Rick Perry for President!!

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:30 am

mvscal wrote:
poptart wrote:You probably ought not mock it, because historically, Americans have shown that they want a man of faith in the White House -
I wonder what feelsdicks was thinking about Rev. Wright back in 08...

Back then I'm sure religion was a personal matter that had no bearing on official conduct and let's not play "guilt by association" here, guys. OK?

There is a problem with the Rev. Wright, he is a bigot and a racist. The mainstream media, ie.. CNN, and Anderson Cooper wont talk about him.

Funny HUH? Anderson Cooper pretends to "keepin them honest". YET, he NEVER once talked about the sick hate and racism which is taught in the Rev. Wright's so called church.

Funny how liberals look the other way because he was Obama's pastor. The rev. wright teaches a sick racist theology, and if Perry's church taught that kind of racism, CNN would be all over it, for months.

as for felix? he's nuttier than a fruitcake on christmas morn.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:32 am

mvscal wrote:
That'll happen when you set out to defend the indefensible (a 2nd term for B Nizzle). Naturally they will have little choice but to become increasingly shrill and unhinged.

wherein did this take a turn toward Obama? or is this just a reworked version the tried and failed republican tact

read the title of this thread.....I'm expressing my opinions on why I think Perry would be a fucking disaster for this country

if supporting a quasi religious (see, I think that playing to the religious nimrods is pretty much of an act insofar as Perry is concerned) dolt, have at it hoss

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:12 am

Felix wrote:wherein did this take a turn toward Obama

We're interested to know if your standard regarding a candidate's religious views and activities is universal one - or if you're picking on Perry because he is a dreaded -R-.

if supporting a quasi religious (see, I think that playing to the religious nimrods is pretty much of an act insofar as Perry is concerned) dolt, have at it hoss

So yes, I have two questions for you.

1. About Barry sitting in Rev. Wright's church for all those years. Why did he do that? Good spiritual food... or because the church was a vehicle for his political ambitions?

2. Do you think Barry is a real Christian, or was he acting (as you say of Perry) when he played up his belief in Christ on the campaign trail?

ObaMao doesn't even go to church in DC now, does he?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:33 am

poptart wrote:
We're interested to know if your standard regarding a candidate's religious views and activities is universal one - or if you're picking on Perry because he is a dreaded -R-.

obama isn't pandering to religious types like parry is doing

1. About Barry sitting in Rev. Wright's church for all those years. Why did he do that? Good spiritual food... or because the church was a vehicle for his political ambitions?

it absolutely was, but again obama doesn't court votes based on religion

2. Do you think Barry is a real Christian, or was he acting (as you say of Perry) when he played up his belief in Christ on the campaign trail?

nope, I don't think he's religious at all....but a politician cannot get elected to a major office in this country unless he claims to be a christian of some kind....

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:56 am

Felix wrote:obama doesn't court votes based on religion

No, just the fear of it.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:24 pm

Felix wrote:obama isn't pandering to religious types like parry is doing

but again obama doesn't court votes based on religion

nope, I don't think he's (Obama) religious at all....but a politician cannot get elected to a major office in this country unless he claims to be a christian of some kind....

Are you really not able to see that you COMPLETELY contradicted your two above statements with this one?

LMAO!

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:32 pm

Felix wrote: obama isn't pandering to religious types like parry is doing.

plus

obama doesn't court votes based on religion

equals

a politician cannot get elected to a major office in this country unless he claims to be a christian of some kind....

The last statement doesn't really jive with the first two, now does it?

whatever, there are plenty of reasons to be against Perry but if his religious views are what have your panties in a wad, look elsewhere.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:34 pm

Is there an echo in here?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:39 pm

Plunger.
Plunger.
Plunger.

No echo.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:54 pm

Perhaps the publisher can send a little apostrophe sticker to all of the outlets that carry Perry's book, so the title can finally be corrected from "Fed Up" to "F'ed Up".

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:01 pm

poptart wrote:
Felix wrote:obama isn't pandering to religious types like parry is doing

but again obama doesn't court votes based on religion

nope, I don't think he's (Obama) religious at all....but a politician cannot get elected to a major office in this country unless he claims to be a christian of some kind....
Are you really not able to see that you COMPLETELY contradicted your two above statements with this one?

LMAO!

did you miss my statement on no politician that doesn't profess to be a christian can be elected to a major political position.....holy shit dude, every politician that's been caught having an affair, fucking the public over, etc. is an alledged christian

I don't know for a fact that obama isn't a christian and neither do you.....I just offered my opinion....besides, there's a huge difference between saying your a christer and leading fucking prayer meetings....

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:47 pm

Felix wrote:there's a huge difference between saying your a christer and leading fucking prayer meetings....

Who gives a fuck if does? Why do hate the 1st Amendment, asshole?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:41 pm

mvscal wrote:

Who gives a fuck if does? Why do hate the 1st Amendment, asshole?

why do you hate separation of church and state asshole....

Campaigning in New Hampshire Thursday, Texas Governor, and GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry claimed that Texas public schools teach both evolution and creationism in their science classes.

Perry described evolution as "a theory that is out there," telling a young child questioning him that "it's got some gaps in it." That's why, he said, "in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.

seriously, he's not even aware that teaching creationism is a violation of the separation of church and state....if he's ignorant of something this simple, what's he missing at a more complex level?

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:52 pm

Felix wrote:don't know for a fact that obama isn't a christian and neither do you.....I just offered my opinion....besides, there's a huge difference between saying your a christer and leading fucking prayer meetings....

I wish Barry was a Christian and I wish he was leading prayer meetings at the White House.

I mean, in the wake of tossing J. Wright under the bus, he said, "Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life."

Barry bases his life on the Gospel of Jesus Christ??

Barry pandered to Christians and you didn't care, Foolix, because you liked him politically.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:56 pm

What America needs now more than ever is not reason and rational discourse, but rather, magic beans and mystical incantations.

sober debate = no

four leaf clovers = yes

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:03 am

poptart wrote:
Barry bases his life on the Gospel of Jesus Christ??

HA! YOU SHURE SHOWDED HIM GOOD!!!!!!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:37 am

Martyred wrote:What America needs now more than ever is not reason and rational discourse, but rather, magic beans and mystical incantations.

You sure got right, Marty. What we really need right about now is some hope. Hope and change. That would be awesome. Oh and some more 'stimulus,' please. I mean you would have to be some kind of asshole racist homophobe to not appreciate some hot, throbbing 'stimulus,' right?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:42 am

mvscal wrote: some hot, throbbing 'stimulus,

I was going to go somewhere with this...then I saw that You-Know-Who had logged on, so I'm reconsidering...

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:44 am

Martyred wrote:What America needs now more than ever is not reason and rational discourse, but rather, magic beans and mystical incantations.

sober debate = no

four leaf clovers = yes

Our reasoners and rational discoursers will soon be swelling your borders come 2012, Merde, while the Great Unwashed sowes clover and beans. Best give the mounties a heads-up....

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:46 am

mvscal wrote:What we really need right about now is some hope. Hope and change.

The kind of change you can believe in, hopefully.

sorry... i just had to reset that line. it's a classic.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:48 am

88 wrote:What is wrong with Perry's response to the question posed?

no facts. only a repeat of his mantra.

if the economy is in his hands, will he listen to facts or will he listen to his gut?

if a terrorist attacks, will he respond according to the attack or do whatever his gut tells him?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:56 am

88 wrote:What is the problem with his answer, aside from your political viewpoint?

Political viewpoint?

Jsc has spent half a lifetime trying to justify murder and his own existance.

It's not politics, it's how he puts food on the table.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:58 am

Bizzarofelice wrote:
88 wrote:What is wrong with Perry's response to the question posed?
no facts.

If you don't shoot a load in your girlfriend's pussy, you will not knock her up. That is a fact. Is it not?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:59 am

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
88 wrote:What is wrong with Perry's response to the question posed?
no facts.
If you don't shoot a load in your girlfriend's pussy, you will not knock her up. That is a fact. Is it not?

Why do you hate christians?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:01 am

mvscal wrote: If you don't shoot a load in your girlfriend's pussy, you will not knock her up.

Gayfelice has never had that problem.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:03 am

War Wagon wrote:Jsc has spent half a lifetime trying to justify murder and his own existance.

And he spends the other half justifying dudes fucking each other up the ass. His idea of sex education must be to have Diego pop in on the fourth graders and squat on a banana.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:18 am

Jsc810 wrote:His abstinence program does not work. Period.

Says who? There certainly weren't any facts presented in that clip to that effect.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:12 am

We'll see much more of this from Perry in the debates.
Slow, stammering, searching for words...

School abstinence programs are as bad as school safe-sex programs.
They have no place.

Sex education is a parent's job, and the consequences of teen sex (pregnancy, disease) should be fully the responsibility of the family involved - not the taxpayers.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:37 am

88 wrote:Let's look at some data, shall we:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46.htm

Let's look at some relevant data, shall we:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46_tables.pdf

That table shows that the teenage birth rate declined in Texas despite its rapid growth and large wetback population. Seems to me that you can make a better case that abstinence education is working rather than isn't.

Of course dick-sniffers like GaySC, don't ever bother to check facts for themselves. They uncritically accept every utterance from opposition personalities and publications as gospel. They are too stupid even to ask the right questions.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:09 pm

88 wrote:Let's look at some data, shall we: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46.htm Hispanics and non-hispanic blacks tend to have substantially more teen pregnancies per 1000 than non-hispanic whites. 17 states have opted-out of abstinence only sex education (LINK): Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Iowa Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Montana New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Rhode Island Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Comparing Texas with their teen pregancy results per 1000 (All races, Non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic black, Hispanic):

