Enough with the talking with your hands; Nancy Pelosi has wore that the hell out.

I completely understand politicians are not actors (Most of them aren't at least) but if your message comes off as phony to me it does at least to some degree affect my opinion of the candidate. Take for example the video I'm adding to this comment, watch the candidate and his unconvincing conversations and horrendous nodding.

Actually, I thought you were asking. lol. One cool thing to note: A couple of years ago when mom, Crystal, and I spent a good deal of time Ghost Hunting we got to investigate the court house and gained access to areas not normally open to the public. One area to note was the roof area; the rafters and support structure were HUGE hand carved wood from massive trees. Honestly, it's more beautiful than the outside of the building.

Oh, no Ryan. I'm not questioning whether it is the courthouse, just noting the similar architecture between the two. Were both designed by the same architect? I have no doubt they're different, but I just noticed some similarities. There are no similarities between Henderson and Kaufman here. I'll show you.
Scroll down the Kaufman Co. website. The old courthouse burnt down and was replaced by some ugly piece of crap.


http://texasescapes.com/CentralTexasTownsNorth/Kaufman-Texa...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/capitolshotsp...

Our election is on August 2nd. That is indeed a picture of Madisonville courthouse which has some rich history from the civil war. I believe it was burned down twice.

That is a little ridiculous. Question? Does the Monroe County Courthouse really look that similar to the Sevier County Courthouse? I was just curious.

The real shame of this is that I can't believe some would need this information so late in order to decide who to vote for. I'm assuming of course that tomorrow is your county's run-off elections. Ours is tomorrow. I'm working at my precinct tomorrow. Go Paul Sadler!!!!!

I was pretty aggravated when I discovered Monroe County, TN election commission didn't think it was important to make a sample ballot available online like they have years prior. In fact their website hadn't be updated since the 2010 election. So I took it upon myself to get a sample ballot and posted it here: http://www.monroevoter.com/2012/07/2012-monroe-county-tennessee-sample-ballot/

I can't imagine I'm the only person irritated about this. Hopefully it will get indexed in Google quick enough to help a few people out who actually want to research who they will be voting for prior to heading to the poll booth. I know I'm dreaming to think large quantities of people care enough to do a little research as opposed to voting down party lines just like Pah did.

Hands down absolutely not. The government already has enough control over a woman's choice in many states. This is such an incredibly bad idea I can't even express it in words. I am in total agreement that a woman should face severe penalties should she use drugs during her pregnancy, but allowing the government to forcibly sterilize women under any circumstance is a clear violation of her rights and would be a slippery slope to travel down. If a non-profit organization chooses to advise and pay willing participants to get their tubes tied then that's great. That is a much more viable alternative to forced sterilization. I am in complete agreement with you Ryan. Wait, what did I just say? LOL.

I'm afraid Ryan I'm not reaching at all. These types of weapons were in fact banned from being carried on their person. This particular tort would actually lead to many "concealed weapon" laws eventually passed in numerous states across the south during the early to mid 1800's. That is that they were in fact banned from being carried. My point is exactly the point that Justice Scalia made which was to say that the government can in fact make certain limitations on weapons without restricting the right of the individual's right to bear arms. Case in fact: The assault weapons ban of 1994. This mandate was constitutional and remained in effect until its expiration in September of 2004. So, let me be clear. ;-P Justice Scalia did in fact state that the right to limit certain weapons is and can be deemed constitutional because it does not interfere wholly with the right to bear arms. It only places a regulation on the right. It does not strip it away entirely. His point earlier about the frighting tort was to explain the legality of placing certain limitations on the right itself as called for during that time, and as recent times may call for further limitations as necessary.

While I'll be the first to admit this is one of those scenarios where the intentions are good but the method the outcome relies on to be reached is the government being given the authority to perform a surgical procedure on a US citizen. Nevermind there could complications with the procedure this would give the government a power I'm VERY uncomfortable with them having. Our government can't be trusted to balance a budget and you want them having the option to force sterilize a woman?

Now, with that being said I'm not against laws imposing STRICT penalties on woman who use drugs during pregnancy. In the event that a baby is born premature due to the drug use and or suffers birth defects, etc.. I would have no problem with laws requiring jail time. If we actually took these horrific failures seriously and had steep penalties I wouldn't be against reduced sentences or fines if the mother agreed to undergoing the procedure mentioned above. This has to be consensual not forced.

I remember seeing a news program covering a non-profit that was paying drug using mothers on the street to get their tubes tied; I support that as well.

I watched the video and let's just say you're reaching a bit on Scalia saying certain weapons were limited. What he actually said was it was a misdemeanor to carry around really horrific weapons just to scare people. Let's understand what you're legally allowed to do with your weapon has been strictly regulated and to some degree it should be. What he didn't say is what illegal to own really horrific weapons.

So let me be clear (Stole that line from Obama), Scalia is speaking of prohibited actions (locations as well) not restricted ownership. Currently I can own an Assault rifle but I can't trot around town with it pointing it at people just to scare them. BIG difference. Only time will tell but I definitely interpreted this interview in a completely different light.

All right. While I found the title of this particular article a little ridiculous concerning Justice Scalia's appearance on FOX today, I am posting it for a good reason. Please watch the video before commenting on it. Basically Scalia admits that while the Second Amendment does give us the right to bear arms it also provides for certain limitations as well. As he expertly explains certain weapons were in fact excluded for various reasons even during the time the Constitution itself was written. Now the question comes as to whether it should now include such arms like "assault rifles", 100+ round clip weapons, etc. He explains that it will be decided, as it should be, on a case by case basis. It is clear that our weaponry has advanced since the times of daggers and muskets. With this technology has come the creation of far more lethal weapons. The question is, at what point do we finally draw the limitation, and say "this is well beyond the scope of hunting or personal protection"? These weapons are far too dangerous and completely unnecessary for the protection of a person or their property. When will we admit that there should be a reasonable limitation for weaponry of this kind in order to better secure the safety of our own citizenry?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-handheld-rocket-launchers-could-be-constitutional/