Rick Perry: "Oops"

Devo

Member
Aug 16, 2003
316
0
16
Canada
Thanks for sharing your knowledge of the American political system. Now, please explain to me how Romney will be elected without the Evangelical vote in the south.

He is a Mormon, and to these far right Christians, he is one rung down the ladder from a black man. Or to put it another way, he is not even a Christian in their eyes. Obama is.

As far as Herman Cain is concerned, he will not be able to dodge the sexual harrassment issue forever. The truth will come out.
Even the beloved Joe Paterno had an issue from nine years ago finally catch up with him. Now his legacy will not be the winningest footbal coach in US college history, but his cover-up of a child preditor on his staff. You can run, but you can not hide.

Now it will be interesting to see how long it takes Nike to remove his name from the building named in his honor
. Imagine a place called the Joe Paterno Child Development Center named in his honor.

I realize that most of you have no clue what I am talking about but this is the biggest story in the US the last several days. Eight Republicans, each falling all over themselves, draws very little interest when you consider who, or what the eight are.

The fact is people are so disillusioned by the Obama disaster that they will vote for any candidate who wins the Republican nomination. There is absolutely no way that President Downgrade gets reelected. No amount of dirty politics like class warfare or race baiting will save Obama in 2012.

(For disclosure I copied the above from a previous thread)

Are you really expecting us to believe that the far right Christians (your term) will stay home on election day and allow Obama another term to destroy what is left of your once great country? Glenn Beck is a Mormon and look at his far right Christian support. By the way I reject your term "far right Christians" to some extent. In most cases your "far right Christians" are everyday hardworking, honest, family orientated people that happen to believe in God.

I will admit however that I was wrong on Herman Cain being a possible VP candidate. I believe that he came on to his accusers and there is undoubtedly a long list still out there. He never had a chance at becoming the nominee anyway.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
What part of Mormon do you not understand? It does not float in the South. Sorry.
Being considered a Muslim, doesn't tend to float any better.............in fact I'd say it's likely to sink you even quicker.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...xbS4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFpSuvZ2RTPvPHbsevZFJjFFacung


........and since the trend seems to be growing.........

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...xbS4Aw&usg=AFQjCNEljK-hs80zzYRYQpgXkTnP_hYJeg

........I'd say Obama has his work cut out for him, never mind all the rest of the shit that has hit the fan.

Plus there is this bit................

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j..._dmGAw&usg=AFQjCNEkM2PtEZwK9ZZTyQSXq7TS1KxHjw
 
Last edited:

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
It's interesting digging up some of these figures on how many Americans dislike Muslims or think Obama was not born in Hawaii. But in a way, it's irrelevant as these people were not likely part of the group that supported the President in the first place.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
It's interesting digging up some of these figures on how many Americans dislike Muslims or think Obama was not born in Hawaii. But in a way, it's irrelevant as these people were not likely part of the group that supported the President in the first place.
Except that the trend is growing, so his chances aren't getting any better. Plus, in my business I've met a few Americans that supported him originally, but are now questioning that support because they have started to believe some of this stuff.
 

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
Except that the trend is growing, so his chances aren't getting any better. Plus, in my business I've met a few Americans that supported him originally, but are now questioning that support because they have started to believe some of this stuff.
If Obama's numbers are down, it's because of the continuing economic problems. The public, though not the experts, have been surprised by how long it's taking for unemployment to come down to more normal levels, and how long the wait is for housing starts to return to average. I don't think the number of people buying the Muslim or non-American stories is increasing.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
If Obama's numbers are down, it's because of the continuing economic problems. The public, though not the experts, have been surprised by how long it's taking for unemployment to come down to more normal levels, and how long the wait is for housing starts to return to average. I don't think the number of people buying the Muslim or non-American stories is increasing.


According to the BBC link I posted above the numbers are going up, but then that may just be due to the luck of the draw.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
The fact is people are so disillusioned by the Obama disaster that they will vote for any candidate who wins the Republican nomination. There is absolutely no way that President Downgrade gets reelected. No amount of dirty politics like class warfare or race baiting will save Obama in 2012.
That is your opinion. However, in the real world opinion polls have consistently shown Obama with a 0-5 point lead over the best Republican candidate in spite of his low approval rating. The fact is that the Republican alternatives are seen as worse. People might not be enthralled with Obama but mostly they think he is a better choice.

Remember that while the Obama presidency has had to deal with the economic downturn, a big chunk of the unpopular bailouts actually started under Bush. Obama was just a candidate when the economy went south and while he lacked leadership in my opinion, the Republican candidate was shooting from the hip in a very disturbing way. I am pretty sure that if McCain was president instead of Obama the economy would hav been in a far worse position now.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Except that the trend is growing, so his chances aren't getting any better. Plus, in my business I've met a few Americans that supported him originally, but are now questioning that support because they have started to believe some of this stuff.
Anyone who believes or is starting to believe that nonsense allmost certainly did not vote for him in the first place, in spite of what they might say now.
 

DavidMR

New member
Mar 27, 2009
872
0
0
[/B]

According to the BBC link I posted above the numbers are going up, but then that may just be due to the luck of the draw.
I just reviewed your BBC link, it's from over a year ago. There might have been some increase from 2009 to 2010, ... but even so the percentages are on the fringe, 11% rising to 18%.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
They all have one thing going for them.....they are all RICH. There in lies the problem, being RICH doesn't mean your the best person for the job.
cuteangie called, said to let you know that it's "you're" not your.:D:nod:
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
Guess that's what I get for typing at 4am ....but thanks for pointing that out.
No problem, it's not like I had to start a whole new thread, "HunkaHunka: oops"

Besides, gotta protect your image.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,652
839
113
One spelling mistake and look how this thread has gone off topic :doh:

That's because of your standing in this community. It would have been expected of LAG and ITB and the like. On the other hand maybe it was just time for this thread to go off topic.:D
 

Devo

Member
Aug 16, 2003
316
0
16
Canada
That is your opinion. However, in the real world opinion polls have consistently shown Obama with a 0-5 point lead over the best Republican candidate in spite of his low approval rating. The fact is that the Republican alternatives are seen as worse. People might not be enthralled with Obama but mostly they think he is a better choice.

Remember that while the Obama presidency has had to deal with the economic downturn, a big chunk of the unpopular bailouts actually started under Bush. Obama was just a candidate when the economy went south and while he lacked leadership in my opinion, the Republican candidate was shooting from the hip in a very disturbing way. I am pretty sure that if McCain was president instead of Obama the economy would hav been in a far worse position now.
At what point do you Socialist sheep believe that Obama takes ownership of the economy? He has been the President for 3 years yet the bad economy is still George Bush's fault.

In his first 2 years Obama did absolutely nothing for the economy but ram through the disastrous healthcare plan, than no one wants, and passed a stimulus package which created zero jobs. His stimulus package was nothing but a thinly disguised vehicle to fund the already bloated public and private union pension plans.

In 2013 when the economy starts to turn around due to the leadership of the new Republican President, the Dem's will credit Obama for the groundwork that he did when in office.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,132
44
48
Montréal
At what point do you Socialist sheep believe that Obama takes ownership of the economy? He has been the President for 3 years yet the bad economy is still George Bush's fault.

In his first 2 years Obama did absolutely nothing for the economy but ram through the disastrous healthcare plan, than no one wants, and passed a stimulus package which created zero jobs. His stimulus package was nothing but a thinly disguised vehicle to fund the already bloated public and private union pension plans.

In 2013 when the economy starts to turn around due to the leadership of the new Republican President, the Dem's will credit Obama for the groundwork that he did when in office.

Well in all fairness to the guy, it's not like the Republicans were much help when he has tried to do something beneficial. I mean seriously, they've done everything in their power to block or compromise anything he's tried to do. (the whole federal debt crisis, for example) Do you really think their solutions, which seem to focus on penalizing the poorest and rewarding the richest, are going to have a magical effect on the state of the economy?

The effects of a governments decisions aren't just wiped away in a couple of years. Bush IS majorly responsible in a lot of ways but it still goes back to long before he was President. His stupid never-ending wars have not helped - but that is something Obama (and any other future president) is inheriting. That's ridiculously expensive and now anyone in power is stuck with that burden. No one else but Bush to blame for that one.

And it would be absurd to credit a new government in power that soon anyway if the economy made such a rebound - but the economy ISNT going to turn around magically or instantly with a new government, especially when social programs are cut so that rich people can pay less taxes. That is such an unrealistic expectation. It's absurd to even think that's likely to happen.


I was watching this the other night and it was pretty interesting. Not exactly what this thread is about but still good:



The richest 1% of US Americans earn nearly a quarter of the country's income and control an astonishing 40% of its wealth. Inequality in the US is more extreme than it's been in almost a century — and the gap between the super rich and the poor and middle class people has widened drastically over the last 30 years.

