• 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 Points to ‘Idiotic’ U.S. Rule That Doesn’t Exist

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,843
Reaction score
14,464
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh, how selective. There was a proposed regulation in the works, which was apparently killed about 4-5 days ago:

UPDATE ON: DOT To Mandate All Farm Vehicles Require CDL Licenses, Could Bring Demise To Farmers… | Project World Awareness

DOT: Farmers Won’t Need Commercial Driver’s License - Madison News Story - WISC Madison

Now, would it not be reasonable to think maybe he hadn't been updated on the status of that proposed regulation, given that (at the time) it had only been dead for a couple of days?
 
Oh, how selective. There was a proposed regulation in the works, which was apparently killed about 4-5 days ago:

UPDATE ON: DOT To Mandate All Farm Vehicles Require CDL Licenses, Could Bring Demise To Farmers… | Project World Awareness

DOT: Farmers Won’t Need Commercial Driver’s License - Madison News Story - WISC Madison

Now, would it not be reasonable to think maybe he hadn't been updated on the status of that proposed regulation, given that (at the time) it had only been dead for a couple of days?

As always you should read your sources instead of letting others tell you what they say.

It is worth repeating that neither the May 31 notice nor today’s notice propose or proposed any rule change or new safety requirements. Instead, the Agency sought feedback from farm organizations, farmers, and the public on the agency’s long-standing interpretations of existing rules, so it could then determine whether any adjustments were needed to improve understanding of the current safety regulations.

It's not until you get into the interpretation of the blog writer that it claims a new regulation, despite what the document actually says.
 
As always you should read your sources instead of letting others tell you what they say.



It's not until you get into the interpretation of the blog writer that it claims a new regulation, despite what the document actually says.

I read it. And I read the second link. They were seeking feedback because they were considering the regulation. After the received feedback they decided against regulation. It was up for consideration, and Perry's phrasing made it clear that the regulation didn't currently exist through his choice of verbs.

The OP was spin.
 
The OP was spin.

Hardly. If you are planning on running for President, you best do your homework. Hardly an unreasonable position. Unless you're a right wing apologist of course.
 
Hardly. If you are planning on running for President, you best do your homework. Hardly an unreasonable position. Unless you're a right wing apologist of course.

Every politican confuses issues or mispeaks. Every single one.

This is a stupid issue to use to discredit him or any politician. There's more ammo in the "prerry likes religious nuts" thread. This is weaksauce.
 
Hardly. If you are planning on running for President, you best do your homework. Hardly an unreasonable position. Unless you're a right wing apologist of course.

So did you crucify Obama when he was campaigning and threw out the 57 states comment?
 
Hardly. If you are planning on running for President, you best do your homework. Hardly an unreasonable position. Unless you're a right wing apologist of course.

By this reasoning lets see all the phantom promises Obama didn't do his homework on, unless you're a left wing apologist of course ...
 
I read it. And I read the second link. They were seeking feedback because they were considering the regulation. After the received feedback they decided against regulation. It was up for consideration, and Perry's phrasing made it clear that the regulation didn't currently exist through his choice of verbs.

The OP was spin.

You apparently have not paid attention. Illinois(this is a state, not the federal government) was who was considering the change. The article is actually factually correct.

Another source: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/aug/16/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-government-wants-require-commercia/

Far as we can tell, the regulation questioned by Perry hasn't even been proposed at the federal level. We rate his statement False.

Spin does not seem to mean what you think it does...
 
So did you crucify Obama when he was campaigning and threw out the 57 states comment?

Slight difference between misspeaking, and getting substantive facts wrong. It looks like Perry has admitted the mistake and it's a done deal now, but to attack those pointing out his mistake(this is why Perry has had to admit his mistake, and fact checking is a good thing), or dismissing it because another politician made a mistake too is silly.
 
Slight difference between misspeaking, and getting substantive facts wrong. It looks like Perry has admitted the mistake and it's a done deal now, but to attack those pointing out his mistake(this is why Perry has had to admit his mistake, and fact checking is a good thing), or dismissing it because another politician made a mistake too is silly.

Nobody attacked the OP. The post was extreme and distorted. Perry never claimed the regulation existed. And, again, his choice of verbs clearly indicate a future potential issue. Also, it was a fed thing. (Link: Federal government may force farmers to get CDL to operate on the road | Farm and Dairy - The Auction Guide and Rural Marketplace).

My point stands. This was a simple mistake of timing based on an idea that was still ver much being mulled over up until a few days prior to Perry's speech. It was an opportunity to incite the people against a political enemy and every politician would have used the opportunity to sway voters to their side. I know of no modern politician who hasn't referenced proposed or potential legislation or regulation as a means of drawing appeal to an alternative. "Don't vote for them, they talked about raising your taxes." "Don't vote for them, they mentioned ending social security."

The OP was an attempt to make Perry look either dumb, dishonest, or both. It failed because the article didn't provide a factual representation of the gaff. Of course, for those who will just follow blindly and jump on the "OMG, what an idiot" band wagon, I'm sure it was quite successful.
 
Last edited:
Nobody attacked the OP. The post was extreme and distorted. Perry never claimed the regulation existed. And, again, his choice of verbs clearly indicate a future potential issue.

This is what Perry said:

Let me give you just a — this is such an obscene, crazy regulation. They want to make — if you are a tractor driver, if you drive your tractor across a public road, you are going to have to have a commercial driver's license. Now, how idiotic is that?

That statement is false.

Also, it was a fed thing. (Link: Federal government may force farmers to get CDL to operate on the road | Farm and Dairy - The Auction Guide and Rural Marketplace).

My point stands. This was a simple mistake of timing based on an idea that was still ver much being mulled over up until a few days prior to Perry's speech. It was an opportunity to incite the people against a political enemy and every politician would have used the opportunity to sway voters to their side. I know of no modern politician who hasn't referenced proposed or potential legislation or regulation as a means of drawing appeal to an alternative. "Don't vote for them, they talked about raising your taxes." "Don't vote for them, they mentioned ending social security."

The OP was an attempt to make Perry look either dumb, dishonest, or both. It failed because the article didn't provide a factual representation of the gaff. Of course, for those who will just follow blindly and jump on the "OMG, what an idiot" band wagon, I'm sure it was quite successful.

Again, you need to read your sources and the ones provided:

n the statement, Anne S. Ferro, administrator for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, said in many cases farmers and farm equipment don’t fall under federal truck safety regulations when they are transporting products short distances, either within the farm or to a local market.

However, the lines of distinction aren’t always clear. So in May, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sought public feedback on how existing commercial truck safety regulations impact the agricultural community.

Read that last paragraph. Read it again. No blush and say you are sorry. When even your own source contradicts what you are saying and backs up explicitly what the OP source you took issue with said, that means something. Perry did not make a mistake in timing, he made a mistake in facts. He claimed a regulation was being considered to require a CDL permit for farmers, and no such regulation exists or has been proposed. Hell, they even did the process of reviewing the current regulation properly, asking for feedback from those effected and took their feedback seriously.
 
Hardly. If you are planning on running for President, you best do your homework. Hardly an unreasonable position. Unless you're a right wing apologist of course.

Or just lie...

 
By this reasoning lets see all the phantom promises Obama didn't do his homework on, unless you're a left wing apologist of course ...

So you spin this as if somehow it was equivalent to a campaign promise to somehow discredit Obama? Really? And you suggest I'm the apologist?

Priceless.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059733633 said:
Or just lie...

Is this the part where you admit Perry didn't do his homework? I suppose not. Tawn.
 
I read it. And I read the second link. They were seeking feedback because they were considering the regulation. After the received feedback they decided against regulation. It was up for consideration, and Perry's phrasing made it clear that the regulation didn't currently exist through his choice of verbs.

The OP was spin.
That is the take I got, I read his quotes and I didn't get the impression that he was claiming the regulations exist, although I could see how his opponents would attempt to capitalize on this..
 
Every politican confuses issues or mispeaks. Every single one.

So let's see, Perry "Misspoke" or "confused" an issue did he? Really? Look the words up. You clearly "misunderstimate" their meaning.

White is black. Up is down. In is out. The apologies are coming out of the woodwork.
 
So let's see, Perry "Misspoke" or "confused" an issue did he? Really? Look the words up. You clearly "misunderstimate" their meaning.

White is black. Up is down. In is out. The apologies are coming out of the woodwork.
Perry didn't misspeak, what's the problem?
 
I didn't suggest he did. That would be Tessa.
Yes your right, but through your post I got the impression that you concur with Tessa No? If not I apologize for being a boob, actually I'll apologize in advance just in case.
 
Yes your right, but through your post I got the impression that you concur with Tessa No? If not I apologize for being a boob, actually I'll apologize in advance just in case.

No I do not agree with Tessa.(and when I start, please just shoot me) And if you read Tessa's last post, it's pretty clear that's the case.
 
No I do not agree with Tessa.(and when I start, please just shoot me) And if you read Tessa's last post, it's pretty clear that's the case.
LOL, OK I gotcha ya.
 
Slight difference between misspeaking, and getting substantive facts wrong. It looks like Perry has admitted the mistake and it's a done deal now, but to attack those pointing out his mistake(this is why Perry has had to admit his mistake, and fact checking is a good thing), or dismissing it because another politician made a mistake too is silly.

You mean, like when Obama said his uncle's unit liberated Auschwtiz? Those kinds of substantive facts?
 
Slight difference between misspeaking, and getting substantive facts wrong. It looks like Perry has admitted the mistake and it's a done deal now, but to attack those pointing out his mistake(this is why Perry has had to admit his mistake, and fact checking is a good thing), or dismissing it because another politician made a mistake too is silly.

If he has said he made a mistake, he shouldn't have, because he didn't, at least not in the Waterloo speech. I can't find a transcript, but here is the video. He lists in his speech four points about the type of government he wants to install, with the third point being sensible and predictable regulation.

Of the subject point, at 10:20, he says this:

"Now you tell me if this is true or not, but one of my fellows just told me, he said that they're talking about a new regulation that if you drive a tractor from across one public road, you're going to have to have a commercial driver's license. Get outta here! You're kidding me? I mean what are they thinking?"

FULL SPEECH: Rick Perry in Waterloo | The Right Scoop

If this is the speech the blogger is referring to, he misled his readers. And Perry made no mistake.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom