# Rick Perry - Handicapping the GOP Hopefuls



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



If we go by previous primary campaigns Hillary would have to be given a big ass "con" for this one. She was in line to be the first woman president and some upstart came in and stole her limelight. Now she gets to try 8 years later, and as sad of a fact as it is, people treat aging in women far more harshly then aging in men. And I feel even other women have this bias.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

martybegan said:


> If we go by previous primary campaigns Hillary would have to be given a big ass "con" for this one. She was in line to be the first woman president and some upstart came in and stole her limelight. Now she gets to try 8 years later, and as sad of a fact as it is, people treat aging in women far more harshly then aging in men. And I feel even other women have this bias.



Obviously, you have no idea what happened in 2008.  

Hillary lost because the main thing motivating her party at that point was anger at the evil, stupid, dishonest war that Bush had gotten us into, and she wasn't willing to repudiate her part in giving him a blank check in fighting it. 

Obama, on the other hand, was against the war before it was cool to be against the war. 

There were other factors as well, such as her poor organizing, her going along with allowing the DNC to strip Michigan and Florida of delegates for going early in the primaries. She actually got more votes than Obama did nationally.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > If we go by previous primary campaigns Hillary would have to be given a big ass "con" for this one. She was in line to be the first woman president and some upstart came in and stole her limelight. Now she gets to try 8 years later, and as sad of a fact as it is, people treat aging in women far more harshly then aging in men. And I feel even other women have this bias.
> ...



Hillary lost because democrats are all about identity politics, and Black(ish) male beats out White (rich) female.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Hillary lost because democrats are all about identity politics, and Black(ish) male beats out White (rich) female.



Right. Because that's what you heard on Rush.  

Now, admittably, I was still marginally Republican in 2008. (I ended up vote for McCain in the primaries because he was not Romney.)   But maybe you should talk to Democrats about why they voted for Obama over Hillary in 2008.  

It had nothing to do with race or gender.  It had to do with POLICY.  Obama opposed Iraq, Hillary didn't.  

Also, more than a few Democrats told me they liked HIllary, but didn't want to go through the crazy nonsense of the 1990's of bimbo eruptions and Clinton Death Lists, and really thought that Republicans would be more inclined to work with Obama without the Clinton baggage.  

Now, if you really, really, really want to discuss this further, I'll start a thread on this. 

So what are your thoughts on Rick Perry?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



And to stay on topic, I think the biggest pro Perry has this time is the anti-religious crap is starting to get tired with the electorate. Plus, democrats can't lay it on too thick at the risk of alienating their religious black constituency. I don;t think they would switch over to Perry in droves, but they would stay home.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary lost because democrats are all about identity politics, and Black(ish) male beats out White (rich) female.
> ...



I answered above about Perry to get the thread back on the rails (after I admittedly knocked it off), and denying democrats are all about identity politics is comical.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2014)

Can't fix stupid

Ask Dan Quayle


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

martybegan said:


> And to stay on topic, I think the biggest pro Perry has this time is the anti-religious crap is starting to get tired with the electorate. Plus, democrats can't lay it on too thick at the risk of alienating their religious black constituency. I don;t think they would switch over to Perry in droves, but they would stay home.



Guy, what "anti-religious" crap?  I mean, I know the Faux News folks do the "War on Christmas" shit every time some atheist kid says he doesn't want to play Jesus in the CHristmas pagent or something... 

Perry's biggest problem, is that he's been such anti-choice figure that he pretty much gift-wraps the women vote for the Democrats.  Only a matter of time before this fool puts an adjective in front of the word "Rape".


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > And to stay on topic, I think the biggest pro Perry has this time is the anti-religious crap is starting to get tired with the electorate. Plus, democrats can't lay it on too thick at the risk of alienating their religious black constituency. I don;t think they would switch over to Perry in droves, but they would stay home.
> ...



Just like the "war on women" crap got you the mid-terms, right?

You guys act like Republicans lose the women vote 80-20 when at worst they have done 60-40. I guess those 40% aren't really women, right?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2014)

Rick Perry came in to the last election cycle and was branded as the savior of a weak GOP field. The ultimate "I'm not Romney". The GOP nomination was his for the taking. But Ricks biggest fault was that he was lazy. He did not want to learn the issues and thought he could get by on his country boy charm.....I mean it always worked before

But Rick got hammered in the debates and not just on his "I can eliminate three government agencies.....um...um...can someone help me here?" He was ill prepared for the debates and it showed

Beyond that, you can't fix stupid. I have never seen a political candidate where people said he is not as dumb as I thought


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 3, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Rick Perry came in to the last election cycle and was branded as the savior of a weak GOP field. The ultimate "I'm not Romney". The GOP nomination was his for the taking. But Ricks biggest fault was that he was lazy. He did not want to learn the issues and thought he could get by on his country boy charm.....I mean it always worked before
> 
> But Rick got hammered in the debates and not just on his "I can eliminate three government agencies.....um...um...can someone help me here?" He was ill prepared for the debates and it showed
> 
> Beyond that, you can't fix stupid. I have never seen a political candidate where people said he is not as dumb as I thought


 

I remember "57 states", "When I meet with world leaders, what's striking -- whether it's in Europe or here in Asia" while in Hawaii, a state he was supposedly born in, and a statement on the Tonight Show about wanting to deepend the GULF ports of Savannah, GA, Charleston, SC, and Jacksonville, FL.  I guess basic geography isn't Obama's strong suit or really much at all.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Rick Perry came in to the last election cycle and was branded as the savior of a weak GOP field. The ultimate "I'm not Romney". The GOP nomination was his for the taking. But Ricks biggest fault was that he was lazy. He did not want to learn the issues and thought he could get by on his country boy charm.....I mean it always worked before
> ...


 
And yet, Obama survived dozens of debates against top Democrats and Republicans and kicked their asses. Obama entered the debates an unknown and came out a superstar. Perry entered as a superstar and came out as a laughing stock


----------



## birddog (Dec 3, 2014)

It's a shame. Perry, with his common sense and fairness, would have been a far better President than the lying scum we have now!  Anyone who voted for Obama still needs to apologize to the rest of us!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2014)

birddog said:


> It's a shame. Perry, with his common sense and fairness, would have been a far better President than the lying scum we have now!  Anyone who voted for Obama still needs to apologize to the rest of us!


 

Apologize for the biggest economic recovery in the world?  Why would we do that?  Are you ready to thank us?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Just like the "war on women" crap got you the mid-terms, right?
> 
> You guys act like Republicans lose the women vote 80-20 when at worst they have done 60-40. I guess those 40% aren't really women, right?



Missing the point, again.  YOu seem to do that a lot. 

"Yeah, I won the Senate Seats in the Inbred States!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2014)

birddog said:


> It's a shame. Perry, with his common sense and fairness, would have been a far better President than the lying scum we have now! Anyone who voted for Obama still needs to apologize to the rest of us!



Okay. Fair Enough. 

I am sorry that President Obama's election makes your stupid, dumb-ass Racist mind as batshit crazy as it does.  I am sorry for the butthurt you've been whining about for the last six years.  I apologize in advance when your town names parks and schools after this guy.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the "war on women" crap got you the mid-terms, right?
> ...



Nice dodge, deeek.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Not a dodge at all.  Now, I'll give you guys credit, you all avoided talking about abortion and birth control and none of the mutants you put up in the Bubba States felt a need to put an adjective in front of the word "Rape" to justify their view that spooge is people, too.  So when people didn't bother to show up for those midterms, it was because you weren't scaring them on those issues. 

But if you guys run Rick Perry, that's kind of the oppossite of that kind of smart.  This is a guy who thinks a politician knows what's better for your uterus than a gynecologist.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Considering you guys think forcing a baker to do a job they don't want to do is a great fucking idea, I'd be careful about the skeletons in your closet as well.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Considering you guys think forcing a baker to do a job they don't want to do is a great fucking idea, I'd be careful about the skeletons in your closet as well.



I'm not running for anything. 

And Public Accommedation was settled as a matter of law 50 years ago.  

You can have beliefs, your business doesn't.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Considering you guys think forcing a baker to do a job they don't want to do is a great fucking idea, I'd be careful about the skeletons in your closet as well.
> ...



Lets see how settled they remained after people get tired of others being sued for their valid beliefs. 

And I love when you idiots use the term "settled law."  Well I guess then citizen united and gun ownership are "settled law" as well. Guess you have no  chance ever of overturning them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Lets see how settled they remained after people get tired of others being sued for their valid beliefs.
> 
> And I love when you idiots use the term "settled law." Well I guess then citizen united and gun ownership are "settled law" as well. Guess you have no chance ever of overturning them.



Well, no, you don't have 50 years of case law establishing them with unanimous Supreme Court verdicts. 

And there just isn't a lot of sympathy out there for bigots trying to dress their hate up in vestments and calling it a religion.


----------



## Toro (Dec 4, 2014)

0% chance


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2014)

Three reasons Rick Perry can't win...

First off, he is looked at as dim witted
Second, he blew his last chance

Third, um......um.....can someone help me?.......I forgot the third


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 5, 2014)

Does Rick really think his glasses will convince voters that he's smart?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Does Rick really think his glasses will convince voters that he's smart?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Lets see how settled they remained after people get tired of others being sued for their valid beliefs.
> ...



Not wanting to attend a wedding is not "hatred."  As usual you define hating as disagreeing. Its a sad tactic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Not wanting to attend a wedding is not "hatred." As usual you define hating as disagreeing. Its a sad tactic.



Nobody said they had to attend a wedding.  

HOWEVER- if you are in the wedding business, then you have to provide the services you advertised.  

Look, the only reason why you clowns are grasping onto the issues of not wanting to provide services is because you LOST the argument about whether gay marriages should be legal or not.  "Can I please hold onto this last little bit of prejudice, pretty please?" 

And gays who've had to put up with your bullshit for decades in housing and job discrimination and getting beaten up in the street and called nasty names for merely holding hands are saying, "No."


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not wanting to attend a wedding is not "hatred." As usual you define hating as disagreeing. Its a sad tactic.
> ...



No, you are making them attend and condone the wedding. hiding behind "Its a business hurr durr" is your way of escaping the fact that you get off on forcing people to do things they don't want to do. It used to be the purview of state religions, now it is the purview of the progressive left. You have replaced jesus/god/buddah/kali with a political theory, nothing more. 

I got picked on at school, can I force my bullies to go to my wedding if they don't want to?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
What does Rick Perry have to do with wedding cakes?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> No, you are making them attend and condone the wedding. hiding behind "Its a business hurr durr" is your way of escaping the fact that you get off on forcing people to do things they don't want to do. It used to be the purview of state religions, now it is the purview of the progressive left. You have replaced jesus/god/buddah/kali with a political theory, nothing more.
> 
> I got picked on at school, can I force my bullies to go to my wedding if they don't want to?



If you don't want to attend gay weddings...  

Then don't be in the business of producing wedding cakes, wedding photography, or wedding receptions.  Then there is absolutely no chance you can be involved in a gay wedding or having that shock moment, "Oh, my God, you are two chicks!!!!"


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



In the end, it all ends up at wedding cakes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> [
> 
> What does Rick Perry have to do with wedding cakes?



Marty has derailed this thread a couple of times.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are making them attend and condone the wedding. hiding behind "Its a business hurr durr" is your way of escaping the fact that you get off on forcing people to do things they don't want to do. It used to be the purview of state religions, now it is the purview of the progressive left. You have replaced jesus/god/buddah/kali with a political theory, nothing more.
> ...



Or, don't be forced to do so, and have the couple find someone else. Your solution requires force, mine does not.

You really get a hard on ruining other people's lives, don't you?

And honestly when it comes to actual lesbian weddings, we are not dealing with "chicks" in the traditional sense.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Only the best for a low life hack such as yourself JoeBlow.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Has Rick Perry refused to attend gay weddings?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Or, don't be forced to do so, and have the couple find someone else. Your solution requires force, mine does not.
> 
> You really get a hard on ruining other people's lives, don't you?
> 
> And honestly when it comes to actual lesbian weddings, we are not dealing with "chicks" in the traditional sense.



I've known some pretty fucking hot Lesbians.  But that's not the point. 

I had a former boss who was a lesbian, and she had a great expression - "You don't get people in trouble, people get themselves in trouble."  

If you choose to be in the wedding business, then you have offered services to anyone who can get married. You made THAT decision. You picked to do that for a living. 

And the fact is, a lot of these "Christian" service providers happily provide these services to people who lived together before marriage, people who aren't getting married in their denomination, and so on.  They just want to pick on THIS supposed rule their sky fairy says is wrong to rationalize their own bigotry.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Has he been forced to under penalty of government sanction?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
In my view, Rick Perry should make wedding cakes regardless of whether it is a straight or gay wedding

Is he afraid he will catch something?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Or, don't be forced to do so, and have the couple find someone else. Your solution requires force, mine does not.
> ...



No, people who got into the wedding business decades ago had no idea they would be forced to perform services at a gay wedding. The concept of forcing people to work at something they don't want to is a sad progressive form of slavery. 

YOU do not get to choose how someone practices their religion, and neither does government unless some overwhelming interest is concerned (like a religion involving another crime).


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



In my opinion you are a insipid ass-hat.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
I'm not the one with a wedding cake obsession


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's a freedom obsession, you are the people trying to ruin others over wedding cakes.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> No, people who got into the wedding business decades ago had no idea they would be forced to perform services at a gay wedding. The concept of forcing people to work at something they don't want to is a sad progressive form of slavery.
> 
> YOU do not get to choose how someone practices their religion, and neither does government unless some overwhelming interest is concerned (like a religion involving another crime).



Six years ago, the company I work at was a pretty cool place to work, until they put children into the management positions. But guess what, I'm still going to go to work today and do the best job I can, and I won't consider it slavery.  That was the job I signed up to do.  At some point, I'll move on to a better one, but I'll do the job I agreed to do until then. 

These folks established a business where they promised to provide services for weddings.  They even advertised they offered these services.  You can have all the religion you want.  Your business doesn't have a religion. 

Now, if you don't want to provide gay wedding cakes maybe one day a year, it's pretty simple. 

Get out of the bakery business.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> It's a freedom obsession, you are the people trying to ruin others over wedding cakes.



How is it that Conservatives have conflated "Freedom" with "Being an asshole".


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > No, people who got into the wedding business decades ago had no idea they would be forced to perform services at a gay wedding. The concept of forcing people to work at something they don't want to is a sad progressive form of slavery.
> ...



Or you and your ilk can stop being such whiny bitches. 

Waaaa!!! people don't love me waaaaaa!!!!


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > It's a freedom obsession, you are the people trying to ruin others over wedding cakes.
> ...



How is it that progressives have equated "freedom" with "agreeing with what "I" say is right"

and to correct your statement, libertarians equate freedom with the right to be an asshole in a limited way. YOU want freedom only for your assholes.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
I don't give a shit

Rick Perry should not be allowed to discriminate whether he hates gays or not


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



In his capacity as a governor or a potential president, yes. If he wants to bake cake for weddings he should be able to discriminate as he sees fit.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Obviously not presidential material


----------



## martybegan (Dec 5, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I was just thinking the same thing about Obama.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Day late, dollar short


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Or you and your ilk can stop being such whiny bitches.
> 
> Waaaa!!! people don't love me waaaaaa!!!!



We could care less if you love them. 

You just can't discriminate against them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2014)

martybegan said:


> How is it that progressives have equated "freedom" with "agreeing with what "I" say is right"
> 
> and to correct your statement, libertarians equate freedom with the right to be an asshole in a limited way. YOU want freedom only for your assholes.



Libertarians want the benefits of a civil society without the obligations.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Or you and your ilk can stop being such whiny bitches.
> ...



Again, boo fucking hoo.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > How is it that progressives have equated "freedom" with "agreeing with what "I" say is right"
> ...



Such a simplistic statement from a simple man. Libertarians want government to focus on important stuff within its constitutional purview, not forcing bakers to make cakes.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 6, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Three reasons Rick Perry can't win...
> 
> First off, he is looked at as dim witted
> Second, he blew his last chance
> ...


it takes more to re-brand a candidate than hipster glasses


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 6, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Such a simplistic statement from a simple man. Libertarians want government to focus on important stuff within its constitutional purview, not forcing bakers to make cakes.



Sorry, dude, I think government shouldn't be limited to the imagination of 18th century slave rapists.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 6, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Such a simplistic statement from a simple man. Libertarians want government to focus on important stuff within its constitutional purview, not forcing bakers to make cakes.
> ...



Then work to amend the document, don't go for end runs. 

and fuck you in the eye for your usual disrespect for our founding fathers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No end run required.  We have 50 years of laws saying you can't discriminate with your business.  This isn't even really an issue.  

The only reason why it's an issue at all is because the homophobes lost the argument over marriage, and they are clinging to that little bit of bigotry they think they can still get away with. 

Fuck them.  You don't want to back a gay cake, close up your bakery and do something else for a living.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



How about YOU go fuck yourself with a rust, AIDS infested tire iron?

On second thought, nah, you probably would enjoy it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 7, 2014)

Awwww.... Marty don't go away mad.  

Just because you let the Rich play on your homophobia and then you didn't get the payoff of being able to legally hate gay people, don't get upset with me for not falling for the scam.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Awwww.... Marty don't go away mad.
> 
> Just because you let the Rich play on your homophobia and then you didn't get the payoff of being able to legally hate gay people, don't get upset with me for not falling for the scam.



Not going away at all, and nice attempt to respond without me seeing myself being quoted you cowardly twat. 

You epitomize my sig, one of the do gooder fascists who want to force people to be just like they are.
I hope there is a hell, and you spend eternity in it.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter b/c the next Pres will be a female dem

they gave away the Congress just so they can blame them when the economy fails due to the aca, that will give them all they will feel that they need to set up a proper tyranny.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Awwww.... Marty don't go away mad.
> 
> Just because you let the Rich play on your homophobia and then you didn't get the payoff of being able to legally hate gay people, don't get upset with me for not falling for the scam.


marty being marty 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Perry (R) will suck all the air out of the room just like Payland (R) did.


----------



## Agit8r (Dec 7, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > If we go by previous primary campaigns Hillary would have to be given a big ass "con" for this one. She was in line to be the first woman president and some upstart came in and stole her limelight. Now she gets to try 8 years later, and as sad of a fact as it is, people treat aging in women far more harshly then aging in men. And I feel even other women have this bias.
> ...



There was the matter of donor money too.  Corporate America liked Obama better that Hillary or McCain.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 7, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Awwww.... Marty don't go away mad.
> ...



Fuck off.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


^ classic marty *cough* "retort" 

Don't you go 'a changin' princess


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 7, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Not going away at all, and nice attempt to respond without me seeing myself being quoted you cowardly twat.
> 
> You epitomize my sig, one of the do gooder fascists who want to force people to be just like they are.
> I hope there is a hell, and you spend eternity in it.



Awww, Marty, quit your whining.  You guys got played by the 1%ers, and now you got to bake cakes.  So sad for you.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Not going away at all, and nice attempt to respond without me seeing myself being quoted you cowardly twat.
> ...



Typical class warfare bullshit from the class warfare wuss.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Same shit, same idiot, different post.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Not my problem you don't see what a rube you are.  

Hey, remember when they tried to pass a law saying you could totally refuse to bake that cake in AZ?  Jan Brewer vetoed it after some 1%ers gave her a call and said it would be bad for people who were important. 

So now you got to bake a cake with two plastic dudes on top.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Just keep justifying your use of government force on the bizarre notion that its all a corporate plot. You are a one stupid trick pony, nothing more.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Just keep justifying your use of government force on the bizarre notion that its all a corporate plot. You are a one stupid trick pony, nothing more.



Of course, it's a corporate plot.  You see, back in the Post War era, we had the corporations right where we wanted them- paying fair wages, following the rules and paying their fair share.  Because we finally figured out in a democracy, there are more of us than them.  Both parties understood this, which is Ike and Nixon were on the same page as LBJ and JFK.  

Then we had the 1960's come along, and scared little white people were all afraid of the Negroes and the gays and women deciding what to do with their lady parts, and the big corporations figured out how to get stupid people to vote against their own economic interests.  

"Hey, why are you moving my job to China?" 

"Oh my God, there's a couple of them queers getting married!!!"


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Just keep justifying your use of government force on the bizarre notion that its all a corporate plot. You are a one stupid trick pony, nothing more.
> ...



That is possibly the dumbest thing I have seen posted on this message board, SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED dumb.

Mods need to start pumping your posts into the Conspiracy Dungeon.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Duly noted that you can't answer the point.  

So you got to make that gay wedding cake while your good paying job went to China.  Good show, dude.  You certainly showed them queers.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Duly noted that you can't answer the point.
> 
> So you got to make that gay wedding cake while your good paying job went to China.  Good show, dude.  You certainly showed them queers.



There was no point to answer, just the ramblings of a man jumping at his own shadow. 

The amazing thing is that you don't realize YOU are prioritizing making people bake cakes over fixing what you perceive as corporations putting wool over people's eyes. If you are soooo scared of these corporations, why are you placating a small minority to piss of a far larger subset of voters by trashing their religious freedom? Answer me that one mister fraidy pants.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> The amazing thing is that you don't realize YOU are prioritizing making people bake cakes over fixing what you perceive as corporations putting wool over people's eyes. If you are soooo scared of these corporations, why are you placating a small minority to piss of a far larger subset of voters by trashing their religious freedom? Answer me that one mister fraidy pants.



Oh, well, that's simple enough.  ONce you demonstrate to the Christian Stupids they can't get their way on stuff, they'll give up on politics, just like the racists did, eventually.  

Then you guys will have to sell, "Working harder for less money" as a platform. Good luck with that.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The amazing thing is that you don't realize YOU are prioritizing making people bake cakes over fixing what you perceive as corporations putting wool over people's eyes. If you are soooo scared of these corporations, why are you placating a small minority to piss of a far larger subset of voters by trashing their religious freedom? Answer me that one mister fraidy pants.
> ...



So basically you are hoping for voter apathy instead of trying to convince your fellow citizen. That combined with your fascist tendencies make you officially the biggest asshole on this board.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> So basically you are hoping for voter apathy instead of trying to convince your fellow citizen. That combined with your fascist tendencies make you officially the biggest asshole on this board.



No, what I'm hoping for is to get these stupids to realize they are voting against their own economic interests. 

Of course, when you have people who are hating the butt sex because an imaginary fairy in the sky says it's bad, it's a high hill to overcome. 

Point is, legally we can totally crush them and the rich won't fight that hard for them, so it's easy to undercut this leg of the chair.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So basically you are hoping for voter apathy instead of trying to convince your fellow citizen. That combined with your fascist tendencies make you officially the biggest asshole on this board.
> ...


They can't put 1+1 together in that productivity keeps rising (due to boot-strappers [conservative drones like marty] willing accepting shorter breaks & reduced time-off) while their wages remain stagnant in real dollars as long as the queers can't gety married  SOCONs

wonder if martybegan  has a food bin?  He's going to need it JoeB131


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I have a valued skill, and I keep getting raises every year, so I have no worries. You seem to worry more about forcing people to bake cakes than going after your evul corporations, So i guess you don't take the 1% bullshit you spew very seriously. 

You are like those AGW morons who are against the use of nuclear power.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So basically you are hoping for voter apathy instead of trying to convince your fellow citizen. That combined with your fascist tendencies make you officially the biggest asshole on this board.
> ...



That you want to legally crush people for having a different opinion than you is telling. Fuck off and Die. preferably sooner rather than later.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> I have a valued skill, and I keep getting raises every year, so I have no worries. You seem to worry more about forcing people to bake cakes than going after your evul corporations, So i guess you don't take the 1% bullshit you spew very seriously.
> 
> You are like those AGW morons who are against the use of nuclear power.



You know, guy that's what I used to think.  I got raises, I had skills, and at the end of the day, they still found a way to fuck me. 

But seriously, fuck the Christian bigots.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> That you want to legally crush people for having a different opinion than you is telling. Fuck off and Die. preferably sooner rather than later.



NO, I want to crush them for aiding and abetting the people who did fuck me over. 

YOu guys cling to the last little bit of bigotry you think you can get away with... and we say, "No!"


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You refuse to do business with Mormons. How is that any different?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> You refuse to do business with Mormons. How is that any different?



Mormons are fucking evil.


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > You refuse to do business with Mormons. How is that any different?
> ...



Are you willing to test that in a court of law?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > That you want to legally crush people for having a different opinion than you is telling. Fuck off and Die. preferably sooner rather than later.
> ...


^ that Toro


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > I have a valued skill, and I keep getting raises every year, so I have no worries. You seem to worry more about forcing people to bake cakes than going after your evul corporations, So i guess you don't take the 1% bullshit you spew very seriously.
> ...



Sounds like you sucked at what you did.


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

That what?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > You refuse to do business with Mormons. How is that any different?
> ...



Lol, the old "my bigotry is acceptable but yours isn't" defense. How quaint.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > That you want to legally crush people for having a different opinion than you is telling. Fuck off and Die. preferably sooner rather than later.
> ...



You are a petty, petty little man. Using big ol government to get your revenge and to fuck other people over when we all know you don't have the balls to do it yourself.


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Joe has been very open that he blacklists Mormons and refuses to do business with them. 

He supported the court for not allowing a company to discriminate against one group of people. I'd like to hear why he thinks a court would allow him to discriminate against another group of people.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 8, 2014)

Mormons almost make other monotheistic holy rollers  look 1/2 way sane.


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Mormons almost make other monotheistic holy rollers  look 1/2 way sane.



Do you support allowing a company to refuse to do business with someone because she is a Mormon?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 8, 2014)

if they strap animals to the roofs of their cars?  Yes


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



He will just say religion does not deserve to be protected, "because he says so".

Joe only likes laws and interpretation of said laws that follow his warped view of how the world does and should work. 

He screams about the evils of corporations while he bends over and lets government ream him and everyone else up the ass.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> if they strap animals to the roofs of their cars?  Yes



In a kennel fitted with a custom made wind-shield. The carrier was strapped to the roof of the car, not the dog you nattering idiot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



wouldn't know.  I rarely comes up.  

But you see, as a customer, I can do business with whoever i want.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> He will just say religion does not deserve to be protected, "because he says so".
> 
> Joe only likes laws and interpretation of said laws that follow his warped view of how the world does and should work.
> 
> He screams about the evils of corporations while he bends over and lets government ream him and everyone else up the ass.



Yawn, guy, you are the one with the obsession about government.  

I don't do business with Mormons because the one time I had dealings with members of their fucked up cult, they screwed me.   I don't give people a second chance. Has little to do with the "theology", although that's all manner of fucked up, too.  Has to do with the fact that they can't really be trusted in their dealings with those of us they call "Gentiles".


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> In a kennel fitted with a custom made wind-shield. The carrier was strapped to the roof of the car, not the dog you nattering idiot.



The dog was so terrified that it emptied its bowels.  It then subsequently ran away.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Sounds like you sucked at what you did.



No, it sounds like I had a medical issue that ran up a lot of bills, and this company had a habit of firing people who got sick, injured or pregnant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> Joe has been very open that he blacklists Mormons and refuses to do business with them.
> 
> He supported the court for not allowing a company to discriminate against one group of people. I'd like to hear why he thinks a court would allow him to discriminate against another group of people.



Well, first, I live in Illinois, where I am proud to say that we shot Joseph Smith like the diseased dog that he was.  So it's not like I have to deal with Mormon scum that much here.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> You are a petty, petty little man. Using big ol government to get your revenge and to fuck other people over when we all know you don't have the balls to do it yourself.



You know what, I've seen people fired for being gay, I've seen people beaten up for being gay, I've seen people abused in other ways for being gay. 

So I'm not going to get upset that they tell some homophobic baker he's got to put two little plastic dudes on top of a cake.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > He will just say religion does not deserve to be protected, "because he says so".
> ...



No you are a fucking bigot, but you figure your bigotry is OK. That makes you a fucking hypocrite as well.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > You are a petty, petty little man. Using big ol government to get your revenge and to fuck other people over when we all know you don't have the balls to do it yourself.
> ...



So you equate all that with forcing someone to bake a cake. Got it you petty little twat.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like you sucked at what you did.
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> No you are a fucking bigot, but you figure your bigotry is OK. That makes you a fucking hypocrite as well.



No hypocrisy at all. If you really think that Joseph Smith was talking to God, despite the overwealming evidence he wasn't, then you are really too stupid to be handling my money.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> So you equate all that with forcing someone to bake a cake. Got it you petty little twat.



No, the other things are FAR worse.  That's my point.  When homophobes had the power, they abused the shit out of it.  Now history has turned on them,a nd you are clinging to the "Please don't make me put two little plastic dudes on top of a cake" and we are just laughing at you saying, "nope.  YOu totally got to do that!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Well, I had six years of perfect reviews, but after I got sick, I was the first one they let go.  


Oh, yeah, and they paid me $10,000 in "Please don't sue us" money.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > In a kennel fitted with a custom made wind-shield. The carrier was strapped to the roof of the car, not the dog you nattering idiot.
> ...



So no dogs get carsick? Good to know, I guess that was fake crap in my sister's back seat from her two pitbulls. 

Also, they had issues with the dog getting out constantly, so they gave the dog to his sister on a ranch where it lived to a ripe old age. 

Its just a window into your hate filled little pea brained "mind"


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So you equate all that with forcing someone to bake a cake. Got it you petty little twat.
> ...



Vindictive little twat, nothing more, nothing less. Cowardly too, letting government do your dirty work. You are possibly the worst human being on the planet, and the sooner you leave it, the sooner life will be here.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Again, prove it you tired hack.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> So no dogs get carsick? Good to know, I guess that was fake crap in my sister's back seat from her two pitbulls.
> 
> Also, they had issues with the dog getting out constantly, so they gave the dog to his sister on a ranch where it lived to a ripe old age.
> 
> Its just a window into your hate filled little pea brained "mind"



yeah, I totally get that, the poor dog wanted to get away from the Mormon cultists.  I don't blame it a bit. 

Obviously, the dog stuff is petty, what he did to Joe Soptic's wife and all the AmPad workers was a lot worse.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I just did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Vindictive little twat, nothing more, nothing less. Cowardly too, letting government do your dirty work. You are possibly the worst human being on the planet, and the sooner you leave it, the sooner life will be here.



Hey, guy, if I had the ability to change the "mind" of homophobes, I'd do that. BUt I don't.  I can support laws that keep the fuckers from discriminating.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So no dogs get carsick? Good to know, I guess that was fake crap in my sister's back seat from her two pitbulls.
> ...



Then why bring it up you tard?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Vindictive little twat, nothing more, nothing less. Cowardly too, letting government do your dirty work. You are possibly the worst human being on the planet, and the sooner you leave it, the sooner life will be here.
> ...



Or prosecute them to satisfy your sick fantasies of making everyone in the world think like you, and I use "think" lightly.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Nice try, considering you keep quoting Kellerman I take anything you post as a potential characterization to to an outright lie.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I didn't, Dot did, and you immediately flung into "The dog totally had it coming mode".


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Nice try, considering you keep quoting Kellerman I take anything you post as a potential characterization to to an outright lie.



You mean a peer reviewed study that was so devastating the National Rampage Association moved to block all further studies?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You, Dot, same idiotic coin. You were the one who went into 'Mormons bad unga bunga mode"


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try, considering you keep quoting Kellerman I take anything you post as a potential characterization to to an outright lie.
> ...



you use peer reviewed like it is some sort of talisman. When the peers are of the same viewpoint, peer review is a meaningless term.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Or prosecute them to satisfy your sick fantasies of making everyone in the world think like you, and I use "think" lightly.



Hey, you are more than welcome to hate gays in the privacy of your own home. 

Take that shit out in public, htough, and you will be sorry. 

Hey, Marty, I hear these guys have an opening, maybe you can sign up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> You, Dot, same idiotic coin. You were the one who went into 'Mormons bad unga bunga mode"



Not my fault you guys let their cult hijack your party...  You might have lost the election, but it was a heck of a PSA for them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> you use peer reviewed like it is some sort of talisman. When the peers are of the same viewpoint, peer review is a meaningless term.



No, it means other experts looked at the data and said,  "Yup, guns in the house are more likely to kill people in the house th an bad guys. 

But the telling thing was how the NRA reacted.  They banned further gun studies.  That's kind of like you do a study linking smoking to cancer, and the tobacco companies try to get further studies stopped.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Or prosecute them to satisfy your sick fantasies of making everyone in the world think like you, and I use "think" lightly.
> ...



it would be apt if I actually hated gays, which I don't. Like I said I would vote for gay marriage if it came up, and would never refuse a gay person service. What I am against is forcing it onto other people using the government. 

So all that westboro shit doesn't fly.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > you use peer reviewed like it is some sort of talisman. When the peers are of the same viewpoint, peer review is a meaningless term.
> ...



So the NRA can stop anyone from doing further gun studies? ANYONE?

Again you have to lie to make your "point" which means you don't have much of a point.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > You, Dot, same idiotic coin. You were the one who went into 'Mormons bad unga bunga mode"
> ...



Lol, now the Mormons are taking over the republican party. 

A picture of Joe at home with his only friend.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> it would be apt if I actually hated gays, which I don't. Like I said I would vote for gay marriage if it came up, and would never refuse a gay person service. What I am against is forcing it onto other people using the government.
> 
> So all that westboro shit doesn't fly.



Again, Public Accomedation has been the law for 50 years now.  It's not an issue.  You don't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Lol, now the Mormons are taking over the republican party.
> 
> A picture of Joe at home with his only friend.



Hey, nominating Romney was a terrible idea.  And you guys did it anyway.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > it would be apt if I actually hated gays, which I don't. Like I said I would vote for gay marriage if it came up, and would never refuse a gay person service. What I am against is forcing it onto other people using the government.
> ...



Again, you accuse me of hating gays, and then drop it when you realize that dog doesn't hunt. And PA laws have been warped past their original intent because the writers never figured some assholes would sue a bakery over a wedding cake. They were worried about hotels, and trains, and grocery stores.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, now the Mormons are taking over the republican party.
> ...



and we are paying for you assholes nominating Obama to this day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Again, you accuse me of hating gays, and then drop it when you realize that dog doesn't hunt. And PA laws have been warped past their original intent because the writers never figured some assholes would sue a bakery over a wedding cake. They were worried about hotels, and trains, and grocery stores.



Frankly, you are the first one to side with them.  You lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas, and I had the same attitude towards the ACLU when they got into bed with the Nazis. 

The PA laws are doing exactly what they were designed to do, which is why there is no cry to update them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Really?  Frankly, all the damage that's been done to my life in recent years happened thanks to your boy George W. Stupid.  I'd LOVE to have my life from 2000 back.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you accuse me of hating gays, and then drop it when you realize that dog doesn't hunt. And PA laws have been warped past their original intent because the writers never figured some assholes would sue a bakery over a wedding cake. They were worried about hotels, and trains, and grocery stores.
> ...



Just wait, when more people realize they can be sued for following their morals, you will end up on the wrong side of the argument.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



and the obligatory bush bash. You really are a 2-3 trick pony.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Just wait, when more people realize they can be sued for following their morals, you will end up on the wrong side of the argument.



Most people don't care that some small business twit can be sued.  And no one really respects a bigot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> and the obligatory bush bash. You really are a 2-3 trick pony.



I have the busted 401K and the underwater mortgage to bash Bush all I want.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Just wait, when more people realize they can be sued for following their morals, you will end up on the wrong side of the argument.
> ...



Most people are not insufferable fascists like you are.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > and the obligatory bush bash. You really are a 2-3 trick pony.
> ...



how did bush bash your 401k? how did he place your mortgage underwater?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You mean by fucking up the economy six ways to tuesday?  

Or does the president only get the blame for bad economy when he's black.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So you equate all that with forcing someone to bake a cake. Got it you petty little twat.
> ...


^ that Toro


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Or prosecute them to satisfy your sick fantasies of making everyone in the world think like you, and I use "think" lightly.
> ...



As long as you refuse to do business with Mormons, you are as big of a hypocrite.


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I agree with Joe on this.

But he's still a bigot and a hypocrite because he, literally, blacklists and discriminates against Mormons.

And you are here are, backing up the odious bigot.

Congratulations.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> As long as you refuse to do business with Mormons, you are as big of a hypocrite.



Not really.  Gays don't choose to be gay.  Mormons not only choose to be Mormons, but they actually have to actively ignore evidence that Joseph Smith was a lying sack of crap who just wanted to fuck little girls.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> I agree with Joe on this.
> 
> But he's still a bigot and a hypocrite because he, literally, blacklists and discriminates against Mormons.
> 
> And you are here Dot Com, a spineless parrot, backing up the odious bigot.



No, I don't deal with people who aren't trustworthy.  That's actually being fiscally responsible.


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Joe on this.
> ...



Bigot.

But hey, don't worry, Dot Com supports you!  That's the advent of the spineless left.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2014)

Toro said:


> Bigot.
> 
> But hey, don't worry, Dot Com supports you! That's the advent of the spineless left.



The one time I made the mistake of trusting Mormons, I paid a very steep price for it. 

What compelling reason would I have to ever trust one again?


----------



## Toro (Dec 8, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Bigot.
> ...



Because regardless of one's race, religion or sexuality, you treat and judge people as individuals, not ascribing negative aspects based on a pre-determined bias, which is what you do.

That's why you are a bigot.

But as long as you're not a conservative, you'll have some spineless leftist who'll support you no matter what.  So, there's that.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 8, 2014)

Just for that, my next 10  posts will consist of:

^ that Toro

Mormons are "a special breed" you got to admit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Toro said:


> Because regardless of one's race, religion or sexuality, you treat and judge people as individuals, not ascribing negative aspects based on a pre-determined bias, which is what you do.
> 
> That's why you are a bigot.
> 
> But as long as you're not a conservative, you'll have some spineless leftist who'll support you no matter what. So, there's that.



Sorry, guy, I don't put religion in the same class as race, gender and sexual orientation.  Religion, you have to make a special effort to continue to believe in utter nonsense about sky pixies.  And Mormonism I put in it's own special class, because it's a fucking scam, the scam was documented, and Mormons make a special effort to ignore the fact it's a scam. 

But do you know what really makes me hate the fuck out of Mormons?  The fact that when you decide as a young Mormon that Joseph Smith was full of shit, your family is required to SHUN you. That makes them especially contemptable.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

You really have an axe to grind with Mormons, now don't you...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> You really have an axe to grind with Mormons, now don't you...



I have an axe to grind with all religious stupidity.  

The Mormons are just in a special category of stupid because the fraud has been pretty thoroughly documented. 

And we almost turned the country over to this insane cult.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > You really have an axe to grind with Mormons, now don't you...
> ...




Oh, I dunno. Electing a Mormon President would not mean that we turn the country over to a cult, as you put it.  And actually, he lost by -3.86%, so I am also not so sure about that "almost" part, either.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Oh, I dunno. Electing a Mormon President would not mean that we turn the country over to a cult, as you put it. And actually, he lost by -3.86%, so I am also not so sure about that "almost" part, either.



It was still too damned close, mostly because no one wanted to talk about the crazy shit Mormons believe because that was his religion. 

You see, if you dress crazy shit up in vestments and call it religion, it suddenly becomes beyond reproach. 






Me, someone tells me that he's going to be a God in the afterlife and rule over his own planet, I want to throw a net over him and don't want him anywhere near the nukes.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I dunno. Electing a Mormon President would not mean that we turn the country over to a cult, as you put it. And actually, he lost by -3.86%, so I am also not so sure about that "almost" part, either.
> ...




It was probably closer than expected because Obama fucked up the first debate and lost probably 2% right there.  But polling had him consistently over 300 EV for more than one year on end.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I asked for specifics, you gave me the standard Bush bad unga bunga.

figures.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

Do you speak unga bunga, really?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you refuse to do business with Mormons, you are as big of a hypocrite.
> ...



There is a whole branch of Radical Feminism that disagrees with you on that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> I asked for specifics, you gave me the standard Bush bad unga bunga.
> 
> figures.



You mean other than appointing Cronies to the SEC who were watching porn instead of the banks?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Do you speak unga bunga, really?



It's his native language.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Radical Feminists?  DO they even still make those?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > I asked for specifics, you gave me the standard Bush bad unga bunga.
> ...



My 401k is just fine, don't know what happened to yours.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Do you speak unga bunga, really?
> ...





Aha. Is that a series of unitelligible grunts and wheezes and such?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Just look under the cover of SJW's.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Do you speak unga bunga, really?



your point?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> It was probably closer than expected because Obama fucked up the first debate and lost probably 2% right there. But polling had him consistently over 300 EV for more than one year on end.



EV's are misleading.  a small shift in a few states would have swung it.  

The fact that Romney came as close as he did, because no one really challenged his crazy beliefs, is truly frightening.


----------



## Toro (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Because regardless of one's race, religion or sexuality, you treat and judge people as individuals, not ascribing negative aspects based on a pre-determined bias, which is what you do.
> ...



That YOU don't put religion in there is to be expected, so that is how you rationalize your bigotry. Nazis thought they were doing the world a favor by exterminating the Jews. No doubt, if a few black people screwed you over, you'd hate all black people too. 

You throw everyone from a group in the same boat if a few people made you mad. 

That's why you are a bigot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



It lost 50% of its value in 2008.  SOme of it came back under Obama (Not that you'd give him credit for that. YOu know, because he's black.)


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



1) how old were you. If under 40 losing 1/2 its value is a transient, and means you buy shares at a lower value while it recovers.
2) If you were older, you should have had more in bonds and MM's, not stock funds.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Toro said:


> That YOU don't put religion in there is to be expected, so that is how you rationalize your bigotry. Nazis thought they were doing the world a favor by exterminating the Jews. No doubt, if a few black people screwed you over, you'd hate all black people too.
> 
> You throw everyone from a group in the same boat if a few people made you mad.
> 
> That's why you are a bigot.



well, no, guy, Mormons aren't Jews or Blacks.  

Mormons also think black skin is a curse from God, but I don't see you calling their religion on that. Or that they didn't let black folks join until 1978.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > It was probably closer than expected because Obama fucked up the first debate and lost probably 2% right there. But polling had him consistently over 300 EV for more than one year on end.
> ...




No, false.

Even if the vote had shifted to Romney in all states that Obama won with less than +5, he would still have won with 272 EV. Any state with more than +5 means that a considerable shift in voting would have been necessary.  That stats prove you wrong in this case.  Obama won FL, OH and VA with less than +5. 332-29-18-13=272.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/...1&off=0&year=2012&sort_dir=desc&submit=Submit

Compare that with 2004:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/...1&off=0&year=2004&sort_dir=desc&submit=Submit

Had Bush 43 lost the states that he won with less than +5, using exactly the same criteria as I used for Obama 2012, the Bush would have lost CO (9 EV), NV (5 EV), OH (20 EV), NM (5 EV), and IA (7 EV) and ended up with 240 EV.


In order to get an Obama loss, you would have to swing at least one state that he won with over +5. That is statistically not even a battleground statistic, +5 and above. Just to be clear.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 1) how old were you. If under 40 losing 1/2 its value is a transient, and means you buy shares at a lower value while it recovers.
> 2) If you were older, you should have had more in bonds and MM's, not stock funds.



Guy, I shouldn't have to be an expert on the Stock Market to not get screwed.  401K is the biggest scam every pulled off on working folks.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> No, false.
> 
> Even if the vote had shifted to Romney in all states that Obama won with less than +5, he would still have won with 272 EV.



Guy, I'm not going to rehash the election with you.  Point is, Romney came way too close to winning, given how absolutely scary his cult is.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...




Well, my spine is in good shape. And I am mostly from the Left. But I support no-one's bigotry.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > No, false.
> ...




Statistically, no, he didn't. +4 is not as close as people think.  Obama's win in 2012 is still considerably LARGER than Bush 2004, Gore 2000 (in the PV), Carter 1976, Nixon 1968, Kennedy 1960. The only relatively close election in the 20th century when the winner did better in the margin was Truman 1948.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2014)

Damn...has this thread ever turned into a pissing contest


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > 1) how old were you. If under 40 losing 1/2 its value is a transient, and means you buy shares at a lower value while it recovers.
> ...



You don't need to be an expert, you need to read for 1 hour on some strategies and be done with it. I have over $200k in my 401k, and I'm just hitting 40. 

401k's give a company cost certainty as compared to a pension, which allows them to stay in business.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Damn...has this thread ever turned into a pissing contest



Generally speaking after about 20 pages or so, they all do. This one just started yellowing up the floor early.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> You don't need to be an expert, you need to read for 1 hour on some strategies and be done with it. I have over $200k in my 401k, and I'm just hitting 40.
> 
> 401k's give a company cost certainty as compared to a pension, which allows them to stay in business.



401K's give companies the ability to play the market.  Wall Street is a casino.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need to be an expert, you need to read for 1 hour on some strategies and be done with it. I have over $200k in my 401k, and I'm just hitting 40.
> ...



and where do you think pension funds invest their money? Candy Land?


----------



## Toro (Dec 9, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > That YOU don't put religion in there is to be expected, so that is how you rationalize your bigotry. Nazis thought they were doing the world a favor by exterminating the Jews. No doubt, if a few black people screwed you over, you'd hate all black people too.
> ...



But if a few black guys or Jews did something bad to you, you'd hate all blacks and Jews too, and you'd find a reason to hate them too. 

You're no better than the despicable racists or anti-Semites.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Actually he is worse, because he wants government to enforce his bias on others.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Damn...has this thread ever turned into a pissing contest
> ...


