Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medina Not The Same Old Brand of "Politics As Usual"
TheCypressTimes.com ^ | 02/15/2010 | John G. Winder

Posted on 02/15/2010 3:50:42 PM PST by Patriot1259

Perry seems to rely on two familiar slogans:

“Keep D.C. out of Texas,” which is his push-back to Kay Bailey Hutchison who, for all intents and purposes, cut her own throat with conservatives when she voted “Yes” for the federal bailout in 2008; and

“Texas – We’re better off than the other states.” I’ve never heard Medina deny that Texas is better off than the other states. She does say; however, that Texas could be doing better. You could be doing better.

Medina wants to get rid of the state property tax. Any objections? She wants to replace it with a sales tax. Sorry, that can’t work. It’s too logical. It’s too easy. It gets rid of way, way, way too much government fat and it too fairly and equally distributes the load in terms of supporting the state.

(Excerpt) Read more at thecypresstimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Local News; Politics
KEYWORDS: debramedina; endorsement; glennbeck; medina; medinamoonbats; paulestinians; perrybotsgonecrazy; rickperry; troofers; truthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: Tex-Con-Man

Don’t forget he sucks less than Bill White and Farouk!


51 posted on 02/15/2010 8:56:49 PM PST by a fool in paradise (DON'T SAY "Happy Valentines' Day". It's Happy Holidays! This is the Holiday Season (Prez Day Feb15))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
And he's complaining that the Tea Parties are being infiltrated by "neocons" like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Nevermind that Palin endorsed his son.

Ron Paul and his acolytes call anyone who doesn't completely agree with their (some quite bizarre) policies "neocons." They sling that label around with impunity.

"My message is somewhat different," he said. ( Ya think??)"The message gets somewhat diluted" with large movements of this nature.

"Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement," Paul continued.

Looks like he's erroneously (and arrogantly) taking credit for the Tea Party movement again. Rick Santelli started that movement with his calls for protests of the bailouts. It is not, and never has been about Ron Paul. The Paulestinians are the ones trying to hijack the Tea Party movement.

FWIW, I applauded what Ron Paul had to say during the debates that preceded the bailout vote in October of '08. I agree with some of what he says, primarily on the economic front, but so much of his stuff is just too moonbatty to be taken seriously.

52 posted on 02/15/2010 10:59:56 PM PST by Allegra (It doesn't matter what this tagline says...the liberals are going to call it "racist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Allegra

Agreed. I was faintly aware of some meetings before last February, but sure didn’t think the Tea Party was a Paul meeting. Just a meeting on common ground.


53 posted on 02/16/2010 12:35:31 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
She favors gambling, opposes marriage amendment, opposes divorce reform in Texas.

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=texaslegislativeupdate.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftexaslegislativeupdate.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F2010-primary-voters-guide.pdf

That's all you have? It never ends with the Perry propaganda here. Show me where she opposes the "Texas Marriage Amendment", she doesn't. And you think replacing "no fault" divorce with mutual consent only divorce is something a Conservative who believes in personal liberty should be in favor of? Given that Texas has a lottery and you can go over the state line to gamble in Louisiana or Oklahoma, legalizing gambling on the "other side" makes sense. But by all means hang your hat on that issue.

Isn’t my money that goes to Austin as sales tax just as much my property, and sacred, as the taxes I pay to my local county and local school district? You suppose I can talk Senfronia Thompson or Garnet Coleman into letting my local sheriffs’ department have my money back?

If you don't understand the fundamental right of personal property and fair taxation, then you have much bigger worries than Debra Medina.

54 posted on 02/16/2010 2:30:14 AM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: patriot08

Thank you for a wonderful post.


55 posted on 02/16/2010 3:36:33 AM PST by BornToBeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
To all the Medna cool aid drinkers. Snake Doc said it right, the fact that she even thinks that the Government was involved in 911 makes her and all she says irrelevant .

I say cool aid drinkers, because only a cool aid drinker would think that makes the rest of us Perry bots.

Amazing, simply amazing

56 posted on 02/16/2010 3:53:56 AM PST by BornToBeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BornToBeAmerican

Thinks = considers


57 posted on 02/16/2010 3:55:37 AM PST by BornToBeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Medina had my support because I think the most important issue is sealing our border to the south from the freeloading hoards.

That was until I heard that rant on Beck. Now the choice is one of three sorry clowns. I think I will just focus on local elections, (and support my great rep. Ted Poe.)

Maybe I will write in Rumping RINO.

58 posted on 02/16/2010 4:04:13 AM PST by catfish1957 (Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

I gave you the reference I used. Medina’s own answers, not “propaganda.” The gambling surprised me.

Conservatives recognize the need for some laws, because some activities do harm. I’m sure that you agree that there is a difference between good and bad, otherwise you wouldn’t argue any question at all, would you?

