View Full Version : President Perry
Watch Tx Rep. Lloyd Doggett warn about the toxic hazard that is Rick Perry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9vC6uCTjuU&feature=player_embedded#t=433s
The problem is that Obama is such a weak President that many have a shot. Many warned that he was just an empty suit, and they were correct. It is nice that he has cut taxes more that Bush, except I thought SS was in trouble. But he also is spending more than Bush. And the only jobs he seams to create are government jobs that don't produce anything but reliable votes.
I think many are getting tired of his whining and laying blame on everyone but himself. He needs to grow a pair.
Those are really sad education statistics for TX.
Were they that bad under George W or did they decline under Perry?
Mountain laurel - demographics have a GREAT deal to do with education statistics in Texas...people I talk education with who are from predominantly white or higher socio-economic states do not understand that it is not an apples to apples comparison. I realize we rank near the bottom in spending per student, true, but there are many other factors at play.
Zigzagman
8-14-11, 11:22am
The problem is that Obama is such a weak President that many have a shot. Many warned that he was just an empty suit, and they were correct. It is nice that he has cut taxes more that Bush, except I thought SS was in trouble. But he also is spending more than Bush. And the only jobs he seams to create are government jobs that don't produce anything but reliable votes.
I think many are getting tired of his whining and laying blame on everyone but himself. He needs to grow a pair.
I have my own problems with Obama. I have never shyed away from saying it BUT with someone like Perry (and Bush II before him) you are talking right-wing extremism. There is no way around the fact that he hates regulation in every aspect, he has a long history of being in the back pocket of corporations at the expense of Texas citizens, and I think really believes that simply praying will solve most of our problems. A minimum wage job or below will never solve our jobs problem and that is exactly the job growth in Texas that he loves to tout when campaigning.
When we elect extremists bad things happen. No matter what name those that dislike Obama might say, he is by no means an extremist. Perry on the other hand has a clear record of extremism.
I know people like to think that we can cut, cut, cut budget items wily nily and it will have little effect on their lives but that is just not true. We need to cut the fraud from most of our government funded programs to solve the problems and that would include them all including SS, Medicare, and Defense - not the draconian measure that the Tea Party suggest. I do separate the Tea Party from the GOP in that regard but at the present time it seems they are in control.
Any Texan will tell you that you cannot trust Rick Perry - he is all about Rick Perry and his corporate donors.
Our problem is that we have come to trust institutions, business and government, more than ourselves. If something seems wrong it probably is.
Peace
Mountain laurel - demographics have a GREAT deal to do with education statistics in Texas...people I talk education with who are from predominantly white or higher socio-economic states do not understand that it is not an apples to apples comparison. I realize we rank near the bottom in spending per student, true, but there are many other factors at play.
Demographics huh? Are you saying Texans are stupid? That would explain both George Bush and Rick Perry as governors, but I think most Texans would take exception to that description. Maybe the poor investment in education attracts only the poorest teachers.
Ahh Peggy...excellent display of projectile venom spew....No, I'm not saying Texans are stupid. We serve a very high population of students for whom English is not their first language, students whose parents are illiterate or not educated past a grade school level, etc, etc. This is largely due to the fact that many are first generation Americans. Why? Gee, I don't know...maybe they come to Texas because we have JOBS!!!! Texans are not stupid, au contraire madam, they are quite independent, resilient and hard-working...some just don't have as even a start as others.
Perry looks so good because the rest of the Republican field is so weak. Huntsman seems interesting, but like Romney he is Mormon and doesn't stand a chance with the rabid Christian right.
In every presidential election I would prefer to see each party select the best possible candidate so whoever wins, the country has a better chance. But Rick Perry? He may look the part, but no thanks. I want a president in the WH, not a preacher.
I heard something on tv the other day that made real sense. The Republicans now hate goverment and everything about it so much, that there simply are too few on the right who think politics is an honorable profession, so qualified people seek employment elsewhere. As proof, look at the current GOP crop.
Looking back over recent GOP nominees, McCain (too old + Palin), Bob Dole and Bush-I were relatively mainstream, and before them Reagan. But look who is running now? Ack!!!
Just for you, ZZMan...I like this take from an editor way up here in SW WA State:
http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/aug/14/gov-goodhair-throws-hat-in-ring/
Gov. Goodhair! I miss Molly Ivins.
Ahh Peggy...excellent display of projectile venom spew....No, I'm not saying Texans are stupid. We serve a very high population of students for whom English is not their first language, students whose parents are illiterate or not educated past a grade school level, etc, etc. This is largely due to the fact that many are first generation Americans. Why? Gee, I don't know...maybe they come to Texas because we have JOBS!!!! Texans are not stupid, au contraire madam, they are quite independent, resilient and hard-working...some just don't have as even a start as others.
Projectile venom spew? Wow, you really know how to kill a joke, don't you. I'll bet you are a laugh riot at parties. ;)
No, some don't have as even a start as others, but isn't that true of every state? Doesn't every state have poverty, illiteracy, and first generation Americans? If you want poverty, go to W. Virginia. And I'm thinking California has more first generation Americans than Texas. So this all still doesn't explain how Texas is so horrible in education. If a dog catcher in Tim Buck Two sneezes you blame Obama for giving him a cold. So, in all fairness I'm going to blame the leadership in Texas. It's that or the teachers.
When I went through school in Texas, the state was known for good schools. So what happened? Republicans George Bush and Rick Perry happened. So you get an ignorant Governor who actually thinks Texas has the right to succeed from the Union. A man who hates government so much he's desperate to run it.:doh:
Its "secede" not "succeed" sorry...this ignorant Texas teacher just had to tell ya
Its "secede" not "succeed" sorry...this ignorant Texas teacher just had to tell ya
Ha Ha! I type very fast and don't always proof read. My bad. Actually That was one thing I didn't learn in school. How to type. Wasn't required when I went through. Had to teach myself. But one thing EVERY Texas school kid DID learn was Texas history, so the incredible irony of Texas Governor Rick Perry not knowing this most basic info on his own state would be just sad if he wasn't actually running for, and being seriously considered by many for, apparently, the Presidency. That's just scary. Or maybe he was just lying, counting on his audience to be ignorant. But then, I've noticed that the right usually counts on their base to be ignorant cause they say some stupid things and their base just goes along with it (Sarah Palin with Paul Revere and his 'ringing those bells and shooting his guns', or Michelle Bachmann and 'Obama spent 200,000,000 on an overseas trip' or Michelle Bachmann and 'Our founding fathers worked hard until they eliminated slavery' or Michelle Bachmann and...well, you get the drift!)
I think this just shows the blind ideological hatred of many on the right who know this man is ignorant, but would vote for him anyway. Especially teachers who are supposed to be the champions of education. And all because he adds an 'amen' at the end of his speeches.
Do you really think it's better for an elected leader to pray to solve the nations problems rather than actually doing something? I guess Perry hasn't been praying for the educational situation in Texas, or you wouldn't be where you are, right? So, my conclusion is, either praying doesn't work, or Perry doesn't care. Which is it?
I'm curious catwoman, what is it you teach again? Which subject?
Zigzagman
8-15-11, 10:06am
There are many things that those living elsewhere might not be aware off - this from the Juanita Jean Blog (http://juanitajean.com/2011/08/15/whos-sorry-now/) -
In one terribly weird event in a wildly weirdy term of office, Rick Perry tried to require by executive order that every 12 year old girl in Texas be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Vaccine-image-200x300.jpg (http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Vaccine-image.jpg)
The weird doubled down when it was discovered that Perry had close ties with the sole manufacturer of the vaccine (http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/5546651.html).
Then along came weird with a cherry on top when the rightwing said that vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted disease would turn them all into nymphomaniac porn stars who have Biblical knowledge of entire front line of the Dallas Cowboys. You now, overnight. Like magic.
Even though the State Lege overrode his decision, Rick Perry always stuck by his coyote-killing guns, claiming that the Lege lacked “gumption.” You know gumption, right? That’s the ability to act right even when you’re wrong.
Up until last week, Perry was defending his decision. But then the moon phases changed, or something, and he got a whole new story (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-people/rick-perry/facing-new-scrutiny-perry-walks-back-hpv-decision/) in that clean New Hampshire air.
“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is that I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” Perry said at the Manchester, N.H., event in response to an audience question about the HPV controversy, according to ABC News’ The Note. “But here’s what I learned: When you get too far out in front of the parade, they will let you know, and that’s exactly what our Legislature did, and I saluted it and I said, ‘Roger that, I hear you loud and clear.’ And they didn’t want to do it and we don’t, so enough said.”
So, today we learn that sticking your butt in someone’s face and calling them names is defined as “saluting.”
The further away from Texas Rick Perry gets, the bigger his lies get.
Peace
Ha Ha! I type very fast and don't always proof read. My bad. Actually That was one thing I didn't learn in school. How to type. Wasn't required when I went through. Had to teach myself. But one thing EVERY Texas school kid DID learn was Texas history, so the incredible irony of Texas Governor Rick Perry not knowing this most basic info on his own state would be just sad if he wasn't actually running for, and being seriously considered by many for, apparently, the Presidency. That's just scary. Or maybe he was just lying, counting on his audience to be ignorant. But then, I've noticed that the right usually counts on their base to be ignorant cause they say some stupid things and their base just goes along with it (Sarah Palin with Paul Revere and his 'ringing those bells and shooting his guns', or Michelle Bachmann and 'Obama spent 200,000,000 on an overseas trip' or Michelle Bachmann and 'Our founding fathers worked hard until they eliminated slavery' or Michelle Bachmann and...well, you get the drift!)
I think this just shows the blind ideological hatred of many on the right who know this man is ignorant, but would vote for him anyway. Especially teachers who are supposed to be the champions of education. And all because he adds an 'amen' at the end of his speeches.
Do you really think it's better for an elected leader to pray to solve the nations problems rather than actually doing something? I guess Perry hasn't been praying for the educational situation in Texas, or you wouldn't be where you are, right? So, my conclusion is, either praying doesn't work, or Perry doesn't care. Which is it?
I'm curious catwoman, what is it you teach again? Which subject?
Peggy, if you want to talk about someone's base being ignorant and you want to use the examples you used, you might find youself in an awkward position. Try actually looking up Perry's comments on seceding and consider the context, and while you're researching, look up "Powder Alarms" and read about Paul Revere's significance in them. There's more to history than just one poem.
Ya see Peggy, just throwing stuff out there cause you heard it on the Ed Schultz show or read about it on a discussion forum can be kinda embarrassing when you use it to slam someone else, especially if you're trying to make them look stupid.
Oh, and you said "succeed" rather than "secede" in two consecutive posts. That's a pretty consistent "typing error". ;)
Zigzagman
8-15-11, 10:27am
Do you really think that a Governor with a brain bigger than a flea would even mention seceding/succeeding from the union? Really? Those kind of comments might play well in a beer joint or maybe a poker game of "Good Ol' Boys".
That is just the tip of the iceberg - wait till the election season is in full swing ;)
God, Please let Perry or any other Tea Bagger candidate be the GOP nominee!!
As Jimmy Fallon says - THANK YOU!!
Peace
"Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html
loosechickens
8-15-11, 2:59pm
But, didn't Perry ALSO say that when Texas became a state, it was with the unique ability to secede again if they wanted? Which is patently untrue. I'm almost SURE I heard him say that.
Hey, let he and Michelle Bachmann fight it out for the Christian right.....I'll pay more attention to his close connections with the big polluters and big, fat cat money.
Ya know.....I said this in relationship to George W. Bush, so I'll say it again. Much as I dislike Governor Perry and his "cowboy boot, good ole boy" persona, the governorship in Texas is the weakest of the fifty states, and the governor of Texas has far less power than most governors. When Texas became a state (although they DIDN'T get the right to change their mind on demand and secede again, despite Mr. Perry's assertion), the citizens were very wary of some Northern carpetbagger coming down and ending up running their state. So they deliberately made the governor's office as powerless as possible.
