Posted on 06/18/2011 1:09:31 PM PDT by presidio9
Just wanted to post that my #172 was meant in good fun. I should have posted something to indicate that and I neglected to.
#179 you dope. Jeez.
Yes, you’re right...It’s all a grand conspiracy. Perry, AAP, AAFP, and the ACS all in cahoots to make Merck rich and get kickbacks in the process. Jeesh.
Well Reagan actually signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967, which allowed for abortion only in rare cases — such as rape or incest, or "where pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother". That's far from the abortion-on-demand laws we have now. In any case, he didn't lobby of the passage of the bill and admits he didn't know much about abortion and didn't give much thought when he signed the bill, and came to regret it long before he ran for President. And what exactly does this have to do with Rick Perry?
>> Single issue litmus tests will get us a candidate who will lose or no candidate at all. <<
Straw man arguments. You Rick Perry fans keep insisting we're demanding "perfect" candidates and are against Perry because of a "single issue" when not ONE poster has said that. I have been one of the most outspoken posters on FR AGAINST the small minority of freepers who want to crusify solid conservatives because they don't do their bidding 100% of the time. Perry is not being critizing because he didn't do what we want on "one" bill. He is being criticized because he is a mediocre career politician who only "wins" by plurality because he is an ultra-safe Republican state and he has pathetic "opponents". Perry has never had to face a credible & tough opponent in a state where the GOP wasn't guranteed to win. Numerous other Republicans running for President have. Perry is a poor choice who would have very little chance of winning when he has to run in other 49 states against the full force of the Obama Chicago machine & liberal media.
>> We get it: You want Sarah Palin to run. It's all you've thought about for the last three years. She loves the attention, but in the end she's not running because she knows she can't win the nomination, let alone the presidency. <<
Obviously you DON'T get it presidio, because at NO time in my posting history on FR have I claimed Sarah Palin MUST run and she is the ONLY acceptable choice. More straw man arguments! In fact, I've said that since she resigned as Governor I believe it's possible she could win over swing voters but I'm not seeing it happen. Like Perry, I think she'd have a hard time winning nationwide. I don't want another lame establishment Republican who talks like a tea party conservative but governs like a center-right big government "compassionate conservative" to jump into the presidential primary contest when he has nothing special to offer. Perry is simply a hybred of Pawlenty and Romney, minus the ablity to get elected in states that aren't ultra-Republican. The Dems would love to have him as the GOP nominee, the same reason the GOP loved having "electable" John Kerry as the RAT nominee. He was just another Massachuttes liberal from the Dukasis mold and Perry is another GWB Republican from Texas. These kinds of candidates don't play well in middle America. If Perry gets in the GOP primary, he'll compete with Pawlenty, Cain, and Bachmann for the same conservative voters and make it easier from Romney to win the nomination. If Perry somehow wins in the nomination, he increases Obama's chances of getting re-elected in November. Either way, his presence in presidential primaries would NOT be helpful. More dead weight with another lousy candidate.
>> Polls indicate that more voters prefer “anyone but Palin” to even “anyone but Obama.” When she gets the a nomination, I would have no problem voting for her, and even think she would do a fine job as president. In the mean time, she would look great padding her resume for 2020 in someone like Perry's cabinet. <<
Polls indicate half of Texas Republicans can't stand Rick Perry, and the primary election results every time he runs for re-election reflect that. Do you think the thousands of Texan conservatives who claim that Perry is NOT a principled conservative are all single-issue purists? There seems to be considerable evidence that he's alienated tons of Texas Republicans. When half your home state's base can't stand you, I don't think it bodes well for a Presidential bid. Did half of all California Republicans say Reagan was RINO scum? I doubt it.
>> See posts 8 & 15 <<
Insert the name "George W. Bush" into those posts and it's a lame rehash of all the reasons Bush would supposedly be a fantastic leader back in 2000. Al Gore nearly stole that election and we won by 1 electoral vote. Do you really want to try that again in 2012 against an incumbent RAT that the mainstream media will be working 24-7 to re-elect?
THANKS for posting all that info!! GO RICK GO!!!
I think this happened to Bush with the banking "crisis". I'll never believe he wanted to destroy capitalism to save it, butjhis EXPERTS almost demanded it, and he listened to them. Have none of you ever done something like this???
The New World Order, that thing you deny exists.
bttt
All I know is I heard about it on Rush. He was making fun of Perry for the bake “boo-hooing”. But, what does he know.
It’s interesting how people will make fun of the “fake criers” unless it’s someone they’re in love with. Me? Fake is fake. At least Beck and Boehner shed real tears. Unlike Perry and Weiner.
Are you kidding? Perry has been an amnesty fan since he worked on Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Heck it was only a year or so ago that he signed a bill giving illegals in-state tuition to Texas schools. he didn’t support the AZ bill that actually had some teeth to it to stop illegals from raping their state, saying “it’s not right for Texas”. He’s spoken at La Raza events. I don’t understand why anyone would support him. If you want to read his weasel words on amnesty, google is your friend.
Your posting suggest that you're one of those insecure people who think vagaries make you seem more intelligent. They don't. If you have an argument to make, state it clearly next time and save the rest of us the trouble of deciphering your meaning.
Now show me where I "deny" any New World Order, and we'll be back in business.
You seem to think the terms "corrupt" and "pro-business" are interchangble. Perhaps you've got the wrong website here.
You seem to think the terms "corrupt" and "pro-business" are interchangble. Perhaps you've got the wrong website here.
BTW, we seem to agree more than we disagree on a number of topics, including religion and a dislike for Ayn Rand. But let's be clear: I don't want to talk about it.
ROFL! If you think that’s pro business, you must LOVE Obama.
Sounds to me like you don't really understand the term "pro-business."
It only sounds that way to you, because you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
When a company gets into bed with the government and the government mandates the use of that company’s product in exchange for something, that isn’t ‘pro-business’. If you think it is, you must think that Obama’s waivers for McDonalds and other companies is ‘pro-business’ as well.
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.