And yet, that's how any sensible politician would have answered that question. For all the flak politicians rightly get for not answering a question asked and going with a talking point (or whatever), this is actually an incidence where that's the right move. He should have ignored the "theological priority" part completely.
Perry lets the terrorists win
- Thread starter JFrankA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rick perry
And yet, that's how any sensible politician would have answered that question. For all the flak politicians rightly get for not answering a question asked and going with a talking point (or whatever), this is actually an incidence where that's the right move. He should have ignored the "theological priority" part completely.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Is he any more alarming than Romney, who when asked what he would do if the bovine excreta impacted the ventilatory oscillator, said he would physically humble himself and attempt to telepathically communicate with an invisible conscious entity?
Not get his top advisors in his office pronto.
Not get on the horn to other world leaders.
Not seek the advice of military brass.
Nope... the first thing he would do would be to lower his body toward the ground and commence to direct his thoughts at a substanceless personality.
"Good plan!" </Roger Cobb>
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Possibly. Of course, keep in mind that you are thinking about one question out of about a 30 minute interview. Which I've posted the link to the video and the transcript. There's zero discussion of religion anywhere else, only this one question.
So basically, everyone on this forum that is criticizing Perry for his views on foreign policy without listening to the the entire interview or reading the full transcript, ,but instead just believing that his views are encapsulated in this one out of context sound bit, is engaging in...
...really idiotic behavior.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,505
Perry said what he said. All your weaselly diversionary tactics don't change that.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
perry?? ............constantly.
he views all of america as one of those new 'mega-churches'.
he is a preacher, not a president.
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
I have no idea what that rant does. Is there a JREF secret decoder ring that one uses with it to get the hidden message?
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Wildcat, your "so x {not what I said}" strawman construction is noted.
I do not hold that the alleged "special relationship" claim in re US and Israel can or should hold the same policy weight as the Special Relationship (first alluded to IIRC by Churchill) between the US and the UK, by at least an order of magnitude.
As I've stated more than once over the past five years on these boards, it is my opinion that the strategic value of Israel to the US shrank considerably about the time the Berlin Wall came down.
Saddam's attempt to use Scuds on Israel as a wedge to crack GHW Bush's coalition in 1991 was a data point that my feeling on that is correct.
Sometimes, an ally is a strategic liability as well as an ally. Not all relationships are perfect, nor even comfortable. Those who advocate for Israel within the American political system are not entitled to have it easy. They are required to do as any lobbyist do, which is work hard to have their voices heard. To date, Israel's advocates have done a creditable job. See the President's recent point (well made, IMO) that peace between Pals and Israel cannot be short-cut, but instead requires a lot of hard work.
DR
Last edited:
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
No, he is a governor. An annoying one, but a governor.
You want preacher? Check out Pat Robertson. He ran for president, and he was a preacher. You might get away with pointing to Perry being a sock puppet for a few preachers ... you could get some mileage there, particularly on this generally anti-religious set of forums.
Your attempt at mind reading fails, though, which makes you at least consistent, and as usual wrong, in your less-than-useful-sound-byte approach.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Yes, there is. It's called "reading comprehension". Give it a shot some time, you'll giggle with delight.
Bovine Excrete hitting the ventilatory oscillator = **** hits the fan
Telepathy = prayer
Invisible Conscious Entity = god.
A potentially valid complaint (depending on the words) if Romney wasn't just pandering to his base.
Not possibly. He definitely shouldn't have said what he did.
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
Says you. Judging from Google that comment hasn't affected his standing one bit. Other things have, but leave it to people on this forum to miss the actual dynamics.
Works for me.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Right, because Google is always accurate...
Last edited:
For once I agree with you. Relying on directives from God upon which to base foreign policy decisions will likely not hurt Perry in the primaries, particularly with the Christian far right. However, it will probably hurt him once people start thinking more about the general elections, where we can expect a full back-pedal (assuming he gets that far) much as he has already attempted to do concerning several statements in his book.
So far Perry's statements on foreign policy, particularly concerning Israel, are naive and dangerous. But you're right -- nobody in the primaries are likely to notice until they start thinking about who will perform the best in the general elections.
-Bri
Last edited:
mhaze
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2007
- Messages
- 15,718
What amazes me is that shortly ago, we didn't know anything about this guy, Perry, his views on foreign policy. Now he goes and does an open question and answer session. So there's a lot of content there.
But blind ideologues of the left don't read or care about it. What they care about is the ONE INTERPRETATION of ONE STATEMENT can be used for propaganda purposes. It's really ridiculous. Which is showed by the polls not caring.
Yup, the more Perry speaks -- particularly unscripted -- the more naive and dangerous he looks where foreign policy is concerned. I think Romney will win the nomination once people start looking at who is more electable in the general election.
