Reply With Quote
cool typeface for the bold part, but he really should have kept it more consistent
Pun intended.
cool typeface for the bold part, but he really should have kept it more consistent
This is gonna be fun
It's just like Dubya never left
He's gonna get hit hard.
The art of digging up dirt is pretty good, but they have to resort to an ad to find people?
You know, there will be people out there who lie, just to get the attention, money, or something else. This is a poor move because now if they do find someone, it will not be believable.
Real or staged?
Looks like the dirty tricks department will go into overtime.
Good parenting.This is gonna be fun
It's just like Dubya never left
But parents are expected to indoctrinate their children into their belief system.
Why Rick Perry Won't Win
Everyone looks good before they get into the race. Remember how great Tim Pawlenty was supposed to be? But just wait a few months for Perry to get beat up by his opponents, for the oppo research to kick in, for all the big profiles to start appearing, and for a gaffe or two to get some play. He'll start to look distinctly more human then.
He's too Texan. Sorry. Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not. But even in the Republican Party, not everyone is from the South and not everyone is bowled over by a Texas drawl. Perry is, by a fair amount, more Texan than George W. Bush, and an awful lot of people are still suffering from Bush fatigue.
He's too mean. He'll have a hard time pretending he's any kind of compassionate conservative, and outside of Texas you still need a bit of that. Aside from being politically ruthless and famous for holding grudges, Perry's the kind of guy who almost certainly executed an innocent man, never pretended to care about it, and brazenly disbanded a commission investigating it. This famously produced the following quote in a 2010 focus group: "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." In Texas, maybe that works. In the rest of the country, not so much.
He's too dumb. Go ahead, call me an elitist. I'm keenly aware that Americans don't vote for presidents based on their SAT scores, but everything I've read about Perry suggests that he's a genuinely dim kind of guy. Not just incurious or too sure about his gut feelings, like George W. Bush, but simply not bright enough to handle the demands of the Oval Office. Americans might not care if their presidents are geniuses, but there's a limit to how doltish they can be too.
(B: The more Perry opens his mouth since he announced, the dumber and more stupid he proves himself to be. He may be dumber than dubya. Relentless, ruthless motivation simply doesn't compensate for ignorance and dumbness)
He's too smarmy. He might be fine one-on-one, but on a national stage Perry looks like a tent revival preacher or a used car salesman. Again: This might play okay in Texas and a few other places, but it will wear thin quickly in most of the country.
He's too overtly religious. Even Bush soft pedaled his religious side for the masses during his first campaign and did most of his outreach to the evangelical community quietly. Outside the Bible Belt, Perry's fire-and-brimstone act is going to be hard to take.
Policywise, he's too radical, even for Republicans. "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" goes over well with a certain segment of the tea party, but not with most of the country. Nor does most of the country want to get rid of Medicare and turn it over to the states. Nor do they think global warming is a hoax, and they don't really think all that kindly of people who muse publicly about seceding from the union. Bush was able to soften his hard Texas edge with a genuine passion for education. I'm not sure Perry can do that.
Despite conventional wisdom, about half of the GOP rank-and-file aren't tea party sympathizers (see Question 3G here). Of the half who are, Perry is going to have to compete with Michele Bachmann and possibly with Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has the noncrazy half of the party almost to himself. Huntsman isn't going to provide him with any serious compe ion there, and Pawlenty is rapidly becoming a non-factor too. I think this is an extremely underappreciated dynamic right now. Yes, Republican primary voters tend to be more conservative than the party as a whole, but there are still going to be a lot of non-tea-partiers who vote, and they don't have a lot of good choices other than Romney. What's more, a fair number of tea partiers like Romney too (see Question 19 here). This is a pretty good base to work from.
Perry's campaign is going to be heavily based on the "Texas miracle." But this looks a lot less miraculous once you put it under a microscope—and pretty soon it won't just be churlish lefties pointing this out. You can be sure that the rest of the Republican field will be hauling out their own microscopes before long.
Republicans want to beat Obama. They really, really want to beat Obama. Romney is still their best chance, and down deep I think they know it.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...perry-wont-win
They should have angled it back like the Star Wars openers.
Real, it was at a fund raising event. That guy james mahoney is a boa exec.
Still, he got ignored.
Are they now?
WTF is Cowboy Perry talking about now?
LMAO - I went to school in Texas, and I was never taught creationism in public school.
I first learned about it in CCD where I openly laughed at it.
I hope the Perry doesn't win. That's gonna suck.
LOL...
I love getting a rise out of people. Would you except this statement.
It is expected that parents will try to teach their children their values.
That's not what you said earlier
No .
Your point?
Besides, isn't it the same difference?
Not really. Depends on your parents, I guess.
Wait now.
Do you disagree that most parents will not attempt to teach their kids, their values?
What is indoctrination, anyway?
This woman has no solid fact and is using that to instill with her child. Telling her child "Ask him why he doesn't believe in science" shows her bias, being instilled on her child. Isn't that indoctrination?
Now to her, it appears to me that believing in "creationism" is abandoning science. Their are different schools of thought when it comes to creationism, and I agree that many are outlandish. But even the outlandish ones, I have heard sound theoretical possibilities to explain them.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-21-2011 at 11:19 AM.
Like what? Irreducible Complexity? Yeah, you've also heard those "sound theoretical possibilities" thoroughly debunked.
Just ask me a question and if I have heard the explanation, I will repeat it to my best ability. Don't ask me to recount all though.
One that sticks out is the "6,000" year time frame. It was brought up that the creation process of converting so much matter and energy would interfere with the space/time continuum and skew time.
Granted, I think it's a silly idea, but can you prove it wrong?
I have no clue what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like a robust scientific theory.
It sounds more like a lazy thought which is essentially what creationism is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
