Ron Paul vs Rick Perry

[RoyGBiv]

I don't vote or participate in the statist system because 1. I am opposed to governing by violent coersion and 2. Those in my minority group of Americans are barred from being elected to ANY office in this country. No its not the homosexual minority group. They are a smaller but much more accepted minority.

Care to explain?

I am in the 20% of Americans that see no evidence for any gods. I am an atheist. We are the largest and most hated minority group in America. A child raping Muslim Jihadist would get elected in this country before an atheist.

Unelectable, perhaps (I'd argue with you about it), but certainly not BARRED.
I figured you were a felon, but as Marion Berry proved, even felons can be (re)elected... They just can't vote for themselves.

[SATX-Scrub]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... -poll.html

Interesting read. Couldn't tell if he had all his pundits bussed in or not.

[mgood]

Since this thread has turned into a "state your political philosophy," rather than "which one do you like," here are my thoughts. I still have a couple pages to read, so I may have to update this as I go.

A candidate who espouses fiscal sanity and social tolerance can't get past the primaries. Pity us, for we are fools.

That describes my politics pretty succinctly.

+1
I'm one of those fiscally conservative and socially liberal types, more or less.
I want the government, especially the federal government, out of my life, out of my pocket, out of my bedroom, and danged sure want them away from my guns. I want them as invisible as possible.
Guns are my litmus test too. It's not just that I'm a single-issue voter, it's that if they don't trust me with firearms, why should I trust them with . . . anything?
If we get past that, we can discuss other issues.

The growth of the federal government needs to be stopped. Not slowed down, stopped, and we even need to look at ways to shrink the monster.

Gay marriage? They're not bothering me. I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong, but it ranks right up there with my belief that throwing your hamburger wrapper out the car window is wrong. Not something I'm going to get overly excited about. If they want to marry, why should I care? Actually, litter along the highway offends me, while homosexuals hardly get a raised eyebrow anymore.

War on drugs = Prohibition. Didn't work then and doesn't work now. (And I truly believe that alcohol is a much worse drug than marajuana.) And if someone wants to fry their brain, how is this the government's business? If they're driving under the influence or otherwise endangering the public, yeah, I'm all for harsh penalties. Selling to kids too young to make decisions about whether or not to fry their own brains should be restricted, such as with the drinking age. (And I can get into a whole discussion about ages of consent, voting, drinking, driving, having a CHL, etc. But that's going too far off topic.) But if someone wants to sit at home and get stoned out of their mind, so what?

Roe v Wade was wrong. Not because I'm anti-abortion but because it was WAAAAAAAAY outside the lines of where they should have been sticking their federal noses. Like in Marbury, the Supreme Court just decided to expand their power and did it.
I generally lean towards the pro-life/anti-abortion side, especially in late term, let alone partial-birth, abortions. But I do think that's a path down which the federal government should have never started.

I agree that size, scope and authority of the federal government should be very limited. I think that the federal government's power should be limited to those expressly set out in the Constitution and not expanded by perverting the Commerce Clause.

More attention should be paid to the Tenth Amendment.
Since just about everything we own has at some point been involved in interstate commerce, the gov'ment has decided the commerce clause gives them the authority to micro-manage just about any aspect of our lives that they choose. This idea needs to be pushed back at every opportunity.

[The Annoyed Man]

FWIW:

51% Don't Want Second Term For President Obama
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... -Obama.htm

A majority of Americans now oppose giving President Obama a second term, reflecting the country's continued weak economic performance, according to the latest IBD/TIPP survey released Monday.

By 51%-41%, respondents in October picked "someone new deserves a chance" over Obama "deserves to be re-elected." Among independents, it was 54%-36%. Back in September, the readings were 50%-44% and 53%-38%, respectively.

Obama's campaign is in the toilet along with his presidency. He has lost ground among all voters, and more importantly, among registered independents.

His goose is cooked. Republicans can pretty much safely vote along fairly conservative lines in the primary—cutting out the squishy republicans and the fruit loops and still nominate a conservative candidate who can beat Obama. This country needs a clear alternative, but one who is not considered a nutter by any significant portion of the electorate. For better or for worse, that rules out Paul. Perry's Dallas pastor isn't helping him any, but Herman Cain is starting to look pretty good. I don't think that Santorum or Bachman are going to matter that much in the end. It's too early to pick a winner, but I don't believe that a conservative nominee is going to have that hard of a time of it so long as Obama keeps muttering foolishness and shooting himself in the foot.

[boba]

It sounds like the election is theirs to lose. Let's hope the GOP doesn't choose to lose by nominating an Obama Lite.

[RoyGBiv]

RP again proves himself "not my candidate" (family friendly description) for declaring Al Awalaki's killing an "assassination" without due process.
RESPECT for his honesty, but whatever small chance he had with the mainstream is gone.

Perry has shown himself to be incapable as a public speaker (just like GWB, making him more of an easy target in the general election) and is doing nothing to establish himself as a leader. So far, he's a "partisan", trying to stake out his claim to the conservative base. Another pandering Politico, nothing more.

[offtopic] Romney is also little more than a panderer, I see no leadership from him either.

If I was casting a ballot today, it would be for Herman Cain, YMMV. [/offtopic]

[CC Italian]

Cain is more of a "moderate" or Republican lite but I have to agree with you Roy. After seeing Perry, Romney and Cain talk, Cain is definitely a better speaker. I don't know if I would want him over Perry but I think I would prefer him over Romney. Honestly I think this country needs another Ronald Reagan. It will be interesting in the coming months!

[anygunanywhere]

Cain is more of a "moderate" or Republican lite but I have to agree with you Roy. After seeing Perry, Romney and Cain talk, Cain is definitely a better speaker. I don't know if I would want him over Perry but I think I would prefer him over Romney. Honestly I think this country needs another Ronald Reagan. It will be interesting in the coming months!

Just because an individual is a better speaker does not make him a better leader, nor does it make him the individual who will do what it takes to get the job done. All it means is that he is a better speaker.

Anygunanywhere

[CC Italian]

Didn't say different, just stating my observations. Many here have commented on how bad the public speaking abilities of some of the candidates are. Obviously I understand what you are saying. A great example of this is Obama. A great speaker even though the content is horrid! I know we all remember how many thought he was going to bring HOPE and CHANGE but the poor are still poor and the middle class are becoming poor. That’s his hope and change. HOPE for a job and CHANGE to unemployment!

[RoyGBiv]

I am still astounded at how many people fell for the Hope and Change rhetoric.
It was transparently obvious (to me) then that we would get what we now have.
Public speaking is of course only a small part of Leading.

Back on topic...

Just as Obama's 2008 promises were transparently foolish, Romney's proposals are transparently fungible and prima facia, insufficient. Paul's are just plain nutty in some key areas (foreign policy!). Cain is fairly articulate (there are some nuances about his speaking style that I find annoying, but overall he does a very good job conveying his message, IMO) and his proposals thus far show an understanding of the problem, a direction of attack that is based on both macroeconomic reality and are not tainted by inside-the-beltline political thinking. Cain, IMO, evokes Reagan in that he is clearly guided by his religious compass, but he does not wear it on his sleeve. His "positivity" is engaging, infectious, sorely needed and also evokes Reagan. Cain believes in America, Perry and Romney come across as believing in themselves, primarily. Cain has "been there, done that" in the business world (doing turn-around work requires nuts-and-bolts, hands-on executive skills, not just a spreadsheet and a red pen) and at the Fed, vs. Romney, who is a Missionary, Lawyer, Management Consultant. His job at Bain was purely Finance and M&A, he was a leveraged buyout specialist. As things stand currently, Cain has SUBSTANCE, IMO, YMMV.

