Is Texas Gov. Rick Perry the New Reagan?

Something the Dog Said wrote: I don't believe that the majority of Americans would support an anti-evolutionist, pro-creationist candidate.

Yeah, they have a guy in there now who has figured out how to spend trillions and still keep our unemployment above 9% for over a year. I am sure they are worrying about if the new guy prays.

LadyJazzer wrote: He's not the next Reagan...He's the next Jim Jones... Kool-Aid anyone?

Another random rambling post from the peanut gallery with nothing to back it up?

Kate wrote: Perry backs a constitutional limit on marriage

Perry, 61, said social issues should be decided state by state and even remarked that New York's passage of gay marriage law was that state's business. Still, he said he would support a constitutional amendment that takes away the power of the states to decide who can get married.

"Yes, sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," he said. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-backs-const ... 32617.html


He also disputes evolution. Well, that does it. I am seriously thinking about not voting for this guy.

Do you guys forget who has to draw up this bill and pass it? Congress. He already said that isn't his focus. Is is doing to America what he did for Texas. Creating jobs and lowering employment. And creating a business friendly nation that will ATTRACT jobs rather than push them offshore. But most liberals just focus on a couple of social issues rather than the big picture and the important issues.

Oh great....if he does for America what he did for Texas, we will never have a balanced budget......we will have the worst education system in the world, and though no new taxes will be forthcoming, we will have a hefty fee for everything. Then there is his social agenda, we probably won't be fighting terrorists, we will be praying for them to leave us alone.....kinda like he prayed for rain. Yeah.....he's going to be just peachy as a president.

:rofl

The Viking wrote:

archer wrote:

The former Texas A&M University cheerleader has put his yell skills to the test during his stint as Governor, now in its tenth year.

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politi ... xas-record

We all know how well it turned out the last time we elected a cheerleader to the Oval Office.

That is why we are trying to vote him and his rah rah rah Hope and change out in 2012.

You do realize that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale, don't you? That is who archer was referring.

The Viking wrote:

Kate wrote: Perry backs a constitutional limit on marriage

Perry, 61, said social issues should be decided state by state and even remarked that New York's passage of gay marriage law was that state's business. Still, he said he would support a constitutional amendment that takes away the power of the states to decide who can get married.

"Yes, sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," he said. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-backs-const ... 32617.html


He also disputes evolution. Well, that does it. I am seriously thinking about not voting for this guy.

Do you guys forget who has to draw up this bill and pass it? Congress. He already said that isn't his focus. Is is doing to America what he did for Texas. Creating jobs and lowering employment. And creating a business friendly nation that will ATTRACT jobs rather than push them offshore. But most liberals just focus on a couple of social issues rather than the big picture and the important issues.

The point is, Viking, that he is against gay marriage, which the majority of Americans favor. He is out of touch with most Americans, yet he favors changing the Constitution to deny people the right to marry. Do you really support this guy?

He also disputes evolution, which is basic science. How can we trust someone in the White House that thinks that creationism is science and should be taught along side of real science?

He also wants Texas to secede from the Union. How can that be a good thing to have a President that wants his home state to secede? Isn't that a bit treasonous? Doesn't that bother you?

Kate wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Kate wrote: Perry backs a constitutional limit on marriage

Perry, 61, said social issues should be decided state by state and even remarked that New York's passage of gay marriage law was that state's business. Still, he said he would support a constitutional amendment that takes away the power of the states to decide who can get married.

"Yes, sir, I would. I am for the federal marriage amendment," he said. "And that's about as sharp a point as I could put on it."

http://news.yahoo.com/perry-backs-const ... 32617.html


He also disputes evolution. Well, that does it. I am seriously thinking about not voting for this guy.

Do you guys forget who has to draw up this bill and pass it? Congress. He already said that isn't his focus. Is is doing to America what he did for Texas. Creating jobs and lowering employment. And creating a business friendly nation that will ATTRACT jobs rather than push them offshore. But most liberals just focus on a couple of social issues rather than the big picture and the important issues.

The point is, Viking, that he is against gay marriage, which the majority of Americans favor. He is out of touch with most Americans, yet he favors changing the Constitution to deny people the right to marry. Do you really support this guy?

He also disputes evolution, which is basic science. How can we trust someone in the White House that thinks that creationism is science and should be taught along side of real science?

He also wants Texas to secede from the Union. How can that be a good thing to have a President that wants his home state to secede? Isn't that a bit treasonous? Doesn't that bother you?

So Obama, who claims to be a Christian, must also be a nut since evolution is not part of what Christians believe. and secondly, you may want to actually read what Perry said...this from the Huffington Rag: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/1 ... 87490.html

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."

Christians seem to be very good at picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible.

Kate wrote: Christians seem to be very good at picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible.

That's why it comes in so many different flavors.

Yes... Picking and choosing:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

---

Yes indeed, that "eating of shellfish" and wearing "polyester blends" is going to be a problem for the pickers-&-choosers.