Posted on 02/15/2010 3:50:42 PM PST by Patriot1259
Perry seems to rely on two familiar slogans:
“Keep D.C. out of Texas,” which is his push-back to Kay Bailey Hutchison who, for all intents and purposes, cut her own throat with conservatives when she voted “Yes” for the federal bailout in 2008; and
“Texas – We’re better off than the other states.” I’ve never heard Medina deny that Texas is better off than the other states. She does say; however, that Texas could be doing better. You could be doing better.
Medina wants to get rid of the state property tax. Any objections? She wants to replace it with a sales tax. Sorry, that can’t work. It’s too logical. It’s too easy. It gets rid of way, way, way too much government fat and it too fairly and equally distributes the load in terms of supporting the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...
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.
Self governing citizens attempting to police morality.
The lottery puts customers at a worse advantage, and the state operates it.
You clearly have a problem with personal liberty.
You seem to think that morality is bad.
It is incumbent upon the State - upon individuals who make up the government of the State - to do no harm. That’s a moral position, as is “Do not murder” and deciding the degrees of homicide, “Do not steal” and the parameters of misdemeanors and felonies.
The State already regulates these practices, we’ve already decided that limits are appropriate. Now, it’s just a matter of defining those limits.
It is incumbent upon the State - upon individuals who make up the government of the State - to do no harm. That’s a moral position, as is “Do not murder” and deciding the degrees of homicide, “Do not steal” and the parameters of misdemeanors and felonies.
The State already regulates these practices, we’ve already decided that limits are appropriate. Now, it’s just a matter of defining those limits.
Morality isn't bad, forcing it on people by law is.
The state not doing harm is not a moral position, it's a liberty issue. However, not allowing gambling by private corporations when the state has a conflict of interest by operating a lottery, and allows track betting, is inherently unfair and a violation of liberty. Medina is for it, you seem to think it's a major disqualifier, it isn't, esp when a majority of self governing citizens want it.
No fault divorce is here to stay.
Deciding that “forcing people by law” is bad is, in itself, a moral position, based on your belief in right and wrong.
Again, it's an issue of personal liberties which is clearly not important to you.
I’m really disappointed in a lot of Freepers right now. She is NOT a truther for pete’s sake. When she says there are questions she is right. Not as to whether the .gov blew the buildings up, but questions as to why walls were built between agencies not allowing info in, other intel that wasn’t passed on, the terrorists allowed to attend flight schools, etc. I can’t believe some Freepers would actually consider voting for slick rick perry the TTC guy, forcing vaccines to our daughters, allowing illegals to get in state tuition in colleges, etc. ALL of those things he defended in the debates!!! And Kay with her wishy washy abortion answers and bailout vote, etc. Good lord, Medina is the most conservative candidate in the race. To me it’s FR that is going nuts.
Quote from Medina “I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way.”
Quote from Medina “I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way.”
Agreed, and good post.
IMO, Medina was getting spammed and slammed here unfairly before her comments on Glenn Beck, probably from Perry supporters. It didn't work and her comments gave them want they needed. It is surprising that she scared some Freepers so much, even before her comments. My guess is that it's more about social conservativism than anything else, based on some of the comments I've seen from the morality police.
Her comments weren't good, the clarification was better. IMO, she needs to focus on the redacted portions of the 9/11 report and intelligence failures. I think she did it to hedge for her supporters who do feel that way, doesn't make it right though.
No, personal liberties are very important to me.
The right to liberty exists outside of society, but the decisions about to practice it oneself and to enforce it for others is a moral position.
The old saying, “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose,” is a moral position, one that works very well for society.
Robinson Crusoe didn’t need to care much about personal liberty until he ran into Friday. An omnipotent ruler wouldn’t have to care much about another’s nose or personal liberty, either.
In the case of our society, we enforce everyone’s right to liberty by government, in our case, a representative government. As a State, we’ve decided to limit - regulate - the business of gambling because of gambling’s risk to liberty and property.
