Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 14, 2011, 01:22:06 AM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-has-deep-financial-ties-to-maker-of-hpv-vaccine/2011/09/13/gIQAVKKqPK_story.html?hpid=z2
The vaccine episode also underscores the close ties between Perry and his largest donors, many of whom have given millions of dollars to his campaigns and the RGA. In a report released Tuesday, Texans for Public Justice said that 32 percent of the $217 million collected at the RGA during the past five years, when Perry held several leadership roles with the group, came from 139 donors to his gubernatorial campaigns
-
You do realize that Merck didn't even make into the top 200 for campaign donations?
I don't know that much about Rick Perry but this is a tempest in a tea pot. It's a distraction more than anything else.
Focus on his abuse of executive power with the EO mandating the vaccine, or his signing of a TX version of the DREAM Act. Or other things like that.
-
You do realize that Merck didn't even make into the top 200 for campaign donations?
I don't know that much about Rick Perry but this is a tempest in a tea pot. It's a distraction more than anything else.
Focus on his abuse of executive power with the EO mandating the vaccine, or his signing of a TX version of the DREAM Act. Or other things like that.
Shh! Don't confuse CSD with data when he has his "I H8 Texas" cap on.
I can think of a few reasons to be leery of Perry. $5K from Merck is not one of them. Neither is a conspiracy-theorist connecting of the dots tying Perry to the Bildbergers Republican Gov Assoc.
-
What's the problem? Virtually everyone running for federal office is a corrupt/connected/shmoozed/pampered self centered person with a large ego. If they are not so when running the first time, they will be in short order, with a few exceptions.
I never look at what they say, I look at what they do insofar as I am able.
I like Bachman. America needs a cranky woman at the helm.
-
Shh! Don't confuse CSD with data when he has his "I H8 Texas" cap on.
I can think of a few reasons to be leery of Perry. $5K from Merck is not one of them. Neither is a conspiracy-theorist connecting of the dots tying Perry to the Bildbergers Republican Gov Assoc.
didn't read the whole article? hint its not 5 k
His gubernatorial campaigns, for example, have received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of that before he issued his vaccine mandate, which was overturned by the Texas legislature.
Merck and its subsidiaries have also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) since 2006, the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year, until he decided to run for president. The group ranks among the governor’s biggest donors, giving his campaign at least $4 million over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.
One of Perry’s closest confidantes, his former chief of staff Mike Toomey, was then working as an Austin-based lobbyist for Merck, which was in the midst of a multimillion-dollar campaign to persuade states to make the vaccine mandatory.
Toomey, who has declined requests for comment, has since helped found Make Us Great Again, a pro-Perry super PAC that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy donors. The group plans to raise as much as $55 million to help Perry compete for the GOP nomination, according to media reports.
Merck officials did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday about the company’s donations to Perry but issued a statement defending Gardasil’s safety and effectiveness.
-
If poli-critters were done every time they passed laws that benefited their campaign contributors there would be no poli-critters.
-
The HPV "mandate" was pretty much meaningless, as it was unenforceable. Governors - even TX governors - can't simply rule by fiat, and one man's word can't force people to get an injection.
So this was just plain dumb.
If you want to criticize Perry, focus on his continuing support for tuition discounts for illegal aliens, his lack of support for a border wall as one part of an anti-illegal-alien program, and his love of toll roads.
-
The HPV "mandate" was pretty much meaningless, as it was unenforceable. Governors - even TX governors - can't simply rule by fiat, and one man's word can't force people to get an injection.
So this was just plain dumb.
If you want to criticize Perry, focus on his continuing support for tuition discounts for illegal aliens, his lack of support for a border wall as one part of an anti-illegal-alien program, and his love of toll roads.
+1
Perry looked lost a lot of the time last Monday night. He's in danger of becoming a regional anomaly.
-
didn't read the whole article? hint its not 5 k
His gubernatorial campaigns, for example, have received nearly $30,000 from the drugmaker since 2000, most of that before he issued his vaccine mandate, which was overturned by the Texas legislature.
Merck and its subsidiaries have also given more than $380,000 to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) since 2006, the year that Perry began to play a prominent role in the Washington-based group, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Perry served as chairman of the RGA in 2008 and again this year, until he decided to run for president. The group ranks among the governor’s biggest donors, giving his campaign at least $4 million over the past five years, according to Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group.
One of Perry’s closest confidantes, his former chief of staff Mike Toomey, was then working as an Austin-based lobbyist for Merck, which was in the midst of a multimillion-dollar campaign to persuade states to make the vaccine mandatory.
Toomey, who has declined requests for comment, has since helped found Make Us Great Again, a pro-Perry super PAC that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy donors. The group plans to raise as much as $55 million to help Perry compete for the GOP nomination, according to media reports.
Merck officials did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday about the company’s donations to Perry but issued a statement defending Gardasil’s safety and effectiveness.
I didn't read that article, but have read others that apparently made similar claims. Even at $30k they still didn't make the top 200 of campaign contributors.
Re the $380k to the RGA, how does that compare to the tenures of other governers and contributions from large corps that have benefited from policies/EO's/legislation passed in the respective state? I haven't done the analysis myself, but I'd be shocked if it was statisically significantly different from other time periods.
As far as the lobbiest friend, how the heck do you think the vast majority of lobbiests get that position? It ain't from being hated by all the prominent politicians.
None of this is exactly new, or surprising, and certainly not unique to Perry. By comparison to Obama he's still a piker when it comes to this *expletive deleted*it.
-
Well if Merck was trying trying to buy Perry off they did a terrible job of it as after the fiasco ensued Perry apologized and admitted that he hadn't researched the issue enough and removed his order mandating the immunizations.
-
Well if Merck was trying trying to buy Perry off they did a terrible job of it as after the fiasco ensued Perry apologized and admitted that he hadn't researched the issue enough and removed his order mandating the immunizations.
How unpresidential. As President, I hope he never apologizes for nor recinds his mistakes. That way, he can be just like Bush and Barry. :facepalm:
-
I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.
However, I look at the episode and see:
1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"
3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"
In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.
I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."
-
I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.
However, I look at the episode and see:
1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"
3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"
In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.
I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."
The top "frontrunners" all fit that bill. I know who will get my vote in the GOP primary, but I think the fix is in and fully expect Perry or possibly Romney to get the nod.
Is it just me, or does Romney put off the "how dare he (Perry) challenge my turn!" vibe?
-
GAH!
And here's the article supporting my conclusion:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/in_focus&id=8354519
Look, Mr. Perry, allow me to quote another politician:
"...I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law."
Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)
-
Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)
I'd agree with that. I'd take anybody currently running over McCain and of course over Obama. It doesn't mean I'm jumping up and down with tears of joy over the candidates.
-
At this point I'm pretty confident I will not vote for Romney if he gets the nomination.
Hopefully my resolve will hold.
-
I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.
However, I look at the episode and see:
1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"
3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"
In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.
I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."
+1
Compassion has become code for soft Communism.
-
I believe Perry when he says he was just trying to save lives.
However, I look at the episode and see:
1)A man willing to ignore the legislative process because "it will save lives"
2)A man willing to demonize his opponents motives because they don't want to "save lives!"
3)A man who ignores all other considerations other than "it will save lives!"
In other words, all I see is "compassionate conservatism." His immigration stance fits here as well.
I've had enough "compassionate conservatism", thank you. I don't want compassion, I want the government to stop stealing from my child to pay for other people's "compassion."
The top "frontrunners" all fit that bill. I know who will get my vote in the GOP primary, but I think the fix is in and fully expect Perry or possibly Romney to get the nod.
Is it just me, or does Romney put off the "how dare he (Perry) challenge my turn!" vibe?
I agre with both of the above.
-
Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)
Yep.
-
At this point I'm pretty confident I will not vote for Romney if he gets the nomination.
Hopefully my resolve will hold.
Does this mean you will vote for Obama? Or vote for Obama-by-proxy, since a vote for a third party candidate will help Obama?
-
http://www.texassharon.com/2010/09/30/rick-perrys-patronage-nets-him-17-million/
Governor Rick Perry has received $17 million in campaign contributions from his political appointees and their spouses, according to a new report by Texans for Public Justice. One out of every $5 raised by Governor Perry since 2001 has come from appointees or their spouses
http://info.tpj.org/reports/pdf/Perry%20Patronage2010.pdf
-
Does this mean you will vote for Obama? Or vote for Obama-by-proxy, since a vote for a third party candidate will help Obama?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farchvillain.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F11%2Fnot-this-again.jpg%3Fw%3D400%26amp%3Bh%3D259&hash=2924090d01188b6e833aa08c2ca1dbec04a286c1)
http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg?w=400&h=259 (http://archvillain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/not-this-again.jpg?w=400&h=259)
-
Does this mean you will vote for Obama? Or vote for Obama-by-proxy, since a vote for a third party candidate will help Obama?
Ahem...
...Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.
If we are to collapse, I want liberals clearly at fault. Otherwise, the rebuilding will be impossible.
Thus, unless we get a REAL conservative for the Republicans, I would prefer Obama win and complete his destruction of this nation.
...McCain only just barely got my vote. I wasn't really excited about voting for him, I swallowed my bile and did so.
McCain 2.0 (Or Dole 3.0, or GHWBush 4.0, whomever that may be, Romney is foremost in my mind) won't be getting my vote. Never again. (And if the party leaders knew how loyal a Republican I've been, they should be afraid.)
-
I'm going with the Buckley rule for this election, where my vote will go to the most conservative (from a constitutional standpoint, "social" conservatives don't fit this) ELECTABLE candidate. Regardless of their personal views, I firmly believe that any one of the GOP candidates would be a signficant net positive vs Obama, and if the senate changes over as well, could possibly roll back some of the damage. I think there are enough democrats and libertarian leaning GOP/tea party in the legislature to prevent any "too right wing" policies from being enacted, but without eliminating the Obama veto, any positive legislation is doomed.
