RE: Another side to Perry

RE: Another side to Perry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 7:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Conflicting stories... and yet no one has said anything... just making excuses. If "making excuses" means pointing out the fact that this story has all the appearance of a manufactured Democratic hit piece, designed to take down a possible election opponent, then color me guilty. This is a great example of what I said it was, and what Stranger and Heretic have said: political innuendo and vague claims or "maybe", "could've been", "seems like" etc, etc, etc. It's first red meat for the staunchly committed lefties, then gist for the lefty bloggers and supporting media, and then for the people who are pre-disposed to take their sides. Such as you, I suspect. The goal is throw FUD around: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Read your own link, and see what it says about the "witnesses" throwing around conflicting information: Others interviewed by the Post recalled seeing the name in the 1980s and 1990s. A former ranch worker told the newspaper he believed he saw it as recently as 2008. That is the sum total of the "proof" against Perry, that I've seen so far. So, if the media had interviewed people who are willing to talk to the media, and are calling Perry a liar, you'd think that it would be front page news. Hell, it would make a reporter's reputation. He/she might even get a Pulitzer. They wouldn't ever have a problem getting a top-notch job. Yet ... yet ... we have unnamed and unknown anonymous sources (with no indication that any of them even claim anonymity due to "concerns about possible retaliation" from the Perry camp - now that would be a story!) Why this vagueness? Most likely, because it is just another political hatchet job feed to a willing media, to fan the low-burning flames of distrust about Republicans, and give (willing or unwilling) dups something to hang onto him in internet forums, water-cooler talk and backyard BBQs. For example, here you are, not only bringing it up, but claiming that anyone who doesn't immediately accept it is "making excuses". Nice. The truth is, in our political environment, Democrats must be proven guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt (even conviction in court sometimes isn't enough), while Republicans are obviously guilty if even a vague rumor is waved in their direction. Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 8:29:59 PM)
Why this vagueness? Most likely, because it is just another political hatchet job feed to a willing media, to fan the low-burning flames of distrust about Republicans, and give (willing or unwilling) dups something to hang onto him in internet forums, water-cooler talk and backyard BBQs. For example, here you are, not only bringing it up, but claiming that anyone who doesn't immediately accept it is "making excuses". Nice. The truth is, in our political environment, Democrats must be proven guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt (even conviction in court sometimes isn't enough), while Republicans are obviously guilty if even a vague rumor is waved in their direction. Lets start with this. Oh, before I do, thank you for what you posted about this being a discussion and not an argument. That exactly what I intended. As far as the vagueness, you were referring to the piece or myself? If it was the piece, it referenced back to the post. If it was me, that is deliberate. If I had come along armed with link after link, this would have quickly degenerated into a name calling fiasco. Eventually someone has to rise above that to see exactly what we are being handed as choices for candidates. I want you to look.... I want you to search. I want the truth behind this... good, bad or ugly. Dont you? Would you really want someone who could allow such a thing on his property... even after his election to governor? Im not saying he absolutely has done so. I am saying the charges have surfaced. Some who had watched Perry’s political ascent recalled their reaction to the name on the rock and their worry that it could become a political liability for Perry. “I remember the first time I went through that pasture and saw that,” said Ronnie Brooks, a retired game warden who began working in the region in 1981 and who said he guided three or four turkey shoots for Rick Perry when Perry was a state legislator between 1985 and 1990. “. . . It kind of offended me, truthfully.” Brooks, who said he holds Perry “in the highest esteem,” said that at some point after Perry began bringing lawmakers to the camp, the rock was turned over. Brooks could not recall exactly when. He said he did not know who turned the rock over. http://news.yahoo.com/wait-rick-perrys-hunting-camp-called-145810272.html The information is out there. Why does it always have to fall to one side or the other to find the truth? Shouldnt we all be looking for the truth?

