14 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President...

Why Perry would be a bad president hit piece refuted.

#1. From a blog, no sources.

#2. & #3. Interrelated...From Politifact source -

It turns out that transportation is responsible for most of the added debt load under Perry, increasing from basically nothing in 2000 to $11.8 billion outstanding as of Aug. 31 2009.
#4. Source...The World Daily Net.

From Wikipedia:
The network, as originally envisioned, would have been composed of a 4,000-mile (6,400 km) network of supercorridors up to 1,200 feet (370 m) wide to carry parallel links of tollways, rails, and utility lines.[1] It was intended to route long-distance traffic around population centers, and to provide stable corridors for future infrastructure improvements–such as new power lines from wind farms in West Texas to the cities in the east–without the otherwise often lengthy administrative and legal procedures required to build on privately owned land.

#5. Taxes raised, from the cited source Politifact:
Legislature added a 2% tax on the retail sale of fireworks.

Legislature added a tax of 1% on the purchase or rental of diesel equipment.

Legislature made "tweaks" in the emissions reduction fund to bring in more money. (nothing about a tax)

Net tax decrease in 2006, where some taxes were raised and others lowered.

And some other mamby pamby stuff.

And FTR, Texas has no income tax.
#6. Source...The Rachael Maddow show :rolleyes:

.
.
..
..
.
.

You get the picture...it's a hit piece...find out the truth about Rick Perry and make an inform decision for yourself.

 
Bush's position on the issues sounded good as well, then he got into office and...... well the rest is history.

I don't think you can draw a conclusion on what a politician says, but rather what a politician does. Perry does not have a very good record.


If the new standard is Bush didn't do what he said so no one will, then no one can be supported.
Except Ron Paul, of course, who actually does what he says. I guess that makes him too radical for people who prefer demagogues like Perry and McCain.


I won't tear down Dr. Paul or any other candidate to build up Perry.

Either Paul's positions resonate with voters or they don't.

Perry's positions resonate with this voter.

I'll advocate for them and contrast his positions with other candidates...

But I won't post a hit piece against another candidate that's totally full of crap to make my candidate look better.

Period.
 
Last edited:
If the new standard is Bush didn't do what he said so no one will, then no one can be supported.
Except Ron Paul, of course, who actually does what he says. I guess that makes him too radical for people who prefer demagogues like Perry and McCain.

So his stance on the civil rights act is good with you? He said he would have voted against it. AGAINST it. That is astounding to me.
Have you ever bothered to seek out his reasons why? Here is a quote from his speech in 2004 about the issue in Congress.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "

As radical as it sounds, he is right. He does say he agreed with portions of the bill, but it went too far. The American education system brainwashes us into defending the civil rights to the level of mythology. Sadly, the act did not solve any problems, and only create new ones. Instead of looking at the issue with reason and discussion, the minute you criticize the act you are labeled a racist or a crank. The truth is not allowed, and it is disgusting.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top