Thus, regardless of who wins the GOP primary (I personally haven't decided yet) I WILL vote GOP, and I encourage others to do the same. Unfortunately, if we don't have an ideal candidate, given the limitations congress would put on wackiness, any of the current ones would be preferable to 4 more years of Obama, if only to:
1. "stop the bad stuff" from an executive branch over-reach and roll back agency/department rules and regs.
2. Not veto positive legislation that will happen anyway, that has zero chance with Obama at the helm
Actually, at this point I would even prefer the "bag of hammers" candidate (well, provided it has an auto pen) as I think (provided Reid was gone and we got even a simple majority in the senate, and HR.1 was "revert all agency rules to Jan 19,2009") just signing everything would be sufficient.
Unfortunately ANY 3rd party votes, or even non-votes in the upcoming election will help retain Obama.
While I can see the logic in makattak's point of just accelerating the result, i don't think all is lost...you have people more interested in policy and politics now more than ever before, as they have seen what can go wrong, and perhaps that is enough to make things start trending better. Basically, I have "hope" for "change"...in a good way, not the "change" I'll have left in my paycheck when BHO is done with it.
-
Ahem...Quote from: makattak on August 11, 2011, 11:17:03 PM
...Obama IS better than a moderate go-along-to-get-along Republican. That type of Republican will only slow our decent into the abyss, ensuring that conservatives are blamed for the collapse.
If we are to collapse, I want liberals clearly at fault. Otherwise, the rebuilding will be impossible.
Thus, unless we get a REAL conservative for the Republicans, I would prefer Obama win and complete his destruction of this nation.
Quote from: makattak on August 12, 2011, 09:17:59 AM
...McCain only just barely got my vote. I wasn't really excited about voting for him, I swallowed my bile and did so.
McCain 2.0 (Or Dole 3.0, or GHWBush 4.0, whomever that may be, Romney is foremost in my mind) won't be getting my vote. Never again. (And if the party leaders knew how loyal a Republican I've been, they should be afraid.)
I guess a lot of people are anxious to cut there noses off to spite their faces...... :facepalm:
-
Gee, I heard that this is Perry's new bodyguard. Rickie will be a No Fork Zone now! =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7c%2FJoe_Arpaio_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg%2F220px-Joe_Arpaio_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg&hash=b732a2690444cd5afa37f506df25842912d19e21)
-
Gee, I heard that this is Perry's new bodyguard. Rickie will be a No Fork Zone now! =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7c%2FJoe_Arpaio_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg%2F220px-Joe_Arpaio_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg&hash=b732a2690444cd5afa37f506df25842912d19e21)
Holy Heyzeus M. Christ on a flaming pogo stick. You like pokin' c&sd with sharp stick doncha. You're hunting over bait and it ain't sporting.
Oh, and roo_ster, you owe me one keyboard, monitor and a Red Stag & coke for:
Shh! Don't confuse CSD with data when he has his "I H8 Texas" cap on.
-
Just remember: a lot of these people who are now sating they won't vote for a RINO will soon be looking for an excuse to do so.
-
You like pokin' c&sd with sharp stick doncha. You're hunting over bait and it ain't sporting.
Oh please! He has hammered me so dam many times over the years that this is like an ant crawling up an elephant *expletive deleted*ss with rape on it's mind.
-
I guess a lot of people are anxious to cut there noses off to spite their faces...... :facepalm:
There's also a little matter of:
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
I don't want to push dealing with the collapse of the entitlement state off to my children. Either I will vote for someone who will reform, reduce, and (note that's not an "or")repeal it or I want the Democrats to go full speed ahead and crash it.
-
Quote from: TommyGunn on September 15, 2011, 10:50:15 PM
I guess a lot of people are anxious to cut there noses off to spite their faces......
Quote from: makattak on August 12, 2011, 07:44:09 AM
There's also a little matter of:
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."
I don't want to push dealing with the collapse of the entitlement state off to my children. Either I will vote for someone who will reform, reduce, and (note that's not an "or")repeal it or I want the Democrats to go full speed ahead and crash it
Even better than having a *$#^%%^ in our time, how about getting the best electable person in office so we can better avoid the *&*&^^*&#$#%%.
-
Even better than having a *$#^%%^ in our time, how about getting the best electable person in office so we can better avoid the *&*&^^*&#$#%%.
The "best electable" person is a matter of opinion. If the nominee ends up being some moderate squish who doesn't want to rock the boat and will only make gestures towards "fixing" things but no real progress (again, I'm looking at you, Mitt), then we aren't "avoiding" anything. We're delaying it.
We can't only play defense anymore. We need to push back. A feeble, milquetoast moderate won't push back. He'll make "adjustments" to Obamacare. He'll "tweak" social security. He'll "study" Medicare.
That's not acceptable to me anymore.
-
Last I heard, Mitt was against Obamacare.
Yea I know he did Mittcare in his home state. But he's against it nationally.
Think he won't try to get rid of it?