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 8:37:57 PM)
quote: Yet ... yet ... we have unnamed and unknown anonymous sources (with no indication that any of them even claim anonymity due to "concerns about possible retaliation" from the Perry camp - now that would be a story!) Another local who visited the property with Perry and the legislators in those years recalled seeing the rock with the name clearly visible. “I thought, ‘This is going to embarrass Rick some day,’ ” said this person, who did not want to be named, fearing negative consequences from speaking on the subject Seems that claim has been made. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/02/why-rick-perrys-racist-hunting-camp-sign-matters/?feed=rss_home However, also stated in the Forbes artile are these gems... Either way, this is hardly damning evidence that Rick Perry had anything to do with or in any way supported the racist name of the camp which was named years before he or his family had anything to do with it. Like Doug Mataconis, I’m no Perry fan but “this story strikes me as much ado about nothing.” Im not so sure its much ado about nothing.... but it does strike me as a minor blip... provided he didnt lie. And this one... my favorite... Rick Perry may indeed be innocent of the “Niggerhead” sign at his family’s hunting camp, but that sign has deeper implications about where we are and where we’ve been as a nation. That we have a black president finally in the White House is a historical achievement that is nothing short of astonishing. Whether or not you take Herman Cain seriously as a candidate, it’s similarly remarkable that one of the conservative front-runners in the GOP race is also black. We’re a long, long ways from eradicating racism in this country, but at least we have replaced the signs that say “Niggerhead” with signs that say “Barack Obama 2012″ and “Herman Cain 2012.” It’s a step forward anyways, if only a small one.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 8:38:58 PM)
Thankfully the site has that word blocked out automatically!

popeye1250 -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 9:02:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I would agree.... if there werent others contesting his time line. Perhaps. I've not seen anything else that contradicts his, although admittedly, I've not looked. I have no doubt that after the "racist" meme is fully explored, they'll start working on "how dumb" he is, and then either a criminal or corrupt. Those are the three favorite attack memes of the left: racist, stupid, corrupt or criminal. I expect to see those accusations and not-so-veiled stories and comments about any Republican that challenges the liberal left, and fully explored by their fellow-travels in the media. Firm Firm, you forgot "war criminal" they like that one too! "Racist" is kind of wearing out, it was used too much and has no effect anymore. As for Perry as long as he didn't paint the dirty word on the rock then there's nothing to say is there? Just the lefties and their press trying to create some bad press for him. "Ohhh! Ohhh! OHHHH!" Bad Man that Perry! He stayed at a hunting lodge that had a bad word painted on a rock!" I'd like to see the lefties try to attack Mitt Romney! Lol, he doesn't even drink coffee! He's a fuckin' Eagle Scout for God's sake! Lefties; "That BASTARD used the wrong spoon at dinner!" "That's unforgivable!" And,.....he doesn't have a "good" haircut, he has a BAD haircut!" "Yeah! yeah! A BAD haircut!" "And he only pays his barber $50 for a haircut, Clinton paid $200 and,.....didn't back up too many planes at the airport!" "Yeah! Yeah! "CHEAP BASTARD!!!" I wouldn't vote for Perry either.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 9:19:47 PM)
quote: He stayed at a hunting lodge that had a bad word painted on a rock!" No, he owned that lodge.

TheHeretic -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl No, he owned that lodge. Your links say his family leased the place, and Perry's name went onto the lease later, Tazzy.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:12:51 PM)
tazzy, I was referring to the "vagueness" of the reports, not you. I have no problem with you, and if you received offense, I apologize. You got me on that Forbes piece and the claim of concern about repercussions. However, I did not see that in the original Washington Post article (from which Forbes sources the words) when I first read it, and now the Post website wants me to register to reload it again, so I can't go back and reread it. The reason that I tried to reload is that when I did look for reports about this, ALL of the links to articles and other stories about it referenced and quoted the Post article as the only source, so I wanted to see if I simply missed it, or it was something added or that came from other reporting. Perhaps it will let me load it again tomorrow, or the next day. As of tonight, the Post article appears to be the only "other information out there" ... and it is vague and nebulous. The Post is owned by the NYT, and is not exactly been known as a "conservative" or "Republican friendly" source of news and information. Many of the hit pieces over the years on them have originated from these sources. Does that mean that Perry is completely faultless? I have no way to know. But now, doubt has been introduced. Again I ask you ... if there is solid evidence that Perry harbors racist sentiments, and the Post reporters and editors had discovered this ... wouldn't good journalism dictate that they thoroughly investigate it, and get something more than rumor and innuendo? Isn't getting "the facts" what the media is suppose to do, especially this most influential DC paper? Do they not have a moral duty and obligation to get those facts down cold before they publish such things and damage a major political figure? And if they have those facts cold, then don't they then have the duty and obligation to publish them, so as to remove a possible contender from the American political scene? If they do ... why publish early, with unnamed sources? My personal suspicion is because someone decided that they could hurt Perry, and not have to defend their "facts" ... "Hey, we heard ... we were told ... no one wanted to go on the record ...". A political hatchet job, in other words. Not "investigative reporting" at all. Now, a couple of things will likely happen over the next few days: 1. Nothing more incriminating will be found. Perhaps just different people being quoted as saying "I think ... I seem to remember ..." but no "go to court and swear on a stack of bibles" testimony. Then the story will die down, except where Democrats can resurrect the "doubt" and "indications" of "possible racism" to their advantage over the rest of the election cycle. We'll hear about it ad nauseum from people like fargle, or Brain if he were still around ... it won't go away from public consciousness until Perry is no longer a public figure. Even then, when "doubt" arises about another Republican figure, it will be said "Hey, remember Perry?" thereby continuing to feed the Democratic meme that "all Republicans are racists". 2. Some "new" indication of racism will be found, along the same lines of "proof" (read, more FUD). Then, all of a sudden, we have "too many indications" that he is a racist. Every law he signed or campaigned for will be vetted in detail about every possible secondary, tertiary, and xxx-ary possibility that some "racism" will be "exposed". Some high school buddy will "remember" the time that he used the "n" word sometime or the other. Hell, you might even see Parry declaring that he's not a racist, but he apologizes for something that may have given anyone that thought (he's lost, then). Could Perry be a racist, or perhaps less than loving of some group of people? I dunno. It's possible. (and that admission right there is a perfect example of the damage that was intended to his political chances). However, just based on history and past tactics of the "liberal" or Democrat personal attack machine ... I suspect that this is nothing more than an early attempt to damage him for purely political reasons. Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:14:19 PM)
Leased.. owned... honestly, the land was under his control during the years he was on the paperwork. Popeye made it sound like he was a guest at some hunting resort. As far as the time line... depending on who is telling the truth... has yet to be determined.

