TexasCHLforum.com

Shorts wrote:I wasn't particularly fond of the drug legalization idea. I'm not about to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, but I don't support that.


IF such a measure was actualized, I imagine there would be a a few new issues arise to contend with. It could end up being something that had good intentions but unintended consequences. I don't know.

I think she is a thinly-disguised Libertarian. Keep in mind that she is by vocation an RN.

Her stance is that drugs take up too much social and economic effort to combat and that we should be addressing other issues with our resources. I kind of liked that. I don't approve of drugs, don't use them, but agree with her in principal.

Texgun: Did you watch her last night? Her response regarding "gun registration" was the only point where she appeared either ignorant of the law or actually flustered by a question. Not sure which.

Purplehood wrote:

joe817 wrote:

stash wrote:Shorts - That's what I meant. Texas does not have gun registration. How can you get rid of something that you don't have.

When she said that, I said "huh?" That threw me too. Her saying that almost implies she's not aware there is no gun registration in Texas. And that disappointed me greatly.

She probably is not aware of that. I sense that she is a neophyte when it comes to awareness of Gun Laws in Texas (unlike her apparent knowledge on many other issues, but we all have our shortcomings), BUT, when it comes to her almost Libertarian viewpoint on States rights she is very vocal in her opposition to gun regulations in general. This I do like.

EDIT: I almost wish that the TSRA would sit down with her and polish her up on gun-related issues in TX. But that might imply endorsing her candidacy...

I got an idea! Have one of her staff aids talk her into coming here and registering(anonymously of course), and start reading to her hearts content. That'll get her educated on 2A issues important to Texans!

I watched the debate and recorded it. I will re-examine the engagement. Based on my observation/recollection, she was trying to quickly make a point about her solid support of gun rights. The commentator was probing Medina to determine where she would place limits on owning or carrying a firearm. Medina did not say that she wanted absolutely no government controls but it seemed to me that that was her intended message. Medina was trying to cover a lot of territory in a brief amount of time and that may have corrupted her message. I plan to contact her for clarification.

Texgun wrote:I watched the debate and recorded it. I will re-examine the engagement. Based on my observation/recollection, she was trying to quickly make a point about her solid support of gun rights. The commentator was probing Medina to determine where she would place limits on owning or carrying a firearm. Medina did not say that she wanted absolutely no government controls but it seemed to me that that was her intended message. Medina was trying to cover a lot of territory in a brief amount of time and that may have corrupted her message. I plan to contact her for clarification.

I think that she is a breath of fresh air in the political climate.

Purplehood wrote:

Texgun wrote:I watched the debate and recorded it. I will re-examine the engagement. Based on my observation/recollection, she was trying to quickly make a point about her solid support of gun rights. The commentator was probing Medina to determine where she would place limits on owning or carrying a firearm. Medina did not say that she wanted absolutely no government controls but it seemed to me that that was her intended message. Medina was trying to cover a lot of territory in a brief amount of time and that may have corrupted her message. I plan to contact her for clarification.

I think that she is a breath of fresh air in the political climate.

I totally agree.

Purplehood wrote:

Shorts wrote:I wasn't particularly fond of the drug legalization idea. I'm not about to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, but I don't support that.


IF such a measure was actualized, I imagine there would be a a few new issues arise to contend with. It could end up being something that had good intentions but unintended consequences. I don't know.

I think she is a thinly-disguised Libertarian. Keep in mind that she is by vocation an RN.

Her stance is that drugs take up too much social and economic effort to combat and that we should be addressing other issues with our resources. I kind of liked that. I don't approve of drugs, don't use them, but agree with her in principal.

Texgun: Did you watch her last night? Her response regarding "gun registration" was the only point where she appeared either ignorant of the law or actually flustered by a question. Not sure which.

Agreed. Of course then, instead of criticizing I thought I should give an alternative. But I nixed suggesting it because the cost of bullets can still add up

joe817 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Texgun wrote:I watched the debate and recorded it. I will re-examine the engagement. Based on my observation/recollection, she was trying to quickly make a point about her solid support of gun rights. The commentator was probing Medina to determine where she would place limits on owning or carrying a firearm. Medina did not say that she wanted absolutely no government controls but it seemed to me that that was her intended message. Medina was trying to cover a lot of territory in a brief amount of time and that may have corrupted her message. I plan to contact her for clarification.