We’ve held the line on legalized casino gambling because it is immoral for the state to endorse and costs local neighborhoods and communities more than it brings in. Our Platform comes out strongly against it.

The state licenses marriage and our courts decide divorces, because we recognize the benefit to our communities that comes from encouraging and strengthening the basis unit of society.

I know several people who were severely harmed by the so-called “no fault” divorces which are really “no choice” divorces. We have as much protection in Texas as we can from same-sex marriage, but will soon find our selves fighting a Constitutional battle over recognizing out of state “marriages.”

Show me how you’re going to keep those taxes local for local use or how it will benefit my Sheriffs’ office or school district to have to compete with the chubbers and runaway dems for a “fair” share of my taxes. For that matter, show me how the collection and rebates for the poor won’t become one of the biggest boondoggles.

That might be a good cause for Medina supporters: get their lawyers and lobbyists to write and fine tune the legislation and find a Senator and Representative to carry it in 2011.


59 posted on 02/16/2010 4:31:59 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

What I see are freepers bitching about the RINOs, complaining that there needs to be no more compromises on principle, stating that the RINOs’ days are done and that Perry and KBH are RINOs at best. At the very best.

Establishment candidates. One who promised to change Washington but was instead changed by Washington.

The other...Texas vote for him then spend three years wondering why?

At least those are what the ads say.

Medina comes in with nearly the exact positions that the Conservative freepers want, but that isn’t good enough.

She lacks the experience the RINOs have and for some, although she was far clearer and less ambiguous that the RINOs, she didn’t state her positions in the most perfect absolutes to please every freepers.

Now she steps in the 911 truther excrement pile and can’t get the stench off of her whether she deserves it or not.

And, imo, that was the excuse that a lot of freepers needed to retain a ‘safe’ establishement candidate while talking about change.

I’m not trying to win votes for anyone. Just pointing out how when the time came to support a candidate with the most Conservative platform that freepers refused to do so.

In freeperland, if you can’t agree with someone then they are automatically nutcases. Or worse.


60 posted on 02/16/2010 5:34:19 AM PST by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: catfish1957
That was until I heard that rant on Beck.

I didn't hear it but from what I heard about it, "rant" isn't quite the right term for it. She wasn't in a seething tirade full of rage, was she?

It sounded like she got caught by surprise and her honesty got the best of her. No, confessing she doesn't completely trust the government doesn't play well on the national spotlight, and she stepped in stuff she probably won't shake off.

I don't think she is anywhere the truther that Berg and such are. Not even close. But that is how freepers are playing it, making it sound like she is a foaming at the mouth anti government conspiracist fanatic.

I'm just suprised at how someone with her platform is treated by the same people who claim to want someone with her platform instead of the business as ususal RINOs.

61 posted on 02/16/2010 5:47:37 AM PST by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I like Perry because of his stand on life and family issues. He really understands that life begins at fertilization and believes that the family is the basic unit of society. He pushed for parental notification, the Woman’s Right to Know Act and for stricter ID for the guardian of minors seeking abortion. Even the Gardasil Executive Order included instructions to make it easier on parents who wanted to opt out of mandatory vaccines.

That being said, Medina has no record of working for legislation in Austin, sued the Republican Party of Texas for following the rules we voted on in our Convention, plays the race card based on her husband’s family, and hangs out with Alex Jones and Libertarians. Even before her implosion on Beck, she didn’t look like a Republican to me, and had already stated that she wouldn’t back either of the other candidates if she lost. We have no evidence that she can achieve any of her agenda, because she has never worked any legislation through Austin and has only served as a spoiler for the RPT in the past.


62 posted on 02/16/2010 6:03:41 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

She’s a RINO of a different sort then?

Perry seems to be responding to the public outrage, which is good. At least his political insticts are telling him to move to the right.

I can understand people being embarrassed by how she is portrayed as a truther, even if she has good solid pro life, pro 2A, pro 10th, etc.

And they seem to prefer a candidate with sorta acceptable positions and a RINO track record to someone who might embarrass them.

It seems that the opinion is that they want someone who isn’t establishment but is still part of the establishement, i.e., experienced; not a conventional mainstream politician, but not someone far from the mainstream. Different, but not really different?

I think different scares people.


63 posted on 02/16/2010 6:22:08 AM PST by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Can you NOT understand?

Who wants a Governor who SUSPECTS that the Federal Government and the NYPD was involved in the destruction of the twin towers and subsequent deaths of 1,000’s of people?

Do you? I MEAN DO YOU?????

Wake up!!!!! If she CAN JUSTIFY such as this in her mind, then what couldn't she justify???

Scary, scary stuff

64 posted on 02/16/2010 6:39:11 AM PST by BornToBeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BornToBeAmerican
Who wants a Governor who SUSPECTS that the Federal Government and the NYPD was involved in the destruction of the twin towers and subsequent deaths of 1,000’s of people?