Arizona - 56.2 - 30.1 - 60.0 - 102.2
California - 38.4 - 15.8 - 43.7 - 66.4
Colorado - 42.5 - 22.9 - 57.6 -101.0
Connecticut - 22.9 - 9.7 - 43.6 - 76.9
Iowa - 33.9 - 27.3 - 88.4 - 104.8
Maine - 26.1 - 26.1 - 53.8 - 31.3
Massachusetts 20.1 - 13.7 - 39.4 - 71.2
Minnesota 27.2 - 17.9 - 80.9 -108.7
Montana - 40.7 - 29.3 - * - 37.7
New Jersey - 24.5 - 8.5 - 50.2 - 65.7
New Mexico - 64.1 - 36.4 - 46.4 - 85.6
New York - 25.5 - 14.1 - 38.4 - 55.3
Ohio - 41.0 - 32.9 - 78.6 -87.6
Rhode Island - 28.5 - 16.6 - 63.1 - 82.0
Texas - 63.4 - 33.8 - 67.2 - 99.0
Virginia - 33.5 - 24.0 - 53.6 - 90.7
Wisconsin - 31.3 - 19.6 - 95.1 - 99.3
Wyoming - 49.2 - 43.0 - * - 107.6

So, New Mexico teaches comprehensive sex education (contraception) and does worse than Texas. Does this mean that comprehensive sex education does not work?

Of course, you failed to mention that the other 16 states that opted out of abstinence-only sex education have lower teen pregnancy rates than Texas, across the board. But if you want to consider New Mexico alone, we can do that.

Obviously, the difference between New Mexico and Texas is only 0.7 per 1,000 teens. Statistically, that's pretty much a dead heat. And broken down among various racial groups, New Mexico leads Texas among only one racial group -- non-Hispanic whites. Among minority groups -- the most at-risk for teen pregnancy pretty much everywhere -- New Mexico actually has a lower teen pregnancy rate than does Texas. As you said, maybe cultural differences account for some of the differences, and maybe non-Hispanic whites in Texas have more alternative entertainment options at their disposal than do non-Hispanic whites in New Mexico. Just a thought.

And if you aren't teaching your daughters to choose abstinence as the first option, then you have a different parenting philosophy than me.

Moving the goalposts just a little, aren't we? I don't think anybody here is saying that abstinence shouldn't be the first option. The problem occurs where abstinence is the only option being taught in schools.

The premise that teens won't have sex if the adults in their lives pretend it doesn't exist is patently absurd. And that premise is the premise upon which abstinence-only sex education is based.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:15 pm

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:07 pm

88, I'm sure you know enough about statistics to know that a comparison between Texas and New Mexico alone would offer very little insight into the question you posed, that is, whether comprehensive sex education or abstinence-only sex education works best.

So let's get a bigger picture, shall we? From your own link:

Now, from this image, and cross-referencing your earlier post, we see that of the ten states with the lowest teen pregnancy rate, seven of them offer comprehensive sex education. By comparison, only two of the states which offer comprehensive sex education are among the ten highest states.

In other words, although only about 1/3 of all states offer comprehensive sex education, the states that do account for 70% of the ten best-performing states in terms of low teen pregnancy rates, and only 20% of the ten worst-performing states in terms of low teen pregnancy.

If you want to flush the data out further . . .

Of the 17 states that offer comprehensive sex education . . .

States that are among the ten highest states in terms of teen pregnancy rates: 2 (20% of total)
States that are significantly higher than national average, but not among ten highest: 1 (9% of total)
States that are roughly comparable to national average: 3 (50% of total)
States that are significantly lower than national average, but not among ten lowest: 4 (31% of total)
States that are among the ten lowest states in terms of teen pregnancy rates: 7 (70% of total)

Of the 33 states that offer abstinence-only sex education . . .

States that are among the ten highest states in terms of teen pregnancy rates: 8 (80% of total)
States that are significantly higher than national average, but not among ten highest: 10 (91% of total)
States that are roughly comparable to national average: 3 (50% of total)
States that are significantly lower than national average, but not among ten lowest: 9 (69% of total)
States that are among the ten lowest states in terms of teen pregnancy rates: 3 (30% of total)

With that data, I'm glad I live in a state which provides comprehensive sex education.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:30 pm

88 wrote:The only thing that you can glean from that data with any certainty is that states in the southwest and south appear to have a higher teen prenancy rate than states in the northeast and upper midwest and west coast.

Of course, as a general rule, the states in the southeast and southwest are the states most likely to find abstinence-only sex education the most appealing. How's that working out for them?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:30 pm

Sudden Sam wrote:

This map tells me that the lowest teen birth rates are in states where ~~it's too damn cold to fuck~~ the population is predominantly pale.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:47 pm

I'm still supporting Rick, even amidst his current speedbag status.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:50 pm

He really needs to get back home to Texas and make sure that people are executed on schedule.

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:17 pm

Indeed, and stifle teen cervical cancer.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:21 pm

Mikey wrote:He really needs to get back home to Texas and make sure that people are executed on schedule.

agreed, he's out campaigning, and the state is already falling behind....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/ ... 7049.shtml

but never let it be said that Perry wasn't willing to do what needs to be done.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 3806.story

and with the execution of Todd Willingham, Texas will likely become the first state to officially concede the state had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”....

that's quite a legacy

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:35 pm

God and G0d bless Uhmerica and God and G0d bless Tejas.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:05 am

Mikey wrote:He really needs to get back home to Texas and make sure that people are executed on schedule.

He really doesn't have any say in the matter. It's up the Board of Pardons and Paroles in Texas.