Try debating in front of hundred of people and on camera in front of millions. If you are under a microscope, nobody will ever be perfect. I would rather see Perry in the White House than Obama...At least Perry loves the country. Obama is intentionally trying to destroy it.
You would be suprised about what's remembered and what's forgotten. Obama said there were 57 states. Why does everyone forget that? He also agreed with Sarkozy that Netanyahu is a liar. The reason why Americans forget or remember is because the press is telling us what to think and what to remember and the people are buying it.
Good points. I know that when I served in the military, I was a "corpsman," not a "corpseman" as Obama said.
You have no evidence that Obama is trying to do that, and in fact many of his policies are near identical to Republican policy for years and/or are considered common sense solutions. It's a fair point that everyone makes mistakes. It's not a slip of the tongue that dooms Perry, it's his sheer lack of character. His anti-gay, anti-soldier ad is nothing more than grasping at the evangelical vote as a last resort. He doesn't even seem sincere in the ad. Also, anyone that thinks Netanyahu is doing a good job is delusional. He's ruined every possible attempt at peace and insulted the United States more than once, all the while putting us all at risk by associating ourselves with him.
Already answered for you. If Perry won't stand behind soldiers who have put their lives on the line for our country simply because of their sexual orientation, then he personifies the scummy ideology that has ruined conservative ideology.
Too bad: People missed the train of the electoral college. They will be the deciders. After all Perry and Mitt have their hands on eachothers tallywackers, because the conservative establishment will elect Mitt. ISYN
And you are grossly displaying your bigotry and selfishness. If you don't like the idea of a gay serviceperson taking a bullet for you, then next time it's necessary feel free to step up and take it yourself.
I'm not saying you hunt down homos and kick them out of the service. I just think DADT is better for everyone's morale. My previous opinion remains, and I'm not a bigot nor am I selfish. I also served in the Army 1966-68, and willingly took the risks.
DADT is better for your "morale" because you feel better not having to think about gay people in the service. Our military has said repeatedly that whether someone is gay or not doesn't bother them, as long as they have their back in combat. The transition has been completely painless, with virtually no issues. I bet it hurts the hell out of gay service people's morale. We've had insanely qualified men and women kicked out for nothing other than homosexuality. How does this help advance national security? One kid had served multiple tours in Iraq, had intelligence experience, and spoke fluent Arabic. But he prefers men. Where, in that description, is he not an asset to national security? Thank you for your service.
What the military leaders have said on the surface about homosexuals is likely different than what they really feel. They have to appease the PC politicians and bleeding heart liberals like you. I have to disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.
I'm referring to anonymous surveys taken from everyday men and women in the armed forces, not what the brass say. I do agree that the generals tend to go along with politicians to help their careers along. I would still like you to specify why someone who speaks Arabic and has extensive combat experience is not a desirable national security asset simply because of his homosexuality.
He has previously praised Ron Paul and even been influenced by Ron Paul's positions on the Federal Reserve so I'd say Paul.
