E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDECORAH, Iowa -- The critics of Gov. Rick Perry's controversial "war on religion" ad aren't going away.
After his last campaign event of the night Sunday, Perry was approached by a teenaged girl who questioned him about his recent Iowa ad taking aim at gays serving openly in the military.
"I'm just wondering why you're so opposed to gays serving openly in the military and you want to deny their freedom when they're fighting and dying for your right to run for president?" asked 14-year-old Rebecka Green, who was accompanied to the Decorah town hall by her father Todd.
Perry, who has faced scattered protests on the issue throughout his bus tour in Iowa, told the young woman that he believed President Barack Obama was pressured to change a functional "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy by a progressive voting block.
"Don't Ask Don't Tell was working," he said, later adding "This president was forced by his base to change that policy."
Perry said that a voter recently asked him how he would feel if his son or daughter was gay. "I'd feel the same way," he said, recounting his answer. "I'd hate the sin but I'd love the sinner."
Green told reporters after the exchange that she wasn't satisfied by Perry's answer. "Nobody should be able to tell anybody who they can or cannot love," she said. Her father, a Democrat who teaches religion at a nearby college, said that he brought her to the event because she was outraged by the premise of the ad.
The exchange wasn't the only tense moment of the evening at an otherwise subdued town hall.
Asked about the dangerous of hydraulic fracking, Perry launched into his common claim that there is no documentation of groundwater contamination as a result of the practice, which he says is safely conducted in Texas.
Decorah native Jonathan Ruf, 31, chimed in from the audience, saying "that's false."
A visibly annoyed Perry countered by challenging Ruf to "show me the paper."
"Bring me the paper, bring me the paper, show me the paper," he said. "I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up."
"This is a fear tactic that the left is using and the environmental community is using that absolutely - excuse the pun - doesn't hold water," he added.
"Bring me the evidence and once we do that, you show it to me and I will be the first to say you have a point."
Leave a Comment:
No Mr. Perry, even AFTER seeing reports finding fracking chemicals in people's well water or having that same well being lit ablaze you STILL would deny there is any validity to it!!
Nora
I have looked at some of the reports and they all seem to say that it is "possible" that fracking could have caused the contamination. It really needs to be studied further because there are also studies that say it doesn't cause contamination. If it does cause contamination it must be stopped until it can be done without any undesirable effects. But we need it because we want to be free of imported oil.
Perry is right about President Obama pandering to a certain group. DADT was a policy written by a democrat Congress, signed into law by a democrat President. It really wasn't a bad policy. But the far left, or maybe just the gay community, wanted it to be an issue so it was an issue. So he panders for votes. He knows most staunch democrats will still vote for him. Just look at what our current President does. He puts off decisions regarding job growth on the oil pipeline from Canada because it will cost him campaign cash from environmental groups, who don't want it,or the unions, who do want it. He says he'll make up his mind after the elections? He needs to be voted out. I wish the democrats had a viable candidate. But it will be nice when he's gone. This hope and change thing is not working.
Please don't get me wrong, Perry is not the right man for the job either.
I won't discuss the fracking point (I'm generally leery about it), but on the DADT thing, to say that may be technically true but misleading on Clinton's ostensible (if not actual) intent. From the ol' Wikipedia:
In short, Clinton didn't want the existing full-on ban on gays in the mil but had to settle for DADT. It's a bit more nuanced than that but I don't want to copy-and-paste the rest of the internet in my post. ;)
I served under DADT. When you deny the right to talk to your Medical Officer based on a mandated policy that limits the ability of the government to take care of its personnel that is ludicrous. What's really stupid is the government allowing its property not to be taken care of. They won't ban all sex because no one would volunteer. Semper Fidelis, Sergeant of Marines.
game kid
it's called a "veto", he had a democrat controlled Congress.
Yes,Clinton was responsible for DADT.
Regardless of DADT or so-called energy policy, Perry is challenged (in a little yellow bus kind of way).
The NDAA with DADT passed with a veto-proof majority in 1993. There were lots of ignorant bigots in Congress back then.
Clinton should have forced Congress to override a veto. Just because legislation passed with a "veto-proof" margin doesn't mean that it will get the same votes when it comes time to override a presidential veto because there will be those who are reluctant to oppose a president's decision.
"Bring me the paper, bring me the paper, show me the paper," he said. "I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up."
Well, there you go. He says this while complaining about a "war on religion". Perry just doesn't get irony, I guess.
Why does the GOP hate science?
A big cheer for Ms. Rebecka Green and a loud boo for Rick Perry! Never mind that DADT required that the LGBT military personnel lie 24/7, Colin Powell promised President Clinton that the military would abide by the "don't ask" part of the legislation. It worked for awhile but it wasn't long before the military was snooping and fellow military personnel were "telling". DADT was signed by Clinton to at least keep gays and lesbians from being thrown out of the military based on rumors, accusations but it wasn't long before that no longer worked.
Maybe someday the GOP can explain to their "children and grandchildren" why they deny science, why they allowed pollution of the air, water and land in the name of profit.
Jody, "Maybe someday the GOP can explain to their children..." It won't matter, they've kept their children in the education closet, so their children won't understand. Ignorant children, like racists, aren't created, they are shaped and molded by their environment.
Because it encourages independent thought, instead of a reliance on mythical sky creatures?
Why can't people seem to grasp the fact that drilling at home doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil? The oil that is drilled here is not "kept" here in any particular way. It goes on a global market- where global supply and demand set the price.
just say no to fracking and foreign oil...
legalize industrial hemp, grow our own fuel!
President Obama took the issue on because he promised me and the millions of other gay Americans that he'd do what it takes to give us the freedom to live our lives with equality.
We spend every day knowing that a series of ludicrous laws prevent us from experiencing the same joy and satisfaction that the rest of you do. We are discriminated against because these laws teach people it's okay to treat us like second class citizens. We are beaten and killed all over the world because people like you think it's okay to say we're just some minority group asking for special rights, and not simply the rights afforded us under the various Constitutions of our home nations.
President Obama took this on at great personal risk to end the un-Constitutional discrimination against everyday Americans. For that, I thank him and see him to be a true hero.
Tell that to the people of Pavillion, Wyoming
JH
If you choose to give the Democrats credit (blame?) for DADT you ought to tell the whole story. DADT was clearly a compromise between the Democrats who wanted gays to have the right to serve openly and the Republicans who wanted to shut gays out of military service altogether by continuing the past policy. Without conservative opposition gays would have been serving openly in the military for the past two decades. In other words, the violation of their rights as citizens was continued for an additional 20 years because of the type of people you vote to send to Congress.
If President Obama is "pandering" to anyone he is pandering to those of us who believe the US Constitution should apply to ALL citizens of this country. You see, JH, many of us who are not gay believe in equality, so it is not only gay citizens who favored the repeal of DADT.
You appear to be one of those conservative citizens who are very indignant when someone violates YOUR rights, but the rights of others are not so important.
So repealing DADT to ensure American's civil rights is pandering to the President's base, but saying he would re-instate the policy isnt pandering to HIS base? I just dont see the logic.
That's the trouble, folks like Perry lack the ability to use "logic".
To the far right, "logic" is a four-letter word.
ah, no wonder why that guy said "logic you!" this morning...
"I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up." This coming from someone who does not accept evolution.
Like, Cowboy Ricky would recognize "scientific proof" if it bit him on the ass?
Mr Perry,
The only war on Religion going on today it the one you are experiencing when you attempt to foist your views on someone else.
You need to read and understand the book instead of thumping it, it just might enlighten you to a faith you certainly don't understand nor partake of....
Perry talking about science is like....Gingrich talking about fidelity.
Go away Perry. Ignorance and intolerance are not becoming of a President which is why you will never be one.
Worked for Bush.
hopefully america has learned from history...come on, that was less than 4 years ago! of course we'll remember...won't we...?
The difference is Bush at least knew he was an idiot and for the most part kept his head down and did what Cheney & Rumsfeld told him to do.
Perry, on the other hand, has no freaking clue about how much of a moron he is and that's what is so scary about the man.
I mean, really....If Perry can be shot down by a 14 year old girl, what the heck is he going to do if he has a disagreement with the British Prime Minister???? Cross his beady little eyes and say "Oops!"???
People of Texas - you have every right to elect what ever idiots you want...but can you do the rest of the country a favor and keep them within your border???? Please???
Personally, if I was sharing a foxhole with someone, I'd be a lot more concerned about how good a marksman they were rather than their sexual orientation.
It's a matter of priorities.
But you would have to sleep with one eye open!
I have a son in the United States Army, stationed in Afghanistan. When I discussed this subject
with my son, he indicated that when at war you have to depend on those in your unit to have your back. He told me that the repeal of DADT had zero effect on his unit. He said, “Mom, we share everything here, and everyone already knew who was gay and who was not. You can't keep that kind of secret in such confined space. It simply did not matter to us. All of us have each other’s backs and ones sexual orientation made no difference at all." I got pretty much this same answer from many others in his unit.
Rebecka Green says anyone should be able to love anyone they want to. Of course what she meant was to marry anyone they want to. I say, let's get behind this gay marriage thing once and for all and remove all barriers. As soon as the dust settles we go back to work and get monogamous marriage passed.
What do you say America? Are you with me?
Homosexual marriage is impossible. Marriage can only exist between couples of the opposite sex. To call a union between a homosexual pair a marriage is an absolute farce. A farce!
The 14th Amendment is in your way.
Yeah, I don't understand it. All the people on these news threads are reveling in their hatred of Muslims. Don't they realize that national recognition of same-sex marriage would really annoy the Muslims they hate? It must really be tough when you have to decide which group you hate most.
Lonesome Rhoades: You say ...marriage can only exist between couples of the oppisite sex....
Just wait for it. SKREKK is going to explain it all if he gets on here. I'm interested to read his take on my call for monogamous marriage above. Fair is fair, right?
Glockhead-
I'd suggest a more thorough reading of the 14th. It states nothing regarding marriage and while I'm sure you're referring to the "privileges and immunities" clause as well as the "equal protection" clause, you'd be wrong to think a Federal law is unconstitutional based on the 14th since the Amendment describes what laws STATES may pass. It is not controlling authority at Federal law.
Why? Please don't bring up procreation since that argument is so easily refuted that its gotten tedious, but you probably will.
Because YOU say so? You don't get to define marriage for everyone.
Actually, "monogamous marriage" is already the law in this country; polygamy is illegal.
However, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court found that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, which is the basis for the challenges brought against DOMA and other laws like Prop H8.
The ignorance showed by those supporting man and woman marriages only have no clue as to how marriages started in the first place. It was all economics what the woman brought to the marriage and how much land was owned by the family. It was a contract between two families and nothing more there was no love involved. She was nothing more than a males property and was treated as such. Get some facts behind your argument please and stop spewing nonsense given out by the cults in this nation.
You want to know what's a farce? This.
http://www.advocate.com/uploadedImages/ADVOCATE/NEWS/2011/2011-06/2011-06-01/COUSINSMAPX390.jpg
So letting gays marry is a "farce", but letting people hump their first cousins isn't?
Disgusting.
That's fine with me, pal. Our wise founding fathers made sure that all Americans shall have the freedom to hold any religious beliefs they so choose, or none at all as some prefer. As long as religious nutjobs like you don't try to impose YOUR beliefs on everybody else by force of law, we'll get along just fine.
Wishing you a very Merry Xmas, Lonesome (if that's the holiday you observe).
Don't get too worked up about LR. He knows he's on the losing end of this. DADT was repealed, and soon the Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned, and he will have no choice but to legally recognize same-sex marriages. It's only a matter of time now, so let him enjoy his little fantasy.
we should just end marriage, period...there are successful couples out there who have families, and never married, yet were faithful to each other and supported each other...and their kids thrive...so what's the big deal about getting married anyway? who cares about getting married when it's all about taking care of the next generation and trying to do some good out there somehow...bunch of people are having kids through affairs anyway, people getting divorced, lives ruined...screw all that drama...i mean, before marriage there was...wait for it...NO marriages! just people trying to survive, just like us...why complicate @!$%#?
I think there's a good reason why Lonesome is lonesome...
If you want to engage in morally reprehensible acts, do it in the privacy of your bedroom!
Have you been observing many gay couples engaging in "morally reprehensible" acts in public? I didn't think so. And why do you say that marriage between homosexuals is impossible when in fact it is not only possible, it's happening? I've read your other posts, and the only thing that's unnatural is your irrational hatred of sexual orientation that you don't share.
Hey, Lonesome.....
That is your (nosy) interpretation of morality, and frankly it has no business being solidified into secular legal law.
A gay couple's sex life is of no concern of yours and is also not a rational basis for limiting their secular civil legal rights. You can keep them out of your religious institution, but you need to stay out of their life and in places where it is none of your business.
When you're worldview limits the civil rights of others, about half of this country has a have a HUGE problem with that, and that number is growing ever larger. The holier than thou crowd needs to be purged from government until they start to appreciate and understand the concept of separation of church and state. As the number sticker says; "Focus on your own damn family"
Those who bash homosexuality are undoubtedly insecure about their own sexuality. Otherwise, why would they worry about what type of sex others are doing?
Charles ... not only do they "worry" about gay sex, they're absolutely obsessed with it. Very sad, really, that their lives are defined by hate.
Define "morally reprehensible," LR. What may be "morally reprehensible" to YOU most likely does not bother others -- and once again, you don't get to define morality for everyone.
Erin, after reading what LR has posted, I think she/he swings both ways, and has failed both times. Must be hard to take with that kind of failure, so LR just has to spew the manure. But you gotta realize they not only want to, but HAVE to define morality for everyone, but for themselves, it's like Newt, do as I say, not what I do. LAMO
You know what morality is? Not hating a person because they were born a certain way.
Perry racist, ignorant, not a chance of winning anything. Bachman, the wicked witch from Minnesota that wants to be famous and is just plain stupid. Santorum, now who is he? Paul, a real knucklehead, Newt a slimy salamander like creature that just comes up for air from time to time. Mitt, a flopper of a Morman and then Houseman, a true conservative, intelligent and the mainstream Republican Party doesn't want him. Says leagues about the current state of the Republican Party.
Good answer about the fracking.
I also agree about dadt.Was in the Army for 6 years,1966-1972.The foxhole statement made in another post was spot on,however 99.999% of the time your not in a foxhole,if ever.And if a service member speaks out on the subject,he/she gets reprimanded.
The military thrives on the concepts of duty, and honor but Perry proposes that some people must be forced to lie about who they are, so they may risk their lives in service of this country. How about this Rick, openly gay people can secretly work for the CIA, Secret Service, and Armed Forces as as long as they never admit to the shame of working for the US government, you like the other side of that coin Tex. How about you apply a little DADT to your phony religious campaign act, since you are a government official and separation of church and state is an extremely important basic tenet of freedom in this country. How about we all say a little prayer that you lose the nomination and hurry back to Texas, would you like some of that prayer and religion mixed in with politics Tex? How do feel about getting beat by a guy that don't believe in Jesus Christ Tex, since you want to mix religion with politics, does that mean Jesus may not get the republican nomination? Rick how come Jesus made so many Gay people if he hates them so much?
Quote from Forrest..
My addition....
And Furthermore, it is between them and THEIR GOD, not you and yours!
Exactly Egilman! Just who do these people think they are to tell someone that these children of God, are worth less in Gods eyes than they think themselves to be. It takes some gall, and that is putting it mildly.
Forrest...
It's crap like this that made me run as far away from the republicans as I could, arrogant @!$%#s that think they are speaking for God. Talk about not having a clue....
Personally, I agree with EWO Above @ #8
Egilman...not all Republicans believe this....I am not Republican (Independent) but I really don't think you should paint all Republicans with the same brush....not really right or fair statement on your part
Nancy, with all due respect... when you have a voting block that consistently votes against gay rights; when the front runners in the party see a spike in polling each time they make statements against gay rights; when homosexuality is a regular talking point of each political debate, interview, Q & A or speech... it is safe to assume that the majority of those registered republican feel exactly this way.
Maybe not all individual republicans are so ignorant, Nancy, but it IS the policy of the repub party to discriminate against gays - and anyone else they don't agree with. Just look at all the pandering to the far-right that's going on with their "presidential" candidates. Until the people step up and insist that "moderate" is NOT a bad word, and draw the repub party back from the depths, anyone who continues to support that party is guilty of promoting discrimination and ignorance.
It's fair enough, Nancy, given that that's what the Republican party stands for. Surely you've noticed that the GOP nominees are pretty much all in sync with bigotry this election season (except Johnson, who doesn't even have the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of winning)?
I suppose that must be a rather puzzling fact to someone who believes in an enlightened Republican base? Do you also believe in the Loch Ness Monster? Elves? Papal infallibility? Unicorns?
If fracking chemicals don't end up in the ground water, where do they go? And is it really a good idea to put unsafe chemicals wherever that is. What, not unsafe? Then why deny they do end up in the water? Perhaps we can dispose of nuclear waste by pumping it deep into the ground where it will simply vanish, like fracking chemicals. How can people seriously believe fracking is safe and does not harm the environment or pollute the water. It doesn't even make sense that it wouldn't. And why not disclose exactly what chemicals are being used. Why is an exemption from the clean water act what triggered the fracking boom?
I am a huge environmentalist and what I believe to be a moderate left leaning democrat. I also work in the industry where we use fracking fluid to extract natural gas from the Marcellus shale. There is a lot of miss-information out there concerning fracking. Although I can't speak to other companies, our company uses 99.9% water and sand. We are working to use 100% water and sand, but we're not there yet. We also recycle our frac fluid. As far as fracking causing ground water contamination, I don't see how that would be possible since the bottom of the well where the fracking takes place is thousands of feet below the ground water and it is highly unlikely that the fractures would travel through so many different layers of rock to penetrate the ground water. What is likely occurring when ground water is contaminated is the top of the well was not properly constructed and cemented. Fracking fluid and/or natural gas could leak up past the casing and contaminate the ground water. So instead of everyone focusing on fracking, a practice that has been around since the 50's, you should concentrate on holding companies accountable on bad cement jobs. Although natural gas is still a fossil fuel, it is much cleaner than coal and oil. With the potential reserves in the different shale’s around the country, we could easily replace all of our coal fired power plants which would go a long way in reducing our carbon footprint. We could also switch our cars from gasoline to natural gas thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Although I think Perry is a crackpot, I do sort of have to agree with him on the fracking part.
To hold them accountable would require those dad-blasted job-killing regulations, though, wouldn't it?
Yes it would...the government exists for a reason, and although I have pretty good faith in the people I work with to do "What's right," I don't necessarily have faith in other companies. Just remember that every regulation we've made exist for a reason, because someone at sometime did something they shouldn't have so we had to make a law/regulation to prevent them from doing it again. We can't just lift regulations and think all will be hunky dory. Let’s get real. The people's last line of defense is good/strong government oversight. I have some comfort in knowing my meat is inspected by a government inspector, I would feel better though if there were more inspectors, not less...same thing in the gas business. The "regulations are killing jobs" is a bunch of crap. If a company can’t make money by doing things the way they need to be done to protect the environment, their employees, and the public, then they should be doing it at all.
Water Wells are rarely over 500 feet in depth. The fracking occurs very deep within the earth well below potable water formations. A water well that is at even the depth of 800 feet will be contaminated with sulfur and manganese requiring an elaborate filtration system before being fit for human consumption. Your well water is usually contaminated by surface issues like septic field lines, feedlots, chemical spills, etc. The Left hates fossil fuels hence they love the high gas and diesel prices we have now. They come up with government loan guarantees for things like turning food into fuel -ethanol plants:( A real stupid idea.....America was blessed with great fossil fuel resources esp coal and natural gas yet we envy Europe's high priced gas....The business folks who hire people need affordable fossil fuels now. We need control of our fuel supplies and not be held hostage by the Arabs.
Why did an exemption from the clean water act trigger the fracking boom? It's not a new process, but could not be performed within the restrictions of the clean water act. O.k. 99.9% sand and water. What is the other .1%. Since we are talking about millions upon millions of gallons of water being used in fracking, that .01% represents tens of thousands of gallons of "unknown?". I understand that there is thousands of jobs and energy independence at stake, but what future complications from this can we expect, or are we supposed to disregard the future? All the things you say are "unlikely" eventually become likely, and in fact, probable, when this process is repeated time and time again.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2011/12/08/fracking-contaminated-water-supply-epa-says/
Sure it's safe. Then explain this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQMA0zwMM4
Darn! There I go again. My attempt at sarcasm fell flat.
The entire GOP field should be disqualified solely on the basis that they flat out advocate denying and even limiting the civil, secular legal rights of gay American couples and their families. In truth Perry really doesn't believe the crap he is mouthing since it makes him look like a neanderthal and this kind of talk dramatically turns off the middle of the crowd people who find such views ever less tolerable. The GOP base is killing the party.
From marriage to property and inheritance rights, hospital visitations, partner benefits and serving in the military, the GOP and their base of crazed busybodies with bibles have proven they are dangerously ill-informed about the nature of of civil laws and physiology, among many things. In most instances this crowd sees nothing wrong in attempting to replace civil law with theocratic doctrine to rule over gay people and their lives even though they don't share their worldview.
The GOP religious base seems to have a terrible time with the reality that no one choses to be gay. However, they do have the choice to stop being willfully and pridefully ignorant and learn to keep to themselves. What I don't understand is how any gay couple's life or civil marriage has any direct effect on them. It doesn't but these kooks see nothing wrong with sticking their noses in where it doesn't belong. They can hate them all they want and raise their kids to believe what they want, but they do not have the right to go around and make their lives more difficult or edit them out to make them feel comfortable.
Mr Perry has no chance of winning this, and Romney may still be the nominee, but the party needs to be cast out for a few election cycles until they learn that making other Americans less equal disqualifies them from public service. And Mr Perry, one last thing; those gay soldiers you are so concerned about have fought and in some instances died for your right to run. They deserve a far better candidate than you, and that goes for the rest of the pathetic GOP field.
"Rick how come Jesus made so many Gay people if he hates them so much?"
Great zinger!!! and a pretty good question.
Jesus doesn't hate them at all. Rick and GOP fundie base have conflated religiosity with bigotry and intolerance. Their echo chamber isn't well suited for anything but dogma and judgementalism, and using it to substitute for civil secular law.
Jesus/God made gay people so that the GOP/TP would have someone to hate. It takes hatred to be a fundamental GOP/TPer.
Progressives have no shame..using children as political 'human shields'.
Involving young children in such partisan nastiness.
Despicable.
Bob-
The GOP field and its base of troglodytes are far more shameful. Assuming they have the right to stick their noses into the lives of others who are no business of their own and running on a platform of actually working to enforce a form of religious dogma on other fellow American citizens solely because they don't like them or who they love.
The GOP and it's base.....a loathsome group of small minded bigots.
Are you referring to Gingrich's "plan" to replace janitors with child laborers, Bob?
Hate to break this to you, but neither Gingrich nor his "plan" are regarded as "progressive".
Now..."regressive", ahhh...now that's a much more fitting classification for it.
You're absolutely right...it is despicable...but hey, that's Gingrich for you.
"young" children ??
The "child" in question was less than 4 years away from voting age..
She showed a lot of guts confronting ole texas ricky bob, like that.. Good for her !!!
Did not Sarah Palin make her own daughter the poster child for sex education in the schools.
Ha Bob sounds like sour grapes from you that the Governor from Texas who wishes to be president was called out by a 14 year old girl, and all he had for an answer to her was some partisan nastiness, not anything based on logic and reason. Now we know for a fact Perry is not smarter than an 8th grader, maybe next week he can play are you smarter than a 5th grader, and he can whip his partisan BS on an 11 year old. You are going to have a hell of a time of it if you are going to try and defend Perry on this one Bob, the young lady asked him a straightforward question and his response was a pure deflection, he could barely muster a canned talking point, that Obama changed the law due to pressure from his base. I did not think the president could just change the law as he wished, are the joint chiefs Obama's base? You think Perry knows anything about the presidency? You try and defend this fool if you want to Bob, you can't, and you are damn well smart enough to know that, but if you insist on trying at the very least I will have a lot of enjoyment watching you attempt to perform a fools errand. Perry needs your help Bob, he is getting hammered by 14 year old girls, and yet he wants to be the leader of the free world, and protect the US from our enemies. Before you coach him on foreign policy, maybe you should get him the latest issue of "Tigerbeat" to start him off, I would feel better if he could handle questions from the tweenyboppers that read that magazine before he has to deal with Iran.
A 14 year old girl is mature enough to be able to ask a question whether in a town meeting or in a debate. In my experience children are taught to vote, explain why they voted the way they did, and accept other's opinions in school from the age of 6 or 7. People just don't want to accept gay marriage because they don't want to share the tax breaks. I know gay people who are paying astronomical taxes because they cannot be legally married. In this day and age, it is a shame. The military just made it fair so now the rest of the country should follow and give these people the rights they deserve.
Bob can't help himself. He is from the school where children should be seen, not heard. Good, honest, GOP/TP stock.
14 year olds can generally have thoughts of their own by that age.
Hell by that age they can out think a Governor from Texas!
Well gee Bob, if conservatives would stop attacking children, the democrats wouldn't have to keep publicly defending them.
I guess Bob has to make a snarky little comment like that...It can't be very comforting to know that he lacks the maturity of a 14 year old girl.
Yet he supports Penn State's athletic program for covering up the rapes of children.
Looks like Perry stepped in it again!
These are some great posts. Sometimes I wonder if it is just me, or are these GOP candidates really as stupid as they act?
It is just you............
I could say the same thing about barry, but I don't think he is acting.
Isn't it convenient for this man to suddenly rely on a "scientific" paper to tell him what is correct. Given his "religious" background I find it very hypocritical for this man to make such a statement.
"Bring me the paper, bring me the paper, show me the paper," he said. "I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up."
I mean truly there have been hundreds of scientific studies that conclude being gay is NOT a choice but yet he decided long time ago to ignore those. Honestly though, what kind of man talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?
How about creationism being taught in Texas schools, I would like to see the scientific paper that confirms that as a scientific fact, wouldn't you like to see the paper on that Rick, aren't you worried that the children of Texas may be hoodwinked by stories that do not hold up scientifically. Ha I'm glad I am not a republican, how embarrassing to have a candidate such as Perry who was highly touted and was a front-runner for a short period of time, until he opened his mouth, and all the complete nonsense spilled out. I hope he stays in the race, Obama will not have to run as many attack adds against the republicans because most of their candidates are making complete fools of themselves and damaging the republican brand more than any democratic add could ever hope too. How about that Hermann Cain was a good one or what, he was a front-runner as well, the scary part is that these are the best people the republicans have, these are the choices for the top job, the cream of the crop. If I was a republican I would be bald from snatching my own hair out watching the wheels come off this nomination contest.
Before Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Romney, etc... Bachmann was the front-runner. But, they drop in the polls as soon as they're asked an intelligent question.
It is really a shame that as we advance in science our mores cannot advance in our so called civilized society.
But mores? are advancing or declining, depending on your point of view.
Movies usually come out after events, but in the case of the current GOP/T race to the bottom, Idiocracy does seem to have been the preview of the then-coming and now-present "attractions."
Maybe not first but definitely best, Peggy Lee sang the salient question: "Is That All There Is?"
Dear Baby Jesus,
As you know I am from the great State of Texas. Please, oh please let Rick Perry stay away for just a little while longer. As a Proud Gay Texan, I will simply point out that the longer ol' Ricky is gone, the better our state gets. Thank you for letting the world see the kind of boob he really is (now if you can work on some of the idiots here who voted for him).
Amen
Thank you, thank you, oh jokester gods, for giving us this slate of GOP nitwit candidates!!!!!
When you, as a presidential candidate, can be utterly schooled by a 14-year-old girl, it's time to hang up your campaign.
Mr. Perry, that sound you hear isn't America laughing with you, it's America laughing at you. You won't even be able to win reelection in Texas, a state with an admittedly low standard for governorship, after this debacle of a campaign you're blundering your way through.
You know what Chad? That question did not come from a 14 yr. old, some gay person or sympathizer, or quite possibly a republican HATER, put her up to it. Just like that meek little eight year old boy did with Bachmann recently. You don't do smugness very well at all.
Well, of course it has to be an evil plot by those Godless liberals. All good conservatives know that children are not smart enough to remember to eat, sleep, and use the toilet without "adult" guidance.
Actually, imnotlost, if you had actually read the article, you would know this:
Apparently this young girl, like most 14-year-olds, can think for herself -- something Repuglicans/neocons have yet to learn.
Actually, ErinNJ, I'd like to know what religion her father practices. Teaching religion is merely introducing students to a broad spectrum of worship, but practicing religion requires accepting and holding to a set of values. If you profess to be a member of a denomination but your daily routine breaks their covenant, you are a farce and have no authority to say if a situation like gay marriage is right or wrong. Fitting a religion to your lifestyle, like Oprah, is poppycock.
What difference does it make what religion her father practices, or if he practices one at all? FYI, one does not need religion to accept and hold to a set of values -- there are many people with values and morals who are not religious.