Posted on 01/07/2012 1:21:48 PM PST by katiedidit1
She's an elderly drunk, with a trowel.
You Perry APOLOGISTS are too much. I shall rebut.
“In state tuition (DREAM Act)-veto proof majority in the TX legislature.”
So why does he STILL SUPPORT it (to the extent of calling his opponents ‘heartless’)? Maybe because he always did agree with it, just asking?
“Sanctuary Cities in the special session-killed by Strauss and Dewhurst”
Easy enough to fix with a SPECIAL SESSION of the legislature. It was a very important issue for CONSERVATIVES - he chose to let it die last June...seems that it wasn’t so important to him.
“Pro-life....parental consent/sonograms before abortions/defund planned parenthood’s abortion activities”
Not on my list. But there have been a lot of pro-life Democrats too. Just pointing that out.
“Pro 2nd amendment..Absolutely, Unequivocally. No question he will defend my 2nd amendment rights..stated that there are illegal guns on Campuses in TX..he wanted there to be Legal Guns..died in legislature, IIRC Defends Puppies against predators much to the consternation of PETA.”
Also not on my list. But it’s probably worth mentioning that Harry Reid was also pro-gun. That didn’t make him a conservative.
“Sued the EPA. Instructed State Regulators to weigh the impact of onerous epa regulations on economic benefits to TX.”
Also not on my list - but it’s probably worth noting that California governor Gray Davis was demanding that the federal government pay for illegals. In other words, WHINING about something does not make you conservative. Now, if he told the EPA to go to hell, and told the companies to ignore their orders, I’d probably be broke now, because of giving him campaign donations. But he seems perfectly happy to leave things at the whining stage.
“So, you may say gardasil..(didn’t happen)”
Doesn’t matter. If he proposed to legalize gay marriage but the legislature stopped him, would he still be a conservative?
“TTC, (didn’t happen)”
Same as above - he carried it for at least 5 years, and it was ONLY when it was going to hurt him in 2010 did he back off. It was the biggest LAND GRAB, by far, in US history, and it was only the threat of being unseated that stopped him. I have trouble giving him a pass on it.
“and all your other false flags.”
Most not even attempted to be addressed.
“You can say Perry isn’t a Conservative, but I’m not buying it anymore than I’m buying the Prosperity Gospel a lot of Preachers are selling these days.”
You can call him a conservative...it’s a free country. Romney calls himself a conservative - they all do. Perry’s problem is that he has A RECORD, and other than some near-token conservatism (guns and sonograms) he hasn’t shown a whole lot of enthusiasm for the cause.
Iraq War 2?? NOT!
Perry strategist Nelson Warfield emails to take issue with the original headline of this post, “Perry: Re-invade Iraq,” explaining: “Rick Perry wants to establish a strategic presence in Iraq like we have in hot spots around the world. That’s not an invasion, that’s common sense.”
Put this link in your FAVORITES. It shows All the upcoming debates plus those that were in 2011. By tomorrow the debate tonight they should have it on video.
I don't think Perrys' idea of sending the troops back to Iraq tomorrow is going to win him many votes.
I gotta say, that was hilarious. Steph couldn't contain himself, and he just blurted that out! Too funny.
Sheesh. We’re over $15Trillion in debt. That’s not common sense - that’s stupid!
I'm not usually cynical but I don't think we can fight the nation "gotcha" mentality. I've seen it over and over again, Rick Santorum says he doesn't practice contraception and the word goes out he's trying to make it Federal law. Perry wants a presence in Iraq and it's being hyped as a second invasion. Great stuff, hun.
Hate to change the subject from the debate, but on your post a quick word.
the saudi’s regularly play both sides of the fence to protect their own interest. They fund terrorists constantly.
The Pakistanis already said flat out that they would gladly go to war against us should the need arise. Their is an expectation that we are leaving Afghanistan within several months. Not by our design, but because we are being evicted.
Should we ‘interfere’ with Afghanistan again, the Pakistani government will come to the aid of Afghanistan to help protect the ‘sovereign nation of Afghanistan’
How is that for screwing up foreign policy on the part of Obama?
Oh and lets not forget that Iraq .. we were scheduled to leave by Bush before he left that is true. It is also true that there were going to be no extensions because we were evicted there as well. Notice how everything has turned ugly there so fast? it is because it was out of control before we left! Obama had no control for over 6 months there while we had troops in the country.
