Posted on 02/15/2010 3:50:42 PM PST by Patriot1259
I didn't hear it but from what I heard about it, "rant" isn't quite the right term for it. She wasn't in a seething tirade full of rage, was she?
It sounded like she got caught by surprise and her honesty got the best of her. No, confessing she doesn't completely trust the government doesn't play well on the national spotlight, and she stepped in stuff she probably won't shake off.
I don't think she is anywhere the truther that Berg and such are. Not even close. But that is how freepers are playing it, making it sound like she is a foaming at the mouth anti government conspiracist fanatic.
I'm just suprised at how someone with her platform is treated by the same people who claim to want someone with her platform instead of the business as ususal RINOs.
I like Perry because of his stand on life and family issues. He really understands that life begins at fertilization and believes that the family is the basic unit of society. He pushed for parental notification, the Woman’s Right to Know Act and for stricter ID for the guardian of minors seeking abortion. Even the Gardasil Executive Order included instructions to make it easier on parents who wanted to opt out of mandatory vaccines.
That being said, Medina has no record of working for legislation in Austin, sued the Republican Party of Texas for following the rules we voted on in our Convention, plays the race card based on her husband’s family, and hangs out with Alex Jones and Libertarians. Even before her implosion on Beck, she didn’t look like a Republican to me, and had already stated that she wouldn’t back either of the other candidates if she lost. We have no evidence that she can achieve any of her agenda, because she has never worked any legislation through Austin and has only served as a spoiler for the RPT in the past.
She’s a RINO of a different sort then?
Perry seems to be responding to the public outrage, which is good. At least his political insticts are telling him to move to the right.
I can understand people being embarrassed by how she is portrayed as a truther, even if she has good solid pro life, pro 2A, pro 10th, etc.
And they seem to prefer a candidate with sorta acceptable positions and a RINO track record to someone who might embarrass them.
It seems that the opinion is that they want someone who isn’t establishment but is still part of the establishement, i.e., experienced; not a conventional mainstream politician, but not someone far from the mainstream. Different, but not really different?
I think different scares people.
Who wants a Governor who SUSPECTS that the Federal Government and the NYPD was involved in the destruction of the twin towers and subsequent deaths of 1,000’s of people?
Do you? I MEAN DO YOU?????
Wake up!!!!! If she CAN JUSTIFY such as this in her mind, then what couldn't she justify???
Scary, scary stuff
Is that what she said?
Is it?
Since you made the claim, do you have the quote?
And personally, no, I don't care if my governor has an open and active distrust of the federal government. I don't care if my governor deeply believes that the federal government may be treacherous and duplicitous.
Do you believe that the current federal administration is trying to undermine the Constitution and thereby economically and politically enslave the population and will actively work to supress opposition??
So does that mean that you do or you don't trust the federal government?
Do I trust that they are not planning the deaths of American citizens, be it in the 100’s, 1000’s or millions.
Questioning the government is a constitutional right. And YES I do believe that the current administration is “undermine the Constitution and thereby economically and politically enslave the population and will actively work to suppress opposition”
However, I do not believe that they are planning to do what their hero did (Mao)
Should they be in office? NO!!!
Okay, since you asked, here is what Glenn asked and what Debra responded with:
MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.
She has not taken a position. Simple
An open distrust of the federal government is a good thing. Sadly, the mess we have today is because Americans as a whole were too trusting.
I listened to Beck interviewing Medina on Feb. 11. I also read the transcript of the interview. Beck was clear in his questions to Medina, he wanted to know if she was PERSONALLY a 9/11 truther. Why she was not able to state firmly that she is not a truther, if indeed she is not-—well, that’s just baffling. Beck’s interview took place in the morning. Later, on the same day of 2/11, in the afternoon, she went on TV station KAVU interview, and said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39ADaPj9_Y&feature=player_embedded
On Feb. 12, Channel 13 reported that Medina said no policemen were killed on 9/11 and she has questions why only firemen were killed -— 13 pointed out that is not true-police were killed on 9/11.
Also on Feb. 12, Medina included a statement on her website stating that she is NOT a truther, and made several appearances claiming same. Bottom line, if she is not a truther, why was it apparently difficult for her to reveal it to Beck in the first place?
Before all this fiasco began (which, incidentally SHE solely created), she had my vote and my family’s votes. Now, we stand confused about her, and she has our questions.
Looks like we’ll go with Perry in the end.
You have disproven your own outrageous claim, then didn’t you?
She did not say what you claimed she did, did she?
Conservatives recognize the need for some laws, because some activities do harm. I’m sure that you agree that there is a difference between good and bad, otherwise you wouldn’t argue any question at all, would you?
We’ve held the line on legalized casino gambling because it is immoral for the state to endorse and costs local neighborhoods and communities more than it brings in. Our Platform comes out strongly against it.
The state licenses marriage and our courts decide divorces, because we recognize the benefit to our communities that comes from encouraging and strengthening the basis unit of society.
I know several people who were severely harmed by the so-called “no fault” divorces which are really “no choice” divorces. We have as much protection in Texas as we can from same-sex marriage, but will soon find our selves fighting a Constitutional battle over recognizing out of state “marriages.”