Is that what she said?

Is it?

Since you made the claim, do you have the quote?

And personally, no, I don't care if my governor has an open and active distrust of the federal government. I don't care if my governor deeply believes that the federal government may be treacherous and duplicitous.

Do you believe that the current federal administration is trying to undermine the Constitution and thereby economically and politically enslave the population and will actively work to supress opposition??

So does that mean that you do or you don't trust the federal government?

65 posted on 02/16/2010 6:53:48 AM PST by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Do I trust the Fed government? That depends on the question.

Do I trust that they are not planning the deaths of American citizens, be it in the 100’s, 1000’s or millions.

Questioning the government is a constitutional right. And YES I do believe that the current administration is “undermine the Constitution and thereby economically and politically enslave the population and will actively work to suppress opposition”

However, I do not believe that they are planning to do what their hero did (Mao)

Should they be in office? NO!!!

Okay, since you asked, here is what Glenn asked and what Debra responded with:


GLENN: Right. Here's then let me be more frank and ask you the question: Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?

MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.


She has not taken a position. Simple

An open distrust of the federal government is a good thing. Sadly, the mess we have today is because Americans as a whole were too trusting.

66 posted on 02/16/2010 7:11:25 AM PST by BornToBeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BornToBeAmerican

I listened to Beck interviewing Medina on Feb. 11. I also read the transcript of the interview. Beck was clear in his questions to Medina, he wanted to know if she was PERSONALLY a 9/11 truther. Why she was not able to state firmly that she is not a truther, if indeed she is not-—well, that’s just baffling. Beck’s interview took place in the morning. Later, on the same day of 2/11, in the afternoon, she went on TV station KAVU interview, and said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39ADaPj9_Y&feature=player_embedded
On Feb. 12, Channel 13 reported that Medina said no policemen were killed on 9/11 and she has questions why only firemen were killed -— 13 pointed out that is not true-police were killed on 9/11.

Also on Feb. 12, Medina included a statement on her website stating that she is NOT a truther, and made several appearances claiming same. Bottom line, if she is not a truther, why was it apparently difficult for her to reveal it to Beck in the first place?

Before all this fiasco began (which, incidentally SHE solely created), she had my vote and my family’s votes. Now, we stand confused about her, and she has our questions.

Looks like we’ll go with Perry in the end.


67 posted on 02/16/2010 7:59:59 AM PST by lawley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BornToBeAmerican

You have disproven your own outrageous claim, then didn’t you?

She did not say what you claimed she did, did she?


68 posted on 02/16/2010 8:10:43 AM PST by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
I gave you the reference I used. Medina’s own answers, not “propaganda.” The gambling surprised me.

Conservatives recognize the need for some laws, because some activities do harm. I’m sure that you agree that there is a difference between good and bad, otherwise you wouldn’t argue any question at all, would you?

We’ve held the line on legalized casino gambling because it is immoral for the state to endorse and costs local neighborhoods and communities more than it brings in. Our Platform comes out strongly against it.

The state licenses marriage and our courts decide divorces, because we recognize the benefit to our communities that comes from encouraging and strengthening the basis unit of society.

I know several people who were severely harmed by the so-called “no fault” divorces which are really “no choice” divorces. We have as much protection in Texas as we can from same-sex marriage, but will soon find our selves fighting a Constitutional battle over recognizing out of state “marriages.”

Show me how you’re going to keep those taxes local for local use or how it will benefit my Sheriffs’ office or school district to have to compete with the chubbers and runaway dems for a “fair” share of my taxes. For that matter, show me how the collection and rebates for the poor won’t become one of the biggest boondoggles.

That might be a good cause for Medina supporters: get their lawyers and lobbyists to write and fine tune the legislation and find a Senator and Representative to carry it in 2011.

It's propaganda in that it infers that she is pro gay marriage. You're worried about the morality of gambling when Texas has a state sponsored lottery and Texans flood across the border to Baton Rouge to gamble on the river? There's no appreciable difference in letting gambling occur on Texas' side of the river. Harmed by no fault divorce? They would be harmed either way. Clearly, you're intent on legislating morality while Medina is being consistent with those positions.

From her website:

Why would you want to abolish the property tax in Texas in the first place?

Private property ownership is central to a free society. Without freedom to own and defend the fruits of your labor, most other rights mean very little. The freedom to own and be secure in your home is central to many of the issues Texans have faced over the last several years as special interests and establishment politicians have continued to seek to increase their wealth and power at our expense. The property tax, by requiring that we either pay perpetual fees on the land we claim to own or face prosecution, ensures that we never really own it at all. The message is clear: we live on our land at the government's mercy.

The tax on real and tangible property represents one of the most inefficient, anti-family, anti-job forms of taxation available to government. It punishes businesses and industry with taxes that stay more or less the same regardless of whether they’re making money. It gets applied unevenly from taxpayer to taxpayer, and requires the creation, staffing and funding of bureaucratic fiefdoms throughout the state in which tax assessors exercise near-absolute control over who does and does not receive favorable treatment. It in effect turns property owners into squatters in their own homes, requiring over the course of their lifetimes that they pay the entire value of their property to the government for the privilege of living there. It drives the elderly out of homes for which they have cared and saved their entire lives. It depresses the value of real property and imposes a disproportionate burden on capital-intensive industries, thereby retarding growth in the very industries that are best able to generate Texas jobs. It hurts our economy, it hurts families, it breeds disrespect for State government, and it disenfranchises Texas citizens who lack the connections or the resources to fight the appraisers’ relentless grab for more revenues.

But is it really possible to completely replace property taxes in Texas by expanding the sales tax base?

Yes. The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) released a study in April, 2009 showing that simply expanding the sales tax base to include categories of goods and services that are not currently taxed in Texas, but that are taxed in other states, would replace almost all the revenues currently collected by the property tax. Examples of some services that we currently do not tax include mining services, drilling services, legal services, limousine services and others. By also adding in a one-time sales tax on the saleof property (as opposed to an annual tax on property ownership), the TPPF study showed that we could replace the entire property tax revenues with a modest increase in the sales tax rate to 8.8 percent.

That’s an increase in the sales tax from the current top rate of 8.25%. I thought you were opposed to tax increases?

We are. If we can’t finance our current level of government spending by collecting 8.25% tax from all taxable sales in Texas, then our State government is simply spending too much. Like every other Texan these days, the government will have to take a hard look at how it spends its revenues and find ways to live within its means. In the worst case scenario, we could phase reform in over time while restraining the growth of government; this would give us an opportunity to grow into a revenue neutral position. But one way or another the property tax has got to go.

How are middle and low-income families helped by expanding the sales tax – isn’t that a much more regressive tax than the property tax?

First, we would ensure that items such groceries, medicines, basic health care and other basic needs continue to be exempt from the sales tax. It’s the disproportionate percentage of such families’ incomes spent on such items that makes the sales tax regressive, and we would actually work to expand this exemption to make sure that those individuals and families are not disproportionately impacted by reform. Second, it’s not at all clear that the property tax is in fact less regressive. Although the recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy study showed the distribution of the Texas property tax burden to be fairly neutral across income groups, this study ignores the “invisible” burden borne by renters for their landlords’ property taxes, and the “stealth” property tax passed by Texas businesses to their customers in the form of higher prices. Once those factors are taken into account, and once we realize the dramatic expansion of opportunities for Texas workers to earn a decent living and to feed, clothe and shelter their families, we believe that middle and low income earners will be foremost among this reform’s beneficiaries.

Doesn’t your proposal take away local control over schools, hospitals and local infrastructure?

Local taxing jurisdictions already can and do set local sales taxes in many cases, the revenues from which are simply returned to the local jurisdiction within a few weeks after collection by the State Comptroller. And Texas already has several revenue sharing plans in place to support local school districts, the newest of which was implemented as part of our 2006 state-wide school finance reform. That particular reform allocated State sales tax and other revenues to enable local school districts to reduce their maintenance and operations property tax rates by 11% in 2007 and 33% in 2008. We also have two so-called “tax rate equalization programs” -- the Instructional Facilities Allotment program and the Existing Debt Allotment program -- both of which assist less wealthy districts by providing revenues to enable them to issue new bond debt or service existing bond debt. And under the Foundation School Program, which has been in place since 1949, the bulk of funding for all of Texas’ public schools comes from a mix of state revenues and local property tax receipts, which are allocated in accordance with specified formulas to help meet the needs of Texas schoolchildren wherever they happen to live. All of these programs allocate State revenues to local districts to make up for differences in their property tax bases, or to enable them to grant limited property tax relief to their residents and local businesses, without compromising local control over local education. Our proposal would simply build on these programs so as to eliminate local property taxes altogether. Sharing formulas would take account of local economic growth, population demographics, historical tax receipts, and current and projected debt service requirements, but the key is that we already have such programs in place right now. We strongly believe as a matter of principle in keeping as much control over local affairs at the most local level of government possible, and this reform would be implemented with that principle as our guide. "

69 posted on 02/16/2010 8:39:13 AM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

“Is” (gambling, no-choice/fault divorce) does not equate to “ought.”

Medina will have something to do as a private citizen/former candidate after the Primary: She can find legislative experts who can write her bill, find Senators and Representatives to sponsor it, and then, in 2011, go to Austin and try to change our tax system. Perhaps, after 120 days trying to get her bill passed, she will agree with those of us who find that any State government will be less responsive than local governments.


