TexasCHLforum.com

I saw the debate too. For a while they had a person speaking Spanish over top the candidate's English. It was very hard to understand. Also at the very end, David Dewhurst said his closing remarks and then the audio "went out" on the other three candidates. I also like Jerry alot.

howdy wrote:I saw the debate too. For a while they had a person speaking Spanish over top the candidate's English. It was very hard to understand. Also at the very end, David Dewhurst said his closing remarks and then the audio "went out" on the other three candidates. I also like Jerry alot.

I watched on KERA in DFW and audio was fine. I will vote for Patterson in the primary and in the runoff if he makes it. If the runoff is between Dewhurst and Patrick or Staples I will vote for Dewhurst. Those 2 scare me.

I will never understand why Republicans participate in debates moderated by left wing media nut jobs. They allow themselves to be skewered on gotcha questions and they form a circular firing squad. Why can't they run their own debates and get people like John David Wells or Gary McNamara locally or Hannity, Lou Dobbs, or Dana Perrino nationally. We serve up our best candidtes to be cut up by the enemy and then the candidates act like the Donner Party and scavenge the remains.

Was the debate recorded?

MeMelYup wrote:Was the debate recorded?

http://keranews.org/texas-debates-race- ... t-governor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

paperchunker wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Was the debate recorded?

http://keranews.org/texas-debates-race- ... t-governor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tks. This debate didn't enlighten me enough to make any kind of decision.

MeMelYup wrote:

paperchunker wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Was the debate recorded?

http://keranews.org/texas-debates-race- ... t-governor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tks. This debate didn't enlighten me enough to make any kind of decision.

Their positions are mostly the same. For me it comes down to Campus Carry and Dewhurst has had 8 years. I know Patterson will make it happen. Watching Patrick and Staples attack Dewhurst just reminded what I hate about the way we do debates. Ronald Reagan said the 11th Commandment was to not speak ill of a fellow Republican

Worried about Patterson's endorsement of legalizing marijuana.

paperchunker wrote: I will never understand why Republicans participate in debates moderated by left wing media nut jobs. :

It's KERA, what else is there to say? I watched most of the debate (not REALLY a debate). I was not
overly impressed with any of them. I lean toward Patterson simply because of CHL. However, when
asked a question about CHL, he supported carry anywhere except "bars", and he supported private
property rights to exclude carry. I agree with his stance on private property rights, I disagree on
"bar" carry. I think CHL should be able to carry anywhere a LEO or former LEO can carry. Which
includes 51% locations. Otherwise, his answer to that specific question was very good.

OldGrumpy wrote:Worried about Patterson's endorsement of legalizing marijuana.

I've thought for years that State and Federal Gov'ts should legalize marijuana. They should have it under the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco. And tax it the same also. There are a lot of things we don't know about it and there are some we do. What is the long term effect for smoking it, can it cause lung cancer or throat cancer? Using it in excess does it physically impair you, like alcohol? How much does it take to impair your judgement? They have conducted a test with alcohol and driving where the drivers drank a shot, waited 10 minutes, then drove a car around an obstacle course, waited 10 minutes and did it again, then drank another shot, and repeated the course. Have they done anything like that with marijuana?

MeMelYup wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:Worried about Patterson's endorsement of legalizing marijuana.

I've thought for years that State and Federal Gov'ts should legalize marijuana. They should have it under the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco. And tax it the same also. There are a lot of things we don't know about it and there are some we do. What is the long term effect for smoking it, can it cause lung cancer or throat cancer? Using it in excess does it physically impair you, like alcohol? How much does it take to impair your judgement? They have conducted a test with alcohol and driving where the drivers drank a shot, waited 10 minutes, then drove a car around an obstacle course, waited 10 minutes and did it again, then drank another shot, and repeated the course. Have they done anything like that with marijuana?

I saw many folks during my HS & college days smoke pot, get in a car and drive off. I've also been a passenger
in a vehicle (many, many, many years ago) of someone who'd smoked a doobie. Back then, I wasn't scared, they were not
driving erratically, they weren't speeding, and they were on the correct side of the street heading in the correct direction.
And, I've seen plenty of folks drive drunk. I know folks that have been seriously injured by drunk drivers. There is nothing good to
say about a drunk driver. Drunk drivers kill. In fact, happened this weekend in Dallas. South bound driver in north bound lane.
That said. I personally don't want to be on the road with any impaired driver. Impaired by any substance. Legal or not.
BUT, if I had to pick one or the other..... I'd take the stoner over the drunk any day. Why? The drunk is swerving, driving the
wrong direction, crossing the median, etc etc. The stoner is over in the far right hand lane driving 10mph below the posted limit,
keeping it between the lines and paranoid of the Popo.
I don't smoke, anything. But, if they can work out a way to tax it..... then legalizing pot won't bother me a bit. That's the issue.
How do we tax it?

gemini wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:Worried about Patterson's endorsement of legalizing marijuana.

