TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:/rant on

I personally prefer more of a tit-for-tat approach to Military forces overseas and the issue of Foreign Aid.

The US offers Foreign Aid only to countries that somehow "aid" us in return. We do not give any Foreign Aid to countries unilaterally. I do not believe in Tax-payer funded Altruism.

If a nation wants our forces on its soil and pays to keep them there (example: Japan), we do it. It gives us Strategic options, different venues for training and the ability to interact with Allied forces.

Get out and stay out of anyplace else.

If we get attacked. We retaliate hard. If bad guys hide behind someone's Burkha, hammer that Burkha along with the bad guy. It is my belief that if a country is going to tolerate/harbor/provide succor for an enemy than that country is also an enemy. Collateral damage and innocent civilians are a casualty of war. Believe you me if a country got the idea that they would suffer brutal and precise attacks for tolerating bad folks in their country that attack us, that country would do one of two things: Attack us, or evict the bad guys. Either way, we know what we are facing.

/rant off

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-n ... gun-owners

Although I seriously don't think "The Donald" will actually run, he's been quite the media darling with his
on-air comments and his current 1st place ranking (among prospective Rep candidates).

He has one of those rare NYC CHL's, but is in favor of bringing back the assault weapons ban, and for
having a waiting period for firearms purchases. He trusts himself, but not other law-abiding gun owners.

If he did run, and he did win, the US could be looking at multiple First Ladies during his tenure. :-)

SIA