Rick Perry For President! Would you vote for him?

[4a6c1]

Vote.

Texans seem to be either on one extreme or the other. Love him or hate him. I'm curious how non-Texans view him.

[pabstblueribbon]

Who?

[4a6c1]

Texas governor

[pabstblueribbon]

I don't know who he is, but I voted no, because I generally don't like people named Rick.

[Warriorbird]

The question is: Would you?

[Parkbandit]

I would vote for almost anyone over Obama at this point. Hell, I would even vote for Hillary over Obama.

[pabstblueribbon]

I would vote for almost anyone over Obama at this point. Hell, I would even vote for Hillary over Obama.

Ugh.. I almost agree with you..

[WRoss]

He's for economic growth policies so he's OK by me!

[Rinualdo]

Are you kidding?


In an interview last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry explained how the economic crisis is part of God’s plan, to return us to biblical principles

[WRoss]

I didn't say he wasn't wonky, but I'd rather have him than Obama. Would I vote for him in a primary? Very unlikely, unless my other choice was Palin

[Jack]

Are you kidding?

I like how you cherry picked that quote and removed the rest of the context. It makes you seem like you're smart and were able to get one over on the evil republicans who want to take us all back 2000 years in history. Some day maybe I will be as cool as you, but until then I'll just quote all of it....


PERRY: I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times — and I think we’re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don’t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government.

[Hulkein]

I don't want him to get in the race because I want Romney to cruise to the nomination. That being said, I'd almost surely vote for him over Obama if he were to win the nomination.

[HJFudge]

I like how you cherry picked that quote and removed the rest of the context. It makes you seem like you're smart and were able to get one over on the evil republicans who want to take us all back 2000 years in history. Some day maybe I will be as cool as you, but until then I'll just quote all of it....

I'm always amused when politicians use the bible to make and/or try to influence policy.

They like to highlight points that agree with them and just not mention the stuff that vehemently contradicts them.

If we were truly a biblical country, we'd all be like the church of old, having 'all things in common'.

SOCIALISM!

[Parkbandit]

In Rinaldo's defense.. he gets his quotes from moveon.org and mediamatters.org ... so it's likely he's never read the quote in it's entirety.

[Parkbandit]

I don't want him to get in the race because I want Romney to cruise to the nomination. That being said, I'd almost surely vote for him over Obama if he were to win the nomination.

I want to like Romney.. I really do. I was actually considering working for his campaign.. but I just don't believe he's really the fiscal conservative that's required to fix this economy.

[Cephalopod]

I like how you cherry picked that quote and removed the rest of the context. It makes you seem like you're smart and were able to get one over on the evil republicans who want to take us all back 2000 years in history. Some day maybe I will be as cool as you, but until then I'll just quote all of it....

I'm not sure the context (and actual quote) makes the point you want or seem to think you're making. Restating his quote as "The economic downturn is God's plan" is definitely disingenuous because he obviously never outright said "This economic downturn is God's plan". He does, however, imply that is exactly what he believes, then goes on to equate government to slavery. Slaves from the last few thousand years might disagree with the analogy, although I'm sure Rocktar agrees. (I think he's actually made the same point before, that income taxes are a form of slavery.)

Ignoring this, I can get behind Rick Perry's fiscal conservatism, but I could never vote for him (SURPRISE, BECAUSE I'M A LIBERAL HIPPY!) because of his social conservatism and faith-based governing. Encouraging schools to teach intelligent design, days of prayer and fasting just rub me wrong.

Then there's the wacky stuff, like trying to force women to get HPV vaccinations, which seems so out of character for a conservative... but then you see his campaign contributions from HPV-vaccine maker Merck, and have to wonder what his office is really doing.

[Cephalopod]

I want to like Romney.. I really do. I was actually considering working for his campaign.. but I just don't believe he's really the fiscal conservative that's required to fix this economy.

Romney is one of the few conservative candidates I'd consider voting for, especially given my increasing dissatisfaction with the current administration. I'm not sure, outside of Massachusetts, what kind of liberal/democrat draw he might have though. I view him mostly favorably from his time as governor, although a lot of folks were pissed that he 'snuck out' mid term to run for president.

[Rinualdo]

In Rinaldo's defense.. he gets his quotes from moveon.org and mediamatters.org ... so it's likely he's never read the quote in it's entirety.

Naw, I actually saw the interview, on a Christian show. The dude's a bible thumper and that's all I need to know not to vote for him.

[Tsa`ah]

In Rinaldo's defense.. he gets his quotes from moveon.org and mediamatters.org ... so it's likely he's never read the quote in it's entirety.

So to be clear, you're saying that if one of your aforementioned sources quotes a conservative ... that some how invalidates the words of the original source? How exactly does that work.

Or is it the quote some how skewed beyond the original context ... I honestly don't get how this works. Perry referenced the bible in a political response to an economic question. While there is certainly some wisdom to be gleaned from biblical texts ... they're generally vague on economic theories. Never mind that he's talking out of his ass when he says such things. Has Perry in any day, week, month or year as governor of Texas practiced the wisdom of his biblical economic principles?

[TheEschaton]

Not to mention that the Bible's view on economic issues is wholly within the realm of collectivism.

[Tsa`ah]

One may even say "socialist" ... Tzedaka.

Leviticus 19:9*10 and Deuteronomy 26:12 (It doesn't say give to the church ... it says give to the poor).

These are Judaic law, and I'm still kind of confused where Buddy Christ "Nah dude ... you don't have to do that anymore".

[TheEschaton]

Al Franken once had a pretty hilarious chapter in one of his books titled Supply Side Jesus. I think it was Lying Liars and the Lies they tell, or whatever it was called.

It was all about how conservatives cling to the ONE parable in the NT which on its face looks like a conservative fiscal endorsement, but is really more along the lines of the whole "Don't hide your light under a bushel basket" variety parable.

[Tsa`ah]

I haven't read any of Franken's books, though I skimmed through Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot ... only after Limbaugh tried to take Franken to court over the the book.

This is what gets me over the Perry support. The guy advocated secession ... sticking his hand out for federal dollars before and after ... and now is entertaining thoughts of a presidential run?

But why stop there? He's an individual rights/limited government guy ... and he signs a bill into TX state law requiring women to see sonogram images of their fetus and receive "counseling" on abortion (I would love to see someone condemning the FL law making it illegal for doctors to ask about gun ownership defend a law that forces doctors to counsel pregnant women against abortion). So discard the rights of pregnant women and expand government into their personal lives?

Then there's the crock of a statement about "biblical" economics while ignoring them and expanding state spending into record deficits. Wouldn't Perry be the Pharaoh in this instance ... and his Bible "David"? Didn't he spend the last 11 years telling David to go screw himself?

[Latrinsorm]

Maybe if... he was Katy Perry.

[Parkbandit]

So to be clear, you're saying that if one of your aforementioned sources quotes a conservative ... that some how invalidates the words of the original source? How exactly does that work.

While I'm an atheist and don't believe it's actually a "Bible principle"... Perry was talking about saving money and watching what you spend in economic hard times... which isn't even included in Rinaldo's "quote" at all.

There is a gigantic difference between:


In an interview last month, Texas Governor Rick Perry explained how the economic crisis is part of God’s plan, to return us to biblical principles

And the actual quote:


I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times — and I think we’re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don’t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government.

[Hulkein]

The quote is definitely out of context as posted originally.

My reasons for hoping he does not enter the race are reflected in this thread: he draws serious rebuke by all Democrats and some independents for the social conservatism. Please just nominate Romney so we can get a smart, right leaning guy in office.

@PB: Romney wouldn't slash and burn the budget like Ron Paul would but I think he would make serious headway in balancing it.

[Rinualdo]

When he says we are going through these difficult times for a "purpose", exactly who's purpose and who designed that purpose is he referring to?

[Parkbandit]

When he says we are going through these difficult times for a "purpose", exactly who's purpose and who designed that purpose is he referring to?

I'm hoping that purpose is to save the country from financial bankruptcy.

[Tgo01]

When he says we are going through these difficult times for a "purpose", exactly who's purpose and who designed that purpose is he referring to?

Did he actually say it's God's plan for all of this? Because I looked around for a quote of him saying that and everything pointed to what PB quoted which doesn't mention God at all.

[Warriorbird]

I think the real secret is most of us can rationalize stupid economic policies and most of them can rationalize stupid social ones.

We never get what we really want. Then we find out that they didn't actually believe what they claimed to.

...and thus, politics.

Anybody who's actually close to people's beliefs (Ron Paul for Republicans) gets written off.

[CrystalTears]

When he says we are going through these difficult times for a "purpose", exactly who's purpose and who designed that purpose is he referring to?
If you take out "biblical", it still makes sense that times are changing. People need to learn to live within their means. Spending needs to be reduced across the board, especially in the government. I'm not saying I would necessarily vote for the guy, but I saw nothing wrong with what he stated.

[Rinualdo]

If you take out "biblical", it still makes sense that times are changing. People need to learn to live within their means. Spending needs to be reduced across the board, especially in the government. I'm not saying I would necessarily vote for the guy, but I saw nothing wrong with what he stated.

There is a big difference between saying "times are changing" and "god is causing times to change". He is clearly referring to a deity or higher power when he talks about purpose.

I don't take exception to his belief in a higher power, but when you hold that, that higher power is taking a direct role our country and has a direct hand in shifting our policy, you are a bible thumper and dangerous in my book.

[Rinualdo]

Did he actually say it's God's plan for all of this? Because I looked around for a quote of him saying that and everything pointed to what PB quoted which doesn't mention God at all.

Wasn't this quite made on a Christian television show? Didn't he refer to Biblical principals?
What other rationale do you have to believe he meant something other then God's purpose?

[Tgo01]

There is a big difference between saying "times are changing" and "god is causing times to change". He is clearly referring to a deity or higher power when he talks about purpose.

Did he specifically say 'God is causing times to changes'? In fact he mentions the purpose in the quote that has already been posted "I think we’re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don’t spend all the money."

No mention of God.

[CrystalTears]

There is a big difference between saying "times are changing" and "god is causing times to change". He is clearly referring to a deity or higher power when he talks about purpose.Except that he didn't say God is causing times to change. Try again.

[Rinualdo]

Except that he didn't say God is causing times to change. Try again.



He is clearly referring to a deity or higher power when he talks about purpose.

If you disagree, give me an alternate theory. Whom is is referring to?

[Parkbandit]

I think the real secret is most of us can rationalize stupid economic policies and most of them can rationalize stupid social ones.

We never get what we really want. Then we find out that they didn't actually believe what they claimed to.

...and thus, politics.

Anybody who's actually close to people's beliefs (Ron Paul for Republicans) gets written off.

My problems with Ron Paul is that he's too extreme. He wants to legalize all drugs, do away with a shitload of government departments (some of which I do agree with.. some I do not), pull all forces out of foreign countries and become isolationists.

I agree with most of his stands on his fiscal policies... but only to a certain point.

[Rinualdo]

My problems with Ron Paul is that he's too extreme. He wants to legalize all drugs, do away with a shitload of government departments (some of which I do agree with.. some I do not), pull all forces out of foreign countries and become isolationists.

I agree with most of his stands on his fiscal policies... but only to a certain point.