So....much as I hate to say it, the blame for most of Texas problems comes from the legislature, and only because Gov. Perry is of the same political persuasion as his legislature has he been able to effect changes he desired in the state. He's not really the person to blame for the fact that Texas schools are abysmal, the poverty is great, most jobs created are minimum wage type jobs and that pretty much the largest percentage of citizens without medical insurance or access to regular health care, of all the states, is right there in Texas.
Texas has ridden the tide of the profits of the oil and gas industry, but other than that, we resemble states like Mississipp and other bottom rated states in most measures of wellbeing of the citizenry. If you want to know what the far right wing would like to see, you need look no further than Texas, with it's lack of regulation of polluters, wide open exploitation of labor, and miserable safety nets for those in need.
Somehow, I don't think that Michelle Bachmann is going to stand up well to close inspection. Perry will do better and has a much larger amount of the "big money" behind him. We shall see what happens.
loosechickens
8-15-11, 3:20pm
I saw this today on www.americablog.com and I'm not sure but that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me:
"James Moore is the Texas-knowledgeable and best-selling author of Bush's Brain, the book on Karl Rove.
Here's Moore's latest, in CNN's opinion web-pages. It's a stunner, something to put into your own brain for further consideration (my emphasis):
As a resident of Texas for 36 years, I keep wondering why the rest of the nation pays any attention to our political and cultural absurdities and yet still chooses Texans as presidents. Our most revered historical moment, the Alamo, was arguably a mass suicide. The slaughter in San Antonio was followed by a massacre at Goliad, the fall of the Confederacy to Union forces, and later by the Houston Astros. Texas has a legacy of losing.
None of this apparently matters, though, because America is beginning the process of electing another Texan to be president. ... The big brains gathered east of the Hudson and Potomac Rivers believe that Mitt Romney is the candidate to beat. But they are unable to hear what Rick Perry is saying. The Christian prayer rally in Houston was a very loud proclamation to fundamentalists and Teavangelicals, which said, "I am not a Mormon." The far right and Christian fundamentalists have an inordinate amount of influence in the GOP primary process and, regardless of messages of inclusion, very few of them will vote for a Mormon.
After he wins the nomination, protocol will require Perry to have discussions with Bachmann about the vice presidential slot, but he will, eventually, turn to Sarah Palin. The general election will force the Texan back toward the middle and he will stop talking about faith and abortion and gay marriage; Perry will campaign on jobs and the economy.
This may be why Sarah Palin still sorta looks like she's running. Moore goes on to predict a Perry-Palin victory in the Finals. Read why.
Looking at the GOP field, you have to consider this; a credible threat to Romney from the right, and an attack on his Mormonism may be all it takes to win the nomination. There's more than enough Texas rumor that, unlike Bush, Perry really is as close to an unlit bulb as the Republican field can offer, but he's very polished.
If this doesn't sink him, he certainly has as much of a shot as any of them."
-------------------------------------------------------
o.k. that's all my internet time for the morning......timer went off two minutes ago......
But, didn't Perry ALSO say that when Texas became a state, it was with the unique ability to secede again if they wanted? Which is patently untrue. I'm almost SURE I heard him say that.
I think you're right. I believe he did say that when Texas became a state in 1845 it was transitioning from a stand alone nation, the Republic of Texas, and had the right to secede anytime it wanted. As a matter of fact, it did secede, in 1861 I believe, and joined the Confederate States of America, and was not re-admitted to the Union until about 1870.
In the 1845 legislation admitting Texas to the United States, it was also granted the unique ability to divide itself into as many as 5 separate states if it so desired, even though the U.S. Constitution specifically forbade it. It certainly shows that the Polk administration granted some rather special privileges to the Republic in order to join it to the Union.
The history of Texas is actually quite interesting for anyone interested in exploring it.
Peggy, if you want to talk about someone's base being ignorant and you want to use the examples you used, you might find youself in an awkward position. Try actually looking up Perry's comments on seceding and consider the context, and while you're researching, look up "Powder Alarms" and read about Paul Revere's significance in them. There's more to history than just one poem.
Ya see Peggy, just throwing stuff out there cause you heard it on the Ed Schultz show or read about it on a discussion forum can be kinda embarrassing when you use it to slam someone else, especially if you're trying to make them look stupid.
Oh, and you said "succeed" rather than "secede" in two consecutive posts. That's a pretty consistent "typing error". ;)
Oh dear...ringing those bells and shooting those guns, cause, you know, the British were coming to disarm everyone...yep, that's what Paul Revere did to warn of the British coming. Boy you sure know your history Alan, you got us there!
Gee alan, I wonder how many hours you spent combing my posts looking for spelling errors. I'm surprised you didn't find more, spelling is not my strong suit. Way to keep it classy...
Oh dear...ringing those bells and shooting those guns, cause, you know, the British were coming to disarm everyone...yep, that's what Paul Revere did to warn of the British coming. Boy you sure know your history Alan, you got us there!
Gee alan, I wonder how many hours you spent combing my posts looking for spelling errors. I'm surprised you didn't find more, spelling is not my strong suit. Way to keep it classy...
Actually, I didn't 'get' anyone. It's in the historical record and Sarah Palin was correct in her statements. It's just that most Americans are woefully ignorant of many individual aspects of our history and it can sometimes bite em in the butt when they try to denigrate someone who actually does know some of it.
And, I didn't spend any time going through your posts. I simply noticed the errors as I read them the first time and ignored the first until it became an issue. Everybody makes mistakes, it's how they own up to them that counts. :D
Ya know.....I said this in relationship to George W. Bush, so I'll say it again. Much as I dislike Governor Perry and his "cowboy boot, good ole boy" persona, the governorship in Texas is the weakest of the fifty states, and the governor of Texas has far less power than most governors. When Texas became a state (although they DIDN'T get the right to change their mind on demand and secede again, despite Mr. Perry's assertion), the citizens were very wary of some Northern carpetbagger coming down and ending up running their state. So they deliberately made the governor's office as powerless as possible.
A common misconception. It used to be true, but during his governorship, Perry has reinvented the office as a power center. Our state constitution, written the year before Reconstruction ended, created a weak governor’s office (as did most constitutions of the states of the former Confederacy). But Perry has used his appointment power to install political allies in every state agency, effectively establishing a Cabinet form of government and making him vastly more powerful than any of his predecessors. In this regard, the Texas politician he most resembles is LBJ, who once told an assistant, “I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and how to use it.” Rick Perry, to a tee.
That is not to say that he does not represent the vast majority of Texans - he is indeed the longest serving Governor in Texas history and there are millions of Texans that think exactly like him. He is totally anti-government and yet has never done anything except work for government - seems a contradiction to me? He is all about ruthless power in a Texan sort of way - remember JR on Dallas? This guy would totally change the US much like Bush II did but in a more draconian way. I hope all of the conservatives are very careful what they wish for.
Peace
Peggy, I teach ESL, special ed, reading, all subjects to primary kids...What do YOU do for a living? You accuse Perry supporters of blind ideological hatred...not so fast, my hatred is neither blind nor fed to me by Rush or anyone else. It is hatred of ideals and government officials who ram them down your throat when the majority of Americans are against them...Your anti-Christian posts bely your hatred and animosity to anyone who professes to believe differently than you do...might want to get the log out of your eye before you go after the speck in mine...
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/palins-twist-on-paul-revere/
http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/real.html
and, even though it's a little corny, http://www.earlyamerica.com/paul_revere.htm
Alan, I seriously doubt you have the inside tract on something the rest of us in the nation don't. Maybe that "I'm right and everyone else in the entire world is wrong" may work with Sarah Palin and her tea party 'patriots', but it doesn't pass the smell test out here in the real world.
catwoman, the majority of Americans want health care reform.
The majority of Americans want medicare left alone.
The majority of Americans want SS left alone.
The majority of Americans want the wealthy to pay more taxes.
The majority of Americans want congress to compromise on issues, as in BOTH sides giving up a bit.
I don't know what ideals you are talking about, but the majority of Americans want pretty much the same things I want.
I have nothing against religious people. I do have something against phonies. And Rick Perry is a phony. He is George Bush..without the smarts.
But you see, that's the problem Peggy, you (and at least one of your sources) are trying to tie her comments into the one thing that most people know about Paul Revere, his famous Midnight Ride. But the fact is, Revere did a little more during his lifetime than Longfellow gave him credit for in the poem.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm for a little background on the events Palin was talking about.
After the Powder Alarm, militia forces throughout New England were more cautious with their supplies and more intent on gaining information about Gage's plans and troop movements. Paul Revere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere) played a significant role in distributing this information due to his geographical position in Boston, his social position as a middle-class craftsman in contact with all social classes, and his political position as a well-known Patriot propagandist and organizer.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-French170-17)
http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Powder_House_2.jpg)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powder_Alarm&action=edit§ion=6)] The colonists organize
On September 21, 1774, Patriot leaders met in Worcester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester,_Massachusetts) and urged town meetings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting) to organize a third of the militias into special companies of minutemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen_(militia)) in constant readiness to march.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-JCong642-18) They also instituted the system of express riders and alarms that would prove to be critical at Lexington and Concord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lexington_and_Concord).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-French170-17) In October, the former legislature of Massachusetts met in defiance of the Massachusetts Government Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Government_Act) and declared itself to be the First Provincial Congress. It created a Committee of Safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Safety_(American_Revolution)) modeled after a body with the same name during the English Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War) and it recommended that a quarter of the militia be designated as minutemen.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-Fischer51-15) Military stores were to be stockpiled away from the coast (more than a convenient day's march), to make attempts to seize them more difficult. The largest stockpiles were located at Concord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord,_Massachusetts) and Worcester.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-French160-19)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powder_Alarm&action=edit§ion=7)] Portsmouth Alarm
Early in December, British military command voted to prohibit the export of arms and powder to North America, and to secure all remaining stores. On December 12, intelligence received by Paul Revere indicated that a seizure of stores at Fort William and Mary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_and_Mary) in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth,_New_Hampshire) was imminent. He rode from Boston to Portsmouth the next day to notify the local Patriots, who quickly raided the fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_and_Mary#1774_raid) on the 14th and removed its supplies. Revere's intelligence had been incorrect; while a British operation had been contemplated, it had not been ordered. The British did eventually send ships carrying troops to Portsmouth, but they arrived long after the event. The first arrived on the 17th, and was directed into shallows at high tide by a local Patriot pilot, much to the captain's anger.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-Fischer52-16)
Stores of gunpowder—typically referred to by Loyalists as "the King's powder" and by Patriots as "the militia's powder"—were also carried off from forts in Newport, Rhode Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport,_Rhode_Island), Providence, Rhode Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence,_Rhode_Island), and New London, Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut) and distributed to the militias in towns away from the coast.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-20) Cannon and other supplies were smuggled out of Boston and Charlestown.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-Tagney130-21)
My apologies to everyone else for helping this thread get off track, but some things just need to be disputed.
Sorry, Peggy, its "inside track" not "inside tract"
Please provide stats/links for your claims about what the majority of Americans want...Also, even if that were true, the manner in which Hussein Obama wants to achieve it is unconstitutional and quite unpopular (as is he currently).
Mods - please note - please check urban dictionary for definition of "teabagger". I have requested this before. It is a filthy designation and I would respectfully ask others in the forum to use the term "teapartier". You can still sneer derisively, it just won't be so graphically offensive.
Teabagger I like that phrase. First time I have seen and I like it.
For your edification Freein05 - like this?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger
For your edification Freein05 - like this?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger
Looks like they didn't know the meaning or maybe it is all just BS? I like meaning #2 from your link - "A whining fool shouting loudly for liberty but not willing to pay the bill."
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHwq-WfQ0wgGJLHDKALz4aRCeGh40sT6Gk13YoFihjRJK11rvjZA
Peace
loosechickens
8-16-11, 2:53am
Thanks, zigzagman, for the additional information about how Governor Perry has managed to work around the weak governorship in Texas to consolidate power for himself. Very interesting. And since he has the benefit of having most of the legislature in his pocket as well, I can see that happening.
I think he should not be underestimated. He may well not be bright, but often even rather stupid people can be very shrewd, calculating and able to manipulate others. And there is a lot of big Texas money backing Governor Perry.
We shall simply have to wait and see how all this unfolds. Personally, I think there are a lot of surprises left before a GOP candidate will get the nomination. Who knows what will happen?
***MOD HAT ON***
What say everyone stay on the high road here? Sniping and personal bickering tip-toes on the fringe of the forum guidelines, but it can be excruciatingly boring to those not involved who, presumably, come here to discuss political issues. We have a lot riding on this election so it just might be beneficial to direct our scrutiny to the candidates.
Catwoman, I appreciate your stance on the use of "teabaggers", but that has already been addressed from the mod perspective (link below). If that was not satisfactory please feel free to email me and I will assist you in finding other options to continue your efforts.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?1840-Prayapolooza-in-Houston/page27
But you see, that's the problem Peggy, you (and at least one of your sources) are trying to tie her comments into the one thing that most people know about Paul Revere, his famous Midnight Ride. But the fact is, Revere did a little more during his lifetime than Longfellow gave him credit for in the poem.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm for a little background on the events Palin was talking about.
After the Powder Alarm, militia forces throughout New England were more cautious with their supplies and more intent on gaining information about Gage's plans and troop movements. Paul Revere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Revere) played a significant role in distributing this information due to his geographical position in Boston, his social position as a middle-class craftsman in contact with all social classes, and his political position as a well-known Patriot propagandist and organizer.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-French170-17)
http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Powder_House_2.jpg)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powder_Alarm&action=edit§ion=6)] The colonists organize
On September 21, 1774, Patriot leaders met in Worcester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester,_Massachusetts) and urged town meetings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_meeting) to organize a third of the militias into special companies of minutemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen_(militia)) in constant readiness to march.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-JCong642-18) They also instituted the system of express riders and alarms that would prove to be critical at Lexington and Concord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lexington_and_Concord).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-French170-17) In October, the former legislature of Massachusetts met in defiance of the Massachusetts Government Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Government_Act) and declared itself to be the First Provincial Congress. It created a Committee of Safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Safety_(American_Revolution)) modeled after a body with the same name during the English Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War) and it recommended that a quarter of the militia be designated as minutemen.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-Fischer51-15) Military stores were to be stockpiled away from the coast (more than a convenient day's march), to make attempts to seize them more difficult. The largest stockpiles were located at Concord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord,_Massachusetts) and Worcester.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-French160-19)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Powder_Alarm&action=edit§ion=7)] Portsmouth Alarm
Early in December, British military command voted to prohibit the export of arms and powder to North America, and to secure all remaining stores. On December 12, intelligence received by Paul Revere indicated that a seizure of stores at Fort William and Mary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_and_Mary) in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth,_New_Hampshire) was imminent. He rode from Boston to Portsmouth the next day to notify the local Patriots, who quickly raided the fort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_and_Mary#1774_raid) on the 14th and removed its supplies. Revere's intelligence had been incorrect; while a British operation had been contemplated, it had not been ordered. The British did eventually send ships carrying troops to Portsmouth, but they arrived long after the event. The first arrived on the 17th, and was directed into shallows at high tide by a local Patriot pilot, much to the captain's anger.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-Fischer52-16)
Stores of gunpowder—typically referred to by Loyalists as "the King's powder" and by Patriots as "the militia's powder"—were also carried off from forts in Newport, Rhode Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport,_Rhode_Island), Providence, Rhode Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence,_Rhode_Island), and New London, Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut) and distributed to the militias in towns away from the coast.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-20) Cannon and other supplies were smuggled out of Boston and Charlestown.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_Alarm#cite_note-Tagney130-21)
My apologies to everyone else for helping this thread get off track, but some things just need to be disputed.
Palin was talking about his famous ride and you know it! You keep trying to redirect, but everyone and his dog knows what she was talking about. You can quote his entire biography, but she is an ignorant boob who can see Russia from her house and has to write crib notes on her palm.
I"m done with this. If you want to deny the truth, that you know, because it doesn't quite jib with Palin's 'truth', well be my guest. Personally I wouldn't want Sarah Palin to trash my credibility, but I guess it's your call.
Mountain laurel - demographics have a GREAT deal to do with education statistics in Texas...people I talk education with who are from predominantly white or higher socio-economic states do not understand that it is not an apples to apples comparison. I realize we rank near the bottom in spending per student, true, but there are many other factors at play.
It's socioeconomic. Not socio-economic.
Peggy, I teach ESL, special ed, reading, all subjects to primary kids...What do YOU do for a living? You accuse Perry supporters of blind ideological hatred...not so fast, my hatred is neither blind nor fed to me by Rush or anyone else. It is hatred of ideals and government officials who ram them down your throat when the majority of Americans are against them...Your anti-Christian posts bely your hatred and animosity to anyone who professes to believe differently than you do...might want to get the log out of your eye before you go after the speck in mine...
It's belie, not bely. FYI
Personally I wouldn't want Sarah Palin to trash my credibility, but I guess it's your call.>8)
loosechickens
8-16-11, 2:21pm
Or....."people with whom I discuss education" if we're being picky ;-)
hey.....Iris Lily got me on middle-class.......and for years I thought that the possessive its was its'......and I'm pretty good with spelling and grammar.
We can probably ALL find something to carp about.......but if we're going to carp, probably better to look at our prospective leaders. Interesting piece in the Christian Science monitor today......Governor Perry may be just a little bit TOO used to speaking to the echo chamber of Texas audiences, and may well have to clean up his act a bit to make it on a national level....and quickly.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0816/Rick-Perry-and-treasonous-Is-the-folksy-campaigner-gaffe-prone
Your right loose, this is getting a bit silly. Even though I already said before I'm not the most careful in typing or spelling, some seem bent on 'putting me in my place' However there is the whole throwing stones in glass houses thing. I learned a long time ago it will almost always turn around and bite you in the butt.
I'm calling a truce.
I think "proven" would have sounded better than "proved" in the first line of the article.
Seriously, thanks for the link LC. In the realm of verbal gaffes I doubt anyone alive could make it through a campaign without compiling a long list of such gaffes. The media will show no restraint in pointing them out to us for the coming 15 months. It would be nice if Mr. Perry, Mr. Obama and all the rest would get a chance to give us their spiel, or shpeel as the case may be, without having to be so cautious of every word. Aside from the campaign trail and some days on these forums we all seem to get a little benefit of the doubt if our words aren't perfect. I can't see how the extreme fault-finding (or faultfinding if you prefer) is going to help us get a better person in office.
I think "proven" would have sounded better than "proved" in the first line of the article.
Seriously, thanks for the link LC. In the realm of verbal gaffes I doubt anyone alive could make it through a campaigns without compiling a long list of such gaffes. The media will show no restraint in pointing them out to us for the coming 15 months. It would be nice if Mr. Perry, Mr. Obama and all the rest would get a chance to give us their spiel, or shpeel as the case may be, without having to be so cautious of every word. Aside from the campaign trail and some days on these forums we all seem to get a little benefit of the doubt if our words aren't perfect. I can't see how the extreme fault-finding (or faultfinding if you prefer) is going to help us get a better person in office.
I personally am glad that the media will show no restraint, in fact I wish they would be more devoted to showing us the real person instead of waiting for the talking points coming from the different campaigns.
Just think about it - we are voting on someone that in most cases we have absolutely no idea about and is by most accounts headed for the most powerful position in the world. Much like RICK PERRY who is quite well known in Texas but arguably a stranger to most of America. Only 4% of Texas Republicans say they'd vote for Perry if he were to make a bid for the Oval Office, a new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll (http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/uttt-201105-summary-day2.pdf) shows. Now that should make the rest of the country pay attention!
The sad thing for me is that, as you said, most of America is not really interested in the details of the nominees. They would much prefer to make their judgment on their looks, religious attitude, their stand on one of the issues that interests them (guns, gays, abortion, global warming) or even a 15 sec infomercial. Then we get the like of Bush and pay the price for our mistakes. To make matters worse once we make a decision most people, myself included, have a very hard time admitting they made a huge mistake.
No I am glad that we get to hear the gaffs and such. I think it is probably the only insight we have into our candidates that hasn't been vetted and orchestrated by millions of dollar, campaign gurus, and ads. Like the old saying goes - it someone sounds like a idiot then most likely they are.
Peace
Maybe you're right Zig. There's plenty of good old wisdom out there that tells us watching how someone deals with a mistake is the surest window to their character. If nothing else we will get plenty of peeks into those windows.
Peggy - good catch on bely - belie...Now tell me, did ya have to look that one up? Who has better grammar? Republicans or Democrats? Northerners or Southerners? Conservatives or Liberals?
I love it when two females make up - they are so adorable in so many ways.
Peace and Love
I vote down with proper grammar on the boards! I vote NO to spelling well on the boards!
I do vote YES to free flow, pointed discussion outlining our political differences sans mano e mano tactics.
Better Grammar - I won't win --- but I'll vote for myself anyway - Independent, Southern born & bred, Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal --- and mad as hell that there isn't a party to represent me
Don't make me throw up my good Pinot Ziggy! That is not making up, not even detente, just trying to be courteous to others on the forum. Do you remember Shirley Maclaine's line in Steel Magnolias? "I'm not crazy, I've just been in an extremely bad mood for 40 years." Well, that's me brother. My buttons are all pushed.
Peggy - good catch on bely - belie...Now tell me, did ya have to look that one up? Who has better grammar? Republicans or Democrats? Northerners or Southerners? Conservatives or Liberals?
Didn't have to look it up catwoman. I knew it was wrong but I don't normally point out others mistakes, nor do I go looking for them. I like to think I have more class than that. But if someone else wants to play that game, I will, cause I've been around long enough, and seen enough pi**ing contest to know they will lose. Living 50+ years does have it's advantages.
I've also lived long enough to know if someone resorts to correcting grammar and spelling, then they lost the argument already.
I really wouldn't say one group or another had better grammar. Education has a lot to do with it and any group can have idiots as well as brilliance. Local also has a big play in it. What is brilliant knowledge in one place could be useless trivia in another. I'm sure you have a definitive answer on this but I'm not going to bite. I am instead going to wander out to my dock on this most beautiful evening and feed my fish, while contemplating the merits of salt on a margarita.
Carry on.
Mangano's Gold
8-16-11, 10:06pm
I said a few months ago that the only thing that could stop Romney was Rick Perry. Bachmann is not, nor has ever been, a serious threat to Romney.
But after a couple days on the campaign trail I don't see how he holds up against Romney. He's trying to manage the crazy/serious balance but it ain't easy. Maybe he'll get better.
Peggy - good catch on bely - belie...Now tell me, did ya have to look that one up? Who has better grammar? Republicans or Democrats? Northerners or Southerners? Conservatives or Liberals?
Seriously??
Don't make me throw up my good Pinot Ziggy! That is not making up, not even detente, just trying to be courteous to others on the forum. Do you remember Shirley Maclaine's line in Steel Magnolias? "I'm not crazy, I've just been in an extremely bad mood for 40 years." Well, that's me brother. My buttons are all pushed.
Lucky you! Buttons that get pushed are the fastest opening to self-insight in my book. I for sure know when I am in deep reactivity that there's something deeper than just the present issue going on. Thank goodness my sis is a therapist and had completely different buttons than I do - we can always call the other one for a good ol' deep down b*tch session, get it all out, then get to the root of what's really triggering us. It's very cathartic.
PS - what's Pinot Ziggy? Sounds like some kinda Grateful Dead vintage. ;~]
I vote down with proper grammar on the boards! I vote NO to spelling well on the boards!
I do vote YES to free flow, pointed discussion outlining our political differences sans mano e mano tactics.
