TexasCHLforum.com

This is not a rhetorical question. It is an honest question wanting real feedback.

I see so many posts on this board saying Perry is a snake in the grass, there isnt a real choice so I am going to vote for Perry, I dont like Perry, Perry is dishonest, etc.

Why? Granted he was a yell leader at A&M, but other than that I just dont really know or have I ever met anybody in politics that was Jesus like.

I think he is okay and has served Texas well.

I mean who would be the perfect candidate that has the connections and money to run for Governor. I cant think of any.

I guess my point is who is this ideal candidate we are all waiting for?

I cannot agree with you more texas1234.

By the way, what benefit is there to name calling anyways? I find calling Perry “a snake in the grass” offensive. Off handed comments like this might lead to convincing a friend or coworker who is undecided to vote for White. Why slam a Governor who has strongly supported your guns rights? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Well I got that off my chest. Think I’ll head to the Lone Star Gun show in Fort Worth.

texas1234 wrote:Why? Granted he was a yell leader at A&M, but other than that I just dont really know or have I ever met anybody in politics that was Jesus like.

Why is this a negative? You seem to be comparing being a yell leader to being a snake in the grass....what?

I graduated from Texas Tech. It was a subtle shot at the Aggies on this forum.

The Trans Texas Corridor was enough for me to vote against Perry in the primary election.

Sanctuary cities and Illegal Mayors Against Guns are enough to vote against White in the general election.

texas1234 wrote:I graduated from Texas Tech. It was a subtle shot at the Aggies on this forum.

Subtlety from a Texas Tech graduate? I didn't know y'all were capable of it. Gig 'em.

I'll put it this way. I would certainly vote for a Techie over Bill White any day....

I think I'll just write in a vote for myself......after all, the way Texas is set up, the Speaker has the real power.....

texas1234 wrote:This is not a rhetorical question. It is an honest question wanting real feedback.

I see so many posts on this board saying Perry is a snake in the grass, there isnt a real choice so I am going to vote for Perry, I dont like Perry, Perry is dishonest, etc.

Why? Granted he was a yell leader at A&M, but other than that I just dont really know or have I ever met anybody in politics that was Jesus like.

I think he is okay and has served Texas well.

I mean who would be the perfect candidate that has the connections and money to run for Governor. I cant think of any.

I guess my point is who is this ideal candidate we are all waiting for?

Nobody is a perfect candidate - of course. But that jerk (who I will vote for in October) tried to legislate an unproven vaccine on all young girls in Texas. Why? Because Merek donated heavily to his campaign? It don't get much more Obama-like than that! He tried to play socialized medicine - campaign finance tricks at the expense of my daughters' health! So yes, he is a snake. As I said, I wouldn't trust him to watch my pet rock if I am away from home.

So yeah, he supports 2A rights in a big way. But I am not a single issue voter. Good thing for him Bill White is way scarier.

just sayin ...

txrr wrote:I cannot agree with you more texas1234.

By the way, what benefit is there to name calling anyways? I find calling Perry “a snake in the grass” offensive. Off handed comments like this might lead to convincing a friend or coworker who is undecided to vote for White. Why slam a Governor who has strongly supported your guns rights? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Well I got that off my chest. Think I’ll head to the Lone Star Gun show in Fort Worth.

I guess you got a point there. But on the other side, I want him to know that just because I vote for him, doesn't mean he gets my unwavering support for some of the wacky things he has tried to pull. Not that he reads these forums or anything - but I feel better about it ...

terryg wrote:

texas1234 wrote:This is not a rhetorical question. It is an honest question wanting real feedback.

I see so many posts on this board saying Perry is a snake in the grass, there isnt a real choice so I am going to vote for Perry, I dont like Perry, Perry is dishonest, etc.

Why? Granted he was a yell leader at A&M, but other than that I just dont really know or have I ever met anybody in politics that was Jesus like.

I think he is okay and has served Texas well.

I mean who would be the perfect candidate that has the connections and money to run for Governor. I cant think of any.

I guess my point is who is this ideal candidate we are all waiting for?

Nobody is a perfect candidate - of course. But that jerk (who I will vote for in October) tried to legislate an unproven vaccine on all young girls in Texas. Why? Because Merek donated heavily to his campaign? It don't get much more Obama-like than that! He tried to play socialized medicine - campaign finance tricks at the expense of my daughters' health! So yes, he is a snake. As I said, I wouldn't trust him to watch my pet rock if I am away from home.

So yeah, he supports 2A rights in a big way. But I am not a single issue voter. Good thing for him Bill White is way scarier.

just sayin ...

Yup, and I'm in no way in favor of the Trans Texas Property Rights Violation either. What good are gun rights when we have nothing to protect with them?