Perry has been my Governor since I arrived in TX in 2003. I still don't know what he stands for. To me, he's a character. A good-lookin' good-ol-boy "Texan", from a storybook. But what has he actually done? Door-to-door book salesman, Air Force (respect.! ), Cotton Farmer, Politician. Honestly, "Where's the beef?" As Governor, his most visible "accomplishments" were HPV (opinion deleted) and the Trans-Texas Corridor (which is where now?). I would go so far as to characterize his tenure as Governor as "coasting". Texas was on a good path when he took office and, like Bill Clinton's term in the WH, Perry has managed to not muck it up. Nothing to write home to momma about. He's a frat boy, like GWB, with a good record on 2A. Not enough for me. YMMV

My mind is not made up... but.. there you have it so far... FWIW.

[anygunanywhere]

I am still astounded at how many people fell for the Hope and Change rhetoric.
It was transparently obvious (to me) then that we would get what we now have.
Public speaking is of course only a small part of Leading.

Back on topic...

Just as Obama's 2008 promises were transparently foolish, Romney's proposals are transparently fungible and prima facia, insufficient. Paul's are just plain nutty in some key areas (foreign policy!). Cain is fairly articulate (there are some nuances about his speaking style that I find annoying, but overall he does a very good job conveying his message, IMO) and his proposals thus far show an understanding of the problem, a direction of attack that is based on both macroeconomic reality and are not tainted by inside-the-beltline political thinking. Cain, IMO, evokes Reagan in that he is clearly guided by his religious compass, but he does not wear it on his sleeve. His "positivity" is engaging, infectious, sorely needed and also evokes Reagan. Cain believes in America, Perry and Romney come across as believing in themselves, primarily. Cain has "been there, done that" in the business world (doing turn-around work requires nuts-and-bolts, hands-on executive skills, not just a spreadsheet and a red pen) and at the Fed, vs. Romney, who is a Missionary, Lawyer, Management Consultant. His job at Bain was purely Finance and M&A, he was a leveraged buyout specialist. As things stand currently, Cain has SUBSTANCE, IMO, YMMV.

Perry has been my Governor since I arrived in TX in 2003. I still don't know what he stands for. To me, he's a character. A good-lookin' good-ol-boy "Texan", from a storybook. But what has he actually done? Door-to-door book salesman, Air Force (respect.! ), Cotton Farmer, Politician. Honestly, "Where's the beef?" As Governor, his most visible "accomplishments" were HPV (opinion deleted) and the Trans-Texas Corridor (which is where now?). I would go so far as to characterize his tenure as Governor as "coasting". Texas was on a good path when he took office and, like Bill Clinton's term in the WH, Perry has managed to not muck it up. Nothing to write home to momma about. He's a frat boy, like GWB, with a good record on 2A. Not enough for me. YMMV

My mind is not made up... but.. there you have it so far... FWIW.

Most of the jobs that have been created over the last three years have been in Texas and more Fortune 500 companies have relocated their central operations to Texas under the business friendly policies envisioned by Perry, and we are a much more 2A friendly state as well, but who is counting?

Anygunanywhere

[RoyGBiv]

Most of the jobs that have been created over the last three years have been in Texas and more Fortune 500 companies have relocated their central operations to Texas under the business friendly policies envisioned by Perry, and we are a much more 2A friendly state as well, but who is counting?

Anygunanywhere

I have a hard time crediting Perry for Texas' "business friendly" policies... As I said in the post you quoted, IMO, Perry inherited a good situation and, as when Clinton inherited a strong economy from Reagan and GHW Bush, managed to not muck it up.

I would definitely welcome some specific examples of Perry's leadership on relevant Texas economic successes...
Thus far, I have not heard any from Mr. Perry himself.

[anygunanywhere]

I have a hard time crediting Perry for Texas' "business friendly" policies... As I said in the post you quoted, IMO, Perry inherited a good situation and, as when Clinton inherited a strong economy from Reagan and GHW Bush, managed to not muck it up.

