TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Topbuilder wrote:Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the GOP that was not able to win elections.

The gop lost the last two elections with the worst president in history in the White House. You knew I was talking about presidential elections. Klin-ton will be the next president for two terms. The majorities in the house and senate are useless since you did not provide any evidence that they neutralize zed the tyrant in chief. The gop cannot win the White House.

Not to quibble, but the worst President in history wasn't in the White House yet the first time. He was "clean and articulate," it was "historic" and the GOP did not really field a major league slate.

As Mark Steyn points out, it's hard to elect a conservative government in a liberal culture, as those terms have come to be used in contemporary parlance.

To quibble, opinions on who is the worst president is just an opinion.

If you are going to quibble, at least quibble over the right thing. The worst President in history wasn't yet in the WH at the time of the 2008 election. He only got there afterwards. He was there for the 2012 election.

Your quibble just proves my point which is that the gop can't get elected to the White House even against the worst that the dumbs can nominate (at the time).

Hillary will cheat, lie, and steal in the worst fraudulent election ever seen to win this. And it will all go unpunished because of the current administration and the current state of the supreme court.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Your quibble just proves my point which is that the gop can't get elected to the White House even against the worst that the dumbs can nominate (at the time).

It does nothing of the sort.

Were you awake in the 2008 election?

Obama was presented as a brilliant graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School, almost as charismatic as Bill Clinton, and an African American to boot, "clean and articulate" as Joe The Dumber described him. That he was a former Muslim and present Communist didn't get much mention.

Against him, the GOP for reasons of their own, selected John McCain, an experienced Senator, war hero, but not particularly charming, or all that intelligent it seems. McCain, for reasons of his own, selected Sarah Palin, an exciting and controversial, thinly experienced Governor who provided almost all of the excitement of that ticket.

In the good old days, Americans may have selected their Presidents on merit, their record, accomplishments etc., but not now. After all those years of "American Idol," "Dancing with the Stars" and reality TV, all that old stuff matters little. If they could waive the age requirement, Justin Bieber would get more votes than Trump and Clinton combined. He was born in Canada, I see, so that would have to be waived too. Lucky for us!

Texans once selected "Pass the Biscuits, Pappy" Lee O'Daniel as Governor, and he was the only man to ever beat Lyndon Johnson, in the Senate race if 1940. As far as his record shows, he was a complete moron, but he was sincere, and could sing.

Until we get back to actual ballots, I don't trust any elections.

Mr Allen, again your description of the gop ticket in 2008 proves my point.

Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

anygunanywhere wrote:Mr Allen, again your description of the gop ticket in 2008 proves my point.

The Bushs did it, 3 times. Three out of four ain't bad!

I bet that really drove the Commies nuts. Here they had the two most prominent families of vote riggers and election stealing in the world, and they got out swaggled by those Bush wimps!

The GOPs biggest liability is its own voters. If anyone is nominated who doesn't agree with each and every position of a voter, that voter picks up his toy, slams his wallet shut, and goes home in a huff. Look at Cruz. He was the savior of conservatism up until a week ago. Now, he's treated like he came in on the bottom of someone's shoe. Admittedly these are strange times, stranger than usual. Everyone has their principles, and God save us if those are abandoned, but those principles are worthless if nobody holds office because they don't get enough votes.

The Commies are more, ahhh, practical. They vote for the Commie, some more than once, as needed, and once in office, adjust everybody's slice of the pie, sooth feelings, give somebody's brother in law a judgeship, approve that dam or new courthouse, and let bygones by bygones.

TeachMan2016 wrote:

treadlightly wrote:Michelle Obama praised the protesters in Dallas for fighting for a better world for their kids - and never mentioned the police who died protecting them.

Profanity fails me.

I watched both conventions with an open mind and I listened to MOST of the speakers. I know the hate for the Democratic Party runs deep here Texas and lot of people are closed minded about things; but I am sorry to inform you that you are incorrect about Mrs. Obama not mentioning the police officers in Dallas. I am not sure in which order she said it (officers or protesters), but she mentioned both back-to-back and explaining that how the protesters were protesting for change and the " brave police officers were their to protect them"-M. Obama. Now if you would like to go back and watch the 15-20 min speech again (which i'm sure you're not), I am sure you will see where she mentioned and praised both parties in Dallas that evening.

Here is what she said, and you are right. I hope I got her quote correctly this time, because you are also right that I didn't listen to her speech again. My hearing is not perfect and I can read faster and more accurately than I can hear. I hope I found an accurate transcript.

Heroes of every color and creed who wear the uniform and risk their lives to keep passing down those blessings of liberty, police officers and the protesters in Dallas who all desperately want to keep our children safe.

What caught my attention was the last clause of that sentence. The first part of the sentence didn't register. My perception was unfair based on a preconception that at least some Black Lives Matter protesters are not there to protest for a safer world, but to celebrate a chance to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with police, black lives, or anti-violence. David Horowitz, in The Shadow Party, wrote of pressure from above and pressure from below. I believe much of the energy behind Black Lives Matter is the intent to exert pressure from the street to weaken a system at least some BLM organizers don't like.

In my defense, may I point out how hard it is to decode political statements? For instance Hillary said something, either in her acceptance speech or in her brief satellite presentation, about how when a barrier is lifted for one, the way is cleared for all.

I puzzled over that one. Finally, a friend explained that it might have been a case of a misread teleprompter. My rowdy friend said he thought she was just confident about her good relationship with the FBI, something every President needs, and meant to say that when a precedent is set for one, a loophole is opened for all.

No big deal. Hillary was just setting Comey straight when he mistakenly said the next person doing what she did with her email server could expect consequences. She believes in equality before the law and I applaud her for that.

Just yankin' yer chain! Seriously, I apologize for unfair criticism of Michelle Obama's comments.

I was wrong.

Never mind.

JALLEN wrote:Everyone has their principles, and God save us if those are abandoned, but those principles are worthless if nobody holds office because they don't get enough votes

Depends on why you hold them.

...

Interesting theory, that's for sure.

Following the script precisely.

We're not going to vote our way out of anything.

Flightmare wrote:

Interesting theory, that's for sure.

That is beyond messed up. That woman's corruption knows no bounds. Have you or someone else fact checked this? If this is legit, I am going to tell everybody I know about this.

http://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-dnc-deal/

Not sure how much value can be placed in the reporting of Snopes, as I don't regularly follow them. That being said, I did a quick search on the issue, and this article seems to break down what happened between Howard Dean stepping down as DNC chair in 2008, and DWS taking the reigns in 2011, with Tim Kaine holding the helm from 09-11.