TexasCHLforum.com

Seems to me that many (though not all) of the folks that have a problem with Sarah Palin have a problem due to what they heard in the "mainstream (leftist) media". Like that idiotic skit from SNL with the "see Russia from my house" thing. Sarah Palin never said that, they just made it up to ridicule her because the left was afraid she would pull a good part of the female vote if they DIDN'T make fun of her. Sarah wouldn't be my first choice for President by any means, but I'm getting sick and tired of made-up mud from little snarky leftist shows. If they want to attack a politician for their RECORD, then go for it. But, I guess that would require EFFORT and also might make the leftists look bad when their own ideas look like mud in comparison.

posse wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Dumb. DUMB. DUMB!!!

What's really dumb is somebody with left wing baggage running for the Republican nomination and not expecting the baggage to weigh them down, ESPECIALLY afterseeing what happened with McCain in 2008.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Sant ... /id/422676

Soon after Romney lost the Florida primary in February 2008, Santorum told radio host Laura Ingraham he was endorsing Romney.

Santorum told Ingraham that Romney is “"a guy who has gone through that pressure cooker, who has developed a passion, who understands why he's a conservative and understands the issues, how they weave together."

Santorum added that conservatives are "about traditional values and a traditional way of American life" and that Mitt Romney "understands that, it's not just in his head anymore, it's in his heart."

Read more on Newsmax.com: Santorum Endorsed Romney in 2008
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

The article goes on to say that, today, Santorum claims that he was lying back then. Conservatives want a liar for president? I don't think so. Either Santorum was speaking the truth back then, and Romney is the best choice; or Santorum was lying back then, and he is morally unqualified to be president. He can't have it both ways.

tommyg wrote:Romney is no rose but he is better than our current Feared leader

yes and if he is chosen to lead the charge...I hope he has a big set of boxing gloves and isn't afraid to use them. bring out the BIG GUNS AND PLAY TO WIN.
McCain simply rolled over and tried to win by being mr. sensitive
I got so disgusted with his lack of doing anything.
He had ample opportunities to beat the dog snot out of obama and instead he rolled over like a dying armadillo on the side of the road

powerboatr wrote:

tommyg wrote:Romney is no rose but he is better than our current Feared leader

yes and if he is chosen to lead the charge...I hope he has a big set of boxing gloves and isn't afraid to use them. bring out the BIG GUNS AND PLAY TO WIN.
McCain simply rolled over and tried to win by being mr. sensitive
I got so disgusted with his lack of doing anything.
He had ample opportunities to beat the dog snot out of obama and instead he rolled over like a dying armadillo on the side of the road

There seems to be a pattern, especially with moderate republicans when it comes to their relationship with the media.

The media is nice to moderates during the primaries, and they start thinking they're buddy/buddy.

Then when the general rolls around and those same reporters who were so friendly in the primaries are busy slitting the republican candidates throat, they act REALLY shocked that the media actually isn't on their side.

Mccain was sincerely hurt and shocked by how the media treated him in the 08 general because he'd always been the medias go to republican. Its truly amazing the self delusion politicians can get into about how loved they are.

I've disagreed with Teddy in the past, and this is another one of those times when I have to disagree. Wasn't his excuse for signing the AWB something along the lines of "Well, it was going to pass anyway"? Do you really want someone who is *that* much of a defeatist protecting your rights? That, coupled with his John Kerry Syndrome removes him from being a viable candidate in my eye.

Obligatory Ron Paul 2012.

Razgriz wrote:I've disagreed with Teddy in the past, and this is another one of those times when I have to disagree. Wasn't his excuse for signing the AWB something along the lines of "Well, it was going to pass anyway"? Do you really want someone who is *that* much of a defeatist protecting your rights? That, coupled with his John Kerry Syndrome removes him from being a viable candidate in my eye.

Obligatory Ron Paul 2012.

I just want to make a couple of simple statements since what you wrote confused me a bit. You do know that the OP was about Ted Nugent, former wild man rocker from Detroit and now vocal firearms and hunting enthusiast, right? I don't remember him signing the AWB in the 90s. And I'm not sure how he has a "John Kerry Syndrome"...like I said, confused.

...all "obligatory", "protest", or "conscience" votes in the 2012 election will be counted in the Obama win column...we are either FOR whoever runs against obama, or we are FOR obama...that's realistically the only thing that's happening...this may be our last chance to restore America to "We, the people"...

speedsix wrote:...all "obligatory", "protest", or "conscience" votes in the 2012 election will be counted in the Obama win column...we are either FOR whoever runs against obama, or we are FOR obama...that's realistically the only thing that's happening...this may be our last chance to restore America to "We, the people"...

THIS is how I see the coming election, 100%.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

speedsix wrote:...all "obligatory", "protest", or "conscience" votes in the 2012 election will be counted in the Obama win column...we are either FOR whoever runs against obama, or we are FOR obama...that's realistically the only thing that's happening...this may be our last chance to restore America to "We, the people"...

THIS is how I see the coming election, 100%.

Yep, this is the bottom line. One or the other, there is no maybe...

Oldgringo wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

speedsix wrote:...all "obligatory", "protest", or "conscience" votes in the 2012 election will be counted in the Obama win column...we are either FOR whoever runs against obama, or we are FOR obama...that's realistically the only thing that's happening...this may be our last chance to restore America to "We, the people"...

THIS is how I see the coming election, 100%.

Yep, this is the bottom line. One or the other, there is no maybe...

I don't care if it is a rock they roll out with a big R painted on it. That is who/what I am voting for. Argue and fight all they want until a winner is posted. Then get behind that individual 100%, or I believe we lose.

DEB wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:

speedsix wrote:...all "obligatory", "protest", or "conscience" votes in the 2012 election will be counted in the Obama win column...we are either FOR whoever runs against obama, or we are FOR obama...that's realistically the only thing that's happening...this may be our last chance to restore America to "We, the people"...

THIS is how I see the coming election, 100%.

Yep, this is the bottom line. One or the other, there is no maybe...

I don't care if it is a rock they roll out with a big R painted on it. That is who/what I am voting for. Argue and fight all they want until a winner is posted. Then get behind that individual 100%, or I believe we lose.

It's a fact!!! We either all come together and vote for the Republican nominee or we suffer four years of an Odumbell that is not concerned with re-election. Give that piece of garbage four more years and as the old saying goes... "You ain't seen nuthin yet!".

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Razgriz wrote:I've disagreed with Teddy in the past, and this is another one of those times when I have to disagree. Wasn't his excuse for signing the AWB something along the lines of "Well, it was going to pass anyway"? Do you really want someone who is *that* much of a defeatist protecting your rights? That, coupled with his John Kerry Syndrome removes him from being a viable candidate in my eye.

Obligatory Ron Paul 2012.

I just want to make a couple of simple statements since what you wrote confused me a bit. You do know that the OP was about Ted Nugent, former wild man rocker from Detroit and now vocal firearms and hunting enthusiast, right? I don't remember him signing the AWB in the 90s. And I'm not sure how he has a "John Kerry Syndrome"...like I said, confused.

He said signed. Legislators don't sign bills so I assumed he was talking about a former governor who has signed antigun legislation in the past. I think one of those former governors was also the subject of the OP.

Oldgringo wrote: with TAM. It seems to me that the Republican candidates are bent not only on suicide but also on genocide.

Rush Limbaugh ain't helping the cause either.... Maybe there's a greater power at work here?

...that's for sure...we either learn to unify behind a solid platform or we'll fail miserably come November...all this backshooting is working for the enemy...but it does keep the "candidates" from having to answer real-issue questions...

Oldgringo wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: with TAM. It seems to me that the Republican candidates are bent not only on suicide but also on genocide.

Rush Limbaugh ain't helping the cause either.... Maybe there's a greater power at work here?

God is punishing America for becoming socialist?