We don’t want no stinking compromise

I can count on one hand, the times I've come away from a spirited debate , where I've said, “by golly you're right" and neither has my opponent. I think that's pretty common with online debates because it's mostly about a point and counterpoint with not much in- between. Sometimes it's all about gotcha.The on line debates mimic the "You didn't build that" or "what's in those tax returns,"nonsense.

In my last blog, I should have saved myself a lot of time by simply stating that, we could deal a severe blow to those who want to commit a tragedy like the one in Aurora, Colorado by reinstating the 1994 assault weapon ban. It's very simple logic, if you can't get your hands on it; it lessens the odds on it happening again. The idea of a ban is at the heart of the issue; after 911 when we all submitted to tighter security measures. I would like to think that we would've complied regardless of who was president. A couple of failed bombers forced us to endure more intrusive searches, a longer wait time at airports, and we accepted that some liquids would be denied. We did all this without much fanfare but if a homegrown terrorist commits mass murder with a semiautomatic assault weapon; the gun advocates will ban together to give us their reason on why it's a foolish idea to ban those weapons. They know that the politicians don't have the backbone to step up to the NRA. Therein lies the difference. It's not about the second amendment, the intent of the founders because it's already been proven that we will sacrifice a little freedom, if we think, it'll make us safer. My argument was in the first sentence of this paragraph, and my opponents will go through circles and semi circles in trying to make others think that there're willing to compromise. Truth is, they are scared that the country might want to take their guns away, if they don't take a stance every single time.

I read Jessica Puente's well researched blog asking the question "Why we asked what should happen to the survivors of the Goliad County wreck." Most of the responses were predictable. I understand the journalistic argument. Jessica was trying to make, but it will not penetrate because people had their mind made up before the accident ever happened. Some were trying to humanize the situation and others would have none of it. I've been watching the forum since I left, and I found that articles and blogs were not getting a lot of comments. The minute the subject turned the illegal immigrants; a lot of people came out of the woodwork, and others came out to defend the victims. The America that I grew up in, no matter what state our economy was in, would treat victims of any tragedy despite the circumstances. I trust that our authorities will do the right thing when the survivors recover. There are no laws that say if a person enters this country illegally and gets badly injured, that they will be allowed to remain until after they recover. It's a little premature and out of most people hands but not their mouths, on what will happen to them when they recover. I sincerely doubt that those people posting the hateful comments have read one line of Jessica's article because they are not interested in reading something that is contrary to what they firmly believe.I may be wrong, but I don't think those posters represent the Victoria I grew up in. They're like the Tea Party, small in numbers, but they make a lot of noise.

We could live if those two issues I mentioned remained on the back burner for now but our planet is getting hotter, yet were are not serious enough to try to do anything about it.

Greenland Ice Melt, Measured By NASA Satellites, Reaches Unprecedented Level

Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said, "society will be able to adapt." Huh? You tell that to the farmers who see their crops being ruined by the heat.

We are also discovering just how corrupt Wall Street is, but we have one major party that wants to repeal Dodd-Frank. My favorite is the latest CBO report on the Affordable Health Care Act. "They concluded that with the June United States Supreme Court decision, the law by 2022 would insure three million fewer people resulting in a lower cost of the law by $84 billion, and that a planned repeal by Republicans would add a net $109 billion to the federal budget deficit by 2022." That doesn't matter to the partisan Republicans who still want to repeal Obama Care.

I like to think that I’m a reasonable man, let’s start small by insisting that Speaker Boehner kick Representative Michele Bachmann off the House Intelligence Committee or at least change the name of the committee. Here is another one of her latest stupid remarks.