Posted on 08/28/2011 10:01:59 AM PDT by The Bronze Titan
FYI Perry is not clean, and it is proven by the Merck/Gardasil fiasco (donations + revolving door staffers) as well as the Trans Texas Corridor/Cintra fiasco (same problem).
Perry = bought and paid for by the globalists on Wall St. who have zero use for an American middle class.
Oh admit it, you don't want an "honest" discussion on Perry's record. You're having too much fun bashing him. An as for Mr. Robinson kicking all the Perry supporters out.....I know you'd really love that. But think how boring it'd be around here.
“I am fundamentally an American patriot. There’s not a “liberal” bone inside of me,”
Just because YOU say so?
“...although there are quite a few that are pissed off at people who pretend they are patriots....”
Now you are impugning others’ actions (with no proof).....JUST LIKE A LIBERAL.
Go ahead and believe what you want. I’ll stick with the facts in all of the polls that state she doesn’t have a chance of winning the general with 0bama. Palin fatigue has set in because she’s been over exposed.
The general election will boil down to one thing, the economy and jobs. Perry wins this one hands down simply because he’s led Texas for the last 10 years and has survived the 0bama regime on it’s job killing agenda. He stayed on the job and fought the moratorium, EPA regs, obamacare, etc.
Good find!
>> Now you are impugning others’ actions (with no proof).....JUST LIKE A LIBERAL
Please see post #141. Speaking of acting like liberals... it’s amazing how much of the Perry-bashing material comes straight from the Obama-supporting left — posted by those who bill themselves as the Only True Patriots!
Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave, I’d say.
FRegards
A wise poster once said: "to use only ad hominem is usually a liberal tactic. Please avoid it."
Thank you for your sincere reply and observations. I know that ultimately the battle will be against Obama and the socialist. There is no mistaking that end of the road. As to whom we ultimately chose to lead us in that fight, well, that’s a battle that will have to be waged with a lot of intensity, because the type of ‘leader’ that we choose, will ultimately determine how much of Americana we can save from destruction.
I meant to say, “Please see #140”.
Sorry for the confusion.
Um, Perry does not stand for everything this site stands for. Sorry to have to correct you. I can’t just let that go because it’s simply not true. FR has NEVER in all my years here been a place that welcomes pro-amnesty conservatives NOR open borders NOR candidates who sell legislation/votes/executive orders to the highest bidder. FR has never been a place where we excused candidates who are pro-U.N. either. FR is a property rights advocate also. So, NO, FR can support who they want, as it’s a free country (so far), but I have to correct factual errors when I see them. If FR has changed & any of those things are no longer true, please point to the FR mission statement that notes the change.
No, Palin isn’t “in” right now, which makes me want to support her more, but instead of jumping on a specific bandwagon while we wait, would our time not be better spent vetting ALL the candidates??? Hashing it out and let the cream rise to the top. If Perry is not what he claims, isn’t it better we find out NOW and put the pressure even more on Palin to jump in??
That statement alone shows that you are clueless about the Tea Party. Need I remind you that the Tea Party is made up of individuals. There are no elected leaders. There are self appointed leaders.
Correction, they are all self appointed opportunists.
The author states that there's a catastrophe in Texas. Texas happens to be on the the few bright spots in the nation right now. No matter how hard the Anti-Perry people and Obama trash talk Texas' economy, the people will not believe it.
The author says Perry was Algore's campaign manager. That's an outright lie. That's like saying a paper pusher at the CIA is the same as an undercover agent. Now, did Perry support Gore a quarter of a century ago? Yes. Did he work for his campaign? Yes. Was he Gore's 1988 campaign manager? No.
But, let's dig deeper into Texas history, since the anti-Perry folks on here keep lumping in Algore as if this happened last year. The author wants to talk about lies by omission. Said author is just as guilty of his accusation by not stating that Texas hardcore democrat up until the late 80s. It was not out of the ordinary for there not to be an election after the primaries, b/c the republicans wouldn't run anybody. Obama likes to say that Texas has been historically Republican, but a quick bit of research for those non-Texans will notice that there have only been SIX republican governors of Texas out of the 47 governors. Bush and Perry make up 2 of them. Prior to Bush was Gov. Clements, and he was the 1st Republican governor since the 1870s. It wasn't until 2002 that the republicans controlled the Texas House. It has been since reconstruction the last time they held that power. If you wanted to get elected, you ran as a democrat.