70 posted on 02/16/2010 9:53:09 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
“Is” (gambling, no-choice/fault divorce) does not equate to “ought.”

Medina will have something to do as a private citizen/former candidate after the Primary: She can find legislative experts who can write her bill, find Senators and Representatives to sponsor it, and then, in 2011, go to Austin and try to change our tax system. Perhaps, after 120 days trying to get her bill passed, she will agree with those of us who find that any State government will be less responsive than local governments.

By your logic, divorce should be illegal and Texans shouldn't be allowed to gamble in any state.

From Debra Medina's website:

"We strongly believe as a matter of principle in keeping as much control over local affairs at the most local level of government possible, and this reform would be implemented with that principle as our guide."

71 posted on 02/16/2010 10:02:04 AM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Sorry, but she said: “So I’ve not taken a position on that.”

Not sure where you are coming from, but “No” is a position and “YES” is a position.

If you asked me if I think the Earth is flat and I answer you with this.....I don’t, I don’t have all of the evidence there, Eagle Eye. So I don’t I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments. So I’ve not taken a position on that.

Would you really think that I meant “NO” even if I came back to you later and tried to say “YES”

She’s toast


72 posted on 02/16/2010 10:28:45 AM PST by BornToBeAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BornToBeAmerican
She’s toast

Agreed.

She put herself in a 'when will you stop beating your husband' type of position.

As a governor, I don't care if she actually believes the government isn't telling all with 9-11...or Waco...or Oklahoma City...

Guess she found out about the political Third Rail of 911.

73 posted on 02/16/2010 10:50:16 AM PST by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

Good that Medina believes in local control. Has she been able to decrease costs in her county?Property taxes go to local governments, except where the “Robin Hood” State makes us give some to other school districts. Our ability to cut costs is more local, now. Send all our school tax, county and city services money to Austin and we have no guarantees that we’ll have nearly as much control.

The logic on divorce and gambling is that the State licenses and regulates the courts, the regulations under which they are carried out. “First, do no harm” should guide our future actions on the authority that we’ve delegated to the State.

There’s no reason to prevent our citizens from going where gambling is legal, but there’s simply no evidence that importing gambling to our State will be a good.

As our divorce laws stand, families may be unilaterally fractured. Children and possessions become the State’s to divide at the whim of one party to a contract. Why not limit “no fault” divorce to those where both parties agree and where there are no children involved? Where one spouse has committed fraud and aggression by breaking or wishing to break the contract of marriage, there is no recourse for the injured party other than to submit to an involuntary divorce.


74 posted on 02/16/2010 11:37:29 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Patriot1259

Epic FAIL!


75 posted on 02/16/2010 11:38:48 AM PST by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FTJM; Eagle Eye; BuckeyeTexan; Eaker; Allegra; Patriot1259; Arizona Carolyn; patriot08; ...

Eaker found the link to the video
http://www.bigjolly.com/sections/texas/274-debra-medina-on-nyc-fire-and-police-casualties.html

Go to the second video (3rd picture frame).


76 posted on 02/16/2010 12:05:56 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Just W.O.W.


77 posted on 02/16/2010 12:46:33 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Good that Medina believes in local control. Has she been able to decrease costs in her county?Property taxes go to local governments, except where the “Robin Hood” State makes us give some to other school districts. Our ability to cut costs is more local, now. Send all our school tax, county and city services money to Austin and we have no guarantees that we’ll have nearly as much control.

The logic on divorce and gambling is that the State licenses and regulates the courts, the regulations under which they are carried out. “First, do no harm” should guide our future actions on the authority that we’ve delegated to the State.

There’s no reason to prevent our citizens from going where gambling is legal, but there’s simply no evidence that importing gambling to our State will be a good.

As our divorce laws stand, families may be unilaterally fractured. Children and possessions become the State’s to divide at the whim of one party to a contract. Why not limit “no fault” divorce to those where both parties agree and where there are no children involved? Where one spouse has committed fraud and aggression by breaking or wishing to break the contract of marriage, there is no recourse for the injured party other than to submit to an involuntary divorce.

You saw her comments, they speak for themselves. She believes in local control.

Texas already has a lottery, which is a form of gambling. That she is not hypocritical by opposing casino gambling which occurs minutes from the state line is a good thing. Simply moving to the other side of that line to Texas makes sense, as it does in many other states.

Typically, no fault divorces which are contested divorces are required to go to mediation by the court. A friend of mine who had several grounds for divorce recently went through the process and was essentially held hostage by his wife who ran up his legal fees by dragging out the process. He's saddled with her massive debts, she walks away clean while he offered to support the step kids financially. If anything, his ability to walk away should have been easier.

Being the morality police never works.

78 posted on 02/16/2010 1:08:30 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Sorry. Rant may have been a little strong of a word descbring her response. In any case, it was a loony moonbat thing to say or believe, and she has no business being gov. of my state.


79 posted on 02/16/2010 4:08:09 PM PST by catfish1957 (Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

No morality police, just self governing citizens of our State.

Casino Gambling requires that the customer be at a disadvantage. No reason for the state to legalize fraud and aggression against our own citizens.

It shouldn’t be easy to unilaterally break any contract, especially one as fundamental as marriage.


80 posted on 02/16/2010 5:07:09 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
No morality police, just self governing citizens of our State.

Casino Gambling requires that the customer be at a disadvantage. No reason for the state to legalize fraud and aggression against our own citizens.

It shouldn’t be easy to unilaterally break any contract, especially one as fundamental as marriage.

Self governing citizens attempting to police morality.

The lottery puts customers at a worse advantage, and the state operates it.

You clearly have a problem with personal liberty.

81 posted on 02/16/2010 6:17:55 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

You seem to think that morality is bad.

It is incumbent upon the State - upon individuals who make up the government of the State - to do no harm. That’s a moral position, as is “Do not murder” and deciding the degrees of homicide, “Do not steal” and the parameters of misdemeanors and felonies.

The State already regulates these practices, we’ve already decided that limits are appropriate. Now, it’s just a matter of defining those limits.


82 posted on 02/16/2010 10:30:13 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
You seem to think that morality is bad.

It is incumbent upon the State - upon individuals who make up the government of the State - to do no harm. That’s a moral position, as is “Do not murder” and deciding the degrees of homicide, “Do not steal” and the parameters of misdemeanors and felonies.

The State already regulates these practices, we’ve already decided that limits are appropriate. Now, it’s just a matter of defining those limits.

Morality isn't bad, forcing it on people by law is.

The state not doing harm is not a moral position, it's a liberty issue. However, not allowing gambling by private corporations when the state has a conflict of interest by operating a lottery, and allows track betting, is inherently unfair and a violation of liberty. Medina is for it, you seem to think it's a major disqualifier, it isn't, esp when a majority of self governing citizens want it.

No fault divorce is here to stay.

83 posted on 02/17/2010 12:09:26 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

Deciding that “forcing people by law” is bad is, in itself, a moral position, based on your belief in right and wrong.


84 posted on 02/17/2010 12:16:37 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Deciding that “forcing people by law” is bad is, in itself, a moral position, based on your belief in right and wrong.

Again, it's an issue of personal liberties which is clearly not important to you.

85 posted on 02/17/2010 12:44:19 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

I’m really disappointed in a lot of Freepers right now. She is NOT a truther for pete’s sake. When she says there are questions she is right. Not as to whether the .gov blew the buildings up, but questions as to why walls were built between agencies not allowing info in, other intel that wasn’t passed on, the terrorists allowed to attend flight schools, etc. I can’t believe some Freepers would actually consider voting for slick rick perry the TTC guy, forcing vaccines to our daughters, allowing illegals to get in state tuition in colleges, etc. ALL of those things he defended in the debates!!! And Kay with her wishy washy abortion answers and bailout vote, etc. Good lord, Medina is the most conservative candidate in the race. To me it’s FR that is going nuts.

Quote from Medina “I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way.”


86 posted on 02/17/2010 12:53:10 PM PST by American72 (Sick of Liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: American72
I’m really disappointed in a lot of Freepers right now. She is NOT a truther for pete’s sake. When she says there are questions she is right. Not as to whether the .gov blew the buildings up, but questions as to why walls were built between agencies not allowing info in, other intel that wasn’t passed on, the terrorists allowed to attend flight schools, etc. I can’t believe some Freepers would actually consider voting for slick rick perry the TTC guy, forcing vaccines to our daughters, allowing illegals to get in state tuition in colleges, etc. ALL of those things he defended in the debates!!! And Kay with her wishy washy abortion answers and bailout vote, etc. Good lord, Medina is the most conservative candidate in the race. To me it’s FR that is going nuts.

Quote from Medina “I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way.”

Agreed, and good post.

IMO, Medina was getting spammed and slammed here unfairly before her comments on Glenn Beck, probably from Perry supporters. It didn't work and her comments gave them want they needed. It is surprising that she scared some Freepers so much, even before her comments. My guess is that it's more about social conservativism than anything else, based on some of the comments I've seen from the morality police.

Her comments weren't good, the clarification was better. IMO, she needs to focus on the redacted portions of the 9/11 report and intelligence failures. I think she did it to hedge for her supporters who do feel that way, doesn't make it right though.

87 posted on 02/17/2010 2:07:39 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

No, personal liberties are very important to me.

The right to liberty exists outside of society, but the decisions about to practice it oneself and to enforce it for others is a moral position.

