Seven Ways Rick Perry Hates the USA and Democracy

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**halonachos**

As far as the abortion and gay marriage things go, don't be too quick to judge any nomination for their respective party. During the whole nomination process the candidates are usually very tight with their side of the fence and after the nomination they quickly begin to get away from the fringe and towards the middle.

As far as a Texas politicians go, I haven't heard of their reputation but I am well aware of Illinois politicians having issues.

**Cheesecat**

lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.

What? Why!

**lord commissar klimino**

LordofHats wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.

I actually found 6 and 7 surprising. I was under the impression he was one of them let the states choose folks.

i don't keep up with politics much :/ all i base my opinion on is my morals,not the person. i just agree with those 2,not the person.for all i know hes a serial killer who hugs statues of kids made out of candy.

**LordofHats**

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, only one major civil war.

The Civil War didn't really have anything to do with the way senators were appointed. Even with directly-elected Senators the Civil War still would have happened, being an explosion of underlying cultural differences/conflicts between two regions/segments of the population of the US an all. Everything going "smoothly" might not be correct, but it's not much of a problem since the way senators entered office had little to do with why the big problem of 19th Century United States occurred.

**lord commissar klimino**

Cheesecat wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.

What? Why!

i just do. my morals.

**dogma**

Da Boss wrote:He's leading the field, according to the article I read. The next closest nominee has 18%.
It's early days yet. Anyway, surely the Dems want a scary extremist to be the nominee for the republicans, to scare the moderates over to them?

Its much messier than that.

But yeah, still early. My money is on Romney as he sits towards the center, while Bachsauce and Perry will try to out-conservative each other; no one else really has a chance.

As for Perry's arguments, I agree with 4, though not for the ridiculous reason he provides. The direct election of Senators does not empower the federal government, it removes power from the states and hands it to the people.

6 and 7 won't ever happen, but he has to claim that they might. Hell even Democrats throw out those little political olive branches.

**halonachos**

I would choose Cain out of all those listed, simply for the fact that he doesn't have 'senator', 'governor', 'mayor' or anything political attached to his name. The thing with politicians is that they ruin politics.

**dogma**

halonachos wrote:I would choose Cain out of all those listed, simply for the fact that he doesn't have 'senator', 'governor', 'mayor' or anything political attached to his name. The thing with politicians is that they ruin politics.

Don't hate the players, hate the game.

**halonachos**

dogma wrote:
halonachos wrote:I would choose Cain out of all those listed, simply for the fact that he doesn't have 'senator', 'governor', 'mayor' or anything political attached to his name. The thing with politicians is that they ruin politics.

Don't hate the players, hate the game.

Okay, I hate politics. Either way, we don't need a politician in charge we need someone who's going to do the best for the overall good. I say no federal taxes, but have a federal sales tax so that way if you buy something the fed gets something for it. Need a source of money from somewhere and it would get rid of tax credits then start putting a tariff on foreign goods, start giving incentives to keep business over here, and punish those who export it. We need someone to fix our economy, not the world's.

**dogma**

halonachos wrote: Either way, we don't need a politician in charge we need someone who's going to do the best for the overall good.

Who will be a politician by necessity of democratic process.

halonachos wrote:
I say no federal taxes, but have a federal sales tax so that way if you buy something the fed gets something for it. Need a source of money from somewhere and it would get rid of tax credits then start putting a tariff on foreign goods, start giving incentives to keep business over here, and punish those who export it. We need someone to fix our economy, not the world's.

Very populist, and European. You're basically describing Scandinavia and Belgium, not bad systems to emulate.

Melissia wrote:
Congress is currently the most powerful of the three branches. I hardly think we need to give MORE power to them, not like they're competent enough to do anything with it anyway.

Actually I would argue that the parties are the most powerful "branch", but in terms of formal authority, yeah, Congress and possibly the Court.

**Albatross**

lord commissar klimino wrote:I don't know enough about any of them to decide.

Fixed your post.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Congress is currently the most powerful of the three branches. I hardly think we need to give MORE power to them, not like they're competent enough to do anything with it anyway.

Actually I would argue that the parties are the most powerful "branch", but in terms of formal authority, yeah, Congress and possibly the Court.

Presumably you're ignoring the fact that the Federal agencies are part of the Executive.

Congress sets out the rules that agencies have to follow, but the agencies set the rules that are actually applied. And while the Judiciary can theoretically reverse agency decisions that are against the Congressional mandate, they typically defer to the agency's interpretation of the law. And they have their own courts (where you must exhaust your remedies before you can go to an Art. 3 court.

The executive (through Federal agencies) is far and away the most powerful branch.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Presumably you're ignoring the fact that the Federal agencies are part of the Executive.

Who controls the Executive, and therefore the agencies?

Parties.

**Chowderhead**

Dogma, I think I would rather die than see Mitler as the frontrunner.

**Karon**

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

This the best you got, Republicans?

lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.

**dogma**

Yeah, that was bad too. But it will play.

**lord commissar klimino**

Albatross wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:I don't know enough about any of them to decide.except 6 and 7.

ruined your post.

fixed.

**Coolyo294**

So what's your reasoning behind those rather inflammatory opinions, Klimino?

**purplefood**

lord commissar klimino wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.

What? Why!

i just do. my morals.

I would be under the impression that most people's morals would afford other human beings equal rights to themselves...
Still that's just me...

**Da Boss**

Anti-Gay marriage stances baffle me, but do you guys really think abortion is such a cut and dried issue?
That's suprising. I think it's incredibly murky and can certainly empathise with anyone who holds a pro-life point of view.

I was pro life until I realised that I didn't actually care about the unborn children of other people, and I had to accept that. I don't think LCK's stance that it is wrong and should be illegal is hard to understand at all. It's certainly not worth mocking.

Anti-gay marriage though, yeah, I don't get that one.

**lord commissar klimino**

abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.

as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.

**purplefood**

lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.

as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.

I mean that giving someone the right to have an abortion is important. If the baby can survive outside of it's mother then it's alive. Otherwise...
Also, if nature intended us to fly we would have wings. Frankly nothing we do day to day is particularly natural so that's a pretty dumb excuse...

**LordofHats**

I've never gotten gay marriage proponents myself. Marriage is a soul sucking abyss of suffering from which one never wakes. I fully support the denial of gay marriage so as to protect people from such an awful experience

**Da Boss**

LCK, you got no sympathy for people with cancer then? After all, if nature had intended them to survive, they wouldn't have had cancer!
(Hint: Your point of view has nothing to do with science. Homosexual behaviour happens in other species too.)

I can see no rational argument that the fetus is not a new, unique organism from conception. It's just a form of legal killing I have no problem with if it's happening to someone else. I'd be much more conflicted in the case of my own child. Which is why I am a fan of using both chemical and physical contraception.

**lord commissar klimino**

purplefood wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.

as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.

I mean that giving someone the right to have an abortion is important. If the baby can survive outside of it's mother then it's alive. Otherwise...
Also, if nature intended us to fly we would have wings. Frankly nothing we do day to day is particularly natural so that's a pretty dumb excuse...

see,thats were the argument arises. i think its when its developed its brain to a certain amount.
as for the gay marriage,hence why i said snotty scientific. ever since some scientists called individual thinking a disorder,i don't trust scientists.

**youbedead**

lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.

as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.

1) Points are much more convincing when they are written at least somewhat decently.

2) Your point doesn't make much sense anyways

**dogma**

Personally I think the issue is that manly men don't like being gazed at with longing by people that have the power to exercise said longing. In essence, they don't like being akin to women.

**Da Boss**

You should trust scientists in the same way you shouldn't trust people in general. But at least scientists are required to present evidence for what they say.

As to your other point, I don't see why you would pick brain development other than as an arbitrary line.

**lord commissar klimino**

youbedead wrote:
lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.

as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.

1) Points are much more convincing when they are written at least somewhat decently.

2) Your point doesn't make much sense anyways

1) sorry,im working on my grammar.im horrible at it and have looked at programs to help,but none have worked.

2) ok? just to let everyone know i dont hate people that do those things,i just dont find it decent things to do. in the end as long as the gay guy isnt hitting on me and leaves me alone,ill ignore it.

the abortion is a different story though.

**MrDwhitey**

Would it be so wrong for marriage, the religious thing, to grant zero rights for the couple, and be given or not given to whoever the church wants. However, for rights to be granted, people would need a civil ceremony which any combination of sexes could use?