This guy wants to be president?!

[Lucid]

If you want to change the context of the word "citizen" to mean how it is defined in the constitution you can, but legally, pragmatically, and even technically by contemporary standards there are far more citizens than not.

 

[GNBRETT]

hes polling right along with bachman so does anyone really think he has a chance in hell? he is one of the worst debaters in political history. if u cant debate u have ZERO chance of being POTUS.

 

[Schexy1]

Has the definition of citizen changed? Legally no, contemporary standards yes. So, is it the tax code or the standard that is bad?

 

[Vnaik]

G Dub Senior & Junior set the bar for the Texas crew

 

[Lucid]

Has the definition of citizen changed? Legally no, contemporary standards yes. So, is it the tax code or the standard that is bad?

You're trying to have two debates here. We started out talking about the tax reform, not citizenship. While the two are related, they aren't in a significant way in the context of this discussion.

 

[Schexy1]

You're trying to have two debates here. We started out talking about the tax reform, not citizenship. While the two are related, they aren't in a significant way in the context of this discussion.

My point is we have a tax system that for all practical purposes should work because it is income and consumption based. But, because it is not being administered correctly due to greed, ignorance and a host of other reasons, we keep adjusting it making it unfair to one group or another and eventually to all. Before we tweek or reform, we need to get the administration part right first.

So, all of the people who are complaining about taxes being unfair and in need of reform should see if they are supposed to pay taxes first.

 

[skydivr]

It's kind of difficult to listen to those 'who doth protest mightily" about taxes being unfair are those who aren't paying any in the first place...

 

[Warchild]

You're trying to have two debates here. We started out talking about the tax reform, not citizenship.

Well, no.... not really. We started out by discussing what a fookin' religious nutcase Rick Perry has demonstrated himself to be.

And the question was posed: does this country need a religious zealot in the White House? One who, by his actions and speech, clearly does not believe in the separation of church and state?

Here's a couple telling passages from the OP's original article:

To Jews, Muslims, non-believers and even many Christians, the Biblical bully that is Rick Perry must sound downright menacing, particularly when he gets into religious absolutism. “As a nation, we must call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles,â€￾ he said last week.

Fook me to tears..... YGTBSM with this tripe!

Just look at this above pic..... slap a towel on his head and sheet over his suit/tie, and this guy could be any Middle East ayatollah 'Tard spouting off the same religious chantings on how their very own (regional) Imaginary Friend is going to fix things for them..... whether it be stopping wars, feeding the poor, or bring rain to the drought area.

Extremism - in all forms: political, economic, religious, secular, etc, etc - all are a prescription for eventual trouble.

As a lone citizen, he’s free to advocate Jesus-driven public policy imperatives. But coming from someone who wants to govern this great mess of a country with all its beliefs, Perry’s language is an insult to the founding principles of the republic. Substitute Allah or a Hindu God for Jesus and see how that polls.

Exactly.