False. He never made any such promise.

Oh my goodness. Aren't those silly people just so amusing?

Perry's stubbornness coupled with his general ignorance and right wing christian leanings is a very very scary combination. He possesses the 2 most dangerous things a person in his position can have and that is ignorance and arrogance. He is too ignorant to know and too arrogant to ask.

scarier is the thought of what we could end up with if the right wing religous loons mobilize enough thinking this guy will do duty for them.

"his right wing christian leanings"--anybody that buys that old ANGLE is stupid enough to wait up on santa claus on christmas eve.

you need to view the old frontline epesode about BushII and lee Atwater- its just an angle th get the loons, nothing more.
bush takes a walk one day with Billy Grahm and is suddenly saved and --sure,














Ubetcha.

really? Here's a link whose last sentence reads "And so we rule the statement by Cantor — and other Republicans who have said the same thing — Barely True." (with regards to this statement: "We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed).")

Eric Cantor on Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 in a PBS interview.

I do not know about the objectivity of the link, but barely true is more true than "false".

Political premisses. Texas style.

Whiskey
In 1952, Armon M. Sweat, Jr., a member of the Texas House of Representatives, was asked about his position on whiskey. What follows is his exact answer (taken from the Political Archives of Texas).

"If you mean whiskey, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being.

However, if by whiskey you mean the lubricant of conversation, the philosophic juice, the elixir of life, the liquid that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into Texas treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it.

This is my position and, as always, I refuse to compromise on matters of principle"

I stand corrected -- 8%.

To make the case for a big stimulus package, they released their economic forecast for the next few years. Without the stimulus, they saw the unemployment rate -- then 7.2 percent -- rising above 8 percent in 2009 and peaking at 9 percent next year. With the stimulus, the advisers said, unemployment would probably peak at 8 percent late this year. NYT

Pretty much, yeah.

Not Texas. It was Mississippi.

i am amused that you wish to justify rick perry's prevarication by claiming that, well, "everyone does it".

and yet, you claim to be a moralist, and a christian who believes in the platonic ideals?

fail.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

I wasn't referring to the percentage figure you cited. The more significant error in your previous post was your claim that Obama promised that unemployment would not rise above a certain amount. Obama never made any such promise.Right. So, you concede that your previous claim was false. He never made a promise on that point. The administration made a projection which they later conceded was incorrect because the economy was even weaker than they thought when the did their analysis.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/george-will/will-obama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/

In fact, economists now say that the economy was even worse than that: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNivTjr852TI

Your post was not only false with respect to Obama's supposed promise, it missed the point from an economic standpoint. The relevant question is not the precise percentage of unemployment, but rather the direction the economy moved as a result of Obama's policies. IMHO, he moved the economy in the right direction. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

AFAIK, the part about Obama's supposed promise on unemployment was the only factually false part of your previous post. Some other parts of your post were merely silly, such as the suggestion that Obama is to blame for not working across the aisle and not changing the tone in Washington. All things considered, Obama is doing quite well, given the obstruction he has faced from the GOP.

They have changed their rating from "Barely True" to "Mostly False":I don't know what they mean by "mostly." If you read what the administration said, it simply was not a promise. Here's the report: http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Job_Impact_of_the_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan.pdf

It says, among other things:No promises there. Maybe there is a promise somewhere else, but I have not seen it.

Oooohhhhh, his administration does not represent him. Got it.

I hope he has more obstruction, not less. His promiscuous spending combined with Bush's is driving this nation into a debt death spiral. More gridlock, please.

Apparently you don't got it. Of course his administration represents him. I'm not sure why you thought I said anything to the contrary. The issue we were discussing was whether President Obama honors his commitments. It was in connection with Yak's comment that, "Perry says what he needs to say to get elected." You replied to Yak with a string of GOP talking points about commitments Obama supposedly made and then failed to fulfill. Included in your reply was the accusation that Obama promised to keep unemployment below a certain level if he got his spending bills passed. Obama never made any such promise and, AFAIK, he followed through on what he said he would do on that issue. Unfortunately, his projections were wrong, but it has nothing to do with saying "what he needs to say to get elected."