Gov Rick Perry, his stellar record exposed.

Texas standings against all 50 states on a variety of issues (1st means highest ranking, 50th means lowest ranking).

• State Aid Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance – 47th
• Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Scores – 45th
• % of Population 25 and Older with High School Diploma – 50th
• High School Graduation Rate – 43rd
• Per Capita State Spending on State Arts Agencies – 43rd
• Birth Rate – 2nd
• Percent of Uninsured Children – 1st
• Percent of Children Living in Poverty – 4th
• Percent of Population Uninsured – 1st
• Percent of Non-Elderly Uninsured – 1st
• Percent of Low Income Population Covered by Medicaid – 49th
• Percent of Population with Employer-Based Health Insurance – 48th
• Total Health Expenditures as % of the Gross State Product – 43rd
• Per Capita State Spending on Mental Health – 50th
• Per Capita State Spending on Medicaid – 49th
• Health Care Expenditures per Capita – 44th
• Physicians per Capita – 42nd
• Registered Nurses per Capita – 44th
• Average Monthly Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Benefits per Person – 47th
• Percent of Population Who Visit the Dentist – 46th
• Overall Birth Rate – 2nd
• Teenage Birth Rate – 7th
• Births to Unmarried Mothers – 17th
• Percent of Women with Pre-Term Birth – 9th
• Percent of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance – 50th
• Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms – 40th
• Cervical Cancer Rate – 11th
• Percent of Women with High Blood Pressure – 16th
• Percent of Pregnant Women Receiving Prenatal Care in First Trimester – 50th
• Women’s Voter Registration – 45th
• Women’s Voter Turnout – 49th
• Percent of Women Living in Poverty – 6th
• Mortgage Debt as Percent of Home Value – 47th
• Foreclosure Rates – 10th
• Median Net Worth of Households – 47th
• Average Credit Score – 49th
• Retirement Plan Participation – 47th
• Amount of Carbon Dioxide Emissions – 1st
• Amount of Volatile Organic Compounds Released into Air – 1st
• Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Water – 1st
• Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Air – 1st
• Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated – 1st
• Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Air – 5th
• Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Water – 7th
• Number of Hazardous Waste Sites on National Priority List – 7th
• Consumption of Energy per Capita – 5th
• Workers’ Compensation Coverage – 50th
• Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Poor – 9th
• Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Middle Class – 5th
• Homeowner’s Insurance Affordability – 46th
• Number of Executions – 1st
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
http://shapleigh.org/...
http://www.burntorangereport.com/....
http://thinkprogress.org/....
http://politicaltruths.info/....
http://www.youtube.com/....
http://judicial-corruption.net/....
http://texaskaos.com/....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....
http://www.kbtx.com/....
http://texaslsg.org/...
http://www.brookings.edu/....
http://www.texastribune.org/....
http://www.texastribune.org/....
http://www.star-telegram.com/....
http://www.courthousenews.com/....
http://www.nytimes.com/....
http://texaslsg.org/...
http://info.tpj.org/...
http://www.texasobserver.org/....
http://www.tfn.org/....
http://regator.com/....

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Gilded, like today's Gen X, who are now coming to the fore, had no faith in institutions. This was a completely different outcome from the last 4T and it looks to me to be far more similar to what we are going to experience this time--or should I say, what we have experienced?

Actually David, you(specifically)are the reason why I do now think/feel that aspects of our institutions are worth "re-forming", as opposed to letting "the MF-er burn!"(FYI, that's a lyrical reference).

Prince

PS:OTOH, It could just be my age, though, which means that
you had absolutely nothing to do with my change in POV!,...,
but it was you, David. Just thought you might want to know that.

I'm sure you guys have seen the following:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-spars-te...023527637.html

How does a President over come an age when cell phones can now capture their less then presidential moments?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, you shouldn't say that...
But maybe that's how things will turn out this time. The anti-institutional (mainly anti-government this time) mood is stronger than the last cycle. It could mean the double rhythm. The fight is not over though by a long shot. You can be sure the great divide is coming up, not already over.

