruling that state Constitutions override the Supreme Court on anything that doesn't not involve NATIONAL issues.

That's why you on the left were so whiny when Bush didn't send National Guard troops into Louisiana, and then had to shut up because the then governor Landreau SAID THE FEDERAL GOVT needed to stay out.

You CANNOT have it both ways. THe National Guard falls under state jurisdiction. NO ifs ands or buts.

The supreme court is the liberals' daddy as long as it sways in their direction. When some honest judges get appointed, things will change and the libs will claim that the supreme court hates the constitution.

(11-12-2013 12:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 12:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  It's funny how the NYT and libs are obsessed with what goes on in Texas. They're frustrated because much of it is beyond their control, and they love control.

No one in Texas gives a rat's ass about what goes on in NY.

It's not just the New York libs. It's all libs, and it has to do with how many electoral college votes Texas has. They see Texas as their biggest obstacle blocking them from the utopia. What they are doing is slowing trying to change the national opinion of Texas. They are also encouraging liberals from all over the country to move into Texas.

Make no mistake about it. It's not a laughing matter.

And it's why they want to open up the southern border with "comprehensive immigration reform".

I'd really love it if these libs would grow a set and walk up to any of these high ranking officers in the military and said some of the things that were on their mind. I believe the comebacks from these officers would be priceless.

(11-12-2013 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:41 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  No one cares.

then why was is it front page of the NYT?????

Lol. Methinks you just answered your own question.

so johnnyzerO, you seem to be pretty adept at finding these irrelevant charts and graphs, including those that make it clear they are based on fiction, so how about fniding this one-

How many people does this affect? How many gay, out of the closet, married, military couples are there, that are being denied this special treatment on National Guard bases in the good State of Texas? 4? Perhaps, 5?

Make your case, find some numbers. Is it in the tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps?

Nobody cares. Talk about a naked political agenda.

oh so any perceived civil rights violations is irrelevant because it only happens to a few people? its not 5, the estimation from the article is over 1000.

but regardless of the estimation if its 1, 1000, or 10,000 IT DOES NOT MATTER because there is no excuse for this.

(11-12-2013 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  My problem is this chart is 9 years old.

no your problem is that you dont like what the chart says.

theres very little change in those kinda trends over a single decade

(11-12-2013 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:41 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  No one cares.

then why was is it front page of the NYT?????

Lol. Methinks you just answered your own question.

so johnnyzerO, you seem to be pretty adept at finding these irrelevant charts and graphs, including those that make it clear they are based on fiction, so how about fniding this one-

How many people does this affect? How many gay, out of the closet, married, military couples are there, that are being denied this special treatment on National Guard bases in the good State of Texas? 4? Perhaps, 5?

Make your case, find some numbers. Is it in the tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps?

Nobody cares. Talk about a naked political agenda.

oh so any perceived civil rights violations is irrelevant because it only happens to a few people? its not 5, the estimation from the article is over 1000.

but regardless of the estimation if its 1, 1000, or 10,000 IT DOES NOT MATTER because there is no excuse for this.

Estimation!!! Oh - okay. When the Federal Government uses the IRS to target conservative groups, if it's 1 or 1000 DOES NOT MATTER - except it's okay if it's for what you want. See how that works. I didn't see any threads you created about that issue voicing your indignation - and that was national in scope.

If Texas doesn't recognize same sex marrige - I guess those same sex marriage people can move to a state that does recognize it. Problem solved.

(11-12-2013 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  My problem is this chart is 9 years old.

no your problem is that you dont like what the chart says.

theres very little change in those kinda trends over a single decade

You got a outdated image for that as well? How about one that says: "Not to be used as fact"?

It doesn't matter now what you post, I call BS on everything. I don't care if you tell me the sky is blue, you've proven yourself to be outdated and misinformed.

But since you're so smart, tell me what was that federal money spent on?

(11-12-2013 03:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:41 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  No one cares.

then why was is it front page of the NYT?????

Lol. Methinks you just answered your own question.

so johnnyzerO, you seem to be pretty adept at finding these irrelevant charts and graphs, including those that make it clear they are based on fiction, so how about fniding this one-

How many people does this affect? How many gay, out of the closet, married, military couples are there, that are being denied this special treatment on National Guard bases in the good State of Texas? 4? Perhaps, 5?

Make your case, find some numbers. Is it in the tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps?

Nobody cares. Talk about a naked political agenda.

oh so any perceived civil rights violations is irrelevant because it only happens to a few people? its not 5, the estimation from the article is over 1000.

but regardless of the estimation if its 1, 1000, or 10,000 IT DOES NOT MATTER because there is no excuse for this.

Estimation!!! Oh - okay. When the Federal Government uses the IRS to target conservative groups, if it's 1 or 1000 DOES NOT MATTER - except it's okay if it's for what you want. See how that works. I didn't see any threads you created about that issue voicing your indignation - and that was national in scope.

If Texas doesn't recognize same sex marrige - I guess those same sex marriage people can move to a state that does recognize it. Problem solved.

well no one should be forced to move to another state because their current state govt supports ignorance, bigotry, & hatred.

(11-12-2013 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  My problem is this chart is 9 years old.

no your problem is that you dont like what the chart says.

theres very little change in those kinda trends over a single decade

Really? Spending doesn't change much over a decade huh?