Look up the relative costs of gambling to states and cities. (I’m on my way to a meeting, can’t do it, now.)
The right to liberty exists outside of society, but the decisions about to practice it oneself and to enforce it for others is a moral position.
The old saying, “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose,” is a moral position, one that works very well for society.
Robinson Crusoe didn’t need to care much about personal liberty until he ran into Friday. An omnipotent ruler wouldn’t have to care much about another’s nose or personal liberty, either.
In the case of our society, we enforce everyone’s right to liberty by government, in our case, a representative government. As a State, we’ve decided to limit - regulate - the business of gambling because of gambling’s risk to liberty and property.
Look up the relative costs of gambling to states and cities. (I’m on my way to a meeting, can’t do it, now.)
Preventing a fist from hitting you in the nose is a "protection of individual rights" issue. To confuse it with morality is missing the point entirely and unnecessary. Enforcing your version of morality on others is infringing on their rights, and no different than the extreme Left and their "moral" issues.
You're avoiding a glaring flaw staring you in the face. The state is the purveyor of legalized gambling itself. It's hypocritical, among many other things, to claim that their form is better than another one, esp when adjoining states allow it, cruise ships departing from the State's shores allow it, a majority of citizens participate in it and approve of it, and other forms of betting are allowed. More to the point, a politician who doesn't buy into that hypocrisy should be applauded.
You fail to understand the basics of ethics 101.
1. Rights exist without any external recognition. To decide whether or not to recognize and protect those rights as a society is a moral action.
2. As I said, “is” (the State is a “purveyor of gambling”) does not equate to “ought” (the State ought to allow more gambling). (Your mama probably says, “If your friend jumps off the roof, does that mean I should let you?”)
http://www.bigjolly.com/sections/texas/274-debra-medina-on-nyc-fire-and-police-casualties.html
She really believes that there’s some question as to how all the police escaped the towers without dying, while policemen did die.
"The only comparison between Mr. Oberg's condescension and Mrs. Medina's answer is that she mentioned firefighters and police officers. Note that she begins by saying that it was eight or nine years ago and that she could be mistaken.
Now before you start in, I don't think this is media "bias" against Mrs. Medina. I don't know why Mr. Oberg reported it like he did, which has resulted in even more ridicule for Mrs. Medina. All I know is that when I was sitting in the press conference listening, I didn't come away with the perception that she was "curious" about that subject. And I don't get that perception after watching it again.
So there you go. Watch and decide for yourself. I'm just trying to bring a little "truth" (ha) into this race and I would do the same if it were Gov. Perry or Sen. Hutchison that we were talking about. There used to be a lot of people willing to do that. It seems as if there are fewer and fewer of us trying (not that I always get it right) to point out the truth and more and more people seeing a reporter say something and throwing it around as the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me I can't be bothered to check."
1. Rights exist without any external recognition. To decide whether or not to recognize and protect those rights as a society is a moral action.
2. As I said, “is” (the State is a “purveyor of gambling”) does not equate to “ought” (the State ought to allow more gambling). (Your mama probably says, “If your friend jumps off the roof, does that mean I should let you?”)
You're conflating the two concepts erroneously. The protection of rights doesn't require ethics or morality, whether it's personal protection or societal. It's an innate human response.
Ok, I'll bite. By your logic, Medina's support of legalizing casino gambling is a disqualifier for office, based on moral grounds, in spite of the fact the other forms of gambling exist, and her position is actually consistent and not hypocritical. By virtue of the fact that Perry opposes casino gambling, he is more qualified for office vis a vis that issue. The logical conclusion of your comments is that no forms of gambling should be legal, and candidates should oppose all of them. However, Perry, for example, does not oppose the legalization of the lottery, in fact, the lottery has expanded during his tenure, he appointed a crony to head the lottery commission, he's suggested selling it to a private company to raise money for the state, instead of banning it altogether. So by your definition, that's moral?