Plus, according to Strauss and Howe, FWIW, there were no institution-loving civic generations around in 1865-86. Now there are.

The Gilded acted much like a Civic generation; they got thrust into the role after the Civil War despite having the wrong preparation. They got a long stay in political life much like a Civic generation. They built institutions -- even if those institutions were for-profit institutions -- some of which exist to this day or are somehow amalgamated or separated. Think of the meat-packing giant Armour/Swift, a combination of two Gilded-era giants in recent times. Think of US Steel. The Standard Oil Trust may have been broken to some extent into components, but Big Oil got its start under Rockefeller. They protected their Missionary children much as a Civic generation would. The Gilded filled a vacuum as a Reactive-Civic hybrid... far from perfectly, to be sure.

Starbucks’ Schultz Urges Fellow CEOs to Halt Campaign Giving

Starbucks Corp. (SBUX) Chief Executive Officer Howard Schultz urged other CEOs to boycott donating to U.S. political campaigns to encourage leaders to solve the nation’s growing budget deficit.
“I am asking that all of us forego political contributions until the Congress and the President return to Washington and deliver a fiscally disciplined long-term debt and deficit plan to the American people,” Schultz wrote in an e-mail sent to business leaders that was obtained by Bloomberg News.

Prince

PS:
For whatever Schultz's reasons may be(principle, business optics, publicity, etc.),
I'll at least give him credit for having some cojones.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Gilded acted much like a Civic generation; they got thrust into the role after the Civil War despite having the wrong preparation. They got a long stay in political life much like a Civic generation. They built institutions -- even if those institutions were for-profit institutions -- some of which exist to this day or are somehow amalgamated or separated. Think of the meat-packing giant Armour/Swift, a combination of two Gilded-era giants in recent times. Think of US Steel. The Standard Oil Trust may have been broken to some extent into components, but Big Oil got its start under Rockefeller. They protected their Missionary children much as a Civic generation would. The Gilded filled a vacuum as a Reactive-Civic hybrid... far from perfectly, to be sure.

You put it pretty well. I would have to say their long string of Presidents was a pretty unmemorable one, too--probably the least memorable of any generation's Presidents, with the possible competitor of the Transcendentals other than Lincoln.

Does everyone realize Rick Perry wants to repeal the 16th Amendment?

Who won the Republican Presidential Debate?
　
　
　
Active Cities : 6,965
　
Total Votes : 40,882
National Vote

Paul		.....25248
Gingrich		...5863
Cain		.......3169
Bachmann		...2438

Romney		...2376
Santorum		..1032
Huntsman		...423
Pawlenty		.....333

Votes as of 03:09 PM, 08/14/11
　
FoxNews / Topix - You Decide
http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11
　

Quote, "
The media is trying REALLY hard to hide the fact that Ron Paul is a serious contender
　
　
Ron Paul wins a "Who Won the GOP Debate" poll in Fox News, and after seeing how Ron Paul won by a HUGE margin, Fox News decides to quickly erase it. Funny how all of the media sources, both liberal and conservative, are trying so hard to keep him under the rug. Here's the original Fox News poll: Iowa GOP Debate - Topix [40,000 votes, he got 24,000 of them... more than 4 times the guy in second place].

And these things are happening everywhere (meaning, Ron Paul getting a significant amount of support from both sides, and getting pushed off as insignificant.)

And here is the new one Fox started (Ron Paul STILL winning by a landslide): Who Won the GOP Debate? - FoxNews.com. Guess they'll have to erase this one as well.

What do Fox News, CNN, MSNBS, etc, and all these other garbage news sources have in common? They are all run by corporate interest!

Now on to MSNBC:

Once again, the Anti-Ron-Paul rhetoric is everywhere. Notice how MSNBC bolded out every republican candidate in the Iowa Straw Poll... except Ron Paul, as if he were last place or anywhere near there (Yes, they bolded out the last guy as well).

First Read - Bachmann wins Ames straw poll

These aren't just coincidence. Both sides are trying hard, real hard, to hide the fact that Ron Paul is a serious contended.

