kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 21, 2011 12:21:15 GMT -5
Say what you want about Perry, but his team can produce a pretty good ad: I'm pretty pumped about whatever movie that's a preview for, just as I was pumped for Transformers. Doesn't mean I want robot cars fighting in our cities. But you do want 9.5% unemployment? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 21, 2011 12:55:23 GMT -5
I'm pretty pumped about whatever movie that's a preview for, just as I was pumped for Transformers. Doesn't mean I want robot cars fighting in our cities. But you do want 9.5% unemployment? Of course not, but I do want Megan Fox, so...boo Rick Perry! Anyway, my point was that it's a good add. If I liked the candidate's positions, it would certainly get me excited. But all the high production values in the world won't make a Perry presidency any more appealing to me. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 21, 2011 15:25:23 GMT -5
The ad mirrors Perry's campaign strategy: slick, but no substance.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 21, 2011 17:18:20 GMT -5
The ad mirrors Perry's campaign strategy: slick, but no substance. True, there's no substance behind all of those negative numbers for Obama.  |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 21, 2011 18:14:03 GMT -5
Hope and change was the ultimate no substance campaign.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 21, 2011 19:14:41 GMT -5
Hope and change was the ultimate no substance campaign. That is an absolute load of bull. Obama had very clear positions. You might not have liked them, but the Affordable Care Act turned out much like what he campaigned for in the general election. You might not have liked them, but his stated policies on taxes, Social Security, DADT - they were clear positions. The same was true with McCain. Now tell me what Perry's position is on Social Security. You can't because he doesn't have one other than "it's a ponzi scheme". Go to his website. There's nothing there. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 21, 2011 23:08:32 GMT -5
What are the odds that any of the "small government" candidates take the position that the government should get out of the business of killing people?
"They can't make me buy health insurance, but they can end my life if 12 random citizens give them the go-ahead!"
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 22, 2011 7:24:02 GMT -5
What are the odds that any of the "small government" candidates take the position that the government should get out of the business of killing people? "They can't make me buy health insurance, but they can end my life if 12 random citizens give them the go-ahead!" That's a terrifically bad analogy. But a real nice try. On one hand you have a convicted killer who has presumably been afforded a trial and innumerable appeals, reviews, etc. After all that, the government exercises its law enforcement authority to punish the felon. On the other hand, you have a perfectly law-abiding citizen being compelled to make a purchase of a commodity he or she does not want by legislative fiat to serve someone's social engineering goals. Other than that, you are spot on. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2011 8:21:48 GMT -5
What are the odds that any of the "small government" candidates take the position that the government should get out of the business of killing people? "They can't make me buy health insurance, but they can end my life if 12 random citizens give them the go-ahead!" So, a jury can convict a person of murder and sentence him to life = small government. But a jury that can convict a person of murder and sentence him to life = big government. You do realize that those who believe the government should be smaller do not want no government at all? You also realize that this was not the federal government acting in this case, but a judge an jury from the community? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 22, 2011 8:25:03 GMT -5
What are the odds that any of the "small government" candidates take the position that the government should get out of the business of killing people? "They can't make me buy health insurance, but they can end my life if 12 random citizens give them the go-ahead!" That's a terrifically bad analogy. But a real nice try. On one hand you have a convicted killer who has presumably been afforded a trial and innumerable appeals, reviews, etc. After all that, the government exercises its law enforcement authority to punish the felon. On the other hand, you have a perfectly law-abiding citizen being compelled to make a purchase of a commodity he or she does not want by legislative fiat to serve someone's social engineering goals. Other than that, you are spot on. It probably makes for a bad analogy because it wasn't an analogy at all. It's just a statement of what some people believe the government is empowered to do versus what it is not empowered to do. Also, the whole notion of "review" (at least at the federal level) is a farce. The procedural hurdles are virtually insurmountable. So yes, we let people file paperwork for a decade and let their lawyers bang out briefs until their fingers hurt. But it's not like the judge at every level is able to decide on the justness of the conviction or sentence. More often, his rulings are based on whether evidence was presented in a timely fashion and whether the state supreme court botched things so badly that it didn't just incorrectly apply the law, but unreasonably applied the law. Anyone who thinks the appeals process is a buttress against executing an innocent man is kidding himself. You do realize that those who believe the government should be smaller do not want no government at all? You also realize that this was not the federal government acting in this case, but a judge an jury from the community? And yes, I do realize that in this day of federalized everything, the one thing we still leave to local yahoos and their elected judges is the process that determines whether a man lives or dies. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 22, 2011 8:29:32 GMT -5
That's a terrifically bad analogy. But a real nice try. On one hand you have a convicted killer who has presumably been afforded a trial and innumerable appeals, reviews, etc. After all that, the government exercises its law enforcement authority to punish the felon. On the other hand, you have a perfectly law-abiding citizen being compelled to make a purchase of a commodity he or she does not want by legislative fiat to serve someone's social engineering goals. Other than that, you are spot on. It probably makes for a bad analogy because it wasn't an analogy at all. It's just a statement of what some people believe the government is empowered to do versus what it is not empowered to do. Also, the whole notion of "review" (at least at the federal level) is a farce. The procedural hurdles are virtually insurmountable. So yes, we let people file paperwork for a decade and let their lawyers bang out briefs until their fingers hurt. But it's not like the judge at every level is able to decide on the justness of the conviction or sentence. More often, his rulings are based on whether evidence was presented in a timely fashion and whether the state supreme court botched things so badly that it didn't just incorrectly apply the law, but unreasonably applied the law. Anyone who thinks the appeals process is a buttress against executing an innocent man is kidding himself. You do realize that those who believe the government should be smaller do not want no government at all? You also realize that this was not the federal government acting in this case, but a judge an jury from the community? And yes, I do realize that in this day of federalized everything, the one thing we still leave to local yahoos and their elected judges is the process that determines whether a man lives or dies. Jeez, I didn't realize that Paul Begala posted on this board. You'd rather have some person thousands of miles away determine your fate, instead of a jury of your peers? |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 22, 2011 8:32:50 GMT -5
Give the boy his due. He not only approves of a government hijack of health care but wants to scrap the jury system as well. Good old all American thinking there...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 22, 2011 18:38:59 GMT -5
Hope and change was the ultimate no substance campaign. That is an absolute load of bull. Obama had very clear positions. You might not have liked them, but the Affordable Care Act turned out much like what he campaigned for in the general election. You might not have liked them, but his stated policies on taxes, Social Security, DADT - they were clear positions. The same was true with McCain. Now tell me what Perry's position is on Social Security. You can't because he doesn't have one other than "it's a ponzi scheme". Go to his website. There's nothing there. Agree Perry has not shown his position on Social Security. Neither has Obama unless it's don't do anything. The only person that has advanced a real plan for Social Security is Paul Ryan. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 22, 2011 18:42:42 GMT -5
That is an absolute load of bull. Obama had very clear positions. You might not have liked them, but the Affordable Care Act turned out much like what he campaigned for in the general election. You might not have liked them, but his stated policies on taxes, Social Security, DADT - they were clear positions. The same was true with McCain. Now tell me what Perry's position is on Social Security. You can't because he doesn't have one other than "it's a ponzi scheme". Go to his website. There's nothing there. Agree Perry has not shown his position on Social Security. Neither has Obama unless it's don't do anything. The only person that has advanced a real plan for Social Security is Paul Ryan. He's also the only one with a real plan for Medicare. Why is it that the best candidates won't run? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 22, 2011 19:51:03 GMT -5
On the death penalty question, I am always stunned by folks who hold themselves out as pro-life but have never (or rarely) chosen life when the issue crosses their desk on the death penalty. Rick Perry, although good in some respects, is no different. He has commuted 31 death sentences, 28 of which were to follow a Supreme Court ban on executing juveniles.
Of the 220+ executed in Perry's Texas is at least one whose innocence is all but established at this point - Cameron Todd Willingham. Perry's interference with the subsequent review of the case (post-execution) says a lot.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 23, 2011 11:33:51 GMT -5
Of the 220+ executed in Perry's Texas is at least one whose innocence is all but established at this point - Cameron Todd Willingham. Perry's interference with the subsequent review of the case (post-execution) says a lot. "All but established" is some kind of fancy lawyer talk that means the same thing as "not established" right? No wonder law school takes three years. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 23, 2011 11:48:28 GMT -5
I don't know what you're talking about, rosslyn.
The Soviet Union all but won that hockey game against the U.S. back in Lake Placid.
Anyone could see that and that's all that anyone remembers.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 23, 2011 12:08:27 GMT -5
So, that was a pretty crappy debate for Perry, huh? Here's hoping he can hold on and eventually be the nominee.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 23, 2011 12:19:55 GMT -5
So, that was a pretty crappy debate for Perry, huh? Here's hoping he can hold on and eventually be the nominee. See, bando. We don't disagree about everything. He's really not very good at it. Romney has gotten a lot better at it over 4 years. Except I'm pretty sure Perry won't end up being the nominee. EDIT: Sorry, to be fair, I should note that I didn't really see all the debate, just a few spots. But when most conservatives this morning are talking about how Perry can't debate, that's not a good sign. On a depressing note for me....I hear Newt Gingrich killed it. ....sigh...... |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 23, 2011 13:34:29 GMT -5
I continue to be borderline appalled by the crowds at these debates. Booing the openly gay soldier asking a question from the Middle East was the latest in a line of embarrassing incidents. This. And not one candidate had the balls to comment on that sad audience action or the previous audience incidents. |
|
