TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Razgriz wrote:

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.

I was referring to Mitt, the guy Teddy endorsed apparently.

In Romney's defense:
You do realize, don't you, that he was a republican governor (the first in decades) who had to contend with something like an 80% democrat majority in his state's legislature? ANY bill they passed and sent to his desk, they had enough votes to override his veto, regardless of his own views in the matter. When the MA state legislature decided to take up an AWB, Romney had exactly two choices available to him: 1) veto it, and have it rammed down his executive throat by an overwhelming legislative vote; or 2) try to have some sort of influence on it, assuming that it was going to pass anyway—hoping to modify its toxicity some small amount. In case you haven't figured it out, #2 is the responsible thing for a republican governor of overwhelmingly liberal democrat Massachusetts to do. Romney did the responsible thing. By abating the bill's toxicity some small amount through getting an amendment included which simplified things for MA CCW holders, Romney did the responsible thing. That is the unvarnished truth....but in your eyes he's a defeatist because he didn't take his toys and go home? I think you have it exactly backwards. Taking your toys and going home is the defeatist thing to do.

Committed Ronulans aren't interested in responsibility. They are interested only in bomb throwing, and then taking their toys and going home. They don't have the stomach for grown up politics. Romney has the stomach for that. We can all cry and wail about how ungentlemanly and crass one has to be to play successfully at hardball politics, but that doesn't change the reality that it is, for better or for worse, a blood sport. I would love it if all politicians had the personal integrity and love of freedom that the Founders possessed.....but they don't, and that is just a FACT that has to be dealt with. Self-righteous indignation about honor isn't going to cleanup American politics anymore than increasingly restrictive NASCAR rules are going to stop raceteam crewchiefs from finding ways to beat them. It isn't right, but that is the reality of the situation. Intellectual honesty should compel Ron Paul and his supporters to transfer their allegiance to the Libertarian party—which is where their sentiments more properly reside. Instead, they choose the spoiler role within the republican party which will guarantee Obama's reelection. And you call that being responsible? Please. How can you accuse Romney of defeatism, when your very own tactics and your failure to give due consideration to context are what is going to lead to a defeat for any kind of conservatism?

I dearly love the U.S. Constitution and hold it to be a sacred document. I never served in the military, so I never formally took that oath to protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic; but I carry that oath every day in my heart and, at just shy of 60 years old, I would gladly give up my life to protect it. But that said, only a fool would refuse to play the game the way it is currently being played in this day and age if he/she were going to run for public office. Taking your toys and going home IS NOT GOING TO STOP the other side from trampling all over the Constitution at every opportunity.

If that is the hand you've been dealt as an elected executive—and that happens to be exactly the hand that Romney was dealt as the republican governor of overwhelmingly democrat Massachusetts—and you don't have enough legislative support to thwart leftist attempts to subvert the Constitution, then the only responsible thing you can do is to try and modify the toxicity of their actions to the best of your ability. Refusing to play and taking your toys and going home is childish. If Romney had vetoed that AWB, it would have passed over his veto without the amendment to somewhat ease up on CCW holders, and MA gun laws would have been even more restrictive than they currently are. So when political naifs refuse to stare truth in the face and accept it for what it is, and instead keep trying to pin the MA AWB on a former governor who did the only responsible thing he could do, who is telling lies now? Acting responsibly in office takes a bigger pair than most after-the-fact critics possess, and sniping from behind trees is easy when one never has to consider the implications of refusing one's duty. Put yourself in Romney's shoes as MA governor........what would you have done? Refuse to sign the bill, refused to try and modify its toxicity, and had it rammed down your throat to preserve your precious honor? Placed a bigger burden on MA residents for the sake of your precious honor? If your answer is "yes," then please don't ever run for public office. You're not ready for that kind of trust from the voters yet.

Is Romney the perfect candidate for me? No, he isn't. I agree with him when he says that healthcare reform is not a federal issue, but I completely disagree with him if he means that to say that states have the right to force citizens to enter the stream of commerce for a product simply because they are breathing and have a pulse. NO government at any level should have that much power over the individual. However, if he is true to his word, then he will at least act to dismantle Obamacare at the federal level, and we all currently reside in a state where something like what MA has can never be passed. If Californians want to place that burden on themselves, that's fine. Those useful idiots deserve whatever they do to themselves. As long as Romney stays true to his word about Obamacare, then I am happy to vote for him.

So in response to your "obligatory Ron Paul 2012" remark, your refusal to take context into account is no different than when someone quotes the Bible out of context to deceive someone else into accepting an erroneous supposition about Christian faith. As I observe my country's political landscape, my personal political convictions become progressively more libertarian (small "l"), and in a perfect world I would be your natural ally. But I could never find a home in the Libertarian party because of Ron Paul's (and his followers') poisonous effect on republican politics. If he and his more virulent followers represent the face of American libertarianism, then I find that lack of intellectual honesty and the refusal to allow for context to be something with which I cannot in good conscience associate myself. Love her or hate her, at least Ayn Rand had to intellectual courage to lay her cards on the table and she was unflinchingly honest about what that meant in the greater scheme of things; and it was for you or me to decide whether to accept or reject that world view.........but she was never deceptive about what she stood for. In contrast, I find the Ron Paul camp to be either deliberately deceptive, or politically naive. Take your pick. I haven't decided for sure which it is, but in either case that is not something I want any part of.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Razgriz wrote:

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.

I was referring to Mitt, the guy Teddy endorsed apparently.

