TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not pointing to any particular Member, but if the snide personal remarks don't stop now, this thread will be locked.

Chas.

smoothoperator wrote:Also to blame are the people who won't vote for friends of the Constitution "because they can't win" in a circular argument that would be very familiar to Captain John Yossarian.

Please identify these "friends" these candidates?

Chas.

recaffeination wrote:I suppose it depends whether you think a conservative is someone who supports small government in compliance with the constitution or if you think a conservative is a person of faith who supports big government to impose his beliefs on others through blue laws, punitive taxation on "sin" and so on.

You can define "conservative" in this manner only for yourself. That's not my definition of "conservative" nor is it a definition I've heard from anyone else. It appears you are either a Libertarian, or have Libertarian leanings. If so, why not just say that instead of trying to redefine the term "conservative" that has pretty much a nationwide connotation that isn't remotely close to what you describe?

For decades, a "conservative" has been recognized as someone who supports smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, minimal social programs, strong national defense, strong enforcement of immigration laws, as well as laws, policies and norms that adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian values (a/k/a "family values"). Liberals have been recognized as people who support larger government with greater control over our lives, higher taxes, large (ever-growing) social programs, and laws that restrict or require all manner of actions by citizens. Only in recent years have liberals chosen to abandon Judeo-Christian values and allow an "anything goes" attitude on some but not all social issues.

Just as anti-gun advocates stopped using the term "gun-control" in favor of "gun safety" to hide their true agenda, liberals have come to realize that the terms "liberal" and "liberalism" have become ugly words to most Americans, so they created the euphemism "progressives." That's like a 300 lb. man trying to hide behind a twig. They can wear any name badge they wish, but when they open their mouths liberalism spews forth. Libertarians now claim to be the only "true conservatives" where once they proudly claimed to be neither liberal nor conservative, but something entirely different. Well, their version of "different" didn't sell very well, so they followed the lead of liberals. While Libertarians didn't come up with a new word as did liberals, they chose to redefine "conservative" to fit their platform and beliefs. That hasn't worked either and it never will.

I earlier said the Libertarian Party Platform was a mixture of both ultraconservative and ultraliberal planks. I misspoke. The Libertarian Platform is ultraliberal on social issues, but anarchist on most other issues, with only a few planks that traditional conservatives would recognize or support. Trying to call this any form of "conservatism" is just as poor camouflage as liberals calling themselves "progressives" or Sarah Brady talking about gun safety. https://www.lp.org/files/LP%20Platform%202012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (If you read it, read all of it.)

It has been my experience that a shocking percentage of strong Libertarians, including those who are the most ardent Ron Paul supporters, don't know what the Libertarian Party Platform contains. That's both sad and scary. Those that do know what the Platform contains try to ignore the utterly absurd positions stated by pointing to one or two social issues like same-sex marriage and say "it's none of the government's business." Have a look at what the Libertarian Party really wants and keep a running scoresheet of what is liberal, conservative and anarchist.

I know it's coming so I'll head it off now. I don't like some of what the Republican Party has done or allowed to happen, but the answer is to elect Tea Party Republicans. These candidates are winning and their impact is already beginning to be felt in Washington and in Austin. It's not an overnight fix, but it will work if people start supporting these true conservatives.

Chas.

tbrown wrote:

P.S.: Stop the condescending statements.

Good advice. Romney's supporters would have won over a lot more conservatives if they followed this strategy.

Romney supporters are conservatives and the only fellow conservatives I know who are not going to vote for him are few in number. I don't consider Ron Paul supporters conservatives; they tend to be Libertarians who cannot be classified as conservatives or liberals because the Libertarian Party Platform is both ultraconservative and ultraliberal, depending upon the issue.

Chas.

hillfighter wrote:A vote against Obama is a vote against Obama. Denying that simple truth wins neither debates nor hearts & minds.

Now you are changing the focus, but the reason is obvious. First you erroneously stated "A third party vote is the strongest possible vote against the status quo." This was shown to be utterly absurd, as the only way to change the status quo is for someone to get enough votes to defeat Obama in November. The only person who can do this is Romney. You know this, but you try to avoid the truth with quaint buzz words and phrases.

Now you set a much lower standard for yourself by stating the obvious -- "A vote against Obama is a vote against Obama." Now that's a revelation! I don't care about the number of votes against Obama; I care about him losing the election and only votes for Romney will achieve that result.

Chas.

P.S.: Stop the condescending statements.

hillfighter wrote:A third party vote is the strongest possible vote against the status quo. That's the truth no matter how much some people try to confuse the issue with guilt trips and double talk.

John 8:32

There's no confusion. The status quo is Obama in the White House. A vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote to leave Obama in the White House, that is, to maintain the status quo.

As for double talk, your citation John 8:32 is misplaced. The entire words of Jesus are "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." He was talking about Himself, not "truth" in general.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tallmike wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Well tell us; do you support Obama?

Nope

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Oh, I can't wait to read the answer to this one, although I think we all know what's coming. Since it is "silly" to say it's a 2 man race, who, pray tell, is the 3rd person with a chance to win?

The Republican convention has started and we're still waiting to learn the identity of this viable 3rd candidate. Did I miss your answer?

Chas.

tallmike wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Well tell us; do you support Obama?

Nope

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

No, it is not a 2 man race. That is a silly thing to say.

Oh, I can't wait to read the answer to this one, although I think we all know what's coming. Since it is "silly" to say it's a 2 man race, who, pray tell, is the 3rd person with a chance to win?

tallmike wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What arrogance! Yes, I want a good President and the sad fact is that in my 62 years the Democrats haven't produced a single one, not one. (Don't try throwing JFK out there either, I was alive when he was President and none of his publicity was accurate. Had he not been assassinated in 1963, he would have lost the election in 1964 and he would have faded into obscurity and been forgotten like Grover Cleveland.) So the chance of having a "good" President are far better with a Republican than a Democrat.

And in my 37 years neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have produced any stellar presidents, but I think Clinton was pretty good.

What I remember of Reagan was not impressive, but most of what I remember was from the Iran/Contra trials so its not a great assessment.

Let's see, you were 5 or 6 years old when Reagan was elected and 13 or 14 years old when he left office. Unless you were unusually interested in politics at a very early age (I was), then I suspect I see why you don't remember much about the greatest President in the history of our country. If all you can remember is Iran-Contra, then you don't know anything. Carter gave the U.S. something the so-called experts said was impossible -- inflation and recession at the same time. He gutted the U.S. economy, U.S. intelligence capability, and respect for the U.S. worldwide in less than his one 4-year term. This is what Reagan inherited. What did he give us in return? He gave us a strong economy (because supply-side economics does work), a strong military (enough to bring about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991), worldwide respect for the power and will of the American people (because they know gutless, cowardly Democrats no longer controlled U.S. foreign policy), and pride in being an American.

tallmike wrote:George HW Bush was nothing exciting. The economy wasn't great and Desert Shield/Storm could definitely have been handled much better.

The economy absolutely was great!. However, it was the result of Reagan's supply-side economics, not anything H.W. did himself.

tallmike wrote:Clinton passed welfare reform, presided over a great economy with a balanced budget, and he didn't commit many US troops to crap around the world that was none of our business. He was an idiot with his personal life though and let that get in the way. He was also a fool for bothering to answer any questions about his personal life to congress.

Others have already debunked your false claims about Clinton passing welfare reform. Also as they noted, he enjoyed the benefits of Reagan's supply-side economics, so I'll turn to your apparent lack of interest in moral character. Clinton was an amoral low-life who had no business being elected to city council, much less President of the United States. Lying under oath (deposition) is perjury, a crime, for which people all too seldom actually spend time in jail. He played word games with the definition of the word "is" and as a 49 year old President, abused his position of power and authority to engage in sexual activities in the White House with a 22 year old girl (a "kid" in my opinion) who was awestruck at being the focus of attention by the most powerful man in the world. He then abused his power and position again to get every major television and radio network to give him free airtime to lie to every single American by claiming that he "never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Had Monica not saved the famous/infamous dress, Clinton would never have admitted the truth. When faced with indisputable physical evidence, he lied again by claiming what he did didn't constitute "sex."

Obviously, this doesn't matter to you, but it matters a great deal to me and many others. The real irony is that, unless I'm really missing the mark on who you claim is a viable 3rd person in the Presidential race, you are going to claim you support him because he has character. I can only presume that your definition of "character" and mine are markedly different.

tallmike wrote:George W Bush was a horrible president. For the economy and for the rights of US citizens he was a train wreck...

"W" did some things I don't like, like sign (but not pass) the Patriot Act. I wish we had simply destroyed Iraq and left, but to call him a train wreck is typical Ron Paul and/or Democrat garbage. The war ruined the economy, but the war was necessary. In my view, it could have and should have ended earlier, but I have to admit that if we had left it a smoking hole like I supported, then we'd be back again in a few years because Iran would have taken it over.

Chas.

tallmike wrote:Its a little sad how everyone assumes I am an Obama supporter just because I am not a Romney supporter.

Well tell us; do you support Obama?

tallmike wrote:It wasn't that long ago that most of you were pretty firmly anti-Romney too.

If by "anti" you mean he wasn't a first choice, then I agree with your statement. But now it a two-man race so everyone is either anti-Romney or anti-Obama.

tallmike wrote:And, if Romney had released his tax records but Obama refused would you all still be saying that it wasn't important? Nope, you would probably be piling on with your partisan politics.

You are dead wrong. I've opposed releasing tax returns for years. As I said earlier, it not relevant and all it does is provide Democrats the opportunity to use it in "greedy white man" attacks.

tallmike wrote:Many of you don't care about picking a good president you care about picking a president with an R next to his name, even if the R stands for RINO.

What arrogance! Yes, I want a good President and the sad fact is that in my 62 years the Democrats haven't produced a single one, not one. (Don't try throwing JFK out there either, I was alive when he was President and none of his publicity was accurate. Had he not been assassinated in 1963, he would have lost the election in 1964 and he would have faded into obscurity and been forgotten like Grover Cleveland.) So the chance of having a "good" President are far better with a Republican than a Democrat.

Chas.

I don't know who was the first politician to publish their tax returns, but he/she was an idiot. Tax returns are not relevant to a person's qualifications for the job, they only provide fodder for more negative campaigning.

Chas.