I think that she is a breath of fresh air in the political climate.

I totally agree.

Me too. Don't get me wrong, it is refreshing to have such a candidate.

I was just looking for details and as Texgun pointed out, there wasn't much time that she could have put forth those details.

I couldn't watch it live, but I got to watch the video archive late last night.

I admit I went into it hoping Medina would do well. So, with that disclaimer out of the way, here is my take:

1. Perry. Oh, lawsy. Could he possibly pile on the Gee Dubya shuck-an-jive any thicker? When an intelligent man wraps non-answers in "aw shucks" cornpone, he's lying. His continued claim of jobs created, when confronted with the actual net jobs +/- numbers, had the audience openly snickering. At him, not with him. No one believes an Aggie and Air Force pilot can really be that stupid. My score: -2

2. KBH. She focused on Perry as her primary target, as she should, and skillfully used her question to Medina to "bank-shot" (as one commenter noted) an attack against Perry. The sooooothing lulling dulcet monotone doesn't inspire confidence, because no one really believed she was that devoid of passion. I don't know why she wants the governorship over the senate seat, but she does, badly. Her non-answer to the Roe v. Wade question elicited more snickering disbelief than Perry on jobs. My score: -1

3. Medina. Not a polished speaker. Obviously nervous. That's to be expected when you're running for governor and your only previous office was as county GOP chair. And yet, she answered questions directly, with facts and figures, and an underlying passion of conviction. Of the three, she's the only one that I believe wasn't covering up anything. She has no record to hide from, which some say is a liability. I disagree. She can only run on her convictions, not her record. Neither Perry nor KBH seems to have convictions, only records that they're trying to dodge. My score: +0.5 on performance, +10 on effort.

Nobody really "won" this debate, but Perry and KBH both lost. Medina performed admirably. Belo should definitely re-think their exclusion of Medina from the next debate, but I doubt that they do. My inner cynic tells me they're just too closely tied to the existing power structures, and Medina doesn't fit in to their mold.

Purplehood wrote:

Her stance is that drugs take up too much social and economic effort to combat and that we should be addressing other issues with our resources. I kind of liked that. I don't approve of drugs, don't use them, but agree with her in principal.

Absolutely! The war on drugs is another war that can't be won. Take the profit out of the illegal sales and the gang wars over money will evaporate pretty much as they did when Prohibition was lifted back in the 30's...IMO. I seriously doubt that there will be more dope fiends running around if the drugs were not illegal than there are already on our streets and in our neighborhoods.

Oldgringo wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Her stance is that drugs take up too much social and economic effort to combat and that we should be addressing other issues with our resources. I kind of liked that. I don't approve of drugs, don't use them, but agree with her in principal.

Absolutely! The war on drugs is another war that can't be won. Take the profit out of the illegal sales and the gang wars over money will evaporate pretty much as they did when Prohibition was lifted back in the 30's...IMO. I seriously doubt that there will be more dope fiends running around if the drugs were not illegal than there are already on our streets and in our neighborhoods.

A bit in jest but, if drug pushing was legalized & taxed, we'd now be arresting these "businessmen and women" on tax evasion instead of selling drugs You think they'd so easily hand over a cut of their profits??

I have never voted for Perry, I've withheld my vote. I do not like him and the reasons were very apparent last night. No questions were answered with a straight face or answer. He was mistaken on number of jobs created and on dates, he misspoke several times but then tried to catch the Senator on hers.

Medina did a great job, her point was funny when she said the bickering has to stop. I think she was flustered for the gun question, I did as well catch the no gun registration, im not sure if she meant the, (going blank on the form name),form you must fill out to purchase a firearm at an FFL. I would have preferred that question be asked to all candidates, its one of the main reasons I was watching.

They kept harping on Perry for the business tax, after the third or fourth time it really started making Perry look good since it seemed thats all they had for him.

But by a long shot I think Medina took that debate. I dont think they have another planned but I hope they do at the very least have one for the Republican Nomination v the Democratic Nomination.

I understood what Medina described as "gun registration" as being CHL. Having a CHL which isn't necessarily "gun" registration, so much as it is "gun owner" registration. There is another thread on here about her making the statement that CHL law shouldn't need to exist. Basically her opinion is that the 2nd Amendment should suffice.

I would agree with others that she won. Maybe Rick and Kay will decide to discuss the issues next time.

Well, the Fox poll now shows Medina winning with 71%, and 14% each for Perry and Hutchinson. 1874 votes cast. Unless the vast majority of votes came from this forum's participants, she did REALLY well!

ls6tt wrote: I think she was flustered for the gun question, I did as well catch the no gun registration, im not sure if she meant the, (going blank on the form name),form you must fill out to purchase a firearm at an FFL.

That's the way I read it also, having to fill out a 4473 to buy a gun, which many would see as registration of the gun.

I think Medina hit a home run. I hope she made some converts.
And I intend to hound Belo for excluding her.
Anyone have contact information?

chabouk wrote: 2. KBH. She focused on Perry as her primary target, as she should, and skillfully used her question to Medina to "bank-shot" (as one commenter noted) an attack against Perry. The sooooothing lulling dulcet monotone doesn't inspire confidence, because no one really believed she was that devoid of passion. I don't know why she wants the governorship over the senate seat, but she does, badly. Her non-answer to the Roe v. Wade question elicited more snickering disbelief than Perry on jobs. My score: -1

Because if she has aspirations to be the first woman president, she needs to prove herself with executive experience. This was a chief allegation aimed at Clinton, that she only had a first time senatorial election and wife to the president as her "experience". I am not a feminist but BHO is a male and was "engineered".

On the drug thing. I would rather the recreational use of even alcohol went away...by choice not Federal edict and with the understanding our Lord drank wine, but that isn't going to happen. But here is my view, God created everything to its purpose. Marijuana in a medicinal setting has shown a number of beneficial effects from analgesia to combating anorexia. It has also been demonstrated that it works in a synergistic manner intact but its efficacy fails when "the active" ingredients are extracted and made into pills. If you have ever had Novocaine at the dentist, Lidocaine at the doctor's or had a nose bleed stopped by a swab of viscous gel...you've enjoyed cocaine or a derivative of it. If you have had codeine cough medicine, Tylenol "Plus", Lortab or Morphine et al , you've imbibed in opium.

There will always be those that abuse God's creation, there will always be those that abuse what we have made, prescription drugs and distilled spirits for instance, but there are those (a good number by pollsters' reckoning) that medicate with marijuana. And as the science has indicated, it is far more effective in its original composition. This combined with the outrageous expense in monies and man hours to fight the "war on drugs" without success should prompt a reevaluation ala prohibition.

There was a time when Asthmacord (SP?) cigarettes, Laudanum and Parapectalin (marijuana and opium containing medications) were dispensed and logged by the chemist (pharmacist). I remember Parapectalin and my dentist remembers the other two. I could get behind controlled (I.E. quality, tax, recorded) distribution of active botanic materials by pharmacists and/or prescription. At least change the federal laws to allow the states jurisdiction on whether or not to decriminalize or use such things medically. I know a few libertarians and that is the one hook the all pretty much hang their hat on - state's rights.

Gun Registration - Yeah, Ms. Medina could use some education in this regard, but those of us in Texas that wish to carry a weapon on our person legally are registered. Not the gun but the gun owner. So she may be leaning toward elimination of carry permits as a requisite...I dunno, just speculating. Either way, she has my attention and it would be nice if for once we could vote for who we want, not the lesser of two evils and have a fighting chance of actually getting them in.

Currently, she is not invited to the Belo debate. If you want her to have a fair shot we all need to crank up the pressure on Belo.

I could learn to like Medina, but the issue of taxes really has me concerned. She wants to increase taxes by giving us a bigger sales tax?
I would think the first thing a libertarian Republican would think of would be reducing government.While she should be thinking of ways of eliminating Government agencys and reducing waste all she can think oabout is increasing our sales tax, which already is one vof the highest in the country. Bussinesses in Texas are having a tough time competing with companies out of state or on the internet. Ms. Medina plans will put even more pressure on small businesses that have to compete with tax free or lower tax states. I for one would love to see drugs decrimminalized. Its time government stopped being nannys let people live or destroy themselves as they see fit. The right of the to pursue happiness is also followed by the responcibilty Governt has no bussiness trying to protect us from ourself.

Her background is about being the a nurse and head of a club. doesn't particularly excite me either.

Rick Perry might be for the TTC but that has been rendered impotent by our wiser legislature. I am afraid if Medina got in as Gov some fools might actually take her serious and start increasing what is already a very high sales tax.

All that being said any of the three sure beats the best that the Democrats have to offer.