• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perry and Paul: Texas-Sized Feud?

They just have conflicting personalities. What's wrong with a little disagreement?

...

Even though Paul is right. ;) Most of the time.
 
So, the mighty Rick Perry, champion of conservative causes, Reagan wannabe, and right wing straight shooter used to be a Democrat who supported Al Gore?

Holy crap!

Here's another link
 
ric27 said:
Yeah, Perry's temper is his weakness. He's aggressive...take no prisoners kinda guy

He must control his temper and modify his demeanor for debate situations and grand venues
Click to expand...

This is the first I've heard of Perry having a bad temper. Where's your evidence? Is this what Texans say about him?
 
sangha said:
It's better to hire morons with a history of failing, like Perry, Palin, bush*, McCain, etc
Click to expand...

As opposed to a moron with no history of leadership who fails?
 
sangha said:
It's better to hire morons with a history of failing, like Perry, Palin, bush*, McCain, etc
Click to expand...
Better for you to stay quiet on this, I'm serious. You're looking foolish.
 
nota bene said:
This is the first I've heard of Perry having a bad temper. Where's your evidence? Is this what Texans say about him?
Click to expand...

Well, I am a Texan. And, I can tell you: You don't want him in charge. He's COMPLETELY different as a leader than a campaigner.

He doesn't care about a lot of things, even though he says he does. :/ But, he is very "limited government", which is ok by me.
 
ConnorLidell said:
Well, I am a Texan. And, I can tell you: You don't want him in charge. He's COMPLETELY different as a leader than a campaigner.

He doesn't care about a lot of things, even though he says he does. :/ But, he is very "limited government", which is ok by me.
Click to expand...

He sure has created a ton of government jobs for a guy who claims to be limited government.
 
lolz. Not in the same context. It's kind of a contradiction.

He is limited government in the way that he wants the government out of people's hair. Doesn't mean the government actually gets smaller under his rule.

But, I don't really approve of either method.

Hell... I don't approve of any method going on right now.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Wait a second, being pro-constitution does not mean what you said:
- pro-choice : ya, this one should be decided by states based on their own values according to the wishes of the constituents
- pro-prostitution: frankly, in the sense of it being a private transaction, there's no real reason that the transaction be illegal... As distasteful as it is to pay for sex. That said the elements concerning the abuses the prostitutes must endure has alot to do with the fact that prostitution is illegal.
- pro-tax : there is a constitutional taxing scheme that should be followed, so the position is anti-IRS.
- pro-government borrowing: sorry, I'll need a citation of what this refers to specifically.
- pro-central banking: no, that's the opposite, the central bank removed a constitutional power of congress.
- pro-slavery : no, nobody is "pro-slavery" (that I know of at least)


You are so clear about your intentions to tie anything distasteful as being constitutional, when this is simply not demonstrable...
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but you have mistated the argument. It was not about being "pro-constitutional". Here is what I was responding to

ARealConservative said:
I wish to restore traditional constitutional limits on powers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ConnorLidell said:
lolz. Not in the same context. It's kind of a contradiction.

He is limited government in the way that he wants the government out of people's hair. Doesn't mean the government actually gets smaller under his rule.

But, I don't really approve of either method.

Hell... I don't approve of any method going on right now.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, Perry is only about limited government when it comes to business.

He is all about government involvement in personal lives when it is something against his own beliefs. Keep in mind, Perry was governor during the Lawrence v TX case. He fought for the state's sodomy laws to be upheld and called the ruling wrong. In fact, he refuses to even attempt to take that law off the books in TX. His state is the only state to have implemented a law against cousins marrying in the last 20 years. He signed the executive order to have teenage girls immunized against an STD. He wants to try to push for a 1 man/1 woman marriage Amendment and an anti-abortion Amendment if he becomes President.
 
We're talking about the National Government, though. Not the State government. I'm ALL for the State Government getting involved in my personal life. That's what it's for. We vote on legislation for our little corner of the world. It's Constitutional for ANYTHING we want to pass in the States to pass. It's Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to get involved in my personal life.

That's how I see it.
 
ConnorLidell said:
We're talking about the National Government, though. Not the State government. I'm ALL for the State Government getting involved in my personal life. That's what it's for. We vote on legislation for our little corner of the world. It's Constitutional for ANYTHING we want to pass in the States to pass. It's Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to get involved in my personal life.

That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

First of all, it is not Constitutional for anything to pass in the states. That is in fact against many parts of the Constitution. The Constitution does limit state government as it does the federal government. It is no more Constitutional for a state government to deny freedom of speech, religion, press, allow cruel and unusual punishment, etc. than it is for the federal government to do so. Along these lines, it is also not Constitutional for the states to discriminate against people based solely on race, sex, religion, etc.

Second, Perry wants to involve the federal government in the personal lives of people through Amendments. Even if he can't get those Amendments through, you can bet that Perry would fight against any actual straight out appeal of DOMA by Congress. DOMA itself is unconstitutional, since it violates the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it violates the 14th.
 
Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
It's better to hire morons with a history of failing, like Perry, Palin, bush*, McCain, etc
Click to expand...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059792624 said:
As opposed to a moron with no history of leadership who fails?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a Hobsen's choice to me. We'd better make sure Romney gets nominated, so there will be a real choice.
 
There was a guy named Wes Clark a republican who jumped into the Dem race and had many similar positions as Howard Dean, in order to shift the focus away. Although their positions differ, Perry is there
for the same reason.
 
Perry? Romney? If either one of them liberal republicans get the nod, it wouldn't bother me at all to leave Obama sitting in the white house screwing us for another 4 years.

I say that, because it's my belief that the senate is going to change hands in 2012 due to the simple fact that there are twice as many Democratic seats up for grabs as there are Republican seats. That means that basically Obama is powerless for his last 4 years.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Perry can take his 1.9 GPA and shove it up his ass.
Click to expand...

Biden would have loved a GPA that high

so would have Nasty Pelosi-a bottom finisher at a bottom ranked finishing school for little Mafia princesses
 
A persons scholastic intelligence, means little to nothing when it comes to the real world, Some of the wisest people I've know over my years, had no college education. A lot can be said for street smarts, and experience.

I'll take someone that say what means, stands up for what is right, and will fight against wrong no matter who is doing. Honesty, integrity, responsibility, and morality are just as important as intelligence. Sadly in todays society those things don't seem to mean much anymore. Instead we are more concerned that someone can lie articulately.
 
The Barbarian said:
I'll take someone that say what means, stands up for what is right, and will fight against wrong no matter who is doing. Honesty, integrity, responsibility, and morality are just as important as intelligence.
Click to expand...

That's more like Ron Paul. Sadly because he does stick to his guns and principles and doesn't lie about what he wants to do; the press will never give him an honest go.
 
TurtleDude said:
Biden would have loved a GPA that high

so would have Nasty Pelosi-a bottom finisher at a bottom ranked finishing school for little Mafia princesses
Click to expand...

Watch your rascist fool mouth. Not every Italian is in the mafia, and you should feel like a disgusting, hateful tool for insinuating it. Not since the know-nothings has such political hate been so fashionable, and I refuse to accept it. Kiss the vowel at the end of my name, hater.
 
nijato said:
Watch your rascist fool mouth. Not every Italian is in the mafia, and you should feel like a disgusting, hateful tool for insinuating it. Not since the know-nothings has such political hate been so fashionable, and I refuse to accept it. Kiss the vowel at the end of my name, hater.
Click to expand...

I got a vowel at the end of mine too
 
Moderator's Warning:
Chill out and cease with the baiting and personal attacks. Stick to the topic or you will be removed from the conversation and/or issued infraction points.
 
It's funny how Ron Paul is kept as far away from mainstream as possible by the very people, that are in most cases, simply restating his fiscal values. Maybe he is not loud enough or confrontational enough. I am all for SS and maybe a very few well run programs, but I know who I will be voting for. I will not vote for pseudo-conservatives that tries to dictate religious doctrine, moral and social values; This is what I see in Perry, Bachmann, Palin....
Paul is the real deal. Let the states deal with what they are capable of dealing with. As worried as I am about our failing economy, I am more concerned about civil liberties. If free market economics work like some hope it does, it should level out the worldwide field enough to allow our recovery eventually (throwing money at buisiness hasn't worked and tax cuts will only alleviate part of the problem). With the continued erosion of our civil rights and the constitution (Patriot Act, etc), let's all think about which of the candidates has given even 5 minutes to something other than tax cuts and hatred towards science. To me, a candidate's history and previous performance seems more indicative of future performance than just following the trend. I just can't help but notice the efforts to keep Paul down.
 
The Barbarian said:
I'll take someone that say what means, stands up for what is right, and will fight against wrong no matter who is doing. Honesty, integrity, responsibility, and morality are just as important as intelligence. Sadly in todays society those things don't seem to mean much anymore. Instead we are more concerned that someone can lie articulately.
Click to expand...

Yet in your previous post you call Paul a liberal. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom