TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:44 amBeto argues for gun buyback at Kent State University.

The hugely influential Cult of the Dead Cow, jokingly named after an abandoned Texas slaughterhouse, is notorious for releasing tools that allowed ordinary people to hack computers running Microsoft’s Windows.

The report, published early on Friday, documented O'Rourke's involvement in a hacker group named "Cult of the Dead Cow," and included multiple past writings from O'Rourke, some of which were described as "disturbing."

"After more than a year of reporting, [Joseph] Menn persuaded O’Rourke to talk on the record," Reuters reported. "In an interview in late 2017, O’Rourke acknowledged that he was a member of the group, on the understanding that the information would not be made public until after his Senate race against Ted Cruz in November 2018."

stroo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:41 pm Republicans in Texas better wake up and figure out how to get Hispanic votes and suburban votes. In my area which historically has been strongly Republican, I now have a Democrat state senator and a Democrat state rep who doesn't even live in the district. And my Congressman, Marchant, just barely won.

Republicans need to wake up!

jason812 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:47 amEver notice how it's usually a democrat that will not let you know what party they are part of? I wonder why that is.

jason812 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:51 am

Middle Age Russ wrote: ↑Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:01 am
Back to the topic at hand, Cruz' epic photo picking up Shiner Bock at a Buccee's stop yesterday has gotten some pretty good publicity returns, particularly in relation to Robert O's "cool kid" attempts.

Well that seals the deal. Shiner Bock is my default beer.

talltex wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:33 am

mojo84 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:09 am That's great but both of your positions are significantly different than infoman's. I'm curious about what dem positions makes him want to vote dem when one of their primary positions is contrary to the 2nd Amendment and what this forum is about.

I understand your focus as it relates to that single issue on this forum, but the members of this forum are voting for candidates who will be voting on MANY issues that are affecting their lives in many ways for the next term and probably for many years to come. I'm 62years old and the political system in Texas, as well as the rest of the United States, has changed drastically in the last 16 years. I've had family members who served as Senators and Representatives in Austin throughout the 60's and into the 90's. During those years, and for many more prior to that era, we had some politicians who were "Statesman" and unfortunately, many others who were just there to see how much money and influence they could acquire. For most of the 20th century, the Democratic party was in control of the process. They were not left wing liberals--they were the same people that later had to switch to the Republican party if they wanted to stay in office. We had ONE Senator that was a Republican--John Tower and he held his office for many years. He was a "Statesman". The people of his district didn't vote for him because he was a Republican--they voted for him IN SPITE of it, because they were voting for the MAN not THE PARTY. During all of those years the Legislators worked together and were able to get things done because they could meet and discuss the pros and cons and find common ground that they could both agree on." You give a little here and we'll give a little there, and we can both get something done that benefits us all". Instead of having to simply oppose any bill proposed by the other party, which is what we have devolved to nowdays. The situation now puts the party in control of the votes. If a conscientious legislator having studied the issue thoroughly and reached the conclusion that Bill # xxxxxx, which his party supports, will hurt more people than it helps, or is designed to give a particular company or industry an unfair advantage that would allow them to profit at the expense of others unfairly and he refuses to vote for it, he will be called into the Lt. Governor's or the Speaker's office and chastised severely, and told that if he ever does that again, the party will find and fund someone else to defeat him in the upcoming election and that he will never be allowed to bring any bill to the floor for the remainder of his term. That will not be a "thinly veiled threat"--it will be done in very "strong" language. That is not the way a Democracy is supposed to operate. Yes, the majority does rule, but the people are supposed to be voting for the individual they believe will best serve THEM in their district. What we have wound up with now is legislators that cannot vote their conscience if it is in conflict with the party bosses wishes. Majority rule is not supposed to mean that you get to have everything your way, without considering how it affects ALL of your constituents. A good example is our two top State government officials campaigning on the fact that they refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage in Texas because we don't need more "handout programs". That money (100's of millions of $$) comes from federal tax dollars, not from our state budget. The citizens of Texas have ALREADY paid that money into the federal budget. The money IS being spent, but it's going to other states and the people of Texas are not getting anything for the money they paid in. Our Hospitals and Clinics are required to provide service for people whether they can pay or not, and the primary reason Texas has seen a number of Rural hospitals closing their doors in the last 2 years is because that tax money was previously being paid to them for Medicare/Medicaid and Indigent Care, and the state is cutting that funding to them every year. I, personally do not think that is something to brag about in their political ads--saying they stood up to the feds and refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage, when what they really did was send our money to other states. Instead they come up with divisive "non-issues" to polarize support and raise party funds with silly crap like the "Bathroom Bill". "End of Rant"

Lena wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:03 pm When voted today the beetoo bus and band was across the street in the parking lot playing, I did ask the beetoo man why not being a Mexican do they have a Mexican band? No answer back just a look.

Just one problem: The venue where the rally is set to be held holds 18,000.

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:57 am https://www.star-telegram.com/news/poli ... 44070.html

Here is a different article on how you can sue Beto for unwanted texts. Class Action Plaintiffs are asking for $500 per text you have received.

dang I have only gotten one.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:54 pm 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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:34 pm 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.

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

TreyHouston wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:15 pm I dont see what Cruz has to gain by going on CNN! I think its a mistake

The 1-hour debate will be in San Antonio tonight in the studios of KENS-TV starting at 8 p.m. It will be broadcast in 10 other media markets live, including on KHOU-TV in Houston and WFAA-TV in Dallas-Fort Worth. It will also air nationally on C-SPAN.