I've thought for years that State and Federal Gov'ts should legalize marijuana. They should have it under the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco. And tax it the same also. There are a lot of things we don't know about it and there are some we do. What is the long term effect for smoking it, can it cause lung cancer or throat cancer? Using it in excess does it physically impair you, like alcohol? How much does it take to impair your judgement? They have conducted a test with alcohol and driving where the drivers drank a shot, waited 10 minutes, then drove a car around an obstacle course, waited 10 minutes and did it again, then drank another shot, and repeated the course. Have they done anything like that with marijuana?

I saw many folks during my HS & college days smoke pot, get in a car and drive off. I've also been a passenger
in a vehicle (many, many, many years ago) of someone who'd smoked a doobie. Back then, I wasn't scared, they were not
driving erratically, they weren't speeding, and they were on the correct side of the street heading in the correct direction.
And, I've seen plenty of folks drive drunk. I know folks that have been seriously injured by drunk drivers. There is nothing good to
say about a drunk driver. Drunk drivers kill. In fact, happened this weekend in Dallas. South bound driver in north bound lane.
That said. I personally don't want to be on the road with any impaired driver. Impaired by any substance. Legal or not.
BUT, if I had to pick one or the other..... I'd take the stoner over the drunk any day. Why? The drunk is swerving, driving the
wrong direction, crossing the median, etc etc. The stoner is over in the far right hand lane driving 10mph below the posted limit,
keeping it between the lines and paranoid of the Popo.
I don't smoke, anything. But, if they can work out a way to tax it..... then legalizing pot won't bother me a bit. That's the issue.
How do we tax it?

it would surprise most of my friends but I don't have a problem with this either....treat it like alcohol. At the very least let people have it for medical reasons.

OldGrumpy wrote:Worried about Patterson's endorsement of legalizing marijuana.

If you watched it or listen closely he said Medical use of THC. He pointed out that Opiates, Barbiturates, Codeine, and Cocaine are all available for medical purposes. He did not endorse legalizing or decriminalizing recreational use.

I do believe it should be legalized, but Patterson did not endorse it.

paperchunker wrote:

OldGrumpy wrote:Worried about Patterson's endorsement of legalizing marijuana.

If you watched it or listen closely he said Medical use of THC. He pointed out that Opiates, Barbiturates, Codeine, and Cocaine are all available for medical purposes. He did not endorse legalizing or decriminalizing recreational use.

I do believe it should be legalized, but Patterson did not endorse it.

I just finished watching the debate (DVR) and this is also my understanding of Pattersons position. He was the only one to indicate an openness to medical uses, and seemed clear when he said "one joint should not be a felony" (paraphrasing), but was definitely NOT endorsing recreational legalization.

Honestly, I was INCREDIBLY disappointed in this debate. "Let's see who's the most Conservative" does nothing but reinforce to those who might vote Democrat that they are looking at 4 candidates who represent everything the Democrats warn them about. Of course they more or less agree on social issues, so, how about we debate about things more important to centrist and left leaning voters where we have a winning argument against the Democrats... Not one single question on economics.. What a shameful missed opportunity. Way, way, WAAAAAAY too much religion. All 4 are on the same page, why the big shovels? Was the moderator trying to alienate centrist voters and the candidates all too happy to oblige?

Dewhurst.... Time for him to go.

Staples..... Didn't really know much about him beforehand. Came away thinking he was an honest guy who wanted to do good things but overall not impressive.

Patrick... About the only moment he impressed me was in his closing statement where he talked about needing to stop installing Democrats as Chair of so many committees. That was a big score for me... otherwise, I don't think I'd let the man in my house. There's something i don't trust about him. That whole line of questioning about his bankruptcy... he was totally unprepared and gave some terrible responses to what should have been a very easy question.

Patterson.... I generally liked what I heard from him, especially his response on gun rights. Since the others didn't have a chance to comment on this line of questioning I don't know how they would compare, but, give JP two thumbs up on 2A. I liked his comments on amnesty being a 3-tiered problem... the only guy that sold me on the fact that he understands the complexity of solving the issue, and didn't just pander to the "no amnesty" crowd. I think Patterson came off as an honest, thoughtful person, not just a guy aspiring to higher office.

Did Dewhurst really tell a reporter he was leaving government after this next term because he needs to make more money??
I haven't seen that interview yet...
Let's accelerate that timeline, shall we?

If you want t read your way through the debate, here's a good link... Has the hour-long video link here as well.
http://tpr.org/post/recap-immigration-m ... ates-sound" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I met Jerry Patterson at the Candidates Forum in New Braunfels Tuesday night. He appeared in person and was impressive in his performance. I spoke to him afterwards and liked what I saw and heard.

I'm a new guy in Texas politics. The last time I lived here, the Governor was John Connally, so I'm still trying to separate the clowns from the cowboys, so to speak.