PDA

View Full Version : Rick Perry: "I'm a prophet."



Soflasnapper
08-17-2011, 02:20 PM
Well, he said that, using the standards of quotation of some on the board, at least. If he wasn't saying HE was a prophet, what is the interpretation of this?

Here's what he said in context:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> During his first interview since hinting that he might be willing to run, Fox's Neil Cavuto asked Perry about his unpopularity in his home state. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[He won election with just 38% of the vote!-- my editorial comment]</span>

As Think Progress noted, he got a rather bizarre answer out of him -- Perry: Texans Don’t Like Me Because ‘A Prophet Is…Not Loved In Their Hometown’:

In his first national TV interview since presidential rumors surfaced, Perry answered Fox News’ Neil Cavuto question about why he’s so unpopular in his home state by suggesting he’s a “prophet”:

CAVUTO: You have kind of like the Chris Christie phenomenon: very popular outside your state, still popular but not nearly as popular within your state. There are even Tea Party groups within your state who like you but don’t love you. [...] What do you say?

PERRY: I say that a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown. That’s both Biblical and practical.

</div></div>

Video of this interview at this link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rick-perry-his-unpopularity-texas-prophet)

Was he really only saying that normally, a POLITICIAN who proposes or supports and helps get enacted EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION is typically underappreciated and unloved for that good work? If he meant THAT, of course, it is false.

So it sounds like he IS calling himself a prophet. Hmmmm.

LWW
08-17-2011, 02:31 PM
This bothers you ... but PMSNBC pawning off a blatantly sliced quote and intentionally misrepresenting it's context doesn't?

eg8r
08-17-2011, 03:36 PM
What difference will it make on your ballot?

Copied from your favorite source...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wiki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Traditionally, prophets are regarded as having a role in society that promotes change due to their messages and actions.

In the late 20th century the appellation of "prophet" has been used to refer to individuals particularly successful at analysis in the field of economics, such as in the derogatory "prophet of greed". Alternatively, social commentators who suggest escalating crisis are often called "prophets of doom."
</div></div>Sure the beginning of the page refers to religion however the more mainstream definition seems to deviate. I guess you will need to contact Mr Perry and ask him what he was referring to, a prophet receiving/passing along messages from God OR someone in society that promotes change through their message or action. If he meant the latter then I would guess he hit the nail on the head. I would say by the same definitions here we could refer to Obama as our "Prophet of Doom".

eg8r

LWW
08-17-2011, 03:45 PM
Here's the bottom line on what he's doing ... he's following his marching orders.

When Palin led in the polls, the left decided Palin had to be destroyed.

When Bachmann led in the polls, the left decided Bachmann had to be destroyed.

When Romney led in the polls, the left decided Romney had to be destroyed.

Now that Perry leads in the polls, they feel Perry must be destroyed.

FWIW ... I don't really like any of the above 4, but I can spot Alinsky tactics from a mile away.

eg8r
08-18-2011, 07:22 AM
No doubt, this does replicate the atittude of the right when hitlary and Obama were running and the right went after every little thing they said.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What difference will it make on your ballot?

Copied from your favorite source...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wiki</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Traditionally, prophets are regarded as having a role in society that promotes change due to their messages and actions.

In the late 20th century the appellation of "prophet" has been used to refer to individuals particularly successful at analysis in the field of economics, such as in the derogatory "prophet of greed". Alternatively, social commentators who suggest escalating crisis are often called "prophets of doom."
</div></div>Sure the beginning of the page refers to religion however the more mainstream definition seems to deviate. I guess you will need to contact Mr Perry and ask him what he was referring to, a prophet receiving/passing along messages from God OR someone in society that promotes change through their message or action. If he meant the latter then I would guess he hit the nail on the head. I would say by the same definitions here we could refer to Obama as our "Prophet of Doom".

eg8r </div></div>

Difference on my ballot? Not voting any Republican line, so no difference to me.

I'm unaware that Perry has used his powers of (presumably economic) prognostication in any controversial way, so if that is the claim, I have yet to see any evidence for it.