StrangerThan -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:18:54 PM)
I'm trying to figure out what it would take for there to be a truth that would satisfy. If Perry is correct, you're talking about an action that occurred almost 30 years ago. Put yourself in the same situation. You would see the rock, and remove the word, paint it over, turn it over, whatever. What then? I mean, would you register the fact somewhere? Invite a party of people over to watch you do it? Go out and give an interview stating what you'd done? Any and all of those mean nothing if someone turned it back over at some point, or if the paint faded enough to read the word. Seriously. I'm looking for what proof might exist other than finding someone who will testify to it not being turned over, that it was never turned over, and that it was never painted over. The fact that he owned the land doesn't mean he stayed there all the time, or lived there. It is apparent from the story that the rock was well known in the area as it was the local name for the area. In my mind, seeing it at some point, isn't a smoking gun. If you want one, it's that he never did any of the things he claimed he did.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Leased.. owned... honestly, the land was under his control during the years he was on the paperwork. Popeye made it sound like he was a guest at some hunting resort. As far as the time line... depending on who is telling the truth... has yet to be determined. Ownership: I do not know the exact ownership of the hunting ranch, but I am familiar with how some of them are done. Basically, they are joint endeavors, in which a consortium owns the land, and if you wish to hunt on them, you have to "buy into" the consortium in some manner. A lease would be one such method. Generally the owning consortium really controls the property and enforces the rules, and cares for the property and any facilities. In other words, if this is how it was done, Perry's family weren't responsible quite the way you may believe. Basically, he would be a "guest" of the consortium. Truth: Again, I notice how you are more willing to consider him "guilty" than you are to consider him "innocent". Perhaps it is the reverse of my biases: you assume since he's a Republican, he must be the one lying, while I assume that it's a hatchet job because he is a Republican? Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:35:51 PM)
quote: I was referring to the "vagueness" of the reports, not you. I have no problem with you, and if you received offense, I apologize. No offence taken Firm. I owned up to my own deliberate vagueness on this issue. [:D] As far as other sources.... http://news.yahoo.com/row-over-perry-hunting-lodge-racist-name-184942271.html There are many coming out. According to the yahoo link, Sharpton ( small wonder there huh) and Cain are both coming out against him. I believe thats a bit premature. Sharpton is hardly a voice to be heard on this issue after his past actions... and Cain, well, he is running against Perry, I would expect nothing less. Veteran civil rights campaigner Al Sharpton also slammed Perry, telling the Politico news website: "How can someone who would seek the highest office in the land be so insensitive to the implications of that name?" The campaign office for Perry, who leads the current crop of Republican candidates, issued an angry rebuttal. "The word written by others long ago is insensitive and offensive. That is why the Perrys took quick action to cover and obscure it," spokesman Ray Sullivan said in a statement. "The Perrys did not own, name or control the property, they simply rented hunting rights to 1,000 acres of the ranch." Sullivan insisted the Perry family had taken "quick action to eliminate the word." But the Post said that as recently as this summer the word was still faintly visible under a coat of white paint and cited several witnesses as saying it was clearly visible at different points in the 1980s and 1990s. The 1,070-acre parcel of land, used for hunting and fishing retreats, was the venue of getaways hosted for years by Perry, who entertained fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters there as he launched his political career. Perry said he had hunted at the property, not far from his boyhood home in Paint Creek, about 90 miles (145 kilometers) west of Fort Worth, about a dozen times between 1983 and 2006, the report said. http://news.yahoo.com/row-over-perry-hunting-lodge-racist-name-184942271.html Can you see why I asked if this was fact or fiction? quote: Again I ask you ... if there is solid evidence that Perry harbors racist sentiments, and the Post reporters and editors had discovered this ... wouldn't good journalism dictate that they thoroughly investigate it, and get something more than rumor and innuendo? Isn't getting "the facts" what the media is suppose to do, especially this most influential DC paper? When it comes to politics these days, do any of them bother to fully investigate? I say no, leaving it up to the reader to make a snap decision over the morning coffee or juice. quote: Do they not have a moral duty and obligation to get those facts down cold before they publish such things and damage a major political figure? And if they have those facts cold, then don't they then have the duty and obligation to publish them, so as to remove a possible contender from the American political scene? I agree, cold facts should always be published. Are memories "cold facts"? Or something to be discounted quickly? quote: Could Perry be a racist, or perhaps less than loving of some group of people? I dunno. It's possible. (and that admission right there is a perfect example of the damage that was intended to his political chances). However, just based on history and past tactics of the "liberal" or Democrat personal attack machine ... I suspect that this is nothing more than an early attempt to damage him for purely political reasons. And thats part of the fact or fiction. Is he? Seems like if he was, we would have heard something before this. I would be interested in knowing how they got tipped off on this story to begin with. Could Perry's career end right now? Possibly... not too many people want to vote for a racist.... the question remains Is he? Perry aides sought Sunday to burnish his credentials on civil rights and racial awareness, saying he had a long record of inclusiveness and noting that he had appointed the first African American head of the Texas Supreme Court. But Sharpton said the issue would hurt Perry. "Even though he’s running in a party whose primary [does] not have a substantial African-American vote, the average American does not want to be identified with such racial insensitivity," Sharpton said. As much as I dislike Sharpton, he does have a point. Perry is being tainted by this regardless of his guilt or innocence. I went back and found the original Post story This story is based on interviews with more than two dozen people, including residents, hunters, ranchers, government officials and others who live in Haskell County, where Perry’s boyhood home of Paint Creek is found; in neighboring Throckmorton County, where the hunting camp is located; and elsewhere in Texas. Ray Perry did not respond to numerous attempts to reach him for comment. The campaign declined a request to make him available. Most of those interviewed requested anonymity because they fear being ostracized or other repercussions in their small community. Some are supporters of Perry, whose parents still live in Paint Creek. Others, both Democrats and Republicans, are not. Several spoke matter-of-factly about the hunting camp and its name and wondered why it held any outside interest. Of those interviewed, the seven who said they saw the rock said the block-lettered name was clearly visible at different points in the 1980s and 1990s. One, a former worker on the ranch, believes he saw it as recently as 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rick-perry-familys-hunting-camp-still-known-to-many-by-old-racially-charged-name/2011/10/01/gIQAOhY5DL_print.html

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Leased.. owned... honestly, the land was under his control during the years he was on the paperwork. Popeye made it sound like he was a guest at some hunting resort. As far as the time line... depending on who is telling the truth... has yet to be determined. Ownership: I do not know the exact ownership of the hunting ranch, but I am familiar with how some of them are done. Basically, they are joint endeavors, in which a consortium owns the land, and if you wish to hunt on them, you have to "buy into" the consortium in some manner. A lease would be one such method. Generally the owning consortium really controls the property and enforces the rules, and cares for the property and any facilities. In other words, if this is how it was done, Perry's family weren't responsible quite the way you may believe. Basically, he would be a "guest" of the consortium. Truth: Again, I notice how you are more willing to consider him "guilty" than you are to consider him "innocent". Perhaps it is the reverse of my biases: you assume since he's a Republican, he must be the one lying, while I assume that it's a hatchet job because he is a Republican? Firm Im willing to give him a benefit of a doubt, Firm. As far as ownership, if what you state is true, then they had no legal right to paint over the rock to begin with. Since a law had been passed to rename such things, they should have reported the offensive name to the authorities, no?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:52:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I was referring to the "vagueness" of the reports, not you. I have no problem with you, and if you received offense, I apologize. No offence taken Firm. I owned up to my own deliberate vagueness on this issue. [:D] As far as other sources.... http://news.yahoo.com/row-over-perry-hunting-lodge-racist-name-184942271.html There are many coming out. tazzy, Lots to respond to, and I'm heading off to bed again, and can't give you justice. But I did wish to make an observation about the point above. There is still no new reporting. There are no new facts. This story and the others I saw are all in reaction to, and quote the facts in the Post story. In other words, it's talking heads, not more facts about whether or not the rock was painted, turned over, or worshiped by the Perry's. Firm

tazzygirl -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 10:55:52 PM)
lol... I hardly doubt it was worshiped Firm. But to discount what is being said because it came from one side or the other is like hiding under that rock. [;)] And bed sounds like a delightful idea. Good night

DomKen -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 11:07:36 PM)
It was a word painted on a rock. I'm betting, having grown up in the rural south of that era, that not much thought was given to it by the white men who used the camp for hunting beyond maybe some snickering when they used the name so as to have a legitimate excuse to use the word that had become essentially taboo. Perry or his father did at some point paint over the name, even if they did a bad job of it, which they should get some credit for. I think a real racist would have never covered over the name until he considered running for national office and would be defending the name in much the same way bigots defend the "rebel" flag. In short I simply don't see much here indicative of anything more than a place with an unfortunate name associated with a candidate. I'd pay more attention to his cavalier attitude toward capital punishment and the unraveling of his claims about the Texas economy.

Endivius -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/2/2011 11:37:47 PM)
I do not know for certain that Perry is corrupt or not. He has been seen several times meeting with foreign nationals and buissiness people behind closed doors. However, without knowing exactly what was discussed, there is no way to know if he voilated the Logan Act; let alone to prove such a violation occured. I would not however, be surprised if he has.

farglebargle -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/3/2011 5:58:29 AM)
This is a great way for Perry to deflect criticism for going out of his way to ensure the execution of an innocent person...

imperatrixx -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/3/2011 6:12:53 AM)
-FR- I seriously don't care. There are five and a half thousand reasons not to vote for Rick Perry, if the media tries to turn this into one it's an insult to any intelligent voter who cares more about his stance on issues than whether his family immediately whitewashed an archaic racial slur on their property. Seriously.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Another side to Perry (10/3/2011 7:57:37 AM)
A rock that was painted over and the paint subsequently weathered exposing an underlying layer of decades old paint with an offensive word on it. Why don't people attack Perry because he is scientifically illiterate? Why don't they attack him on the issues? Why don't they attack him because he has sold his soul to the religious right? What was he supposed to do with the rock? Drill a hole in it, blow it up with nitro, sandblast and bury all the pieces? I put Perry just above Bachman and below Palin on the dumbass scale but seriously, tempest, meet teapot.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625