• 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.

Perry lets the terrorists win

Bri said:
What in the world are you talking about? The question didn't say anything about "in a theological context" at all. The question (which you posted yourself) was "To what extent do you view America's continued protection of Israel as a theological priority?"

Perry didn't say "America's continued protection of Israel is not a theological priority" did he? No, he said "I also as a Christian have a clear directive to support Israel."

So you're actually going to stick with your claim that Perry did not say that as a Christian he has a clear directive from God to support Israel despite the fact that you yourself posted the quote where he does say that? You're not actually claiming that he meant that as a Christian he has a clear directive from someone else are you? If so, who?

-Bri
Click to expand...

His opponent, the Governor of NJ?
 
mhaze said:
Sure am.

Well, it's your problem for not reading the question and the response, not mine.

Ask "In a theological context..." and you get an answer in that context.

Ask "What are you going to do in the ring, champ" and the Champ says "I gonna kill the mfkkkkkkr, I gonna stomp his brains, you gonna carry his pieces out..."

....BUT then the Champ gets out of the ring and is a perfect gentlemen.

Context - the boxing ring.

This isn't rocket science, people. You don't read the question and the answer and then try to figure out how you can spin or slant it. You simply read the statements and report them.
Click to expand...

That's one amazingly stupid analogy.

As myself and others have already carefully explained to you, Perry wasn't required to answer in a "theological context". He could have simply responded that theology doesn't have a place in American foreign policy.

But he didn't.

Then again, maybe you're right. Maybe Perry is just too stupid to think his way out of such a cleverly crafted question, and was therefore forced into answering the way he did. Do we know if the person asking the question was holding a shiny object at the time? Maybe it distracted Perry.
 
Bri said:
What in the world are you talking about? The question didn't say anything about "in a theological context" at all. The question (which you posted yourself) was "To what extent do you view America's continued protection of Israel as a theological priority?"...
Click to expand...

Oh, be my guest, and read into it any silly thing you want.

Let's see...the question WASN'T "to what extent do you view America's continued protection of Israel as a military/strategy/political/presidental priority?"

Nope.
 
mhaze said:
Oh, be my guest, and read into it any silly thing you want.

Let's see...the question WASN'T "to what extent do you view America's continued protection of Israel as a military/strategy/political/presidental priority?"

Nope.
Click to expand...

Correct. It was "to what extent do you view America's continued protection of Israel as a theological priority?" Perry wasn't forced to answer in a theological context. He wasn't even asked to do so. If his theology doesn't inform his policy, he could have simply answered "none" and that would have answered the question asked. He could have even said "I'm Christian, but I don't allow theology to inform my political decisions."

Perry answered that he as a Christian has a clear directive from God to support Israel. You claimed several times that he didn't say that despite your posting the quote where he says just that.

Unless you think he meant that as a Christian his clear directive is from someone other than God. Is that what you meant? Yes or no? If yes, who is Perry's directive from?

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
Correct. It was "to what extent do you view America's continued protection of Israel as a theological priority?" Perry wasn't forced to answer in a theological context. He wasn't even asked to do so. If his theology doesn't inform his policy, he could have simply answered "none" and that would have answered the question asked. He could have even said "I'm Christian, but I don't allow theology to inform my political decisions."

Perry answered that he as a Christian has a clear directive from God to support Israel. You claimed several times that he didn't say that despite your posting the quote where he says just that.

Unless you think he meant that as a Christian his clear directive is from someone other than God. Is that what you meant? Yes or no? If yes, who is Perry's directive from?

-Bri
Click to expand...
It's really common on this forum for liberals to try to jump to negative conclusions about comments their opponents made.

Why?

Why bother?

There's 14 months to go.

All those type questions will be matters of public discussion and I'm sure Perry's stand on international affairs will become clearer.

Hey, you might even like it less and like him less than now, once that matter is clarified. I'm sure that's the case. So why launch like a half wit on one take on a comment? You have the opportunity for some real hate coming. Just think about how nice and juicy that will be.

;)
 
Yeah, everyone!

Listen to what mhaze says!

Don't hold Perry accountable for the things he says because that's just silly!

Also, you're all a bunch of liberal meanies! *pouty face*
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
It's really common on this forum for liberals to try to jump to negative conclusions about comments their opponents made.
Click to expand...

So, it's ok to point out dumb things democrats say, but it's not ok to point out the massive, bizzare, ignorant things that the crazier republicans say?

Is that the rules?
 
jj said:
So, it's ok to point out dumb things democrats say, but it's not ok to point out the massive, bizzare, ignorant things that the crazier republicans say?

Is that the rules?
Click to expand...
NO! I'm just saying that more stuff will come out, and given the predilection to hate, you'll have plenty of reasons to hate whomever you want to hate.

Don't just jump on the first little morsel handed to you.

Remember, down in Texas we got that little thing called "Rope a Dope".

Hey you fall for it, it your own fault.

:)
 
mhaze said:
NO! I'm just saying that more stuff will come out, and given the predilection to hate, you'll have plenty of reasons to hate whomever you want to hate.

Don't just jump on the first little morsel handed to you.

Remember, down in Texas we got that little thing called "Rope a Dope".