If he means certain claims about the good effects of his policy prescriptions that were controversial and heavily opposed, he's had 10 years for them to come true by now, so if they have come true (as his boasting of the Texas miracle implies), why would the people of Texas stubbornly refuse to see it and refuse to acknowledge that his superior prescient take on what should be done to make things great has proven accurate?

Is he Cassandra, always doomed to be disbelieved, even as he is proven right over and over again, but no one can see it because of a spell from the god of prophecy, Apollo?

Well, it is to laugh. Maybe this is a reason why he won re-election in '06 with only 39% of the vote (I earlier said 38% in error, which I now correct, and regret my previous horrible understatement). That his excellent policies had not yet borne fruits, yet, as of the end of his first term. But another term and another re-election later, that cannot be the case, really.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the bottom line on what he's doing ... he's following his marching orders.

When Palin led in the polls, the left decided Palin had to be destroyed.

When Bachmann led in the polls, the left decided Bachmann had to be destroyed.

When Romney led in the polls, the left decided Romney had to be destroyed.

Now that Perry leads in the polls, they feel Perry must be destroyed.

FWIW ... I don't really like any of the above 4, but I can spot Alinsky tactics from a mile away. </div></div>

Marching orders? From whom? And how are they transmitted to me? Osmosis? Microwaving them into my tooth fillings? LOL! (And how did you know?!)

The sharp knives are out for all the people you mention FROM FOX NEWS and the Bush family that squats like a king toad over the Republican establishment. Their loyal retainer Karl Rove fairly famously had some trash talk for Palin (as did Barbara Bush), and Bachmann, and now, Perry. It is also CONSERVATIVES who trash Romney.

Bachmann in particular was targeted as a loon by the left well before she made any sounds about running for POTUS. No lead in any polls required. Her bizarre grasp of non-reality was simply too tempting not to mention, and it was mentioned, far before any presidential candidacy or leading in those polls.

I think the GOP establishment is extremely frightened they will end up with an extremist right wing candidate, and is fervently hoping Romney is the nominee, because they consider him more electable as a moderate conservative. Rove said as much the last couple of days, decrying that the field is leaning so far to the right that they will not be able to pivot to the middle, where the elections are said to be won.

Gayle in MD
08-18-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the bottom line on what he's doing ... he's following his marching orders.

When Palin led in the polls, the left decided Palin had to be destroyed.

When Bachmann led in the polls, the left decided Bachmann had to be destroyed.

When Romney led in the polls, the left decided Romney had to be destroyed.

Now that Perry leads in the polls, they feel Perry must be destroyed.

FWIW ... I don't really like any of the above 4, but I can spot Alinsky tactics from a mile away. </div></div>

Marching orders? From whom? And how are they transmitted to me? Osmosis? Microwaving them into my tooth fillings? LOL! (And how did you know?!)

The sharp knives are out for all the people you mention FROM FOX NEWS and the Bush family that squats like a king toad over the Republican establishment. Their loyal retainer Karl Rove fairly famously had some trash talk for Palin (as did Barbara Bush), and Bachmann, and now, Perry. It is also CONSERVATIVES who trash Romney.

Bachmann in particular was targeted as a loon by the left well before she made any sounds about running for POTUS. No lead in any polls required. Her bizarre grasp of non-reality was simply too tempting not to mention, and it was mentioned, far before any presidential candidacy or leading in those polls.

I think the GOP establishment is extremely frightened they will end up with an extremist right wing candidate, and is fervently hoping Romney is the nominee, because they consider him more electable as a moderate conservative. Rove said as much the last couple of days, decrying that the field is leaning so far to the right that they will not be able to pivot to the middle, where the elections are said to be won. </div></div>

I'd say that your assessment of the situation is very accurate.

Repiglicans have used the ignorance, racism, sexism and overall stupidity of their uninformed RW voters, who vote against their own best interests, over and over, for decades now, and the Repiglican Party has finally painted itself into a corner.

Most Americans are horrified at the thought of stupid people like Palin, and Bachmann, etc., running their country.

Most Americans are not in favor of Repiglican Policies which take from the Middle Class and the poor, to give more and more to the wealthy.

