TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:. . . Romney is a pure-and-simple RINO. I have no idea why people like him call themselves a Republican. . . .

I hope enough people realize this!

Chas.

seeker_two wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

Just curious....what anti-gun policies/laws did Paul support?.....and I agree with you on the bin Laden raid....the intel was worth more than actually killing OBL....

Of the current contenders, I'd like to see Bachmann or Cain get it.....and you already know my opinion on Perry......

I don't remember all of them, but I'll call headquarters and see if I can get a list. I remember virtually every time one of our bills, or a bill with our provisions in it, he voted against it. I believe the most recent one was the bill changing the requirements for gun manufacturers to report and pay federal excise taxes every 90 days like every other manufacturer in the country, instead of every two weeks. Another poster mentioned in another thread that he didn't sign the amicus brief in McDonald supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states. I believe he also voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but I may be wrong on that. Again, I'll try to get a list of his votes on gun issues.

I don't believe ever voted for a true anti-gun bill, but he rarely supports a pro-gun bill. I take him at his word that he believes the Second Amendment is an individual right, but not supporting incorporation to the states shows his deep-seated and extreme Libertarian views. Most Libertarians I know agree that the Bill of Rights must apply to the states.

Chas.

Apophis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Apophis wrote:I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.

Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

voted against the brady act of 1986 for one. You say he's not pro-gun though?


I'm sorry, are my facts ruining the way you want most to think on this board?

You have no facts, just blatant distortions. You point to one pro-gun vote and ignore the rest. I see you are incapable of posting without insults, in spite of being warned. Good-bye. And no, you're not being banned because of your opinions, but your refusal to follow forum rules.

Chas.

Apophis wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Apophis wrote:I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.
Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

I wouldn't be so quick to say he is that gun friendly. And I would pick many others bfore him becuase of this Subject: Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

You have to remember why 9/11 was caused in the first place. Due to blowback such as this. Now that Binladen's dead, we've just created a new position for many new terrorists to fill, with an even greater passion and hatred for the US.


How would you feel if say, Russia flew helicopters in American soil to "neutralize" someone who committed big acts of "terrorism" over there?

All the other republicans play off double standards and emotion. Ron Paul has a voting record on par with the constitution, and does not give lip service.

Perry should stay governor of TX. If he wins a spot being the POTUS, we'll have Bush the 3rd. We all saw how well that went in 2008.


PS - something to ponder about to those who think killing UBL really made us "safer"

When we killed Pablo Escobar, did it really stop, or even SLOW the flow of drugs?

The fact that you would attempt to argue such nonsense shows you will do anything in an attempt to defend Ron Paul. Trying to compare Pablo Escobar to Bin Laden is absurd.

Yes, killing Bin Laden did make us much safer and virtually every security expert around the globe agrees. No one is going to take his place, not by any stretch of the imagination. Some will battle among themselves for a leadership position and someone will eventually become a recognized leader. However, that person will not have the financial resources Bid Laden had, nor will they have his contacts.

His followers have now lost that sense of invincibility of their leader. They now know we can kill anyone we want, regardless they hide and in spite of support from governments hostile to the United States.

You also ignore the treasure trove of intelligence we obtained in the raid. Again, experts around the world agree that the intelligence gained could well destroy Al Qaeda as a force for years to come, if not forever. Arguing otherwise is like claiming the Viet Cong were an effective fighting force after their disastrous defeat in Tet offensive of 1968. They weren't; they were decimated and were never more than annoyance thereafter.

Chas.

Apophis wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I'm sorry Ron Paul is good for a laugh, but if he was in charge 200 years ago we'd still be speaking with a British accent and paying taxes to Kings. He's no President.

He's good for a laugh to most people, because we've lost our way as Americans. Your further comments show your ignorance on the subject and need no further points.

Stop the insults now or you're gone.

Chas.

Apophis wrote:I'll top you guys off with the most gun-friendly republican there ever was.

Not many on this board will like him since he actually abides by the constitution though.... Just saying.

PS - He's in TX too.

Nobody with his voting record on guns can be considered pro-gun. You can take your snide comment and this board and the constitution and go elsewhere.

Chas.

Tamie wrote:Shooting a dozen more coyotes won't make up for not pushing campus carry.

Are you saying you won't vote for him because, in your mind, he didn't "push campus carry?"

Chas.

Rick Perry's mother is not as big of a supporter of him as am I. He's great on almost every issue in my view and this is something I can't say for any other Republican. Yes, I didn't like the HPV vaccine or the Trans Texas Corridor, but those are only two issues. I'd be hard put to find any Republican candidate that didn't differ from my views on a lot more than two issues.

The "dummy" and "idiot" garbage is nothing but Democrat tripe.

Chas.