You know, a lot depends on what happens in kongress as well. We need to get the senate. Right now we have part of the House -- and only enough to throw around monkeywrenches and jam up the works.
If we REALLY want to undo 4 years of Obamanation....or 12 years of BushiObamanation, we need the SENATE as well. It's not all about the oval office.
-
Last I heard, Mitt was against Obamacare.
Yea I know he did Mittcare in his home state. But he's against it nationally.
Think he won't try to get rid of it?
...
Wait.
Let me get this straight.
You are actually suggesting that Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate?
-
...
Wait.
Let me get this straight.
You are actually suggesting that Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate?
He's not alone. I hear Mitt is keen on the idea.
-
...
Wait.
Let me get this straight.
You are actually suggesting that Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate?
He has an R next to his name, doesn't that make him awesome? :D
Chris
-
...
Wait.
Let me get this straight.
You are actually suggesting that Mitt Romney should be the Republican candidate?
No. Maybe I'd prefer Perry. (cool Perry factor: "Perry" was my mother's maiden name.)
But I will be voting against Obama no matter who the Repub candidate is.
-
Last I heard, Mitt was against Obamacare.
Yea I know he did Mittcare in his home state. But he's against it nationally.
Think he won't try to get rid of it?
You know, a lot depends on what happens in kongress as well. We need to get the senate. Right now we have part of the House -- and only enough to throw around monkeywrenches and jam up the works.
If we REALLY want to undo 4 years of Obamanation....or 12 years of BushiObamanation, we need the SENATE as well. It's not all about the oval office.
The senate is key. Unless Reid is gone, nothing can really occur--he has flat out refused to bring bills to the floor for votes, and the senate hasn't passed a budget in over two years (three?).
On that note, WTF?! Why is there not more outrage about that? Do people just not know, or do they just don't care?
-
He's not alone. I hear Mitt is keen on the idea.
Hot damn - I can get 3 more wives!
-
What's the problem? Virtually everyone running for federal office is a corrupt/connected/shmoozed/pampered self centered person with a large ego. If they are not so when running the first time, they will be in short order, with a few exceptions.
I never look at what they say, I look at what they do insofar as I am able.
I like Bachman. America needs a cranky woman at the helm.
Ms. "God brought an earthquake and a hurricane to Washington to get their attention? " That Bachman? I was already down on her for some shrill stock pandering statement that referenced the faceless, clueless, hapless but lovable anonymous entity known as "The Troops" but the smiting of DC put the fork in it. No one that thinks like that needs nuclear weapons.
-
Ms. "God brought an earthquake and a hurricane to Washington to get their attention? " That Bachman? I was already down on her for some shrill stock pandering statement that referenced the faceless, clueless, hapless but lovable anonymous entity known as "The Troops" but the smiting of DC put the fork in it. No one that thinks like that needs nuclear weapons.
Boy, I don't know which one of you sounds goofier. Her comment seems more like a bad joke, but you might actually be serious. You weren't serious, were you? =|
-
I hate to say this, but I'm with fistful. Bachmann seems far more of a genuine conservative than Perry Romney too.
-
Except Bachmann hasn't been a governor and had to make the decisions that would give people reasons to hate her. I am sure if she was governor somewhere y'all would be able to find plenty of reasons to not like her as well. I have come to the conclusion that candidates are like Supreme Court nominees. The only ones that aren't hated are the ones that have no paper trail.
I have lived with Perry as my Gov for 12 years. I can deal with him as President. Regardless of all that stuff, he is still more conservative than most of the candidates out there IMO. I also think he has the tools to run a decent national campaign which guys like Cain may not.
Besides, he is an Aggie. I really want to have the first Aggie in the White House. =D I would REALLY like to see the string of Harvard/Yale Presidents stopped. Romney is another Harvard elite guy. That aristocratic trend has got to stop.
-
Except Bachmann hasn't been a governor and had to make the decisions that would give people reasons to hate her.
She has been involved in many major national issues, that governors just talk about. She has a tangible record of action (voting yay or nay) on bailouts, Obamacare, the Patriot Act, etc. Perry and Romney have no voting record on those things, just a lot of talk. Talk is cheap.
-
Besides, he is an Aggie. I really want to have the first Aggie in the White House. grin I would REALLY like to see the string of Harvard/Yale Presidents stopped. Romney is another Harvard elite guy. That aristocratic trend has got to stop.
You say it kiddingly but I actually think it is a great idea.
-
You say it kiddingly but I actually think it is a great idea.
Even better, how about a NON LAWYER.
-
Even better, how about a NON LAWYER.
It would be great if a non-lawyer, perhaps a physician, ran for President.
-
It would be great if a non-lawyer, perhaps a physician, ran for President.
What sort of crazy talk is this? Keep it up, and they'll allow them in the Senate, for the love of Pete!
Except Bachmann hasn't been a governor and had to make the decisions that would give people reasons to hate her. I am sure if she was governor somewhere y'all would be able to find plenty of reasons to not like her as well. I have come to the conclusion that candidates are like Supreme Court nominees. The only ones that aren't hated are the ones that have no paper trail.
I have lived with Perry as my Gov for 12 years. I can deal with him as President. Regardless of all that stuff, he is still more conservative than most of the candidates out there IMO. I also think he has the tools to run a decent national campaign which guys like Cain may not.
Besides, he is an Aggie. I really want to have the first Aggie in the White House. =D I would REALLY like to see the string of Harvard/Yale Presidents stopped. Romney is another Harvard elite guy. That aristocratic trend has got to stop.
I still like Bachmann in that she has been about the most consistent & vocal in opposition to BHO's policies. She is not a career policritter, having had a tax law practice & a few other endeavors under her belt. IOW, she is no Obama who drifted from affirmative action position to patronage position & back.
I do agree with you on Perry. He is a known quantity to me. I have a decent handle on all the ways he falls short in my book. Despite that, he'll do as a non-RINO GOP nominee.
The Aggie/non-lawyer deal is just icing on the cake.
-
She has been involved in many major national issues, that governors just talk about. She has a tangible record of action (voting yay or nay) on bailouts, Obamacare, the Patriot Act, etc. Perry and Romney have no voting record on those things, just a lot of talk. Talk is cheap.
I could probably be happy with her as my President also. We'll see how the primaries work out.
I guess I hate to see people tearing into Perry so hard. I feel that if he is torn down, Romney will be the default. I wouldn't want to see that. Bachmann needs to show better in the primaries than she has in the polls.
-
No. Maybe I'd prefer Perry. (cool Perry factor: "Perry" was my mother's maiden name.)
But I will be voting against Obama no matter who the Repub candidate is.
This is how we got to this point to start with. Some people never learn.
-
This is how we got to this point to start with. Some people never learn.
Hey buddy, it's not like I'm not open to suggestions .... it's just the ones I've heard are lousier than my own :facepalm: >:D
-
It would be great if a non-lawyer, perhaps a physician, ran for President.
Engineer (a real one, not Carter) not physician. Physicians by definition have narrower training, and in general, do not have the experience in decision trades (benefits vs limited resources). If the dominant concerns can be couched as how to meet a variety of needs with limited capabilities, that's pretty much the definition of an engineering trade.
-
Engineer (a real one, not Carter) not physician. Physicians by definition have narrower training, and in general, do not have the experience in decision trades (benefits vs limited resources). If the dominant concerns can be couched as how to meet a variety of needs with limited capabilities, that's pretty much the definition of an engineering trade.
That was a very lightly veiled reference to Ron Paul.
-
That was a very lightly veiled reference to Ron Paul.
Oops, missed that one.
-
Engineer (a real one, not Carter) not physician. Physicians by definition have narrower training, and in general, do not have the experience in decision trades (benefits vs limited resources). If the dominant concerns can be couched as how to meet a variety of needs with limited capabilities, that's pretty much the definition of an engineering trade.
Ah, a Herbert Hoover man, I see. Progressive technocrats of the world, UNITE! ;)
-
Ah, a Herbert Hoover man, I see. Progressive technocrats of the world, UNITE! ;)
Damn you. :)
-
Paul Ryan spouted off some numbers the other day on a talk show about just how mug legislation the Senate is sitting on. I have come to realize that whatever we send to the white house isn't going to be nearly as important as taking the senate back. I feel like Perry will go along with whatever a GOP controlled congress says....so a tea takeover of the party would be our best hope to derail the train of doom.
-
Hey buddy, it's not like I'm not open to suggestions .... it's just the ones I've heard are lousier than my own :facepalm: >:D
How to get better candidates from the GOP? I dunno, maybe stop voting for whoever they put up just because they have an R by their name? Seems pretty simple to me. If you slavishly vote for the R regardless of who the actual candidate is, the R's have no incentive to care about your opinion on that candidate.
-
How to get better candidates from the GOP? I dunno, maybe stop voting for whoever they put up just because they have an R by their name? Seems pretty simple to me. If you slavishly vote for the R regardless of who the actual candidate is, the R's have no incentive to care about your opinion on that candidate.
So I should vote for a demorat when the repukes mess up? -- even though most of them are commies?
Doesn't work for me.
There's a lot of things about the system we have I don't like.
Don't ask me to:
(A.) Vote for my political enemy.
(B.) Vote for some nebulous third party candidate who will get 1.96765% of the vote, but enough to TKO the repuke candidate and put my actual political enemy in office.
If damage must be done, then there is a moral obligation to minimize it.
And let's not keep making the perfect the enemy of the good.
-
Damn you. :)
I was feeling ornery.
-
So I should vote for a demorat when the repukes mess up? -- even though most of them are commies?
Doesn't work for me.
There's a lot of things about the system we have I don't like.
Don't ask me to:
(A.) Vote for my political enemy.
(B.) Vote for some nebulous third party candidate who will get 1.96765% of the vote, but enough to TKO the repuke candidate and put my actual political enemy in office.
If damage must be done, then there is a moral obligation to minimize it.