Show me how you’re going to keep those taxes local for local use or how it will benefit my Sheriffs’ office or school district to have to compete with the chubbers and runaway dems for a “fair” share of my taxes. For that matter, show me how the collection and rebates for the poor won’t become one of the biggest boondoggles.
That might be a good cause for Medina supporters: get their lawyers and lobbyists to write and fine tune the legislation and find a Senator and Representative to carry it in 2011.
It's propaganda in that it infers that she is pro gay marriage. You're worried about the morality of gambling when Texas has a state sponsored lottery and Texans flood across the border to Baton Rouge to gamble on the river? There's no appreciable difference in letting gambling occur on Texas' side of the river. Harmed by no fault divorce? They would be harmed either way. Clearly, you're intent on legislating morality while Medina is being consistent with those positions.
From her website:
Why would you want to abolish the property tax in Texas in the first place?
Private property ownership is central to a free society. Without freedom to own and defend the fruits of your labor, most other rights mean very little. The freedom to own and be secure in your home is central to many of the issues Texans have faced over the last several years as special interests and establishment politicians have continued to seek to increase their wealth and power at our expense. The property tax, by requiring that we either pay perpetual fees on the land we claim to own or face prosecution, ensures that we never really own it at all. The message is clear: we live on our land at the government's mercy.
The tax on real and tangible property represents one of the most inefficient, anti-family, anti-job forms of taxation available to government. It punishes businesses and industry with taxes that stay more or less the same regardless of whether they’re making money. It gets applied unevenly from taxpayer to taxpayer, and requires the creation, staffing and funding of bureaucratic fiefdoms throughout the state in which tax assessors exercise near-absolute control over who does and does not receive favorable treatment. It in effect turns property owners into squatters in their own homes, requiring over the course of their lifetimes that they pay the entire value of their property to the government for the privilege of living there. It drives the elderly out of homes for which they have cared and saved their entire lives. It depresses the value of real property and imposes a disproportionate burden on capital-intensive industries, thereby retarding growth in the very industries that are best able to generate Texas jobs. It hurts our economy, it hurts families, it breeds disrespect for State government, and it disenfranchises Texas citizens who lack the connections or the resources to fight the appraisers’ relentless grab for more revenues.
But is it really possible to completely replace property taxes in Texas by expanding the sales tax base?
Yes. The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) released a study in April, 2009 showing that simply expanding the sales tax base to include categories of goods and services that are not currently taxed in Texas, but that are taxed in other states, would replace almost all the revenues currently collected by the property tax. Examples of some services that we currently do not tax include mining services, drilling services, legal services, limousine services and others. By also adding in a one-time sales tax on the saleof property (as opposed to an annual tax on property ownership), the TPPF study showed that we could replace the entire property tax revenues with a modest increase in the sales tax rate to 8.8 percent.
That’s an increase in the sales tax from the current top rate of 8.25%. I thought you were opposed to tax increases?
We are. If we can’t finance our current level of government spending by collecting 8.25% tax from all taxable sales in Texas, then our State government is simply spending too much. Like every other Texan these days, the government will have to take a hard look at how it spends its revenues and find ways to live within its means. In the worst case scenario, we could phase reform in over time while restraining the growth of government; this would give us an opportunity to grow into a revenue neutral position. But one way or another the property tax has got to go.
How are middle and low-income families helped by expanding the sales tax – isn’t that a much more regressive tax than the property tax?
First, we would ensure that items such groceries, medicines, basic health care and other basic needs continue to be exempt from the sales tax. It’s the disproportionate percentage of such families’ incomes spent on such items that makes the sales tax regressive, and we would actually work to expand this exemption to make sure that those individuals and families are not disproportionately impacted by reform. Second, it’s not at all clear that the property tax is in fact less regressive. Although the recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study showed the distribution of the Texas property tax burden to be fairly neutral across income groups, this study ignores the “invisible” burden borne by renters for their landlords’ property taxes, and the “stealth” property tax passed by Texas businesses to their customers in the form of higher prices. Once those factors are taken into account, and once we realize the dramatic expansion of opportunities for Texas workers to earn a decent living and to feed, clothe and shelter their families, we believe that middle and low income earners will be foremost among this reform’s beneficiaries.
Doesn’t your proposal take away local control over schools, hospitals and local infrastructure?
Local taxing jurisdictions already can and do set local sales taxes in many cases, the revenues from which are simply returned to the local jurisdiction within a few weeks after collection by the State Comptroller. And Texas already has several revenue sharing plans in place to support local school districts, the newest of which was implemented as part of our 2006 state-wide school finance reform. That particular reform allocated State sales tax and other revenues to enable local school districts to reduce their maintenance and operations property tax rates by 11% in 2007 and 33% in 2008. We also have two so-called “tax rate equalization programs” -- the Instructional Facilities Allotment program and the Existing Debt Allotment program -- both of which assist less wealthy districts by providing revenues to enable them to issue new bond debt or service existing bond debt. And under the Foundation School Program, which has been in place since 1949, the bulk of funding for all of Texas’ public schools comes from a mix of state revenues and local property tax receipts, which are allocated in accordance with specified formulas to help meet the needs of Texas schoolchildren wherever they happen to live. All of these programs allocate State revenues to local districts to make up for differences in their property tax bases, or to enable them to grant limited property tax relief to their residents and local businesses, without compromising local control over local education. Our proposal would simply build on these programs so as to eliminate local property taxes altogether. Sharing formulas would take account of local economic growth, population demographics, historical tax receipts, and current and projected debt service requirements, but the key is that we already have such programs in place right now. We strongly believe as a matter of principle in keeping as much control over local affairs at the most local level of government possible, and this reform would be implemented with that principle as our guide. "
“Is” (gambling, no-choice/fault divorce) does not equate to “ought.”
Medina will have something to do as a private citizen/former candidate after the Primary: She can find legislative experts who can write her bill, find Senators and Representatives to sponsor it, and then, in 2011, go to Austin and try to change our tax system. Perhaps, after 120 days trying to get her bill passed, she will agree with those of us who find that any State government will be less responsive than local governments.
Medina will have something to do as a private citizen/former candidate after the Primary: She can find legislative experts who can write her bill, find Senators and Representatives to sponsor it, and then, in 2011, go to Austin and try to change our tax system. Perhaps, after 120 days trying to get her bill passed, she will agree with those of us who find that any State government will be less responsive than local governments.
By your logic, divorce should be illegal and Texans shouldn't be allowed to gamble in any state.
From Debra Medina's website:
"We strongly believe as a matter of principle in keeping as much control over local affairs at the most local level of government possible, and this reform would be implemented with that principle as our guide."
Sorry, but she said: “So I’ve not taken a position on that.”
Not sure where you are coming from, but “No” is a position and “YES” is a position.
If you asked me if I think the Earth is flat and I answer you with this.....I don’t, I don’t have all of the evidence there, Eagle Eye. So I don’t I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments. So I’ve not taken a position on that.
Would you really think that I meant “NO” even if I came back to you later and tried to say “YES”
She’s toast
Agreed.
She put herself in a 'when will you stop beating your husband' type of position.
As a governor, I don't care if she actually believes the government isn't telling all with 9-11...or Waco...or Oklahoma City...
Guess she found out about the political Third Rail of 911.
Good that Medina believes in local control. Has she been able to decrease costs in her county?Property taxes go to local governments, except where the “Robin Hood” State makes us give some to other school districts. Our ability to cut costs is more local, now. Send all our school tax, county and city services money to Austin and we have no guarantees that we’ll have nearly as much control.
The logic on divorce and gambling is that the State licenses and regulates the courts, the regulations under which they are carried out. “First, do no harm” should guide our future actions on the authority that we’ve delegated to the State.
There’s no reason to prevent our citizens from going where gambling is legal, but there’s simply no evidence that importing gambling to our State will be a good.
As our divorce laws stand, families may be unilaterally fractured. Children and possessions become the State’s to divide at the whim of one party to a contract. Why not limit “no fault” divorce to those where both parties agree and where there are no children involved? Where one spouse has committed fraud and aggression by breaking or wishing to break the contract of marriage, there is no recourse for the injured party other than to submit to an involuntary divorce.
Epic FAIL!
Eaker found the link to the video
http://www.bigjolly.com/sections/texas/274-debra-medina-on-nyc-fire-and-police-casualties.html
Go to the second video (3rd picture frame).
Just W.O.W.
The logic on divorce and gambling is that the State licenses and regulates the courts, the regulations under which they are carried out. “First, do no harm” should guide our future actions on the authority that we’ve delegated to the State.
There’s no reason to prevent our citizens from going where gambling is legal, but there’s simply no evidence that importing gambling to our State will be a good.
As our divorce laws stand, families may be unilaterally fractured. Children and possessions become the State’s to divide at the whim of one party to a contract. Why not limit “no fault” divorce to those where both parties agree and where there are no children involved? Where one spouse has committed fraud and aggression by breaking or wishing to break the contract of marriage, there is no recourse for the injured party other than to submit to an involuntary divorce.
You saw her comments, they speak for themselves. She believes in local control.
Texas already has a lottery, which is a form of gambling. That she is not hypocritical by opposing casino gambling which occurs minutes from the state line is a good thing. Simply moving to the other side of that line to Texas makes sense, as it does in many other states.
Typically, no fault divorces which are contested divorces are required to go to mediation by the court. A friend of mine who had several grounds for divorce recently went through the process and was essentially held hostage by his wife who ran up his legal fees by dragging out the process. He's saddled with her massive debts, she walks away clean while he offered to support the step kids financially. If anything, his ability to walk away should have been easier.
Being the morality police never works.
Sorry. Rant may have been a little strong of a word descbring her response. In any case, it was a loony moonbat thing to say or believe, and she has no business being gov. of my state.
No morality police, just self governing citizens of our State.
Casino Gambling requires that the customer be at a disadvantage. No reason for the state to legalize fraud and aggression against our own citizens.
It shouldn’t be easy to unilaterally break any contract, especially one as fundamental as marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.