I like Rick Perry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another hypocritical, religious zealot *bag who's not too bright.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html

Still waiting on Obama's college transcripts. Funny how those are still top secret with his transparency pledge.

I like Perry, I need to see more of him though.

Why should he release them? He was the president of the Harvard Law Review, though. For the benefit of folks who never graduated from high school, that's kind of a big deal. Of course, maybe he used his "family connections" at Harvard to pull some strings. Heh.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

Yeah, they don't give out that Harvard Law Review thing for perfect attendance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, you'll remember that in the recent 2000s BSG, Richard Hatch played Zarek, "a charismatic and philosophical populist political leader." Actor Richard Hatch has stated that Zarek ran for office because "he's always looking for positions where he can leverage himself, where he can have more influence. He obviously believes that he's fighting for the people, but very much so often the idealistic revolutionary becomes the self-serving politician. So often, what you think is for the people ends up being for you. I think that happens to so many political leaders. They start out for beneficial reasons but they get caught up in the process for their own purposes and agendas."

He was eventually executed by firing squad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Zarek

So, there's a happy ending?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THAT'S what has become of Richard Hatch?

from this?
http://www.nndb.com/people/731/000024659/Richard_Hatch.jpg



If a candidate looked like a young Hatch, I think he'd have my vote!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former Democrat, Al Gores Texas Campaign Manager, moderate stance on immigration. I can take or leave his stance on abortion. He's a leader, doesn't hide and cower like our current president. Dude shot a coyote that tried to attack him on his morning run, Obama can't run he smokes too much. Great record in Texas, and to top it off it wouldn't hurt having some eye candy in the WH for the next 4-8 yrs.

Sure, I don't see why it would be surprising that Rick Perry might have "supporters". There are religious zealots. There are far-right economic illiterates. As Summers was reported to have said, "There are idiots. Look around."

As far as "eye candy", there are lots of old ladies and sexually frustrated middle-aged women who like that sort of thing I suppose. Frankly, I'm not really attracted to the late-middle-aged Apollo-from-Battlestar-Galactica look, but different strokes for different folks:

Richard Hatch...


...Richard Parry...


...separated at birth.

Yes, the eye candy in the second BSG was heavily weighted towards women. Tricia Helfer, Grace Park . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The resaon Perry is more attractive than Obama is has nothign to do with race, Obama looks like flat stanley in a suit Perry has some sort of shape to fill out a suit and looks good in one.

Obama:



Perry:



Wow. Perry looks like a gorilla who got a facial. Would love to see how his abs stack up next to Obama's. Heh heh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another hypocritical, religious zealot *bag who's not too bright.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html

Still waiting on Obama's college transcripts. Funny how those are still top secret with his transparency pledge.

I like Perry, I need to see more of him though.

Why should he release them? He was the president of the Harvard Law Review, though. For the benefit of folks who never graduated from high school, that's kind of a big deal. Of course, maybe he used his "family connections" at Harvard to pull some strings. Heh.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/09/barack-obama-ha.html

Yeah, they don't give out that Harvard Law Review thing for perfect attendance.

The Harvard Law Review has racial quotas. Becoming editor is about already being on the Review and being liked, in part.

[Anonymous]

The Harvard Law Review has racial quotas. Becoming editor is about already being on the Review and being liked, in part.

Really? I don't suppose you'd care to provide some support for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Harvard Law Review has racial quotas. Becoming editor is about already being on the Review and being liked, in part.

Really? I don't suppose you'd care to provide some support for that?

Yeah, half my friends went to Harvard Law. A lot of the top law reviews have spots for women and minorities. Chicago Law is the main one I can think of that doesn't.

To be editor, you have to be on law review already, probably obvious, and be voted editor by the outgoing board. Personalty plays into this, of course. They don't' ask for a transcript.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Harvard Law Review has racial quotas. Becoming editor is about already being on the Review and being liked, in part.

Really? I don't suppose you'd care to provide some support for that?

Yeah, half my friends went to Harvard Law. A lot of the top law reviews have spots for women and minorities. Chicago Law is the main one I can think of that doesn't.

To be editor, you have to be on law review already, probably obvious, and be voted editor by the outgoing board. Personalty plays into this, of course. They don't' ask for a transcript.

And I should add, that doesn't mean it's not an honor. It just means it's not about grades or even necessarily how smart you are, which is what one of the PPs was suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Harvard Law Review has racial quotas. Becoming editor is about already being on the Review and being liked, in part.