If White looks like he is making a race of it I'll grit my teeth and vote for Perry since White would be much worse, but I'd still prefer Medina.

terryg wrote: Nobody is a perfect candidate - of course. But that jerk (who I will vote for in October) tried to legislate an unproven vaccine on all young girls in Texas. Why? Because Merek donated heavily to his campaign? It don't get much more Obama-like than that! He tried to play socialized medicine - campaign finance tricks at the expense of my daughters' health! So yes, he is a snake. As I said, I wouldn't trust him to watch my pet rock if I am away from home.

So yeah, he supports 2A rights in a big way. But I am not a single issue voter. Good thing for him Bill White is way scarier.

just sayin ...

My understanding of the vaccine thing was that declaring it "mandatory" was required to make the vaccine available for free or reduced price under state programs for poor people or something like that. It was never intended nor was it ever actually going to be forced on anyone who didn't want it. However, I think that could have and should have been explained and it was a huge blunder for Perry in the end. Whether or not it was a favor to Merek, I have no idea.

I don't know Perry's ultimate motivation for the move to mandate the HPV vaccine, but it can and does prevent cancers and save lives. Before condemning Perry for trying to see to it girls were vaccinated for it, consider the following;

My area of expertise involves having to know about pathologies like HPV. It is actually a huge group of different strains of "wart" viruses, although the most dangerous strains do not make visible warts. They are easily transmitted by skin contact--and not necessarily only sexual contact. These viruses are very common. More than 50% of the population will have one or more of the strains including oral infections at any given time. Usually a healthy person will throw off most of the strains given time, but some strains are not so easy to overcome and can go on to cause cancer. The strains covered by the vaccine are the most likely to cause these cancers of the cervix, external pelvic areas, AND the mouth and throat.

The oral/throat cancers are showing up in people in their 20's and 30's at an increasing rate. One oral pathologist whose seminar I attended last year reported his research indicated a 300% increase. Throat cancers caused by HPV are surpassing smoking as a primary cause. This is still not well known among physicians who may not discuss the oral cancer link with patients. The throat cancer can be difficult to detect until it is well advanced. The treatment is often a combination of surgery, chemo, and radiation with fairly good prognosis if caught in time. But, chemo and rad have lasting side effects that can be serious.

I personally know patients who developed tonsillar cancer from one of the HPV strains (HPV 16) covered by the vaccine. I assure you they would run like the wind for that vaccine if they could go back in time before they were exposed.

We get vaccines for many things that are frankly less life threatening than cancer. The hysteria over the HPV vaccine was blown way out of proportion because of the lack of good public education about the real dangers of HPV. It became associated with the idea we were sort of accusing little girls of needing protection from a VD and Perry only wanted them vaccinated for his own gain. The true value of it got lost in all the uproar. Making this vaccine a political hot potato during the election is making the public aversion to it even worse. It will make doctors even less likely to recommend it due to the perceived risk of malpractice or alienating patients. My own physician sees it this way. These are stupid reasons not to be protected by it. The decision should be made on medical facts alone.

Who knows for sure if Perry was motivated by some lust for money from the company making the vaccine or political payback. But being briefed on the facts, it also may be he clearly understood it is truly an important vaccine that could save many lives not to mention the considerable cost of treatment and suffering. It is now just as important for boys to receive . Originally, the focus was just on cervical cancer, but now we are seeing a higher rate of HVP-related throat cancers in men than women. It is not just a woman's concern any longer.

If anyone is interested in further info, here are good sites;
http://www.hpvhealth.net/blog/category/hpv-vaccine/
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/fac ... avirus.htm
WARNING, the following site has graphic pictures of oral cancers;
http://www.entusa.com/hpv_&_oral_cancer.htm

TexasGal wrote: The decision should be made on medical facts alone.

And that is why government has no business in medicine at any level, it is purely an issue between doctors and patients.

Hi Texasgal,

Thank you for the excellent information. HPV related cancers are very serious and I think that parents should be given the information necessary to make wise, informed decisions. Trust me, it was not and is not an easy decision - not at all.

However, when Perry first tried to mandate it, our oldest daughter was turning 12. There simply not enough of a history with the vaccine to make that a wise move, IMO, at the time. Now, three years later, she will be turning 15. Now we are starting to feel some pressure to re-consider that decision. I know that all vaccines carry risk and there is a lot of inaccurate information out there, but I encourage anyone considering this decision to look here: http://truthaboutgardasil.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do understand the dangers of HPV related cancers - although probably not nearly as well yourself. But those dangers have to be balanced against any risk associated with the treatment itself. If you have any direct information refuting or even minimizing the claimed risks of Gaurdasil, I welcome that information.

Further, I was not aware of any studies showing Gauradsil to be effective in preventing HPV related oral cancers. But I suppose it's reasonable to assume that it would have an effect.