Meanwhile, in Washington, a bitter partisan debate over how to cut deficit spending and reduce the US' 14.3 trillion dollar debt is underway. As low and middle class wages stagnate and unemployment remains above 9%, Republicans and Democrats are tussling over whether to slash funding for the medical and retirement programs that are the backbone of the US's social safety net, and whether to raise taxes — or to cut them further.

The budget debate and the economy are the battleground on which the 2012 presidential election race will be fought. And the United States has never seemed so divided — both politically and economically.

How did the gap grow so wide, and so quickly? And how are the convictions, campaign contributions and charitable donations of the top 1% impacting the other 99% of Americans? Fault Lines investigates the gap between the rich and the rest.

This episode of Fault Lines first aired on Al Jazeera English on August 2, 2011 at 0930 GMT.


http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/faultlines/




----------------------------------------​




Anyway - As for the actual Rick Perry "oops" moment, this is what I wanted to add to this thread:

(fyi - I'm posting the whole article, just because you have to register in order to view it and I'm saving anyone who would want to read it the trouble of having to go through the annoying registration process I just had to lol)



Perry’s ‘brain freeze,’ by another name, is common ‘retrieval failure’

By Joel Achenbach, Published: November 10


It was the Hoover Dam of mental blocks. Pundits referred to it as a “brain freeze” or a “gaffe.” In Internet parlance, it was an “epic FAIL.” But to neuroscientists, what happened to Texas Gov. Rick Perry Wednesday night looked like something very ordinary, exacerbated by stress: a “retrieval failure.”

It happens more often as we age. But the brain scientists say it shouldn’t be seen as evidence of an intellectual deficit or some medical problem. Instead, they say, retrieval failures offer a glimpse into how the brain does and doesn’t work, not just in the skulls of presidential candidates but for everyone else, too.

It’s impossible to know what exactly was happening inside Perry’s head at the Republican presidential debate, and the pundit class will continue to debate whether it was a neurological hiccup or a telling sign of a candidate who doesn’t know his own policies. What’s certain is that, at a crucial moment, on stage, live on national television, Perry could not remember the name of one of the federal agencies he would like to abolish.

Once he started to flounder, he probably found himself entangled with unhelpful thoughts, suggested David Diamond, a behavioral neuroscientist at the University of South Florida. In a stressful moment like this, the mind turns to the consequences of the error, making an elegant recovery all the harder.

“Even though Rick Perry’s life was not being threatened, his brain was responding as if there was a lion in the audience about to pounce on him,” Diamond said. “He’s now got the media pouncing on him.”

The governor’s mental lapse did not occur in a vacuum. His previous debate performances have been widely panned, and he’s been sliding in the polls, fighting a perception that he’s not up to the job. He was speaking Wednesday night to an informed audience, one capable of understanding the nuances of policy. But he struggled with a talking point, opening himself to criticism that he doesn’t have the depth of knowledge expected of a presidential candidate.

It was unclear Thursday whether his candidacy could survive his blunder. But among brain scientists, at least, he’s getting a pass.

Jason Brandt, a professor of psychiatry and neurology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said that he’s a die-hard Democrat but wouldn’t hold Perry’s flub against him:

“I think it’s unfortunate that it happened in a situation of such high visibility,” he said. “Whatever you want to call it, they happen, and happen at times of high anxiety in particular.”

Such mental blocks often involve the failure to retrieve a proper noun, the experts said. A proper noun is like a label: It represents a more complex concept. Patients with recurring, pathological problems retrieving a label are said to suffer from anomia. But it’s something that happens to everyone occasionally.

It happened to Perry in a particularly brutal fashion. For the better part of a minute during the GOP debate at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich., Perry tried to come up with a word: “Energy.” It was the third word in a list of three federal agencies he says he’d close if elected president. But although he named Commerce and Education, he couldn’t quite snag that third word from wherever it was hiding in his brain.

He pointed at his own head and laughed. Another candidate suggested that he was thinking of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Perry momentarily seized on that. But moderator John Harwood asked, “Seriously? Is EPA the one you were talking about?”

Perry acknowledged that it wasn’t.

“But you can’t — but you can’t name the third one?” Harwood said.

Perry made another spirited lunge at it.

“I would do away with the Education, the Commerce and — let’s see . . .”

Retrieval failure, again.

The governor despaired.

“I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”

It would be the oops heard round the political world.

Diamond said the structure of the brain is partly to blame for a retrieval error. Language centers are not particularly close to memory centers — it’s like New Jersey trying to communicate with China.

Diamond said retrieval failures often involve new information. In Perry’s case, he’s been governor of Texas for more than a decade but has been running for president for only a few months.

