• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged The Perry meltdown

The Central Scrutinizer said:
The State Of Texas disagrees.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it? Perry as governor was instrumental in making sure that the State didn't consider the evidence provided by nationally recognized experts. Instead, he was fine with putting a man to death based on the widely refuted opinions of some fire-fighters with little to no background in (and often open hostility to) arson science.

At any rate, my point is that Perry's political success in Texas isn't likely to translate to success on the national political stage. (Something the GOP often fails to consider, I think.)
 
Upchurch said:
That was my thought, too. No, this particular brain fart is getting blown out of proportion. It's minor and doesn't say anything to the man's ability to be a good President.

What he was saying when he had the brain fart concerns me much more.
Click to expand...

What happened was funny but it doesn't mean much. However, the policy he was trying to advocate is terrible!
 
Dog Town said:
How many States in the Union?
Click to expand...

If someone had said "I'm sorry, how many states are there?" and given Obama a minute to think, do you think he'd still have insisted on 57?

Perry's gaffe may not have anything to do with how well he'd do as a President, but it sure as hell makes him look like a trained monkey whose act broke down.
 
Let's consider Perry's biggest cheerleader, "Dr." Robert Jeffress. The following video shows Jeffress introducing Perry last month at the Family Research Council's Value Voters' Summit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvEo4inOnGY

In this video, Jeffress offers several dichotomous options for what voters want in a President as though there were only two sides to any debate. The most telling of these false dichotomies begins at 2:57.

Jeffress asks, "Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person? Or do we want a candidate who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?"

Jeffress wasn't making a brain-flub by offering these two options; he was genuinely offering a choice for voters between "a good, moral person" and "a born-again follower" of the myth of Jesus as it is understood by his audience (in the twenty-first century, no less).

This is beyond cognitive dissonance, but I don't know of a better term to describe people who believe that being "saved" is more important than being moral. Nevertheless, I do not want someone so far removed from reality to have the capacity to command a nuclear strike.
 
BenBurch said:
It's just that this was brought up SO often by people who did take it seriously.
Click to expand...

Again, SMILIE!

For those who still don't get it. It's spelled l-e-v-i-t-y. If for no other reason than the rabid HATRED, for all things Republican, on this board.

And for the record:
The last one I voted for was Regan.
 
Dog Town said:
Yes, I am aware! Does the smilie, at the end of my post, only show up on my browser?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but another poster (now banned) has successfully used Pavlov's technique to train JREF'ers to interpret that particular smilie as 'I am a GOP partisan hack, and you can therefore disregard anything I say as biased drivel. Oh and it's Clinton's fault'
 
cwalner said:
Sorry, but another poster (now banned) has successfully used Pavlov's technique to train JREF'ers to interpret that particular smilie as 'I am a GOP partisan hack, and you can therefore disregard anything I say as biased drivel. Oh and it's Clinton's fault'
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up! I knew something else had to be involved.
 
timhau said:
If someone had said "I'm sorry, how many states are there?" and given Obama a minute to think, do you think he'd still have insisted on 57?

Perry's gaffe may not have anything to do with how well he'd do as a President, but it sure as hell makes him look like a trained monkey whose act broke down.
Click to expand...

Excuse me?

In any case, here is a flashback to Obama's mistake. He actually looks both younger and super exhausted. No one asked him how many states there were, he just said, "fifty" instead of "forty", prior to adding up the remainder to reach 7 in his head.

You can hear some chuckles, but had I been there, I would have shouted out, "Excuse me Barrack, it's Forty, you been to 47 states not fifty", and that would have put an end to it. He would have laughed, and then explained that being on a plane 4 times a day for 15 months makes a person tired.

I'm guessing they don't have many black folk in Beaverton, OR, because if they did, someone would have corrected that young man.




Contrast that with Perry's direct question about his economic plan.
 
Last edited:
Vorticity said:
In that case, I would guess that he doesn't know what the Department of Energy does.

...
Click to expand...
I think he knows exactly what it does; defers pipelines, and fights ANWAR (and many other) drilling/fracking proposals.
 
cwalner said:
Sorry, but another poster (now banned) has successfully used Pavlov's technique to train JREF'ers to interpret that particular smilie as 'I am a GOP partisan hack, and you can therefore disregard anything I say as biased drivel. Oh and it's Clinton's fault'
Click to expand...

And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddlesome kids!


Seriously is the idea of eliminating departments an over night goal? Do they intend to just axe them with a signature and move on? Would they be phased out with the feds helping 50 states set up 50 independent dept of commerce, education, and energy? Would the state be left to "figure it out."

Has any republican actually thought about the next step after you eliminate a department?

I mean the simple fact that power is generated in one state and transfered to other states makes the idea of 50 independent energy departments unworkable. What education standards would be used? Is a 5th grader in one state a 7th or 8th grader in another? It could be a nightmare for families that want to move to a state who's dept of education refuses to cooperate with their current state's. Could AZ set a most favored trading state status with Colorado?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom