Another Flip Flop from Rick Perry (D) Texas

[JoeB131]

Just informing the board of Perry's brand of conservatism. Maybe they'll think twice about just assuming he's a conservative since he's a Republican (for now anyway).
I am heartened that you're not feigning ignorance and know it is the Gardasil shot he wants to foist onto the 12 year olds.

In fairness, it does more than prevent STDs, its prevents cervical cancer. However at the age of 12, the need for such a drug is suspect at best.

Well, I wish that were the case.. but these days, we've got MTV telling these girls underage sex is just fine.

To Perry's credit, he also allowed a parental opt-out on the vacination.

I personally think he fell for a pharmacuetical company's oversell of their product, but a couple posters here put up some links defending his position.

Nice pun...gotta laugh at that one.

Laws are supposed to protect the minority populations; not endorse the views of the majority. We wouldn't need free speech laws if all speech were popular, for example. And getting 51% of the country isn't a way to do anything; getting 51% of the state maybe but we don't have nationwide referendums on laws.

Well, first, Free Speech is in the constitution. Marriage isn't. Therefore it is a perogative of the people, not the courts. The problem with the state by state approach is that if you accept DOMA is unconstitutional (it is), and that a Judge in MA can grant marriages Texas has to recognize, that's an imposition on the folks in Texas.

How about just letting people love who they want?

I wasn't aware they couldn't. Marriage isn't about love. It's about legal conventions. There are married people who stopped loving each other a long time ago. THere are people who love each other who do just fine without marriage.

Now, frankly, I'd have no problem if gay marriage were legal. I also think "Civil unions" are a gutless cop-out. It is not an important issue to me. I'd be happy if the whole thing just went away. But I think to change the law, you need a mandate from the people, not a few activists like Judge Walker who have a clear conflict of interest.

Oh...so now Obama is the standard? Strange way to end your post IMHO.

Well, no, I have a rule. Don't bash someone for something if your guy is doing it, too.

 

[Zander]

He's a great alternative to the failure we have now. Of course, almost anyone would be better.

 

[JoeB131]

When did it become okay to put minority rights to the "will of the people"? If we had waited for the "Will of the People", interracial marriage would not have become legal until 1992. It was passed by "activist judges" in 1967...

I'm just curious where you get the "1992" figure. Even by 1967, most of the states had already struck these laws off their books. Heck, if only such a law had been in force in Hawaii in 1961, imagine the trouble we could be saving ourselves now...

Gallup:

Wow, seriously, that was week. YOu had no data between 1983 and 1991, so you just assume the 1991 number. Maybe it went below approval in 1984, for all you know.

Also, you seem to draw no distinction between approving of a relationship and support of a law. There's a lot of stuff that's legal in this country I don't approve of, but I wouldn't really want to make laws against it.

Funny story, we have this black gal at work, and she was looking through a co-worker's photo album when she saw an interracial couple. She then covered up everyone else in the picture with her hand and asked me if I thought the white woman in the picture was attractive. So obviously, this person doesn't approve of interracial marriages. Would she vote for a law for it? Probably not.

Because most of those laws were already gone by 1967.

 

[Antiderivative]

He's a great alternative to the failure we have now. Of course, almost anyone would be better.

Remove your modifier "great", then you might have a point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is what Rick Perry said his position is....for the time being. It's a close race to see what expires first; the milk in your fridge or Perry's position on...anything.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate, said he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and takes away the right of states to decide who can get married.

Perry, in an interview with the Associated Press, said a decision on whether he'll run for the White House can wait until Labor Day.

"Yes sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," Perry told the AP in a telephone interview Saturday. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

The issue of gay marriage has tripped up Perry in recent weeks.

Perry, a favorite of social conservatives, touched off concern when he said earlier this month that New York's decision to enact a same-sex marriage law is "fine with me." That drew rebukes from the right, including from GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.

The governor sought to clarify his "fine with me" remark in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He told Perkins that he's not OK with marriage, but believes in states' rights as contained in the 10th Amendment.

Perry said he would run on a platform centered on the need to create jobs if he decides to make the 2012 White House race.

Perry glanced up and saw a lightning bolt poised over his head, courtesy of the Jesus lobby.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yea cuz the Hopey Changey One and Democrats never Flip-Flop on anything. Remember when your boy just hated raising those Debt Limits when the other side had the power? Now he's telling us it's our sacred patriotic duty to raise the Debt Limit. Now that's a Flip-Flop. Yikes!

Hey, it's the 'he's just like Obama' defense!!!

that's some weak-ass shit, Gome...

 

[candycorn]

Just informing the board of Perry's brand of conservatism. Maybe they'll think twice about just assuming he's a conservative since he's a Republican (for now anyway).
I am heartened that you're not feigning ignorance and know it is the Gardasil shot he wants to foist onto the 12 year olds.

In fairness, it does more than prevent STDs, its prevents cervical cancer. However at the age of 12, the need for such a drug is suspect at best.

Well, I wish that were the case.. but these days, we've got MTV telling these girls underage sex is just fine.

To Perry's credit, he also allowed a parental opt-out on the vacination.

I personally think he fell for a pharmacuetical company's oversell of their product, but a couple posters here put up some links defending his position.

Gee, at least he won't be beholden to any special interest as President...they don't take any campaign contributions running for that office now do they?

Nice pun...gotta laugh at that one.

Laws are supposed to protect the minority populations; not endorse the views of the majority. We wouldn't need free speech laws if all speech were popular, for example. And getting 51% of the country isn't a way to do anything; getting 51% of the state maybe but we don't have nationwide referendums on laws.

Well, first, Free Speech is in the constitution. Marriage isn't. Therefore it is a perogative of the people, not the courts. The problem with the state by state approach is that if you accept DOMA is unconstitutional (it is), and that a Judge in MA can grant marriages Texas has to recognize, that's an imposition on the folks in Texas.

An imposition to allow people to be married to the one they love? Oh my God. I guess that statement was an imposition to the ones who don't believe in God? Yup...I really put the hammer to atheists everywhere with that one.

Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce--hetero marriages; that isn't damaging the institution?

How about just letting people love who they want?

I wasn't aware they couldn't. Marriage isn't about love. It's about legal conventions. There are married people who stopped loving each other a long time ago. THere are people who love each other who do just fine without marriage.

Now, frankly, I'd have no problem if gay marriage were legal. I also think "Civil unions" are a gutless cop-out. It is not an important issue to me. I'd be happy if the whole thing just went away. But I think to change the law, you need a mandate from the people, not a few activists like Judge Walker who have a clear conflict of interest.

Glad to hear you don't have a problem with the legality issue. I do have a problem with the legality issue: The problem is that if I were a Lesbian, my mate couldn't be on my insurance. So guess what, she either would have her own insurance or she would go to the public assistance/pay out of pocket for healthcare, dental care, etc... Can't collect my life insurance. All sorts of entanglements otherwise.

If it is strictly about legalities, why is it anyone's concern whom you designate as a spouse? I'm guessing it's much more than about legalities to some.

Oh...so now Obama is the standard? Strange way to end your post IMHO.

Well, no, I have a rule. Don't bash someone for something if your guy is doing it, too.[/QUOTE]

Oh...okay.

 

[candycorn]

Here is what Rick Perry said his position is....for the time being. It's a close race to see what expires first; the milk in your fridge or Perry's position on...anything.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate, said he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and takes away the right of states to decide who can get married.

Perry, in an interview with the Associated Press, said a decision on whether he'll run for the White House can wait until Labor Day.

"Yes sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," Perry told the AP in a telephone interview Saturday. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

The issue of gay marriage has tripped up Perry in recent weeks.

Perry, a favorite of social conservatives, touched off concern when he said earlier this month that New York's decision to enact a same-sex marriage law is "fine with me." That drew rebukes from the right, including from GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.

The governor sought to clarify his "fine with me" remark in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He told Perkins that he's not OK with marriage, but believes in states' rights as contained in the 10th Amendment.

Perry said he would run on a platform centered on the need to create jobs if he decides to make the 2012 White House race.

Perry glanced up and saw a lightning bolt poised over his head, courtesy of the Jesus lobby.

Democrats are not known as being great politicians. But hell, I could even see where that would be a foot-in-the-mouth moment. The line between Perry and Gingrich blurs everyday.

 

[JoeB131]

Glad to hear you don't have a problem with the legality issue. I do have a problem with the legality issue: The problem is that if I were a Lesbian, my mate couldn't be on my insurance. So guess what, she either would have her own insurance or she would go to the public assistance/pay out of pocket for healthcare, dental care, etc... Can't collect my life insurance. All sorts of entanglements otherwise.

If it is strictly about legalities, why is it anyone's concern whom you designate as a spouse? I'm guessing it's much more than about legalities to some.

A lot of companies do extend insurance to gay partners.

And, yes, I think that this is about the religious views of the majority, and a lot of homophobic people who spend too much time thinking about this sort of thing.

But my overall principle stands. YOu want to change the law, get a majority to agree with you.

 

[auditor0007]

Here is what Rick Perry said his position is....for the time being. It's a close race to see what expires first; the milk in your fridge or Perry's position on...anything.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate, said he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and takes away the right of states to decide who can get married.

Perry, in an interview with the Associated Press, said a decision on whether he'll run for the White House can wait until Labor Day.

"Yes sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," Perry told the AP in a telephone interview Saturday. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

The issue of gay marriage has tripped up Perry in recent weeks.

Perry, a favorite of social conservatives, touched off concern when he said earlier this month that New York's decision to enact a same-sex marriage law is "fine with me." That drew rebukes from the right, including from GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.

The governor sought to clarify his "fine with me" remark in an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He told Perkins that he's not OK with marriage, but believes in states' rights as contained in the 10th Amendment.

Perry said he would run on a platform centered on the need to create jobs if he decides to make the 2012 White House race.

Yea, I read that the other day. And they call Romney a flip flopper, lol.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm just curious where you get the "1992" figure. Even by 1967, most of the states had already struck these laws off their books. Heck, if only such a law had been in force in Hawaii in 1961, imagine the trouble we could be saving ourselves now...

