TexasCHLforum.com

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?

Dragonfighter wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The reality of the situation is this - one of the following three people will be Governor of Texas until 2014; take your pick:

Rick Perry TSRA Rated: A+ (NRA/TSRA Endorsed)
Bill White TSRA Rated: B (proven anti-gun history)
Farouk Shami TSRA Rated: ?

Chas.

<RANT>

Rant on, brother.

Seriously... Shami? The reality is that the governor of Texas will be either the Republican or Democrat nominee. The likelihood of Farouk Shami beating Bill White for the Democrat nomination is less than Medina beating KBH and Hutchison. The reality is that it will be White against the Republican, whomever that might be. The reality is that we can expect a runoff between Perry and either Medina or KBH (and Medina is picking up quickly, while KBH fades).

The reality is that rank-and-file conservatives are sick and tired of insiders from both parties telling us who our choices are.

Thanks to Mike from Texas for posting Medina's response. I was going to, but this thread went two more pages before I was back on the computer.

CodeJockey wrote:She had my vote until that interview with Glenn Beck! I'm sorry to say that Perry now has my vote. At least she didn't lie about her beliefs.

This "Perry" who has your vote, is it the same Perry who lied through his teeth about the Trans-Texas Corridor project in the debates?

O6nop wrote:Listened to her on Glen Beck, he just questioned her about being a "9/11 truther". At the end of the interview, he labeled her as such.

Glenn Beck is schizophrenic. As much as I love some of the things he's said, he's been all over the place. He doesn't seem to have a settled ideology; he believes whatever he feels at the moment.

Now, I didn't hear the interview, so I can't comment directly, but I have heard him spin things in crazy ways.

From the summaries given above, it sounds like Medina gave an honest answer: there are unanswered questions. That doesn't mean she believes it was an inside job, or that little green aliens flew unmanned drones into the towers that were carefully packed with thousands of tons of thermite.

Even I have unanswered questions, and I absolutely reject the idea that people inside the government planned the attack. I think it's very reasonable to question what our intelligence agencies knew in advance, and when they knew it, and what they did in response. Remember the FBI agent who filed a report about students learning to fly but not caring if they could land? There was another agent who filed a post-9/11 report about how the FBI HQ ignored a field report about Zacarias Moussaoui.

There are many "truthers" who are, charitably, tin foil dingbats; probably most of them, from what I've seen. There are also quite a lot of us who avoid any association with the truthers, but still have legitimate questions about the government's actions before and after 9/11.

I mean, it's not like our government has ever engaged in false flag operations, allowed attacks to take place, ignored solid intelligence warning of an attack, or skewed the facts and taken political advantage after the fact. Except for the Tonkin Gulf, overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, Pearl Harbor, "Remember the Maine"...

If Debra Medina has a failing, it's that she answers honestly as one would reply in a conversation, instead of like a politician spinning sound bites in an interview.

I don't consider that to be a fault at all.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard "I really like Ron Paul, but he can't win..."

Heck, if Ron Paul had a vote for every time that was said, he'd probably be President. He'd at least have been the nominee.

No vote of conscience is ever wasted. Vote for who you want to win, not who you think can win.