The man lost control of the middle east a year ago when Egypt was in play. He turned over the middle east to the Muslim brotherhood (IMO so that they could start the caliphate) He turned over Libya illegally and congress did nothing.
Obama did more to help everyone but Israel in Arab lands and destabilize that region than anyone could have in history. he did it all in under three years as well. Very impressive if you ask me.
And Ron Paul would just walk away and leave it as is, boiling and festering ready to blow .... ah well .. back to the debate .. sorry for the interruption.
Perry strategist Nelson Warfield emails to take issue with the original headline of this post, “Perry: Re-invade Iraq,” explaining: “Rick Perry wants to establish a strategic presence in Iraq like we have in hot spots around the world. That’s not an invasion, that’s common sense.”
Not sending “troops” as in war, a security presence which Obama never should have pulled back.
““Rick Perry wants to establish a strategic presence in Iraq like we have in hot spots around the world.”
Other than Gitmo, it’s hard to think of an unfriendly country where we have a “strategic presence”. We did have one in Lebanon, in the 80s, until they blew up our barracks and killed hundreds of our soldiers.
No, if we go in just to hang out in an unfriendly country, then we’re sitting ducks (again). Not smart...and I PROMISE you that Iraq will not be a friendly country - they haven’t been and they’re getting unfriendlier by the day.
Now if Perry is willing to go in there and simply do the job that Bush/Obama weren’t willing to do - which is beat them into submission, then it might make some sense.
But I realize that this “strategic presence” line is the best spin possible, given the nightmare statement - but it’s highly unlikely to help much.
Palin was just on the Fox Justice with Judge Jeanine show and ironically she agreed with Donna Brazile on ABC, although this show was taped before the debate aired. Palin said the Mainstram Media is going to lay off criticizing Mitt Romney because they believe the Democrats can beat him in the general election by portraying him as a Wall Street/silver spoon golden boy who is out-of-touch with the majority of the country.
I think she and all the other Tea Party people need to get off of the sidelines and ENDORSE a candidate. Based on Santorum’s wobbly performance in this debate and in recent interviews (many times forgetting everything beyond the first part of a multi-part question and having to ask the host to repeat it) I think they need to endorse Newt Gingrich for president but can add a side endorsement for Santorum or Perry as V.P.
Now if Perry is willing to go in there and simply do the job that Bush/Obama weren’t willing to do - which is beat them into submission, then it might make some sense.
That is something we can agree on.
Aren’t transcripts of the debates usually published somewhere after a while?
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/limbaugh-palin-fox-president/2011/05/27/id/397925
Well nice spin, good luck with that, but I think we are looking at another “oops”.
“That is something we can agree on.”
Cheers!!!
“You’re another Perry fearer/basher.
I’ve spent a lifetime in Texas and I KNOW Perry is conservative.
And Rush knows it also.”
I wouldn’t waste my time with him. He’s a Cainiac and probably drooling at the prospect of Cain’s new dog and pony show getting ready to hit the road. Can we hear a 9? Can you say 9 again? One more 9? Can we change that middle 9 to a 6? Cain wasted no time going after Governor Perry and most Cainiacs lined up and did the hokey pokey right after him. They’re probably out walking all the ranches in Texas searching for another rock. I nearly threw up when I listened to Cain being coddled by his fellow talk show host, Sean Hannity, the other day. Of course Governor Perry is a Conservative. He’s been endorsed by Governor Jindal and Sheriff Arpaio. Steve Forbes endorsed him. Twenty-one members of South Carolina’s Republican legislators have endorsed him. If he can hang in long enough, every true Conservative in office will endorse him. He is the anti-Rove and that’s the problem. He hasn’t sold his soul to the club. Cainiacs love to provoke. The campaign Governor Perry must run has to be stealth and personal. He’s a great man. IMHO. :)
Current Drudge headline:
“Stephanopo-mess”
The loser of this debate was Steffie, what a bunch of moronic questions and he would.not.let.contraception.go, that big issue of our times.
Diane gets 2nd loser, she appears inebriated and fixated on gay marriage in a peculiar and pedantic way. She wanted to leave the question of the Constitution and, what, turn to things closer to home? Like homosexual adoption? Seriously?
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.