TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:No, it's because they're in bed together on the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Actually, this is what I was referring to earlier, but the TTC thing does not surprise me, and provides more backstory to the Houston Comical account. Thanks for the info.

stevie_d_64 wrote:Look at it this way...Does anyone really believe Gulliani is going to carry Texas in a general election if he is the nominee???

That is a interesting question to consider.

IIRC, Governor Perry is backing Giuliani, because he looked Benito in the eye and saw something there he liked, and . . . Maybe it is the fact they both have Democrat-->Republican . . . transitions. I am not sure how much Perry's endorsement is worth here, as I do not have the same sense of state politics as I believe you may have.

I assume that there are many reflexive red-state Republicans in Texas, and your question seems to suggest that a significant number of these voters may reject Giuliani. I find it difficult to believe they would do an about-face and support Hillary Clinton. I see this subset of voters either abstaining from the ballot box, or choosing "Slow Wheat".

Myself, at this point I expect to be writing-in Ron Paul, and not regretting my decision, because he is the only candidate I know who deserves my vote.

However, I will second Frankie's large diameter plastic pipe idea. We may need it in case large numbers of people are duped into voting for Giuliani (R) or Clinton (D).

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Do you really expect this political crossdresser (among other things!) to continue the pattern you have observed in your statistics?

I think the judges he appoints cannot be worse than what Hillary/Obama would appoint. And they just might be a little better.

"might be a little better" is not good enough for me, and it is not good enough for this country.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And the Slow Wheat candidate isn't going to win no matter what we do or wish for. So if it turns out to be Rudy vs. a Democrat, and people idealistically stay home or vote Slow Wheat, the Democrat will win.

Then we can kiss our gun rights and our free speech rights goodbye.

If people continue to fall for the lesser of two evils schtick (sp?), our country will never reverse its course, and the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments--as well as the money in our pockets--will continue to be trampled upon, until we join ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantium, etc, on history's scrapheap.

I think very poorly of those who stay home in protest or fail to exert what little control they have (their vote) to try to steer this government back to its original purpose of protecting individual life, liberty and property.

Wandering slightly off topic here . . . I will be forthright and say I have given Giuliani the moniker of Benito, as he hearkens back to a 20th century Italian dictator. That said, maybe I have a slow piece of grey matter, or perhaps it is because I do not watch TV very frequently, or maybe because I am not Texan (I came to the Promised Land when the timing was right for me), but I have to enquire where the "Slow Wheat" nick comes from. Could someone (Frankie or anyone else) clue me in on this? Google and Youtube searches turned up nothing.

Thanks!

frankie_the_yankee wrote:As I have shown (earlier in the thread), judges appointed by Democrats in recent times have ruled against our 2A rights 100% of the time. You can't get any worse than that.

If anyone thinks that judges appointed by Rudy would rule against our 2A rights more than 100% of the time, I would be interested to see that analysis.

I am not interested in trying to prove something more than 100% of the time.

Frankie, I will take as a given that you have spent some time calculating the voting percentages of various judges, who appointed them, etc. However, I know a little about Giuliani, his past life as a Democrat in New York City, his prosecutorial thirst for "winning" that is eerily similar to the disgraced Mike Nifong, and his ruthlessness as mayor of New York City. Given these traits, I believe that Giuliani, and those whom Giuliani would appoint, would frequently assault, rule against, etc, our constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, and worse. That Giuliani and his consuls _might_ be a little nicer or hesitate slightly, or allow a 15 round magazine instead of Hillary's proposed 10-round limit (hypothetically speaking here), or go for licensing and registration or a 90 day turn-in period as opposed to Hillary and her minions going for immediate confiscation, does not make Giuliani worthy of my vote. I still cannot vote for such an individual.

Is the man I described above worthy of your vote just because he places the letter R after his name? Do you really expect this political crossdresser (among other things!) to continue the pattern you have observed in your statistics?

It is unfortunate that many people (you are not alone on this, Frankie) get taken by the idea of constantly voting mainstream Republicrat, regardless of the candidate and his character. Voters need to be courageous enough to vote for what they want, not for the steaming trough of slops that they think stinks slightly less than another trough of slops. Otherwise they have no hope of getting what they want via the ballot box, and consequently they have to put up with what they do not want, or worse.

Washington and the other Founding Fathers of the United States warned against "factions" (political parties), and look what a mess the two major parties have made when not faced with credible competition! The ballot access laws (passed by Republicrat-controlled legislatures) play a role with this, but apathetic voters bear a greater responsibility when they do not vote for what they really want, and try to vote for a major candidate "winner".

Frankie, I agree with your assessment of ranking Thompson and Huckabee over Benito Rudy Giuliani in terms of being favorable toward individual firearm ownership. The political records seem pretty clear to me. However, while I consider gun rights very important, it is not the only litmus test that I apply, and these three (along with Romney and pretty much every other Republicrat candidate) fail the rest of my litmus tests. Admittedly I am very selective/picky, but I believe the country would be much better off if we were more selective of who represented us and were less likely to reelect incumbents, rather than simply saying "Oh, he's a [insert political label here], he gets my vote."

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

yerasimos wrote: I will not vote for Benito even if he does get an NRA endorsement. He has not done a single good thing for gun owners, ever, and does not deserve such an endorsement. More importantly, he does not deserve my vote, nor the vote of law-abiding gun owners here, whether in a primary or the general election.

Just be prepared for all of your gun rights to go out the window for the rest of our lifetimes.

'Cause that's what's gonna happen with a federal judiciary filled with Steven Breyer clones.

As if Benito and his ilk will help me keep my gun rights, even if he gets an endorsement (I hope not!) and gets elected over the Hillarybeast?

I do not believe it, and I will not be taken by that scam. I suggest you refuse that rotten carrot, too. Such a Caesar-in-waiting as Benito does not deserve one iota of legitimacy, no one single vote. We deserve better.

srothstein's views closely mirror my own.

If people keep accepting the arguments for holding their noses and voting for "the lesser evil", they should not be surprised when the evil continues, whether under Benito or the Hillarybeast. Benito has provided very carefully parsed and nuanced support for allowing the private ownership of firearms; this support seems highly suceptible to change in the face of public mass shootings, low-level terrorism, or sweet little nothings whispered by his mayoral successor, Michael Bloomberg.

Expecting that he will appoint pro-2A judges is very naive; Benito is a control freak and a prototypical right-wing authoritarian, and I expect he would appoint judges who share his core, dim view of private firearm ownership. Benito's record as a prosecutor and mayor of New York truly bodes doom for the last vestiges of liberty in this nation if he is elected president.

I see no net difference between Benito and the Hillarybeast, when both are inclined to make war upon vague whim, restrict and curtail private firearm ownership and individual civil liberties, and flush more money away on foreign aid.

Neither Benito nor the Hillarybeast deserve to live in this country, let alone pretend to lead it.

I hope that the NRA has the good sense to withhold its endorsement from a candidate who does not deserve it. I will not vote for Benito even if he does get an NRA endorsement. He has not done a single good thing for gun owners, ever, and does not deserve such an endorsement. More importantly, he does not deserve my vote, nor the vote of law-abiding gun owners here, whether in a primary or the general election.