The old saying, “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose,” is a moral position, one that works very well for society.

Robinson Crusoe didn’t need to care much about personal liberty until he ran into Friday. An omnipotent ruler wouldn’t have to care much about another’s nose or personal liberty, either.

In the case of our society, we enforce everyone’s right to liberty by government, in our case, a representative government. As a State, we’ve decided to limit - regulate - the business of gambling because of gambling’s risk to liberty and property.

Look up the relative costs of gambling to states and cities. (I’m on my way to a meeting, can’t do it, now.)


88 posted on 02/17/2010 2:40:47 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
No, personal liberties are very important to me.

The right to liberty exists outside of society, but the decisions about to practice it oneself and to enforce it for others is a moral position.

The old saying, “Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose,” is a moral position, one that works very well for society.

Robinson Crusoe didn’t need to care much about personal liberty until he ran into Friday. An omnipotent ruler wouldn’t have to care much about another’s nose or personal liberty, either.

In the case of our society, we enforce everyone’s right to liberty by government, in our case, a representative government. As a State, we’ve decided to limit - regulate - the business of gambling because of gambling’s risk to liberty and property.

Look up the relative costs of gambling to states and cities. (I’m on my way to a meeting, can’t do it, now.)

Preventing a fist from hitting you in the nose is a "protection of individual rights" issue. To confuse it with morality is missing the point entirely and unnecessary. Enforcing your version of morality on others is infringing on their rights, and no different than the extreme Left and their "moral" issues.

You're avoiding a glaring flaw staring you in the face. The state is the purveyor of legalized gambling itself. It's hypocritical, among many other things, to claim that their form is better than another one, esp when adjoining states allow it, cruise ships departing from the State's shores allow it, a majority of citizens participate in it and approve of it, and other forms of betting are allowed. More to the point, a politician who doesn't buy into that hypocrisy should be applauded.

89 posted on 02/17/2010 4:05:27 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

You fail to understand the basics of ethics 101.

1. Rights exist without any external recognition. To decide whether or not to recognize and protect those rights as a society is a moral action.

2. As I said, “is” (the State is a “purveyor of gambling”) does not equate to “ought” (the State ought to allow more gambling). (Your mama probably says, “If your friend jumps off the roof, does that mean I should let you?”)


90 posted on 02/18/2010 11:23:52 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: FTJM; American72

http://www.bigjolly.com/sections/texas/274-debra-medina-on-nyc-fire-and-police-casualties.html

She really believes that there’s some question as to how all the police escaped the towers without dying, while policemen did die.


91 posted on 02/18/2010 11:44:59 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc; American72
Yes, everyone knows what she said. From your link:

"The only comparison between Mr. Oberg's condescension and Mrs. Medina's answer is that she mentioned firefighters and police officers. Note that she begins by saying that it was eight or nine years ago and that she could be mistaken.

Now before you start in, I don't think this is media "bias" against Mrs. Medina. I don't know why Mr. Oberg reported it like he did, which has resulted in even more ridicule for Mrs. Medina. All I know is that when I was sitting in the press conference listening, I didn't come away with the perception that she was "curious" about that subject. And I don't get that perception after watching it again.

So there you go. Watch and decide for yourself. I'm just trying to bring a little "truth" (ha) into this race and I would do the same if it were Gov. Perry or Sen. Hutchison that we were talking about. There used to be a lot of people willing to do that. It seems as if there are fewer and fewer of us trying (not that I always get it right) to point out the truth and more and more people seeing a reporter say something and throwing it around as the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me I can't be bothered to check."

92 posted on 02/18/2010 12:14:10 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
You fail to understand the basics of ethics 101.

1. Rights exist without any external recognition. To decide whether or not to recognize and protect those rights as a society is a moral action.

2. As I said, “is” (the State is a “purveyor of gambling”) does not equate to “ought” (the State ought to allow more gambling). (Your mama probably says, “If your friend jumps off the roof, does that mean I should let you?”)

You're conflating the two concepts erroneously. The protection of rights doesn't require ethics or morality, whether it's personal protection or societal. It's an innate human response.

Ok, I'll bite. By your logic, Medina's support of legalizing casino gambling is a disqualifier for office, based on moral grounds, in spite of the fact the other forms of gambling exist, and her position is actually consistent and not hypocritical. By virtue of the fact that Perry opposes casino gambling, he is more qualified for office vis a vis that issue. The logical conclusion of your comments is that no forms of gambling should be legal, and candidates should oppose all of them. However, Perry, for example, does not oppose the legalization of the lottery, in fact, the lottery has expanded during his tenure, he appointed a crony to head the lottery commission, he's suggested selling it to a private company to raise money for the state, instead of banning it altogether. So by your definition, that's moral?

Is Perry "moral" in attempting to legally force girls to get mandatory STD vaccinations? Do those girls have any rights? Is it moral to support abstinence only sex education while forcing girls to get STDs vaccines? Is taking private property owners' land while selling state authority to foreign corporations for a private toll road to ship goods from Mexico moral? Is letting illegal aliens get state money for college moral, while violating the rights of the citizens who pay taxes to fund it?

93 posted on 02/18/2010 1:05:57 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

I’ll agree that our differences are based on our moral differences. I don’t agree that the decision to protect unalienable rights by society is not a moral issue.

The State legislature, our representative government, has determined the lottery is acceptable. That does not mean that we have to determine that casino gambling is acceptable.

For the Gardasil, my argument is all over this forum, and the (still long) synopsis is here,
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=297887064231&1&index=1


94 posted on 02/18/2010 3:18:27 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
I’ll agree that our differences are based on our moral differences. I don’t agree that the decision to protect unalienable rights by society is not a moral issue.

The State legislature, our representative government, has determined the lottery is acceptable. That does not mean that we have to determine that casino gambling is acceptable.

For the Gardasil, my argument is all over this forum, and the (still long) synopsis is here, http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=297887064231&1&index=1

Our differences aren't moral; I'm in favor of liberty, protecting inalienable rights and limiting the role of government, you are when it suits you. You want "your version" of morality legislated, I don't want yours or anyone else's.

You completely avoided my point on Perry, the lottery and gambling. No surprise, your logic is flawed.

Depriving young girls of their rights in the name of science is wrong, period. And based on your logic, it's immoral. That you're doctor only makes it worse.

95 posted on 02/18/2010 3:36:06 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

Your position that you don’t want morality is absolutely a *moral* position. Deciding how to act on and arguing for right and wrong are most certainly acts based on moral positions.

You don’t like vaccines - or expect a physician to not like vaccines? Tell all the blind children who had measles, all the infants born with mental retardation due to mom’s catching Rubella while she was pregnant, tell the infertile boys due to Measles, mumps, and Rubella. Tell the victims of “lock jaw,” who never got their tetanus shots.

And, if you’d read the article, you’d see that the Governor also told the Department of Health and Human Service to make it *easier* to opt out of mandated vaccines. That the Legislature had passed law making it a burden to opt out - people had to file paperwork to access the paperwork and had to do it each year, for each child.


96 posted on 02/18/2010 8:29:54 PM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Your position that you don’t want morality is absolutely a *moral* position. Deciding how to act on and arguing for right and wrong are most certainly acts based on moral positions.

You don’t like vaccines - or expect a physician to not like vaccines? Tell all the blind children who had measles, all the infants born with mental retardation due to mom’s catching Rubella while she was pregnant, tell the infertile boys due to Measles, mumps, and Rubella. Tell the victims of “lock jaw,” who never got their tetanus shots.

And, if you’d read the article, you’d see that the Governor also told the Department of Health and Human Service to make it *easier* to opt out of mandated vaccines. That the Legislature had passed law making it a burden to opt out - people had to file paperwork to access the paperwork and had to do it each year, for each child.

Wow, that made no sense.

I don't like when people's rights and personal liberties are infringed upon. I expect physicians not to shove their bias and morality down peoples' throats.

It's not the state's business to require and fund the vaccination of young girls for STD's, whether it had an opt out clause for religious purposes.

97 posted on 02/19/2010 10:18:02 AM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: FTJM

Don’t like religion?

What you “don’t like” is still an expression of your morality.

The opt out is not only for religious reasons.

And, what you don’t know is how often I’ve stood up to the Texas Medical Association and expressed my own moral position that it is inappropriate to have the regulations on opt out (rather than “opt in”) and in opposition to the opt out every year, as well as the general moral position among some doctors that parents are not the best advocates for their children.


98 posted on 02/19/2010 11:17:47 AM PST by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.) (RIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
Don’t like religion?

What you “don’t like” is still an expression of your morality.

The opt out is not only for religious reasons.

And, what you don’t know is how often I’ve stood up to the Texas Medical Association and expressed my own moral position that it is inappropriate to have the regulations on opt out (rather than “opt in”) and in opposition to the opt out every year, as well as the general moral position among some doctors that parents are not the best advocates for their children.

I like religion, I just don't like your version of it being forced down people's throats.

Then make it completely optional instead mandating it and violating people's rights. Better yet stay out of parent's business. The program would make Obama and the Democrats proud.

You're supporting a candidate who pushed it, and still thinks it was a good idea.

99 posted on 02/19/2010 1:07:45 PM PST by FTJM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

Arizona Caroly Medina is Pro Life...I know its hard for most Republican’s to recognize a pro life candidate nowadays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b756HyR-Ms


100 posted on 02/19/2010 1:12:29 PM PST by veraxisback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson