Lord help us - The Perry Super Thread!

[ABM]

Re: Lord help us

isn't Christie the one who flew to his sons baseball game, and then had a limo drive him 300 feet to the game or something?

Sounds like he's a perfect candidate for president. A candidate whose party (and followers) can just ignore they bitched about something their own guy does.

I hear ya, but I can also see a little bit from his side, as well...

He (Christie) said he had been assured by the state police that he did not have to reimburse the state for the personal flights because the pilots needed to log the flying hours anyway to keep their skills sharp. And he said he chose to fly to his son's ballgames as a way of balancing his role as governor because there was no other way to get there in time.

"We tried to balance me being governor, and my demands on that, with my responsibility as a father," Christie said. "I'm governor 24-7, every single day, but I'm also a father. And the fact of the matter is, sometimes when you are governor, you do not control your schedule."....

 

[julius]

Re: Lord help us

or he could drive his fat ass to the place on his own. That is a lame cop-out.

 

[ABM]

Re: Lord help us

or he could drive his fat ass to the place on his own. That is a lame cop-out.

Hard to say. It may have been the quickest way to get him to the game(s), then back to work.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Re: Lord help us

Hard to say. It may have been the quickest way to get him to the game(s), then back to work.

LOL! Thanks Captain Obvious!

 

[ABM]

Re: Lord help us

LOL! Thanks Captain Obvious!

.....as opposed to simply being a lame copout...as pointed out by julius.

Glad you're taking note, though.

 

[julius]

Re: Lord help us

Hard to say. It may have been the quickest way to get him to the game(s), then back to work.

You might have a point, but he didn't have any government work to do that night.

 

[ABM]

Re: Lord help us

You might have a point, but he didn't have any government work to do that night.

Then, you're right. He's a big, fat slob who has no business running for President...especially in light of his incessant criticisms of big (no pun intended) government spending.

 

[ABM]

Re: Lord help us

Gotta love the responses. LOL

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/out...lice-helicopter-to-get-to-sons-baseball-game/

 

[julius]

Re: Lord help us

Then, you're right. He's a big, fat slob who has no business running for President...especially in light of his incessant criticisms of big (no pun intended) government spending.

most people who run for president have no business running. Some of them even get elected too. including a couple in the last 40 years.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Re: Lord help us

This guy is pretty scary... One of the few things to be thankful to Bush for -- this guy won't get elected.

Seven Ways Perry Wants to Change the Constitution

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

The Tea Party is all about upholding the Constitution, so I'm sure they will be very Anti-Perry.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman is pounding away at rival Rick Perry's skepticism of manmade global warming and criticism of the nation's central banker, saying those stands hurt the GOP and make the Texas governor come off as a not so serious national figure.

Huntsman, a former Utah governor who was President Barack Obama's first ambassador to China, has trailed in early polls nationally and in early voting states, leading his campaign to pledge more aggressive attacks on the top candidates.

Perry, who entered the race last weekend and has surged to a prominent role, has provided Huntsman with an ample opening to take shots.

Perry said in New Hampshire this past week that he didn't believe in manmade global warming, branding it an unproven scientific theory. He also defended the teaching of creationism in schools because evolution "has some gaps to it."

Huntsman responded in a tweet, saying "To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

"When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position," Huntsman told ABC's "This Week."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_932263.html

 

[BrianFromWA]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

I guess I don't quite understand the attack. I share a lot of the skepticism that Perry does, so I'm sure I'm biased. But if you're going to "attack" someone because they don't agree with a large majority of scientists' opinions, then why don't we just say "Perry (and a lot of the others) profess to believing that a being no one has ever seen has allowed another deity to assume the punishment of all the sins on earth in order that their post-mortem souls may reside in a place of perfection removed from the constraints of this universe, and because of this pledge their devotion to Him and His causes on Earth?"

I mean, you're hypocritical if you think a professed belief in Jesus is ok, but speaking out against man-made global warming or the evolution theory mean you're batshit crazy and unfit for leadership.

 

[barfo]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

I mean, you're hypocritical if you think a professed belief in Jesus is ok, but speaking out against man-made global warming or the evolution theory mean you're batshit crazy and unfit for leadership.

Agreed. I think any one of those things should be a disqualification.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

there you go. And while I obviously disagree, I can at least respect the view that there's a consistent worldview that that position entails. What Huntsman's doing (and, to an extent, the op/eds with similar views) seems to me to be more disqualifying than a belief in the Spaghetti Monster or global warming

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Lord help us

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/chris-moody/

The guy is infatuated with writing negative things about republican candidates.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

Agreed. I think any one of those things should be a disqualification.

barfo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

 

[barfo]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

I didn't mean they should be legally barred from running. I just meant that they don't deserve votes.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

I don't care what they did in the past, unless it's 180 degrees opposite what they propose to do if elected.

And I certainly don't care if a person elected is spiritual/religious.

Brian's a pretty good example of a believer who also seems to show good judgment when it comes to running his part of a nuclear sub.

 

[barfo]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

I don't care what they did in the past, unless it's 180 degrees opposite what they propose to do if elected.

And I certainly don't care if a person elected is spiritual/religious.

Brian's a pretty good example of a believer who also seems to show good judgment when it comes to running his part of a nuclear sub.

Well, we don't know that. Brian may hold the all-time record for most subs wrecked.

It seems dangerous to me to give power to someone who might make decisions based on faith rather than evidence and reason. Although obviously it is a problem I'm stuck with, since there aren't a lot of admitted non-religious candidates.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

Well, we don't know that. Brian may hold the all-time record for most subs wrecked.

It seems dangerous to me to give power to someone who might make decisions based on faith rather than evidence and reason. Although obviously it is a problem I'm stuck with, since there aren't a lot of admitted non-religious candidates.

barfo

W didn't make decisions based upon faith, nor did JFK or any other president. I SERIOUSLY doubt any of the republican candidates or Obama would do likewise.

The only thing Bush did that I remember as having a hint of religion was the mass they had at the National Cathedral for those who died on 9/11, and even then he made sure there was a Rabbi and an Imam among a few religions represented.

 

[barfo]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

W didn't make decisions based upon faith

How do you know?

I'd say the weapons-of-mass-destruction was pretty much faith-based decision making. It might not have been religious faith (although that may have played a role). But it certainly wasn't rationality that won out that day.

As for the current candidates, I'd have to say Michele Bachmann would be highly likely to make decisions based on faith.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

So which is it.... global warming or climate change?

 

[maxiep]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

I saw Huntsman today and was shocked at how negative he went. I guess that's a measure of the desperation his campaign must be feeling.

 

[ABM]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

It seems dangerous to me to give power to someone who might make decisions based on faith rather than evidence and reason.

Reason, in and of itself, seems a bit subjective to me.....as does faith, itself. Evidence? I'm a skeptic of so-called evidence. Evidence of what? And maintained by whom?

I'll take my chances with faith. Everything I've read in the "Book" seems to take mankind's best interests in mind.

 

[jlprk]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

What an imagination the British government has. Here's a map from their Weather Office I ran across yesterday. Check out the tiny numbers with the fake temperature increases. Click on the little plus signs around North America. Multiply by 1.8 to convert to Fahrenheit.

"Northern USA/Canada: Even the most benign projections give increases of 4 to 6 °C." Yeah right.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/impacts/high-end/map

Scientist liars are jealous of businessmen because businessmen were the dumbshits in high school but they made more money later. So they made up this stuff to get them back.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

How do you know?

I'd say the weapons-of-mass-destruction was pretty much faith-based decision making. It might not have been religious faith (although that may have played a role). But it certainly wasn't rationality that won out that day.

As for the current candidates, I'd have to say Michele Bachmann would be highly likely to make decisions based on faith.

barfo

Like faith that aliens can conquer the world easier due to global warming, as scientists recently claimed?

As for WMDs, just about every nation that has intelligence agencies were telling us Saddam had WMDs, and Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq during the Lewinsky debacle, claiming he had enormous amounts of WMDs. Hillary took to the senate floor and made similar claims during the debate over giving the administration authority to act against Saddam. W gave a number of reasons to take out Saddam in his State of the Union speech, and none had anything to do with his faith.

 

[barfo]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

Like faith that aliens can conquer the world easier due to global warming, as scientists recently claimed?

I think you are misrepresenting. Some scientists speculated that that *might* happen. They didn't claim anything.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you are misrepresenting. Some scientists speculated that that *might* happen. They didn't claim anything.

barfo

What aliens? They must be out there somewhere, you gotta have faith!

 

[barfo]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

What aliens? They must be out there somewhere, you gotta have faith!

No, I don't have to have faith. It's a possibility they are, it's a possibility they aren't. I don't know of any scientist who would claim otherwise.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Re: Others attacking Perry for his "scientific" views...

How do you know?

I'd say the weapons-of-mass-destruction was pretty much faith-based decision making. It might not have been religious faith (although that may have played a role). But it certainly wasn't rationality that won out that day.

As for the current candidates, I'd have to say Michele Bachmann would be highly likely to make decisions based on faith.

barfo

You're going to call out Bush and Bachmann for making decisions not based on fact or reason, yet you leave out Obama and his economic policies that are based on nothing but his beliefs, ideals and "principles".

I shouldn't be surprised...you make Shooter look non-partisan.