He reminds me a lot of Ross Perot. Well sounding fiscal arguments at first pass, but something about him makes people think he's a fringe player with no real shot.

Not centrist enough, perhaps.

[Bobmuhthol]

Perry never claimed that any particular entity was responsible for any change. Read the fucking quote.

[Parkbandit]

If you disagree, give me an alternate theory. Whom is is referring to?

Haven't we already done that? You asked the purpose.. I gave you one that makes far more sense than the one you are offering.

And if this quote is from a Christian television show... wouldn't it make perfect sense for Perry.. as a candidate or as a Governor.. to talk about God and the Bible often?

[Rinualdo]

Perry never claimed that any particular entity was responsible for any change. Read the fucking quote.

Again, who or what was he referencing? What caused something to happen on purpose to bring us back to Biblical principles?

[Parkbandit]

He reminds me a lot of Ross Perot. Well sounding fiscal arguments at first pass, but something about him makes people think he's a fringe player with no real shot.

Not centrist enough, perhaps.

Something about him? I just gave you a bunch of reasons why he's a fringe player with no real shot.

[Parkbandit]

Again, who or what was he referencing? What caused something to happen on purpose to bring us back to Biblical principles?

I think you are reading far more into that single quote than you should.

[Rinualdo]

Haven't we already done that? You asked the purpose.. I gave you one that makes far more sense than the one you are offering.

And if this quote is from a Christian television show... wouldn't it make perfect sense for Perry.. as a candidate or as a Governor.. to talk about God and the Bible often?

Seriously PB? Hasn't this guy done and said enough to be pretty evident that he is running as the strong Christian Conservative candidate?

Didn't he try and organize a national prayer meeting for the nation's governors? Didn't he describe the event as
"apolitical Christian prayer service" to provide "spiritual solutions to the many challenges we face in our communities, states and nation."

Sorry, I'd rather rely on good governance to solve our problems, not prayer or spiritual solutions.


“Yes. I am an evangelical Christian. Im a born-again Christian and believe in the outreach of the Christian faith to all places around the globe.”

Didn't he support succession?

Hasn't he shown on numerous occasions to take his biblical view and use that against women's rights, homosexual rights, etc?

Dude's a bible thumper, plain and simple. If you're comfortable with that as President, so be it.

[Rinualdo]

Something about him? I just gave you a bunch of reasons why he's a fringe player with no real shot.

Sorry. "Something about him" was referencing Perot and the same core aspect that I see in Paul's personality.

[CrystalTears]

If you disagree, give me an alternate theory. Whom is is referring to?
Why is his quote about anyone? It's about a time in the past where we had to be mindful of how we spent money. A time when we didn't have credit cards with $10,000 limits, or governments spending money on giving out free lunches for every child within 100 miles just because they can. A time when you spent what you earned, nothing more. We have to get back to that so people learn how to spend, both as individuals and as a nation.

I think you're reading way too hard into this. And when PB, who doesn't have patience for politicians with a religious agenda, tells you that you're misunderstanding, you can take that to the bank.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously PB? Hasn't this guy done and said enough to be pretty evident that he is running as the strong Christian Conservative candidate?

Didn't he try and organize a national prayer meeting for the nation's governors? Didn't he describe the event as

Sorry, I'd rather rely on good governance to solve our problems, not prayer or spiritual solutions.

Didn't he support succession?

Hasn't he shown on numerous occasions to take his biblical view and use that against women's rights, homosexual rights, etc?

Dude's a bible thumper, plain and simple. If you're comfortable with that as President, so be it.

Given the track record of Obama.. it's safe to say we do not have "good governance"... so I'll give a bible thumper with strong conservative fiscal credentials any day.

[Parkbandit]

Why is his quote about anyone? It's about a time in the past where we had to be mindful of how we spent money. A time when we didn't have credit cards with $10,000 limits, or governments spending money on giving out free lunches for every child within 100 miles just because they can. A time when you spent what you earned, nothing more. We have to get back to that so people learn how to spend, both as individuals and as a nation.

I think you're reading way too hard into this. And when PB, who doesn't have patience for politicians with a religious agenda, tells you that you're misunderstanding, you can take that to the bank.

Holy shit... you might have made it to former turned current semi-conservative with that post.

[Rinualdo]

Holy shit... you might have made it to former turned current semi-conservative with that post.

Shame it was full of idiotic hyperbole and failed to grasp the basic point.

[CrystalTears]

Shame it was full of idiotic hyperbole and failed to grasp the basic point.
Oh you mean your point that God is behind all of this? Really?

Except that people do have $10k credit cards, and cities are giving out free lunches, and people are not living within their means. So where's the hyperbole?

[Rinualdo]

Oh you mean your point that God is behind all of this? Really?

Except that people do have $10k credit cards, and cities are giving out free lunches, and people are not living within their means. So where's the hyperbole?

Well...

If you wanted to make the point that we need to remove the things you listed, you'd only have to go back 100 years? Not thousands.
People have been living outside their means since the dawn of time? As soon as covet entered our human understanding, people have been extending themselves to achieve things outside their socio-economic status.

Also, what is wrong with providing free lunch to children who can't afford it?

What is wrong with a 10k credit card?

You've completely misunderstood my objection to his quote. It wasn't to the Biblical principals, but to the purpose or thing leading us there.

Speaking of Biblical principals, I'm all for them. In additional to the lack of woman's rights, slavery, et al, Jesus was far more of a Democrat then he was a Republican.

[Hulkein]

Let it go bro.

[HJFudge]

Debtor's prison has been a thing for a long, long time.

It's not only NOW we live outside of our means. The poor have kinda always have, because that keeps em in debt and keeps em under control.

As to "Was his quote referring to God?"

Reading the full quote? Probably. Is that bad? No.

What bothers me more is how he equates government taxation and such to slavery. Which means he can no longer be taken with any degree of seriousness.

[Parkbandit]

You've completely misunderstood my objection to his quote. It wasn't to the Biblical principals, but to the purpose or thing leading us there.

I think we agree that it was more you creating that position than it actually being there.



Speaking of Biblical principals, I'm all for them. In additional to the lack of woman's rights, slavery, et al, Jesus was far more of a Democrat then he was a Republican.

I'm not sure if you know this or not... but I don't believe in Jesus.

[Hulkein]

I'm not sure if you know this or not... but I don't believe in Jesus.

Historically as a man or you just don't believe in him as a deity? ;)

[Cephalopod]

I'm not sure if you know this or not... but I don't believe in Jesus.

But he loves you!

[Parkbandit]

Historically as a man or you just don't believe in him as a deity? ;)

As the son of God. I believe there was a guy named Jesus Christ who ended up being crucified on a cross by the Roman government.

[Cephalopod]

http://ontherecordwithben.areavoices.com/files/2010/09/romani-ite-domum-716062.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Also, what is wrong with providing free lunch to children who can't afford it? I said all children, not children who can't afford it. The city of Norwich has a program where they offer free lunches to ANY child, from birth to 18, during the summer regardless of financial status.


What is wrong with a 10k credit card? Everything. Unless you're rich and can pay off that 10k within a reasonable time period before paying a shit ton of interest first, it's living beyond your means. A family will use 10k of credit on vacations or things, then spend the rest of their lives paying it off slowly, or possibly never and then needing to do credit consolidation. Huge amounts of credit is not necessarily a good thing.


You've completely misunderstood my objection to his quote. It wasn't to the Biblical principals, but to the purpose or thing leading us there.Our behavior led us there. Our need to spend more than we earn got us there. Buying houses that are 10x more than we can afford got us there. God had nothing to do with our greed.

[Bobmuhthol]

Everything. Unless you're rich and can pay off that 10k within a reasonable time period before paying a shit ton of interest first, it's living beyond your means. A family will use 10k of credit on vacations or things, then spend the rest of their lives paying it off slowly, or possibly never and then needing to do credit consolidation. Huge amounts of credit is not necessarily a good thing.

I am 20 and I have a revolving credit limit of $9,000. I had to deal with retarded credit laws because I applied for one of my cards after Obama decided that anyone 18-20 is incapable of entering into contracts. Nonetheless, I obeyed the rules and got the card.

I'm not rich. I've never missed a payment. I'm simply not a fucking moron, and that shouldn't be enough to prevent me from enjoying credit. The availability of credit is always a good thing.

[Tgo01]

Speaking of Biblical principals, I'm all for them. In additional to the lack of woman's rights, slavery, et al, Jesus was far more of a Democrat then he was a Republican.

Now you are trying to tie Jesus to a political party.

[CrystalTears]

I am 20 and I have a revolving credit limit of $9,000. I had to deal with retarded credit laws because I applied for one of my cards after Obama decided that anyone 18-20 is incapable of entering into contracts. Nonetheless, I obeyed the rules and got the card.

I'm not rich. I've never missed a payment. I'm simply not a fucking moron, and that shouldn't be enough to prevent me from enjoying credit. The availability of credit is always a good thing.
For the responsible people like yourself, yes. For people who just apply for credit and receive it regardless (which some banks are handing out like candy because they're just getting fat on interest) and then use all of it without thinking of the consequences (which is quite a bit), it's a problem.

[Cephalopod]

I am 20 and I have a revolving credit limit of $9,000. I had to deal with retarded credit laws because I applied for one of my cards after Obama decided that anyone 18-20 is incapable of entering into contracts. Nonetheless, I obeyed the rules and got the card.

I'm not rich. I've never missed a payment. I'm simply not a fucking moron, and that shouldn't be enough to prevent me from enjoying credit. The availability of credit is always a good thing.

So, you're saying you want to pay for dinner next time?

[Bobmuhthol]

Maybe we just have a fundamentally different view of responsibility. I have no problem with banks giving out credit like it ain't no thang, but I hold them responsible for protecting their own profits -- it's a very poor strategy to extend credit to those who have no credibility. So, when people default, the bank should have no real recourse besides hanging its head for lending like an idiot and the borrower's default should be published. There's really no need for regulation because the people that get burned are at fault for their own misfortune.

[Bobmuhthol]

So, you're saying you want to pay for dinner next time?

I wanted to pay for [my share of the cost of] dinner the first time, but you've set a precedent and I have to stick to it.

[Latrinsorm]

It's about a time in the past where we had to be mindful of how we spent money.Do you think that time ever actually existed?

[~Rocktar~]

Maybe we just have a fundamentally different view of responsibility. I have no problem with banks giving out credit like it ain't no thang, but I hold them responsible for protecting their own profits -- it's a very poor strategy to extend credit to those who have no credibility. So, when people default, the bank should have no real recourse besides hanging its head for lending like an idiot and the borrower's default should be published. There's really no need for regulation because the people that get burned are at fault for their own misfortune.

So what about all the laws, strong arming and so on done by Congress over the years to force banks and particularity Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae to lend well past responsible financial levels to people that didn't have credibility? Who is to blame in this scenario? Banks who didn't want to lend and were coerced into it, the idiots that didn't have any business financing a pack of gum with half down or perhaps the politicians that used it to drive an economy and retain their positions?

[Bobmuhthol]

Any law that coerced a bank to make a loan that it otherwise wouldn't make is to blame for any ill effects that come from that loan. Regulation, as opposed to strictly the enforcement of contracts, is fucking wasteful.

[TheEschaton]

The quote seeks to shift blame from greedy banking practices to a "purposeful act" to get us back to "Biblical principles." In other words, he's saying, it's not our fault, it's all a part of God's plan to make us a more Christian people.

