Originally Posted by TeddyR

I am rethinking that last comment after seeing this endorsement of Perry:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljvyaqa5Mfo&sns=em


She might be right, although I have no idea what she said.

I think it's her audition for a job on Fox News, on-camera.

Sorry, but I can't resist this, which I found after watching the Perry commercial link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Y1Yyb13Dkrc

Originally Posted by TeddyR

What, Rick Perry doesn't seem reasonable? Like in this new hateful commercial:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfVqGBE6JI&sns=em

It looks as if he is going for the votes of religious bigots.

The problem with school prayer isn't that kids are expressing their honest religious views but instead that the school administrators can impose theirs. Public schools are not so much anti-religious as they are neutral -- and in view of the diversity of religion in America, neutrality in public is the best that anyone can hope for.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/12/bam.php

Bam!
by Josh Marshall
Warren jumps ahead of Brown in new Massachusetts Senate poll. 49%-42%.

The poll has a relatively small sample size: 505 registered voters. But it's a 10 point swing from the last time this pollster (UMass-Lowell/Princeton Survey Research) sampled this race. And it's in line with the trend in Warren's direction.

Just as importantly, this race is crystallizing the core issues the 2012 cycle looks set to turn on -- finance vs. main street, wealth and income inequality, the pros and cons of survival of the fittest economics.

If Warren can get traction against Brown with her unalloyed version of this message, that will cast a shadow over as yet unformed races across the nation.

And this is funny and desperate --

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...all-street.php

Crossroads GPS Launches New Ads — Accuses Elizabeth Warren Of Liking Wall Street!

Originally Posted by TeddyR

What, Rick Perry doesn't seem reasonable? Like in this new hateful commercial:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfVqGBE6JI&sns=em

You're misrepresenting Perry here.

His point is that if gays can serve in the military, then kids should be allowed to be open about their religious beliefs in school.

Which I think is a valid point, that people should be able to openly express their conscience in public settings.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think it's her audition for a job on Fox News, on-camera.

Sorry, but I can't resist this, which I found after watching the Perry commercial link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Y1Yyb13Dkrc

Right?!

Most of the women on that network have the same dress code.

@Silifi, good point.

Originally Posted by Silifi

You're misrepresenting Perry here.

His point is that if gays can serve in the military, then kids should be allowed to be open about their religious beliefs in school.

They can. Perry is raising a non-issue, confusing it with a related NOT valid point regarding school-led prayer.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They can. Perry is raising a non-issue, confusing it with a related NOT valid point regarding school-led prayer.

It may be a non-issue, but the point is that Perry is lying about something else, not targeting gays. His purpose is to say, "They're limiting our religious freedom" not "We can't allow gays to serve openly."

Which is why it's a misrepresentation to say that his message is "hateful" because he's not actually saying (or even heavily implying) that gays shouldn't serve openly, he's just trying to draw equivalence between expression of sexual orientation and expression of religion. (even if he is attacking a strawman)

Originally Posted by millennialX

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I am rethinking that last comment after seeing this endorsement of Perry:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljvyaqa5Mfo&sns=em


She might be right, although I have no idea what she said.

Interesting. For some reason I expected her to be topless by the of the video.

All I heard was "Perry [cleave, cleave, cleave, cleave] Rick Perry [cleave, cleave, cleave, cleave] Perry 2012."

P.S. Congratulations MillieX on your 5,000 post. Best...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They can. Perry is raising a non-issue, confusing it with a related NOT valid point regarding school-led prayer.

OK. I've brought this up before, but ...

Among me, my wife and my two kids, we have attended elementary schools in CA, CO, AZ, WY, and SD. My sister attended schools where I did, plus suburban Maryland.

NONE OF US EVER ATTENDED A SCHOOL WHERE THERE WAS A PRAYER EVERY DAY.

Since the states we lived in do not represent all possiblities, can any of the rest of you fill in some of the blanks? Is the deep south a place where daily prayer is mandated in public schools, or where?

I really do start to lose my patience when arguments arise over stuff that doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Which is why it's a misrepresentation to say that his message is "hateful" because he's not actually saying (or even heavily implying) that gays shouldn't serve openly, he's just trying to draw equivalence between expression of sexual orientation and expression of religion. (even if he is attacking a strawman)

Misrepresent this. He is a hateful mofo, everything he says and does is about hate.

We have this thing called the constitution. Perry doesn't like it, hence talk of secession. He is a maple syrup hugging stooge who seeks to divide and hate.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Misrepresent this. He is a hateful mofo, everything he says and does is about hate.

Probably. I won't try to defend Perry too much because he is a deplorable excuse for a human being, just like most people who run for high office.

We have this thing called the constitution. Perry doesn't like it, hence talk of secession. He is a maple syrup hugging stooge who seeks to divide and hate.

What does this have anything to do with the constitution?

Are you under the delusion that the First Amendment creates a separation of church and state? It doesn't, and regardless of the SC's rulings on the matter, the current ban on school-led prayer has nothing to do with the federal constitution. I think that's what Perry is getting at, and he's in the stronger intellectual tradition on that matter, even if he is being disingenuous about its actual effects.

A dangerous combo. Yikes!

Gingrich slots MEK terrorists’ supporter John Bolton for State

Newt Gingrich says he would appoint John Bolton as Secretary of State in order to “reform” the State Department

Originally Posted by Silifi

It may be a non-issue, but the point is that Perry is lying about something else, not targeting gays. His purpose is to say, "They're limiting our religious freedom" not "We can't allow gays to serve openly."

Which is why it's a misrepresentation to say that his message is "hateful" because he's not actually saying (or even heavily implying) that gays shouldn't serve openly, he's just trying to draw equivalence between expression of sexual orientation and expression of religion. (even if he is attacking a strawman)

First of all, it is not true that kids can't pray in schools. Kids are just as free to hold and express their religious views within schools as gays are to serve in the military.

The point is that teachers can't tell kid to pray in schools, just as military leaders can no longer tell soldiers they have to be straight.

If you can look at that ad and tell me with a straight face that Perry is not trying to arouse homophobia, I'd like to sell you a nice bridge over the East River.

There were mandatory prayers, and mandatory prayer and Bible reading, in the Maryland and New York state schools I attended until 1961. While I was oversees the practice was abolished. Many people have told me that daily prayer occurs in public schools in many areas of the US.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There were mandatory prayers, and mandatory prayer and Bible reading, in the Maryland and New York state schools I attended until 1961. While I was oversees the practice was abolished. Many people have told me that daily prayer occurs in public schools in many areas of the US.

When I first move to North Carolin inthe early '70's we had daily Bible readings by our teacher for my first year here. After that no, the "spiritual" awakening hit and irnonically the Charlotte area schools quickly went secular on all such matters.
But if anyone triesto sell the idea that organized religious services weren't preformed in American public schools at least as late as the early '70's, I know from personal experience that at best they don't know what they're talking about.

Originally Posted by Silifi

It may be a non-issue, but the point is that Perry is lying about something else, not targeting gays. His purpose is to say, "They're limiting our religious freedom" not "We can't allow gays to serve openly."

Which is why it's a misrepresentation to say that his message is "hateful" because he's not actually saying (or even heavily implying) that gays shouldn't serve openly, he's just trying to draw equivalence between expression of sexual orientation and expression of religion. (even if he is attacking a strawman)

Ah, I see. Yes, you are right, that would indeed be a misrepresentation of what Perry was saying, if it was what was being said, which is not what I took from it. Although frankly, I suspect that Perry was indeed relying on a homophobic undertone, even if it wasn't his overt main message.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

When I first move to North Carolin inthe early '70's we had daily Bible readings by our teacher for my first year here. After that no, the "spiritual" awakening hit and irnonically the Charlotte area schools quickly went secular on all such matters.
But if anyone triesto sell the idea that organized religious services weren't preformed in American public schools at least as late as the early '70's, I know from personal experience that at best they don't know what they're talking about.

And when the line, "bring back prayer in schools" is touted by various religious movements, I suspect that that's what they're talking about--organized, teacher-led prayers, that were done away with around the time of Roe v. Wade, that other bugaboo of the religious right. Because there is nothing at all keeping an individual student from saying a silent prayer of their own, at any time while in school. And didn't Jesus say that that's the proper way to pray anyway, not out in the open for all to see (lest it be motivated by vanity)? Actually, He recommended shutting oneself in a closet to pray....

I remember in my first couple grades of elementary school, our classroom singing Christmas songs (including religious ones), and one of the kids having to go out in the hall because he was a Jehovah's Witness, a sect which does not believe in celebrating holidays, let alone the divinity of Jesus as "Son of God" or "God incarnate" (IIUC). And some of the kids making fun of him because he couldn't sing Christmas songs. He was basically made to stand out as an "Other". There were no formal prayers that I recall (this was in Minnesota), though.

But yeah, there is a huge difference between a student praying privately or even talking about his faith to other students, and an organized formal prayer led by Authority. Even if students could opt out of the latter, it singles them out needlessly, and there would be pressure to just stay in there, go along to get along....

To Southern Evangelicals (and lets not delude ourselves, this crap is mostly a Southern thing) "religious freedom" means the right to shove their bigoted beliefs down other people's throats.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This ad about Romney is devastating not only to him but to the GOP's 2012 cause -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=K9njHHyRI7g#!

Most analysts are concluding that the DNC believes Romney is the eventual GOP candidate and that they are only trying to soften him up for the general election.

I don't think so.

The DNC is trying to take him out in the primaries (Plan A) or, if he is the nominee, have the Far Right of the GOP somewhere between demoralized, not sending cash, staying home, or running a 3rd party candidate (Plan B)

Note in the video, outside of the late-night comedians, the near exclusive use of well-know GOP talking heads to tear into Romney - Chris Wallace, Joe Scarborough, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume, etc. - that is not aimed at Independents in the General; that is aimed at value-oriented Right wingers that already have a big problem with Romney.

I think this was aimed primarily at getting one of the 'not-Mitt candidates' that would be an easy run for Obama. However, they didn't realize how bad Perry was (I'm pretty sure they knew Cain, Bachman, Paul and Santorum were not going to happen). There is still some hope that Gingrich can pull it off and the DNC would be ecstatic (there's little doubt Newt would self-implode again once the General is underway; if not, Bill Clinton would probably take him out with a single 60 Mintues interview on what really went on back in the ‘90s). There is a risk that their stratey might get them Huntsman, but it’s just too early for him - he's the "better Romney" in 2016 – I think for the DNC, it’s an acceptable risk.

So what this is really about is demoralizing the wingers getting them to not send cash and possible stay home next November. A third party, however, is a stretch for there's no one they can rally around. Gingrich won't go against the GOP, besides he’s got his own problems with the wingers. Ron Paul might but he never polls well; as a 3rd candidate, he could take away enough votes in some swing states, however, to make Obama's run against Romney a cake walk.

It is amazing to compare the "first-stringer" GOP field in 2008 (when a reincarnated Ron Ray-gun wouldn't of had a chance) to this 2012 "back bencher" field in a year that was their's to win. The coming lost could really get underway that inevitable split between the wingers and the banking elites in the GOP; perhaps some sort of crescendo soon after the elections. Add in the demographics, and within a decade, they could go to being a regional party. Got my fingers crossed for that.

Then the banking elites might try to peel off a segment of the establishment type Dems to form a ‘business party’ to oppose those left in the Dem party as labor. That, unfortunately, could lead to the wingers regional party, being the deciding swing vote in elections. Interesting times to come.

Check this latest poli ad from the DNC –

Romney Desperate Attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po-Gr...layer_embedded


As I noted above, the DNC is making major hits on Romney and it isn’t aimed at Dems or even Indies. The audience for this is the core of GOP base and it is devastating. Showing Romney as desperately attacking other GOPers - essentially betraying not only the party but the legacy of their god, Ron Ray-Gun.

DNC's Plan A- a non-Romney; Plan B - a mortally-wounded Romney that can't muster the base in the general; Plan -C a brokered GOP convention in disarray that splits the GOP and perhaps a 3rd candidacy.

Wow, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one bad ass. I love it!

Have ya notice certain fer-sure-we're-gonna-win Rightees have gone missing on the forum?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

First of all, it is not true that kids can't pray in schools. Kids are just as free to hold and express their religious views within schools as gays are to serve in the military.

Hence why it's a strawman, which I mentioned.

If you can look at that ad and tell me with a straight face that Perry is not trying to arouse homophobia, I'd like to sell you a nice bridge over the East River.

He's certainly using a dog-whistle, although it's ham-handed because so many people are jumping all over him for it. But the literal meaning of what he said isn't horribly controversial.

Many people have told me that daily prayer occurs in public schools in many areas of the US.

Just as the constitution allows, even if it's against the official stance of the powers-that-be. The 1961 ruling is total nonsense. The First Amendment was written to protect the state's right to establish religion, so reading it into the Fourteenth Amendment is intellectually dishonest, at best.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ah, I see. Yes, you are right, that would indeed be a misrepresentation of what Perry was saying, if it was what was being said, which is not what I took from it. Although frankly, I suspect that Perry was indeed relying on a homophobic undertone, even if it wasn't his overt main message.

Certainly. I'm in kind lawyerish mood so I'm a stickler for the details.

It just seems to me that if Perry's fairly standard dog-whistle is so offensive to people suddenly, there's a lot more people should be upset about. The outrage is disproportionate.

Mitt still cannot buy my vote. But let's see if Newt bites on this one.

http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/201...on-show-today/

He won't but we will see.

New Gallup polls show Obama losing to Romney and Gingrich in the swing states. It also show a major enthusiasm gap with Republicans champing at the bit to vote and lackluster enthusiasm from the Dummycrats.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...oll/51844930/1

Another recent See-BS poll showed 54% did not support Obama's re-election. See-BS polls are notoriously leftward slanted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...proval-rating/

Originally Posted by Weave

Dummycrats.

In the interest of forum decorum, I wish you would refrain from this kind of word play. It is a turn-off from either side.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

In the interest of forum decorum, I wish you would refrain from this kind of word play. It is a turn-off from either side.

James50

I have put everyone who does this - including one who told me it was his *duty* to refer to the GOP as "Repugs" - on Ignore. Life's too short to listen to dealers in cheap personal insults.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I have put everyone who does this - including one who told me it was his *duty* to refer to the GOP as "Repugs" - on Ignore. Life's too short to listen to dealers in cheap personal insults.

Agreed. I think people like this would rather see continued hatred and political intolerance than to see very real issues be addressed effectively. Because as long as someone uses rhetoric that demonizes the other half as stupid or evil people, you've lost any chance for productive discussions.