Now, the article claims that if Texas wants to build roads, they will just eminent domain the landowner and, voila, the landowner loses land. Now, the author of this article is either ignorant of the road building process, or the author is lying. The governor doesn't just wave a wand, thus owning the land. That is not how the road building process works. The city/state/federal government will go to the landowners and try to work out a right of way agreement. This can include the landowner keeping his mineral rights, but allowing the city/state/federal gov't to access the surface. The landowner, if he agrees to the contract, will get paid for this land. If the landowner refuses, the state or federal government (in this case) would then proceed to bring suit against the landowner. The judge would then decide whether or not the government should have access for the land in exchange for paying the landowner the fair market value of the property.
An example of this is the interstate process. I have recently worked the title for property backing up to the then proposed I-30 in Fort Worth. Some landowners granted the ROW and reserved minerals. Some granted it outright. Some refused and were taken to court by the Federal Government. In one particular case the federal government was granted full right and title to the strip of land. They paid the property owner the fair market value, then deeded the property to the State of Texas. Not one time did the governor of Texas at that point wave a wand and confiscate the land. He doesn't have that power.
Now, if one has issues with building roads, then I can't do much for you, but that's how the property is obtained, and it's usually by the landowner negotiating for more money, thus negating the need for a civil suit.
Now, regarding the transportation system in Texas. For those who are against building new roads, what is the solution to the growing population of Texas? Those who drive in Houston/DFW/Austin know that there's a traffic jam problem. Those who are against Perry complain b/c a private company was going to take the brunt of the costs to build these toll roads. The alternative is to raise your taxes. But, Perry wanted wanted this plan to allow the private companies to fund it, then get reimbursed on the tolls.
Those also against the idea of building new roads in Texas claim that this will allow trucks from Mexico to drive in Texas. Here's a news flash. Mexican trucks already drive in Texas and the United States, just as trucks from Canada drive here.
As a side note, the author of this article takes shots at Mark Davis for putting some perspective into things. Was that necessary? Mark works out of Arlington, Texas on the great WBAP. Those who listen to him before Rush know that he was very fair in the 2010 primary process. He had Debra Medina and KBH on very often and challenged them, along with Perry. But, if one says one single thing positive about Perry, that makes one a "Perry Apologist" in the highest degree.
Mark just happens to be of the opinion that if the republicans of Texas didn't care about these issues, the national republicans won't, either. Per the 3 re-elections as governor, the people don't care that Perry supported Gore a quarter of a century ago. They don't care that he put together a plan to build roads in Texas. They don't care that he issued an executive order that said you didn't have to take the HPV vaccine if you didn't want to. Yes, your eyes didn't do you wrongly. Nobody forced anybody to do anything. If you didn't want to take the shot, you didn't have to take the shot.
Now, I will close for now since this post is getting quite long. I will be accused of cherry picking issues. No, I just don't feel like typing anymore. I choose not to go after all of the spaghetti that's thrown up against the wall.
I agree with you. (There was no confusion...I read both.)
;-)
You’re wasting your time responding to the anti-Perry trolls. They have their talking points and they’re sticking with them.
What is his exact relationship to Merck and all those other corps? If he got them special tax breaks to encourage them to move their HQ into the state, etc, that doesn’t sound much worse than what other governors would do. I’m not against toll roads per se, although using the power of the state to finance and impose a mega-highway is impossible to justify. I just hope this is supposed to all be an argument for Romney instead of someone like Paul/Bachman/etc.
Perry endorsed Giuliani in the same election.
“Um, Perry does not stand for everything this site stands for.”
Could we have a list, please with proof?
(Realizing that much of what has been claimed by the anti-Perry posters has already been refuted.)
I feel lik give Perry a chance and see what he has to say in debates
I feel lik give Perry a chance and see what he has to say in debates
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.