Posted on 09/29/2011 3:06:35 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
We’ve argued about the property rights of the land owners since day one. As well as the rights of local government to adjust or place the fence and the value of patrols.
I'm curious, does this sound like one of their posts?
And, sorry to burst your bubble, but with every passing debate Perry is proving himself to be an anti-liberty RINO. He’s now doubling down on stupid with his democrat-like attacks on tea party people regarding our refusal to go along with his support of taxpayer subsidies for illegal aliens. And you’re doubling down on stupid for supporting his obvious lies regarding his attempted governance by decree on the vaccination of 12 year old girls fiasco. You should both walk away from attempting to defend the indefensible.
That is another incorrect allegation. The outline was a real outline for the course. The other item was an some old syllabus that was not used for the course, and when it was found and publicised, it was removed.
Without a link, I don’t know if that was the bogus version that has been removed, or a real one.
But what is clear is that it is describing the teacher seminars, NOT the class being taught in the schools to children.
I don’t remember conversations about what the teachers were being taught, only the arguments over the student curriculum. The Ouline for the STUDENT course looked fine, didn’t teach religious texts, and was pretty straightforward about the violent history of muslims in the middle east.
As I said, if there has been some outrage and discussion over the TEACHER SEMINAR used as part of this process, I haven’t read about it.
Other freepers above have posted some relevant links. There have been over a dozen threads from a month ago where the same false charges were brought up and debunked.
The problem is that people can keep stumbling over the debunked claims, they post them again, and it is impossible to keep posting the full explanation of why they are wrong. A one-sentence false charge takes a page of links and descriptions to show how it was built up from an incorrect basis.
I’m not big on the argument about “moderate muslims”, but from a practical point of view, there are different sects in the muslim faith, and here in America, there are a lot of people who do practice a more secular muslim faith, at least as we seem to know it. Aga Kahn is one of those relatively moderate, secular muslims who has denounced terrorism and seeks to exist peaceably with Israel.
I would note that while many of us hold little hope for such things, the entire premise of the United States middle east policy, including when Ronald Reagan was president, is based on the idea that we WILL find politically moderate muslims who are willing to live peacefully, who will make treaties with Israel and other countries, and who will co-exist in the middle east without wars and conflict.
No politician is going to get elected on the platform of nuking the entire muslim population into their next life. If we are going to deal with the middle east, we have to find a way to encourage whatever moderate, peaceful “bastardizations” of the true Islamic faith there are, to become the majority parties and control the radical islamists.
The outline provided in links above show a method of teaching about the middle east that will help our next generation understand the conflicts, the problems, and provide context for an acceptance and encouragement of the “moderate” muslim movement.
I wouldn’t have pushed this particular program; the problem I have with so many of these discussions is that we elevate differences of opinion into make-or-break issues. In most of the cases where people complain about what Perry has done, I actually do disagree with what Perry did.
But I can DEFEND what he did from a conservative perspective, even if I would have come to a different conclusion. We seem to have lost the concept of respectful disagreements — if someone doesn’t think exactly like we do, they must be evil, or stupid, or lying about their philosophy.
But the simple truth is that humans, even with extremely similar philosophies, will come up with different conclusions for any number of reasons.
I am convinced after looking at the three supposedly “big” problems with Perry that none of them are more than minor annoyances. I have no doubt that Perry will work to secure the border (Even NumbersUsa, a strongly anti-illegal-immigrant group, gave him acceptable marks on that score). I know he opposes a national Dream Act — at worst he won’t push for a federal law that would dictate to the states what to do. He opposes amnesty for illegals, and wants to make a new guest-worker program that will be more secure — a LOT of our illegals now came in legally, and no fence would have stopped them. They simply outstayed their welcome. And the argument that he created too many jobs and that encouraged illegals to come to his state is absurd on it’s face. Even if you accepted the wildly inflated numbers of “immigrants” who took the new jobs, the idea was to encourage business to create jobs, and that is what Texas did; they can’t control if immigrants flock to the state, and Texas already spent hundreds of millions of dollars incarcerating illegals that the feds wouldn’t deport, which is why there are illegals around to take jobs.
He opposed the ground-zero mosque, although staying true to his federalist roots, pointed out that New York was it’s own state and could make it’s own rules. I won’t support Sharia law. He is a strong friend of Israel, and understands the problem of islamic terrorists. In that regard, this program people berate seems a response he had to trying to solve that problem by education, and while we might not agree with his methods, it doesn’t indicate a softness on the subject of defending our country from the terrorists.
On Gardasil, well, if in THIS election we pick our president based on an argument over the medical effectiveness of a vaccine, or whether a particular vaccine would have been better with an opt-in clause than an opt-out clause, we are lost. But I think the argument against Perry on this is fabricated, even though I fought to remove Gardasil from the required list in Virginia (our legislature did that to us).
Anyway, the muslim thing is another red herring, used first by those who actually believe muslims should be expelled from our country. When Sarah Palin denounced the ground zero mosque, she APPEALED to the “vast majority” of moderate muslims who were “just like us” to reject the mosque in that location for the sake of civility. She certainly didn’t believe there was no such thing as a “moderate” muslim.
Cain is the only candidate who has truly gone “far enough” for some here on denouncing the muslim faith. He said he wouldn’t put muslims in his cabinet at one point, although he may have backed down from that since , I don’t know.
I would have been much happier had he never said it but he was probably trying to turn down the passion against Islam at the time.
Any right minded thinking conservative can see what is happening to Rick Perry. I'll be the first to admit that he is not the ideal candidate. But he's also not the enemy of conservatives either. Legitimate criticism is one thing. The recent efforts to label Perry a RINO are laughable. The vicious personal attacks and cheap pot shots go with the territory, that doesn't make them true or right. To call Perry an "anti-liberty RINO" has no basis in fact but seems to be the position taken by many here on FR. There was/is no perfect candidate. That includes Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin too.
Perry is a strong mainstream conservative with a less then ideal stance on some aspects of the immigration issue. Fact is, Perry supports a strong military, limited govt, lower taxes, states rights and he is pro-life, pro-gun and anti-amnesty. Sounds like a Reagan conservative to me. Perry wants the Feds to do their duty and secure the border. That action by itself would lead to less and less illegal border crossings over time. Doubt you could ever stop all illegal entries into Texas and other parts of the USA. Some illegals will find a way to get in no matter what obstacles are put in their way.
Conservatives need to keep their eye on the prize. If conservatives don't remain focused, Romney is going to sneak in an take the nomination. That would mean 4 more years of Obama. Not a pretty thought and not an outcome conservatives are looking for.
Are you confident about Palin’s position in a similar situation? Palin supporters do not care about her position on illegals.
OK, I have repeatedly heard him state his opposition to open borders. Now you are not to be believed on anything. Why can't we all make our points without trying to mislead? This is serious business.
Thanks, it has come to the point that no one can believe anything they read here on FR.
You mean there are Freepers who would deliberately attempt to deceive us? The horror!!
I'm not writing him off yet, but he has to realize that he will have to shift his thinking from Texas to a national level, and then explain that to the base. And some of his more over-the-top supporters need to back off the inane attacks. Situations in a primary can change significantly over time. Rudy was the frontrunner in 2007 and then faded into nothingness. Fred was the FR star but didn't have the fire in the belly to run the way he needed to.
I just don't see Romney able to gain traction. There is still a long ways to go to see who will be the anti-Romney that emerges from the pack. It's inane at this point to claim that the only anti-Romney can be Perry.
Reagan man you are. These are words of wisdom.
I absolutely appreciate your frustration. You, also, undoubtedly understand that, for some of us, this is the first time we’ve seen this charge.
What I do sometimes, on issues I have researched and in which I am particularly interested, is either post a link to my own laboriously-constructed previous post(s), or cut and paste my own previous arguments and information.
That way I don’t have to wear my poor fingers to he bone. :o)
” We seem to have lost the concept of respectful disagreements — if someone doesn’t think exactly like we do, they must be evil, or stupid, or lying about their philosophy.”
And it's getting worse. BUT... reasonable discussions between people who consciously model gracious give-and-take, can go along way to improve the atmosphere.
On the other hand,when "the atmosphere" starts to smell like gasoline, I leave the thread before somebody starts flickin' their Bic.
>>>>>>I just don't see Romney able to gain traction.
Back in 2007 we said the same thing about McCain and we know how that turned out. Romney is the establishment candidate and the next in line. The TP fanatics may upset the apple cart this time on that conventional thinking. We'll see.
>>>>>It's inane at this point to claim that the only anti-Romney can be Perry.
I didn't say that. I did say if conservatives let down their guard, take their eyes off the prize and not remain focused, the result will be Romney as the GOP nominee. Two weeks ago you agreed with me and my objective analysis of the current campaign. Not much has really changed. Perry's instant frontrunner status was never a sure thing meant to last. Imo, its still a two man race. Unless there is a new candidate announcement around the corner the field is set. Who do we have? Perry stumbling, but still the best all around choice. Cain gaining some ground. Which, btw, he also did in June and then fell back down. Bachmann still in meltdown. Newt may sound great in the debates but his time has passed. And Santorum seems to be hanging around so he can be on Greta's show everyother night.
Lets be honest, this is a weak field almost like 2008. Being the establishment candidate is a huge plus for Willard. Especially with all the hits Perry's taking. Even the level of hostility towards Romnney has subsided quite a bit in the last few weeks with many around the forum. Not with me though. LOL
Thank you kindly, Conservativegreatgrandma.
Its doubtful. And I wasnt presenting it to necessarily boost Perry, just to correct the record.
At this point, I would have Perry first, Cain second. But I look as the President differently than most people. I want a president who will veto bad bills, present a strong image of the US, use the military wisely, prosecute the laws of the US, nominate good judges, and leave the states to their own devices. That is really what the job entails, and I dont care about the social stuff that much for Pres. To me, that is why we elect Congress and local governments.
Sounds like the 9th and 10th Amendments would have your approval.:o)
Actually, Rudy was in the position in 2007 that Romney is now - choice of the East Coast establishment GOP. McCain simply stepped into the opportunity presented by Rudy's fall and ran with it. The primaries are structured differently this time around so that will be a harder play. And the only real anti-RINO we had was Fred, and it became clear he really wasn't all that interested in the job. We have a lot more options now and they all seem to have the necessary fire in the belly. We'll see what else they can bring to the table to win.
I didn't say that.
Many Perry supporters are running around saying just that. They are calling Perry critics Dem or Romney plants and saying the only choice is Perry versus Romney. It's off-putting.
Lets be honest, this is a weak field almost like 2008.
I think there are a lot more options for conservatives this time around. And I think Obama is going to be so weak by November 2012 that whoever wins the GOP nomination will take him down - as long as the base holds together.
Even the level of hostility towards Romnney has subsided quite a bit in the last few weeks with many around the forum.
Well, you don't have Romney supporters starting 10-20 threads praising Mitt each day on FR the way you have Perry supporters posting threads in support of Perry. For a good reason, they would get promptly zotted. So in a way, the lack of noise about Mitt on FR is directly related to the fact that supporting Mitt and creating a debate over him is not conducive towards one's posting privileges. Many posters on FR are actively promoting Perry so that will in turn create more counter-debate than such over Romney. It doesn't mean that Romney has legions of closet FR supporters. It just means that particular debate on FR is over.
Palin is solid on illegal immigration - you are delusional.
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.