We don't need Perry; he's another Bush and look how that turned out!
Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Please let it not be so.....
Jajajaja. From the back, you'd probably see Michelle Obama's vegetable garden replaced with an oil well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
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 -
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” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , 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..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigzagman
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/Timelin...uman_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.Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
This person has no business being seriously considered for the POTUS.
Peace