TexasCHLforum.com

varko wrote: Anygunanywhere’s sig line puts it more eloquently:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."

I would only add that the “act” must be responsible.

Excepting the part in bold, this sort of thinking: "not acting is acting, non violence is violence" is the exact justification groups like the Weather Underground used in the 60s/70s to justify their domestic terrorism.

Just something to think about. I think its a very slippery slope to being going down when we start saying everything someone does against what we want is by default helping the other guy.

And to be frank, it won't matter in Texas anyway. We will go Republican. I will most likely vote for Mitt as my part in helping remove Obama from the White House. But to paint those who will vote 3rd party as out and out Obama supporters isn't helpful, in my opinion.

fulano wrote: If Obama is president and the Senate and House is run by the Republicans. Nothing will get done; they will stop him from spending money, the economy will run its cycle, and we will be done with the Democrats for many terms. JMO

This would be my hope if we are forced to endure another 4 years of obamination. Govt gridlock is a wonderful, wonderful thing.

Ameer wrote:Check out yesterday's cartoon. http://www.daybydaycartoon.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Love it.

Kind of sums up my problems with electing someone like Romney, or McCain, or the "compassionate conservatives" like the Bush family.

We're going left. We know its the wrong direction thanks to history (Soviet Union, Cambodia, et al). And even the republicans of late seem to protest not so much the DIRECTION, but the SPEED.

Yes, you're right that you can guarantee Obama will be worse than Romney. But to me, he'll only manage to be worse by a little bit because we should be able to put enough Republicans in the congress to counter any shenanigans. The difference between them is a measure of SPEED, not DIRECTION. So IF Obama wins, the blame for the failure of his policies cannot be dumped at the feet of another republican but can rest where they rightly belong.

This way, a TRUE conservative can run in 2016, and maybe we can FINALLY turn to the right.

Of course, the easiest way to avoid all that mess is to vote for someone other than Romney who will actually take this country off its leftward path. I'm not sure if that's Perry, or Cain, or who yet...

but I can guarantee Mitt's not the man for the job. He's a poll following type of guy who does just enough to get elected, and then reelected. He does not have the guts to stand up and say what needs to be said. Democrat ideas and policies since the new deal have been an absolute failure, have created a parasitic, perpetual welfare class in America and more spending is NOT the answer. Can you see those words coming out of Mitts mouth? yeah, me either....

SewTexas wrote:so, all of you who say that you will stay home rather than vote for Romney, what are you doing in order to prevent it? anything? or are you just complaining?

Donating money to actual conservative candidates, plan on voting in the primaries. I'm not just complaining...far from it. (and not to mention trying to convince others (like those on this board) to vote for someone else in the primaries )

sjfcontrol wrote:I find it very hard to understand the logic behind those (so-called) conservatives that would rather see Obama get re-elected than vote for Romney, if those are the two choices available.

Here is why. I genuinely think Romney will NOT repeal Obamacare, will NOT appoint conservative judges (at best we'll get more lukewarm, wishy washy types), will NOT do the hard cutting that needs to be done. Romney is a politician first and foremost. When its time to make the serious cuts needed to our bloated govt, he does not have the guts to do it. So, if we elect him, we get more of the failed policies we got under Obama, only now they can blame it on someone with an R behind the name. If we're going to get more of the same, why not let the democrat party take the blame they so rightly deserve for this total mess? (starting with the New Deal, not just under Obama)

sjfcontrol wrote:On the other hand, I fully understand those who work to get somebody other than Romney nominated.

Like I replied to Tracy, I'm doing that. Talking to people, donating money, voting in the primaries.

sjccontrol wrote: Remember: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I think it'll be more of the same with this guy. So I'm not seeing an enemy of my enemy, I'm seeing 2 enemies.

sjfcontrol wrote:

boba wrote:

RCP wrote:Romney will never get my vote either, not in the Primary or in the General. I sincerely believe that nothing would change under Romney (at least not for the better).

I'm voting for a pro gun fiscal conservative in November 2012. If the Republican ticket has someone like that, I will vote for the Republican candidate. If not, they don't want my vote, and I can vote for a third party candidate with a clear conscience.

One would hope that even Romney would nominate different judges to the Supreme Court than Obama. Remember, we're only ahead by a single vote there. If a vote for a third party candidate allows Obama to win a second term, you can probably kiss the Supremes goodbye.

Does the Mass gov get to appoint judges? What sort of judges did he put on the bench there?

Edit: From a brief search, the headlines I'm seeing are that 9 out of his 36 appointments have been republican judges? (and a republican in mass is obviously a pretty liberal person still).

So, how is this the guy who deserves my vote again?

Not to harp on the subject too much, but bringing this back around to Romney and his positions and not the problems of politicians in general.

GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...

EVERY weapon is designed to be lethal. That's the POINT. I don't want to annoy someone trying to harm me or my family, I want to INCAPACITATE them. I want them to stop hurting me or mine, right now. That requires the ability to employ deadly force.

Besides, I can twist things around so that every modern gun made has "extraordinary lethality". Sounds like a fun game. Easy ones first.

Ar-15/AK-47s- Military assault weapons designed to fire on full auto and kill lots of people. BAN IT.
Every bolt action rifle chambered for a decent cartridge- Lethal ammo designed to penetrate body armor of cops. BAN IT.
Semi auto handguns- Favorite weapons of gangs and drug dealers, too easily concealed and too high capacity. BAN THEM.

Anyone who puts a caveat on our rights like that doesn't believe in them. Period.

Heartland Patriot wrote: I really don't know what to think anymore...I used to think of most folks who were pro-firearms a certain way, but I guess I was flat-out wrong. My apologies for my mistake.

Why should someone who is pro firearms vote for an anti gun candidate?

I know there are other issues, but you mentioned pro firearms people. Should they vote against their own best interests?

I'd hope, if nothing else that anyone who is pro gun would vote against romney in a primary.

C-dub wrote:I hope that all of you "I won't vote for Romney" folks won't feel that way if he's the republican nominee.

I will feel that way. If we're going to get the same policies, the same ideas...why let a R take the blame? If you want to act like a dimocrat, run as a dimocrat. And to forestall the "but, but SC nominations!" people...there's a reason why we need to campaign actively to put conservatives in the senate who will block any radical appointment..by either Romney or Obama. Not sure Romney would appoint someone all that conservative to the court anyway.

The only way I'd vote for a republican candidate who's as squishy on gun rights as mitt is would be if I was sure they would repeal obaminationcare because it will singlehandedly RUIN our healthcare system. Considering mitts mass record, I won't even be getting that much. He won't be getting my vote. Period.