TexasCHLforum.com

JustMe wrote:

OldCannon wrote:
Yes, I will likely "throw away" my vote this year (unless RP is on the ticket), but I won't feel dirty after voting.

You should-because you will be helping to reelect Oboma

RoyGBiv wrote:Romney
Paul
Gingrich
Santorum

I never thought I'd be voting for Ron Paul, but.... the other three are proposing their version of "Business as usual". I can't vote for someone (in the primaries) that's not solidly in favor of wholesale tax law changes and dramatic downsizing of the size and scope of Federal government. By those criteria, Paul stands alone. His isolationist foreign policy scares the pants off of me, but (and I'm clearly grasping/justifying here) perhaps an attemped swing in the other direction (we have definitely been FAR, FAR too interventionist) is a good thing that can be successfully counterbalanced by Congress, Voters and Reality.

Perhaps a strong Paul showing will enable him to push his domestic agenda into the Party platform?
Romney is so completely "more of the same" that it sickens me.

Unbelievable that the GOP can't field a better candidate than this lot.

Paul Ryan
Mike Lee
Marco Rubio
Jim DeMint
Rand Paul
Bueller??

I was going to run, only thing that stopped me was $$$$$ or lack or a billion to win
I dont think we will ever have a working joe anywhere near the top seat
we make to much sense

OldCannon wrote:

JustMe wrote:

OldCannon wrote:
Yes, I will likely "throw away" my vote this year (unless RP is on the ticket), but I won't feel dirty after voting.

You should-because you will be helping to reelect Oboma

I personally do not believe the idea presented in your political cartoon. I don't believe that the folks on the political right care as much about what I am doing in my day-to-day life as the people on the left "care". I think that the evil of the right may lie in some folks caring more about obtaining wealth for its own sake, or what it can buy them, to excess. But, I believe that the evil on the left lies in wanting to run others lives, "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD" (bleeding hearts), or just to have power over others (socialists of one type or another). However, since we do live in Texas and it is still relatively free to have your own opinion here, so be it. I understand that I will not be changing your mind and I'd still like to be able to discuss firearms stuff without any acrimony.

On one final note though, I don't have a problem "decriminalizing" pot, per se. But I do NOT think that it should just be treated as no big deal. The marijuana today is NOT the same plant that the hippies of olden times were puffing on while "fighting the man" and listening to Doors albums. It has been horticultured and engineered to be some very potent stuff, indeed. In addition, and possibly some of the LEO types will back me up on this, it is often laced with other, more dangerous substances. And it would also be a negative to give people the impression that it would be fine to bake their brains and go driving around, etc. since it wouldn't be illegal to use the stuff. I don't care so much what those using that stuff do to themselves, but I do care what it makes them do to others. I'm no fan of drunk drivers, either.

Oldgringo wrote:One thing is for certain, the GOP and the voters must unite behind a real candidate with a platform that we can all support and stop the infighting. Otherwise, there will most assuredly be another four years of the current POTUS and his minions with their 'view of things'.

Please be reminded, Obama was elected in '08 by the folk who did not vote for the Republican candidate.

You know, oldgringo, we don't always see eye-to-eye, but on this one, I certainly won't give you an argument.

Heartland Patriot wrote: I personally do not believe the idea presented in your political cartoon. I don't believe that the folks on the political right care as much about what I am doing in my day-to-day life as the people on the left "care".

Meh. There are some republicans that are very PRO big govt, as long as it supports the same things they do. Heck, look at the SOPA bill..there were an awful lot of Rs on the list of people who wanted to give the fed govt a whole lot of power over the internet.

On one final note though, I don't have a problem "decriminalizing" pot, per se.... The marijuana today is NOT the same plant that the hippies of olden times were puffing on while "fighting the man" and listening to Doors albums. It has been horticultured and engineered to be some very potent stuff, indeed... it is often laced with other, more dangerous substances.

I edited your statement down with "...", so anyone else reading needs to take a look at his full comments. I'm just addressing the stuff I left in.

