A "warning" about Rick Perry

[weebiscuit]

Did you have time to watch the video clip? I think it says a lot, really not just about Perry, but it illustrates how the liberal media (which is 95% of the media) twists and edits things. Thank God for the sources that do show the full story and different perspectives. I think YOU get it and you know the impact of the liberal media, but the video illustrates very well just one (annoying) example.

And, like you, I will vote for the GOP ticket, no matter who is on it. Blindly supporting the GOP? Hardly. Supporting the party I firmly think has the best agenda for our Nation.

No Jill, I didn't watch the video. I honestly don't have time to watch videos. As it is I have very little time to even be on the internet. I am usually outside from sun up till sun down, and then I have to catch up with a few other forums, make dinner, get the place cleaned up, do laundry. I just don't have a lot of disposable time, unfortunately. In the winter, yes, but this time of year I don't.

I, too, will vote the GOP ticket this fall. However, I don't consider myself a Conservative. Certainly not a liberal, though, although 35 years ago when I was going to college I was a liberal. Aren't *most* stupid college kids liberal? Then you grow up, get out in the real world, and sometimes people's views simply change as they mature. I got so fed up with all the liberal handouts. And, being a student of history, it sort of dawned on me that the US was the greatest, most powerful, richest nation in the world a hundred years ago, and that's BEFORE we had social security, medicare, welfare, and not very many UNIONS!

We have been in a steady decline since FDR was president.

 

[tagalong]

This is simply incorrect about Fox hushing this story up. I watch news and ONLY news on TV, constantly switching channels, and I'd say Fox NEWS programs did an excellent job of covering this story. As Jill said, "Fox and Friends" is not a "hard news" show but it more like "Good Morning, America." But the actual news programs on Fox, like Bret Baier (sp??) or Neil Cavuto, certainly covered every bit of it.

I watch it too - what, you think I pull this stuff out of thin air?

- and noted the very light treatment that MAJOR story received. They kept the entire story very low key and did not address it in any detail (and even suggested it was overblown and completely unimportant) until they had no choice and were called out on other networks. Then they suddenly became more "balanced".

Try looking up clips on YouTube. Even if a group you (or I) may not care for posted the clip, none of those clips are tampered with - they came right off the air. Time and time again, Fox commentators are playing the hacking down, or even suggesting that News of the World was hacked (and thus getting the entire story wrong or deliberately trying to muddle it up, I am not sure). There are many examples all over the place of the way they tried to diminish that story at first. If say, MSNBC had treated a story like that about their owners/management in a similar way, many here would be howling about the biased media. lamestream media etc. And they would be right to point out that hypocrisy.

The truth of the matter it is, it works both ways and it always has. Hypocrisy is rampant on all sides. Fox is not immune from it - nor is any other media source. There truly is no such thing as fair & balanced media. And that is why it is important to use a wide variety of sources to try and find some balance.

 

[Jill]

Sandy, videos will be more interesting when it's cooler outside anyway (getting closer to the big event). I am just a junky when it comes to political news videos and make sure I find the time to catch the ones that are interesting to me. Plus, sort of like my "water cooler" time out between that stuff and LB, FB. It's not real easy to do that real time when you don't have peers at the office.

As to being more liberal when you're younger, same here! But I am absolutely a conservative when it comes to all issues important to me, and most of the ones that are of peripheral interest to me personally.

Tag, when it comes to cable news, imo firm and long held opinion, FOX is far and above the best... anyway. Did you hear Olbermann is on Al Gore's Current TV now? MSNBC must be glad both to be rid of him and to no longer be dead last in ratings. I think Current TV is enjoyed Nationwide in about 429 households (sarcastic exaggeration).

 

[Carriage]

Has anybody done any research into Perry's financial investment in and protection of the **** industry in Texas? Nobody? Perhaps you're too busy admiring the lipstick job on the pig. That "conservatives" would vote for this person is troubling. That such a one could lead a "Prayer summit" and do so with a straight face, indicates that he is the perfect politician and pretty much the same as any other you have elected for the longest time. You know, the ones that have drug us to the bottom and down to their level.

Question, Where do you draw the line? Or do you keep making excuses and compromising yourself all the way to the bottom?

I saw a new label today for the fake tea party, "tea o cons". This perfectly describes what has become of the real and Constitutionally grounded tea party.

That they were co-opted by the neocons VERY early in the last cycle shows how afraid the "machine" is. Last time around I heard the Newt-miester's name brought up in the context of a tea party gathering, I knew that the co-opting of a pure party had begun.

If "fair and balanced" represents the best you have as news source, you are woefully misinformed.... I know, I know, just ignore him.......

Bobs Baubles

"Nose rings inserted while you wait"

 

[Charley]

Has anybody done any research into Perry's financial investment in and protection of the **** industry in Texas? Nobody? Perhaps you're too busy admiring the lipstick job on the pig. That "conservatives" would vote for this person is troubling. That such a one could lead a "Prayer summit" and do so with a straight face, indicates that he is the perfect politician and pretty much the same as any other you have elected for the longest time. You know, the ones that have drug us to the bottom and down to their level.

I would be interested to see what you have found through your research.

 

[miniwhinny]

I would be interested to see what you have found through your research.

It's an easy google search.

I'm more concerned that he's against teaching evolution in schools as fact! My god did he think the Tooth Fairy waved her magic wand and "poof" we all appeared. Talk about the mass dumbing down of America.

 

[miniwhinny]

double post

 

[horsehug]

I enjoy watching the PBS Newshour.

Many times they have two opposing opinions on an issue and they give them equal time.

Susan O.

 

[CharlesFamily]

It's an easy google search.

I'm more concerned that he's against teaching evolution in schools as fact! My god did he think the Tooth Fairy waved her magic wand and "poof" we all appeared. Talk about the mass dumbing down of America.

Evolution as it applies to changes occurring in organisms is not what most object to being taught. That facet of evolution is most definitely observable and proven fact. The evolution that should not be taught as fact is origin of the species. It is a theory the same as creationism or aliens from outer space or the tooth fairy waving her wand. I have no problem with evolution being taught in school - as long as it is not put forth as 100% indisputable fact. It cannot be proven that we evolved from single-celled organisms.

Barbara

 

[ohmt]

Barbara, no teacher or book in any school says that humans (well, everything) evolving from a single celled organism is fact. They all state that it is a theory. Primordial soup, evolution, etc-they are all theories just like creationism, as you have stated. What Perry (and some other Conservatives who would like to be our next President-google evolution quotes from Bachmann, it's sad...and maybe a little bit funny) is against is those theories being taught at all.

 

[Jill]

Right with you, Barbara.

 

[ohmt]

I agree with Barbara too about evolution not being taught as fact when it is only theory, but it is not being taught as fact (imagine how quickly that teacher would be reprimanded because of upset parents!) and that is not the issue that Perry and Bachmann have.

 

[CharlesFamily]

Well, then, I cannot agree with them if they ONLY want Creationism taught - no more than I would agree with someone ONLY wanting evolution taught. As a conservative Christian, I know what I believe to be true. My children do, and also my husband who is a public school science teacher. But we will also not force someone else to believe what we do. That is exactly how Todd presents everything in his class - they are ALL theories and that they (his students) need to research and study and come to their own conclusion of what they believe based on the evidence they choose to look at.

Barbara

 

[miniwhinny]

Just want to clear something up about the word "theory" as it's used in science as opposed to how it's generally used in the English language. I pulled this straight off the web because the explanation is better than anything I could phrase myself. The "theory" of evolution is backed up be every single field of science.

Everything in science is called a "theory".

It has nothing to do with whether it is "proven" ... because *NOTHING* in science is ever considered "proven." You prove things in math, not in science. Scientists don't talk about "proof", they talk about *evidence*. Why do scientists think this way? Because they are forever on guard against the arrogance

 

[miniwhinny]

Well, then, I cannot agree with them if they ONLY want Creationism taught - no more than I would agree with someone ONLY wanting evolution taught. As a conservative Christian, I know what I believe to be true. My children do, and also my husband who is a public school science teacher. But we will also not force someone else to believe what we do. That is exactly how Todd presents everything in his class - they are ALL theories and that they (his students) need to research and study and come to their own conclusion of what they believe based on the evidence they choose to look at.

Barbara

Barbara,

are you saying that your husband - as a public school science teacher - actually offers creationism as a scientific option when he's teaching science? I'm 100% in support of people's right to believe in anything they wish to believe but I'm truly thrown for a loop that a science teacher can offer the earth is 7000 years old and humans just line bred from two people during that time as a real scientific option.

 

[miniwhinny]

I agree with Barbara too about evolution not being taught as fact when it is only theory, but it is not being taught as fact (imagine how quickly that teacher would be reprimanded because of upset parents!) and that is not the issue that Perry and Bachmann have.

ohmt - I'm not sure that you're fully understanding what the word "theory" means in scientific fields. In the scientific world a "theory" is something that has achieved the highest level of scientific proof. In science there isn't anything above a "theory". It's not the same meaning that the word "theory" has in general usage.

 

[Jill]

In science we have scientists falsifying research results and collecting federal grant money (global warming scandals for one example). So a scientific theory that negates God and / or creationism may or may not be meaningful, depending on who you ask. It serves no good purpose to (once again) ridicule faith, miniwhinny. Hope that's not the goal here.

 

[ohmt]

I am absolutely aware of what the word 'theory' means as I am a microbiologist

You have stated exactly what I already said-a theory is not proven fact. Yes, science is based off of theory and that is as good as it gets. I think you believe I am confusing theory with hypothesis. There is a reason why I have to pay $300 for a new science book when I could borrow it from a friend who took the same class 2 years previous. Science changes every single day and I can't use that 2 year old science book because it has already been updated. It is why I LOVE science and will be continuing my education. Nothing is set in stone and I have an infinite amount of areas and subjects to do future research. Do I put more stock into science than religion? Yes and in fact, I am an atheist. But, I do not look down on those that believe in Creationism and in a country that is primarily christian, I think it is just fine that teachers give their students a view of Creationism as well as evolution, especially since evolution is not 100% proven fact (even though I, myself believe that it is fact).

 

[miniwhinny]

I am absolutely aware of what the word 'theory' means as I am a microbiologist

You have stated exactly what I already said-a theory is not proven fact. Yes, science is based off of theory and that is as good as it gets. I think you believe I am confusing theory with hypothesis. There is a reason why I have to pay $300 for a new science book when I could borrow it from a friend who took the same class 2 years previous. Science changes every single day and I can't use that 2 year old science book because it has already been updated. It is why I LOVE science and will be continuing my education. Nothing is set in stone and I have an infinite amount of areas and subjects to do future research. Do I put more stock into science than religion? Yes and in fact, I am an atheist. But, I do not look down on those that believe in Creationism and in a country that is primarily christian, I think it is just fine that teachers give their students a view of Creationism as well as evolution, especially since evolution is not 100% proven fact (even though I, myself believe that it is fact).

ohmt I'm 100% in agreement with you. I'm a scientist myself and have two sons in a well known research university. One is studying physics, the other chemistry. I'm also in full agreement that creationism is okay to teach. What I'm a little confused over is how it's taught as a science in HS. It's not a science it's a religious belief. If you look at your university science classes you won't find one class there (unless you're at a christian college) on creationism - you will find classes on evolution. Where you'll find creationism is in the school of religious studies. This is why (getting back on topic) Perry wanting to teach creationism and not evolution imo is wrong. Religion is private and personal but it's not based on fact it's based on faith - what if the predominate religion here was Hinduism? Should we be teaching our kids that cows are sacred (at places other than the Outback Steak House

) Or what if it were Scientology? There's a place for religion and there's a place for education. I'm 100% in favor of people wanting to believe anything they want to believe which is why we have so many churches in the USA.

 

[Flying minis]

Miniwhinny you stated my exact thoughts - creationism according to whom? It's not a science, it's a belief, and should not be taught as a science, as creationism (by any religion) does not withstand the testing of science and the scientific method.

Here's something that scared me today . . . in the year 2011, I can hardly imagine that a major political candidate could believe that a naturally occuring weather or geologic event could be a message from God??? Seriously??? That's right up there with some of the fundamentalists I've talked to who believe homosexuals are really just possessed by Satan. Unless you're hard-core fundamentalist, I can't imagine how you could conceivably even say that 1 - a hurricane or earthquake is a message from God, and 2 - that the specific message is against current spending in Washington DC?

http://www.washingto...ivine031851.php