I live in Texas, have lived in DFW before, in Richardson in fact, where this couple is from.
Messed up story? Absolutely. Failure of the system? Absolutely.
Are you listing this as an accusation against Perry? You appear to be, which makes about as much sense as blaming Bush for Katrina. Please understand, I'm not a big fan of Perry, although I'll not this state has made far worse choices in its time. But 1) I have yet to see any evidence that Perry even knew about this case, and 2) the link you posted shows the story breaking in late August, and by the 1st of September, a week later, something was being done about it and a state Senator was throwing some political pull behind them.
Compare and contrast with how the US government treats its own Inspectors General when their results are not what the rulers wanted to hear.
My complaint about Governor Perry is that he's all sizzle and no steak. He'll blather on for hours about his commitment to small government, but what has he ever actually DONE about it?
Speaking from the outside looking in, I'd rather have your Perry than my Schwarzenegger. I don't care how bad he might be in reality; he's better than most, and he's a damn sight better than mine.
Oh, I'm not from Texas. This Pennsylvanian is currently saddled with the execrable Governor McCheesesteak. Who's only saving graces appear to be that he's so ineffective that he hasn't really been able to get much of anything done during his two terms in office.
Gambling is yet another example of how BS the Republicans are on limited government issues. If I enjoy playing poker with my buddies, I shouldn't need permission from the state to do it. Yet, Republicans (Jim Rohr, I'm looking at you) have no problem running ads where they'll say how much they believe in reducing government intrusion on individual liberty in one sentence, and in the next how if elected they'll stop the expansion of gambling.
For most Republicans, liberty is only the liberty to do what THEY want.
I'll go Gov Perry one more. When I was growing up, the running joke of my folks was that back when they were kids, they were told by the grownups that children should be seldom seen and almost never heard. I think if we substitute government in the place of children, we may be on to something.
The Tea Party scares the hell out of the Obamanites. The evidence is a level of panic that induces them to spit venom at voters. One doesn't get into office or hold onto office by trashing the people whose votes one needs, but that's what they're doing.
Quote: {emphasis mine}
------------------
Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.
The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.
------------------
"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly."
That "merely" bothers me. I'd rather they not uphold an unconstitutional statute for _any_ reason. He should have ended that sentence after "statute". I wonder what color the sky is on the world where that happens. *DONT_KNOW*
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/treat-me-with-benign-neglect-ashton.html (18 comments)
Is Perry like his predecessor, or is he more of a small government guy?
Because I wouldn't mind a real cowboy as President, instead of a Yalie with a Stetson.
How does Gov. Perry feel about imprisoning innocent people so that the government can sell all their property and steal their life's savings?
Yes, and?
I live in Texas, have lived in DFW before, in Richardson in fact, where this couple is from.
Messed up story? Absolutely. Failure of the system? Absolutely.
Are you listing this as an accusation against Perry? You appear to be, which makes about as much sense as blaming Bush for Katrina. Please understand, I'm not a big fan of Perry, although I'll not this state has made far worse choices in its time. But 1) I have yet to see any evidence that Perry even knew about this case, and 2) the link you posted shows the story breaking in late August, and by the 1st of September, a week later, something was being done about it and a state Senator was throwing some political pull behind them.
Compare and contrast with how the US government treats its own Inspectors General when their results are not what the rulers wanted to hear.
My complaint about Governor Perry is that he's all sizzle and no steak. He'll blather on for hours about his commitment to small government, but what has he ever actually DONE about it?
Speaking from the outside looking in, I'd rather have your Perry than my Schwarzenegger. I don't care how bad he might be in reality; he's better than most, and he's a damn sight better than mine.
Oh, I'm not from Texas. This Pennsylvanian is currently saddled with the execrable Governor McCheesesteak. Who's only saving graces appear to be that he's so ineffective that he hasn't really been able to get much of anything done during his two terms in office.
…except increase gambling.
Gambling is yet another example of how BS the Republicans are on limited government issues. If I enjoy playing poker with my buddies, I shouldn't need permission from the state to do it. Yet, Republicans (Jim Rohr, I'm looking at you) have no problem running ads where they'll say how much they believe in reducing government intrusion on individual liberty in one sentence, and in the next how if elected they'll stop the expansion of gambling.
For most Republicans, liberty is only the liberty to do what THEY want.
Sorry, that should be "Sam Rohrer, I'm looking at you". I meant the Republican candidate for Governor, not the CEO of PNC
Stormy: We don't call him Governer GoodHair for nothing.
I'll go Gov Perry one more. When I was growing up, the running joke of my folks was that back when they were kids, they were told by the grownups that children should be seldom seen and almost never heard. I think if we substitute government in the place of children, we may be on to something.
http://thehayride.com/2010/04/how-serious-are-voices-from-texas-about-leaving-the-union/
In a perfect world, he could be president of Texas. I'd be ok with that.
Regards,
Rabbit.
"Like that's gonna happen."
The Tea Party scares the hell out of the Obamanites. The evidence is a level of panic that induces them to spit venom at voters. One doesn't get into office or hold onto office by trashing the people whose votes one needs, but that's what they're doing.
Constitution Party, hell, I'm gonna start the Get Off My Lawn! Party.
Let's not confuse the Constitution Party with a party that actually means what its name implies.
Constitution Party = the constitution implements a nation of Christian conservative social orthodoxy = Epic Fail.
Citation: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Quote: {emphasis mine}
------------------
Preamble
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.
The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.
------------------
I'll have no more of that, thank you.
Amen!
SCOTUS just decided a case in which Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the 8-1 majority opinion, stated:
"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly."
That seems appropriate here, methinks.
See:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/20/scotus-invalidates-law-on-depictions-of-animal-cruelty/
"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly."
That "merely" bothers me. I'd rather they not uphold an unconstitutional statute for _any_ reason. He should have ended that sentence after "statute". I wonder what color the sky is on the world where that happens. *DONT_KNOW*
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>