TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I like beef but I do not think a bull in a China shop is a good thing.

Mojo, I don't know where you got that, but I like it, and I'm stealing it, here and now. That EXACTLY summarizes my support of OC law, while decrying the tactics of groups like OCT/OCTC.

Will be using it also.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I like beef but I do not think a bull in a China shop is a good thing.

Mojo, I don't know where you got that, but I like it, and I'm stealing it, here and now. That EXACTLY summarizes my support of OC law, while decrying the tactics of groups like OCT/OCTC.

Texsquatch wrote:Be careful... Somehow Stickland was elected and we saw how that freak show went.

mojo84 wrote:The problem is, much of what guys like Stickland, Grisham and others espouse are good solid principles that are very attractive to liberty oriented, small government fiscally conservative individuals. I know quite a few that appreciate Stickland and Huffines standing up for those principles. They even supported themfinancially

They start scratching their heads and reconsidering when I point out how neither of which got much anything accomplished other than rendering themselves impotent when it comes to legislative matters. What they did get accomplished probably could have been done by others without as much rabble rousing. They've also made it hard for anyone to ally them in the future. Being principled is great and that is what we need. We also need people capable of working within the system to navigate us towards those principles. Sorry for pushing to the choir. However, I know some will take issue with what I've said and I can accept and respect you having your position.

I like beef but I do not think a bull in a China shop is a good thing.

ScooterSissy wrote:I'll toss in though, that often change comes about when there are folks willing to shake up the status-quo. Sometimes, the China shop needs a remodeling.

Dave2 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I'll toss in though, that often change comes about when there are folks willing to shake up the status-quo. Sometimes, the China shop needs a remodeling.

Yeah, but are the people better off if you turn the bull loose, or if you carefully and methodically examine each wall to determine whether it's structural before removing it?

Would you rather tear down an old building by using a demolition crew, or a tornado?

ScooterSissy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:The problem is, much of what guys like Stickland, Grisham and others espouse are good solid principles that are very attractive to liberty oriented, small government fiscally conservative individuals. I know quite a few that appreciate Stickland and Huffines standing up for those principles. They even supported themfinancially

They start scratching their heads and reconsidering when I point out how neither of which got much anything accomplished other than rendering themselves impotent when it comes to legislative matters. What they did get accomplished probably could have been done by others without as much rabble rousing. They've also made it hard for anyone to ally them in the future. Being principled is great and that is what we need. We also need people capable of working within the system to navigate us towards those principles. Sorry for pushing to the choir. However, I know some will take issue with what I've said and I can accept and respect you having your position.

I like beef but I do not think a bull in a China shop is a good thing.

Much better put.
I'll toss in though, that often change comes about when there are folks willing to shake up the status-quo. Sometimes, the China shop needs a remodeling.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:Be careful... Somehow Stickland was elected and we saw how that freak show went.

Very well, for the voters that voted for him.
I understand some folks on here don't like Strickland; but he ran a campaign based on what he said he was going to do, and then he did it. The voters not only went for it the first time, but liked what he did well enough that they did it again.

C.J. Grisham Via Facebook wrote:I also don't pander for votes. People can support my principles or not. What you see is what you get with me. No lies. No doublespeak.

Right2Carry wrote:I am pretty sure a certain area south of us will freeze over before Grisham gets elected.

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I am pretty sure a certain area south of us will freeze over before Grisham gets elected.

On this we agree.

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I am pretty sure a certain area south of us will freeze over before Grisham gets elected.

On this we agree.

I pray you guys are right.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:Be careful... Somehow Stickland was elected and we saw how that freak show went.

Very well, for the voters that voted for him.
I understand some folks on here don't like Strickland; but he ran a campaign based on what he said he was going to do, and then he did it. The voters not only went for it the first time, but liked what he did well enough that they did it again.

I didn't hear or see any of his election speeches or comments, but I suspect he never told his supporters how he was going to act, or that he was going to alienate himself to the point that he was utterly ineffective.

Chas.

G.A. Heath wrote:

C.J. Grisham Via Facebook wrote:I also don't pander for votes. People can support my principles or not. What you see is what you get with me. No lies. No doublespeak.

The way I see it is that this is a bad idea on his part. So I want to see an opponent, or member of the press ask CJ: "Did you have a license to carry a Handgun, or were you carrying illegally when you openly carried in Oklahoma?" If he Answers that he has one I have plenty of references where he, or someone in the know, says he doesn't. If he says that he didn't have a license he admits he broke the law. If he says it's nobody's business then he lied about the doublespeak.