Open your eyes folks: These things are happening LEFT and RIGHT (meaning everywhere and from both liberal and conservative sources).

http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/883854-media-trying-really-hard-hide-fact-ron-paul-serious-contender.html

Originally Posted by katsung47

http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/883854-media-trying-really-hard-hide-fact-ron-paul-serious-contender.html

Here is what Jon Stewart has to say about the republican who can not be named. This is well worth watching

Originally Posted by Galen

Here is what Jon Stewart has to say about the republican who can not be named. This is well worth watching

Great segment from Jon Stewart; Thanks for posting the link.

IMO, the best "humor" holds the truth within it; The marginalizing of Ron Paul by almost ALL major media outlets does raise my eye-brows.

Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

IMO, the best "humor" holds the truth within it; The marginalizing of Ron Paul by almost ALL major media outlets does raise my eye-brows.

I find it hard to understand how a seventy-five year old anti-war congressman who feels that leaving people the hell alone is a good idea can be considered such a threat.

Originally Posted by Galen

I find it hard to understand how a seventy-five year old anti-war congressman who feels that leaving people the hell alone is a good idea can be considered such a threat.

I can think of a few.

1)The Government-Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex
2)The Dems and GOPs
3)Foreign/Multi-National Corporations/Regimes
4)"Utopian-Crony-Socialists"!(Note: may include some or all of the above)

Prince

Good point Prince of Cats.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I can think of a few.

1)The Government-Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex
2)The Dems and GOPs
3)Foreign/Multi-National Corporations/Regimes
4)"Utopian-Crony-Socialists"!(Note: may include some or all of the above)

Prince

It's lists like this that muddy the effectiveness of your presentation of ideas.

A useful list would involve recognizable groups rather than a bunch of undefined elements linked by slashes.

For example you could have given a list like this, which covers the same folks, but is specific enough for a reader to figure out who belongs and who does not:

1. Recipients of Social Security, Medicare benefits, veterans benefits, government pensions or other entitlements.
2. Active-duty military, defense department employees, defense contractors and foriegn entities that recieve US defense monies
3. Federal government employees
4. Poor people and middle class relatives of folks living in nursing homes under Title 19.
5. Top management of domestic corporations and those of foreign corporations who do business in the US.
6. Banks and other financial enterprises who do business with the Federal government. or with American citizens or both.
7. Labor unions and other non-profit institutions including churches and educational institutions and their employees (retired and current)

The political parties are not independent actors in this issue, their views are dependent on those of their most influential constituents who fall into one or more of the above groups.

The term "Utopian-Crony-Socialists" has no meaning to most people and so doesn't convey any information. If I hazard a guess, you might mean academics like Dr. Kaiser, but most of them would fall into category 7, Dave might actually fall into #2, is the War College part of the Defense Dept? If you mean welfare recipients, that is covered by #1 and #4. Government-Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex is captured by #1, #2. #3, #5 and #6. Foreign/Multi-National Corporations/Regimes is covered by #2, #5, #6, and #7.

My list seems to cover the same people as yours (I think) but it is easier to figure out where you fit with my list than yours. More example, I fall into category 4 on my list (my mother is in a nursing home and has exhausted her savings--she gets to stay in this nice place because of she recieves government benefits that go to the home).

This puts me into Government-Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex* on your list. I would never have seen how this applied to me and so I would erroneously assume I don't fall on your list.

*Of course your could argue that I was a Utopian-Crony-Socialists, but that would be because my political views are not conservative. But I could be a conservative with a mom in in the same situation, and then you wouldn't put me into the Utopian-Crony-Socialists category.

Originally Posted by Galen

I find it hard to understand how a seventy-five year old anti-war congressman who feels that leaving people the hell alone is a good idea can be considered such a threat.

IOZ:

It goes without saying that Ron Paul and I have equal chances of becoming the next president of the United States; this is why no one is covering his campaign. Now I like Ron Paul, but I also admit and understand that Ron Paul is a patsy, or a reliable stooge--the Denny Kuciny of the Republican Right, a convenient sheepdog to herd the slouches and stragglers back into the sheepfold. Asking why these people are included in debates and campaigns even as they are accorded the most seemingly disdainful treatment by the apparati of propaganda is to perceive a wrong note in what is really a skillfully modulated key. YOU'RE NOT DEALING WITH MORONS HERE!They reinforce the loyalty of the more ideological fringes of the parties while also ensuring that many marginal types hear some hint of hope, honor, decency . . . reform within the system. Well Ron Paul might not win, some libertarian somewhere is telling himself, but if he can at least run a campaign . . . You fool; you rube! Ron Paul is tolerated by the system he ostensibly opposes because his opposition is merely incidental; its effect is to strengthen the system by making it ever more inevitable.

That being said I do think it is a shame that someone can win the debate and not even be considered a contender for president.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

They reinforce the loyalty of the more ideological fringes of the parties while also ensuring that many marginal types hear some hint of hope, honor, decency . . . reform within the system.

I would say Michele Bachman is someone who can instill loyalty or "team spirit" in the ideological members of the current GOP. Paul represents almost nothing that the GOP stands for. The only places where he might encourage some loyalty amongst GOP voters are in exactly those place where he abandons his libertarian beliefs, such as use of coercion to prevent abortion, which he has sort of favored at various times.

Bachman is NOT being treated as a marginal figure by the media. Sarah Palin would be an example too, but had McCain won and then died in office she would be president, so she was hardly marginal.

One can never imagine a Bachman supporter supporting a Democrat without a sea change in political views. A Bachman gets people who find her appealing out to the polls where they will reliably vote GOP, that is what loyalty is about.

People who voted for Paul can easily vote Democratic as well as Republican without significantly changing their views: a colleague of mine has voted for Paul and Gore for president. I don't wee how treating Paul the way he is treated will get people who find him appealing out to the polls--and even if it does, it is by no means certain that they will vote GOP. That's hardly loyalty.

Paul serves another purpose. Paul is included because what he stands for will hurt a majority of voters and so he is 100% certain to lose. This makes him safe. His presence means his ideas get a viewing by a new generation most of whom will reject them as they age, and this inoculates the system against a certain type of reform.

There are no equivalents of Paul on the other side. Dennis K is a liberal, who are the conservatives of the Left. He is safe because he is one of them, as are all liberals. Actual leftists are excluded completely from the conversation. This is because one cannot guarantee that their ideas will automatically be rejected by a majority, which makes them potentially dangerous. After all things like Social Security and Medicare, which are hardly rejected by the majority today were Leftist ideas once.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Gov Rick Perry, his stellar record exposed.Texas standings against all 50 states on a variety of issues (1st means highest ranking, 50th means lowest ranking).• State Aid Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance – 47th• Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Scores – 45th• % of Population 25 and Older with High School Diploma – 50th• High School Graduation Rate – 43rd• Per Capita State Spending on State Arts Agencies – 43rd• Birth Rate – 2nd• Percent of Uninsured Children – 1st• Percent of Children Living in Poverty – 4th• Percent of Population Uninsured – 1st• Percent of Non-Elderly Uninsured – 1st• Percent of Low Income Population Covered by Medicaid – 49th• Percent of Population with Employer-Based Health Insurance – 48th• Total Health Expenditures as % of the Gross State Product – 43rd• Per Capita State Spending on Mental Health – 50th• Per Capita State Spending on Medicaid – 49th• Health Care Expenditures per Capita – 44th• Physicians per Capita – 42nd• Registered Nurses per Capita – 44th• Average Monthly Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Benefits per Person – 47th• Percent of Population Who Visit the Dentist – 46th• Overall Birth Rate – 2nd• Teenage Birth Rate – 7th• Births to Unmarried Mothers – 17th• Percent of Women with Pre-Term Birth – 9th• Percent of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance – 50th• Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms – 40th• Cervical Cancer Rate – 11th• Percent of Women with High Blood Pressure – 16th• Percent of Pregnant Women Receiving Prenatal Care in First Trimester – 50th• Women’s Voter Registration – 45th• Women’s Voter Turnout – 49th• Percent of Women Living in Poverty – 6th• Mortgage Debt as Percent of Home Value – 47th• Foreclosure Rates – 10th• Median Net Worth of Households – 47th• Average Credit Score – 49th• Retirement Plan Participation – 47th• Amount of Carbon Dioxide Emissions – 1st• Amount of Volatile Organic Compounds Released into Air – 1st• Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Water – 1st• Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Air – 1st• Amount of Hazardous Waste Generated – 1st• Amount of Toxic Chemicals Released into Air – 5th• Amount of Recognized Cancer-Causing Carcinogens Released into Water – 7th• Number of Hazardous Waste Sites on National Priority List – 7th• Consumption of Energy per Capita – 5th• Workers’ Compensation Coverage – 50th• Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Poor – 9th• Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Middle Class – 5th• Homeowner’s Insurance Affordability – 46th• Number of Executions – 1st-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --http://shapleigh.org/...http://www.burntorangereport.com/....http://thinkprogress.org/....http://politicaltruths.info/....http://www.youtube.com/....http://judicial-corruption.net/....http://texaskaos.com/....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....http://www.kbtx.com/....http://texaslsg.org/...http://www.brookings.edu/....http://www.texastribune.org/....http://www.texastribune.org/....http://www.star-telegram.com/....http://www.courthousenews.com/....http://www.nytimes.com/....http://texaslsg.org/...http://info.tpj.org/...http://www.texasobserver.org/....http://www.tfn.org/....http://regator.com/....

"And now Gov. Perry wants to do for America...what he's done for Texas..."

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Actually David, you(specifically)are the reason why I do now think/feel that aspects of our institutions are worth "re-forming", as opposed to letting "the MF-er burn!"(FYI, that's a lyrical reference).

Prince

PS:OTOH, It could just be my age, though, which means that
you had absolutely nothing to do with my change in POV!,...,
but it was you, David. Just thought you might want to know that.

Glad I could help. . .

Originally Posted by Galen

I find it hard to understand how a seventy-five year old anti-war congressman who feels that leaving people the hell alone is a good idea can be considered such a threat.

"Leaving people the hell alone." Yeah, right. He would force women to have children they don't want and use the power of the state to enforce a ban on abortion.

I honestly have real trouble seeing how RP deserves such treatment from the repubs. Or the dems for that matter. He to me is one of the few who is consistent. He will vote personal freedom, government non-intervention, every time. Even abortion i thought he was state-rights, not ideologically pro-life.

But when I hear criticisms of him, they are usually the most outlandish claims that I would hold against the real republican party. That he was a rich guy who wanted to keep everyone out of the club for instance - that sounds more like contemporary republicans than RP to me. Or that pro-life should be a federal thing - real repubs. And so on.

Thing is, I really don't like the republican party. But I love RP. Bachmann looks like a flying freak show - how can we take her seriously? Parry - ick, ties to the company that makes the HPV vaccination, yet making it mandatory. Palin - well, I liked Tina Fey much better.

Of the varieties of republicanism possible, one that is consistent with personal liberty, small government, non-imperialism, states rights and so on, is one I can get behind. But republicans that are taken seriously are ones who want a christian government, want intelligent design taught in schools, or are law and order thugs, or who encourage regulatory capture by powerful businesses, or and who want our young men and women getting their asses blowed up all around the world.

Seriously, how is RP the freakshow?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There are no equivalents of Paul on the other side. Dennis K is a liberal, who are the conservatives of the Left. He is safe because he is one of them, as are all liberals. Actual leftists are excluded completely from the conversation. This is because one cannot guarantee that their ideas will automatically be rejected by a majority, which makes them potentially dangerous. After all things like Social Security and Medicare, which are hardly rejected by the majority today were Leftist ideas once.

Precisely. The ideas of the left, if they are rejected at all, are rejected because they are too extreme and the country hasn't gotten used to them yet. But they always represent ideas with a lot of potential appeal, and they are always excluded from the mainstream dialogue for that reason. Social Security in the 1920s and early 1930s was a Socialist Party idea with no representation in the Democratic Party. It took the unrest of Roosevelt's first term, and especially popular movements like the Townsend Plan, before the Democrats would adopt it. The same with labor unions and all other benefits for labor against capital; since most people are workers rather than capitalists, obviously that had a lot of potential appeal and it was excluded from the dialog for that reason for as long as possible. That's how it works.

Antichrist: Paul is indeed ideologically consistent. However, as Mike pointed out, if implemented his ideas would hurt most Americans. That makes them non-starters. He is a candidate who simply cannot win. As for the attitudes of the parties, many of those Paul's ideas would hurt and turn off are major constituent groups of one party or the other.

Actually, this is a perfect demonstration of the Libertarian fallacy: that liberty and government are inversely proportional. The problem with this idea is that government is not the only thing capable of oppression. Government actually serves to protect the common people from the oppression of the powerful. The peasants had far more to fear from the nobles than from the king.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It's lists like this that muddy the effectiveness of your presentation of ideas.

A useful list would involve recognizable groups rather than a bunch of undefined elements linked by slashes.

For example you could have given a list like this, which covers the same folks, but is specific enough for a reader to figure out who belongs and who does not:

1. Recipients of Social Security, Medicare benefits, veterans benefits, government pensions or other entitlements.
2. Active-duty military, defense department employees, defense contractors and foriegn entities that recieve US defense monies
3. Federal government employees
4. Poor people and middle class relatives of folks living in nursing homes under Title 19.
5. Top management of domestic corporations and those of foreign corporations who do business in the US.
6. Banks and other financial enterprises who do business with the Federal government. or with American citizens or both.
7. Labor unions and other non-profit institutions including churches and educational institutions and their employees (retired and current)

The political parties are not independent actors in this issue, their views are dependent on those of their most influential constituents who fall into one or more of the above groups.

The term "Utopian-Crony-Socialists" has no meaning to most people and so doesn't convey any information. If I hazard a guess, you might mean academics like Dr. Kaiser, but most of them would fall into category 7, Dave might actually fall into #2, is the War College part of the Defense Dept? If you mean welfare recipients, that is covered by #1 and #4. Government-Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex is captured by #1, #2. #3, #5 and #6. Foreign/Multi-National Corporations/Regimes is covered by #2, #5, #6, and #7.

My list seems to cover the same people as yours (I think) but it is easier to figure out where you fit with my list than yours. More example, I fall into category 4 on my list (my mother is in a nursing home and has exhausted her savings--she gets to stay in this nice place because of she recieves government benefits that go to the home).

This puts me into Government-Financial-Military-Industrial-Complex* on your list. I would never have seen how this applied to me and so I would erroneously assume I don't fall on your list.

*Of course your could argue that I was a Utopian-Crony-Socialists, but that would be because my political views are not conservative. But I could be a conservative with a mom in in the same situation, and then you wouldn't put me into the Utopian-Crony-Socialists category.

Pretty funny-stuff you've got there, Mikebert.

Hey Hey, My My(Into the Black, uh Red, that is)

Prince

PS:"Rust Never Sleeps"

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

"Leaving people the hell alone." Yeah, right. He would force women to have children they don't want and use the power of the state to enforce a ban on abortion.

Yeah, except... Not that at all. He's been pretty clear that, while he opposes abortion, he considers it a matter for the people of each state to decide for themselves. How any rational person gets what you said from what he says is baffling to me.

Originally Posted by The Rani

My facebook page has lots of similar comments this morning, from friends who are liberals!
It seems to me that the guy has a decent shot of winning not only the nomination but the election.

Never gonna happen, Rani. Ioz nailed it, unfortunately. Paul's function is purely to keep the marginally-attached from dissociating themselves from the national Sacrament completely. Not to win.