Most of us know the difference between a Free Market, and a corrupt market. Sadly, the right doesn't understand, still, what led to the crash, even after book after book, and documentary after documentary, but Rove knows enough to know that we aren't ALL Tea Party Nutjobs, and we aren't all radically religious.

Rick Perry has prfesented himself as a job producer, and a successful governor, when the facts are quite different from his presentation.

His so called Job Creatiton, has driven down wages in his state, and raised hunger among the children there.

His state is among the worst in pollution.

His dog whistle RW Buzz Words, amount to racism, and, IMO, this is quite obvious to any thinking American.

When he stated that the Federal Reserve Chairman, was committing treason, by using accpetable tactics to deal with a recession, that just about did it for him, IMO.

I do not find either Perry, or Romney suitable to run for the office of the presidency, and in fact, there isn't a single Repiglican candidate, who could represent the majority of Americans in their views, nor in their preferred policy direction, neither socially, nor economically.

I do not see a single Repiglican Candidate, that will pose a risk to President Obama's re-election.

Yes, the economy is bad, and we are still trying to recover from crooked financial dealings by the wealthy top around the world, so is the entire world trying to deal with a new global economy, and the challenges, threats and risks involved in dealing with it's nearly total collapse.

These facts are so far above the heads of the RW radical Religious Flyover Bubbas, it isn't funny, and Rove, knows that.

Hence, he has all along been the greatest critic of the zaney Repiglican favorites of the flyover Bubbas.

G.

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 09:32 AM
And when you look at the jobs miracle, it is a miracle of government jobs alone, with the private sector showing a net loss of jobs.

So it's a great example of how to do it, if that's what they're claiming: hire a lot of government workers and say your job totals are up.

Just as Texas is said to have 'created' half the jobs in the US? Yes, they also created approx. half the new government jobs in the US. Seriously.

These people could not be more incoherent.

eg8r
08-18-2011, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Difference on my ballot? Not voting any Republican line, so no difference to me. </div></div>Another person here that admits they will only vote for their chosen party.

Which means these types of threads aren't meant for discussion but rather just to attack.

eg8r

eg8r
08-18-2011, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when you look at the jobs miracle, it is a miracle of government jobs alone, with the private sector showing a net loss of jobs.
</div></div>When did you guys start talking about Obama?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as Texas is said to have 'created' half the jobs in the US? Yes, they also created approx. half the new government jobs in the US. Seriously.
</div></div>Your version and the version being touted by the Dems are in stark contrast. Every time Perry mentions his jobs record the Dems all tell us that the vast majority of jobs he has created are at minimum wage or lower. Now we hear from you that 50% of the jobs are government jobs. How is it possible to have a government employee at or below minimum wage?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-18-2011, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when you look at the jobs miracle, it is a miracle of government jobs alone, with the private sector showing a net loss of jobs.
</div></div>When did you guys start talking about Obama?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as Texas is said to have 'created' half the jobs in the US? Yes, they also created approx. half the new government jobs in the US. Seriously.
</div></div>Your version and the version being touted by the Dems are in stark contrast. Every time Perry mentions his jobs record the Dems all tell us that the vast majority of jobs he has created are at minimum wage or lower. Now we hear from you that 50% of the jobs are government jobs. How is it possible to have a government employee at or below minimum wage?

eg8r </div></div>

Actually, in Obama's case, it is the private sector where job growth has occurred, and the government sector that has been shrinking. So you've got that backwards.

As for your last point, good point! And Gov. Perry has pushed back on those charges strongly stating that 95% of the new jobs paid above minimum wage. I'll await his proof to be more certain, but this explanation of the large growth in government jobs makes that more plausible.

However, I think that rather, the claim about the minimum wage jobs in Texas is that he has a lot of them, not so much that the new ones were (mainly) minimum wage. And he DOES have a TON of them, even if the newer ones are not minimum wage (because nobody with a government job gets minimum wage, to speak of).

Gayle in MD
08-18-2011, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when you look at the jobs miracle, it is a miracle of government jobs alone, with the private sector showing a net loss of jobs.

