TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

2up1down wrote:I agree with Mr. Cotton, but refuse to comment due to the troll like behavior of our resident Leftist.

I agree with Charles also, but I'm not going to call loadedliberal a "troll." He contributes far too much to most of the threads here to have that kind of abuse heaped on him. I think he's wrong, but that doesn't make him a troll.

Well said.

7075-T7 wrote:I'm not a fan of either, but I bet the Texas border will be more secure with ol' Perry in office.

Perry generally does what se says he's going to, unlike some others...

...he's been too focused on the Hispanic vote to do a whole lot about securing the Texas border...why would that change??? He's not the best choice...but he may be the best choice we have...

speedsix wrote:

7075-T7 wrote:I'm not a fan of either, but I bet the Texas border will be more secure with ol' Perry in office.

Perry generally does what se says he's going to, unlike some others...

...he's been too focused on the Hispanic vote to do a whole lot about securing the Texas border...why would that change??? He's not the best choice...but he may be the best choice we have...

Well Speedo, 'ol buddy, it sounds like you're suggesting that we must again choose between the lesser of the evils?

...it's been that way for over 2 decades...why change a good thing...OH! THAT'S RIGHT! It IS broke, ain't it!!!

Barring an unprecedented, huge groundswell of support for non-career politicians in every primary around the nation, we will always be faced with politics-as-usual, career politicians. Since by and large we are, collectively, fat and happy citizens, such a groundswell is not likely, and we will thus almost always face a lesser of two evils choice on election day.

...you can chisel that one on the mountain...much to our shame...

speedsix wrote:...he's been too focused on the Hispanic vote to do a whole lot about securing the Texas border...why would that change??? He's not the best choice...but he may be the best choice we have...

Good point.

Gun rights will probably be more secure, I bet ammo would get cheaper

Middle Age Russ wrote:Barring an unprecedented, huge groundswell of support for non-career politicians in every primary around the nation, we will always be faced with politics-as-usual, career politicians. Since by and large we are, collectively, fat and happy citizens, such a groundswell is not likely, and we will thus almost always face a lesser of two evils choice on election day.

Isn't that pretty much what happened in 2008? Worked out well, didn't it...

7075-T7 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...he's been too focused on the Hispanic vote to do a whole lot about securing the Texas border...why would that change??? He's not the best choice...but he may be the best choice we have...

Good point.

Gun rights will probably be more secure, I bet ammo would get cheaper

...hope so, cause if we don't get some relief, we're gonna need a lot more...

Isn't that pretty much what happened in 2008? Worked out well, didn't it...

Not sure I'd characterize Mr. Obama as a non-career politician. Please refresh my memory... what gainful, productive employment -- not paid for by taxpayers -- has he held?

At any rate and to answer your question, it is not working out well from my perspective. Then again, I didn't think it would.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

Isn't that pretty much what happened in 2008? Worked out well, didn't it...

Not sure I'd characterize Mr. Obama as a non-career politician. Please refresh my memory... what gainful, productive employment -- not paid for by taxpayers -- has he held?

At any rate and to answer your question, it is not working out well from my perspective. Then again, I didn't think it would.

If I'm not mistaken, It was his first term in congress, and he spent most of it running for president. Seems to me it would have to BE his career, before he could be a career politician. Prior to that, I guess his career was "community organizer".

Sounds like you have the same difficulty I do in articulating what Mr. Obama has done that is gainful, productive and not at the taxpayers' expense. Therefore, and because of his Chicago political machine connections, he gets lumped in with career politicians in my view.

Middle Age Russ wrote:

Isn't that pretty much what happened in 2008? Worked out well, didn't it...

Not sure I'd characterize Mr. Obama as a non-career politician. Please refresh my memory... what gainful, productive employment -- not paid for by taxpayers -- has he held?

At any rate and to answer your question, it is not working out well from my perspective. Then again, I didn't think it would.

As far as I know, he was a lawyer then was in the Illinois state house for a couple years before he ran for Senate. Rick Perry by contrast has spent nearly his entire working life in politics, his record is much better than Obamas though.

...I wish I could be so optimistic...did you hear him in the gubernatorial debates?...time will tell...

As far as I know, he was a lawyer then was in the Illinois state house for a couple years before he ran for Senate.

That is my recollection as well. Seems that Mr. Obama chose politics as a career after his lawyer/community organizing days, becoming part of the political machine in Chicago.

The problem I have with "career politicians" stems from how they have changed the legislative process from its original intent to what we have now. Very few bills are ever introduced that are not significantly changed, often in completely incongruous ways, before being voted on. This -- and a lack of term limits -- has led to "pork-barrel" politics, producing the present overwhelming Federal bureaucracies, the ever-more overwhelming Federal debt and the current economic crisis.