TexasCHLforum.com

RCP

Yep, I forsee another 4 years of Obama. We have people mad at Ron Paul for running as a Republican but it's perfectly acceptable for RINO's such as Gingrich or Romney to do so. We have Romney who supported and signed an AWB and modeled what is now Obamacare. Then we have Gingrich who supports an individual mandate, supports amnesty for illegals, attacks capitalism, and now is going to balance the budget and fix our debt crisis while at the same time promising to colonize the moon. And they say Ron Paul is nuts!

RCP

“I don’t think any candidate perverting the process in that fashion helps [the caucuses] in any way,” said Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen,

While there’s no evidence of an organized effort, public polling shows that Paul’s lead is built in large part with the support of non-Republicans – and few party veterans think such voters would stick with the GOP in November.

“They’ll all go back and vote for Obama,” predicted Beach.

Sounds like a bunch of bull to try and marginalize Ron Paul however they can EVEN if he wins Iowa to me. As I have underlined there is no evidence of any of that!

The argument being made is that the Iowa Caucus is meaningless because a bunch of "Paulbots" and Liberals will show up and hold their hands up to be counted? Can someone explain to me why that couldn't be a possibility in other States or with other candidates? If Gingrich wins in Georgia, how do we not know that the Liberals didn't jump parties to vote there?

Why are we being forced to try and believe that the world is full of a bunch of Democrats who are voting for Republicans to make it easier for Obama to get elected?

RCP

I don't like anything about Obama. I fear another Obama term in office. The media made an issue of GWB being divisive, but Obama is probably the most divisive president in history, and it's a deliberate strategy. I've become a one issue voter, an issue that is dear to me, but also I believe an indicator of moral judgement at the most fundamental level: the right to self-defense, from which follows, the right to own guns for a variety of purposes, the foremost of which is self-defense. Anyone who doesn't believe an individual has this right is a collectivist, and I consider collectivists to be my enemies. I know where Obama stands on this regardless of any media baloney to the contrary. The only question to me then is whether Newt sincerely believes in the right to self-defense and gun ownership. If he does, he will be a better choice than Obama, if he doesn't but still maintains the pretense without damaging gun rights then I guess he'll still be better --but if it's a pretense that he sheds for political reasons and facilitates a loss of gun rights, then I won't be able to see him as having been a better choice. I know Obama is anti-gun, I don't think Newt is, at least to the same degree, but I don't really know what his position is, and I fear he is one of these fine double barrel shotgun Republicans who don't see why anyone would need an "assault" rifle or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2007/04 ... et_it.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Look, I think we ought to draw a clear distinction about a whole range of weapons that are explicitly military, and I have no interest in arguing or defending the right of people to randomly hold weapons that are that extraordinary, except under very, very unique circumstances."- Newt Gingrich 2007

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 3 matches

Re: I'm calling it: Gingrich/Rice in 2012

Re: I'm calling it: Gingrich/Rice in 2012

Re: I'm calling it: Gingrich/Rice in 2012