Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Washington Post: Texas Governer Rick Perry running for President in 2012

thebluefood

By thebluefood
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

chipwhich

chipwhich

Posted
Posted
I agree,and we let him know it when he did it.......do gooders and their I know what is best BS

To his credit he listened and dropped it,but it does not excuse his order to start with.

Hopefully he is really being honest. That order in my opinion is a deal breaker. Padding his pockets for the sole benefit of special interests.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
I agree,and we let him know it when he did it.......do gooders and their I know what is best BS

To his credit he listened and dropped it,but it does not excuse his order to start with.

Well, Predicto might say "quite Kilmer-esque." But I'm not hip enough to know. :ols:

It does seem to me that your comment is presented as though a "typically left/liberal influence" :evilg: was uncharacteristically indulged by the Good Guy who, sho nuff, finds his only error was in lissenin' to them "damn do-gooder experts" :pfft: and came to regret his lapse. :)

Maybe I project too much. :D

Of course, one wonders whether it was do-gooder experts pushing this or high-powered lobbyists for the pharmaceuticals. And dude, I honestly haven't researched it enough to say. :)

So I'm all ears.

Seriously though, and on the "all ears" point, my other Texas conservative buddy (if "ya'all" will count a long-haired dude from Austin who does meet all the other parameters :pfft:) spins it differently.

He likes Perry a fair amount (hates "my" governor here in WA), but still sees him as a "true politician" and "shifty enough" (his words in quotes) and calls this deal Perry selling out to one of his biggest contributors and then getting busted and roasted for it, even in his local media and he only recanted because he got caught and his connection seriously outed, and then really set upon with more fervor than he might have expected from his base. My buddy says more on it and Perry, but what do you think of that "spin?" Legit, arguable at least, or just nonsense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
Well, I saw Perry 12 Bumper sticker on a pickup from South Carolina. He has that state wrapped up.

While I like Huntsman notably more from what I consider my relatively ignorant POV at this time, I figure him unlikely to win a GOP nomination. And despite there being things I already strongly dislike about Perry, I remain pragmatic and fairly detached and am still willing to legitimately consider him as a viable alternative to "four more years." I will see how he continues to do and who he aligns himself with for veep & advisers should he get the nomination. It's still so early that there's little point in getting too entrenched regarding anyone (for me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
88Comrade2000

88Comrade2000

Posted
Posted
While I like Huntsman notably more from what I consider my relatively ignorant POV at this time, I figure him unlikely to win a GOP nomination. And despite there being things I already strongly dislike about Perry, I remain pragmatic and fairly detached and am still willing to legitimately consider him as a viable alternative to "four more years." I will see how he continues to do and who he aligns himself with for veep & advisers should he get the nomination. It's still so early that there's little point in getting too entrenched regarding anyone (for me).

Don't care for Perry either. I plan on voting Libertarian for the third time in a row. There is no choice in 2012.

You got a clueless weak manchild in Obama. He will somehow pull out another 4 years and we will get 4 more years of this. We already know what to expect if he gets a dem congress or republican congress. Obama will probably match Bush as one of the worst 2 term presidents.

2016 is when we will probably have some real quality candidates to clean up the ****ed up mess this country is and will be in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted
Jumbo I would say it was not a either/or but both (as is too often the case)

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?120326-Say-goodbye-to-Cervical-Cancer

How could ya not love helping others and benefiting from it....unless you are skeptical and hate science....... :evilg:

due diligence is a lost art and snake oil is still popular

Gotcha---as Nick Danger, Third Eye, said when the person of interest introduced himself as "Rocky Rococo": "Thanks. You just saved me a lot of investigative work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baculus

Baculus

Posted
Posted

You got a clueless weak manchild in Obama.

Right-wing talking point alert!

What is it with conservatives calling Obama a "man-child"? I've heard Limbaugh say this on several occasions, and it appears his minions pick up on it, too. And "clueless" and "weak"? Well, gee, if you listened to your other compatriots on the Right, Obama is directing anti-American wars all over the globe, so I guess guys can't get your claims down consistently.

Sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who would have voted for a "cowboy" Bush, so color me skeptical on your libertarian claims, and the rest of your post.

The Republicans are parroting the same language you're using, so I fail to see why you just don't vote GOP.

---------- Post added August-25th-2011 at 08:06 PM ----------

Spoken like a true Dem, ya hate brown people don't ya? :evilg:

Huh?

Oh yeah, because obviously I was talking about "brown people" when I am criticizing Perry's governance. :-P

It is fun to listen to complaints of govt spending on poor from the left,especially when a great deal of it is a result of lax immigration control that they seemingly endorse....Pretty sad when states have to sue the feds to make them pay for a problem the feds create

I never complained about "govt spending on poor" -- I am showing your state's hypocrisy. You claimed that Texas didn't want to become beholden to federal monies, BUT IT ALREADY IS. You're just trying your best to wiggle away from the main topic at hand.

And that's pretty weak, blaming the feds for your own state's problems.

Texas has always been a donor state....I wonder if they account for all those things you list?

Yeah, which is why the state, under Perry's leadership, had to close its budget with the stimulus dollars which Perry supposedly opposed.

Quick, better defend Perry again at all costs! The governor would be happy if he knew he had unpaid volunteers such as yourself defending him on the Internet.

from what I recall it accounts for all federal funds a state receives vs taxes paid....but I'm always open to a better listing of facts if ya got them.

I have posted stuff in the past and you never listen. I ain't going to waste my time anymore, and the chance of you paying attention to "listing of facts" is 0%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

I have posted stuff in the past and you never listen. I ain't going to waste my time anymore, and the chance of you paying attention to "listing of facts" is 0%.

No Bac we did not HAVE to close it with federal dollars,there were funds available as well as more cuts possible

Federal immigration bs helps create a problem here,you can ignore that and other facts if you wish

add

Perry picks up the Kinky endorsement

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html

ya'll better dig faster at that dirt

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baculus

Baculus

Posted
Posted
No Bac we did not HAVE to close it with federal dollars,there were funds available as well as more cuts possible

Who cares if you didn't HAVE to close it federal dollars -- your state DID. How? By using the money that you, Perry, and other right-wingers opposed: The stimulus.

"Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm

You want to play politics, but when the time comes, your state and Perry said, "Yum, yum, give me some." Hypocrites.

Federal immigration bs helps create a problem here,you can ignore that and other facts if you wish

Latinos lived in Texas before it was a state, so this issue is way more complex than your simplistic finger pointing.

BTW, I didn't see former Texan gov. George W. Bush do much to resolve the issue. What do you want -- to round up millions of undocumented immigrants?

Perry picks up the Kinky endorsement

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html

ya'll better dig faster at that dirt

Alright, so what is the point of that article, or posting it? LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted

It'll be interesting to see other GOPers quote Perry's book in the next debate to attack him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/political-bookworm/post/perrys-book-fed-up-haunts-his-campaign/2011/08/23/gIQAZW35YJ_blog.html

Posted at 12:45 PM ET, 08/23/2011

Perry’s book “Fed Up!” haunts his campaign

By Steven Levingston

Be careful what you put in a book — you might decide to run for president one day and have to answer for it.

That’s the pickle facing presidential contender Rick Perry.

In a book he wrote last year, “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington,” the Texas governor called Social Security a “failure and an “illegal Ponzi scheme,” and questioned the constitutionality of a variety of federal laws. He didn’t think much of legislation on food safety, the minimum wage, child labor bans, environmental protection and Medicare.

Now he’s facing heat from voters troubled by those published opinions. The Los Angeles Times reports that his campaign aides are out doing damage control. His spokesman Ray Sullivan has assured the electorate that the candidate would not try to cut or repeal Social Security if he became president.

“When it comes to Social Security today,” Perry believes there should be “a robust debate about entitlements, a debate about extending the retirement age for younger people and for other changes that will make Social Security and Medicare more stable and financially sound going forward,” the Times quoted Sullivan as saying. “We need to protect benefits for those who are at or near retirement, so they don’t have anything to worry about.”

To further bat away complaints, Sullivan has said the book “is a look back, not a path forward.” It was written “as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto.”

Here is non-candidate Perry writing about Social Security in “Fed Up!”:

“This unsustainable fiscal insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal. Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not….Now if you say Social Security is a failure, as I have just done, you will inherit the wind of political scorn. Seniors will think you want to cut the benefits they have paid for…We are told that no politician has the courage to raise these issues, even if avoiding them puts us on the fast track to financial ruin. But by remaining quiet, politicians are really saying they think the American people won’t understand it if we share the grim details of our financial future…Is that how we should respect our fellow citizens? By underestimating their intelligence, their desire to retire with greater stability or their commitment to the next generation?”

Greg Sargent of The Post’s Plum Line wonders about another prescription in Perry’s book: repealing the 16th Amendment and replacing the income tax with an alternative tax system. In the book, Perry says the 16th Amendment was “the great milestone on the road to serfdom” because it represented “the birth of wealth redistribution in the United States.”

The controversy isn’t hurting book sales. “Fed Up!”, which has been out since November, hovers today at 342 on the Amazon bestseller list.

Meanwhile, another book is out today that assesses Perry’s campaign approach in his latest run for the Texas statehouse. “Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the Brainiest Political Operation in America” by Sasha Issenberg is an e-book excerpt from Issenberg’s forthcoming “The Victory Lab,” a look at winning elections in the 21st century. The Rick Perry section examines the governor’s use of scientific data and a small group of academics to guide his steps in the campaign.

Rick Perry did a lot of hemming and hawing before he jumped into the presidential race, but we may just have to admit to a sneaking suspicion he’s been planning his run — very carefully — for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
It'll be interesting to see other GOPers quote Perry's book in the next debate to attack him.

Yeah, I predict that he will be mercilessly attacked by every GOP candidate who doesn't want to slash and replace SS and Medicare. :halo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I predict that he will be mercilessly attacked by every GOP candidate who doesn't want to slash and replace SS and Medicare. :halo:

Its more of using his own extreme words to get him to reply. Illegal Ponzi Scheme? Really? That's how you get the older voters on your side?

His team is already trying to distance him from his book that less than a year old.

You really think they are going to just let him sit there with the lead and not attack? These are the primaries! THIS IS THUDERDOME!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
88Comrade2000

88Comrade2000

Posted
Posted
Right-wing talking point alert!

What is it with conservatives calling Obama a "man-child"? I've heard Limbaugh say this on several occasions, and it appears his minions pick up on it, too. And "clueless" and "weak"? Well, gee, if you listened to your other compatriots on the Right, Obama is directing anti-American wars all over the globe, so I guess guys can't get your claims down consistently.

Sorry, but you sound like the sort of person who would have voted for a "cowboy" Bush, so color me skeptical on your libertarian claims, and the rest of your post.

The Republicans are parroting the same language you're using, so I fail to see why you just don't vote GOP.

I actually like that term Rush uses for him. I am an independent. I haven't voted for a major party since 2000 with Bush. Voted Libertarian in 04,08 and will in 12. I don't agree with everything they stand for but closet to my own beliefs and I believe if you don't vote; then you have no right to *****.

Here's I view the candidates:

Obama - Clueless. I am convinced he was nothing more than a puppet to the interests running the democratic party. There is nothing there. Hillary Clinton would've been a far better president.

Cain- A racist.

Santorum- Doucebag. Could be a Veep pick.

Perry- To right wing and a red neck from Texas. We don't need another Texan.

Romney- No views. Will take whatever position to be elected.

Palin- Bimbo.

Paul- While I agree with some of economic views; he just sounds to loony with his other views.

Bachmann- Loony. Could be Veep pick.

Gingrich- windbag.

Huntsman- Wasn't impressed with him at all. He's better off as a democrat.

I've already said there are no choices for 2012. Obama will eek out a victory over right wing Perry or flip flop Romney.

2016 is when both sides will have some real choices like Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie- will have experience then unlike now, Mark Warner, Marco Rubio, Mario Cuomo, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
I actually like that term Rush uses for him. I am an independent. I haven't voted for a major party since 2000 with Bush. Voted Libertarian in 04,08 and will in 12. I don't agree with everything they stand for but closet to my own beliefs and I believe if you don't vote; then you have no right to *****.

Here's I view the candidates:

Obama - Clueless. I am convinced he was nothing more than a puppet to the interests running the democratic party. There is nothing there. Hillary Clinton would've been a far better president.

Cain- A racist.

Santorum- Doucebag. Could be a Veep pick.

Perry- To right wing and a red neck from Texas. We don't need another Texan.

Romney- No views. Will take whatever position to be elected.

Palin- Bimbo.

Paul- While I agree with some of economic views; he just sounds to loony with his other views.

Bachmann- Loony. Could be Veep pick.

Gingrich- windbag.

Huntsman- Wasn't impressed with him at all. He's better off as a democrat.

I've already said there are no choices for 2012. Obama will eek out a victory over right wing Perry or flip flop Romney.

2016 is when both sides will have some real choices like Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie- will have experience then unlike now, Mark Warner, Marco Rubio, Mario Cuomo, etc...

Well it goes back to this. The truly smart and qualified Americans in this country are far too smart to run for President anymore. Your 2016 list is pretty weak if you ask me. No more Clinton's or Bush's please. Christie is a heart attack waiting to happen. Well, maybe Rubio, Warner or Cuomo. But that's after another half decade of being in American Politics. Might as well ask them to drink bleach and then make smart choices. Look at the folks who have been in Congress for decades. Reid, Boehner, McConnell.....all frauds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jumbo

Jumbo

Posted
Posted

Aug 15, 2011

Federal agency: Texas Gov. Perry wrong in comments about new license rules for farmers

Perry, who on Saturday announced he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, contended in Des Moines today that federal regulations are stifling creation of American jobs. He then proceeded to cite what he termed an “obscene, crazy” regulation. “If you are a tractor driver, if you drive your tractor across a public road, you’re going to have to have a commercial driver’s license. Now how idiotic is that?”

“We are absolutely not requiring farmers” to obtain commercial licenses, such as those required of semi-trailer operators, said U.S. DOT spokeswoman Candice Tolliver in Washington, D.C.

She said U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood had put out a statement last week making the DOT’s position clear. “We have no intention of instituting onerous regulations on the hardworking farmers who feed our country and fuel our economy,” LaHood’s statement said.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/08/15/federal-agency-perry-wrong-in-comments-about-new-license-rules-for-farmers/

We live in such brain-challenging times (actually, it's not the times so much as the brains involved). The National Sorghum Producers posted a misinterpretation on a blog and off the good little reactionaries went....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...