TexasCHLforum.com

roberts wrote:The "truthers" are kooks but the "liars" are more dangerous to our life, liberty and property.

And which politicians are not liars?
I know he was exaggerating, but I had a teacher in college once say "If a Christian runs for office, do him a favor and don't vote for him as most anyone in office becomes corrupted." Of course if we did that, then only the sorriest people would be politicians... but I understood his point.

chabouk wrote:

wgoforth wrote:I also listen to Beck almost daily. He is a libertarian so he was sympathetic towards her.

You mean the same "libertarian" Glenn Beck who was foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to Ron Paul, right up until he was no longer a candidate, then he started loving the guy?

Ummm.... noooo, mean the same Beck that kept speaking positively about Ron Paul and said he sounded like the only one that supported the constitution. So he invites Ron Paul to speak on his show..... 5 minutes before airtime Ron Paul cancels. Beck keeps trying to get in touch with Ron Paul for months and nothing. Had all the other major candidates on. Finally Ron Paul agrees to come on his TV show, saying there had been a misunderstanding. Ron Paul comes on and says he would do away with all taxes. Beck asks him "well would you replace it with a flat tax, you gotta fund it somehow." Paul just said "no taxes." He asks "local state taxes?" Paul again, "no taxes." After that, yeah, Beck wasn't so much a fan. Either way, thats the way I remember it.

BTW, is it possible to be a libertarian and not support Ron Paul? We do that with every party don't we?

Anyway, I don't think that Beck was opposed to Medina when he invited her. She could have simply said that muslim terrorists hit the WTC as she did on her website and it would have been a non-issue. Nobody put the words in her mouth.

Again, the only explanations I can see is:
(1) She didn't know what the term "truther" meant and went along as though she did, afraid of looking stupid. She gets off the phone and then learns what it meant and writes her blog.
(2) That she knew what it meant but didn't want to ostracize the truthers who may vote for her.
Maybe there are other explanations, but I have racked my brain trying to think of why she would answer 2 different ways.

Well this is interesting. Sounds like a Pro-Perry supporter started the 9/11 thing about Medina. http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnew ... orter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even so, why not juts disavow it on the program? .... maybe she just didn't want to alienate them? I guess we will never know for sure, but thought the article in the Dallas paper interesting. I did a google search on the subject, and most articles are saying she can pretty well put a fork in it after this. It's really pretty sad.

pbwalker wrote:I'm curious if everyone who is Anti-Medina are also Anti-Palin...

FWIW, Glenn Beck supported Palin. He repeatedly said he was not voting for McCain as much as he was voting for Palin. Just because someone doesn't plan to vote for Medina doesn't mean they are Anti her. If it were a choice of KBH or Medina, I probably would vote Medina. I like Spaghetti, I like Totellini better. Simple as that for me. If Tortellini isn't on the menu, I would gladly take the spaghetti.

Here's whats in todays paper:

By The Associated Press

Posted: Feb 13, 2010 4:12 AM

HOUSTON (AP) -- Republican gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina is continuing to backpedal from remarks that she has questions whether the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Medina said Friday she blames the stumble and subsequent firestorm on a "coordinated attack" from the campaigns of her GOP rivals, Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. In response to a question Thursday from syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck, Medina said there were "some very good arguments" raised that the U.S. was involved in the attacks. She later released a statement changing her stance. Perry spokesman Mark Miner says her accusation isn't true. Hutchison campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Baker didn't immediately return a call.


I really do not understand it. I was leaning towards her. I also listen to Beck almost daily. He is a libertarian so he was sympathetic towards her. When he announced he was having her, he got letters from people who claimed she was a "truther." So he asked. He didn't accuse (at first) he asked...twice. First time she evaded. Second time she said there are unanswered things. On her website she completely disavowed the 9/11 Truthers. Why couldn't she have done that on his show. Had she simply said "I believe Muslim terrorists brought down the world trade center" it would have been a non-issue. I am wondering perhaps she didn't know what a "9/11 Truther" was, and rather than admit that, she gave non-answers. Once she got off the program, she learned and then disavowed it. Either way, she has really hurt herself in this.