Found a Pro-Gun Democrat running in Texas

I thought about that, Don.
But I think the important thing is that the guy saw fit to address is as a priority at all. Something to be said for that.
Rich
 
Rich,
I think your the one that needs to give me a break, seems you have been on my case since I have joined this forum. I was doing nothing more than debating the fact (as you yourself stated) that there is nothing holding this POLITICIAN to his promises. This thread was worded from the start like this politician had done something oh so binding like putting his campaign promises in writing. Then Gary compared this to the Constitution which is completely off base because the signers of the Constitution were not running for office, as a matter of fact the signers of the Constitution faced treason charges and death by signing said document. If you have a personal problem with me being on this forum please let me know and I will gladly leave, I have done nothing more than try to learn and maybe discuss some very interesting topics in these forums and have in the most part enjoyed myself while doing it.
 
But I think the important thing is that the guy saw fit to address is as a priority at all. Something to be said for that.
Click to expand...
I'll grant that there is something to be said for it, I'm just not sure what. With the information that's been presented so far, we really don't know if Mr. Van Os sees the Second Amendment as a collective right, individual right, refers to hunting only, state militia only, in the same light as Sarah Brady, etc. At this point, Mr. Van Os' promise has no real substance to it until he choses to flesh it out.
 
Don-
What's it matter, really? We don't get absolutes in voting. We only get to say "He's done something that his opponents haven't". That's as good as it gets.

I think your the one that needs to give me a break, seems you have been on my case since I have joined this forum.
Click to expand...
Contender-
Beg pardon? I don't even know you. I can assure you, you're not on my Secret Watch List. But, if you've made completely non-contributory, self serving, patronizing comments before, chances are I've responded. I generally dislike non-contributory, self serving, patronizing comments. I'm just built that way. Get over it. ;)

Rich
 
Wtf!!!!!!!

Rich said:
completely non-contributory, self serving, patronizing comments before, chances are I've responded.
Click to expand...

Would you mind pointing out to me said comment in this thread? I have made no such comment to my knowledge until you jumped my case.
 
It's his right to change his mind or just go back on his word. Never stopped any other politcian. Sounds like a good plan to get elected to me
Click to expand...
Obvious. Gratuitous. Non-contributory. Self serving. Patronizing.

I'm done with the sidetrack. Back to the point.
Rich
 
I'm sidetracked???:rolleyes: Looks to me like the statement above was on track with the discussion Gary and I were having. Your the one that got personal. Back to the "point".
 
contender

you are wrong, and cannot recognise it. Others can.

You are not a Texas resident, so your interest in this is, at best, academic.

Your bias is showing.

As Rich said, get over it.

Vote for whom you wish, trust whomever you choose. (From the looks of this thread, that would be no-one.)

I have never voted for a (D) either (yet), but that may change soon--this guy might deserve a look.

I have voted for (I)s before, and in the Texas Governor's race this year, will certainly be doing so, even though it will have no affect upon the outcome (unfortunately).

An objective mind can recognise the facts and make a decision based upon the merits of the case.

Best regards, Rich
 
Ok

So far I've had two folks tell me I'm wrong but have yet to explain what I'm wrong about. I'll agree I don't trust politicians cute little "stunts" when they are running for office. Anyone that doesn't look on these stunts with at least a little criticism is just way too trusting in my opinion (and we know what those are like:p ) So tell me orionengnr, what exactly am I wrong about. I, unlike some, will not go ape S#!T if I am proven wrong, I consider it a learning process.

PS I may be somewhat biased toward democrats but look on any party promises during election time with criticism.
 
Has Mr. Van Os made any statements about what, in his opinion, the Second Amendment means?
Click to expand...

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Yes sir, he has done so specifically, and it isn't your standard left wing type of interpretation.

He believes the second amendment says exactly what it means, in that the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means no infringements of the INDIVIDUAL, OR COLLECTIVE should be infringed upon in any manner.

I asked him how he manages to get along with the Texas Anti Gun Democrats in his party such as Lloyd Dogget, (he sponsored the proposed ban on semi autos) and he answered simply, "I don't get along with them at all." He didn't hesitate, he didn't equivocate.

(He specified the 4th Amendment pledge also in his affadvit directly because of the idiots in New Orleans who violated the 2nd and 4th Amendments when pulling of the first government sponsored wholesale gun confiscation in America)

Keep in mind, I am a Republican, and this will be the first Democrat I have ever voted for. I checked out that aspect of his views by DIRECTLY questioning him personally.
 
Originally Posted by contender6030:
...as a matter of fact the signers of the Constitution faced treason charges and death by signing said document.
Click to expand...

Not to detract from your point, but I think you're confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution (which was written years after the Revolution was over).


.
 
So far I've had two folks tell me I'm wrong but have yet to explain what I'm wrong about.
Click to expand...