If you can't see that in that quote, you're being deliberately obtuse.

Oh, and CT, I hear Norwich, CT is a good exemplar of national policy. P.S. This is purely conjecture on my part, but I'm willing to bet that it'd cost more money to prove a kid is income-eligible (through paperwork and labor hours of checking up on it), than it would be to just give the kid a lunch for, what, 3 months out of the year, 5 days a week? Especially considering that even though it would be available to 100% of kids, nowhere near that number would get them, and the number of income-ineligible kids redeeming them would be pretty small. They're not taking them to Ruth Chris I imagine. Try and think outside your little indignant box to actual policy considerations.

[Kembal]

I am amused that anyone who isn't a bible thumper with blinders on would consider voting for Rick Perry in any type of election.

The man is corrupt. He's just very slick at hiding it.

1. There are tons of appointed boards in Texas that are filled with large donors to his campaign. For example, a family friend of ours is a major supporter and got appointed to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. He has absolutely zero qualifications in higher education.

2. He blocked an investigation into whether an innocent man was executed during his time in office until after the last election in 2010.

3. There are millions of dollars in enterprise incentive funds that are controlled by the governor's office that appear to be mainly given to Perry campaign donors for their "startups". As of yet, there has not been a public accounting as to whether the state of Texas has received any return on those incentive investments.

4. Perry continues to hide security expenses for his trips out of state. It's known the state has spent $1 million on 17 out of country trips between 2006 to 2009, but no one knows what the money was spent on, and no one has any idea what was spent on his domestic trips.

With all of that said, my expectation is that he will have a very good chance of winning the nomination, because a good portion of the Republican base is bible thumpers with blinders on.

[Tgo01]

I am amused that anyone who isn't a bible thumper with blinders on would consider voting for Rick Perry in any type of election.

The man is corrupt. He's just very slick at hiding it.

1. There are tons of appointed boards in Texas that are filled with large donors to his campaign. For example, a family friend of ours is a major supporter and got appointed to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. He has absolutely zero qualifications in higher education.

2. He blocked an investigation into whether an innocent man was executed during his time in office until after the last election in 2010.

3. There are millions of dollars in enterprise incentive funds that are controlled by the governor's office that appear to be mainly given to Perry campaign donors for their "startups". As of yet, there has not been a public accounting as to whether the state of Texas has received any return on those incentive investments.

4. Perry continues to hide security expenses for his trips out of state. It's known the state has spent $1 million on 17 out of country trips between 2006 to 2009, but no one knows what the money was spent on, and no one has any idea what was spent on his domestic trips.

With all of that said, my expectation is that he will have a very good chance of winning the nomination, because a good portion of the Republican base is bible thumpers with blinders on.

That's all God's will.

[Axhinde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpTjRZHgsA part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpTjRZHgsA part 2

No idea why thats in 2 parts...its not even 2 minutes total.

[Tgo01]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpTjRZHgsA part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpTjRZHgsA part 2

No idea why thats in 2 parts...its not even 2 minutes total.

Especially considering they are both the exact same thing!

[Parkbandit]

I am amused that anyone who isn't a bible thumper with blinders on would consider voting for Rick Perry in any type of election.

The man is corrupt. He's just very slick at hiding it.

1. There are tons of appointed boards in Texas that are filled with large donors to his campaign. For example, a family friend of ours is a major supporter and got appointed to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. He has absolutely zero qualifications in higher education.

2. He blocked an investigation into whether an innocent man was executed during his time in office until after the last election in 2010.

3. There are millions of dollars in enterprise incentive funds that are controlled by the governor's office that appear to be mainly given to Perry campaign donors for their "startups". As of yet, there has not been a public accounting as to whether the state of Texas has received any return on those incentive investments.

4. Perry continues to hide security expenses for his trips out of state. It's known the state has spent $1 million on 17 out of country trips between 2006 to 2009, but no one knows what the money was spent on, and no one has any idea what was spent on his domestic trips.

With all of that said, my expectation is that he will have a very good chance of winning the nomination, because a good portion of the Republican base is bible thumpers with blinders on.

Sounds like he better step up his corruption game if he wants to fill Obama's shoes.

[Axhinde]

Hah!

[CrystalTears]

The quote seeks to shift blame from greedy banking practices to a "purposeful act" to get us back to "Biblical principles." In other words, he's saying, it's not our fault, it's all a part of God's plan to make us a more Christian people.

If you can't see that in that quote, you're being deliberately obtuse.

Oh, and CT, I hear Norwich, CT is a good exemplar of national policy. P.S. This is purely conjecture on my part, but I'm willing to bet that it'd cost more money to prove a kid is income-eligible (through paperwork and labor hours of checking up on it), than it would be to just give the kid a lunch for, what, 3 months out of the year, 5 days a week? Especially considering that even though it would be available to 100% of kids, nowhere near that number would get them, and the number of income-ineligible kids redeeming them would be pretty small. They're not taking them to Ruth Chris I imagine. Try and think outside your little indignant box to actual policy considerations.So are you saying that you believe the overall program is cheaper, or it's just cheaper per capita?

[Tsa`ah]

While I'm an atheist and don't believe it's actually a "Bible principle"... Perry was talking about saving money and watching what you spend in economic hard times... which isn't even included in Rinaldo's "quote" at all.

Perry directly referenced Genesis and the story of Joseph ... as "economic" policy. Nice that you glossed over that Perry, having apparent intimate knowledge of said story, never once implemented said policy as governor.

Yes, it is good advice ... but I'm not going to take advice on sobriety from a meth head that doesn't remember ever being sober. Let alone take that advice seriously. Perry is just practicing typical political smoke screening. "This is what I stand for, this is what we should do ... just don't ask me why I have never done so before in my career as governor."


If you take out "biblical", it still makes sense that times are changing. People need to learn to live within their means. Spending needs to be reduced across the board, especially in the government. I'm not saying I would necessarily vote for the guy, but I saw nothing wrong with what he stated.

Sure it makes sense ... now ask Perry why he has never practiced, as a governor, what he is now preaching on the national stage.


Sounds like he better step up his corruption game if he wants to fill Obama's shoes.

Mind actually providing some specific examples of corruption? I'm sure Darryll Issa would love an actual lead at this point.

[Bobmuhthol]

So are you saying that you believe the overall program is cheaper, or it's just cheaper per capita?

You understand that these two metrics are relatively identical and therefore you must be trolling, right?

[CrystalTears]

You understand that these two metrics are relatively identical and therefore you must be trolling, right?
No. One is more efficient, one is cheaper.

If it costs 10 per head but because of broader access you end up feeding 300 the overall cost of the program is 3,000. If it costs 15 per head but you only end up feeding 100 that really need it, the overall cost is 1,500. More people are fed for less in the first example but the program is more expensive and probably servicing people who don't need it. Less people are fed for more but the program is less expensive by virtue of only servicing the people that absolutely need it.

Unless it literally is cheaper to feed everybody or you think there's a general problem with nutrition in your city using the excuse that "it's cheaper per head to feed everyone" isn't necessarily a good idea.

[Hulkein]

Philly has a program where they give free lunches to kids all summer, too. No paperwork of any kind required. I actually don't mind it because as E said, probably saves more than if there were bureaucratic steps taken to register, be approved, receive your card, etc.

[Bobmuhthol]

If it costs 10 per head but because of broader access you end up feeding 300 the overall cost of the program is 3,000. If it costs 15 per head but you only end up feeding 100 that really need it, the overall cost is 1,500. More people are fed for less in the first example but the program is more expensive and probably servicing people who don't need it. Less people are fed for more but the program is less expensive by virtue of only servicing the people that absolutely need it.

"Per capita" means number of people in the population. If the costs are the same, then the costs per capita are the same, and vice versa.

What you're asking is a significantly different question involving units produced, variable costs, and fixed costs.

/economics

[CrystalTears]

Philly has a program where they give free lunches to kids all summer, too. No paperwork of any kind required. I actually don't mind it because as E said, probably saves more than if there were bureaucratic steps taken to register, be approved, receive your card, etc.
Except that for the most part, children who have financial exceptions for reduced or free lunches are already registered during the school year. It's just a matter of having that information during the summer as well.

I just feel it's excessive at the moment to give out lunches for all children, regardless of need, even if it is for a few months.

[CrystalTears]

"Per capita" means number of people in the population.Cost per head.

[Bobmuhthol]

That's an average per person served, not per capita, which is my original and valid point.


So are you saying that you believe the overall program is cheaper, or it's just cheaper per capita?

[CrystalTears]

That's an average per person served, not per capita, which is my original and valid point.
You're just playing a semantics game. Who's trolling now?

[Bobmuhthol]

...

Please review the last few posts.

[TheEschaton]

You're also discounting that child-rearing costs go up in the summer, for babysitters, and that more people would fall under the eligible standards. And the administrative costs for the program to run all summer would probably outstrip the costs of giving additional kids food.

Furthermore, I'd think that it'd be cheaper per kid (10$ per kid versus the 10+administrative costs), as well as be cheaper overall. There is a significant psycho-social barrier in American society from accepting aid for your children when you have the means to provide yourself, despite what the right wing would like to portray welfare recipients as: lazy, money-grubbing, manipulative people. Thus the "overage" (which would be 10*# of kids supposedly ineligible), would be less than the cost of a program that determines eligibility.

[Parkbandit]

You're also discounting that child-rearing costs go up in the summer, for babysitters, and that more people would fall under the eligible standards. And the administrative costs for the program to run all summer would probably outstrip the costs of giving additional kids food.

Furthermore, I'd think that it'd be cheaper per kid (10$ per kid versus the 10+administrative costs), as well as be cheaper overall. There is a significant psycho-social barrier in American society from accepting aid for your children when you have the means to provide yourself, despite what the right wing would like to portray welfare recipients as: lazy, money-grubbing, manipulative people. Thus the "overage" (which would be 10*# of kids supposedly ineligible), would be less than the cost of a program that determines eligibility.

I've never, ever portrayed a welfare recipient as manipulative or money-grubbing.

Ever.

[Warriorbird]

I've never, ever portrayed a welfare recipient as manipulative or money-grubbing.

Ever.

Never. Bringing up welfare fraud doesn't mean that!

[Parkbandit]

Never. Bringing up welfare fraud doesn't mean that!

So there isn't welfare fraud? Awesome!

Stop being stupid.

[Warriorbird]

So there isn't welfare fraud? Awesome!

Stop being stupid.

Of course there is. Pointing out welfare fraud (be it justified or not) violates your "I never." pretty cleanly though.

[Parkbandit]

Of course there is. Pointing out welfare fraud (be it justified or not) violates your "I never." pretty cleanly though.

1) I was being sarcastic in my first post to TheE. Notice how there was one adjective that was remaining after I "strongly" objected to the other 2?

2) Because I've stated on many occasions that there is fraud in the Welfare system.. that doesn't mean I've ever used the terms "manipulative" or "money grubbing" to describe a welfare recipient. That leap would only be taken by a very stupid individual.

C) Please stop being retarded.

[Warriorbird]

1) I was being sarcastic in my first post to TheE. Notice how there was one adjective that was remaining after I "strongly" objected to the other 2?

2) Because I've stated on many occasions that there is fraud in the Welfare system.. that doesn't mean I've ever used the terms "manipulative" or "money grubbing" to describe a welfare recipient. That leap would only be taken by a very stupid individual.

C) Please stop being retarded.

Wouldn't welfare fraud naturally imply manipulation?

I'm not sure two of your not trying very hard insults invalidates that no matter how hard you try.

[Parkbandit]

Wouldn't welfare fraud naturally imply manipulation?

I'm not sure two of your not trying very hard insults invalidates that no matter how hard you try.

I realize you are just trolling as usual... but at least put forth SOME intelligent thought into it.

[Warriorbird]

I realize you are just trolling as usual... but at least put forth SOME intelligent thought into it.

As though projection is.

[milesalpha]

PB, ever watch the Athiest Experience?

[Parkbandit]

PB, ever watch the Athiest Experience?

No.

[milesalpha]

Public access show out of Austin, Texas. Some great discussions, and a few regular crazies that call in. The president, Matt Dillahunty is a staunch Republican but rarely gets political on the air. Great debater and hates Perry with a passion. He's even had Ray Comfort on there, hilarious episode.

[4a6c1]

I wrote a rep but it probably looks like "HURRDURR" because. Sometimes. I get overly excited. So can you please elaborate on said radio discussion? Times/Days/And Houston acronym would be helpful. Please and thank you.

[Parkbandit]

Public access show out of Austin, Texas. Some great discussions, and a few regular crazies that call in. The president, Matt Dillahunty is a staunch Republican but rarely gets political on the air. Great debater and hates Perry with a passion. He's even had Ray Comfort on there, hilarious episode.

I'm not a staunch Republican... I'm a staunch fiscal conservative.

HUGE difference.

[Jarvan]

There is lots of Fraud in Medicare.

There is some Fraud in SS.


Of course there is. Pointing out welfare fraud (be it justified or not) violates your "I never." pretty cleanly though.



I think I can still say the following. "I have Never described SS or Medicare recipients as cheats"

[milesalpha]

I wrote a rep but it probably looks like "HURRDURR" because. Sometimes. I get overly excited. So can you please elaborate on said radio discussion? Times/Days/And Houston acronym would be helpful. Please and thank you.

Here's their website which has an archive of over 10 years worth of episodes and lists all the methods you can use to watch or listen. They broadcast live on Sunday evenings. Not sure which you want described but the page lists guests and topics as well.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/

[Warriorbird]

There is lots of Fraud in Medicare.

There is some Fraud in SS.





I think I can still say the following. "I have Never described SS or Medicare recipients as cheats"

Some != all, you've just described some as cheats. He used "a" which meant not one. Semantics, mind you, and he was honestly being sarcastic, but it did violate never having said that about any of them.

On current topic:

I don't think I'd ever watch "The Atheist Experience." In the course of being the atheist Socialist that Republicans are paranoid about my grandfather would though. I'll link him.

[Parkbandit]

Some != all, you've just described some as cheats. He used "a" which meant not one. Semantics, mind you, and he was honestly being sarcastic, but it did violate never having said that about any of them.

Here is the quote you are referring to:


I've never, ever portrayed a welfare recipient as manipulative or money-grubbing.

Ever.

It's black and white and extremely easy to prove or disprove. Link a single post of mine where I used the term "manipulative" or "money-grubbing" to describe a welfare recipient and you can break your 8 year streak of actually being right at something on these forums.

I await your next trolling attempt to pad your streak number.

[Warriorbird]

Here is the quote you are referring to:



It's black and white and extremely easy to prove or disprove. Link a single post of mine where I used the term "manipulative" or "money-grubbing" to describe a welfare recipient and you can break your 8 year streak of actually being right at something on these forums.

I await your next trolling attempt to pad your streak number.

This wasn't a trolling attempt but if it was it would have succeeded. How exactly is a cheat not manipulative?

[Parkbandit]

This wasn't a trolling attempt but if it was it would have succeeded. How exactly is a cheat not manipulative?

Read my initial post again.

You are wrong as usual.

Stop being retarded.

[Parkbandit]

It just isn't going to happen for you. A message board is not a single thread. You said you'd never said that about a single one. I reserve the right to point out when you say untrue things everywhere.

Proof is pretty easily obtained.. even by someone like you with limited intelligence. Show the quote of me using either of those two words to describe a welfare recipient.

Did you really go to law school? Because you are really, really bad at arguing.. a basic trait required from a lawyer.

You have the scumbag part down pat though... too bad that quality doesn't win cases.

[~Rocktar~]

Stop being retarded.

He can't, it's genetic. I doubt his law credentials as well since he can't even manage to do a simple google search to attempt to back up his spurious claim. Oh, wait, maybe he did and discovered that crow is pretty bad tasting.

[Rinualdo]

He can't, it's genetic. I doubt his law credentials as well since he can't even manage to do a simple google search to attempt to back up his spurious claim. Oh, wait, maybe he did and discovered that crow is pretty bad tasting.

I'll take his law credentials and stack them against your Wal-Mart credentials and see who wins.

[~Rocktar~]

I'll take his law credentials and stack them against your Wal-Mart credentials and see who wins.

Let's see, I once worked at Walmart, I have a different job now, who the fuck lies about working at Walmart? Now lying about having a JD or something, well, lots of people lie about that kind of thing. Gods I wish you would pull your head out of your ass sometime.

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure he isn't lying about having a JD.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm pretty sure he isn't lying about having a JD.

Then I feel sorry for his clients.

[Warriorbird]

Proof is pretty easily obtained.. even by someone like you with limited intelligence. Show the quote of me using either of those two words to describe a welfare recipient.

Did you really go to law school? Because you are really, really bad at arguing.. a basic trait required from a lawyer.

You have the scumbag part down pat though... too bad that quality doesn't win cases.

You've suggested that welfare fraud exists numerous times. This implies manipulation. You cannot have fraud without manipulation.

I don't practice. I work with my family in two different areas. Both are more business related, but what I learned in law school is extremely valuable.

[Parkbandit]

You've suggested that welfare fraud exists numerous times. This implies manipulation. You cannot have fraud without manipulation.

Could you point out a person who believes there isn't a single case of fraud in the welfare system? Even you, with the smallest of intelligence has admitted to it:


So there isn't welfare fraud? Awesome!



Of course there is.

Seriously, you are an idiot.



I don't practice. I work with my family in two different areas. Both are more business related, but what I learned in law school is extremely valuable.

Like I said, you do not have the necessary debate skills to be a good lawyer.. but you sure have the scumbag trait. Good thing you had your family to fall back on, there is no way you could make it on your own.

[Gan]

I do not understand why one would submit themselves to the drain of time and resources to attend lawschool, graduate and yet not practice.

Why not go for an MBA if your concentration is business?

[Rinualdo]

Have to pass the bar exam.

[Warriorbird]

I do not understand why one would submit themselves to the drain of time and resources to attend lawschool, graduate and yet not practice.

Why not go for an MBA if your concentration is business?

Knowledge and presented opportunity.

And PB, because you've so far failed to grasp it after repeated illustrations, how can fraud exist without manipulation? You've alluded to the existence of it many times. Thus you've said that some of them are manipulative. You even spelled it out yourself. Eventually you might put it together.

[Parkbandit]

And PB, because you've so far failed to grasp it after repeated illustrations, how can fraud exist without manipulation? You've alluded to the existence of it many times. Thus you've said that some of them are manipulative. You even spelled it out yourself. Eventually you might put it together.

So, your contention is that since I have stated that there is some fraud in the welfare program, that I have said people in the welfare program are manipulative?

Ok. So, is there anyone in your tiny little mind that hasn't called welfare recipients manipulative?

[Warriorbird]

So, your contention is that since I have stated that there is some fraud in the welfare program, that I have said people in the welfare program are manipulative?


Finally got there. I'm proud. I like to see growth. You said you'd never said anybody in the program was manipulative. This was false.

The OMG WELFARE QUEEN and WELFARE FRAUD! memes have been used as a distraction from real issues since the Reagan Era.

Now compare the total amount of money we currently have in welfare to Social Security. Welfare reform has been significant, bipartisan, and deep reaching.

Now I'm going to say that some people on Social Security engage in fraud. I can now longer that I have never said a single person on Social Security is manipulative. Now think about the amount of money in Social Security.

The "Social Security" reform attempt wasn't serious or bipartisan. You didn't even see Republicans really making an attempt to make it work.

...and thus Washington.

[Parkbandit]

Finally got there. I'm proud. I like to see growth. You said you'd never said anybody in the program was manipulative. This was false.

I have never stated that a ripe pumpkin is the combination of red and yellow... but in your world, everyone has.

Thanks for the trollfest. It was very, very informative.

PS - Why do you believe that welfare recipients are so manipulative and money grubbing?

[Warriorbird]

I have never stated that a ripe pumpkin is the combination of red and yellow... but in your world, everyone has.

Thanks for the trollfest. It was very, very informative.

PS - Why do you believe that welfare recipients are so manipulative and money grubbing?

http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/blind-bull-rafa-rivas.jpg

Way to miss the rest.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously WB. You made the statement that you believe welfare recipients are manipulative and money grubbing and I would like to hear why you honestly believe that. I can understand a mean conservative like me.. but you are a bleeding heart liberal and I for one was shocked to hear this from you.

Why do you believe that welfare recipients are so manipulative and money grubbing?

[Showal]

God Urges Rick Perry Not To Run For President (http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-urges-rick-perry-not-to-run-for-president,20981/)

[Tgo01]

God Urges Rick Perry Not To Run For President (http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-urges-rick-perry-not-to-run-for-president,20981/)

I find that story hard to believe.

[TheEschaton]

You forgot the italics, man, it's a story from The Onion.

[Showal]

You forgot the italics, man, it's a story from The Onion.

It's only questionable because of how liberal The Onion is.

[Latrinsorm]

I find that story hard to believe.I expected at least a SHOWS WHAT YOUR KNOW, Showal.

[Parkbandit]

Why do you believe that welfare recipients are so manipulative and money grubbing?

Never did get WB to explain his position...

[leifastagsweed]

How could any God-fearing, bible-thumping, pro-life Republican ever support a leader who would do THIS? Moral ethics aside, most people like their money and this is just blatant fiscal irresponsibility.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7420588.html

Texan-for-life Against Perry

[Rinualdo]

I'm confused. Did God want Bachmann or Perry to be President?

[Parkbandit]

I'm confused. Did God want Bachmann or Perry to be President?

At this point, probably anyone except Obama.

[Gan]

How could any God-fearing, bible-thumping, pro-life Republican ever support a leader who would do THIS? Moral ethics aside, most people like their money and this is just blatant fiscal irresponsibility.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7420588.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7420588.html)

Texan-for-life Against Perry

You see the contradiction in your statement don't you?

Especially in relation to the article you linked.

[4a6c1]

"A committee substitute introduced Wednesday would not compel the doctor to perform the sonogram or detect a heartbeat if a woman's pregnancy was the result of sexual assault or incest or if the fetus has an "irreversible medical condition or abnormality."


I'm impressed... Now if they would stop cutting the entitlement programs that benefit primarily pregnant women and children I might believe they actually care about saving innocent lives. But not Republicans. And not in Texas! Ugh...

[Tgo01]

Rojo did Texas touch you in a naughty place or something?

[4a6c1]

omg I WISH. It's so big. Almost the biggest. amirite or AMIRITE?!

[leifastagsweed]

You see the contradiction in your statement don't you?

Especially in relation to the article you linked.

It's called sarcasm, point being that a large number of Christians are Capitalists first and will not be so excited to foot the bill.

[Gan]

It's called sarcasm, point being that a large number of Christians are Capitalists first and will not be so excited to foot the bill.

I did not miss your point. I was hoping you would understand the conflicting idea that Christians are Capitalists first. Most practicing Christians are Christians first and then possibly Capitalists. Ergo most Texas Christians were hugely supportive of Perry's sonogram initiative regardless of the cost because of the pro-life implication.

[leifastagsweed]

Ahh, kay, well...not to beleaguer the point too much, but I grew up in an affluent suburban neighborhood in Houston, TX, and I guaran-damn-tee you, that when it comes down to brass tacks, money's first.

That being said, I now live in a bible-belt area in the Pacific Northwest....the Christians here are just stupid enough to pay too much money for something dumb that they think will put a stop to the evil practice of abortion.

[Gan]

Too bad there are more Christians that are not affluent than the other way around.

I live in a middle class neighborhood in Houston.

[4a6c1]

Too bad there are more Christians that are not affluent than the other way around.


I think you are correct but I would not discount this as a negative for the Republican party.

Personally, I think that Herman Cain better represents Christians from Houston. Most tend to be poor and black but very very Christian and very very traditional. I'm mindful of the Black Preachers Network and other similar evangelists politic groups when I think of this fringe genre. These groups would be able to mobilize like nothing else in the south using religion and a broad reaching patriarchy of church personalities if Cain could motivate them. I've seen them mobilize for Obama and I was impressed.

[Gan]

Agreed

[leifastagsweed]

Apples and oranges. The community of which you speak is not the Rick Perry/George Bush-hugging rich big haired crew of bigots that voted in this bill. I assure you that the good folk of the 5th Ward are not interested in having portrait sittings at their abortions, at the expense of the state or otherwise.

[4a6c1]

ROFL portrait sittings.

Ughhhh Rick Perry. Leifa. We need to get him OUT.

[leifastagsweed]

Rick Perry For...

07-25-2011 03:53 PM

Because only black people have abortions on the state dime, right? Who's the bigot again?

Certainly not! But way to twist and distort from the shadows, sniper. Maybe you have a point? Cotillion coochies keep getting sperminated to keep up with the Joneses and get picked for MTV's Teen Mom.

[Gan]

Apples and oranges. The community of which you speak is not the Rick Perry/George Bush-hugging rich big haired crew of bigots that voted in this bill. I assure you that the good folk of the 5th Ward are not interested in having portrait sittings at their abortions, at the expense of the state or otherwise.

You are so out of touch with the Christian perspective its not even funny.

For someone who grew up in an affluent neighborhood of Houston - how would you know what the good folk of the 5th Ward think?

[leifastagsweed]

I would argue with you some more and it might be kinda fun, but meh, you like croutons so we should probably just agree to disagree.

[Drazaan]

I think you are correct but I would not discount this as a negative for the Republican party.

Personally, I think that Herman Cain better represents Christians from Houston. Most tend to be poor and black but very very Christian and very very traditional. I'm mindful of the Black Preachers Network and other similar evangelists politic groups when I think of this fringe genre. These groups would be able to mobilize like nothing else in the south using religion and a broad reaching patriarchy of church personalities if Cain could motivate them. I've seen them mobilize for Obama and I was impressed.

A little tangential, but I've always felt like for the most part (except for a time while George Bush was governor), the Texas Republican Party has done a very poor job of wooing the Latinos/Tejanos of Texas. So many of their conservative social values match up and considering they are gaining more and more political clout in Texas, I think it's essential if the Texas Republican party wants to stay in charge.

If they continue on this path, I'm estimating it will be 30 years or so before Texas will lean Democratic.

[Rinualdo]

You are so out of touch with the Christian perspective its not even funny.


What, exactly, is the Christian perspective?

[Parkbandit]

What, exactly, is the Christian perspective?

According to their website:

"Seeking God. Beholding God. Knowing God."

http://www.christianperspective.net/

[Rinualdo]

According to their website:

"Seeking God. Beholding God. Knowing God."

http://www.christianperspective.net/

You sure it's not http://www.thechristianperspective.com/ ?

[Parkbandit]

You sure it's not http://www.thechristianperspective.com/ ?

I know it's not currently

http://christianperspective.org/

[Ruabadra]

Rick Perry won't ever be a viable candidate and likely won't run, because he has a big scandal waiting in the wings if he ever does, the kind Christian conservatives just can't every forgive you for.

Who'd want Governor Goodhair anyways? I'll be supporting Obama all the way, but if I had to pick a Republican, could I please have Gingrich? Give me a pragmatist over an ideologue any day.

P.S. Kinky Friedman should have kicked his ass in the 2006 governor's race. Why the hell not?

[Parkbandit]

I'll be supporting Obama all the way, but if I had to pick a Republican, could I please have Gingrich? Give me a pragmatist over an ideologue any day.


Give you a pragmatist over an ideologue any day.. yet you will be supporting Obama.. the perfect example of an ideologue.

That's awesome if it's sarcasm... but I'm guessing you are serious.

[Gan]

What, exactly, is the Christian perspective?

See post 138.

[Rinualdo]

Most practicing Christians are Christians first and then possibly Capitalists.

Let me clarify my point then. What do you have to back up this statement?

[Drazaan]

Rick Perry won't ever be a viable candidate and likely won't run, because he has a big scandal waiting in the wings if he ever does, the kind Christian conservatives just can't every forgive you for.

Who'd want Governor Goodhair anyways? I'll be supporting Obama all the way, but if I had to pick a Republican, could I please have Gingrich? Give me a pragmatist over an ideologue any day.

P.S. Kinky Friedman should have kicked his ass in the 2006 governor's race. Why the hell not?

Perry has two big strikes against him: the mandated inoculation of junior high school girls against HPV and the Trans-Texas Corridor. Other than that, I have no idea how he has come out so clean over the years.

Perry is incredibly adaptable, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he does much better than most would expect.

As far as the Kinkster goes, I love him, but his campaigns have come across as generally disorganized to me. Having said that, I would love to see Willie Nelson as secretary of agriculture as Kinky claimed he would want in the 2006 gubernatorial debate.

The best conversation I ever had with Kinky was when I saw him standing alone outside of the the Erwin Center follow Ann Richard's funeral. He was just smoking a cigar and I came up and talked with him about Ann. Now that's a woman I miss dearly.

[TheEschaton]

You sure it's not http://www.thechristianperspective.com/ ?

LOL:

While The Christian Perspective is a private agency it is founded upon the Word of God. As such our belief system is listed as follows:

1. We believe that the Bible is the unadulterated and infallible Word of God and


2. We believe that there is one God operating in the triune Godhead including the Father, the Son and The Holy Ghost each with His own distinct per*sonality and ministry (Luke 4:22) and


3. We believe in salvation by repentance and con*fession of the fact that Jesus is Lord (Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9-10) and


4. We believe in baptism by submersion as an out*ward sign of the inward change of heart toward Christ (Acts 8:12-13) and


5. We believe in the indwelling of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives utterance (Acts 2:4)


6. And we believe in a lifestyle conducive to the Scripture (Romans 12:1-2)

In short, we believe in the Bible in its totality. If the Bible says it then it is condoned by The Christian Perspective

[4a6c1]

I always wanted to know if Kinky was actually kinky.

And lol @ Willie Nelson on agriculture. Whiskey river dont run dry...

[Gan]

Let me clarify my point then. What do you have to back up this statement?

Aside from going on a Google crusade, which you could do just as easily and of which I choose not to delegate any of my valuable consideration for; I have 100% anecdotal evidence as a Texan, a Houstonian and a Christian and the related social circles within my participatory reach that I draw my conclusions from.

That and I like croutons. I think they're hot crunchy sexy, like RojoDisco when she's been out in the sun too long.

[Gan]

Perry has two big strikes against him: the mandated inoculation of junior high school girls against HPV and the Trans-Texas Corridor.

This x 100

Two significant skeletons that would definitely get some airtime from the closet should he decide to run. Although the political machine behind him, responsible for his success in elections/re-elections, would definitely find a way to spin it into insignificance.

[Rinualdo]

Aside from going on a Google crusade, which you could do just as easily and of which I choose not to delegate any of my valuable consideration for; I have 100% anecdotal evidence as a Texan, a Houstonian and a Christian and the related social circles within my participatory reach that I draw my conclusions from.

That and I like croutons. I think they're hot crunch sexy, like RojoDisco when she's been out in the sun too long.

You don't need google. I find a vast majority of this country self identifies as Christian, yet when you example base Christian principles (Ideology), most fall short and would easily give way to economic motifs.

For example, how many fortune 500 companies and their employees can you name that Remember The Sabbath and Keep it Holy?
I can think of only 1.

They may claim to be Christian first, but their actions show otherwise.

[4a6c1]

I think Perry is terrifying. He's George Bush without the pretense of Social Responsibility. Or at risk of sounding like a snob.... He's George Bush without the blue blood (and obligation to give pretense).

Rinualdo you have valid points but there is no need for elaborate arguments to prove them. Most Christian political arguments can be boiled down to Christ himself. How many Republicans do you know that give away all they have to feed the poor and needy? A small percentage if any. Most that I know are rightfully athiests, as true capitalism demands a supremely powerful faith in oneself.

If Christ was alive he would be a Democrat and he would be speaking out in favor of entitlements. Hah! The imagery...

[Gan]

You don't need google. I find a vast majority of this country self identifies as Christian, yet when you example base Christian principles (Ideology), most fall short and would easily give way to economic motifs.

For example, how many fortune 500 companies and their employees can you name that Remember The Sabbath and Keep it Holy?
I can think of only 1.

They may claim to be Christian first, but their actions show otherwise.

But that really does not apply to the topic that I happen to be discussing within this thread.

Specifically: "I assure you that the good folk of the 5th Ward are not interested in having portrait sittings at their abortions, at the expense of the state or otherwise."

This sonogram measure was heavily supported within the local Christian community of which I am a part of here in Houston. This bill, now law, is directly related to the pro-life effort of the Christian right. I can assure you that not only were the affluent church communities (that I'm familiar with) of 2nd Baptist and FBC Houston fully behind the effort - so were the thousands of smaller Baptist churches in this area. Why? Not because of the financial implications but because of the pro-life imploications. In this specific example as cited in this specific thread - faith trumps greed which is why I called out leftyweed or whatever its name is on it.

So saying that Christians when faced with a major challenge to their ideology, such as pro-life, will put their wallet before their faith is pretty misrepresentative of where their faith lies. Especially as evidenced within the community of which I am part of, namely Houston - in the great fucking state of Texas. ;)

Additionally, trying to measure a Christian's faith against greed when debating the effacacy of the ancient blue laws is laughable but that's another tangent involving Biblical interpretations, practice and Christian doctrine.

[Stanley Burrell]

Here's some quote for whenever a politics thread gets religious, or a religious thread gets political, or just in general because I have nothing better to do. From The True-Born Englishman:

Wherever God erects a house of prayer,
The Devil always builds a chapel there;
And 'twill be found, upon examination,
The latter has the largest congregation.

[4a6c1]

Stanley Burrell. Nice to see you. I've been reading your mail. I hope you dont mind.

[leifastagsweed]

Ann. Now that's a woman I miss dearly.

This!


I find a vast majority of this country self identifies as Christian, yet when you example base Christian principles (Ideology), most fall short and would easily give way to economic motifs.

They may claim to be Christian first, but their actions show otherwise.

And this!


That and I like croutons. I think they're hot crunchy sexy, like RojoDisco when she's been out in the sun too long.

But not this. Especially when they get all soggy from the salad dressing! Ewww.

(your friend, leftyweed)

[Rinualdo]

But that really does not apply to the topic that I happen to be discussing within this thread.

Specifically: "I assure you that the good folk of the 5th Ward are not interested in having portrait sittings at their abortions, at the expense of the state or otherwise."

This sonogram measure was heavily supported within the local Christian community of which I am a part of here in Houston. This bill, now law, is directly related to the pro-life effort of the Christian right. I can assure you that not only were the affluent church communities (that I'm familiar with) of 2nd Baptist and FBC Houston fully behind the effort - so were the thousands of smaller Baptist churches in this area. Why? Not because of the financial implications but because of the pro-life imploications. In this specific example as cited in this specific thread - faith trumps greed which is why I called out leftyweed or whatever its name is on it.

So saying that Christians when faced with a major challenge to their ideology, such as pro-life, will put their wallet before their faith is pretty misrepresentative of where their faith lies. Especially as evidenced within the community of which I am part of, namely Houston - in the great fucking state of Texas. ;)

Additionally, trying to measure a Christian's faith against greed when debating the effacacy of the ancient blue laws is laughable but that's another tangent involving Biblical interpretations, practice and Christian doctrine.

It absolutely applies to the topic at hand. You're claiming Christians are Christian first and motivated by Christian principles. I've provided one of a slew of examples showing otherwise.
If you require another, how about the strong support in Texas for the death penalty?

This leads to the logical conclusion that a new theory must be considered for why so-called Christians are enacting such laws.

[Gan]

If you require another, how about the strong support in Texas for the death penalty?
Old testament 'eye for an eye' doctrine.



This leads to the logical conclusion that a new theory must be considered for why so-called Christians are enacting such laws.
Or a better understanding.

[Parkbandit]

If you require another, how about the strong support in Texas for the death penalty?



There are many references to why this would be a Christian value in the Bible. Mind you these aren't exact quotes.. but someone can look up the exact passages if they felt the need:

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

"As he has injured another, so he is to be injured"

[Cephalopod]

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

This is from the Old Testament. Jesus actually spoke specifically AGAINST this saying.



You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. - (Matthew 5:38–39)


For a Christian, I'd imagine the words of Christ would trump the Old Testament, which makes the 'Christian' argument for a death penalty a bit more problematic.

[Rinualdo]

Old testament 'eye for an eye' doctrine.


Or a better understanding.

You realize an Eye for an Eye was a call for mitigation, not vindication?

I'm pretty sure Christian ideology also holds that the 10 Commandments supersede the various parables or common practices at the time. Pretty sure thou shalt not kill is in there, somewhere.

Also, didn't the Book of Romans have something about "Vengeance is mine" or something similar?

[Parkbandit]

You realize an Eye for an Eye was a call for mitigation, not vindication?

I'm pretty sure Christian ideology also holds that the 10 Commandments supersede the various parables or common practices at the time. Pretty sure thou shalt not kill is in there, somewhere.

Also, didn't the Book of Romans have something about "Vengeance is mine" or something similar?


How were the Crusades justified then?

One thing about the Bible... it can be skewed for pretty much anything.

[Latrinsorm]

How were the Crusades justified then?It's informative for you to bring up this specific example, because they were in fact justified by papal decree rather than Bible interpretation. Think about it - this was an era of illiteracy, why cite a book to motivate people?
One thing about the Bible... it can be skewed for pretty much anything.Not really. Like any collection of words, you can only go so far before interpretation becomes corruption.

[Gan]

This is from the Old Testament. Jesus actually spoke specifically AGAINST this saying.

For a Christian, I'd imagine the words of Christ would trump the Old Testament, which makes the 'Christian' argument for a death penalty a bit more problematic.

You realize that not all Christians believe that only the New Testament should be adheared to?

[Gan]

You realize an Eye for an Eye was a call for mitigation, not vindication?
You do realize that now you're debating interpretation?



I'm pretty sure Christian ideology also holds that the 10 Commandments supersede the various parables or common practices at the time. Pretty sure thou shalt not kill is in there, somewhere.
What do you have to back up this statement?

[Rinualdo]

You do realize that now you're debating interpretation?


What do you have to back up this statement?

The interpretation of the call for an eye for an eye was pretty clear. In a time when it was common place to kill for every offense, the term eye for an eye came about as a way to say, no- you can't kill someone for taking your eye. Only an eye for an eye. Mitigatory, not vengeance.

Didn't God say these are my laws and to obey them always?

[~Rocktar~]

The interpretation of the call for an eye for an eye was pretty clear. In a time when it was common place to kill for every offense, the term eye for an eye came about as a way to say, no- you can't kill someone for taking your eye. Only an eye for an eye. Mitigatory, not vengeance.

Didn't God say these are my laws and to obey them always?

Supposedly, but then again I wasn't there to hear him and people have managed to rewrite so much for so long, it's hard to say. Big part of why I am not Christian.

[Back]

Who?

[Latrinsorm]

You realize that not all Christians believe that only the New Testament should be adheared to?Christians by definition believe first and foremost in Christ. It doesn't matter what the original intent of "eye for an eye" was, or its context: Jesus said not to do it, period. What he did say to do is subtle and relies on context, but there's nothing subtle or open to interpretation about what he said not to do.

[Rinualdo]

Otherwise they are called Jews.

[~Rocktar~]

Christians by definition believe first and foremost in Christ. It doesn't matter what the original intent of "eye for an eye" was, or its context: Jesus said not to do it, period. What he did say to do is subtle and relies on context, but there's nothing subtle or open to interpretation about what he said not to do.

Really? You were there? I thought PB was the only one old enough to have personal experience here.

Otherwise it is all circumstantial evidence at best.

[Rinualdo]

You can't claim belief based in a book and then debate the information in the book.

What Lantrin is saying is that those who identify themselves as Christian de facto assume an inherent credibility to the Bible and therefore also adapt a certain ideology. In this case, that ideology includes the belief that God's law and Jesus words of "that shalt not" or equivalent supersede all.

There is plenty of room to debate the Bible itself, but that debate is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Drazaan]

I think Perry is terrifying. He's George Bush without the pretense of Social Responsibility. Or at risk of sounding like a snob.... He's George Bush without the blue blood (and obligation to give pretense).

Agreed.

I generally admire ambition in others, but in Rick Perry it terrifies me. I think you said it best.

[~Rocktar~]

You can't claim belief based in a book and then debate the information in the book.

What Lantrin is saying is that those who identify themselves as Christian de facto assume an inherent credibility to the Bible and therefore also adapt a certain ideology. In this case, that ideology includes the belief that God's law and Jesus words of "that shalt not" or equivalent supersede all.

There is plenty of room to debate the Bible itself, but that debate is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I didn't claim belief in the book. You and others did. As to the credibility of the bible, since it is often clearly self contradictory, one must really wonder. Now, as far as voting for the idiot, hell no, he has too many skeletons and is just a bit out of balance for me. Now, if it came to him or Obama, then the lesser of 2 evils would be him.

[Rinualdo]

I didn't claim belief in the book. You and others did. As to the credibility of the bible, since it is often clearly self contradictory, one must really wonder. Now, as far as voting for the idiot, hell no, he has too many skeletons and is just a bit out of balance for me. Now, if it came to him or Obama, then the lesser of 2 evils would be him.

Dude. Read.
No one is talking about you personally.

It's a pretty easy conversation to follow.

[TheEschaton]

Seriously Gan, can you name a Christian sect that would disregard the words of Jesus and say the Old Testament trumped the words of Jesus himself?

Hint: you can't.

Even the Pope, one of the most conservative Christians on earth, is against the death penalty. He'd be a liberal in Texas.

[Parkbandit]

I'm glad I'm not a Christian.. because I am 100% behind capital punishment.

If they need someone to throw the switch, give me a call. I'll be happy to do it.

[Kithus]

I'm glad I'm not a Christian.. because I am 100% behind capital punishment.

If they need someone to throw the switch, give me a call. I'll be happy to do it.

I'm not a Christian and against capital punishment. Of course that is only providing they cannot reduce the legal cost of getting to that point. Is it still true that it costs more to get someone to the death penalty than it does to keep them in jail for life? Barring the cost I'm undecided because personally I consider life a maximum security prison a far worse punishment.

[Latrinsorm]

Is it still true that it costs more to get someone to the death penalty than it does to keep them in jail for life?A better question might be, has it ever been true?

[Gan]

Seriously Gan, can you name a Christian sect that would disregard the words of Jesus and say the Old Testament trumped the words of Jesus himself?

Hint: you can't.

Even the Pope, one of the most conservative Christians on earth, is against the death penalty. He'd be a liberal in Texas.

I can not name a Christian Church that would teach the opposite of the teachings of Jesus - which would be contrary to the meaning of my previous posts. However, I can point to many within those Churches, who identify themselves as Christian, who support the act of killing in self defense and as a punishment for murder. Not only can this belief be found in Texas but in other bible belt states as well.

In fact, it is impossible for some to accept this without digressing into a biblical debate or judgment, which I'm not going to do here.

[Gan]

I'm not a Christian and against capital punishment. Of course that is only providing they cannot reduce the legal cost of getting to that point. Is it still true that it costs more to get someone to the death penalty than it does to keep them in jail for life? Barring the cost I'm undecided because personally I consider life a maximum security prison a far worse punishment.

Some food for thought.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

[Rinualdo]

The problem is that God isn't doing a very good job.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/only-half-americans-approve-gods-job-performance/40268/

[Cephalopod]

The problem is that God isn't doing a very good job.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/only-half-americans-approve-gods-job-performance/40268/

By contrast, I'm pretty sure FSM has a 100% approval rating.

http://hville.hostzi.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/800pxtouched_by_his_noodly_appendage.jpg

[Rinualdo]

I think the only being capable of 100% approval is hypno-toad.

[leifastagsweed]

Back to the slandering of Rick Perry....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/governor-perrys-texas-economy_n_917460.html

[Parkbandit]

Back to the slandering of Rick Perry....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/governor-perrys-texas-economy_n_917460.html

Replace Perry with Obama and US with Texas and I don't really see a difference except the scale.

[Thickbeard]

I want to see how he handles the fallout from the weakness in Texas' agricultural sector after this drought. Praying in stadiums leaves me unimpressed so far, but if he can get the people to open their hands and actually work instead of praying I will be more inclined to vote for him. I'm not blown away by what Texas has produced in the past, however. Although that stigma is probably not fair, it is real.

[Parkbandit]

And, it's 2 days away from being official:

There wasn't any doubt that Rick Perry is running for president, but his remarks Saturday have moved out of the "making intentions clear" category and into a straight-out "announcement," Fox and CNN are reporting.

It's a distinction that's not entirely without a difference, and it means the race will be officially joined before the voting closes at Ames.

Update: Perry spokesman Mark Miner confirms the announcement to the AP. Not that Perry had ever left the news, but it allows him to end the slow-show building to a race where he's already decided he's running, and in which he has some catching up to do.

It also helps suck the oxygen out of the Sarah Palin bus tour resuming in —of all places! — Iowa on the eve of the straw poll. Not that that's the intention, of course.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61132.html#ixzz1Ul1ugmer

[Kembal]

And, it's 2 days away from being official:

There wasn't any doubt that Rick Perry is running for president, but his remarks Saturday have moved out of the "making intentions clear" category and into a straight-out "announcement," Fox and CNN are reporting.

It's a distinction that's not entirely without a difference, and it means the race will be officially joined before the voting closes at Ames.

Update: Perry spokesman Mark Miner confirms the announcement to the AP. Not that Perry had ever left the news, but it allows him to end the slow-show building to a race where he's already decided he's running, and in which he has some catching up to do.

It also helps suck the oxygen out of the Sarah Palin bus tour resuming in —of all places! — Iowa on the eve of the straw poll. Not that that's the intention, of course.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61132.html#ixzz1Ul1ugmer

I'm curious to see if the national media eats him alive or not. The major newspapers here have been taking aim at him for years, and he still wins every time. But I think people in Texas have had blinders on to his cronyism for some time now.

Of course, the fact that he's announcing in South Carolina on the day of the straw poll in Iowa might piss off some people in the Iowa state GOP. That'll be amusing.

[crb]

On face value he seemed like a good candidate to me, he only talked about economic issues, and he had a strong hand. Texas has done well.

Then he got all jesus-y.

Honestly, I think I'd rather have Romney. He may be Mormon, but he never talks about it.

Plus, he has an almost identical accent to GWB. That is a liability.

[Thickbeard]

I think Romney doesn't talk about Jeebus all the time because the conservative Christian part -- Born Agains and Calvinists -- of the Republican Party are wary of Mormonism. But yeah, it's good for a change to see a candidate who doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve.

[Back]

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/8/18/9/enhanced-buzz-8592-1313675667-0.jpg

[Rinualdo]

Texas has done well.

Texas did well thanks to the stimulus and government jobs. They lost private sector jobs.
Also, I believe Texas leads or is close to the top of the nation in minimum wage jobs. They also are outpacing most other states for population growth.

[Jack]

Texas did well thanks to the stimulus and government jobs. They lost private sector jobs.
Also, I believe Texas leads or is close to the top of the nation in minimum wage jobs. They also are outpacing most other states for population growth.

I was going to respond with a wall of text, but someone else seems to have come up with a more eloquent one....

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

[Androidpk]

Another corrupt, religious, sexist, bigot.. no thanks. I can see why lamestream media loves him though.

[Parkbandit]

I was going to respond with a wall of text, but someone else seems to have come up with a more eloquent one....

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

That is hilarious.. it's like you either are the author.. or Rinaldo is spouting liberal talking points again.

Either way, nice pwning.

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/1267053542_stupid_door.gif

[JDDZ]

Look at Texas, look at the rest of the nation: yes

[Rinualdo]

I was going to respond with a wall of text, but someone else seems to have come up with a more eloquent one....

http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

Yawn

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/truth-rick-perrys-texas-miracle/story?id=14328858
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/12/eveningnews/main20091874.shtml
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/governor-perrys-texas-economy_n_917460.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-24/opinion/navarrette.rick.perry.candidate_1_new-jobs-perry-s-texas-perry-claims?_s=PM:OPINION
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sad-facts-behind-rick-perrys-texas-miracle/2011/08/16/gIQAxc3zJJ_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/05/27/rick_perry_and_the_texas_miracle
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/15/1007057/-Rick-Perrys-Texas-miracle-is-a-myth

[Tgo01]

Isn't it a rule that you automatically lose a political debate if you quote the Huffingtonpost to back up your claims?

[Jack]

I like how you're using the Daly Kos, Huffington Post, Salon, etc.... I think I'm done here.

[Paradii]

Isn't it a rule that you automatically lose a political debate if you quote the Huffingtonpost to back up your claims?

No, the rule is that you lose a political debate if you back the side.

[Rinualdo]

I like how you're using the Daly Kos, Huffington Post, Salon, etc.... I think I'm done here.

Are you debating the facts or conclusions they draw? Or are you expecting an honest and critical article from Fox News? I also posted articles from the NYTimes, Washington Post, etc?

So tell me, when discussing facts and debating conclusions on those facts, exactly which sources are acceptable? Or did you simply look at the host for the url and immediately dismiss them without reading or looking at the source data?

[Bobmuhthol]

So tell me, when discussing facts and debating conclusions on those facts, exactly which sources are acceptable?

Acceptable source: bls.gov raw data
Unacceptable source: People who make nonsense claims out of context (high school students in Texas suck at math, therefore Texas has a poor job market...?) OR opinion pieces in magazines that don't care if information is factual

[Tgo01]

Rick Perry For... 08-18-2011 12:56 PM Learn to read articles that are subsourced.

Calm down Rinualdo it was a joke.

[Jack]

Which facts are you talking about exactly? This one from ABC for example? "These high energy profits helped Texas stave off the brunt of the recession for about six months.", which was already refuted on the link I posted, with this, "Take the energy sector completely out of the equation and Texas is still growing faster than any other state. This indicates to us that the energy sector is not a single sector saving Texas from the same economic fate as the rest of the states. It's not hurting, but Texas would still be growing like a weed without it."

Maybe you meant this one, from the CNN link, "The jobs are real enough. The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas recently estimated that, since June 2009, Texas has produced about 37% of the new jobs in the country. Perry claims the figure is closer to 48%. Either way, it's impressive." I don't see that one backing up your claim that Texas is only doing well because of public sector jobs, and stimulus money.

Now, for facts: If Texas had recieved no stimulus money, it would have had to dip into the rainy day fund, which has a bit over 9 billion in it. So without the stimulus money, the state would still be doing quite well. Now lets look at public sector jobs, which have had a growth rate of about 3.8% so about 1.6% faster than the total job growth in the state of Texas. That said, the number of public sector employees is falling now, not growing. There was a big spike in numbers durring the Census, but the census is over. Let's take away all the gains in the public sector, and the stimulus money. What's left? Three billion dollars in the rainy day fund, and job growth that still outpaces every other state.

[Back]

One of Satan's tools is Doubt.

Taken from this authoritative website. http://www.roadtobetterliving.com/HTML/SatansTactics5Tools.html

In political debate casting doubt on the opponent’s sources of information weakens his stance.

[Parkbandit]

So tell me, when discussing facts and debating conclusions on those facts, exactly which sources are acceptable? Or did you simply look at the host for the url and immediately dismiss them without reading or looking at the source data?

I didn't exactly see you debating the points brought up in the article Jack provided.

[Rinualdo]

Which facts are you talking about exactly? This one from ABC for example? "These high energy profits helped Texas stave off the brunt of the recession for about six months.", which was already refuted on the link I posted, with this, "Take the energy sector completely out of the equation and Texas is still growing faster than any other state. This indicates to us that the energy sector is not a single sector saving Texas from the same economic fate as the rest of the states. It's not hurting, but Texas would still be growing like a weed without it."

I guess I don't put as much stock in minimum wage growth as you do.

"According to a just-released Georgetown University study (http://cew.georgetown.edu/jobs2018/states/), Texas ranks 41 among all 50 states in the percentage of jobs requiring post-secondary education."

"The important thing to do is not to just count jobs but to look at what kinds of jobs are being created in Texas," explained Dick Lavine, a Senior Fiscal Analyst with the Center for Public Policy Priorities (http://www.cppp.org/). "Texas is tied for last with Mississippi for the highest percentage of minimum wage jobs and Texas is by far the leader of residents who don't have health insurance. It's low wage jobs without any benefits."




Maybe you meant this one, from the CNN link, "The jobs are real enough. The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas recently estimated that, since June 2009, Texas has produced about 37% of the new jobs in the country. Perry claims the figure is closer to 48%. Either way, it's impressive." I don't see that one backing up your claim that Texas is only doing well because of public sector jobs, and stimulus money.



Interesting.
Of the 211,000 jobs added last year, 37 percent (or more than 76,000) paid at or below minimum wage, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Texas now leads the nation in minimum-wage workers (550,000 in all).

39,000 (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/08/02/3265070/small-government-texas-has-added.html#ixzz1U4R8dTak) public sector jobs in the last 2 years.

You don't think those new jobs have anything to do with the massive population growth (http://www.politicalmathblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PopulationGrowthIncreaseBig.png) Texas has had over the last decade? Double the national average for the past decade?

How about this one (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576470232177476242.html?m od=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth) from the ultra liberal Wall Street Journal.



Now, for facts: If Texas had recieved no stimulus money, it would have had to dip into the rainy day fund, which has a bit over 9 billion in it. So without the stimulus money, the state would still be doing quite well. Now lets look at public sector jobs, which have had a growth rate of about 3.8% so about 1.6% faster than the total job growth in the state of Texas. That said, the number of public sector employees is falling now, not growing. There was a big spike in numbers durring the Census, but the census is over. Let's take away all the gains in the public sector, and the stimulus money. What's left? Three billion dollars in the rainy day fund, and job growth that still outpaces every other state.
That's awesome they have a 9 billion dollar rainy day fund. They also have (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/) a projected 27 billion dollar shortfall and a shortfall of 4.3 billion (http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/2011/01/combs-4-3-billion-deficit-in-current-budget/) in their current budget.
That comes after 4 billion (http://www.kvue.com/home/124705329.html) in cuts to public schools in a state that "State Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D) told The Huffington Post her state ranks 48th in teen birth rates, 50th in prenatal care and 46th in income disparity -- and 50th in the number of persons who receive a high school diploma by age 25".
They recently laid off 49,000 teachers to meet their budget shortfall.

[Jack]

A liberal think tank, and the Huffington Post don't like Texas or Rick Perry. Who'd have thought?

Of course the population growth in Texas has a lot to do with the increase in jobs. If things are so bad, and the only work is no benifit minimum wage work, why would so many people be coming to the state? Median hourly wage is $15.14, and mean hourly wage is $20.30 in Texas, putting the state right about in the middle.

The state is cutting spending to deal with a budget shortfall instead of just raising the debt ceiling? Now that's just downright wrong.....

[Tsa`ah]

Those numbers are sliding ... and not accurate.

BLS.gov pegs the median hourly income for Texas at 11.20 for 2010 ... down from 12.13 the year before.

[Jack]

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_tx.htm#00-0000

Not sure where you're reading your information.....

[Tsa`ah]

http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/minwage_tx.htm

"The median hourly earnings for all hourly-paid wage and salary workers in Texas stood at $11.20 per hour in 2010; nationally, the median was $12.50.3. For men and for women, the median hourly rates in Texas were $12.13 and $10.24, respectively. (See table 1.) Nationally, the median hourly rates were $13.76 for men and $11.83 for women."

[Back]

If you want to attract more businesses offer low wage labor.

[Jack]

http://www.bls.gov/ro6/fax/minwage_tx.htm

"The median hourly earnings for all hourly-paid wage and salary workers in Texas stood at $11.20 per hour in 2010; nationally, the median was $12.50.3. For men and for women, the median hourly rates in Texas were $12.13 and $10.24, respectively. (See table 1.) Nationally, the median hourly rates were $13.76 for men and $11.83 for women."

I see what you did there. Good idea using a statistic that only uses hourly wage earners.

[Cephalopod]

The state is cutting spending to deal with a budget shortfall instead of just raising the debt ceiling? Now that's just downright wrong.....

Only after padding their budget with federal stimulus funds for the last few years while Rick Perry railed against the stimulus, and now shifting the responsibility of most of the budget balancing to the next legislature... awesome.

[Tsa`ah]

I see what you did there. Good idea using a statistic that only uses hourly wage earners.

You cited median hourly wage that padded the statistic with salaried positions. If we're talking about a median hourly ... use citation that reflects hourly wage jobs.

The use of said statistic only reinforces my statement. Your numbers are going to slide because, while the number of jobs in Texas is growing ... they're not well paying jobs. They're jobs that pay at or below minimum wage.

Texas only appears to be doing well. When you crack the egg to have a closer look ... it is pretty depressing.

Child poverty sky rocketing.
Uninsured or underinsured levels going up.
Education declining ...and tens of thousands of teachers losing their jobs.
Wages declining.

That Rick Perry is one hell of a guy isn't he? He's pretty much demolishing Texas and turning it into a low wage, unskilled, labor state .... and you guys think it's positive progress.

[crb]

Ask an unemployed person if they would rather have a job that paid minimum wage, or no job at all.

There should be consequences to poor life choices. And a low paying job is one of those consequences. Society can't afford to pay $15 an hour for burger flippers, lawn mowers, and those people who stand on corners in funny costumes waving $5 pizza signs.

Suppose we raised the wage of every person working at Walmart, Walmart would have to raise prices, and the standard of living of every person who shops at walmart would drop, because they can buy less with their dollars.

Some people also like to pretend that minimum wage workers are all struggling single moms with 3 kids. The mom's propensity for leg spreading is another thread, but what is often ignored is the fact that most people who work minimum wage jobs don't do it forever. Many of them do it only part time, because they're students, teenagers, etc. Or it is a second job.

We all probably worked for minimum wage in highschool didn't we? Unless we have some silver spoons here anyways.

Minimum wage is 16k a year. My wife and I once lived on 24k a year and we were quite comfortable. Two people making minimum wage is 32k a year. That ain't that bad for a family. You're going to pay almost no taxes, the federal government will pay you for each kid you have.

If that isn't enough for you, learn a skill.

[crb]

Oh ya, most hilarious thing about Rick Perry: He used to be a Democrat. Watch Tsa'anahaa'a switch to defending him now.

[Tgo01]

Some people also like to pretend that minimum wage workers are all struggling single moms with 3 kids. The mom's propensity for leg spreading is another thread, but what is often ignored is the fact that most people who work minimum wage jobs don't do it forever.

What is it you have against women exactly?

[Tgo01]

The use of said statistic only reinforces my statement. Your numbers are going to slide because, while the number of jobs in Texas is growing ... they're not well paying jobs. They're jobs that pay at or below minimum wage.

This is really a baffling argument you have taken up here. So wait, let me see if I understand, no job growth is better than low paying job growth?

[crb]

What is it you have against women exactly?

Nothing. I do have something against people having kids they can't afford. My wife had a patient some weeks ago, 21, pregnant with her 5th. Only two different daddies though so... yay her! Unemployed and on medicaid.

[Tsa`ah]

This is really a baffling argument you have taken up here. So wait, let me see if I understand, no job growth is better than low paying job growth?

You and crb seem to suffer from the same comprehension issues.

I didn't even imply that. I only pointed out the "growth" portrayed isn't actually growth.

The number of decent jobs that pays, at the minimum, a livable wage has and is declining. Those are replaced by jobs that pay at or below minimum wage and national median.

To flesh this out for the both of you. A person who earned 30-40k loses his or her job and is on unemployment for a year. Those benefits run out or he/she finds one of these new jobs in the expanding market that pays below minimum.

Ask them which they prefer. The job they had, the unemployment, or the job that has no benefits and doesn't pay nearly enough to keep his/her head above water.

A minimum wage job isn't an improvement ... neither is an expanding market of minimum wage jobs.

As for the rest of crb's bullshit laced post ... it's not really worth responding to. It takes the position that a person's status in life is under their complete control. That coming from a guy who has struggled his entire life to break into a lower level management job.

[Jack]

You cited median hourly wage that padded the statistic with salaried positions. If we're talking about a median hourly ... use citation that reflects hourly wage jobs.

Of course you feel that way. Excluding jobs that will pay better reinforces the talking points that you spout. It's cool though, Texas wages are still higher than your state....

[Rinualdo]

Answer me this. If Texas is doing so well, why is their unemployment at or near the national average while having a huge budget deficit and at or among the nations' leaders in negative social indicators?

Is the Texas model and Texas accomplishments really what we want for our state? Romney in that context has much better credentials.

[Latrinsorm]

If things are so bad, and the only work is no benifit minimum wage work, why would so many people be coming to the state?It beats Mexico.
Some people also like to pretend that minimum wage workers are all struggling single moms with 3 kids. The mom's propensity for leg spreading is another thread, but what is often ignored is the fact that most people who work minimum wage jobs don't do it forever. Many of them do it only part time, because they're students, teenagers, etc. Or it is a second job.Doesn't this suggest a minimum wage worker bubble in Texas' employment numbers? That is to say; if the majority of jobs being created in Texas are minimum wage, what happens when people try to move on from those jobs? Wouldn't they have to leave the state?

[Tgo01]

You and crb seem to suffer from the same comprehension issues.

I didn't even imply that. I only pointed out the "growth" portrayed isn't actually growth.

The number of decent jobs that pays, at the minimum, a livable wage has and is declining. Those are replaced by jobs that pay at or below minimum wage and national median.

Maybe I just don't understand the meaning of the word 'growth' as well as I thought I did. Sure, if we compare things now to before the economy went to shit it's not really growth. However the economy did indeed tank, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. From that point to now how is a low paying job compared to no job not growth? If the rest of the country was creating as many high paying jobs that Texas is creating low paying jobs I'd say you make some excellent points. I really don't know the answer so I'm asking you a serious question, is that the truth?

[Tsa`ah]

Of course you feel that way. Excluding jobs that will pay better reinforces the talking points that you spout. It's cool though, Texas wages are still higher than your state....

Are you sure about that?

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_il.htm

Using your metric ... IL still kicks TX ass while subsidizing what they consider progress.


Maybe I just don't understand the meaning of the word 'growth' as well as I thought I did. Sure, if we compare things now to before the economy went to shit it's not really growth. However the economy did indeed tank, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. From that point to now how is a low paying job compared to no job not growth? If the rest of the country was creating as many high paying jobs that Texas is creating low paying jobs I'd say you make some excellent points. I really don't know the answer so I'm asking you a serious question, is that the truth?

You're saying that low paying, no benefit jobs, are productive?

The massive expansion of the class of people we call the working poor and the massive contraction of what we call the middle class is ... growth?

You have some pretty fucked up metrics.

[Tgo01]

You're saying that low paying, no benefit jobs, are productive?

Compared to no jobs? Yes. Is this a trick question?


The massive expansion of the class of people we call the working poor and the massive contraction of what we call the middle class is ... growth?

Of course not, no job growth at all is growth.

[Jack]

Are you sure about that?

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_il.htm

Using your metric ... IL still kicks TX ass while subsidizing what they consider progress.

Oh, so we change metrics when it suits our position. I see and understand. Good job Tsa`ah, good job. You sure showed me, just like when you proved that Camp Lejune was once Fort Lejune....

[AnticorRifling]

Camp Fort!

[Bobmuhthol]

Answer me this. If Texas is doing so well, why is their unemployment at or near the national average while having a huge budget deficit and at or among the nations' leaders in negative social indicators?

I do not have the answer to the question that I am about to ask, but it is a necessary question if you want to even pretend to have an idea of what you're talking about:

Did Texas' deficit and social indicators improve, stay the same, or worsen, both compared to previous years and compared to other states, at the same time that these jobs were being created?

Unless the answer is "worsen" in both instances, and I don't know that it's not, your entire argument sucks. We are all very aware that Texas is an inferior state compared to just about anywhere in the Northeast. That doesn't mean it isn't getting better faster than those states.

[Inspire]

Rick Perry

No, I would not vote for another George Bush wannabe.

He was also a cheerleader, what a fag.

[Parkbandit]

Camp Fort!

I thought it was Fort Camp?

[Parkbandit]

No, I would not vote for another George Bush wannabe.

He was also a cheerleader, what a fag.

If he's a fag, why wouldn't you vote for someone you could relate with?

[TheEschaton]

If he was a fag, I would be much more inclined to vote for him.

[Parkbandit]

If he was a fag, I would be much more inclined to vote for him.

Quoted before you realize how queer you sounded in that post.

[Inspire]

Quoted before you realize how queer you sounded in that post.

Are you a woman? Because you're a big fat homo if you're not a big fat woman.

[Rinualdo]

I do not have the answer to the question that I am about to ask, but it is a necessary question if you want to even pretend to have an idea of what you're talking about:

Did Texas' deficit and social indicators improve, stay the same, or worsen, both compared to previous years and compared to other states, at the same time that these jobs were being created?

Unless the answer is "worsen" in both instances, and I don't know that it's not, your entire argument sucks. We are all very aware that Texas is an inferior state compared to just about anywhere in the Northeast. That doesn't mean it isn't getting better faster than those states.

My argument is that Perry, et al have said Hey, look how awesome Texas is. I gained 48% new job growth and have done all these other great employment things. I can perform this Texas Miracle for the entire US.
The merits on those points is suspect at best and the social situation is among the worst in the country.

If you are going to run on your record, it better be the best one out there.

For the Repubs, Romney looks a helluva lot better re: jobs and economic growth.

[Parkbandit]

Are you a woman? Because you're a big fat homo if you're not a big fat woman.

Hey, hey, hey... slow down champ. I just find it hilarious that a self proclaimed, part-time cock-snorkeler would call someone else a homo of a fag in a derogatory manner.

[Tsa`ah]

Oh, so we change metrics when it suits our position. I see and understand. Good job Tsa`ah, good job. You sure showed me, just like when you proved that Camp Lejune was once Fort Lejune....

Now you're being a PB level idiot.

I pointed out that using YOUR metric ... YOUR statement was bunk. Had the BLS provided up to date information on IL using the metric I provided you with to debunk your premise ... I would have used that.

If you can't back up your claims, why make them at all? Of course when you can't debate anything you're going to fall back on the typical douche baggery ... but carry on. Continue making yourself out to be just another ignorant ass.


Compared to no jobs? Yes. Is this a trick question?

Let me get this straight. A 50k a year job disappears and is replaced a year later with a job that pays 18k ... that's growth? That is progress?

I don't think it is sinking into your head yet. These jobs would have paid much more a few years ago. What has happened is that a hyper-employer's market has been created and the result is poor wages.

We call this exploitation. It's not progress and it is not growth.


Of course not, no job growth at all is growth.

Again and make sense this time.