Really? I don't suppose you'd care to provide some support for that?

Yeah, half my friends went to Harvard Law. A lot of the top law reviews have spots for women and minorities. Chicago Law is the main one I can think of that doesn't.

To be editor, you have to be on law review already, probably obvious, and be voted editor by the outgoing board. Personalty plays into this, of course. They don't' ask for a transcript.

"Half my friends" is now a reliable source of information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Harvard Law Review has racial quotas. Becoming editor is about already being on the Review and being liked, in part.

Really? I don't suppose you'd care to provide some support for that?

Yeah, half my friends went to Harvard Law. A lot of the top law reviews have spots for women and minorities. Chicago Law is the main one I can think of that doesn't.

To be editor, you have to be on law review already, probably obvious, and be voted editor by the outgoing board. Personalty plays into this, of course. They don't' ask for a transcript.

"Half my friends" is now a reliable source of information?

No, of course not. The problem is that the law reviews don't publish these policies online for all to see.
But, seriously, ask a friend who was on the Review about the process for picking new members; they take race and sex into account in some way, although it differs a little from year to year. There are news articles about how that era started at the Review by a controversial vote some time before Obama started law school.

[Anonymous]

10 things Rick Perry doesn't want you to know about him:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/241830/top-10-thing-texas-gov-rick-perry/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dude got a "D" in something called "Feeds and Feeding" as well as "Writing for Professional Men." I"m also not sure I want someone who got a D in Economics responsible for the economy.

Wonder what Obama got. Hell I wonder what Tim Geitner got. But no such luck. If they were so good wouldn't he just reveal them?

This is like when everyone assumed Kerry was much "smarter" than Bush. In the reveal it turned out their grades were basically the same with Bush a tad higher.

I bet Obama's grades sucked. Which for me isn't a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10 things Rick Perry doesn't want you to know about him:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/10/241830/top-10-thing-texas-gov-rick-perry/

It makes me laugh when the lefties gets their panties all in a wad over a guy who entered the race yesterday.
He isn't even the nominee and the race is 15 months out.

Good job!

[Anonymous]

No, of course not. The problem is that the law reviews don't publish these policies online for all to see.But, seriously, ask a friend who was on the Review about the process for picking new members; they take race and sex into account in some way, although it differs a little from year to year. There are news articles about how that era started at the Review by a controversial vote some time before Obama started law school.

Except when they do . . .

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/hlr_477.php

(Seriously, that Google thing you've heard so much about? It works.)

So it appears that membership in the Harvard Law Review does not take race and sex into account. Despite what half your friends say. It does appear that, after they choose 34 editors from competitive processes, other editors are selected on a discretionary basis, that they may take diversity into account in those selections. So I'm sure that Obama couldn't have POSSIBLY been selected to the editorial board based on the competitive process, right? That's what I thought. But regardless, he still had to do the competition to get on to the HLR int eh first place. Unless there's also some conspiracy there . . . ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, of course not. The problem is that the law reviews don't publish these policies online for all to see.But, seriously, ask a friend who was on the Review about the process for picking new members; they take race and sex into account in some way, although it differs a little from year to year. There are news articles about how that era started at the Review by a controversial vote some time before Obama started law school.

Except when they do . . .

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/hlr_477.php

(Seriously, that Google thing you've heard so much about? It works.)

So it appears that membership in the Harvard Law Review does not take race and sex into account. Despite what half your friends say. It does appear that, after they choose 34 editors from competitive processes, other editors are selected on a discretionary basis, that they may take diversity into account in those selections. So I'm sure that Obama couldn't have POSSIBLY been selected to the editorial board based on the competitive process, right? That's what I thought. But regardless, he still had to do the competition to get on to the HLR int eh first place. Unless there's also some conspiracy there . . . ?

You are really naive. Yes, the put "a" policy online, as do all the law reviews.

And I was talking about getting on to law review in the first place. If you re-read, you'll see that I didn't talk about race as part of the editorship selection, I was only talking about getting on. Like most law reviews, you can "grade" onto the HLR or you can "write on" with some "discretion". Go find someone who was on a HLR board and ask them if race/sex is ever part of the process for getting on to law review in the first place.

Or just ask anyone who was on a top law review board, because the reviews talk to one another about how they do things.