Under Governor Perry's watch

No, you just keep saying "his agenda".

What is his agenda?

It's a good thing that I didn't hold my breath waiting for your answer, isn't it? :laugh:

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly: I submit an article dated June 2011 that says there are Texas National Guardsmen on the border; and your response is "no there's not" and you provide an article from 2010 as your proof?

Anyone else see a problem here?

 

The only agenda that Free can point to is: Perry likes to win elections. If there's something else, then I invite Free or others to be candid about their views, rather than continue sounding like conspiracy whackos who have no proof of anything but insist they're right.

 

That response has no real meaning.

Give us an example.

You know if you operated with both oars in the water you wouldn't keep going in circles. :laugh:

 

Okay, now you're just being obtuse. Perry submitted a request to use National Guardsmen on a national border; the president issued an order deploying troops on that border. On the face of it, it looks like Perry got troops deployed to the border.

If you have current, relevant information that proves otherwise, please provide it.

 

As my eighth-grade English teacher used to say: "Uh, wrong!"

The state governor *must* coordinate with the federal government for international borders. The state governor cannot legally represent the entire nation in regards to an international border that affects *all* the states, not just that particular state's. So yes, the governor *does* have to make a request -- which he did, and which was subsequently granted, even though you refuse to admit it -- or face legal recourse from the federal government, just as Arizona has.

Wrong again. The situation described in your 2010 article was accurate in 2010; it's no longer accurate, because troops have been deployed to the border since that article was written.

You want to hold to your own opinion, even when shown facts to the contrary. That's your perogative, but it's intellectually dishonest.

 

I have questions about Perry's conservative credentials, but perhaps being Republican doesn't necessarily mean "conservative" anymore. I think that everyone knows that he pushed to have mandatory Gardisil injections for young school girls in Texas. It is also a fact that he supported and ran Al Gore's 88 campaign in Texas.

He appears to be Republican as a matter of convenience and he is being passed off as a tough-talking, gun-toting, tea party conservative. He is saying all the right things, but can you trust someone with his past to live up to the expectations of voters who want a genuine, unapollogetic conservative candidate to represent them?

 

Federal laws concerning the U.S. border are different for Texas than they are for other States with Federal borders?

 

You're mixing apples and oranges. You give a clear example of federal vs. state laws that affect our country only; then try to apply that example to international boundaries.

Again, you hold to your own opinion, using non-applicable examples to try to justify it. And again I say, you're being intellectually dishonest--not with us, but with yourself.

Why didn't you just start out with this? No one's going to argue this point.

I personally would have offered this as my initial premise; then pointed out that Perry could have had some strong stances like Arizona's Jan Brewer, but failed to do so, using federal law as his excuse to pander to the hispanic vote.

 

Great points, great questions. As a governor Reagan signed into law a bill that would liberalize abortion law in California. Romney used to be pro-choice and created state mandated health insurance laws.

I don't know the answer to your question of trusting these types of candidates, but I'd have to say that supporting the Democratic candidate is not an option!

 

Where did I say that?

I'm glad you finally admitted you were wrong.