Friday Afternoon Rants

I do agree with you on the fact that some of the posters seem to take all of this a little too personal, and end up resorting to name calling and insults. It does not offend me if you disagree with me, nor should it offend anybody else. I have taken in a lot from these blogs, and learned more than a few things I did not know. There are clearly alot of very intelligent people on here with very different points of view. I enjoy the presentation of facts and the discussion that will follow about whether the facts are reliable. I am anxious to follow the links and see the information for myself. That doesnt mean I will agree with you, it just means I can see why you might think that way. There is no reason to disrespect another poster, in the heat of a debate I have caught myself doing it once in a while. However, It wouldnt be truthful if I said I wasnt entertained by the name calling as well. Sometimes its funny, and I dont think I would be nearly as interested in reading all of this if it werent for some of the slams and insults. You may find that wierd, but its like a soap opera that you just cant stop watching, and the knowledge gained is a nice bonus.

seentomuch,

I agree that most of the posts on here are civil and posters are actually sharing information trying convince another poster of their beliefs.

But what I was specifically referring to were the flamers (steffanie and Spectre(G5) are two examples) that only post on here to elicit an angry response.

I ignore them most of the time or turn their vitriol for their fellow man against them, but sometimes I give them the response they are looking for, because I know how much it means to them to cause other posters to blow up. I don't want them getting sad.

I think everyone should refrain from being controversial. Mike care to stop offending anyone?

My grandmother always told me to never argue about politics or religion.

I think you should take your own advice and stop discussing both.

How about college football?

So my ideals are offensive? God bless the United States, where you are free to believe in whatever you want ... as long as it is line with conservatives.

Since you know that I am the Chairman of the Bear Bryant College Football Coach of the year awards do I need to assume that your BCS comment is a direct slam to me???

I was trying to be civil and you have flamed two people in record time.

BTW look at the picture section on the gazette online and you will see the pictures that I have posted over the last two years.

"Should that right not be abridged if people are using guns to stop someones right to live?"

And what about the rights of the overwhelmingly majority of people who don't use guns to end someone's right to live? Also, how does it fit with your later philosophy: "No one, anywhere should ever give up ANY rights to remain safe." How would you determine who is subject to this restriction and how do you enforce it? I believe we have several laws already that deal with this type of restriction on violent crimes involving firearms but I'm just curious if you have a different plan than what we currently have on the books, want increased enforcement of existing laws or some sort of combination of both.

The problem with abridging the 2nd amendment is that even if that right were taken away; people would still use a gun to end another persons right to live. Most of the people commiting this crime do not own the weapon legally. When it comes down to it, there will always be people out there that will step on the constitutional rights of another person, that will never be stopped. And, the bill of rights will always be interpreted differently depending upon the reader to justify their point of view, much like the bible. Every law that is put in place to control guns will only negatively effect the people that own and use them responsibly. Sadly enough this same principle could be true for the attempted protection of other rights as well.

The reason the BCS has not gone to a playoff is interesting and complex. In 2004, a playoff was looming. The NFL players union got involved and said they were going to unionize the college players if the deal got done. The numbers being thrown around were a couple billion dollars a year for the TV deal.

If the players were to be unionized that would mean that every scholarship player would at least be paid. As of 2004, 70 of the 117 Division 1 schools were losing money. If all the scholarship players were paid many Division 1 schools would drop football or have to move to Division 2. As a matter of fact, in 2004, only 4 of the 10 Texas Division 1 schools made money. They were Texas, A&M, Tech and Baylor. TCU, SMU, Rice, UTEP, Houston and North Texas lost money. The concern also arose that if the players were paid, schools would drop scholarships. That made women fearful as the NCAA has a rule that men and womens scholarships have to match.

So, the reason the BCS moved on was the NFL players union. The fear was that if mens football was union then Basketball would also follow. Then the entire system falls apart.

There was an idea thrown around to exclude mens football but that would drop 80 scholarships out of the mix and 80 womens scholarships would be dropped.

I have the data for the Texas schools that I compiled. The data was in 2004.

Stuffany is a woman? I don't believe that. Perhaps she should check one more time just to be sure. Im quite confident that no one else will check for him/her. Stuffany, Stuffany, Stuffany.

Friday Afternoon Rants 5/22: The author states:

"What they forget to mention is that Congress passed and Americans voted into law the 16th Amendment which specifically gives the federal government the right to tax us"

Advocates of Repeal of the 16th haven't forgotten that the Prohibition Amendment, a huge mistake, was repealed some 14 years later through the constitutional process. The 16th Amendment has turned out to be, as the founding fathers predicted, a mistake that would herald the demise of our republic. This repeal would be in line with legal precedent and the wisdom of our founding fathers.

There is a movement to repeal it with the hook being that this July 12th will be the Centennial of the birth of direct income taxation. Advocates can inform themselves of this campaign and sign a new Declaration of Independence at:

http://www.repealincometax.com/DOM/?T=05... .

And here's another point that the website and a lot of these organizers completely miss. Yes Congress did approve the Amendment, but it took 2/3 of the states approving it before it became an Amendment, which means the states (which everyone today seems so worried about states rights all of a sudden) had to pass the amendment.

If you are going to protest the amendment at least give the credit to both the federal and states for passing it. Just simply saying that this is one more thing the federal government has pushed on the states is both disingenuous and an outright lie.