And let's not keep making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How about we stop eating poison, because one dose is less than the other?
-
I do agree that we'll never get a perfect candidate. I don't think we should accept a candidate who will do active harm both to the country as well as the actual conservative movement (I'm looking at you Romney) just because he has an R by his name.
-
In my book (which, being mine, is admittedly strange) we are better off with a Democrat president and a Republican house and senate than with Republican control of all three, when the top man is a RINO. A Repub congress won't balk at the liberal measures of a Repub president (see the early Bush years and his Medicare/NCLB stuff), but they will balk at liberal measures of a Dem president (Clinton years, esp. Hillarycare).
We need zombie Grover Cleveland as president.
-
How about we stop eating poison, because one dose is less than the other?
:facepalm:
Water will kill you if you drink too much, so just what is considered poison?
Look, YOU find the perfect candidate, tell me who it is, THEN I will take it under advisement. 'Til then I will use my own judgement as to which jackwagon gets my vote. :angel:
And when the world is perfect I will live forever. [popcorn]
-
Pretty ragged strawman you have there. I suggest reading the post right above yours.
-
Pretty ragged strawman you have there. I suggest reading the post right above yours.
OK, I give up. Screw trying to get a conservative government. Let's get a divided govt. so nothing much happens, which is admittedly better than what we had for the 1st two years of Obama, but still a half-measure. You guys stick to those.
In my book (which, being mine, is admittedly strange) we are better off with a Democrat president and a Republican house and senate than with Republican control of all three, when the top man is a RINO. A Repub congress won't balk at the liberal measures of a Repub president (see the early Bush years and his Medicare/NCLB stuff), but they will balk at liberal measures of a Dem president (Clinton years, esp. Hillarycare).
We need zombie Grover Cleveland as president.
Better off NOT with a demo president.
I don't think we should accept a candidate who will do active harm both to the country as well as the actual conservative movement (I'm looking at you Romney) just because he has an R by his name.
So if Romney is the nominee you wouldn't support him over Obama? ??? He'd do a helluva lot LESS harm than Obama -- and probably a bit of good as well. He has a far better understanding of business than Obama, who was a coomunity organizer (polite name for a street thug IMHO).
-
Romney would support Obama's version of his own healthcare mandate, do nothing on the major entitlements that are bankrupting our country, go for amnesty, and support more infringements that Bush started. So yeah, maybe the tumour would be slightly smaller, but he'd not be "better"if your end goal is America not collapsing ala Aregntina.
-
So I should vote for a demorat when the repukes mess up? -- even though most of them are commies?
Doesn't work for me.
There's a lot of things about the system we have I don't like.
Don't ask me to:
(A.) Vote for my political enemy.
(B.) Vote for some nebulous third party candidate who will get 1.96765% of the vote, but enough to TKO the repuke candidate and put my actual political enemy in office.
If damage must be done, then there is a moral obligation to minimize it.
And let's not keep making the perfect the enemy of the good.
When you keep refusing to vote for a better candidate, one who says things you support and maybe even has a track record to back that up, just because he doesn't have an R or a D next to his name - and when thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of others act like you - well, it's no wonder that that "nebulous third party candidate" won't get more than 1.96765% of the vote, don'cha think?
:facepalm:
Keep right on voting for the lesser of two evils and thinking you're doing anything to actually fix the problem... ;/
-
Learn the lessons of Clinton and Bush. Lib pres with a strong conservative Congress, slightly better (until the R's start spending like libs again of course). "Compassionate" R who spends most of his time in office with both the House and Senate as R and you get expansion of Medicare, Patriot Act, the TSA, etc etc.
A weaksauce liberal who happens to have an R before his name (such as Romney) not only expands .gov, he opens the way to liberals by branding R's and conservatives with his own incompetence.
-
When you keep refusing to vote for a better candidate, one who says things you support and maybe even has a track record to back that up, just because he doesn't have an R or a D next to his name - and when thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of others act like you - well, it's no wonder that that "nebulous third party candidate" won't get more than 1.96765% of the vote, don'cha think?
:facepalm:
Keep right on voting for the lesser of two evils and thinking you're doing anything to actually fix the problem... ;/
Balog, they're ALL "the lesser of two evils." There's no such thing as a perfect candidate. Even Reagan, as Governor of California, signed a antigun law. He also signed a law that closed the National Firearms Registry. But he was still, overall, a good president.
Are you thinking Ron Paul will solve the problem?
Well, tell me, what support do you think he'll get from congress -- from either the demorats or the repukes?
When I cast my vote, I AM casting it for the "better" candidate. You're being a bit too sanctimonious suggesting I'm not. If you really think a third party candidate is the better one then show me, 'cause I haven't seen one yet. I wouldn't vote Ron Paul dog-catcher. He's a nut living out in La-La land of political mysticism. He believes in doing things that would seriously weaken this country and make the world far more dangerous for us.
Even Obama, as rotten as he is, isn't quite THAT bad.
I will also vote for the best candidate who has a good chance of winning. You may think that's somehow criminal because I won't vote for a third party candidate who polls at 3% but believe it or not, it is NOT my responsibility to throw away my vote to give a really bad longshot a better chance by .0000005%.
If you don't like that kind of realpolitik, then I am so sorry I disappoint you.
-
Might wanna check who you're quoting there slick.
Also, the history of "I vote for whoever has an R by their name no matter what" is as clear and easy to read as the history of Prohibition. Guess some folks confuse realpolitik with stubborn refusal to learn from history. Next time you see a story about a .gov thug legally committing sexual assault at an airport you just go ahead and comfort yourself with the thought of how much worse a D would have been.
-
Well, tell me, what support do you think he'll get from congress -- from either the demorats or the repukes?
What support does he need? Vetoing all the drivel that comes from the capital building would be a good start. Repealing bullshit executive orders, that too....brilliant.
-
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace."
-
did he really endorse gore?
In 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat from district 64, which included his home county of Haskell. He served on the House Appropriations and Calendars committees during his three two-year terms in office. He befriended fellow freshman state representative Lena Guerrero of Austin, a staunch liberal Democrat who endorsed Perry's reelection bid in 2006 on personal, rather than philosophical, grounds.
Perry was part of the "Pit Bulls", a group of Appropriations members who sat on the lower dais in the committee room (or "pit") who pushed for austere state budgets during the 1980s.[15] At one point, The Dallas Morning News named him one of the ten most effective members of the legislature.[16]
In 1987, Perry voted for a $5.7 billion tax increase proposed by Republican governor Bill Clements.[17] Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas.[18][19] In 1989, Perry announced that he was switching parties, becoming a Republican.[20]
In 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat from district 64, which included his home county of Haskell. He served on the House Appropriations and Calendars committees during his three two-year terms in office. He befriended fellow freshman state representative Lena Guerrero of Austin, a staunch liberal Democrat who endorsed Perry's reelection bid in 2006 on personal, rather than philosophical, grounds.
Perry was part of the "Pit Bulls", a group of Appropriations members who sat on the lower dais in the committee room (or "pit") who pushed for austere state budgets during the 1980s.[15] At one point, The Dallas Morning News named him one of the ten most effective members of the legislature.[16]
In 1987, Perry voted for a $5.7 billion tax increase proposed by Republican governor Bill Clements.[17] Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas.[18][19] In 1989, Perry announced that he was switching parties, becoming a Republican.[20]
-
Might wanna check who you're quoting there slick.
Also, the history of "I vote for whoever has an R by their name no matter what" is as clear and easy to read as the history of Prohibition. Guess some folks confuse realpolitik with stubborn refusal to learn from history. Next time you see a story about a .gov thug legally committing sexual assault at an airport you just go ahead and comfort yourself with the thought of how much worse a D would have been.
:facepalm: Yeah, uh, it's Fistful's fault. =D
Anyway, what makes you think I would condone a sexual assault by a politician of any stripe? :mad: ;/
This whole thing is getting a tad too ridiculous -- completly aside from hitting wrong quote buttons....... :angel: [popcorn]
-
If he was a Demoncat then, then of course he endorsed Al.
-
A Republican president (and Congress? Can't recall) gave us the TSA which molests children and sexually assaults adults every single day.
For the record, I hate all policritters pretty much definitionally. I only care about whether their choices will move us in the right direction, or just slow our descent. Romney would be, at best, the equivalent of a Washington spending cut: a tiny reduction in the bad that parades as a crusade for the good. We've had that too much, and the country can't take it again. I either want a Pres who will work to roll back the machine, or I want gridlock. No more expanding Medicare and bailouts because the Prez is a squishy "R" so Congress doesn't want to say no.
-
If he was a Demoncat then, then of course he endorsed Al.
:O ;/ [barf]
-
:O ;/ [barf]
Al Gore in 1988 would not likely get Al Gore of 2000's or Al Gore of 2011's endorsement and Gore88 would likely reciprocate.
In the Dem field at the time, which included these jokers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_1988
Gore was the conservative Democrat.
The Dem candidate who beat Al Gore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPZQ3UEN_Q&feature=related
-
I read a great article (when I get back from a parent meeting at my kids' school I'll see if I can track it down) that did a really good job of explaining why RP was a Donk up until the late 80's or early 90's. Basically TX was so dominated by the Donks that any politician who actually wanted to be elected had to be a Dem back then, regardless of actual political ideology. And a Dem NEVER endorsed a non-Dem back then. Once Reps were electable he made the change.
-
FTR, most our non-urban Dems are relatively sane. It was Gov Richardson, a Dem, who signed the CHL bill.
Perry has his warts, no doubt, but this is weak tea. How about his position on illegal aliens & the border? The TTC? Gov't school funding formulae? Those are Perry's real soft spots.
-
I thought Governor Bush signed the Texas CHL law.
Gov Anne Richards is one of the main reasons we got a Republican Gov in Bush. People didn't like her much. Then later Bill Clinton's antics turned all the state and federal positions into Republican positions. Democrats candidates since then have gone downhill from Clinton.
