Perry lets the terrorists win

[JFrankA]

Perry actually was a dog catcher in his youth
oh wait... no he was a Cheerleader

I see what you did there.

 

[mhaze]

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.....

So what you are doing is taking your avowed prejudice, and latching onto one interpretation that supports it.

Brilliant!



Hey - something to consider. Obama is widely viewed as showing lackluster support for Israel, and sort of a twiddle thumbs while the Middle East burns, and sort of a made up "kinetic action" nonsense with Libya...

And note NY-09.

Anyone with a grain of sense running against him would project a clear, decisive, pro-Israel stand.

That's what Perry's doing. That's what you don't like. Well, you shouldn't like it. Because you want his opponent to win. So it's GOOD you don't like it, that makes me happy. Now get upset further at things that happen.

 

[JFrankA]

So what you are doing is taking your avowed prejudice, and latching onto one interpretation that supports it.

Brilliant!



Hey - something to consider. Obama is widely viewed as showing lackluster support for Israel, and sort of a twiddle thumbs while the Middle East burns, and sort of a made up "kinetic action" nonsense with Libya...

And note NY-09.

Anyone with a grain of sense running against him would project a clear, decisive, pro-Israel stand.

That's what Perry's doing. That's what you don't like. Well, you shouldn't like it. Because you want his opponent to win. So it's GOOD you don't like it, that makes me happy. Now get upset further at things that happen.

Seems to me that you just admitted that you are trolling me.....

 

[mhaze]

......Would you be so quick to defend Obama if he did that, and I started a thread called "Obama is letting the terrorists win"?

Stuff that I consider totally irrelevant in Perry, I'd consider equally irrelevant in Obama. You've got a weird concept of "defend", since it is you and those on this forum who consider this matter important and not I. If I considered it irrelevant, I have no purpose or reason to defend it.

Unless, of course, polemical ideologies continually mis state and quote out of context or inaccurately, which I do object to.

Your reasoning, is that for the statement of the OP, "Interpretation #7" is correct....you substantiate that with some other quotes. Now, I'm not sure I see any logic in this. Are you actually saying "Let's start with an assumption that XYZ is biased in direction Q, then we can assume everything he says must be interpreted as evidence of Q?"

Thus, you show nothing more than a prejudice and bigotry toward religious individuals. Same exact arguments were made against Kennedy prior to election, same exact arguments were made against Reagan prior and post election, and the world didn't come to an end. Same exact arguments were NOT MADE against Carter I, whom the press gave a pass to, but who showed many evidences of idiotic Christian thinking in his policy decisions.

Nobody cares about a "proclamation" of the governor, and by the way, he has hundreds or thousands of such things on all kinds of subjects. Check his website.

But don't let me stop you. Stay in that little corner of an alley of bigotry and prejudice muttering to yourself while the world passes you by.

 

[MaGZ]

If our relationship with Israel ever drags us into a serious war, I think people who staunchly support our relationship with Israel need to fight it. I'll have no part of it.

Our relationship with Israel has already dragged us into a serious war.

It’s called 9/11.

 

[MaGZ]

that is scary ****, for sure.
a christian zealot in the white house is a major threat to world peace.

Yes, just as dangerous as a neocon zionist.

 

[MaGZ]

It's not the fact that he's religious, it's that he relies on his religion when making policy decisions and crosses the line between church and state with no compunction.


ETA: I have no desire to live in a theocracy. And you wouldn't be so forgiving if Perry were a practicing Muslim and bringing that into his policies.

I don’t think Perry is really a true believing Christian Zionist theocrat as Bachman appears to be. Perry is using fundamentalism merely to gain a political edge as Southern politicians in the 50s and 60s used segregation.

 

[MaGZ]

The relationship of fundy Christians to Israel is interesting. They see Israel as the location of Armageddon, and the starting point for the End Days. Lots of big events start there.
What they don't often mention to Jews is that they think when The End comes around, all the "good" Jews will convert to Christianity and leave their mistaken brethren behind to face the Tribulations....

Only 144,000 good Jews will convert. The rest, about six million, will perish. Do the math.

 

[bikerdruid]

Only 144,000 good Jews will convert. The rest, about six million, will perish. Do the math.

and you know this 'cuz the bible tells you so...'
wow.

 

[Piggy]

What they care about is the ONE INTERPRETATION of ONE STATEMENT can be used for propaganda purposes.

The statement wasn't ambiguous, and doesn't appear to be a verbal gaffe. It's very easy to understand.

And what it reveals about Perry's thinking, and his naivete in matters of foreign relations, should make anyone think twice about supporting him for POTUS.

 

[mhaze]

Our relationship with Israel has already dragged us into a serious war.

It’s called 9/11.

Got it! It's just those evil JOOOOOEEESSSS!

Yeah...sure, buddy.

The statement wasn't ambiguous, and doesn't appear to be a verbal gaffe. It's very easy to understand.

And what it reveals about Perry's thinking, and his naivete in matters of foreign relations, should make anyone think twice about supporting him for POTUS.

Awww....shucks. Obviously, WHEN ASKED a question about the "theological" someone should avoid answering it...particularly, athiests....

Moving right on, no, there's nothing ambiguous on "Both as a Christian and an American..." and that seems to cover the bases OF THE QUESTION quite nicely.

Now, where's that naivete? Please listen to the interview in it's entirety before you respond.

No, wait, don't. No reason to. Your mind is made up. It is all so very, very simple in the world of the ideologue.

 

[bikerdruid]

It is all so very, very simple in the world of the ideologue.

as is demonstrated consistently in your posts/threads.

 

[JFrankA]

Stuff that I consider totally irrelevant in Perry, I'd consider equally irrelevant in Obama. You've got a weird concept of "defend", since it is you and those on this forum who consider this matter important and not I. If I considered it irrelevant, I have no purpose or reason to defend it.

Unless, of course, polemical ideologies continually mis state and quote out of context or inaccurately, which I do object to.

Your reasoning, is that for the statement of the OP, "Interpretation #7" is correct....you substantiate that with some other quotes. Now, I'm not sure I see any logic in this. Are you actually saying "Let's start with an assumption that XYZ is biased in direction Q, then we can assume everything he says must be interpreted as evidence of Q?"

Thus, you show nothing more than a prejudice and bigotry toward religious individuals. Same exact arguments were made against Kennedy prior to election, same exact arguments were made against Reagan prior and post election, and the world didn't come to an end. Same exact arguments were NOT MADE against Carter I, whom the press gave a pass to, but who showed many evidences of idiotic Christian thinking in his policy decisions.

Nobody cares about a "proclamation" of the governor, and by the way, he has hundreds or thousands of such things on all kinds of subjects. Check his website.

But don't let me stop you. Stay in that little corner of an alley of bigotry and prejudice muttering to yourself while the world passes you by.

...now I know you're trolling.

 

[mhaze]

...now I know you're trolling.

Surrreeee....


You're only bitching about religiousity of those who are politically opposite to your liberal nature:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...idential/obama-asks-biblical-faith-his-agenda

President Obama made an appeal to the religious faith of black voters at a Congressional Black Caucus rally, likening Biblical prophets who had faith in God -- and so refused to worship an idol -- to the black voters who "keep the faith" by supporting him and his policies - and, he hopes, his reelection campaign.

Obama opened the speech by mentioning the Biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three captive Jews who were thrown into a fiery furnace because they would not worship a golden idol. Obama quoted a pastor who referred to the three men as "good crazy" for having that faith. He added that the pastor had attributed the same "good crazy" to him when he decided to run for president.

Obama continued that analogy, equating the Jews' "faith in the things not seen" to the more mundane "belief that if you persevere a better day lies ahead."

Obama added, "you and me, we're all a little bit crazy, but hopefully a good kind of crazy...We’re a good kind of crazy because no matter how hard things get, we keep the faith; we keep fighting; we keep moving forward."

Obama then explained how he had "kept the faith" through various acts as president .....
​

The place you lie is in asserting Obama is "better" in this respect. But don't worry, we understand. It's all about developing a narrative, stereotyping and demonizing the opposition.

 

[johnny karate]

The place you lie is in asserting Obama is "better" in this respect. But don't worry, we understand. It's all about developing a narrative, stereotyping and demonizing the opposition.

Mudslinging 101: Dishonest Debate Tactics for the Beginner

1) Manufacture an assertion and assign it to your opponent.

2) Argue that the assertion is false.

3) Accuse your opponent of lying for making a false assertion.

Warning: Only people below a third grade reading level and/or who recently suffered head trauma will fall for such a ridiculously transparent deceit.

 

[mhaze]

Mudslinging 101: Dishonest Debate Tactics for the Beginner

1) Manufacture an assertion and assign it to your opponent.

2) Argue that the assertion is false.

3) Accuse your opponent of lying for making a false assertion.

Warning: Only people below a third grade reading level and/or who recently suffered head trauma will fall for such a ridiculously transparent deceit.

Wow...I am now enlightened.

 

[JFrankA]

Surrreeee....


You're only bitching about religiousity of those who are politically opposite to your liberal nature:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...idential/obama-asks-biblical-faith-his-agenda

President Obama made an appeal to the religious faith of black voters at a Congressional Black Caucus rally, likening Biblical prophets who had faith in God -- and so refused to worship an idol -- to the black voters who "keep the faith" by supporting him and his policies - and, he hopes, his reelection campaign.

Obama opened the speech by mentioning the Biblical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, three captive Jews who were thrown into a fiery furnace because they would not worship a golden idol. Obama quoted a pastor who referred to the three men as "good crazy" for having that faith. He added that the pastor had attributed the same "good crazy" to him when he decided to run for president.

Obama continued that analogy, equating the Jews' "faith in the things not seen" to the more mundane "belief that if you persevere a better day lies ahead."

Obama added, "you and me, we're all a little bit crazy, but hopefully a good kind of crazy...We’re a good kind of crazy because no matter how hard things get, we keep the faith; we keep fighting; we keep moving forward."

Obama then explained how he had "kept the faith" through various acts as president .....
​

The place you lie is in asserting Obama is "better" in this respect. But don't worry, we understand. It's all about developing a narrative, stereotyping and demonizing the opposition.

Once again, you are missing the point, and I believe you're doing it on purpose for a reason of feeling superior or looking like you've "won".

I've explained my (and the article's) stance very clearly several times and each time you come back with things I did not (nor did the article) say. Once more, you spin it in different ways every time. So it seems to me that you will continue to twist the point, and what I said, into ways to try to "win the argument".

Doesn't matter, though. The people who disagree with me and still understand and acknowledge what the point really is are the ones who matter.

 

[johnny karate]

Doesn't matter, though.

Once you reach the point in the argument where the other party accuses you of lying about something you never actually said, you know rational debate is no longer a possibility.

 

[mhaze]

Once again, the point isn't how one feels about Israel. It isn't about what religion a candidate is. The point is NOT to mix the United States Government with religion. Any religion.

Further, to use a religion (any religion) as a basis for US Policy (be it foreign or domestic) is just wrong.

....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.....

.... It has to do with a candidate keeping true to the Constitution stance of separation between church and state.

Once again, you are missing the point, and I believe you're doing it on purpose for a reason of feeling superior or looking like you've "won".

I've explained my (and the article's) stance very clearly several times and each time you come back with things I did not (nor did the article) say. Once more, you spin it in different ways every time. So it seems to me that you will continue to twist the point, and what I said, into ways to try to "win the argument".

Doesn't matter, though. The people who disagree with me and still understand and acknowledge what the point really is are the ones who matter.

No, it's you that are abusing the idea of someone having "won". You alone, from your ridiculous assertion in the OP.
Perry has let the terrorists win.

From which you conclude:

IMHO, there is no way this man should even be elected dog catcher.

But you ignore the flagrant violations of your politically correct speak preference with Obama.

And you ignore the fact that previous presidents have not followed your trivially amusing construct of politically correct speech.

Then to make the point you praise Bush - the guy that used the phrase "Crusade".

Your dogs don't hunt.

 

[JFrankA]

No, it's you that are abusing the idea of someone having "won". You alone, from your ridiculous assertion in the OP.
Perry has let the terrorists win.

From which you conclude:

IMHO, there is no way this man should even be elected dog catcher.

But you ignore the flagrant violations of your politically correct speak preference with Obama.

And you ignore the fact that previous presidents have not followed your trivially amusing construct of politically correct speech.

Then to make the point you praise Bush - the guy that used the phrase "Crusade".

Your dogs don't hunt.

Show me where Obama (or Bush for that matter) said that his policy (any policy) as a directive from god.

Show me where Obama (or Bush for that matter) created a pray for X day, or set up his own prayer rally.