So it's a great example of how to do it, if that's what they're claiming: hire a lot of government workers and say your job totals are up.

Just as Texas is said to have 'created' half the jobs in the US? Yes, they also created approx. half the new government jobs in the US. Seriously.

These people could not be more incoherent. </div></div>

Yep, and Rove is showing his own narrow minded grasping at straws, as well.

Romney's only claim to fame is the huge amount of wealth he accumulated by outsourcing American JOBS!

That's going to be a bit uncomfirtable for the Repiglican Mantra, "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," don't you think so?

Every single Repiglican Policy has been all about throwing more people into unemployment. Not one single Jobs Bill, after all of that "Jobs, Jobs, JObs" Bull***T!

And then there is that little problem with Romney's religion, and how some sects have been for generations, making sexual slaves out of women, practicing pedophilia, committing felonies, and polygamy, while most of the women and children are on Food Stamps!

No Morman will ever be president, IMO! You can't belong to a religious group that has sects which embrace polygamy, pediphelia, and sexual slavery, and which denies that Christ is the Savior, and expect to campaign without being held to account for it.

Warren Jeffs has seen to it that Americans are very well versed on the subject of Mormanism, and the repulsive perrameters of the Morman Religious organizations, and he has done absolutely NOTHING to end these radical obusive sects which are practicing in our country, under the name of the Morman religion, copulating us into obvlion, and then leaving all of their offspring for us to take care of, all of them, and their "Mothers" if you can call them that, all living off the State, while they are breaking our laws.

Those women should be in jail, for what thhey have allowed those Morman men, to do to their own children!

"Mr. Romney,
What have you done to prevent polygamy, sexism, pedophilia, and the lifelong sexual enslavement of women, and children, within the Morman Religion?

Why have you failed to work to end these atrocities against women, and children?"

G.

eg8r
08-18-2011, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, in Obama's case, it is the private sector where job growth has occurred, and the government sector that has been shrinking. So you've got that backwards.
</div></div>It was the public sector that grew in the beginning when he was talking about all the jobs he was creating. He forgot that all of them were temporary and would be coming off the books before her term ended. The lie is up.

Boortz put some statistics up on his website yesterday about federal regulatory jobs...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.</div></div>Not too shabby for all those jobs (definitely paying above minimum wage).

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-18-2011, 03:16 PM
<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Perry has two of the poorest poverty rates in suburban areas in the country. </span> </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While high poverty in some urban areas comes as no surprise, the growing poverty rates in a few suburban areas have been more unexpected. In an attempt to better understand this trend, 24/7 Wall St. analyzed the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest rates of poverty in their suburbs, as ranked by the Brookings Institute.

The trend toward suburban poverty has been under way for nearly a decade. And in some metropolitan areas, the poverty rates in the suburbs are higher than in the cities they surround.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Between 2000 and 2008, suburbs in the country's largest metro areas had their poor populations grow by 25% -- almost five times faster than the cities themselves...", the Brookings Institute recently reported. Additionally, "large suburbs saw the fastest growing low-income populations across community types and the greatest uptick in the share of the population living under 200% of poverty." That means they earn less than twice the poverty level, or less than $44,700 annually for a family of four, according to the 2011 guidelines.

With this in mind, 24/7 Wall St. looked at the 10 metropolitan areas with the largest rates of poverty in their suburbs, ranked by the Brookings Institute. We then compared the suburban poverty rate with that of the metropolitan areas' primary cities and analyzed the situations that created this poverty.</span>

The poverty threshold in 2008, the last year used in Brookings' study, was $21,384 for a family of four. That means consumer spending is probably moribund in the suburbs covered in this analysis. Most of these regions have also been hit by the housing blight. Falling home prices and houses with values below their mortgages mean that income improvement will be constrained.

In other words, many residents in these areas are trapped both economically and physically. The combination of those factors leaves these suburbs in a situation where a recovery is nearly impossible.



Gallery: IN PHOTOS: The Poorest Suburbs In America


This is the 24/7 Wall St.'s Poorest Suburbs In America:

10. Albuquerque, N.M.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 13.6%
&gt; City poverty rate: 15%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 43,449

Although Albuquerque has a number industries that have remained economically healthy throughout the past decade, it has high rates of both city and suburban poverty. Albuquerque has faced difficult times, in the last few years, compared to the rest of New Mexico. From 2009 to 2010, the metropolitan area's unemployment rate increased from 7.6% to 8.6%. The emergence of a number of green-technology manufacturers in the area has improved conditions somewhat. Meanwhile, the state's housing market remains one of the worst in the nation.

9. Augusta-Richmond County, Ga.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 14.0%
&gt; City poverty rate: 24.1%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 46,202

Augusta-Richmond County is the second largest metropolitan area in Georgia, behind Atlanta. The city and surrounding area lost many jobs during the recession. Some of these losses were the result of budget tightening in the public sector. Georgia Health Sciences University has laid off hundreds of employees. The city has also privatized a number of public services, such as its bus service and its municipal golf course, also resulting in a drop in public-sector jobs.

8. Jackson, Miss.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 14.0%
&gt; City poverty rate: 26.9%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 49,016

The Jackson metropolitan area is centered around the capital city of Mississippi. As of 2008, the area's suburbs had slightly fewer than 50,000 residents living below the poverty line. That's up from fewer than 40,000 impoverished people in 2000. Poverty is a major issue throughout Mississippi, and the poverty rate is even higher in the city than it is in the suburbs. According to local news source WLBT, one in every four to five Mississippi residents live in poverty.

7. Little Rock, Ark.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 14.2%
&gt; City poverty rate: 18.6%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 68,291

Although the unemployment rate for Little Rock is significantly lower than the national average -- 7.5% compared to 9.3% -- the city's suburbs have an above-average percentage of people living below the poverty line. The poverty rate in Little Rock's suburbs has increased 3.1 percentage points in the last decade. According to nonprofit organization Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the number of male workers settling for part-time instead of full-time work has doubled since 1995. Additionally, "the demand for public benefits such as unemployment, food and child care assistance has skyrocketed," the organization reports.

6. Modesto, Calif.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 14.6%
&gt; City poverty rate: 13.5%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 43,645

Modesto is the first metropolitan area on this list where the suburban poverty rate is higher than that of the city. This is largely due to the area being one of the worst hit by the housing bubble. Stanislaus County, which is included in the Modesto metropolitan area, continues to have one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country. In July 2011, one in every 140 housing units in the county received a foreclosure filing, according to RealtyTrac. For comparison, the California foreclosure rate was 1 in every 239, while the national rate was 1 in every 611.

5. Lakeland, Fla.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 15.8%
&gt; City poverty rate: 13.3%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 75,075

From 2000 to 2008, the poverty rate among the Lakeland metropolitan area's suburbs increased 3.2 percentage points. The city poverty rate decreased by 1.7 points. The number of impoverished people in the suburbs, which consist primarily of Polk County, grew from fewer than 50,000 people to more than 75,000. According to an April 2011 article in a local newspaper, The Ledger, community leaders claim that, "Polk is on the verge of an economic boom that will lift wages and create more jobs." As of June, however, unemployment in Polk County was at 11.7%.

4. Fresno, Calif.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 18.8%
&gt; City poverty rate: 25.5%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 79,359

Fresno's economy relies primarily on agriculture. Unfortunately, field workers receive very little pay. They perform a low-wage job, and seasonal positions are largely filled by immigrants. In addition to this, Fresno was another metropolitan area that was hit exceptionally hard by the housing crash. From 2007 to 2009, home prices dropped 44%, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller national home-price index.

3. Bakersfield, Calif.
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 24.2%
&gt; City poverty rate: 16.7%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 105,030

Poverty in the entire Bakersfield metropolitan area rose 23% from 2007 to 2009. The suburban portion of the metro has been affected far more. Bakersfield's two main industries, oil and agriculture, require a large amount of manpower. Much of this is supplied by immigrants, who often -- especially when it comes to agricultural jobs -- don't make enough money to lift them out of poverty. As of 2009, 29.1% of those living below the poverty line in Bakersfield were born outside the U.S. That's one of the highest rates in the country, according to Brookings.

2. El Paso, Texas
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 31.0%
&gt; City poverty rate: 24.3%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 41,059

El Paso is located on the U.S.-Mexico border across from Ciudad Juarez. Despite being home to branches of a number of large manufacturers, including Boeing, Hoover, Eureka and Delphi, El Paso has an extremely high overall poverty rate. The metropolitan area's poverty rate was at 23.7% in 2009, compared to Texas's overall rate of 17.1% in the same year. Things are especially bad outside of the city. The suburban poverty rate was 31% in 2008. El Paso's economic situation has improved somewhat with the recent expansion of military base Fort Bliss, which is now one of the largest in the country. However, unemployment remains at 10.9% -- almost 17% higher than the national average.

1. McAllen, Texas
&gt; Suburban poverty rate: 36.7%
&gt; City poverty rate: 28.3%
&gt; Number of suburban poor: 217,736

McAllen is another border town, located on the southern tip of Texas. In 2008, more than 85% of McAllen's poor lived in the suburbs. According to Brookings, 35.4% of McAllen's suburban poor are born outside of the U.S., as of 2009. The metropolitan area's economy has grown rapidly in the last few years, thanks largely to job growth in government, education and health care. Unemployment in McAllen remains an issue, however. In June 2011, unemployment increased to 13%, up from 11.9% the month before. The city also has the lowest median household income in the country.

</div></div>
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/nWFmbC

Gayle in MD
08-18-2011, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, he said that, using the standards of quotation of some on the board, at least. If he wasn't saying HE was a prophet, what is the interpretation of this?

Here's what he said in context:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> During his first interview since hinting that he might be willing to run, Fox's Neil Cavuto asked Perry about his unpopularity in his home state. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[He won election with just 38% of the vote!-- my editorial comment]</span>

As Think Progress noted, he got a rather bizarre answer out of him -- Perry: Texans Don’t Like Me Because ‘A Prophet Is…Not Loved In Their Hometown’:

In his first national TV interview since presidential rumors surfaced, Perry answered Fox News’ Neil Cavuto question about why he’s so unpopular in his home state by suggesting he’s a “prophet”:

CAVUTO: You have kind of like the Chris Christie phenomenon: very popular outside your state, still popular but not nearly as popular within your state. There are even Tea Party groups within your state who like you but don’t love you. [...] What do you say?

PERRY: I say that a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown. That’s both Biblical and practical.

</div></div>

Video of this interview at this link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rick-perry-his-unpopularity-texas-prophet)

Was he really only saying that normally, a POLITICIAN who proposes or supports and helps get enacted EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION is typically underappreciated and unloved for that good work? If he meant THAT, of course, it is false.

So it sounds like he IS calling himself a prophet. Hmmmm. </div></div>

Every day this guy looks more stupid!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gov. Rick Perry told a child questioner in New Hampshire today that Texas public schools teach creationism alongside evolution — a statement that state education experts are refuting in varying degrees.

“No, it is not true," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, an interest group that has lobbied the State Board of Education to keep religion out of public schools. "Texas science standards do not call for teaching creationism in the classroom."

David Bradley, a social conservative member of the State Board of Education, said he hadn't heard the governor's comments. But when asked if Texas schools teach creationism alongside evolution, Bradley responded: "Not specifically."

Still, Bradley said in Texas nothing prevents a teacher from discussing creationism, or a student from bringing it up in the classroom. "It is not specifically in the Texas curriculum," Bradley said. But "in Texas, the students are directed to investigate and evaluate all theories."

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the governor's office, also said creationism could be discussed in the classroom as students are taught about evolution.

The Tribune thanks our Supporting Sponsors

"It is required that students evaluate and analyze the theory of evolution, and creationism very likely comes up in that process," she said. "Teachers are also permitted to discuss it with students in that context. Schools are also allowed to teach biblical history as an elective and creationism is part of that teaching, too."

At a campaign stop in Portsmouth this afternoon, a child — goaded by his mother — first asked Perry how old he thought the Earth was. Perry said he didn't know, but that he expects it's "pretty old."

"Ask him about evolution," the boy's mother can be heard saying.

“It’s a theory that’s out there. It’s got some gaps in it," Perry responded. "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools. Because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. In the case Edwards v. Aguillard, the court ruled that teaching creationism in Louisiana public schools was the equivalent of teaching religion — and violated the Constitution because it advanced a particular religion.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, another contender for the GOP presidential nomination, took to Twitter almost instantly, seeming to mock Perry for the creationism comment, as well as for his recent statements on climate change: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Watch the video from abcnews.com below.

</div></div>

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people...about-evolutio/ (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people/rick-perry/video-perry-answers-childs-question-about-evolutio/)

LWW
08-19-2011, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the bottom line on what he's doing ... he's following his marching orders.

When Palin led in the polls, the left decided Palin had to be destroyed.

When Bachmann led in the polls, the left decided Bachmann had to be destroyed.

When Romney led in the polls, the left decided Romney had to be destroyed.

Now that Perry leads in the polls, they feel Perry must be destroyed.

FWIW ... I don't really like any of the above 4, but I can spot Alinsky tactics from a mile away. </div></div>

Marching orders? From whom? And how are they transmitted to me? Osmosis? Microwaving them into my tooth fillings? LOL! (And how did you know?)</div></div>

The marching orders come from the regime and are throughout the media and internet ... and I know because I am on all of the Obama/democrook/Plouffe-mail lists.

The buzz word talking points are issued, and the next day the media regurgitates them ... often verbatim ... across the media, the next day you/snoopy/charlotte/aitch are repeating them slavishly as if they were original thoughts.

Gayle in MD
08-19-2011, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And when you look at the jobs miracle, it is a miracle of government jobs alone, with the private sector showing a net loss of jobs.

So it's a great example of how to do it, if that's what they're claiming: hire a lot of government workers and say your job totals are up.

Just as Texas is said to have 'created' half the jobs in the US? Yes, they also created approx. half the new government jobs in the US. Seriously.

These people could not be more incoherent. </div></div>

This morning, on CNN, Bruce Bartlett, formerly of the Bush Administration's Economic Fed. Group, called Perry an idiot!

LOL...

In so many words, Bartlett acknowledged that since Repiglicans are blocking the spending we NEED to do to get out of this mess, the Fed is the only game in town.

He also stated that the Fed needs to be MORE aggressive, not LESS aggressive, and how totally absurd it is for Repiglicans to be out there yapping about weakening the dollar, while we're trying to recover from the Bush Recession!

Called Perry an IDIOT! YES!!! Love it!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The lies are really flowing on behalf of Romney!

The REpigs are behind Romney, suddenly, after they started out bashing him.

Anything for power, even if it means they are appointing another crook like Bush into the office!

Conservatives Without Conscience!

G.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, he said that, using the standards of quotation of some on the board, at least. If he wasn't saying HE was a prophet, what is the interpretation of this?

Here's what he said in context:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> During his first interview since hinting that he might be willing to run, Fox's Neil Cavuto asked Perry about his unpopularity in his home state. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>[He won election with just 38% of the vote!-- my editorial comment]</span>

As Think Progress noted, he got a rather bizarre answer out of him -- Perry: Texans Don’t Like Me Because ‘A Prophet Is…Not Loved In Their Hometown’:

In his first national TV interview since presidential rumors surfaced, Perry answered Fox News’ Neil Cavuto question about why he’s so unpopular in his home state by suggesting he’s a “prophet”:

CAVUTO: You have kind of like the Chris Christie phenomenon: very popular outside your state, still popular but not nearly as popular within your state. There are even Tea Party groups within your state who like you but don’t love you. [...] What do you say?

PERRY: I say that a prophet is generally not loved in their hometown. That’s both Biblical and practical.

</div></div>

Video of this interview at this link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rick-perry-his-unpopularity-texas-prophet)

Was he really only saying that normally, a POLITICIAN who proposes or supports and helps get enacted EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION is typically underappreciated and unloved for that good work? If he meant THAT, of course, it is false.

So it sounds like he IS calling himself a prophet. Hmmmm. </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late! </span>