Rick Perry - Handicapping the GOP Hopefuls

[martybegan]

You don't get to decide how I see an issue. My issue is with process and the constitution, and progressives constant rape of it to get what they want. Personally I think women who have abortions for purposes of birth control correction (and the men who go along with it) are awful people, however to me the government should not get too involved in it. However, I don't see how there is a right to it enshrined in the constitution. So if Alabama wants to ban it, good for them.

Well, why are they awful people if you don't see a fetus as a person?

Is a fetus more of a person in Alabama than he is in New York?

Is the fetus who was conceived in a rape less of a person than the one who was conceived during a one-night stand?

And here's the logical trap you get caught in. You can't whine about the "process" if you don't have an underlying reason why you think it is wrong.

but the reality- the people who run your party don't want to ban abortion. They just want to keep stupid rubes like you angry about it so you keep voting for guys who are "Right with Jesus" and work to dismantle your middle class lifestyle.

Most of them don't want to ban it, they want to return the issue to the state.

Why do I have to see a fetus as a 100% person to not like abortion?

And there is nothing wrong about complaining about the process not being followed even if you don't agree with the end result. Its a respect for the law, regardless of ones personal feelings or desires. I know its an alien concept for progressives, who only see the end result and don't care how they get there.

 

[JoeB131]

Most of them don't want to ban it, they want to return the issue to the state.

Yes, usually when you can't win an issue nationally, you want to return it to 'the states" where you think you can get your way on something. Because the Founding Slave Rapists said so.

Why do I have to see a fetus as a 100% person to not like abortion?

If a fetus isn't a person, what's wrong with Abortion? If it is a person, then you should be against all exceptions. there's really not a middle ground.

And there is nothing wrong about complaining about the process not being followed even if you don't agree with the end result. Its a respect for the law, regardless of ones personal feelings or desires. I know its an alien concept for progressives, who only see the end result and don't care how they get there.

The process SHOULD have been "Yeah, let's overturn these archaic laws, they don't make sense." That process didn't happen, so we found a process that did.

Me, I don't look at the world as 'We shouldn't do something really important because 200 years ago, a bunch of assholes who raped their slaves and didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes didn't address the issue."

 

[Toro]

Which is the ironic part? That raping and killing aren't bad? Perhaps I missed it. But it certainly wasn't the hanging CEOs part. You've been very clear and non-humorous about that.

Oh, no, I htink that would be fucking hilarious. The most famous last words I'd like to hear, "You can't do this to me, I'm rich!!!"

I'm sure you would.

But since there is 0% of that happening, they'll still be rich and you'll still be bitter.

 

[martybegan]

Most of them don't want to ban it, they want to return the issue to the state.

Yes, usually when you can't win an issue nationally, you want to return it to 'the states" where you think you can get your way on something. Because the Founding Slave Rapists said so.

Why do I have to see a fetus as a 100% person to not like abortion?

If a fetus isn't a person, what's wrong with Abortion? If it is a person, then you should be against all exceptions. there's really not a middle ground.

And there is nothing wrong about complaining about the process not being followed even if you don't agree with the end result. Its a respect for the law, regardless of ones personal feelings or desires. I know its an alien concept for progressives, who only see the end result and don't care how they get there.

The process SHOULD have been "Yeah, let's overturn these archaic laws, they don't make sense." That process didn't happen, so we found a process that did.

Me, I don't look at the world as 'We shouldn't do something really important because 200 years ago, a bunch of assholes who raped their slaves and didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes didn't address the issue."

You didn't find a process that did, you destroyed the process that existed, and found people willing to ruin the constitution to get what you want.

They gave a method to fix the constitution, the amendment process.

And go fuck yourself for your usual disregard for the founders of our nation.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure you would.

But since there is 0% of that happening, they'll still be rich and you'll still be bitter.

Actually, I'm hoping the whole system doesn't fall apart in my lifetime, because it will probably be ugly...

and people like you will have made it happen.

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't find a process that did, you destroyed the process that existed, and found people willing to ruin the constitution to get what you want.

They gave a method to fix the constitution, the amendment process.

And go fuck yourself for your usual disregard for the founders of our nation.

Or we can just get 5 justices to read things our way. Which you guys have no problem with when you see gun laws you don't like or that insecure feeling when the Koch Brothers aren't spending billions telling you what to think.

 

[martybegan]

You didn't find a process that did, you destroyed the process that existed, and found people willing to ruin the constitution to get what you want.

They gave a method to fix the constitution, the amendment process.

And go fuck yourself for your usual disregard for the founders of our nation.

Or we can just get 5 justices to read things our way. Which you guys have no problem with when you see gun laws you don't like or that insecure feeling when the Koch Brothers aren't spending billions telling you what to think.

Gun laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, there fixed it for ya.

Your love of oligarchy is noted.

 

[JoeB131]

Gun laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, there fixed it for ya.

Your love of oligarchy is noted.

Your bizarre interpretation of MILITIA Amendment is a recent view, and won't last much longer than Scalia taking a dirt nap.

 

[martybegan]

Gun laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, there fixed it for ya.

Your love of oligarchy is noted.

Your bizarre interpretation of MILITIA Amendment is a recent view, and won't last much longer than Scalia taking a dirt nap.

The militia part is for the states, which allows them to have armed forces alongside the federal government. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms.

If they had meant the militia only, they would have said the STATE retains the right to keep and bear arms, not the PEOPLE.

 

[JoeB131]

The militia part is for the states, which allows them to have armed forces alongside the federal government. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms.

If they had meant the militia only, they would have said the STATE retains the right to keep and bear arms, not the PEOPLE.

Or maybe they didn't think 200 years later, that we'd have gun manufactured on an industrial scale and that there would be millions of them out there, or that there would be a group like the NRA that would be fighting for the right of crazy people to buy them.

But here's the thing. I don't give a fuck what a bunch of asshole slave-rapists thought 200 years ago. I truly, really don't. I am interested in what works in the HERE AND NOW. Does this work in the here and now. Well, no. 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year tell me it is not working.

 

[martybegan]

The militia part is for the states, which allows them to have armed forces alongside the federal government. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms.

If they had meant the militia only, they would have said the STATE retains the right to keep and bear arms, not the PEOPLE.

Or maybe they didn't think 200 years later, that we'd have gun manufactured on an industrial scale and that there would be millions of them out there, or that there would be a group like the NRA that would be fighting for the right of crazy people to buy them.

But here's the thing. I don't give a fuck what a bunch of asshole slave-rapists thought 200 years ago. I truly, really don't. I am interested in what works in the HERE AND NOW. Does this work in the here and now. Well, no. 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year tell me it is not working.

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. Then get the amendment repealed, until then stop trying to use oligarchical judicial proceedings to remove rights from others.

And again, I don't give a fuck about suicides and criminal on criminal portions of those numbers, they still don't mean I should loose the right to own a gun.

And of course, as always, go fuck yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. Then get the amendment repealed, until then stop trying to use oligarchical judicial proceedings to remove rights from others.

Why should I do something the hard way when we can do it the EASY way? That makes no sense.

And again, I don't give a fuck about suicides and criminal on criminal portions of those numbers, they still don't mean I should loose the right to own a gun.

Well, if you gun owners can't restrict the ownership privilage to just the responsible, then you should lose the privilage. If you are unwilling to self-police, someone will police you.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm sure you would.

But since there is 0% of that happening, they'll still be rich and you'll still be bitter.

Actually, I'm hoping the whole system doesn't fall apart in my lifetime, because it will probably be ugly...

and people like you will have made it happen.

^ that Toro

 

[squeeze berry]

Qualifications- Longest serving governor of Texas.

Pros- Has a strong political machine that can raise a lot of money. Has run for President before. Can make a good argument about economic growth. Could probably appeal to both the establishment and the far right.

Cons- Ran a DISASTROUS campaign for President in 2012.

Perry's run in 2012 was ill-considered, and you never get a second chance to make a first impression. But historically, the GOP has always run a candidate who has run before (with the exceptions of Barry Goldwater and George W. Bush), because they are vetted.

His Gaffes, however, have become how the media has defined him. Which means that the usual mis-speaking that a candidates makes will be amplified if he does it again. He's going to have to run a flawless campaign.

Obama fatigue factor > than anything else

 

[JoeB131]

Obama fatigue factor > than anything else

Maybe. Maybe not. I think the demagraphics that elected Obama twice helps whoever the Democrat is. The Republicans have not fixed their problems with minorities, women and working people.

 

[martybegan]

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. Then get the amendment repealed, until then stop trying to use oligarchical judicial proceedings to remove rights from others.

Why should I do something the hard way when we can do it the EASY way? That makes no sense.

And again, I don't give a fuck about suicides and criminal on criminal portions of those numbers, they still don't mean I should loose the right to own a gun.

Well, if you gun owners can't restrict the ownership privilage to just the responsible, then you should lose the privilage. If you are unwilling to self-police, someone will police you.

Because the easy way is unconstitutional and fascist.

Its a right, not a privilege. Spell check, learn to use it.

 

[JoeB131]

Because the easy way is unconstitutional and fascist.

Its a right, not a privilege. Spell check, learn to use it.

Guy, Supreme Court rulings are the force of law and constitutional. We get a sane person to replace Scalia, that works just as well.

And, no, the Second Amendment is about Militias, not gun ownership.

 

[martybegan]

Because the easy way is unconstitutional and fascist.

Its a right, not a privilege. Spell check, learn to use it.

Guy, Supreme Court rulings are the force of law and constitutional. We get a sane person to replace Scalia, that works just as well.

And, no, the Second Amendment is about Militias, not gun ownership.

its about militias AND gun ownership. You have lost this argument countless times before.

 

[JoeB131]

its about militias AND gun ownership. You have lost this argument countless times before.

Nope, just about Militias. the whole crazy "Everyone has a right to a gun" is a recent invention... and kind of batshit crazy.

 

[birddog]

Fuck you, you fucking fuck. Then get the amendment repealed, until then stop trying to use oligarchical judicial proceedings to remove rights from others.

Why should I do something the hard way when we can do it the EASY way? That makes no sense.

And again, I don't give a fuck about suicides and criminal on criminal portions of those numbers, they still don't mean I should loose the right to own a gun.

Well, if you gun owners can't restrict the ownership privilage to just the responsible, then you should lose the privilage. If you are unwilling to self-police, someone will police you.

We gun owners do believe in responsible ownership, and limited policing. Go to the NRA website, keep your mind open, and learn something, you dumbass!