New Rick Perry Ad

[HotelUser]

If he is victorious I am never going to America ever again.

[twinart]

TROLOLOLOL! He's really victorious, trust me.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Is this the kind of non-issue people want to centre the election around? let's be frank here, Rick Perry is the same as Obama, who is the same as George W. Bush was, who in turn is the same as all the other Republicans (apart from Ron Paul). So America has a simple choice really; vote for a group of people of whom it does not matter who is victorious - people who argue over tittle tattle like gays serving in the military while spending more despite being bankrupt, who support going to war every few years to fight non-existant threats, who want to continously expand the government, who are destroying civil liberties.. or they can vote for something different.

It is pointless arguing over Rick Perry vs Barack Obama because what difference will it make? none at all.



I hardly agree with a don't ask don't tell policy because I think its entirely irrelevant who serves in the military, but whether Perry and Obama disagree on this issue is in itself irrelevant - the real issues are the Federal Reserve, the debt, the government the constitution. Don't you agree David?

[Technologic]

Just wow.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan it's not a non-issue as it completely goes against the current and historical lawmaking regulations that are generally termed "separation of church and state", which has in many many cases saved America from becoming an extremist dictatorship. Also your little rant about everyone other than RuPaul being the same doesn't seem to include any information about Rick Perry

[Eoin247]

Well he isn't exactly the smartest chap around anyway is he. We all remember the devastating blow that the "Oops" debate delivered to his campaign.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan it's not a non-issue as it completely goes against the current and historical lawmaking regulations that are generally termed "separation of church and state", which has in many many cases saved America from becoming an extremist dictatorship. Also your little rant about everyone other than RuPaul being the same doesn't seem to include any information about Rick Perry

Rick Perry is the exact same as the others on all those issues, if you don't believe me then simply look it up. It simply irritates me when videos like this are posted as though they are the worst thing in the world for a President of the United States to do, yet not one person on this forum mentioned the fact that Obama took the United States into another illegal war via executive act which is exactly what makes it illegal.

Then of course there's the debt, the removal of civil liberties and spying of citizens - but a silly suggestion on gays in the army? outrage!

[HotelUser]

Rick Perry is the exact same as the others on all those issues, if you don't believe me then simply look it up. It simply annoys me when videos like this are posted as though they are the worst thing in the world for a President of the United States to do, yet not one person on this forum mentioned the fact that Obama took the United States into another illegal war via executive act which is exactly what makes it illegal.

Then of course there's the debt, the removal of civil liberties and spying of citizens - but a silly suggestion on gays in the army? outrage!

Both are issues even if both are not important to you, or me. They're important to a great deal of Americans therefore candidates should handle both issues with the utmost care and delicacy where needed. Rick Perry wasn't going to progress anyway, but now he is definitely not going to.

With regards to Mr. Paul he has some good ideas but others which are absolutely absurd. If it was unto him airport security would not be federally regulated, and many regulations on drugs would be lifted (in one of the debates he said that the American people should be able to determine what is good and not good for them to consume when it comes to narcotics. This is absolute foolishness, because the last time I checked most Americans were not doctors who understand short and long term affects of most narcotics).

Paul in my opinion would delegate authority far too easily to individual states. Although it's good to allow various states to embed different regulations and laws in some regards, it is also not practical in other regards. Paul would have gay marriage be an issue per state to resolve which is absolutely absurd and in my opinion should be a decision made on the federal level to allow. Equally he believes the don't ask don't tell policy is just fine, where as Obama's said it needs to be changed (in agreement, it needs to be changed).

There's some other reasons why I'm sceptical about him, such as the fact that he's prolife where I am prochoice although this isn't a terrible deal because, like most things, he again believes this should be something regulated at state level....

I do not like how he wishes to withdraw all government involvement in the healthcare profession. Healthcare is something in my opinion which should be available to everyone, rich or poor, period.

I also don't like how isolated he is with regards to American involvement in other countries. I do not believe under his command that America would be involved in many peace and anti terror missions, and I especially do not like how he was against the Osama bin Laden kill. When you have an opportunity to eliminate someone responsible for the fear and murder of countless thousands others, you take that chance.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Both are issues even if both are not important to you, or me. They're important to a great deal of Americans therefore candidates should handle both issues with the utmost care and delicacy where needed. Rick Perry wasn't going to progress anyway, but now he is definitely not going to.

Of course, every issue is important to somebody somewhere - but I simply have a problem with the notion that because a Presidential candidate has made what is essentially a non-policy remark in the great scheme of things, that means the United States is somehow 'doomed' as though it were a paradise at this moment.

With regards to Mr. Paul he has some good ideas but others which are absolutely absurd. If it was unto him airport security would not be federally regulated

And it was because airport security was federally regulated that 9/11 occured, because if airport security provided for the allowance that armed security were allowed on aircraft - then the planes would not have been hijacked. It was because of the government removal of guns that essentially no fight was fought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...rport_security

and many regulations on drugs would be lifted (in one of the debates he said that the American people should be able to determine what is good and not good for them to consume when it comes to narcotics. This is absolute foolishness, because the last time I checked most Americans were not doctors who understand short and long term affects of most narcotics).

Have you taken drugs? do you report anybody who has taken drugs to the authorities? if the answer to both questions is no, then please do not tell me that you give a damn about the ability of people to make 'good decisions' for themselves - they can make that just fine themselves. As stated also, it is not in the remit of the constitution that the federal government should have this power to regulate or prohibit drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ug_prohibition

Paul in my opinion would delegate authority far too easily to individual states. Although it's good to allow various states to embed different regulations and laws in some regards, it is also not practical in other regards. Paul would have gay marriage be an issue per state to resolve which is absolutely absurd and in my opinion should be a decision made on the federal level to allow. Equally he believes the don't ask don't tell policy is just fine, where as Obama's said it needs to be changed.

Because that is in the U.S. Constitution which, you may not think so, is an incredibly important document.

There's some other reasons why I'm sceptical about him, such as the fact that he's prolife where I am prochoice although this isn't a terrible deal because, like most things, he again believes this should be something regulated at state level....

What if a President decided to make a federal pro-life law? you wouldn't like it would you. Yet for some reason, it is ok when the side you support uses the federal government as a means of imposing policy.

Neither side should use the federal government for issues which are not in the constitution.

I do not like how he wishes to withdraw all government involvement in the healthcare profession. Healthcare is something in my opinion which should be available to everyone, rich or poor, period.

Dr. Paul also believes this, via helping people pay bills with tax credit schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...#Health_policy
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/

I also don't like how isolated he is with regards to American involvement in other countries. I do not believe under his command that America would be involved in many peace and anti terror missions, and I especially do not like how he was against the Osama bin Laden kill. When you have an opportunity to eliminate someone responsible for the fear and murder of countless thousands others, you take that chance.

So would you not object to China or Russia surrounding the U.S./Canada with military bases, flying drone bombers overhead and sending paramilitary squads on your sovereign soil to take out enemies of the state? Because thats what you do to other countries, and yet you wonder why you are so loathed by so many. Here the reasons are, straight out of the horses mouth - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

[Inseriousity.]

Seperation from church and state is an illusion imo. If the voters are predominantly Christian like in most western countries and their religion plays an important part of their voting habits (like most religious conservatives would vote based on who fits their religion best) then it is only natural for politicians to have to aim for that market when campaigning.

Unfortunately I don't really agree with the message that he is trying to get across. This idea that there's some war on religion is just playing on peoples' fears and using crazy out-of-perspective blown-out-of-proportion stories to back up that case (ie. nativities being banned even though they're not etc).