Author Topic: Rick Perry $crews Texas Again! (Read 1144 times)

texasmom · « **Reply #30 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:51:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
It should be the people that buy one with there hard earned and wisely invested money.
It certainly shouldn't be the person that buys one with money stolen from taxpayers.

I don't give a flip what he buys or doesn't buy with his hard earned money after he leaves office.

But while he's in office as our Governor he'd better have at least a modest (which is what I'd call 6,400 sq ft) home... which is used for far more than laying his head down at night.

Shoot, he probably doesn't even have enough room there to fit in officials from all of the county seats.

LePaul · « **Reply #31 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:54:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
And as usual in Lepaul's world everything is all black or all white.

As is frequently the case, you are wrong. And still a liberal.

texasmom · « **Reply #32 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:01:59 AM »

Even if you're talking about the Governor of little ole New Jersey, that guy would still need probably 3500 sq ft. and a little outdoor space.

Compared to the amount of folks who would come through when you count the # of county state reps compared to that... makes 6400 sq ft sound a little small, eh?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:40:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
people here are actually defending a guy using tax payer money to rent a $10k/month house?

As stated before, way more than 3 hots and a cot.

indy007 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:58:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
I assume then you feel the President should be living in a condo and doing business out of an office building as well. Perhaps they would rent the town convention center for official functions as well. Lets not forget the state legislature. They can do their thing in an old renovated quonset hut, right?

Bad anology. The governer's mansion is fine. It's being renovated. The problem is his temporary lodging is excessively expensive.

but to run with your analogy... well, why couldn't they?

Why should government go hand in hand with ostentatious displays of wealth?

and Jackal, your example of smart gun control laws somehow justifies a 10k a month rental? huh?

I geuss you're right. It's impossible to have good government without a geust house and in-ground, heated pool.

texasmom · « **Reply #35 on:** November 06, 2007, 11:51:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by texasmom
Even I jumped to that conclusion before reading carefully instead of skimming to see what was in it...
So if I did that, I'm sure that anyone wishing to make a point against them could hurry through it & make assumptions as you did.

Dang, I did the same thing that I accused someone else of doing back in the Blackwater thread. Oops.
I guess I'll stop skimming.

rpm · « **Reply #36 on:** November 06, 2007, 11:51:57 AM »

Indy, at least somebody gets it.

I'm sure if Perry was a Democrat suddenly they would see what a collossal waste of public funds this is. BTW, I wonder who owns the house? I'm sure they aren't campaign donors of Perry's.

indy007 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 06, 2007, 12:01:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Indy, at least somebody gets it.

I'm sure if Perry was a Democrat suddenly they would see what a collossal waste of public funds this is. BTW, I wonder who owns the house? I'm sure they aren't campaign donors of Perry's.

Shhhhh! Don't tell anybody that Perry's views on gun control, one advocating freedom of carry and use, is by definition a liberal outlook.

Quote

lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Peoples brains might explode.

rpm · « **Reply #38 on:** November 06, 2007, 12:12:23 PM »

Hey, if you are going to start using the proper definition of "liberal" and "conservative" I'm getting the heck out of here! You're right, brains will explode.

john9001 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 06, 2007, 12:33:05 PM »

does that mean that the neo-cons are really "liberals"?

so who are the democrats that want to ban guns?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #40 on:** November 07, 2007, 05:08:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
And Jackal, your example of smart gun control laws somehow justifies a 10k a month rental? huh? :confused:I

The lack of and trashing stupid gun laws is worth way more than that.
The 10k rental is for the governors mansion. Try to wrap your head around this.
This is just not a place the governor goes to rack out and watch NFL and NASCAR on the big screen.
Much business is done here. Office, library, meeting place for visitors when conducting business for our state. It is not a 9 to 5 gig.
Most importantly it is a symbol for our state.
I would venture a guess that way more than 10K is pilfered a month on office supplies and such in most states.

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 07, 2007, 07:55:22 AM »

got to admit... If a politician would get rid of gun laws... I would let him live wherever he wanted on taxpayers money... I would even buy him a few hookers if he wanted...

lazs

Tiger · « **Reply #42 on:** November 07, 2007, 04:04:11 PM »

The SC governor shut down the Governor's mansion when the legislature was arguing about spending. He did business from his own private house and at the state house to show he could actually save money.

Do I expect every gov to do that, no.
Just be glad it's only 10k/month, I'm sure it could have been much higher.

As far as the toll-road. Alot of other states have done that as well. They get an upfront lump sum from whoever they sale it to. The state then does not have to maintain that road, nor do they have to pay salary/benefits for the toll workers. It's kinda like taking the lump sum when you win the lottery rather than waiting on the annual payouts.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #43 on:** November 07, 2007, 04:52:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
got to admit... If a politician would get rid of gun laws... I would let him live wherever he wanted on taxpayers money... I would even buy him a few hookers if he wanted...

lazs

Weekly stripper parties would be in order.

rpm · « **Reply #44 on:** November 07, 2007, 06:32:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tiger
As far as the toll-road. Alot of other states have done that as well. They get an upfront lump sum from whoever they sale it to. The state then does not have to maintain that road, nor do they have to pay salary/benefits for the toll workers. It's kinda like taking the lump sum when you win the lottery rather than waiting on the annual payouts.

Did they sign a non-compete agreement not to build ANY road that might allow free travel? I'm sure they didn't turn roads already completed with public funds into toll roads, either.
That's a Rick Perry original.

Seperated at birth?