U.S. Representative Michael McCaul
 

Sould not an American loyalty test and IQ test be required of a candidate before the buffoons in TX are allowed to vote someone into Congress?

I don't know if this guy is just so self concerned that he wants to place out soldiers at greater risk or if he's just so stupid but either way people like this should not be allowed on the ballot in TX where we know the average voter is a dolt and would elect Putin if allowed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A350IF20140406

I have so had it with this pathetic tea bag owned by every special interest movement. SCOTUS, the enabler, I might add.

This country is toast.

I think so, Ed.

I posted to the Ft. Hood thread about this 'bagger asshole.

http://politicalchat.org/showpost.ph...2&postcount=39

He even wants all veterans to be able to carry weapons.

You know, all those veterans walking around with PTS or TBI? They really should be armed to the teeth!

John

What can we do John? It's become the old Judgment of Solomon story.

The baggers would rather chop the kid in half than compromise and God forbid live in a new century with the rest of the world!

Ed, If I weren't too old, I'd fucking leave.

And that's not just said for effect. I mean it. This country now frightens and disgusts me.

John

Nah, too many good parts to like NY and CA. ;)

Boston is still my favorite city.

Like I said before in that thread I would have no problem with active duty Military personnel carrying sidearms when in uniform and on duty. The rest of his proposal is bullshit IMO.

;) Yup. We're up in the Santa Cruz mountains this weekend, hanging out in the coastal redwoods. Not a 'bagger in sight. :)

I think, if you took a poll of veterans, most of them would disagree with you, Bob.

John

that's a good day

The name's not Bob, Boraxo.

And I didn't say veterans. I said active duty military, while in uniform and on duty. I don't see it being any different from civilian law enforcement carrying guns.

In fact I'd trust the soldiers with guns more than the cops.

Yeah, well for some reason I thought I was replying to Bob.

I realize that. I mentioned veterans because they represent a larger cohort than do active duty personnel with, in the aggregate, a greater degree of experience, both of life generally and of the military in particular. Clearly, you and I, both veterans, disagree but, having observed your sometimes misdirected or unfocused anger and aggression here, I can see why you hold the opinion you do.

Unless you want to see active duty personnel out on the streets performing the functions of a police department, your comment is totally meaningless. And then there's this little thing called posse comitatus to consider.

This is very simply another to way to promote the concept "good guys with a guns is the answer to bad guys with guns". Basically the gun lobby does not want any sensible conversation regarding gun control, period. Now they have the baggers to carry the message to the voting public and distort the message.

While, why people feel compelled to kill innocent bystanders before they kill themselves is seldom deliberated.

Snark noted.

No, I just trust active duty military more than you do.

I find the idea chilling.

But point ignored.

John

Considering how they are re-programmed and will obey orders blindly the idea scaresa the hell out of me, especially given the leadership. Kent State is still in my mind.

I'm in full agreement here. I'm not that enamored by our young military. Officers only, perhaps, but arming 18 and 19 year olds, active or not, would scare me.