Debt Clock as of 2:30pm CT this afternoon - 17,140,263,700,000
Debt Clock from 2004, same time - 7,392,348,100,000

Less than a decade....just about a 10,000,000,000,000 difference. "Very little change".

(11-12-2013 03:34 PM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  My problem is this chart is 9 years old.

no your problem is that you dont like what the chart says.

theres very little change in those kinda trends over a single decade

Really? Spending doesn't change much over a decade huh?

Debt Clock as of 2:30pm CT this afternoon - 17,140,263,700,000
Debt Clock from 2004, same time - 7,392,348,100,000

Less than a decade....just about a 10,000,000,000,000 difference. "Very little change".

(11-12-2013 03:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:47 AM)john01992 Wrote:  then why was is it front page of the NYT?????

Lol. Methinks you just answered your own question.

so johnnyzerO, you seem to be pretty adept at finding these irrelevant charts and graphs, including those that make it clear they are based on fiction, so how about fniding this one-

How many people does this affect? How many gay, out of the closet, married, military couples are there, that are being denied this special treatment on National Guard bases in the good State of Texas? 4? Perhaps, 5?

Make your case, find some numbers. Is it in the tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps?

Nobody cares. Talk about a naked political agenda.

oh so any perceived civil rights violations is irrelevant because it only happens to a few people? its not 5, the estimation from the article is over 1000.

but regardless of the estimation if its 1, 1000, or 10,000 IT DOES NOT MATTER because there is no excuse for this.

Estimation!!! Oh - okay. When the Federal Government uses the IRS to target conservative groups, if it's 1 or 1000 DOES NOT MATTER - except it's okay if it's for what you want. See how that works. I didn't see any threads you created about that issue voicing your indignation - and that was national in scope.

If Texas doesn't recognize same sex marrige - I guess those same sex marriage people can move to a state that does recognize it. Problem solved.

well no one should be forced to move to another state because their current state govt supports ignorance, bigotry, & hatred.

See, that's just your opinion. I'm sure there plenty of people that don't share your vision of ignorance, bigotry, and hatred. What if others don't believe in same sex marriage - just tough sh!t for them I suppose as long as your vision is met? BTW, I'm all for legal civil unions and believe that governments should stay out of the marriage business all together.......but it IS a state issue.

(11-12-2013 03:30 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  My problem is this chart is 9 years old.

no your problem is that you dont like what the chart says.

theres very little change in those kinda trends over a single decade

You got a outdated image for that as well? How about one that says: "Not to be used as fact"?

It doesn't matter now what you post, I call BS on everything. I don't care if you tell me the sky is blue, you've proven yourself to be outdated and misinformed.

But since you're so smart, tell me what was that federal money spent on?

nah you just dont like hearing the facts. there hasnt exactly been any major population shift or military shift in between 04 & 13

(11-12-2013 03:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:30 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:02 AM)gdunn Wrote:  My problem is this chart is 9 years old.

no your problem is that you dont like what the chart says.

theres very little change in those kinda trends over a single decade

You got a outdated image for that as well? How about one that says: "Not to be used as fact"?

It doesn't matter now what you post, I call BS on everything. I don't care if you tell me the sky is blue, you've proven yourself to be outdated and misinformed.

But since you're so smart, tell me what was that federal money spent on?

nah you just dont like hearing the facts. there hasnt exactly been any major population shift or military shift in between 04 & 13

You got a graph for that?

I don't like facts? Really? You're posting images that are not to be used for fact or are 10 years old. WTF are you smoking?

Tell you what John Boy, go find the data to back up your graph you posted and we'll have a conversation. I promise not to use big words.

(11-12-2013 03:39 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:55 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Lol. Methinks you just answered your own question.

so johnnyzerO, you seem to be pretty adept at finding these irrelevant charts and graphs, including those that make it clear they are based on fiction, so how about fniding this one-

How many people does this affect? How many gay, out of the closet, married, military couples are there, that are being denied this special treatment on National Guard bases in the good State of Texas? 4? Perhaps, 5?

Make your case, find some numbers. Is it in the tens of thousands? Millions, perhaps?

Nobody cares. Talk about a naked political agenda.

oh so any perceived civil rights violations is irrelevant because it only happens to a few people? its not 5, the estimation from the article is over 1000.

but regardless of the estimation if its 1, 1000, or 10,000 IT DOES NOT MATTER because there is no excuse for this.

Estimation!!! Oh - okay. When the Federal Government uses the IRS to target conservative groups, if it's 1 or 1000 DOES NOT MATTER - except it's okay if it's for what you want. See how that works. I didn't see any threads you created about that issue voicing your indignation - and that was national in scope.

If Texas doesn't recognize same sex marrige - I guess those same sex marriage people can move to a state that does recognize it. Problem solved.

well no one should be forced to move to another state because their current state govt supports ignorance, bigotry, & hatred.

See, that's just your opinion. I'm sure there plenty of people that don't share your vision of ignorance, bigotry, and hatred. What if others don't believe in same sex marriage - just tough sh!t for them I suppose as long as your vision is met? BTW, I'm all for legal civil unions and believe that governments should stay out of the marriage business all together.......but it IS a state issue.

sorry but anything thats considered a civil rights issue is a federal issue. thats the same argument southerners used in the 1950s.

you can say you are against civil unions.....however thats the exact same issue here because texas is still trying to make it harder for both civil unions & gay marriage's