However, even now for local stuff, my home town is still mostly Democrat.
-
I thought Governor Bush signed the Texas CHL law.
Gov Anne Richards is one of the main reasons we got a Republican Gov in Bush. People didn't like her much. Then later Bill Clinton's antics turned all the state and federal positions into Republican positions. Democrats candidates since then have gone downhill from Clinton.
However, even now for local stuff, my home town is still mostly Democrat.
Well, I'll be dipped in apple butter! You are right.
-
Well, I'll be dipped in apple butter! You are right.
IIRC, the biggest single reason Ann Richards lost is because she opposed allowing Texans to have a referendum on CHL . . .
In any case, I do believe Perry has lost my vote for POTUS . . . he just adamantly defended giving in-state tuition to ILLEGAL ALIENS at Texas universities. :mad:
-
GAH!
And here's the article supporting my conclusion:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/in_focus&id=8354519
Look, Mr. Perry, allow me to quote another politician:
"...I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law."
Now, as I've said before, Perry is an acceptable candidate. He's not my first choice, and stuff like this only illustrates his negatives for me. (But he is the best of those running right now.)
And here's the immigration side of that.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-perry-gets-into-immigration-scuffle-with-mitt-romney-and-rick-santorum-at-foxgoogle-debate/
To that argument, Perry replied passionately that “you don’t have a heart” if you don’t feel for the children of illegal immigrants.
Compassionate conservatism. :facepalm:
Still better than a "moderate" like Romney, but I don't want a leader thinking the role of government is compassion.
-
I guess that is the rub with me. If it is Perry vs Romney, I'll pick Perry any day. We'll have to see if any of the other candidates make a showing in the primaries. Some of them are worth my attention.
-
Hey, no Perry-poking from CSD for a while. Roughly as long as Perry has been taking it in the teeth for Perry's support of taxpayer subsidized tuition at state schools and Perry's lack of seriousness on border security.
Perhaps CSD thinks Perry is Growing In Office, before he even wins? Perhaps CSD has a Strange, New Respect for Perry?
Frankly, I enjoy seeing Perry taking it in the face on this issue. He deserves every single smack, especially after his "have no heart" comment. Maybe Perry will learn something from it (sounds like, "from Mitt").
It looks like the front runners are:
1. A big fat liberal northeastern RINO who claims to be born again hard conservative...who wuvs Social Security
2. A southwestern mostly conservative Republican who describes SS honestly, but is just plain awful on illegals & the border
-
In any case, I do believe Perry has lost my vote for POTUS . . . he just adamantly defended giving in-state tuition to ILLEGAL ALIENS at Texas universities. :mad:
He's actually just putting them at the base rate for being smart enough to want to stay. Out-of-state rates are there to penalize the Americans too stupid to actually move to Texas.
Frankly, I never got the "I must go to an out of state college that's not world-famous in my field" mentality. I mean, going to MIT for engineering or Harvard for law is one thing, but to just pick a school that's maybe in the top 20 for your field sounds more like hiding from mommy and daddy.
-
The Aggie/non-lawyer deal is just icing on the cake.
So where do you rank inspiring a special edition Ruger and owning a custom LaRue Tactical OBR?
Can you tell he's ex-AF?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftherightsideofaustin.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Fgrp-target-2.jpeg&hash=e0cc5199f38fbf9580b0e74e38b244bad6f1e9c5)
(EDIT TO ADD: Besides, that degree in animal science might give him an edge in dealing with Congress.)
-
He's actually just putting them at the base rate for being smart enough to want to stay. Out-of-state rates are there to penalize the Americans too stupid to actually move to Texas.
Frankly, I never got the "I must go to an out of state college that's not world-famous in my field" mentality. I mean, going to MIT for engineering or Harvard for law is one thing, but to just pick a school that's maybe in the top 20 for your field sounds more like hiding from mommy and daddy.
A&M is a mouse's whisker below MIT in nuclear, and is extremely good in other areas. UT has their choice programs as well. I've met more aggies I'd hire than MIT folk anyway. Both schools are in the top 10 or 20 in a wide variety of fields, and worth going out of state for.
-
Hey, no Perry-poking from CSD for a while. Roughly as long as Perry has been taking it in the teeth for Perry's support of taxpayer subsidized tuition at state schools and Perry's lack of seriousness on border security.
Perhaps CSD thinks Perry is Growing In Office, before he even wins? Perhaps CSD has a Strange, New Respect for Perry?
Frankly, I enjoy seeing Perry taking it in the face on this issue. He deserves every single smack, especially after his "have no heart" comment. Maybe Perry will learn something from it (sounds like, "from Mitt").
It looks like the front runners are:
1. A big fat liberal northeastern RINO who claims to be born again hard conservative...who wuvs Social Security
2. A southwestern mostly conservative Republican who describes SS honestly, but is just plain awful on illegals & the border
nah just trying to be nice since texans are sensitive >:D
plus i am trying to digest ron paul becoming more and more palatable to me, and thats not easy