“When we forget words, when we forget names, it is new information that has just not established strong links in our brain,” Diamond said.

And yes, it’s getting worse for all of us, he said — not just because some of us are getting into the more advanced age brackets, where the brain literally shrinks and the rust metaphorically builds up, but because we’re all increasingly saturated with information.

“We are doing so much now, we’re multitasking perhaps at a higher degree than ever before,” Diamond said. “We get into work, and we’re handling e-mails, we’re going to all the Web sites, we’re processing more information now than ever before. We’re asking more of our brains than evolution ever prepared us to handle. So every now and then we just drop the ball.”

MIT neuroscientist John Gabrieli stresses that a retrieval failure is due to a mental block that has to be cleared away, somehow, before you can find the word you want.

“It’s not that you can’t get there, it’s that something’s blocking that, some other idea or word has come into your head. Until you clear that other thing, it’s hard to get back to that piece of information that you really know,” Gabrieli said.

Aileen Pincusof the Washington-based Pincus Group, which coaches people on public speaking, said a good rule for speakers is to avoid lists. Even a short list, like the one that Perry tried to offer, can be a trap.

“It was self-entrapment,” she said. And when Perry failed the first time, “he started the list again.”

Brandt counsels people who worry about memory slips to relax, go on to something else and wait. The memory will resurface soon enough.

“The more you try to focus on it, the deeper your hole gets,” he said.

But that common-sense strategy — retreat, relax, wait for the systems to reboot — wasn’t an option for Perry. When he couldn’t find the word “Energy,” he couldn’t just say, “Whatever.” All he could do was twist and writhe in his deepening hole.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...eval-failure/2011/11/10/gIQAkIoq9M_story.html

I'm not exactly (like, not at all) a fan of the guy and it really doesn't make him look good at all - but I think it was just a brain fart most of us have probably experienced before. It was probably the worse possible time for it to happen to him though.....lol Oh well.
 

badbadboy

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2006
9,544
306
83
In Lust Mostly
At what point do you Socialist sheep believe that Obama takes ownership of the economy? He has been the President for 3 years yet the bad economy is still George Bush's fault.

In his first 2 years Obama did absolutely nothing for the economy but ram through the disastrous healthcare plan, than no one wants, and passed a stimulus package which created zero jobs. His stimulus package was nothing but a thinly disguised vehicle to fund the already bloated public and private union pension plans.

In 2013 when the economy starts to turn around due to the leadership of the new Republican President, the Dem's will credit Obama for the groundwork that he did when in office.
I suggest you read some history Devo. Your sense of history should not start with Geo W Bush nor Obama. It was a catastrophe waiting to happen for the past 30 years.

Start with Reagannomics and digest what the effect of his policies had upon deregulation of Wall Street and US Banks.

Then see how George Bush Sr carried on the same policies while continuing to crank up the US Defence Departments budget. Gulf War I was not just a minor incursion into the Gulf it was setting a foothold for Haliburton Corp's policies for the next two decades.

Now Clinton basking in the huge boom of the Stock Market also continued a deregulation path of Sub Primes and also supported the Hedge Markets.

Geo W Bush then carried on the same path and along the way put USA in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq costing the US $1B per day.

Now really should Obama have to carry the load of four Presidents before him? I think not.

I only like Obama because he is the first President in the past decade who can string together multiple sentences without becoming fodder for David Letterman later that same night. No Dog in the Fight but after seeing the Repugnants latest Great White Hope of Rick Perry I think Obama's chances are not too shabby.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
There are things they can do.

As far as entitlements are concerned, one thing that has to be done is to increase the age where retirement benefits kick in significantly. Get rid of most subsidies unless they are intended to produce a specific defined result (and if they don't achieve that, scrap those too).

They can reform the bureaucracy of government making it more efficient. Increase regulation where it is beneficial and decrease it where it serves no purpose (this is a major problem in places like Greece for example, where the economy is hamstrung by the the time it takes to get through all the red tape). A major problem is that there is far too many competing non-harmonized jurisdictions each with their own set of regulations which make it difficult to conduct business on a national scale.

Corporate taxes can be handled on a transaction basis. That would create a uniform tax on economic activity, which in turn will be passed on to the consumers. Don't allow companies to locate off shore. If they want to do business in the US, then require by law that a subsidiary be established to conduct that business. That way no one can get around the taxes. If they ship money offshore, and make profits on that money offshore, then those are not really your taxes to collect anyway, so ignore those.

It is very simple (allthough a lot of work) to get an economy back in a solvent position, but it will require hard political choices.
 
Vancouver Escorts