Except it's not just one statement.
From the Associated Press:
RICK PERRY: "Errors by the Obama administration have encouraged the Palestinians to take backward steps away from peace. It was a mistake to call for an Israeli construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, as an unprecedented precondition for talks."
THE FACTS: This is a one-sided and parochial assessment of the impasse. U.S. officials and mediators from other countries have blamed both sides for failing to advance the peace process. Europeans and others aren't blaming the U.S. for the difficulty.
The U.S. government long has considered Israeli housing construction in lands it conquered in 1967 — lands the Palestinians want to include in their future state — as illegitimate. Yet despite being disappointed by resumed Israeli settlement expansion, the Obama administration vetoed a U.N. resolution condemning the Jewish state. And it has continuously pressed for direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, despite not securing any Israeli commitment to reverse policy.
...
PERRY: "The Obama policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a very dangerous insult."
THE FACTS: The administration has never said nor suggested that settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, or any other Israeli policy, is equally as heinous as Hamas rockets or other attacks aimed at Israeli citizens.
However, Obama officials have tried to give public weight to the grievances of each side, without offering either as a moral justification for harmful deeds.
For Israelis, the administration says it understands the difficulty of living without security and in a hostile neighborhood. And it cites the ordeal of Palestinians living under occupation, with difficult economic prospects and without control over their own lives.
The effort at empathy does not extend to terrorists. Obama has maintained the unconditional blacklisting of Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon as terrorist organizations and backed Israel's right to target extremists bent on threatening its security.
-Bri
In what sense is Israel an ally ?
Do you think their state sponsored espionage against the US is the act of an ally ?
Why is Israel attacking the USS Liberty the act of an ally while Al Queda attacking USS Cole the act of an enemy ?
Israel is a dependent state of the US - not an ally. They are historically the largest recipient of US aid and currently receive ~$3Bln/yr. They have a per capita GDP near $30k USD - very close to Italy and a notch ahead of Spain. They don't deserve our aid.
The fact is that the Brits and French empires largely controlled the middle east and they drew-up bogus borders and (w/ the UN) and created nascent fiascos like Iraq and Israel. Why are we propping up the results of this process ?
I think Israel as a state has as much "legitimacy" as many other states. Moreso if we consider the UN charter, the ascendancy of the current government, etc. That's not the issue. But the fact is that their existence creates massive antipathy and problems in the region. That Israeli's or Jews deserve a homeland is apparently to rectify a 17 century old aggression by the Roman empire. Well if we are going there then we should certainly redress the Caesar's incursion into England, and the injustices and invasions of the Huns and Mongols.. It get's pretty silly after a few centuries. So it does look a lot like a European/Asian settlement in the ME to the locals - legitimately so.
If the goal was to create a sustainable place for a group that wants independence - then buying up comparable sized bits of Wyoming, Brazil, or NSW would seem a simple solution. No major conflicts, and rather minor impositions by the state. But of course they want to assert some ancient religious claim to the specific place - a place they largely didn't control not greatly inhabit for 17 centuries.
If anyone - Christian or Jew or anyone else want's to support the existence of Israel with their money - that's their business. If they want to involve the US - then I have a big problem with that. Why is it in our national interest to feed a problem ?
==
But there is a mutual interest aspect to US relationships with UK, Canada, Australia, France, Spain and many others. We have similar and workable views on many of issues. We have complementary resources to bring to bear on issues. I don't see any US national interest in Israel. Supporting "the only democracy in the ME" is a bit like supporting the only skunk at the garden party - just causes troubles.
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
Bullmess! This isn't "ONE INTERPRETATION of ONE STATEMENT". This is one line in a long list of Perry clearly thinking that the mix of his religion and the US Government is absolutely fine.
Here let me show you:
Perry's invite to "The Response"
http://vimeo.com/25676383
Or how about a policy he approved:
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/16038/
His statement about his policy towards Israel is just another piece that adds evidence to the idea that Perry doesn't see a line between church and state.
Tell me, MHaze, would you be so quick to defend Obama if he came sent out this invitation:
Or if he made this policy:
Or if a blogger complained about Obama because he made this statement:
Would you be so quick to defend Obama if he did that, and I started a thread called "Obama is letting the terrorists win"?
Didn't say it would hurt him. But saying stupid things is something a politician should avoid. Even if YOU happen to think it is only stupid as a sound bite, that's still a bad idea. A given stupid thing a politician said might happen to not hurt them, but that doesn't mean it was ok for them to say it.
SKEPTICALSHAM
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 54
Perry actually was a dog catcher in his youth
oh wait... no he was a Cheerleader
oh wait... no he was a Cheerleader