Gallup:

Wow, seriously, that was week. YOu had no data between 1983 and 1991, so you just assume the 1991 number. Maybe it went below approval in 1984, for all you know.

Also, you seem to draw no distinction between approving of a relationship and support of a law. There's a lot of stuff that's legal in this country I don't approve of, but I wouldn't really want to make laws against it.

Funny story, we have this black gal at work, and she was looking through a co-worker's photo album when she saw an interracial couple. She then covered up everyone else in the picture with her hand and asked me if I thought the white woman in the picture was attractive. So obviously, this person doesn't approve of interracial marriages. Would she vote for a law for it? Probably not.

Because most of those laws were already gone by 1967.

The Gallup poll, quite clearly, shows that the public did not "approve" of interracial marriages by a majority until the 1990s, over 20 years after laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down by the activist judges on the Supreme Court in 1967, not individual states, but the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Tell me, in what states was this civil right put to a majority vote? What would have happened if it had? That's what it boils down to, when have we put minority rights to a majority vote?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Perry's far from perfect but i'll take him as an alternative to what we have in there now. His Job-Creation record alone should hand him the Election if he does run against the Hopey Changey One. When all the hate & smearing is said and done,the People will look to Perry's incredible Job-Creation Record as the deciding factor. The People want to get back to work. All the smearing will just be entertainment. Perry can win on his Record.

 

[JimH52]

why did you label him a D?

I'm sorry....he's not a Democrat? I thought that I had read somewhere that he was.

You kidding? He is the reincarnation of W, without the nasty alcoholism problem....and with a touch of Tea Party.

 

[Mad Scientist]

why did you label him a D?

Becasue he's a fuckin' Democrat! You think because he puts a little "R" after his name that makes him a Republican?

You better wake the fuck up!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Perry's far from perfect but i'll take him as an alternative to what we have in there now. His Job-Creation record alone should hand him the Election if he does run against the Hopey Changey One. When all the hate & smearing is said and done,the People will look to Perry's incredible Job-Creation Record as the deciding factor. The People want to get back to work. All the smearing will just be entertainment. Perry can win on his Record.

The "Anybody but Bush" attitude brought us Obama. Let's not make the same mistake with Obama and elect Perry (Bush IV) please!

FYI:
George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush I)
George Walker Bush (Bush II)
Barack Obama (Bush III)
Rick Perry (Bush IV)

 

[Antiderivative]

His Job-Creation record alone should hand him the Election if he does run against the Hopey Changey One.

Ugh...Governors do not create jobs, businesses do.

Additionally, TX is in the middle of the pack of UE rates and has benefited from the exogenous shock of high oil prices and benefited from strict housing regulations stemming back to the savings and loan scandals from the early 80's.

Perry is not this magical job creator that you espouse. You are espousing mythology.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, first, Free Speech is in the constitution. Marriage isn't. Therefore it is a perogative of the people, not the courts. The problem with the state by state approach is that if you accept DOMA is unconstitutional (it is), and that a Judge in MA can grant marriages Texas has to recognize, that's an imposition on the folks in Texas.

That's not necessarily true.

1. There is some scholarly dispute as to whether Article 1 Section IV could be used for that purpose. For example, Washington State has Civil Unions with all the full rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage. Virginia specifically bars such a legal status, is Virginia being forced to accept Washington Civil Unions and to treat its citizens under a status entered into in Washington? No.


2. Secondly, the issue with DOMA which IMHO, makes it unconstitutional is that it was enacted in an invidious manner with the intent to target one specific group and it based such imposition on gender. If the current DOMA were repealed such that the federal government recognized all legal Civil Marriages entered into under applicable state law and then provided that States are not required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage that conflicts with it's own internal laws, then that would remove one hurdle. Basically it places the issue squarely with the States.



>>>>

 

[Ame®icano]

why did you label him a D?

I'm sorry....he's not a Democrat? I thought that I had read somewhere that he was.

And that's how much you know about US politics.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Perry's far from perfect but i'll take him as an alternative to what we have in there now. His Job-Creation record alone should hand him the Election if he does run against the Hopey Changey One. When all the hate & smearing is said and done,the People will look to Perry's incredible Job-Creation Record as the deciding factor. The People want to get back to work. All the smearing will just be entertainment. Perry can win on his Record.

The "Anybody but Bush" attitude brought us Obama. Let's not make the same mistake with Obama and elect Perry (Bush IV) please!

FYI:
George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush I)
George Walker Bush (Bush II)
Barack Obama (Bush III)
Rick Perry (Bush IV)

Oh i hear ya. I'm not a big Perry-supporter but he does have more of a clue than the inexperienced "Community Organizer" in there now. Hopefully a better and more Conservative Candidate will come along but i'm not very optimistic about that. Dr. Paul is obviously my choice be he wont be the Republican Nominee. That's just the unfortunate reality. I do hear ya though on your reservations about Perry.

 

[Dot Com]

First Romney & now the Texan?