I'd say that you're wrong to assume that all people who run for office are liars who will not keep their word. Some are. Some are not. But you paint with a brush too broad.

In the state of Texas, it's a rare person who bucks the current liberal captivity to run as a Democrat and disagree with people like Doggett et al. This guy doesn't say a darn thing that smacks of shilly-shallying. He's worth looking at. You are not in Texas, so this is moot for you, of course, but I think you're wrong about this guy and about what he's up to.

Springmom
 
Springmom has a definite point on the fact that Van Os is bucking his own Texas Democrat Party's base, to not be intimidated by Lloyd Dogget and his gang of anti-gun, pro illegal immigration crowd.

Not all Democrats are Left wing socialists. Remember Zell Miller? You couldn't get more fiscally conservative than him, with the exception of John Kennedy, their political hero.

He was the biggest proponent of tax breaks for private business owners in history, with the exception of Ronal Reagan. And Reagan himself proudly stated many times, that his fiscal conservatisim was directly in line with the President Kennedy's theory that the lower the taxes, the more players (business investment) cinvolved within our economy, thus the higher the amount of collected tax revenue. You get to raising taxes, the less the investment and therfore, the lower amount of tax revenue.

(How his brother Teddy turned out an exact opposite is weird in itself)
 
More from his website...

Van Os Receives "A" Rating from NRA

We are pleased to announce that David Van Os has been awarded an "A" rating by the National Rifle Association/Texas Rifle Association based on their screening and review. This is strong recognition of David's unswerving support for individual Constitutional liberties such as the Second Amendment.

"Our nation's founders placed the right of the people to keep and bear arms at a high rank in the Bill of Rights for a reason," said Van Os. "The Second Amendment was crafted by the founders as a fundamental stipulation to enable the people to protect themselves from tyranny if necessary, and I support it unswervingly."
 
Noticed today on the news the Dem. candidate for Gov. here in GA (Mark Taylor) has pulled the same type thing. Signed his EXTRA LARGE piece of paper for the local news media woopeee! Maybe a trend????:D I still have to say I'm skeptical of any "stunts" a candidate running for election pulls.
 
Contender 6030:

Here is the key. If he fails to do as he contends he will, you always can access it easily, for .25 cents from your county recorder and figuratively beat him over the head with it when he runs again.

It's better than having to rely on the news media to turn over (or point out from their old videos) the promises they make on the campaign trail.

I like it.
 
My point is that I (as most people) have a fairly good memory. Therefore why is a piece of paper any better. I can beat the candidate over the head with the facts from memory just as well from a signed paper. Neither will stand if they deviate from what they said/wrote because they have the right to deviate. For instance, I do not need a signed paper from the "Read my lips" era. Neither a paper or memory will correct the deviation from said campaign promise. I have to admit I admire the candidate for signing the paper IF he sticks to his promise, which remains to be seen, FIRST he must be elected. My problem is (especially now that another Dem candidate has pulled the same stunt) is this a credible action or a stunt to get elected? Of course, in the end it is up to each person to make his/her own decision.
 
Contender 6030:

You are correct sir. But I submit that the "Read my lips" clip, was run by the media, and talking heads, on an almost continuous loop for a straight year.

If the News Media didn't run it, it would not be quotable man. You can prove your point easily, when the news media is running the clip 24/7, or if they decide to turn over their tapes to the opponents campaign.

If they don't do it, you never get the tape. See my point? A filed document is easier for a person to retrieve (.25 cents) and you can detail every specific promise.

As an example, you have spoken on this for several posts, but if you had to tell me exactly what Van Os pledged in say a week (without refering back to it) I would venture to guess that you wouldn't be able to list the Constitutional Amendments he specified he would utilize to halt the TTC.
 
Contender - I've been trying to understand the content of your posts and I think your point is ambiguous...

I have to admit I admire the candidate for signing the paper IF he sticks to his promise, which remains to be seen, FIRST he must be elected.
Click to expand...
How do you propose that he gets elected and proves it if everyone took your advice and didn't consider him because he can't be trusted?
My problem is (especially now that another Dem candidate has pulled the same stunt) is this a credible action or a stunt to get elected?
Click to expand...
First you state that it is a stunt, then you ask if it's a stunt.
Of course, in the end it is up to each person to make his/her own decision.
Click to expand...
This is the only thing you've expressed that makes sense.

Most of your statements led to the conclusion that you can't trust ANY politician that makes a promise. The alternative is to vote for someone on the ballot who says nothing, so he can't break a promise. There are some candidates here in Texas running for office that have not made any statements on their campaign, no websites... nothing.

I think the biggest thing in Mr. Van Os' favor is that he is making a stand based on his opinions and not following the cookie-cutter statements that the other Dem's are saying.

Another candidate in Texas who made a written agreement with the voters is Michael Badnarik. He was an Independent (or Libertarian, don't remember) candidate for president in '04, now he's running for the Congress for Texas as an Independent. I am considering him, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top