In Romney's defense:
You do realize, don't you, that he was a republican governor (the first in decades) who had to contend with something like an 80% democrat majority in his state's legislature? ANY bill they passed and sent to his desk, they had enough votes to override his veto, regardless of his own views in the matter. When the MA state legislature decided to take up an AWB, Romney had exactly two choices available to him: 1) veto it, and have it rammed down his executive throat by an overwhelming legislative vote; or 2) try to have some sort of influence on it, assuming that it was going to pass anyway—hoping to modify its toxicity some small amount. In case you haven't figured it out, #2 is the responsible thing for a republican governor of overwhelmingly liberal democrat Massachusetts to do. Romney did the responsible thing. By abating the bill's toxicity some small amount through getting an amendment included which simplified things for MA CCW holders, Romney did the responsible thing. That is the unvarnished truth....but in your eyes he's a defeatist because he didn't take his toys and go home? I think you have it exactly backwards. Taking your toys and going home is the defeatist thing to do.

Committed Ronulans aren't interested in responsibility. They are interested only in bomb throwing, and then taking their toys and going home. They don't have the stomach for grown up politics. Romney has the stomach for that. We can all cry and wail about how ungentlemanly and crass one has to be to play successfully at hardball politics, but that doesn't change the reality that it is, for better or for worse, a blood sport. I would love it if all politicians had the personal integrity and love of freedom that the Founders possessed.....but they don't, and that is just a FACT that has to be dealt with. Self-righteous indignation about honor isn't going to cleanup American politics anymore than increasingly restrictive NASCAR rules are going to stop raceteam crewchiefs from finding ways to beat them. It isn't right, but that is the reality of the situation. Intellectual honesty should compel Ron Paul and his supporters to transfer their allegiance to the Libertarian party—which is where their sentiments more properly reside. Instead, they choose the spoiler role within the republican party which will guarantee Obama's reelection. And you call that being responsible? Please. How can you accuse Romney of defeatism, when your very own tactics and your failure to give due consideration to context are what is going to lead to a defeat for any kind of conservatism?

I dearly love the U.S. Constitution and hold it to be a sacred document. I never served in the military, so I never formally took that oath to protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic; but I carry that oath every day in my heart and, at just shy of 60 years old, I would gladly give up my life to protect it. But that said, only a fool would refuse to play the game the way it is currently being played in this day and age if he/she were going to run for public office. Taking your toys and going home IS NOT GOING TO STOP the other side from trampling all over the Constitution at every opportunity.

If that is the hand you've been dealt as an elected executive—and that happens to be exactly the hand that Romney was dealt as the republican governor of overwhelmingly democrat Massachusetts—and you don't have enough legislative support to thwart leftist attempts to subvert the Constitution, then the only responsible thing you can do is to try and modify the toxicity of their actions to the best of your ability. Refusing to play and taking your toys and going home is childish. If Romney had vetoed that AWB, it would have passed over his veto without the amendment to somewhat ease up on CCW holders, and MA gun laws would have been even more restrictive than they currently are. So when political naifs refuse to stare truth in the face and accept it for what it is, and instead keep trying to pin the MA AWB on a former governor who did the only responsible thing he could do, who is telling lies now? Acting responsibly in office takes a bigger pair than most after-the-fact critics possess, and sniping from behind trees is easy when one never has to consider the implications of refusing one's duty. Put yourself in Romney's shoes as MA governor........what would you have done? Refuse to sign the bill, refused to try and modify its toxicity, and had it rammed down your throat to preserve your precious honor? Placed a bigger burden on MA residents for the sake of your precious honor? If your answer is "yes," then please don't ever run for public office. You're not ready for that kind of trust from the voters yet.

Is Romney the perfect candidate for me? No, he isn't. I agree with him when he says that healthcare reform is not a federal issue, but I completely disagree with him if he means that to say that states have the right to force citizens to enter the stream of commerce for a product simply because they are breathing and have a pulse. NO government at any level should have that much power over the individual. However, if he is true to his word, then he will at least act to dismantle Obamacare at the federal level, and we all currently reside in a state where something like what MA has can never be passed. If Californians want to place that burden on themselves, that's fine. Those useful idiots deserve whatever they do to themselves. As long as Romney stays true to his word about Obamacare, then I am happy to vote for him.

So in response to your "obligatory Ron Paul 2012" remark, your refusal to take context into account is no different than when someone quotes the Bible out of context to deceive someone else into accepting an erroneous supposition about Christian faith. As I observe my country's political landscape, my personal political convictions become progressively more libertarian (small "l"), and in a perfect world I would be your natural ally. But I could never find a home in the Libertarian party because of Ron Paul's (and his followers') poisonous effect on republican politics. If he and his more virulent followers represent the face of American libertarianism, then I find that lack of intellectual honesty and the refusal to allow for context to be something with which I cannot in good conscience associate myself. Love her or hate her, at least Ayn Rand had to intellectual courage to lay her cards on the table and she was unflinchingly honest about what that meant in the greater scheme of things; and it was for you or me to decide whether to accept or reject that world view.........but she was never deceptive about what she stood for. In contrast, I find the Ron Paul camp to be either deliberately deceptive, or politically naive. Take your pick. I haven't decided for sure which it is, but in either case that is not something I want any part of.

TeXJ wrote:Very well written! If only I could "share" this on Facebook lol

Oldgringo wrote:Who is Uncle Ted? Inquiring minds....?