I would definitely welcome some specific examples of Perry's leadership on relevant Texas economic successes...
Thus far, I have not heard any from Mr. Perry himself.

The Office of the Governor Economic Development and Tourism Division. Last I checked Rick Perry is the Governor of Texas.


http://www.governor.state.tx.us/news/pr ... ase/16632/

Google is your friend.

Anygunanywhere

[RoyGBiv]

The Office of the Governor Economic Development and Tourism Division. Last I checked Rick Perry is the Governor of Texas.

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/news/pr ... ase/16632/

Anygunanywhere

I'll skip the snarky retort to your "Google" comment...

For the third time...... Why would I credit Mr Perry for CREATING this environment?
There's a HUGE difference between maintaining an inherited success and LEADING the efforts to create success where it did not exist previously.
I have proposed that the economic conditions for Texas' success preceded Mr. Perry. Nothing in your referenced article speaks to this point.

In fact, your friends at Google might have missed these bits during your search.. All of them Page 1 hits when searching "job growth in texas"

Perry’s record is part of a long-term trend. Texas has done well in the jobs department for decades. “This point goes neglected,” says Bernard L. Weinstein, professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “Yes, Texas has created more jobs than any other state” in the last two years. “But that’s been true since 1970. For the last 41 years Texas has added more jobs than any other state, and in most years, has led the nation in job creation,” Weinstein told us. “So Gov. Perry can claim that these jobs were created on his watch, but they were created on everybody else’s watch too.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The non-partisan group found that newly-arrived immigrants claimed 81% of state job growth from 2007 to 2011. What's worse, half of those immigrants were illegal -- representing 40% of state growth.
.....
Newly-arrived immigrants dominated job growth despite representing only 29% of population growth.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... z1aV8N7NoI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you draw a rectangle on a piece of paper and put your pen in the bottom left-hand corner and then make a straight line across the box to the top right-hand corner, you've just drawn a graph of employment in Texas for the past 20 years. Really, that's what it looks like. From Gov. Ann Richards to Gov. George W. Bush to Gov. Rick Perry, the state has exploded in population and jobs.

"So it's not just the last 10 years; this has been going on now for 21 years — at least," says Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Fisher says population expansion is driving growth. Every day, about 1,000 people are either born in or move to Texas. That means new housing, roads, retail, schools, police, firemen — the list goes on. And while Perry touts the success of job creation in the private sector, job growth in government employment has been just as strong.

"We're growing at 80,000 schoolchildren a year, so those children are going to have to be accommodated," says Bill Hammond, the president of the Texas Association of Business.

The oil and gas industry provided nearly 40,000 new jobs since 2009, and most pay good wages. A truck driver servicing an oil or natural gas rig earns on average $1,600 a week. Texas is also creating a lot of low-paying jobs

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [yes... "Consider the source".. I know]

"The notion that Texas' recent performance is due to some unusually favorable business climate is absurd," said James K. Galbraith, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

First, Texas is an energy state, so it benefits from the run-up in oil prices, he said. Then Texas dodged much of the subprime housing bust, so it never lost as many jobs.

When the Dallas Fed reports on "net new jobs," he said, Texas' gains are exaggerated, because other big states lost so many.

Galbraith said the final chapter hasn't been written, either. Austin's budget cuts will eliminate work for thousands of teachers and others in coming months, which has already happened elsewhere.

Pia Orrenius, a senior economist at the Dallas Fed, listed many reasons for Texas' job growth. Energy prices rose steadily, the Barnett Shale has been a big growth driver in North Texas, and the Eagle Ford Shale is now creating jobs and wealth around San Antonio.

With natural gas so abundant, petrochemical exports have surged 633 percent since 2002, she said. Exports to China grew an average of 24 percent a year since 2000. Exports of cotton and other agriculture products are strong, too.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/14 ... z1aV7sXUAP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

The Office of the Governor Economic Development and Tourism Division. Last I checked Rick Perry is the Governor of Texas.

http://www.governor.state.tx.us/news/pr ... ase/16632/

Anygunanywhere

I'll skip the snarky retort to your "Google" comment...

For the third time...... Why would I credit Mr Perry for CREATING this environment?
There's a HUGE difference between maintaining an inherited success and LEADING the efforts to create success where it did not exist previously.
I have proposed that the economic conditions for Texas' success preceded Mr. Perry. Nothing in your referenced article speaks to this point.

In fact, your friends at Google might have missed these bits during your search.. All of them Page 1 hits when searching "job growth in texas"

Perry’s record is part of a long-term trend. Texas has done well in the jobs department for decades. “This point goes neglected,” says Bernard L. Weinstein, professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “Yes, Texas has created more jobs than any other state” in the last two years. “But that’s been true since 1970. For the last 41 years Texas has added more jobs than any other state, and in most years, has led the nation in job creation,” Weinstein told us. “So Gov. Perry can claim that these jobs were created on his watch, but they were created on everybody else’s watch too.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The non-partisan group found that newly-arrived immigrants claimed 81% of state job growth from 2007 to 2011. What's worse, half of those immigrants were illegal -- representing 40% of state growth.
.....
Newly-arrived immigrants dominated job growth despite representing only 29% of population growth.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... z1aV8N7NoI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you draw a rectangle on a piece of paper and put your pen in the bottom left-hand corner and then make a straight line across the box to the top right-hand corner, you've just drawn a graph of employment in Texas for the past 20 years. Really, that's what it looks like. From Gov. Ann Richards to Gov. George W. Bush to Gov. Rick Perry, the state has exploded in population and jobs.

"So it's not just the last 10 years; this has been going on now for 21 years — at least," says Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Fisher says population expansion is driving growth. Every day, about 1,000 people are either born in or move to Texas. That means new housing, roads, retail, schools, police, firemen — the list goes on. And while Perry touts the success of job creation in the private sector, job growth in government employment has been just as strong.

"We're growing at 80,000 schoolchildren a year, so those children are going to have to be accommodated," says Bill Hammond, the president of the Texas Association of Business.

The oil and gas industry provided nearly 40,000 new jobs since 2009, and most pay good wages. A truck driver servicing an oil or natural gas rig earns on average $1,600 a week. Texas is also creating a lot of low-paying jobs

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [yes... "Consider the source".. I know]

"The notion that Texas' recent performance is due to some unusually favorable business climate is absurd," said James K. Galbraith, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

First, Texas is an energy state, so it benefits from the run-up in oil prices, he said. Then Texas dodged much of the subprime housing bust, so it never lost as many jobs.

When the Dallas Fed reports on "net new jobs," he said, Texas' gains are exaggerated, because other big states lost so many.

Galbraith said the final chapter hasn't been written, either. Austin's budget cuts will eliminate work for thousands of teachers and others in coming months, which has already happened elsewhere.

Pia Orrenius, a senior economist at the Dallas Fed, listed many reasons for Texas' job growth. Energy prices rose steadily, the Barnett Shale has been a big growth driver in North Texas, and the Eagle Ford Shale is now creating jobs and wealth around San Antonio.

With natural gas so abundant, petrochemical exports have surged 633 percent since 2002, she said. Exports to China grew an average of 24 percent a year since 2000. Exports of cotton and other agriculture products are strong, too.

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/14 ... z1aV7sXUAP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice search results. Thanks. I did not use the same search terms as you, even if I did I doubt I would have read NPR.

Everything on the internet is true.

After all is said, I think Rick Perry is the best candidate for the GOP. I don't like Cain, can't stand Romney, Paul is a loon, Newt has not a chance along with everyone else. Perry represents most of what I believe in. If you decide to support someone else, your decision. Just remember what the current regime has brought us. Conservatives need to support a candidate who can win and holds most of our values.

Anygunanywhere