Better Grammar - I won't win --- but I'll vote for myself anyway - Independent, Southern born & bred, Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal --- and mad as hell that there isn't a party to represent me
+1 from a guy who obviously doesn't spend a lot of time studying intimate details of the English language. And mtnlaural, when you find that party you let me know because our qualifications to join are nearly identical!
Peggy - yes to salt.
We don't need Perry; he's another Bush and look how that turned out!
From what I've seen Perry is a lot farther out on the right wing than Bush ever was. I'm not sure the core of the Tea Party would have been so quick to rally behind Mr. Bush, but they seem to love Gov. Perry.
Mangano's Gold
8-17-11, 9:56pm
From what I've seen Perry is a lot farther out on the right wing than Bush ever was. I'm not sure the core of the Tea Party would have been so quick to rally behind Mr. Bush, but they seem to love Gov. Perry.
Rick Perry sounds way farther out to the right than he used to. IMO, it started with the secession thing. My view was, and still is, that this was simple pandering. He was going to face a primary challenge from a popular sitting (Republican) Senator and wanted to get to her right. It's the old Dick Cheney policy - don't get outflanked.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Rick_Perry-White_House-2.jpg
HappyHiker
8-22-11, 10:59pm
Please let it not be so.....
Mangano's Gold
8-22-11, 11:33pm
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Rick_Perry-White_House-2.jpg
Jajajaja. From the back, you'd probably see Michelle Obama's vegetable garden replaced with an oil well.
Please forgive me if I sound like a broken record but Rick Perry even being considered as a possible candidate for the Presidency is a telling event in itself. Complete Washington Post article here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html) -
Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-perry-evangelicals-and-evolution/2011/08/18/gIQARsf6NJ_blog.html) with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/rick-perry-evolution-intelligent-design_n_932073.html) According to a 2009 Gallup study (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
A. There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Any other organization -- a big corporation, say, or a university, or a learned society - -when seeking a new leader, will go to immense trouble over the choice. The CVs of candidates and their portfolios of relevant experience are meticulously scrutinized, their publications are read by a learned committee, references are taken up and scrupulously discussed, the candidates are subjected to rigorous interviews and vetting procedures. Mistakes are still made, but not through lack of serious effort.
The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.
A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
Peace
poetry_writer
8-24-11, 5:23pm
Please forgive me if I sound like a broken record but Rick Perry even being considered as a possible candidate for the Presidency is a telling event in itself. Complete Washington Post article here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html) -
Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact
Q. Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-perry-evangelicals-and-evolution/2011/08/18/gIQARsf6NJ_blog.html) with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/rick-perry-evolution-intelligent-design_n_932073.html) According to a 2009 Gallup study (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx) , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?
A. There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. What is unusual about today’s Republican party (I disavow the ridiculous ‘GOP’ nickname, because the party of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt has lately forfeited all claim to be considered ‘grand’) is this: In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.
Any other organization -- a big corporation, say, or a university, or a learned society - -when seeking a new leader, will go to immense trouble over the choice. The CVs of candidates and their portfolios of relevant experience are meticulously scrutinized, their publications are read by a learned committee, references are taken up and scrupulously discussed, the candidates are subjected to rigorous interviews and vetting procedures. Mistakes are still made, but not through lack of serious effort.
The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.
A politician’s attitude to evolution is perhaps not directly important in itself. It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry’s and the Tea Party’s pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician’s attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all. Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today.
Peace
Are we talking politics or evolution? Many dont agree that evolution is a fact. Is that why you dont like Perry, because he disagrees with you on evolution? Darwin never said why we are here. He said he thought how, but it was just a theory..........
Evolution was a theory put forth by Darwin. Others have developed the time line of human evolution. Here is a link to the time line of human evolution. Notice there is no theory mentioned in the time line of human evolution. Your religion may say something else like the earth was created in 7 days 6 thousand years ago but science says something else so believe what you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Are we talking politics or evolution? I think a politicians position on different issues and the way they perceive the world is very important. When I see how Perry has handled issues in Texas it is very telling. He seems to be adamantly be anti-science, anti-education, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-government, anti-homosexual, anti-choice, and the list goes on and on.
This person has no business being seriously considered for the POTUS.
Peace
I read a few days ago that Perry does not believe there is global warming. Can't give you a reference, but it's out there somewhere.
poetry_writer
8-24-11, 8:06pm
I think a politicians position on different issues and the way they perceive the world is very important. When I see how Perry has handled issues in Texas it is very telling. He seems to be adamantly be anti-science, anti-education, anti-immigrant, anti-environment, anti-government, anti-homosexual, anti-choice, and the list goes on and on.
This person has no business being seriously considered for the POTUS.
Peace
we get it. you are anti Perry.
Perry according to new polls is the leading Republican candidate. That is probably good news for Obama. Obama is good at talking. In a debate Perry would be toast.
This was fun stuff to listen to today: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/24/139781021/the-evangelicals-engaged-in-spiritual-warfare
Ziggy, I see that another Texas luminary has come out in favor of Perry. Kinky Friedman say's "Hell yes, I'd vote for Perry". (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29)
So would I support Rick Perry for president? Hell, yes! As the last nail that hasn’t been hammered down in this country, I agree with Rick that there are already too damn many laws, taxes, regulations, panels, committees, and bureaucrats. While Obama is busy putting the hyphen between “anal” and “retentive” Rick will be rolling up his sleeves and getting to work.
Zigzagman
8-25-11, 12:38pm
Ziggy, I see that another Texas luminary has come out in favor of Perry. Kinky Friedman say's "Hell yes, I'd vote for Perry". (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/24/kinky-friedman-rick-perry-s-got-my-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29)
That's actually pretty interesting - Kinky was the third party candidate that split the vote in Texas when Perry won the Gov. with 36% of the vote. Ya never know about these things ;)
I guess I'll have to wait and see what "Willie" thinks about the "King of White Whine"!
Peace
Zigzagman
8-25-11, 12:55pm
If you'd like a glimpse of how Perry thinks and his priorities this is a good example. And take note of the fact that Perry thought Phil (ET) Gramm was an "economic genius". >:(
Rick Perry Sought State Profits From Teacher Life Insurance Scheme (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/rick-perry-texas-life-insurance-scheme_n_935666.html?page=1)
It was a back-room deal at odds with Perry's public persona as a career politician who had successfully sold Texans on his vision of minimal government intrusion. And it still is. Nearly eight years after the meeting, when Perry formally announced his run for the presidency in Charleston, S.C., he honed that vision into the perfect applause line: "I'll promise you this," he had said in his West Texas drawl. "I'll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can."
Death in Texas, on the other hand, is another matter. That first meeting with teacher groups and retirement plan officials in November 2003, recalled one attendee, was an effort by Perry's office to solicit support for the life insurance idea from teacher associations. There was little question who was promoting the plan.
"His office was pushing it," the source said. "It was like, 'We've got to do whatever we can. ... Here's an innovative idea. We really want you on board.'"
The governor's office was even prepared to put down a little cash up front. If retirees balked at the notion of the state profiting from their deaths, Perry's budget men suggested they could be persuaded for the cost of a pair of shoes, according to the meeting notes. If a retiree signed a contract allowing the state's teacher pension fund to buy life insurance on them, the governor was prepared to give them between $50 and $100.
Peace
loosechickens
8-25-11, 2:35pm
"The governor's office was even prepared to put down a little cash up front. If retirees balked at the notion of the state profiting from their deaths, Perry's budget men suggested they could be persuaded for the cost of a pair of shoes, according to the meeting notes. If a retiree signed a contract allowing the state's teacher pension fund to buy life insurance on them, the governor was prepared to give them between $50 and $100." (zigzagman)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, yeah....I remember that....wasn't it called the "dead peasant policy"?
Gingerella72
8-25-11, 4:14pm
Also, there's this....
http://www.naturalnews.com/033410_Rick_Perry_Big_Pharma.html
Rick Perry - Big Pharma President?
In February of 2007, the governor of Texas issued an executive order that bypassed the will of the Texas people and the entire legislature, mandating the vaccination of young girls -- in Grade 6 in Texas -- with the HPV vaccine Gardasil.
Merck, the pharmaceutical company in charge of the villainous venture and the chief distributor of the vaccine, was the same drug company that was reported to have given thousands of dollars to Perry's campaign efforts (http://www.politicolnews.com/gardas...).
The vaccine was given FDA approval in June 2006 then rushed to the market without proper testing through clinical trials, as more of an experiment than a vaccine that was proven effective. Only 8 months later Gov. Perry signed the executive order mandating this vaccine to all young girls (and later young boys were also made to be vaccinated).
By June 2008 there were multiple reports surfacing of girls having convulsions, going into comas and dying after being given the vaccine. Still, Perry did not remove his mandated vaccine law in Texas until he was finally forced to do so by lawmakers and parents that had given up their right to make their own decisions about the tremendous risk of the Gardasil vaccine and been wrongfully informed it was proven to prevent cervical cancer.
Sanger ISD is a small school district near Denton. The performers in the video are the Superintendent and other administrators. The skit was performed at the back to school employee convocation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Umf6p2dD8&feature=player_embedded
Peace
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/cwjmo110824.gif
http://images7.cpcache.com/product/16449167v3_350x350_Front.jpg
OMG - I googled Nehemiah Scudder and found out it was Robert A. Heinlein - If this goes on. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein)The story is set in a future theocratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocratic) American society, ruled by the latest in a series of “Prophets.” The First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) (elected in 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012)), then dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator) (no elections were held in 2016 or later).
How appropriate and something to ponder - Heinlein has been a visionary in his writings and although I doubt that most Amercians would accept a theocrarcy with the present tone and right-wing nuts out there I don't discount anything. Let's all just hope that the Confederate States (Bible Belt) do not control our destiny.
I hadn't heard that name (Heinlien) in decades but I immediately remembered his novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" from the my hippie days.
Peace
Religious Right Millionaire Backed Rick Perry's Career, Paved Texas Conservative Politics With Money (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/27/religious-right-millionaire-rick-perry_n_938547.html)
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/bs110824.gif
Rick Perry stood by his criticism of Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." He said the entitlement program amounts to a "monstrous lie" for young Americans, the Houston Chronicle reports (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Perry-calls-Social-Security-a-monstrous-lie-for-2144460.php).
Come on, Please! Who votes for someone that thinks SS is a ponzi scheme, really? Are you sure? Are you sure, sure?
When I hear some of this stuff I feel like a "Stranger in a Strange Land". Let's all raise our hands and say we just hate SS and the wonderful things it does for all Americans.
Are we seriously thinking about electing this person as the leader of the free world?
PEace
Our government would prefer us to believe that SS is a "Pay as you go" system, only superficially related to a classic "pyramid" or "Ponzi scheme". But I gotta admit, I have a hard time telling the difference, even after reading the SSA's web page devoted to the subject. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm
Describing SS as a ponzi scheme by someone running for POTUS is ridiculous. And exactly who is that kind of rhetoric supposed to impress? or even try to defend?
What exactly is the point? To even include SS in the debt discussion is so lame. SS is a social contract with the citizens of this country. It is funded by payroll deductions and only holds non-negotiable government bonds backed by the full faith of this nation. Last time I looked it had about a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus. I might need tweaking but is certainly not a "ponzi scheme". That statement actually sounds like a HS debate subject.
I guess I am just amazed that this kind of statement by anyone with political ambition in this country. Pretty Sad.
Peace
Mangano's Gold
8-28-11, 10:09pm
Our government would prefer us to believe that SS is a "Pay as you go" system, only superficially related to a classic "pyramid" or "Ponzi scheme". But I gotta admit, I have a hard time telling the difference, even after reading the SSA's web page devoted to the subject. http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm
Really? I find the difference rather obvious.
{emphasis mine}
I don't know what differences you may see, but it seems fairly straight-forward to me.
The Social Security system is under intense pressure as its method of taking current workers' contributions to pay for current retirees is under strain. And it's that method, which resembles a Ponzi scheme.
I suppose it could be argued that it's not technically a Ponzi scheme because it's not constructed to intentionally de-fraud it's participants, but the likelihood that it will go belly-up at some point, leaving millions of people in the lurch, blurs that simple distinction.
Zigzagman
8-28-11, 11:09pm
I don't know what differences you may see, but it seems fairly straight-forward to me.
The Social Security system is under intense pressure as its method of taking current workers' contributions to pay for current retirees is under strain. And it's that method, which resembles a Ponzi scheme.
I suppose it could be argued that it's not technically a Ponzi scheme because it's not constructed to intentionally de-fraud it's participants, but the likelihood that it will go belly-up at some point, leaving millions of people in the lurch, blurs that simple distinction.
If you really believe that then you could say exactly the same of Savings Bonds, US Treasuries, and actually our total fiat currency in general. You know as well as I that this is simply hokey goober talk that has no meaning at all. It might sound good in some Karaoke Bar but certainly not on the national stage with the entire world listening.
Have we actually diminished to that level?
Peace
Mangano's Gold
8-28-11, 11:24pm
Pay-as-you-go = Ponzi Scheme is either lazy thinking or agenda-driven. Things can have common elements and be very different. In fact, they often do.
Pay-as-you-go = Ponzi Scheme is either lazy thinking or agenda-driven. Things can have common elements and be very different. In fact, they often do.
Lazy thinking? Agenda driven?
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010
for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding
interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due
to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for
excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This
deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the
economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as
the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate
than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will
be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the
Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust
fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be
redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are
exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter,
tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled
benefits through 2085.
Like a classic Ponzi scheme, it is ultimately un-sustainable. The only difference being it is not intentional fraud and it's healthy life expectancy is considerably longer than it's illegal counterpart.
If you have facts illustrating otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Mangano's Gold
8-29-11, 12:18am
Alan, Social Security is fixable with fairly modest changes. Ponzi schemes can't be fixed.
Medicare is a much bigger problem.
Many people who post here believe themselves to be so enlightened as to be above prejudice, racial, gender or otherwise. I already see the regional prejudice so apparent in the things posted mocking Perry. Words like "hokey goober". The cartoons.. Well continue to attempt to marginalize him with Prejudice, inflammatory words because he is a Texan, a Christian, a conservative...
The left has no defense left for Obama. It will have to be bashing of the opponent, making sure you use the current buzz words and talking points to portray Perry as some cartoonish oaf. The southern bashing is getting rididulous...nothing like a little self-hate, right Ziggy?
oh, call the Special Victims Unit!
Many people who post here believe themselves to be so enlightened as to be above prejudice, racial, gender or otherwise. I already see the regional prejudice so apparent in the things posted mocking Perry. Words like "hokey goober". The cartoons.. Well continue to attempt to marginalize him with Prejudice, inflammatory words because he is a Texan, a Christian, a conservative...
The left has no defense left for Obama. It will have to be bashing of the opponent, making sure you use the current buzz words and talking points to portray Perry as some cartoonish oaf. The southern bashing is getting rididulous...nothing like a little self-hate, right Ziggy?
Maybe so, maybe so. But how else can you describe someone that makes comments like "secede from the union, SS is a ponzi scheme, FED Chairman is a traitor"? I thought "hokey goober" was actually pretty generous. Most people would just say idiot.
You obviously must be a "compassionate conservative" to be able to defend Perry - or maybe it is just Texas Pride? I personally am embarrassed for all Texans.
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Perry-Sign-1-300x300.jpg
Peace
I recently heard Governor Perry described as "George Bush without the humility or intellect." I'm not sure that's hyperbole, from what little I've seen of him. Like many others, I want a president and representatives who are smarter and more capable than I am, not less. And I want public servants who believe in the government they serve, not corporatists who are just marking time until they can snag a lucrative lobbying sinecure.
poetry_writer
8-29-11, 10:37am
This forum has people that are so prejudiced against people from the South, particularly Texans and anyone else who dares to be Repulican and/or white and/or Christian......Consider Sarah Palin. SHE'S STUPID. will be the first comment. But I have yet to find one who could say why he thought that other than she is white, Christian and conservative.
Zig I meet a couple form Texas when I was volunteering in the visitors center yesterday. I mentioned that their governor might be president and they said God Save the Country if he becomes president. So there are other Texans that fell the same way you do.
***MOD HAT ON***
Please do NOT direct disparaging remarks at fellow posters. It is always appropriate to question candidates beliefs and qualifications. In fact I would go so far as to say it is our duty to do so. It is not, however, appropriate to to malign other posters or belittle the process they use to select the candidate they wish to support, or not support as the case may be.
Here is a link to the forum guidelines. Its never a bad idea to take a quick refresher look through them.
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?12-Forum-Etiquette
Zigzagman
8-29-11, 12:33pm
Sorry to both of my fellow Texans - Catwoman and Poetrywriter - you are right that I have copied cartoons and comments from all across the "internets". It not really because I am lazy but mostly because I agree with those comments and statements .
Having grown up in the South I will admit some prejudice and disgust at what I see in term of religious fundmentalism, racism, and injustice. I grew up in the era of the civil rights movement and I think what I saw and heard was a big influence in my life.
Why do I consider the likes of Perry, Palin, Bauchmann dangerous and stupid? It's because they are. They are dangerous because in times like these people tend to make bad decisions. This election actually reminds me of the 1968 Presidential election with George Wallace running as a third party. Rick Perry's flamboyant redneck-isms also sound like his rhetoric.
A lot of people don't seem to realize that it was Wallace that laid the foundation for the dominance of the Republican Party in the South through the manipulation of racial and social issues much as we have today but this time probably more focused on Hispanics as Blacks have become America's hidden people.
Sorry if I've offended you, I actually like both of you and enjoy our conversations. IMO, I am only stating the obvious.
Peace
poetry_writer
8-29-11, 1:03pm
No offence taken. you said:
Why do I consider the likes of Perry, Palin, Bauchmann dangerous and stupid? It's because they are. They are dangerous because in times like these people tend to make bad decisions. This election actually reminds me of the 1968 Presidential election with George Wallace running as a third party. Rick Perry's flamboyant redneck-isms also sound like his rhetoric.
"because they are" is only your personal opinion. as long as you make that obvious, thats fine. Its a free country. As far as bringing up George Wallace .......I cant even comment on that! LOL.
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/08/30/politicos-is-rick-perry-dumb-hit-piece-is-just-a-taste-of-whats-coming-in-2012/
Here's a little something to balance the perspective of this forum....Author is pointing out the type of "hit-piece" journalism the left has to resort to to defend and protect Obama. Kinda similar to Ziggy's cartoons...
Carry on - I am simply trying to warn the members of SLN of the real Rick Perry and my personal experiences living here in Texas. I think the man actions speak for themselves and it is now up to the voters.
If Americans have a desire to elect someone like this (Perry) then it will happen. I am still hopeful that we have not come to that level in this country. I will admit I felt the same way about George W. Bush and I had to face the reality of him getting elected twice. So I have a pretty poor track record.
I just for the life of me see anything attractive about Rick Perry as President. He is not smart, he is a religious fundamentalist that believe that GOD told him to for POTUS, and he is a politician that has never met someone with money that he didn't like. All I can say is - Be careful what you wish for.
BTW - I sure as heck would not like to drink a beer or even a Smoothie with this piece of crap.
Peace
"Piece of crap" would indeed be opinion...
"Piece of crap" would indeed be opinion...
Isn't it also a metaphor?
Just a reminder, as we're just barely entering this election season, that the subject of this forum is SIMPLE public POLICY. So let us rephrase the question at hand: What policies are being proposed by Rick Perry that will enable all of us to live simply so that others may simply live? (Note that this is a positive question seeking evidence, not a negative question seeking evidence to the contrary, perhaps that will keep us from characterizing the man, rather than characterizing his policy proposals.) If you know of a Republican candidate that is more effectively proposing simplicity-oriented policies, call out their proposals. (The inadequacies of the Goldman Sachs Administration on this score can be addressed in a different thread, of course.:devil:)
Rozie - After reading your post and since I started the "President Perry" thread maybe it should just be deleted or locked. Admittedly I just cannot stand Perry and am unable to grasp how anyone else could. The thread is dead so maybe I'm simply preaching to the choir or maybe just myself.
As far as simple living and the upcoming elections I am really going to try and focus on who and how the potential candidates "will enable all of us to live simply so that others may simply live?" as you said. I would love that to be someone's focus - anyone's - but at this point I really don't see it happening. I hope I am just being too cynical.
Peace
Rozie does pose an interesting question. I have to admit that issues of simplicity rarely, if ever, make up my criteria for candidate selection. Not that its not important to me, I just usually take that aspect of my life to a more introspective level rather than apply it to the public domain. Kind of a let the storm rage outside, I'll stay by the fire approach. The main thought I can't shake out of my head is wondering if it would even be possible to design anything farther from the typical simple ideals than the life of a candidate on the campaign trail?
I think there are some informative nuggets in here, Zig, so I'm not inclined to say it should be deleted. (As in, some of the Texas policy and politics under Perry, and the question of what that indicates for someone (proposed to be) running a huge federal government that serves rural and urban, north & south, immigrant and brahmin. Personally, elections are like my SuperBowl -- I love a good reasoned debate (hard to come by, I know.) If you want to be cynical, then why even pay attention, since you know Goldman Sachs elects our presidents, not the citizen rabble? ;)
I'd love to see this space (SPP) be used to really discuss and debate the net effect of major policy initiatives, and how they relate to the values that are shared by the people who choose to hang out on this forum. To me, that's juicy! There is much opportunity to find blanket characterizations, and nit-picking beside-the-points from the major news channels, bloggers, radio pundits, and preaching-to-the-choir forums.
What can I read here that would help me articulate these policy issues to others who aren't "simple", in my attempt to constructively engage them in the very important national debate that needs to happen? Where is the common ground in our personal and national concerns, that illustrates why the different proposed solutions may be important to seriously consider? How can "the other side" help me to hone MY solutions to meet the concerns of the maximum people, to the maximum good, for the longest possible timeframe?
Well, there goes the neighborhood. :(
Once we limit the Reviews forum to simplicity books and movies, engage only in simple hobbies and simple finance and only celebrate simple holidays, we'll run out of discussion points pretty fast.
In the absence of a spirited point/counter-point, free-range discussion, I may as well play solitaire.
Well, there goes the neighborhood. :(
Once we limit the Reviews forum to simplicity books and movies, engage only in simple hobbies and simple finance and only celebrate simple holidays, we'll run out of discussion points pretty fast.
In the absence of a spirited point/counter-point, free-range discussion, I may as well play solitaire.
You think there isn't opportunity for a spirited point/counter-point in talking about how public policy influences/shouldn't influence, enables/shouldn't enable, mandates/shouldn't mandate simple living? Especially in a presidential election campaign? HA! I beg to differ, and if you don't believe it Alan, I'm sure I can bait you into very spiritedly counter-pointing some of my points. !pow!
You think there isn't opportunity for a spirited point/counter-point in talking about how public policy influences/shouldn't influence, enables/shouldn't enable, mandates/shouldn't mandate simple living? Especially in a presidential election campaign? HA! I beg to differ, and if you don't believe it Alan, I'm sure I can bait you into very spiritedly counter-pointing some of my points. !pow!
With only 24 posts in a dozen threads over a 9 month period, you're gonna have to up your game a bit to keep things interesting. ;)
I see simplicity as an ideology of sorts, just like a political ideology, and one we all share. We are all attracted to this, and are living/want to live/need this center in our lives. But i think most of us can't really compartmentalize and keep simplicity over here and the 'rest' of our selves over there. What happens politically does affect me, in all aspects of my life, whether directly or indirectly through my country, town, neighbors or family. No one exists in a bubble, nor can the actions of our elected leaders. Those actions will, ultimately, affect all of us.
Sure, we can discuss individual political actions, and often do. But it won't mean anything if we don't first discuss WHO is making those decisions. We have to discuss Perry as a potential candidate because, after all, if this bozo is elected it will definitely affect us all. And that WILL affect my simple life.
He wants to do away with SS. How simple do you think that will make it for the elderly? And, as much as I hate to admit it, we will all be that person someday. He wants to repeal the health care reforms. That certainly affects our financial planning, and unsimplified that which Obama was trying to simplify.
I wouldn't worry about the often spirited debate we engage in here. I know it sometimes seems like we are disintegrating into chaos, but we've been here before and survived. We've done this before, and believe me it will get even more 'spirited', but no one really seems to hold a grudge for very long, and those who can't take the heat and stay civil, usually leave this kitchen.
Personally, I believe it's because we all share this ideology of simplicity that we can disagree in other areas without disengaging completely. We are who we are, and even 'simple' people can hold complicated political views and discussions.
Peggy, I can't remember the last time I agreed with you, but on this point (minus the gratuitous political hyperbole) I think we're kindred spirits.
Seriously, I believe that if everyone would simply adhere to the guidelines regarding personal attacks on members as well as public figures, the administrators wouldn't have reason to suggest we limit our discussions.
Peggy, I can't remember the last time I agreed with you, but on this point (minus the gratuitous political hyperbole) I think we're kindred spirits.
Seriously, I believe that if everyone would simply adhere to the guidelines regarding personal attacks on members as well as public figures, the administrators wouldn't have reason to suggest we limit our discussions.
Well let's mark this date Alan, since I'm pretty sure we won't agree again until after this election! At least politically.;)
But, I do believe public figures are fair game for derision and ridicule. After all, they put themselves up there to be judged, and are in fact asking for the ultimate judgement, a vote. So, no one should be surprised if we do judge them. And I won't be easy on them either, including those I vote for. Too often people forget, including those elected leaders, that in the end, whoever wins is supposed to represent us all, We the People, and what they do affects us all.
Bush was my President, and what he did to this country will be felt for generations. And Obama is your President, which is why I expect you to be hard on him.
Okay, here's a lob out to ya'll for spiritedness (perhaps more for those more anti-Perry than you, Alan):
As a basic tenet of my simplicity, I believe that if capital and jobs don't know borders anymore, people should have freedom of movement too (actually believed this before capital and jobs lost all their restrictions.) Perry signed a law that called for a STUDY (love laws that merely study - a great dodge, but hey, it's also good to look before you leap) on allowing private health plans licensed in Texas to cover services in Texas AND in Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Seems to me this is a grand idea, and the study claimed it would dramatically decrease both costs in the tax-funded SCHIP program, and make it easier on immigrants who are supporting families cross-border. Since 72 percent of Mexico-born residents of the United States would be interested in a product that covered medical services in Mexico (2005 study) could this dramatically alter Texas' abysmal rate of insured? rrrrr
Granted, we simple folks don't partake much of allopathic medicine, but isn't that because allopathic medicine in the US generally sucks, more than it is about simplicity? Could one reasonably argue that my SO should be able to go to, say, Germany, for spinal surgery on that impinged disk that threatens paralyzation, and have Blue Cross (or Medicare for that matter) cover it? Might a Republican candidate like Perry by more amenable to this idea than a Dem?
Perry signed a law that called for a STUDY (love laws that merely study - a great dodge, but hey, it's also good to look before you leap) on allowing private health plans licensed in Texas to cover services in Texas AND in Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Seems to me this is a grand idea, and the study claimed it would dramatically decrease both costs in the tax-funded SCHIP program, and make it easier on immigrants who are supporting families cross-border. Since 72 percent of Mexico-born residents of the United States would be interested in a product that covered medical services in Mexico (2005 study) could this dramatically alter Texas' abysmal rate of insured?
Might a Republican candidate like Perry by more amenable to this idea than a Dem?
From my exposure to the Republican way of thinking, I seriously doubt that the issue of making it easier on immigrants supporting families with regard to healthcare would even enter the equation. As most of the country knows Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. However, the one factor that immediately get GOP attention is "business interests".
I found this (http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/chasp/publications/downloads/Cross_Border_Health_Insurance.pdf) Policy Research Project Report by the LBJ School of Public Affairs interesting.
In the late 1990s, California took steps to legitimize the sale of cross-border health insurance, and the resulting policies and market structure can serve as an example for Texas.
In 1999, the Texas Legislature examined legislation to legalize cross-border HMOs for residents along the border in an effort to decrease the number of uninsured and alleviate the strains put on
hospitals due to the high costs associated with indigent care. Instead, an Interim Committee on Binational Health Benefit Plan Coverage was created to study the issues. Although it issued a report in early 2003, there was little interest in moving forward due to opposition, primarily of organized medicine.
Despite the lack of progress, there is still an interest by employers, insurers, and workers
in Texas for cost-saving, cross-border plans.
I'm not sure our healthcare system will ever be focused on "health" instead of "profit" in a Republican world.
Peace
From my exposure to the Republican way of thinking, I seriously doubt that the issue of making it easier on immigrants supporting families with regard to healthcare would even enter the equation. As most of the country knows Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation. However, the one factor that immediately get GOP attention is "business interests".
Peace
From a 2001 speech by Governor Perry at a US/Mexico border summit: (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/01/rick_perry_in_2001_on_bi_national_health_insurance _with_mexico)
There are other challenges that require a unified approach, especially in the area of health care. A lack of preventative medicine means conditions that could have been eliminated through childhood immunizations show up in disturbing numbers later in life. Limited availability of medical specialists means conditions like heart disease and diabetes go untreated at alarming rates. In Texas, we recently placed a strong emphasis on preventative care when we expanded access to Medicaid for more low-income children by making the Medicaid enrollment process simpler. We allocated an additional $4 billion to the Medicaid program, and more than $900 million to the Children's Health Insurance Program. I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. But the effort to combat disease and illness requires greater cooperative efforts between our two nations. It is a simple truth that disease knows no boundaries. An outbreak of drug-resistant tuberculosis, for example, endangers citizens of both our nations. We have much to gain if we work together to expand preventative care, and treat maladies unique to this region.
Legislation authored by border legislators Pat Haggerty and Eddie Lucio establishes an important study that will look at the feasibility of bi-national health insurance. This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region. That's why I am also excited that Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar is working on an initiative that could extend the benefits of telemedicine to individuals living on the Mexican side of the border.
Granted, the study has yet to yield results, but it seems like he was actively promoting a bi-partisan approach to a local problem. Do you think the very fact that he is a Republican kept this from going anywhere? If so, does the fact that the Texas House of Representatives was controlled by Democrats at the time have anything to do with it? I understand that the Texas legislature is one of the most powerful bodies of it's kind in the US. I wonder why they didn't just approve it and move on?
Granted, the study has yet to yield results, but it seems like he was actively promoting a bi-partisan approach to a local problem.
If you think there is anything bi-partisan about the Texas Lege or Rick Perry you are living in a dream world! It sounds good but nothing could be further from the truth. Of course that never stopped anyone from "playing like".
As I said earlier be very careful when it come to Rick Perry - I seriously doubt that much of America has ever been exposed (other that Bush) to someone like this. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that he is the nominee. At this point I think he is the most likely to ensure an Obama victory. Bauchman would however be a close second.
Peace
If you think there is anything bi-partisan about the Texas Lege or Rick Perry you are living in a dream world! It sounds good but nothing could be further from the truth. Of course that never stopped anyone from "playing like".
Peace
Reminds me of an old joke "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin eyes?"
My source said that all groups (business AND labor, etc.) were aligned with the proposal and it had support in the lege too... EXCEPT DOCTORS intervened. Here is an interesting case where the left and right (except doctors) had a shared interest in seeing the same type of solution -- a "free market" solution that actually would have helped the working class for once. And the guy who otherwise is painted as monolithically extremist was siding with the majority of reasonable people. Now sit back and watch him lose the support of his party because of his heretofore reasonable stance on immigration. And let us watch how, rather than defend the practicality of his previous stance on this and his support of the Texas version of the "liberal" DREAM act, he will retreat and disavow it, because reasonable people within his party won't defend his one reasonable issue stance...
I just cannot resist - this is the halftime at the University of Texas/Rice football game yesterday. During halftime at Texas stadium, they started the show with a jab at Tea Party candidate Rick Perry. And the crowd LOVED it! (for those that don't know, Rick Perry was a Aggie Cheerleader)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lyFU5zbnHE&feature=player_embedded
You should have resisted Zig. Its "Yell Leader" not cheerleader and by the way, Aggies beat the hell outta SMU yesteray. I am going to come back and see you here in November, when you need consoling after the election. Until then , stay out of the wildfires and heat...
You should have resisted Zig. Its "Yell Leader" not cheerleader and by the way, Aggies beat the hell outta SMU yesteray. I am going to come back and see you here in November, when you need consoling after the election. Until then , stay out of the wildfires and heat...
LOL - I knew that (yell leader) but refuse to acknowledge such a thing!! Who ever heard of a Yell Leader?:laff::laff:
It will indeed be a pity party if THAT happens - maybe we can get together and console each other. I know you are not really a Perry fan. BTW- I really am sad to see A&M leaving the Big 12. Things will not be the same but can't really blame them since UT seems to be sucking the air our of the media market with the Longhorn Network. Couldn't even see the game because as of now no one is carrying it.
Peace
Hi Zigzagman - I love 'ya and I love your thoughtful posts, but I am offended by your cartoon above. (And I am NOT, NOT, NOT a Rick Perry fan).
So this is how liberals engage in pubic policy discussions? I use to find it numerous reading post from Peggy, loose, and the dope head. But now it's getting old, I guess when you have to defend a failed president, all you can do smear. I think I'll join Bae.
Have a nice life in your liberal fantasy land.
So this is how liberals engage in pubic policy discussions? I use to find it numerous reading post from Peggy, loose, and the dope head. But now it's getting old, I guess when you have to defend a failed president, all you can do smear. I think I'll join Bae.
Have a nice life in your liberal fantasy land.
hey dmc, sorry if you go. The moving mouth photo of Perry is one of the stupidest things posted on here in years, but I'm not going to ask for its removal. I'm one that lobbies for looser moderation, and as long as personal attacks are removed, I'm willing to put up with lots of things.
A photo like this of Perry reveals more about the poster than all kinds of yammering. It has its usefulness.
Zigzagman
9-10-11, 10:02am
Hi Zigzagman - I love 'ya and I love your thoughtful posts, but I am offended by your cartoon above. (And I am NOT, NOT, NOT a Rick Perry fan).
Sorry, a childish moment - I deleted.
Peace
Zigzagman
9-10-11, 10:08am
So this is how liberals engage in pubic policy discussions? I use to find it numerous reading post from Peggy, loose, and the dope head. But now it's getting old, I guess when you have to defend a failed president, all you can do smear. I think I'll join Bae.
Have a nice life in your liberal fantasy land.
Sorry the photo offended you, dmc. I thought it was funny at the time. I hope not enough for you to pack your bags. It was just a 60 year old acting like 6 in a moment of weakness. I enjoy your posts.
The Dope Head
mtnlaurel
9-10-11, 10:18am
Oh come on guys -- don't anyone go anywhere -- we need everyone here to stick up for their points of view.
At least I know on this board everyone is real person and not a troll.
And at the end of the day our own individual interpretations of simplicity unite us.
Ziggy, I always enjoy your sense of humor and hate to think you have to tone yourself down to stay within community guidelines, but I gotta tell ya bud, that doctored photo was funny by itself, but the reference to Michelle Bachmann was a little misogynistic, don't you think?
Otherwise, keep up the good work showing the innate differences between liberals and conservatives, even if the evidence disappears before everyone has a chance to enjoy it. I appreciate your efforts more than you know. :devil:
Zigzagman
9-10-11, 12:55pm
Ziggy, I always enjoy your sense of humor and hate to think you have to tone yourself down to stay within community guidelines, but I gotta tell ya bud, that doctored photo was funny by itself, but the reference to Michelle Bachmann was a little misogynistic, don't you think?
Otherwise, keep up the good work showing the innate differences between liberals and conservatives, even if the evidence disappears before everyone has a chance to enjoy it. I appreciate your efforts more than you know. :devil:
Thanks Alan for the support. I will admit that it was over the top but it was on a Friday night, I was feeling good and I thought it was really funny in my own demented sort of way. Of course waking up today it appeared not so funny to many. Seriously I guess I just don't take things like that seriously but maybe should. I make no bones about my political leanings but would never intentionally try and offend anyone.
I also love to hear from the other side - it does help to keep me balanced because I would probably be a extremist otherwise ;) FYI - it does make me feel bad to think I offended anyone.
Peace
loosechickens
9-10-11, 1:52pm
"So this is how liberals engage in pubic policy discussions? I use to find it numerous reading post from Peggy, loose, and the dope head. But now it's getting old, I guess when you have to defend a failed president, all you can do smear. I think I'll join Bae.
Have a nice life in your liberal fantasy land." (dmc)
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm sorry....I can't comment on Zig's cartoon, because it was deleted before I came onto the thread.....but not to worry, dmc......what's more likely, if you are like some others who have made dramatic exits, you'll still be here, every day, gobbling up all our words of wisdom, just withholding your own "pearls", reluctant to cast them out before swine........
I don't think anyone really needs, ever, to flounce off in a huff about what some poster says or posts on an internet forum. Such things say much more about the thin skin and easily bruised egos of the leavees, to me, but........
Personally, I think we need ALL the voices, whatever their viewpoints, but that's just my own viewpoint as a member....nothing "official".
Please yourself......boy, that must have been QUITE a cartoon, Zig.......clearly it hit a nerve.....sorry I missed it. It didn't portray Governor Perry as a witchdoctor in a grass skirt, with a bone through his nose, did it? Or as a big, thicklipped baboon? Because if it had done that, probably none of the conservatives would have been offended, because they would have known, "it was just meant as a joke", etc.......
"So this is how liberals engage in pubic policy discussions? I use to find it numerous reading post from Peggy, loose, and the dope head. But now it's getting old, I guess when you have to defend a failed president, all you can do smear. I think I'll join Bae.
Have a nice life in your liberal fantasy land." (dmc)
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, I'm sorry....I can't comment on Zig's cartoon, because it was deleted before I came onto the thread.....but not to worry, dmc......what's more likely, if you are like some others who have made dramatic exits, you'll still be here, every day, gobbling up all our words of wisdom, just withholding your own "pearls", reluctant to cast them out before swine........
I don't think anyone really needs, ever, to flounce off in a huff about what some poster says or posts on an internet forum. Such things say much more about the thin skin and easily bruised egos of the leavees, to me, but........
Personally, I think we need ALL the voices, whatever their viewpoints, but that's just my own viewpoint as a member....nothing "official".
Please yourself......boy, that must have been QUITE a cartoon, Zig.......clearly it hit a nerve.....sorry I missed it. It didn't portray Governor Perry as a witchdoctor in a grass skirt, with a bone through his nose, did it? Or as a big, thicklipped baboon? Because if it had done that, probably none of the conservatives would have been offended, because they would have known, "it was just meant as a joke", etc.......
I don't think you've ever seen anything like that here have you?
And as for those others who have possibly left in a huff, do you think that it had anything to do with how they were treated after being subjected to angry rant's just before having their posting privileges suspended by the same "official" member doing the ranting? And what is "dramatic" about not posting again after being subjected to such a thing? It seems to me that people can often-times choose to stop participating for very valid reasons, which shouldn't be mocked or ridiculed by others involved.
loosechickens
9-10-11, 3:17pm
Ah, Alan.....you are so dependably "kneejerky".
Virtually every member on these forums who has had a hissy fit and made dramatic announcements of their departure, returns, often under another name, sometimes never really leaves, but just lurks and reads everything, but refuses to participate. You know well how addictive these forums are. When you were undergoing banishment, you spent tremendous energy trying to get registered on the forums under dozens of identities, etc. None of us can STAND to not be here. There is nothing mocking or ridiculing about noting that fact. It's just the way it is.
Few leave for any other reasons than real life considerations, change in lifestyle, etc. The ones who make the dramatic announcements about leaving because of something someone said, or because they don't feel they were treated with enough reverence almost always return, never leave, or just become lurkers. that's a statement of fact, based on lots of past experience. Who was it that said "you can learn a lot just by watching"?
I'm the first one to realize that, as nearly daily I swear to myself to just come on here, do my necessary moderator duties, screen new registrations, deal with spammers, etc., and then GET OFF THE DARN INTERNET.....yet, every day, here I am....engaged in useless debate with you, hahahahaha.
At least weekly, I determine that these forums just take up too much time, and I really need to resign as moderator, so I don't feel I have to come here every day, yet, I never do, and every day......here I am.
We've gone over this ad infinitum, yet you persist in saying such things as " just before having their posting privileges suspended by the same "official" member......", although you know well that ALL moderating decisions involving any discipline of a member, suspension of privileges, etc., are made by consensus, by the entire board of moderators, after lengthy discussion, often communication with the person facing suspension of privileges, etc., and because of clear violations of forum guidelines.
Even if I WANTED to, I have no power to make ANY unilateral decisions on this board, and you know it. How many other things do you know are completely untrue that you continue to put forward? Honestly, it makes me question your veracity on other subjects, since I know this particular one is false and you know it is false. How far into the weeds of "truthiness" are you willing to go to make a point? One that you know to be untrue? One wonders.
Well, enough of this..........I'm off to Camping World to do my part to stimulate the economy by buying a new 12 volt fan because our old one has bitten the dust and manages to resist even the intercession of my sweetie's screwdriver to continue rotating.........
"...It didn't portray Governor Perry as a witchdoctor in a grass skirt, with a bone through his nose, did it? Or as a big, thicklipped baboon? Because if it had done that, probably none of the conservatives would have been offended, because they would have known, "it was just meant as a joke", etc.......
I call B.S.
....We've gone over this ad infinitum, yet you persist in saying such things as " just before having their posting privileges suspended by the same "official" member......", although you know well that ALL moderating decisions involving any discipline of a member, suspension of privileges, etc., are made by consensus, by the entire board of moderators, after lengthy discussion, often communication with the person facing suspension of privileges, etc., and because of clear violations of forum guidelines.
Even if I WANTED to, I have no power to make ANY unilateral decisions on this board, and you know it. How many other things do you know are completely untrue that you continue to put forward? Honestly, it makes me question your veracity on other subjects, since I know this particular one is false and you know it is false. How far into the weeds of "truthiness" are you willing to go to make a point? One that you know to be untrue? One wonders.....
What I "know" is that I've been suspended, without notice, on the old site within 5 minutes of questioning your actions, and in Bae's case, another Administrator had no idea he'd been banned until several weeks after the fact, which sorta makes me wonder about how much "consensus, lengthy discussion and communication" actually goes on. But, this is a new incarnation and you guys don't seem to be quite as "kneejerky" (I can repeat a phrase in the general sense after having it used to refer to me specifically can't I?) as you used to be, well not as consistently anyway.
By the way, good job on branding me as a liar, it goes well with your previous descriptions of me as "rabble rouser", "trouble maker", "thin skinned malcontent", etc. Some things never change.
I didn't see the video either but am curious as to why the mods deleted it (enquirering minds want to know :-)!). I'm also curious, being very unfamilair with proper forums conduct, why the mods must check a persons IP address when they first sign on or in order to see if someone is trying to regain enty onto the boards if they've been banned. And how do they do that with people like me who use free wi-fi in various locations -and even various e-mail addresses wouldn't it be different at each place? It seems to me that a free web site that is "suppose" to be anounomaus (sp?) wouldn't need to "check out" anyone if they wanted to post here. I can see banning them if they are totally out of hand but am suprised that they would go to great lengths to stop a poster - new or old - from starting fresh with a new ID if they wanted. Someone enlighten me. And what would cause someone to be banned anyways? Crude language? Personal attacks? Gloating ;-)? Also how do you check an IP address? Is that something anyone can do from their computer to check out someone else?
..... Someone enlighten me.
This used to be a pretty exclusive neighborhood. Gotta keep the riff-raff out.
This used to be a pretty exclusive neighborhood. Gotta keep the riff-raff out.
Oh well, guess that means me too. But I have been kicked out of fancier diggs before so I guess I can't complain :-)!
I actually have never registered or posted to any other websites so this is all new to me. Don't really understand it but maybe it's common. I thought the mods were here to make sure that people didn't violate the forum rules not to be doing background checks to see if they are who they say they are. I don't get why that would matter. If I want to come back after I've been banned for bad behavior as someone else and start fresh, I think I should be allowed to do so - without the mods knowing my true identity (I am, in fact, Batman). If my behavior goes south again then they are welcome to kick my butt to the curb. As long as I play nice I should be allowed to stay on in any personna I want IMHO.
Oh well, guess that means me too. But I have been kicked out of fancier diggs before so I guess I can't complain :-)!
I actually have never registered or posted to any other websites so this is all new to me. Don't really understand it but maybe it's common. I thought the mods were here to make sure that people didn't violate the forum rules not to be doing background checks to see if they are who they say they are. I don't get why that would matter. If I want to come back after I've been banned for bad behavior as someone else and start fresh, I think I should be allowed to do so - without the mods knowing my true identity (I am, in fact, Batman). If my behavior goes south again then they are welcome to kick my butt to the curb. As long as I play nice I should be allowed to stay on in any personna I want IMHO.
Well and you are, actually. From what I've seen, people do come back after the ban period (I think it's usually just a day or two) and they are usually banned for personal attacks. Things can get pretty heated here and mostly we keep it civil but sometimes someone will get a little too personal.
Actually, I don't have the figures but I don't think it's actually happened that often. Alan mentioned being banned, I don't remember it, but here he is. And bae was banned for a day or two I think, but I think he lurks here. I always seem to miss the particular posts that get people banned, but I'm guessing they delete the offending post as well. Or maybe I see them and don't think they are worth it. It takes quite a bit to offend me! Oh, and Alan, I think it was me who said you were a rabble rouser, but you well know I was jesting, as we also often do. That's what makes these boards good I think. If it was just bickering all the time it wouldn't be fun.
But this brings me to Zig's post. Dang! I always miss the good ones! I didn't see that toon either. It must have been a doozy!
I didn't see the video either but am curious as to why the mods deleted it (enquirering minds want to know :-)!).
I posted it and I deleted it - It was simply a animated gif that portrayed Perry eating a corndog much like Bachmann - I thought it was funny but it offended some people and so I deleted it. I was loaded and it probably was over the top but I really didn't think anything about it.
Look - this is a wonderful forum with people of all races (wish we had more blacks) and countries around the planet. I'm not sure why this has to escalate into a pissing match between people it was simply a off-color joke about someone that I hold in low regard. Now that I think about it I shouldn't have posted it.
Can we all just give a group hug and admit that we are only being human without anyone stomping off? DMC, my brother, don't take it so personal - I love you and I don't mean that in a sexual way.
The election is coming up and we need people of all persuasions to express their ideas - I learn from you guys and look forward to a spirited debate.
BTW - Leave Peggy and LC out of this. It was my mistake and not sure why they should even be mentioned. Just because they tend to be progressive is no reason to blast them.
It is becoming more apparent that Rick Perry is not long in this race (much to my chagrin) but he is no more radical than myself - except I am not running for POTUS. Maybe I should!! Could you guys loan me a few hundred million? I promise to make it worth your while.
Peace and Love
Well and you are, actually. From what I've seen, people do come back after the ban period (I think it's usually just a day or two) and they are usually banned for personal attacks. Things can get pretty heated here and mostly we keep it civil but sometimes someone will get a little too personal.
Actually, I don't have the figures but I don't think it's actually happened that often. Alan mentioned being banned, I don't remember it, but here he is. And bae was banned for a day or two I think, but I think he lurks here. I always seem to miss the particular posts that get people banned, but I'm guessing they delete the offending post as well. Or maybe I see them and don't think they are worth it. It takes quite a bit to offend me! Oh, and Alan, I think it was me who said you were a rabble rouser, but you well know I was jesting, as we also often do. That's what makes these boards good I think. If it was just bickering all the time it wouldn't be fun.
But this brings me to Zig's post. Dang! I always miss the good ones! I didn't see that toon either. It must have been a doozy!
Oh I thought they meant banned for life. That makes more sense. Sory of a "You've been bad, go to your rooom with no supper!". Still don't know why they need to check a poster's IP address when they join or want to repost under a new ID. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
Oh I thought they meant banned for life. That makes more sense. Sory of a "You've been bad, go to your rooom with no supper!". Still don't know why they need to check a poster's IP address when they join or want to repost under a new ID. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
I was banned for life, well, according to one of the moderators who took exception to me. It would appear that's just a convenient talking point though.
There's actually a good reason to check IP addresses on new registrations. You wouldn't believe the number of bots out there, crawling the web and looking for sites to register with and post spam. Most forum packages have several means of making it harder to do that. A forum administrator can choose to require a new registrant to respond to an automated email in order to complete the registration process, successfully complete a CAPTCHA form (entering data displayed on the screen requires human intervention), or have a staff member personally review every registration request and make a personal decision as to whether to grant the request.
Here, they have chosen the last method. It's handy to have the software keep track of IP addresses because you can block many subsequent bots all working from the same IP address or even domain. It's just a bonus that you can also prevent past members from getting in again by linking their IP address to their previous identity. One or two of the past administrators were extremely diligent with that one.
What I don't think any of them really understood though, is that the typical home internet user has dynamic IP addresses, it may change daily, weekly, monthly or maybe only once or twice a year, but they do change without it being anything sneaky the home user is up to.
OK I understand now...well sort of. But what's to keep people from using different free wi-fi sites from logging in as a new user? I log on to this site from different wi-fi places all the time - and I'm assuming different IP address too - and have never been denied access under my (only) user name. I also delete all my cookies before I shut off my laptop so it's not tracked that way. UGH, guess I DO need a computer class.
OK I understand now...well sort of. But what's to keep people from using different free wi-fi sites from logging in as a new user? I log on to this site from different wi-fi places all the time - and I'm assuming different IP address too - and have never been denied access under my (only) user name. I also delete all my cookies before I shut off my laptop so it's not tracked that way. UGH, guess I DO need a computer class.
As long as no one decides they don't want you around anymore, you don't need to worry about where or how you log on. But once they do decide, expect to be scrutinized using every tool available.
expect to be scrutinized using every tool available.
Oohhh, sounds like an alien anal probe ;-)! Ok, I guess I can play nice - I always do anyways.
Oohhh, sounds like an alien anal probe ;-)!
Ha, ha, that's an apt description for anyone that's been subjected to it. :moon:
Oh, and Alan, I think it was me who said you were a rabble rouser, but you well know I was jesting, as we also often do.
Yes, you did, and I know you said it in jest, but you weren't the first. I honestly thought you were just repeating what she's said on several other occasions without the tongue-in-cheek slant. Since you often mimic her style, I really thought you were just repeating her.
Yes, you did, and I know you said it in jest, but you weren't the first. I honestly thought you were just repeating what she's said on several other occasions without the tongue-in-cheek slant. Since you often mimic her style, I really thought you were just repeating her.
I mimic her style? Really? And here I though i was unique.:( I do think we support a lot of the same causes, but so do millions of other folks.
Maybe us lefties just all look alike to you :~)
I really don't remember anyone in particular (except me) calling you a rabble rouser. Actually you don't hear that phrase too much anymore. Another one I really like is 'ner-do-well, but you almost never hear that one, and I don't think anyone here is one so I guess I won't be able to use it. but I digress...
This whole IP bot thing is really confusing to me. I don't see the point. What could anyone possibly have to gain by that?
And Michelle Bachmann eating a corn dog??? What's THAT all about? I really need to pay more attention.:0!
loosechickens
9-11-11, 12:01am
Spartana......as Alan said...forums like these are a magnet for internet bots, spammers of all sorts, people with time shares to sell, Viagra to market, fake watches they'll sell you for a song, etc. We actually use a combination of pretty much all the systems Alan mentioned......
We automatically block a large number of IP addresses that various anti-spam groups maintain, to help weed out the automated systems and high volume spammers. This needs to be updated pretty regularly, as the spammers continually use new IP addresses and identities to circumvent controls.
We also go through the new registrations that come in each day that make it past the automated anti-spam controls, and put each IP through several steps checking for any spam record, looking up the location of the IP.....(it's reasonable to suspect that we're not likely to be attracting many legitimate new members from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Romania, Nigeria, etc., so weed out those because they are almost always spam....and if by chance, they aren't, when they don't get in, they will email us to ask why not).
When I am doing registrations, the ones that pass that, I usually Google on the email address just to make sure, because I've picked up new spammers there even when everything else has checked out.
The reason we go to such lengths is that if a spammer DOES get through, they may post spam messages on a dozen forums, or large numbers of posts, which takes up a lot of moderator time trying to clean up the mess.
We also keep a list and ban the IPs from troll posters who have made it onto the boards only to spew out vulgarities, pornographic or racist rantings, etc., and clearly mentally ill posters who post long manifestos of rambling posts which make no sense, which has happened way more than once.
No one is looking at your IP once you are a registered member, you're registered from wherever you post. All the IP examination is done at the time a person first attempts to register, and is pretty much done completely for the purpose of eliminating spammers and/or trolls.
In the case of banning.....we've gone over this many times before. It has only happened in a handful of cases, and in almost all of them involved suspension of posting privileges for a few days or a week to reinforce the necessity not to violate forum guidelines. And no one has been suspended, let alone banned without clear and serious violations of forum guidelines. We are not in the business of policing, and are quite happy not to have to do any moderating of members at all.
And no moderator has the power to decide on a suspension, and decisions like that are made after discussion and after a consensus is reached. Sometimes I'd LOVE that power, hahahahaha.....but I don't have it, and neither does any other moderator. Again, regardless of gossip. That is a fact.
Despite gossip to the contrary, I do not know of a single person who was ever banned or even suspended for a few days for their viewpoints, but for personal attacks on other posters, serious breaches of forum guidelines, etc., and usually on more than a few occasions, and with warnings, finally culminating in that "one step too far", which brought on consequences.
As Alan has said, there was a period when he was banned from posting on the boards in the past. Rather than accept that ban, he registered over and over under dozens of names, proxy IPs, etc., and then began the same behaviors. When it was realized it was him, that account would be closed. Finally, he registered under a new name, but followed forum guidelines and conducted himself as we expect members to do. Moderators realized it was him, but consensus was that he had learned his lesson and was behaving in line with guidelines, so he was allowed to return. Since then, he has been a valued and useful member of the forums, and there have been no more problems.
Most participants in these forums have never even been admonished or moderated by moderators, let alone suspended or banned. It is just not something that folks need worry about, although there are a few here who act as though it is something that happens with dismal regularity. Just not true.
Most moderator work on these boards has to do with the constant fight against spammers, not policing of content from members or behaviors. Some like to stir the pot, every group has its kvetchers, but any person who has been suspended or banned from these boards knows exactly why, and had ample warning before it happened, as well as opportunities to correct the behaviors. Despite protestations to the contrary.
In Alan's case, he is correct in that during the period he was banned, if moderators detected one of his many incarnations, that account would be closed without comment. It is also correct that even he was allowed, after a period of time, to have another chance, took it, and has been fine ever since.
Hope this answers your questions.......I can assure you that you need not worry about moderators policing you.
iris lily
9-11-11, 12:26am
...As Alan has said, there was a period when he was banned from posting on the boards in the past. Rather than accept that ban, he registered over and over under dozens of names, proxy IPs, etc., and then began the same behaviors. When it was realized it was him, that account would be closed. Finally, he registered under a new name, but followed forum guidelines and conducted himself as we expect members to do. Moderators realized it was him, but consensus was that he had learned his lesson and was behaving in line with guidelines, so he was allowed to return. Since then, he has been a valued and useful member of the forums, and there have been no more problems. ...
In Alan's case, he is correct in that during the period he was banned, if moderators detected one of his many incarnations, that account would be closed without comment. It is also correct that even he was allowed, after a period of time, to have another chance, took it, and has been fine ever since...
I'm so glad that Alan has "learned his lesson" and is "behaving in line" and is now "fine ever since..."
I wonder if you can see how condescending that all is? Probably not.
flowerseverywhere
9-11-11, 12:32am
I'm so glad that Alan has "learned his lesson" and is "behaving in line" and is now "fine ever since..."
I wonder if you can see how condescending that all is? Probably not.
actually I think there are probably many people like me, who are really good, educated, financially responsible, tax paying, law abiding citizens who have been disgusted by his posts and badgering who will be saying goodbye to these forums. Good luck to all of you.
loosechickens
9-11-11, 12:32am
"By the way, good job on branding me as a liar, it goes well with your previous descriptions of me as "rabble rouser", "trouble maker", "thin skinned malcontent", etc. Some things never change." (alan)
----------------------------------------
Alan, to my knowledge, I have NEVER used even one of those phrases (i.e., "rabble rouser", "trouble maker" or "thin skinned malcontent") to describe you. And with your ability to dredge up every word that anyone has ever said, I'm sure if I had, you'd be able to post links to the thread and post where I did so.
Do I just drive you nuts or something? Ya got something against poor ole almost 70 year old ladies who just don't happen to agree with you politically? Do I remind you of your mother or something, and you still have issues with her? Honestly....just don't waste so much brain room on me. It's not good for you. ;-) Give it a break!
Let's argue whether or not Governor Perry has been running Texas into the ground or not......this polishing of old grievances like they are precious jewels gets boring after a while.
You're a smart man. I don't happen to agree with your political viewpoint or view of the world and how you think it should be, but I'm NOT your enemy, you know. I'm just a person who happens to disagree with you. And I'm sure there are millions of others. Just as there are millions who disagree with my views. That's life, after all.
as Ziggy says....."peace"...... LC
edited to add: and to you, too, Iris Lily....."peace".....my gosh.
Loosechickens, thanks again for pointing out what an odd duck I am, as if that explains everything. Good job! !thumbsup!
I'm a little disappointed that you infer that I've changed, cause that's not the case. If anything, it's the environment that's changed. Now, it's not very likely that one of you will demand that one poster modify comments that you and favored others felt free to make with impunity. It was my pointing out one of those examples that got me banned in that under 5 minute period mentioned earlier.
Also, in my case, I never violated any of the forum guidelines other than refusing a request to delete a post about the nature of trolls, whether they were real or were created by the double standards that were constantly enforced here some years ago. I didn't delete it on principle and am still glad that I didn't since some of the institutional behaviors here stopped at that point. I think this is a much more welcoming community now as a result.
I believe that it sometimes takes a little friction to rub away the rust and am actually proud to have spent some productive time rubbing. You may see it differently, but I'd expect that. If you think I'm hard on you from time to time, it's because you still feel free to characterize everyone you disagree with in a negative light, oftentimes unfairly, such as your earlier reference to Bae and your constant negative characterizations of your political foes. As an administrator/moderator that's the sort of thing you should be discouraging rather than initiating and I think you know that.
Just a little food for thought.
loosechickens
9-11-11, 12:44am
Alan, I'm not going to argue with you. It's your life's blood, arguing, and you are excellent at doing it. Knock yourself out....I'm tired, and my evening swim is awaiting me. G'nite.
Spartana......as Alan said...forums like these are a magnet for internet bots, spammers of all sorts, people with time shares to sell, Viagra to market, fake watches they'll sell you for a song, etc. We actually use a combination of pretty much all the systems Alan mentioned......
Thanks for 'splainin' Loosey :-)! Clarifies alot.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.