If pot was decriminalized, people wouldn't be smoking pot laced with dangerous stuff. They'd be growing their own in their backyard or buying from a store that will no doubt become FDA regulated if pot is legalized on a national level. There are certainly valid reasons you can use to argue against legalization....but I don't think fear of it being "laced with stuff" is one of them.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

JustMe wrote:

OldCannon wrote:
Yes, I will likely "throw away" my vote this year (unless RP is on the ticket), but I won't feel dirty after voting.

You should-because you will be helping to reelect Oboma

I personally do not believe the idea presented in your political cartoon. I don't believe that the folks on the political right care as much about what I am doing in my day-to-day life as the people on the left "care". I think that the evil of the right may lie in some folks caring more about obtaining wealth for its own sake, or what it can buy them, to excess. But, I believe that the evil on the left lies in wanting to run others lives, "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD" (bleeding hearts), or just to have power over others (socialists of one type or another). However, since we do live in Texas and it is still relatively free to have your own opinion here, so be it. I understand that I will not be changing your mind and I'd still like to be able to discuss firearms stuff without any acrimony.

I can't speak for OldCannon, but when I say there's no longer a difference between the Right and the Left, I'm referring to the not-quite-fact that both parties are promoting big government (the Left mostly in government health care, and the Right mostly in "enhanced" security). For me, a non-limited government (rather than specific bills or plans) is what I'm trying to avoid, and I can no longer count on the Right to vote against such things. From the standpoint of what I want the government to look like, the Left and the Right are effectively the same for me. Yeah, once you get into the details I'll probably prefer the Right's version of oversized government to the Left's, but their policies will be doomed to failure because they're still approaching everything with the wrong (IMHO) frame of mind. Kinda sorta like you can come up with all kinds of crazy addenda to try to shoehorn Newton's Laws of Motion into reality, but it'll forever be a tangled mess that doesn't quite work right because your policies (the addenda) are built on the incorrect foundation of Newton instead of Einstein.

Dave2 wrote:For me, a non-limited government (rather than specific bills or plans) is what I'm trying to avoid, and I can no longer count on the Right to vote against such things. From the standpoint of what I want the government to look like, the Left and the Right are effectively the same for me. Yeah, once you get into the details I'll probably prefer the Right's version of oversized government to the Left's, but their policies will be doomed to failure because they're still approaching everything with the wrong (IMHO) frame of mind.

Well said. That was precisely my point. I feel that the two parties advocate different kinds of big governments. I agree that I prefer the right and NEVER the left, but what bothers me is that both are ultimately the part of the same machine inside the beltway. I fear, ultimately, that the US's policies will drift more toward China's (i.e., SOPA) and vice versa, until you cannot conceptually tell the difference between the two except in rhetoric. Glacial though the progress may be, you can see the two (sadly) drifting toward the same path. Were we to return to a true system where the federal government existed at the state's pleasure, this conversation wouldn't be taking place, but I don't ever see us going back to that arrangement, and so it is inevitable that a centrally-based government, regardless of party, will constantly maneuver to maintain and expand its power position. That is, sadly, what the cartoon was attempting to illustrate.

Romney
Paul
Gingrich
Santorum

Pretty pathetic IMO....

However, I believe every single one of them would be a FAR better chief executive than the pathetic excuse for an "American" we have in office today. In the end, that's all that really matters.

The policy and courses of action endorsed by the current administration have been proven to fail time and time again, in numerous countries around the world.

IMO, if Obama gets re-elected, which is certainly possible, states might want to start thinking about secession, and forming a new federation that more closely resembles the vision of our founders. As it stands now, the federal government seems to think that the states are supposed to be working for the best interest of the federal government, instead of the other way around.

I guess I really am just a stoopid redneck hick mechanic that don't know a durned thing about nothing...because I'm looking at things such as the extremity of robber baron America (capitalism run amok?), where there might have indeed been a lot of poor folks, but SOMEHOW enough of them managed to succeed anyway and built a successful nation vs. the extremity of the Soviet Union, etc. where "the masses" got taken for a ride to the tune of TENS of MILLIONS of them starved, shot or imprisoned in camps for "re-education"...and I'll take being a poor hillbilly slob working for a rich right winger over being starved to death by some Marxist any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Arguing how things AUGHT to be is really nice and I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards that, but every time I think about what the communists did (and are doing considering N. Korea) to their own people, the current administration scares the everloving bejeebers out of me...and you can tell me I'm crazy or paranoid, but I am convinced they will do as much as they can get away with... the only difference between them and Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Honnecker, Fidel, the NK Kims and a whole host of others is one of DEGREES. THAT is how I view the right and the left, by looking at their worst. And THAT is enough to get me to vote Republican.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I guess I really am just a stoopid redneck hick mechanic that don't know a durned thing about nothing...because I'm looking at things such as the extremity of robber baron America (capitalism run amok?), where there might have indeed been a lot of poor folks, but SOMEHOW enough of them managed to succeed anyway and built a successful nation vs. the extremity of the Soviet Union, etc. where "the masses" got taken for a ride to the tune of TENS of MILLIONS of them starved, shot or imprisoned in camps for "re-education"...and I'll take being a poor hillbilly slob working for a rich right winger over being starved to death by some Marxist any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Arguing how things AUGHT to be is really nice and I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards that, but every time I think about what the communists did (and are doing considering N. Korea) to their own people, the current administration scares the everloving bejeebers out of me...and you can tell me I'm crazy or paranoid, but I am convinced they will do as much as they can get away with... the only difference between them and Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Honnecker, Fidel, the NK Kims and a whole host of others is one of DEGREES. THAT is how I view the right and the left, by looking at their worst. And THAT is enough to get me to vote Republican.

No one was calling anyone dumb...

The left and right of THIS country have certainly changed over the years. The left has gotten closer to the beliefs of totalitarian regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

The right, while still to the right of the leftists...isn't what it used to be. What has historically been the party of personal responsibility and individual freedom has been getting by the last 20 years or so by nominating candidates just to the right of the democrats. Not true conservatives...just to the right IN RELATION TO whoever the left is running.

I by all means agree we need to get Obama out of the white house next election. But when the party establishment really wants to run Romney against him (someone who is pro socialized healthcare, anti gun, pro govt solutions....

It makes it very easy to see the two parties in terms of how FAR left we're going. Obama is a sharp, 90 degree turn left. Too many republican candidates, from HW Bush all the way through Romney, seem to represent merely a SLOWER turn to the left.

And going left is the wrong direction. Period. Doesn't matter how quickly or slowly we do it, the slide towards big govt, totalitarian control seems to have been inevitable no matter who's in charge lately.

Not voting is a vote for Odumbell. That was how he got elected in the first place. To many conservatives refused to vote for McCain.

I am amazed at how many folks are on here think Obama is worse for the nation than Bush (43) was. The difference between the extremes of the left and the right is the difference between hitler and stalin. Yes, I realize that I just brought up hitler, sorry about that.

I will continue to push a 3rd party view. We truly can vote for a good candidate, we don't have to vote for the "bad" candidate that may be able to beat the "worst" candidate.

tallmike wrote:Yes, I realize that I just brought up hitler, sorry about that.

It's ok. Whenever Godwin's Law happens, it's an indicator that the thread is over

03Lightningrocks wrote:Not voting is a vote for Odumbell. That was how he got elected in the first place. To many conservatives refused to vote for McCain.

That is absolutely correct!

Likewise, a "protest" vote for someone who doesn't have a chance is also a vote for the current POTUS. Does the name Ross Perot ring any bells?

74novaman wrote:What has historically been the party of personal responsibility and individual freedom has been getting by the last 20 years or so by nominating candidates just to the right of the democrats. Not true conservatives...just to the right IN RELATION TO whoever the left is running.

Herein lies the (several) problems.
1. Define "true conservative".
If you say one word about religion, or abortion, you've lost me.
IMO, a conservative legislator is a FISCAL conservative. A small government conservative.
Not a "minding my personal business" conservative.
Talk about "personal responsibility and individual freedom" and we're on the same page.

2. How do you get a "personal responsibility and individual freedom" conservative nominated? Elected?

<skipping ahead>

So What are we left with? A choice between more government with a social agenda (the Left) or more government with a social agenda (the Right)?
Epic fail.