Gov. Rick Perry

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think Perry is positioning himself to be on the republican ticket in the VP slot. What do you think Mufasa?[/quote]

Good question, Zeb.

Historically, the VP choice is as “political” as it gets…it’s meant (mostly) to attract a certain segment or segments of the Electorate; OR to “appease” a certain segment of the electorate/and or the Party.

Therefore, the VP choice will depend on a) who the nominee is and b) where the electorate appears to be entering into the general election.

Perry may, or may not, be the “best” choice leading into the election.

Much like Palin; I think Perry is “playing it coy”; and waiting to see how things go.

Mufasa [/quote]

Perry is trying to get the republican nomination I think. That’s what the prayer thing is about. It’s also why he’s trying to fix the budget, but at the expense of public education. If he gets nominated, I’m sure he’ll start going more mainstream to grab those swing-votes. [/quote]

Good analysis. But I don’t see him escaping being called “George Bush The Second”. In fact, liberal AOL has already dubbed him something along those lines. He’ll have a tough road ahead of him should he jump into the race. Even if the voters are ready for another Gov from Texas to become President, the media will certainly strike at this hard and often.

42

My biggest worry about if Perry got the presidency is that in order to reign in the budget, I think he’ll take it out important things like public education (our nation’s future) and government programs intended to get people back on there feet (I think they need reform, not elimination).

As opposed to decreasing our activity in the middle east (not to mention the real threats are South of our border). I’m also worried he’ll try to start some Reagonomics type bs. Trickle down theory is a load of bull.

43

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
My biggest worry about if Perry got the presidency is that in order to reign in the budget, I think he’ll take it out important things like public education[/quote]

The federal government needs to get its hands out of state problems like education. The first thing that a really good President would do is eliminate all educational ties to states.

Psychology 101 tells us that any behavior that we reward will most likely be repeated. Therefore, actually paying people NOT to work is the first thing that we need to stop doing. As we are in essence paying them to stay home. I am for helping people who are currently not working. However, the only way they get an “unemployment check” is if they show up at a government building and do something productive. From sweeping, mopping and dusting to shovling and raking. Never ever again should anyone, and that includes people on welfare, be given a check and not made to do something for it. It harms them, the government and the people who the government took the money from in order to give it away.

You’re afraid that he might begin the largest expansion of a peace time economy such as what Ronald Reagan did? 20 million jobs were created in the Reagan administration. Oh wait, were you listening to the main stream liberal media attack “Reaganomics” because they hated Reagan? Yes, that must have bene it. Okay, you’re confused. Go read some information on the biggest peace time economic expansion that took place under Ronald Reagan. We can only hope that Rick Perry would follow Reagan’s example. Especially after the Obama catastrophe.

44

[quote]forlife wrote:
If Rick Perry had led a prayer at a Muslim mosque instead, I suspect many of the Christians crowing about his courage in this thread may have a different view.[/quote]

I would think you would dislike that too, given how Islamic nations and the text of the koran mandates death for gays.

Interesting that gays and other liberals embrace muslims when you would be the first people they would kill (even before Jewish people) if they somehow managed to assume power.

45

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If Rick Perry had led a prayer at a Muslim mosque instead, I suspect many of the Christians crowing about his courage in this thread may have a different view.[/quote]

I would think you would dislike that too, given how Islamic nations and the text of the koran mandates death for gays.

Interesting that gays and other liberals embrace muslims when you would be the first people they would kill (even before Jewish people) if they somehow managed to assume power.[/quote]

Excellent point and one usually lost on the likes of the far left.

46

I think that Perry is more angling for a VP role. Sweet Revenge has it right. I don’t care if he’s Christian or not, but such an overt display of faith in a country where separation of church and state is enshrined would discourage many independents. I think that he’d run as a VP of someone like Romney, who’s faith and u-turns on issues have caused criticism to shore up a religious base and to trump his economic know-how. But then that just reminds me a lot of McCain/Palin in 08 (former left of the GOP with religious VP) and that didn’t win against Obama the first time. I think the GOP would need something different to take on the Obama campaign juggernaut (I read recently that he’s already had 3 times as many donations as the nearest republican contender, Romney)

What about Huntsman? It’s a name I’ve been hearing more of. ZEB any thoughts?

47

[quote]Bambi wrote:
I think that Perry is more angling for a VP role. Sweet Revenge has it right. I don’t care if he’s Christian or not, but such an overt display of faith in a country where separation of church and state is enshrined would discourage many independents. I think that he’d run as a VP of someone like Romney, who’s faith and u-turns on issues have caused criticism to shore up a religious base and to trump his economic know-how. But then that just reminds me a lot of McCain/Palin in 08 (former left of the GOP with religious VP) and that didn’t win against Obama the first time. I think the GOP would need something different to take on the Obama campaign juggernaut (I read recently that he’s already had 3 times as many donations as the nearest republican contender, Romney)[/quote]

One last time, at this early date that show of fait only helps him get the nomination. Or as you suggest get him the VP slot.

Huntsman is a loser who will fade. Underfunded, not enough experience and ZIP in the charisma department. In addition to all of that he worked in a democratic administration which won’t play well during the nominating process.

Now here is someone that Ron Paul might be able to beat!

48

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
I think that Perry is more angling for a VP role. Sweet Revenge has it right. I don’t care if he’s Christian or not, but such an overt display of faith in a country where separation of church and state is enshrined would discourage many independents. I think that he’d run as a VP of someone like Romney, who’s faith and u-turns on issues have caused criticism to shore up a religious base and to trump his economic know-how. But then that just reminds me a lot of McCain/Palin in 08 (former left of the GOP with religious VP) and that didn’t win against Obama the first time. I think the GOP would need something different to take on the Obama campaign juggernaut (I read recently that he’s already had 3 times as many donations as the nearest republican contender, Romney)[/quote]

One last time, at this early date that show of fait only helps him get the nomination. Or as you suggest get him the VP slot.

Huntsman is a loser who will fade. Underfunded, not enough experience and ZIP in the charisma department. In addition to all of that he worked in a democratic administration which won’t play well during the nominating process.

Now here is someone that Ron Paul might be able to beat![/quote]

I agree it will help him secure a slot but I do not think it will be the president’s role. I think, as I have said, that overt displays of faith will antagonise more than they appeal. I think it will be a moderate republican. It’s quite interesting all these budget crises playing out, with the ultimate risk that the USA will default on its debt, that you suggest that working with the democrats is to a candidate’s disadvantage, when the lack of movement on either side regarding the budget shows both side’s unwillingness to tolerate the other.

Anyway, it’s all spit in the wind yet.

50

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If Rick Perry had led a prayer at a Muslim mosque instead, I suspect many of the Christians crowing about his courage in this thread may have a different view.[/quote]

I would think you would dislike that too, given how Islamic nations and the text of the koran mandates death for gays.

Interesting that gays and other liberals embrace muslims when you would be the first people they would kill (even before Jewish people) if they somehow managed to assume power.[/quote]

Where did I embrace Muslims? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting a political leader praying at a Christian function, while condemning a political leader praying at a Muslim function. The only reason some of the Christians in this thread aren’t throwing a hissy fit is because he prayed at a Christian event.

The principle of separating church from state applies across the board, not just to everyone with a different religion than yours.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If Rick Perry had led a prayer at a Muslim mosque instead, I suspect many of the Christians crowing about his courage in this thread may have a different view.[/quote]

I would think you would dislike that too, given how Islamic nations and the text of the koran mandates death for gays.

Interesting that gays and other liberals embrace muslims when you would be the first people they would kill (even before Jewish people) if they somehow managed to assume power.[/quote]

Where did I embrace Muslims? I was pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting a political leader praying at a Christian function, while condemning a political leader praying at a Muslim function. The only reason some of the Christians in this thread aren’t throwing a hissy fit is because he prayed at a Christian event.

The principle of separating church from state applies across the board, not just to everyone with a different religion than yours.[/quote]

You are as ignorant on this topic as you are on others that I’ve had to school you in.

You don’t even have a clue why separation of church and state is so important. It wasn’t to keep “church” out of government it was to keep the government out of church. Read some history on your spare time.

And one more thing, this happens to be a Judeo-Christian country. Do you understand what that means? Someone running for President who attends a Christian prayer meeting is not looked down upon because we are a Christian country. Someone attending an Islamic prayer meeting would be frowned upon as we are not a Muslim nation.

You are not a smart person forlife, regardless of the topic.

(and I’m being kind)

52

Rick Perry pitches “The Response” in new video…

http://www.theresponseusa.com

53

Zeb why do you argue with that ignorant fool? Quit wasting your time my friend. Also I can get you his address here in Dallas if you so wish? J/K forlife but I have figured out who are my friend.

In my opinion I think Perry is our only realistic chance at winning and thats including Mitt Romney. Its bad when you have democratic folks supporting him not a good sign. Maybe we will have a dark horse come out of nowhere just like Obummer did.

55

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

…The principle of separating church from state…

[/quote]

Woefully pathetic ignorance.
[/quote]

Separation between church and state was intended to protect religion from the influence of government. In order for that to work, government must be free of religion. A Christian government will favor Christian churches, while marginalizing other faiths. We are a democracy, not a theocracy.

The U.S. was never designed to be a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the Declaration of Independence and source of the “separation between church and state” statement, was decidedly NOT a Christian, and he never intended for the government to be a Christian government.

[quote]Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from
the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed
by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from
the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the
insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant
to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every
denomination.[/quote]

[quote]History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest
grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders
will always avail themselves for their own purposes.[/quote]

56

forlife,

With every post you continue to show yourself to be ignorant. Ignorant of history and relgion.

Here’s a little history that you probably forgot to read:

[quote]The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to a church (the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut). The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was written to affirm first amendment rights.

Jefferson wrote: I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."[/quote]

Therefore, the “wall” between the two was ONE WAY.

This must come as a great shock and disappointment to such a free wheeling atheist such as yourself. You live in a Judeo-Christian nation forlife. Now you may not like it, but at least try to understand it…idiot.

http://www.tgm.org/mythofseparation.html

57

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from
the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed
by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from
the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the
insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant
to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every
denomination.[/quote][/quote]

This topic is a complicated one, but at least get the sourcing right - this is Jefferson’s quote regarding the Virginia statute supporting religious freedom, not the First Amendment (which did not apply to the states).

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

…The principle of separating church from state…

[/quote]

Woefully pathetic ignorance.
[/quote]

Separation between church and state was intended to protect religion from the influence of government. In order for that to work, government must be free of religion. A Christian government will favor Christian churches, while marginalizing other faiths. We are a democracy, not a theocracy.

The U.S. was never designed to be a Christian nation. Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the Declaration of Independence and source of the “separation between church and state” statement, was decidedly NOT a Christian, and he never intended for the government to be a Christian government.

[quote]Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from
the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed
by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from
the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the
insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant
to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every
denomination.[/quote]

[quote]History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden
people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest
grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders
will always avail themselves for their own purposes.[/quote]

FL, you do not know your history. You are indeed ignorant. You should spend more time studying and less time posting on TN about matters like this.

You are so ignorant you don’t even know that you’re own country is not a democracy as you have stated but rather a constitutional republic.

Like many other Americans you have been spoonfed the idea that our “democracy” is constitutionally designed to keep religion out of the government sphere and that my ignorant friend is patently false. You are a foolish dog to be chasing that rabbit. Take a break from your yapping and do some research.[/quote]

How about dropping the ad hominems, and addressing my point?

How can a religious government not restrict religion? By its very nature, it promotes its pet religion and discriminates against other religions.