Is Perry "moral" in attempting to legally force girls to get mandatory STD vaccinations? Do those girls have any rights? Is it moral to support abstinence only sex education while forcing girls to get STDs vaccines? Is taking private property owners' land while selling state authority to foreign corporations for a private toll road to ship goods from Mexico moral? Is letting illegal aliens get state money for college moral, while violating the rights of the citizens who pay taxes to fund it?
I’ll agree that our differences are based on our moral differences. I don’t agree that the decision to protect unalienable rights by society is not a moral issue.
The State legislature, our representative government, has determined the lottery is acceptable. That does not mean that we have to determine that casino gambling is acceptable.
For the Gardasil, my argument is all over this forum, and the (still long) synopsis is here,
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=297887064231&1&index=1
The State legislature, our representative government, has determined the lottery is acceptable. That does not mean that we have to determine that casino gambling is acceptable.
For the Gardasil, my argument is all over this forum, and the (still long) synopsis is here, http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=297887064231&1&index=1
Our differences aren't moral; I'm in favor of liberty, protecting inalienable rights and limiting the role of government, you are when it suits you. You want "your version" of morality legislated, I don't want yours or anyone else's.
You completely avoided my point on Perry, the lottery and gambling. No surprise, your logic is flawed.
Depriving young girls of their rights in the name of science is wrong, period. And based on your logic, it's immoral. That you're doctor only makes it worse.
Your position that you don’t want morality is absolutely a *moral* position. Deciding how to act on and arguing for right and wrong are most certainly acts based on moral positions.
You don’t like vaccines - or expect a physician to not like vaccines? Tell all the blind children who had measles, all the infants born with mental retardation due to mom’s catching Rubella while she was pregnant, tell the infertile boys due to Measles, mumps, and Rubella. Tell the victims of “lock jaw,” who never got their tetanus shots.
And, if you’d read the article, you’d see that the Governor also told the Department of Health and Human Service to make it *easier* to opt out of mandated vaccines. That the Legislature had passed law making it a burden to opt out - people had to file paperwork to access the paperwork and had to do it each year, for each child.
You don’t like vaccines - or expect a physician to not like vaccines? Tell all the blind children who had measles, all the infants born with mental retardation due to mom’s catching Rubella while she was pregnant, tell the infertile boys due to Measles, mumps, and Rubella. Tell the victims of “lock jaw,” who never got their tetanus shots.
And, if you’d read the article, you’d see that the Governor also told the Department of Health and Human Service to make it *easier* to opt out of mandated vaccines. That the Legislature had passed law making it a burden to opt out - people had to file paperwork to access the paperwork and had to do it each year, for each child.
Wow, that made no sense.
I don't like when people's rights and personal liberties are infringed upon. I expect physicians not to shove their bias and morality down peoples' throats.
It's not the state's business to require and fund the vaccination of young girls for STD's, whether it had an opt out clause for religious purposes.
Don’t like religion?
What you “don’t like” is still an expression of your morality.
The opt out is not only for religious reasons.
And, what you don’t know is how often I’ve stood up to the Texas Medical Association and expressed my own moral position that it is inappropriate to have the regulations on opt out (rather than “opt in”) and in opposition to the opt out every year, as well as the general moral position among some doctors that parents are not the best advocates for their children.
What you “don’t like” is still an expression of your morality.
The opt out is not only for religious reasons.
And, what you don’t know is how often I’ve stood up to the Texas Medical Association and expressed my own moral position that it is inappropriate to have the regulations on opt out (rather than “opt in”) and in opposition to the opt out every year, as well as the general moral position among some doctors that parents are not the best advocates for their children.
I like religion, I just don't like your version of it being forced down people's throats.
Then make it completely optional instead mandating it and violating people's rights. Better yet stay out of parent's business. The program would make Obama and the Democrats proud.
You're supporting a candidate who pushed it, and still thinks it was a good idea.
Arizona Caroly Medina is Pro Life...I know its hard for most Republican’s to recognize a pro life candidate nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b756HyR-Ms
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.