Hey you fall for it, it your own fault.

:)
Click to expand...

Hold the phone, here. Once again you are missing the point. The article PRAISED George W Bush for avoiding religion altogether. In fact, so do I!

Bush understood that the US Government does not mix religion and policy. He also knew that doing so would give the people we are fighting a "holy war". Both are very dangerous things.

Perry does not either understand and/or, even worse care about that.


You keep going on and on that Perry had answer "In a theological context...". No matter what the correct answer is "Even though I am a devout Christian, we are talking about US Government foreign policy and so my religion doesn't enter into this....." but didn't.

He's doing this now. In fourteen months, I'm going to remember this incident. I'm going to remember how he loves mixing his US Government policies with HIS religion. How he busts down that wall continuously and very prominently throughout not only these comments, but his terms as governor.

It's like a job interview and I'm the interviewer. One of many. In my eyes, he doesn't deserve the job of President or any other elected official. He doesn't get the basics.

But I suppose you're going to keep defending him by blaming his incompetence on "liberals". :rolleyes:
 
Bri said:
Same straw man you made before. Has Obama ever stated that he would base policy decisions on a directive from God?

-Bri
Click to expand...

On the contrary:

"Those who are religious have to translate their religious-motivated agenda into universal terms that are amenable to reason. It is not sufficient if you are against gay marriage or against abortion to simply say God told me so, and then expect other people to feel, well, OK, if God is talking to you, I guess we have to go along. I mean at some point there's got to be a recognition that the realm of faith, by definition, is not amenable to proof. And so, on the other hand, politics -- like science -- has to be amenable to proof. It's got to be something that all of us can see, touch, feel, understand. " Charlie Rose show.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
It's really common on this forum for liberals to try to jump to negative conclusions about comments their opponents made.

Why?

Why bother?

There's 14 months to go.

All those type questions will be matters of public discussion and I'm sure Perry's stand on international affairs will become clearer.

Hey, you might even like it less and like him less than now, once that matter is clarified. I'm sure that's the case. So why launch like a half wit on one take on a comment? You have the opportunity for some real hate coming. Just think about how nice and juicy that will be.

;)
Click to expand...

None of which has a thing to do with my questions that you continue to avoid.

If you feel that I was jumping to negative conclusions, please answer my questions and tell me where I'm misunderstanding his statement.

That Perry might "clarify" his statements (i.e. backpedal) in the future is probably a safe bet (as he's already trying to do so concerning statements he's made in his book), but doesn't seem relevant to the discussion which is about the statement he already made.

-Bri
 
mhaze said:
NO! I'm just saying that more stuff will come out, and given the predilection to hate, you'll have plenty of reasons to hate whomever you want to hate.

Don't just jump on the first little morsel handed to you.
Click to expand...

This is far from the first worrisome thing Perry has said.

Remember, down in Texas we got that little thing called "Rope a Dope".

Hey you fall for it, it your own fault.

:)
Click to expand...

This isn't a question of tactics. I've already said that his statement likely won't hurt him in the primaries, and he'll just backpedal if he makes it to the general election.

Despite the fact that fewer than half of Perry's statements on PolitiFact are true, I think Perry has a tendency to occasionally slip and tell the truth when he's talking about himself, so his statement is definitely worrisome considering the position he's running for.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
JFrankA said:
Hold the phone, here. Once again you are missing the point. The article PRAISED George W Bush for avoiding religion altogether. In fact, so do I!

Bush understood that the US Government does not mix religion and policy. He also knew that doing so would give the people we are fighting a "holy war". Both are very dangerous things.
...
Click to expand...

Huh? Are you going to impute now, as to how Bush would have answered a question about the "theological importance of Israel?"

I don't think that has any relation with the issues that you or the article "praises Bush for". I do understand what you are saying, but the question as I posed it has to be answered before any of your conclusions - or that of the article - has relevance to the question.

It sounds though, like you are looking at things from a public relations point of view. Well, guess what....

Here's the question YOU answered.

"From the point of view of public relations in international politics, what's the importance of Israel?"
 
mhaze said:
Huh? Are you going to impute now, as to how Bush would have answered a question about the "theological importance of Israel?"
Click to expand...

Straw man (again). The question asked to Perry wasn't about the "theological importance of Israel" at all. It was a question about the extent to which Perry views the protection of Israel as a theological priority.

And if the question was about the "theological importance of Israel", Perry could have answered that while Israel is theologically important to Christianity, religion should play no part in making political decisions. Pretty simple really, if that's how he felt. Pretty simple even if it wasn't how he felt (Perry is not above saying things that aren't true based on his record).

I think Perry was being honest in this case, and he'll certainly have to backpedal if he gets to the general election and it's brought up.

-Bri
 
How does any of that invalidate what Perry said previously?

Try providing actual quotes instead of just link-dumping.
 
mhaze said:
Yes, and as usual, at an appropriate time I bring in actual sources and facts.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, but I do know you do not respond to repeated requests for you to support your claims. We have evidence for that in this very thread where you refuse to make a simple statement to this:

Bri said:
Unless you think he meant that as a Christian his clear directive is from someone other than God. Is that what you meant? Yes or no? If yes, who is Perry's directive from?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom