TexasCHLforum.com

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and they are free to act on those beliefs however they choose, as long as they don't harm anyone or infringe on the rights of others. Period. That should be the standard that we hold everyone to, whether they share our beliefs or not.

I'm not in favor of anyone trying to force others to believe as they think people should believe. We see this from all sides of the spectrum, but mostly from the left. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is morally wrong, by definition. It is really a child-like state of mind, where they refuse to even acknowledge and consider opposing viewpoints. This is then extended to trying to shut down the expression of any ideas one finds "offensive", just like a child might stick their fingers in their ears and throw a tantrum when faced with words they don't like. In the real world, we have to accept that other people have different ideas, even some ideas that might "offend" us. We don't get to force them to our view of the world. And we don't get to shout them down or use violence to intimidate them into silence. We have to be adults, and realize that words are just words. Even words we disagree with.

This is what the left does not understand. They are stuck in a child like state where someone must protect them from any harm, including the "harm" of being offended by opposing ideas. They refuse to view the world as adults, because doing so would mean that they would have to face the reality that everyone is responsible for their own well being. As adults, we should not look to others to take care of our every need and to keep us safe from all possible harm.

jason812 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:51 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:43 am Lots of discussion about why to vote for someone or why not to vote for someone. The primary focus of this forum is firearms. The primary focus of how I vote is firearms, specifically if a candidate is pro-or-anti Second Amendment, and not simply offering lip service about hunting, etc. If a politician doesn't believe that I, an honorably "retired" USAF veteran with ZERO criminal record, can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me how they see me...as a subject to be ruled over. If a politician does believe that I can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me they see me as a citizen with inherent rights enumerated in our Constitution, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Everything else, for me, flows from that viewpoint. In the here and now, the politicians that tend to respect my right to keep and bear arms are generally in the Republican Party. I understand that Libertarians also generally respect that right, as well, but they just cannot seem to build up an organization that can win. I like some of their ideas, but those ideas are useless if they cannot attain office, and all they end up doing is "helping" an anti-2A Democrat to take a particular office. With those factors in mind, I will be voting for Senator Cruz.

The other problem with the Libertarian party is, they are full of nuts. The candidates at the top of the Libertarian ticket in the past are a very poor representation of the population that want's government out of their lives. Also, they are very bad about expressing what the Libertarian party is about.

Maybe we just need a Constitution Party. Reel the federal government back into what was laid out in the Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, it's up to the individual states to pass laws.

Except that I would only encourage the states to pass laws if there is a COMPELLLING need for a law in the first place. Well over half of all laws have no compelling need to exist. Laws restrict freedoms and rights, by definition. So we should be able to demonstrate that the absence of a law would do significant harm to a large portion of the population before it is ever enacted.

I'm sure Mueller will be all over this case of collusion between the Democrats and foreign citizens to influence the outcome of our upcoming federal elections. Holding my breath now for the indictments that are sure to be announced soon.

Bitter Clinger wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:32 am Oops, looks like Irish Bob is about to loose some votes he was counting on...

Texas Dems under investigation after sending voting applications with citizenship box pre-checked to non-citizens

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas- ... n-citizens

Wouldn't that be aiding and abetting voter fraud? If the box is pre-checked, at least some people will assume that they don't need to verify it.

I got a text a few days ago from the O'Rourke camp asking how I was going to vote. I just responded with the following:

"I've thought about it, and I do like some of the things that Mr. O'Rourke is saying. But at the of the day, as a Latino, I just can't vote to put another White Irish man in Washington. We Latino's are way too under represented as it is.

I'm sticking with the Latino candidate and will be voting for Rafael Cruz."

Let's see if they try to "correct" me on who is who here.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:56 pm

TreyHouston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:28 pmVery confusing! Lol!

White-Irish-American guy with a Mexican nickname running on the D ticket.
Cuban-American-Canadian guy named "Ted" running on the R ticket.

It's 100% ok to find it confusing.

Or as I like to sum it up, we have an Irishman pretending to be Hispanic running against a Latino who is pretending to be white.

I'm voting for the Latino! Gotta stay loyal to my people!

TreyHouston wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 7:33 pm On the news tonight there was a hispanic saying he was voting or O’Rouke because he was Mexican. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

My wife is Mexican American and is a staunch Democrat. She always corrects me when I tell her I am Hispanic (since my grandfather immigrated from Spain). I love asking her why she is planning to vote for the Irish guy instead of the Hispanic in this upcoming election. She doesn't seem to have a good answer for that one.

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:33 pm https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/04 ... dorsement/

Robert O’Rourke is apparently not interested in Obama’s endorsement. Can’t tell if Obama is withholding it or Rebert doesn’t want it or what’s going on.

The latest TV ad that is even playing on you tube, says something about attack ads and creating fear.

What it doesn’t talk about is Robert’s goals for Texas or what his position is: on guns, on impeachment, on oil or global warming, on immigration, on taxes, on ICE, on healt care, really on anything.

It says don’t fear and be for Texas and I didn’t wear makeup for this ad, because I am real.

I think Robert believes that B. Hussein Obama's endorsement will hurt more than help. His base is already pretty motivated, and an endorsement probably isn't needed to improve their turnout. But Hussein's endorsement might help to fire up Rafael's base significantly, and increase the turnout of his opposition.

Anyone truly undecided will also not likely be swayed in his direction by an endorsement from that man, Mr. Obama. That is assuming that anyone who is currently undecided will actually be motivated enough to vote in the upcoming mid-term election at all, which I think is unlikely.

WildRose wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:45 am

tbrown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:13 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:38 pm

tbrown wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:53 pm I'm voting for Cruz but I'm not sure it really matters in the long run. When the Democrats were in charge, the country was cruising along at 60 mph toward a third world socialist-hole. If Bernie had been elected President, the speed might have increased a little or a lot. When Trump was elected, things slowed down for a bit, but it didn't stop. Now we're back up to 45 mph or so, and Grassley wants to give it gas.

We've got to get enough people in the right places to slow it down before we can begin to reverse course.

On that we agree completely. Let's look at the facts. The majority party in the House is the same as the majority party in the Senate. The President is also from that party. It's pretty clear that voting for that party doesn't get the right people in the right places to slow down the double time march toward a third world socialist-hole.

I'm still voting for Cruz but I'm not sure about the rest of them.

Unlike the democrats it's hard as all get out to get republicans to vote a straight party line on anything controversial because so many of them come from purple districts.

You're not going to find a dem that's going to vote with them consistently either and third party votes are just a wasted vote that help dem's win.

Where we have to take a stand and get active is in the primaries to ensure conservatives, not just republicans make the trip to DC and then we can effect some real change.

I agree completely about Democrats towing the party line. I commented on this to my wife (a die hard democrat) just this past Saturday night. She actually has accused me of "being wishy washy" because I don't support everything that Republicans do. Their complete adherence to the party line really is almost cult like.

Can you imagine the reaction of Republicans if it would have come out that party officials had secretly worked to manufacture a Trump victory in the primaries (as was the case for Hillary)? We couldn't even rally behind our candidate when all he had done was insult a few people.

spectre wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:23 pm My property is posted so if a stranger comes up my driveway, they're trespassing and therefore criminals.

If they are working for Robert's campaign, they are likely already criminals.

I recently had lunch with my daughter and one of her friends who just turned 18. Her friend mentioned that she supported Beto but she can't vote (she's a UK citizen). I said, "That's OK, most of his supporters can't legally vote either". She didn't find it as funny as I did.

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:52 am They have a legal duty to provide threat assessment regarding the functions they oversee. If that threat assessment includes the reasonable risk that a pot-shot may be taken at a protectee, then they have the legal authority (and responsibility) to ban all firearms.

They may have the legal authority to ban all firearms, but I'm not sure this is a responsibility of theirs. If it is, they are failing miserably. Has the Secret Service ever banned all firearms from a place that a protectee is visiting? I thought they were usually armed, so at best they only ever ban some firearms, not all.

Not that it would shock me to learn that a federal agency has failed miserably in their responsibilities after what we have recently seen with the FBI, etc.

bulletslap wrote:In 2018 ? No way. In 2024 ? Maybe. In 2030 ? Yes.

Texas is going the way of Kalifornia, I hate it, but reality says so.

Here's an even scarier thought. In 2030 Beto might the more conservative of the viable candidates.

ElGallo wrote:

Does anyone else see the irony here? People (rightly) saying that we should vote for Republicans, including Cruz, even if we don't like them all that much, after Cruz refused to fully endorse Trump at the Republican convention.

Getting back to Robert O'Rourke. He is a white man of Irish descent who won the Democratic nomination by tricking Hispanics into thinking he was one of them by using an Hispanic nickname. Eddie Murphy had a movie years back where he did the same thing, except he pretended to be an old white guy. If I ever run for office, I'll be known as Pablo, instead of Paul. Maybe Paulie if I'm talking to an Italian American group at the time. And no, he doesn't have much of a chance.

This is rather ironic too since since Ted's full name is Rafael "El Guero" Edward Cruz. This will be an interesting race. The wannabe Hispanic vs the wannabe White boy.

Well at least neither one is pretending to be an illegal immigrant like the guy who's running for governor in New York.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04 ... t-him.html

What has the world come to when a candidate thinks that pretending to be a criminal will increase his chances of election?

anygunanywhere wrote:There are no “sure things” in elections. Once the votes are counted then you can start high fiving your bros.

AF-Odin wrote:While I firmly believe that Cruz will beat Beto, my neighborhood already has 3 or 4 Beto signs (the usual suspects). The campaign has already started. We need to have a massive conservative turn-out to totally bury this guy. Remember, we may not fully agree with a particular candidate, but we KNOW which way Beto and his fellow travelers will vote so we have to take the best alternative. I really like the phrase BEAT BETO!

Yes. I encourage everyone to vote for Cruz regardless of any ill feelings they may have for the man. We need to consider the alternatives. DO NOT take Cruz's advice to "vote your conscience". It was bad advice then and it's bad advice now.