 
Looks like Rick Perry doesn't generate much enthusiasm


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Its only 2014, just wait for a bit.  Hillary doesn't seem to be generating much enthusiasm either. I think people are worn out from the mid-terms. Summer 2015 is when things will start picking up.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Unless Rick Perry starts baking some gay wedding cakes his campaign is doomed


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If the best thing dems have to run on is forcing rick perry to bake gay wedding cakes, you guys are hosed.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Rick Perry would bake a wedding cake for an illegal Mexican but not for a gay American?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Can Rick Perry even bake?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)




----------



## rightwinger (Dec 9, 2014)




----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


>



I don't see the issue here.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 9, 2014)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Indeed, I can imagine that you don't...


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What was Ron Whites joke, "Other states are eliminating the Death Penalty, in Texas we are putting in and Express Lane"


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> What was Ron Whites joke, "Other states are eliminating the Death Penalty, in Texas we are putting in and Express Lane"



Yeah, and if they happen to execute an innocent person by mistake?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > What was Ron Whites joke, "Other states are eliminating the Death Penalty, in Texas we are putting in and Express Lane"
> ...



and how is that any worse than locking up an innocent person for 40 years and having them die in prison?

If we assume the justice system cannot make ANY mistakes, then we might as well scrap the whole thing.

Has there, in the last 30 years, been a proven case where an innocent person was executed? Not suppositions and conjecture, actual physical proof?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> and how is that any worse than locking up an innocent person for 40 years and having them die in prison?
> 
> If we assume the justice system cannot make ANY mistakes, then we might as well scrap the whole thing.
> 
> Has there, in the last 30 years, been a proven case where an innocent person was executed? Not suppositions and conjecture, actual physical proof?



Well, if you lock him up, he's got 40 years to fight his conviction.  Oh, yeah, and he's still alive, which is worse than the alternative.  

Carlos DeLuna Execution Texas Put To Death An Innocent Man Columbia University Team Says


----------



## martybegan (Dec 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > and how is that any worse than locking up an innocent person for 40 years and having them die in prison?
> ...



"likely did not commit"  25 years later, found out by a bunch of people opposed to the death penalty. 

That's the best they can come up with?

Plus, I doubt people will be so gung ho in exonerating people in for life as opposed to being on Death Row. Remember the "cause" it what brings out all of this reviewing of old cases. Without being on death row I'm sure plenty of innocent people (innocent of the crime they are charged with, most criminals are repeat offenders) dying in jail of ripe old age, and no one seems to care about that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2014)

So it's okay to execute them because they are "bad people"?  

The only reason why we haven't executed innocent people (assuming we haven't) is because every death penalty case IS scrutizined.  So we spend millions executing a few dozen people a year, and have to let other guilty people out of prison because there aren't funds to lock them up.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So it's okay to execute them because they are "bad people"?
> 
> The only reason why we haven't executed innocent people (assuming we haven't) is because every death penalty case IS scrutizined.  So we spend millions executing a few dozen people a year, and have to let other guilty people out of prison because there aren't funds to lock them up.



The people we let out are usually low level drug possession and sale cases, mostly involving pot. Those people shouldn't be in jail to begin with. 

The Death Penalty is needed, because some crimes require the person to die. It just that simple.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Oh,  I can believe that joke. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (Dec 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I see you are very pro-life. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Toro (Dec 10, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> So it's okay to execute them because they are "bad people"?
> 
> The only reason why we haven't executed innocent people (assuming we haven't) is because every death penalty case IS scrutizined.  So we spend millions executing a few dozen people a year, and have to let other guilty people out of prison because there aren't funds to lock them up.



You said we should "hang every CEO who outsources to China."  Which is, you know, almost every CEO in the Fortune 500. 

According to your logic then, it is OK to execute "bad" people. Except that "bad" in this case isn't someone who rapes and kills, but someone acting at the behest of his shareholders.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2014)

martybegan said:


> The people we let out are usually low level drug possession and sale cases, mostly involving pot. Those people shouldn't be in jail to begin with.
> 
> The Death Penalty is needed, because some crimes require the person to die. It just that simple.



There's no crime that requires a person to die, and there's no need for a death penalty.  Most of the world's other industrialized nations get by without a death penalty and they are just fine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2014)

Toro said:


> You said we should "hang every CEO who outsources to China." Which is, you know, almost every CEO in the Fortune 500.
> 
> According to your logic then, it is OK to execute "bad" people. Except that "bad" in this case isn't someone who rapes and kills, but someone acting at the behest of his shareholders.



Yes, your inability to understand ironic humor is duly noted.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 10, 2014)

Talk about a disaster, Hillary's gaffe about "empathizing with the enemy" tops the list for even brain damaged Joe Biden.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The people we let out are usually low level drug possession and sale cases, mostly involving pot. Those people shouldn't be in jail to begin with.
> ...



Again, other nations in the world can pound sand. 

The death penalty is a constitutional and appropriate punishment for certain crimes.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 11, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Actually I am ambivalent on the abortion issue, short of thinking it is up to the States, not 5 of 9 unelected lawyers. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, however I think minors need parental or court permission, and its an elective procedure that the government should not pay for. 

And being against and abortion and for the death penalty isn't the hypocrisy you make it out to be. Show me a fetus that has killed someone, gotten a trial and 20 years of appeals and then you have a comparison.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Again, other nations in the world can pound sand.
> 
> The death penalty is a constitutional and appropriate punishment for certain crimes.



Yeah, we don't want to imitate those other countries that have vastly better results than we do.  

The only thing the death penalty does is let people like you live revenge fantasies.   It does nothing to deter crime, it really doesn't bring closure to the victim's families, and, oh yeah, it's ridiculously expensive.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2014)

martybegan said:


> Actually I am ambivalent on the abortion issue, short of thinking it is up to the States, not 5 of 9 unelected lawyers. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, however I think minors need parental or court permission, and its an elective procedure that the government should not pay for.
> 
> And being against and abortion and for the death penalty isn't the hypocrisy you make it out to be. Show me a fetus that has killed someone, gotten a trial and 20 years of appeals and then you have a comparison.



Well, no, guy, either you think a fetus is a person or you don't. This really isn't an argument you can comprimise on.  

Either you think we need to treat abortion like any other murder - which means locking up the women who have them - or you don't.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Again, other nations in the world can pound sand.
> ...



You can't make the claim that it "doesn't bring closure" to the victims families because you obviously haven't talked to all of them. 

Incarcerating a person for 50 years and eventually providing old age care to them is probably JUST as expensive, or close enough to not matter. Why don't we just let them out?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I am ambivalent on the abortion issue, short of thinking it is up to the States, not 5 of 9 unelected lawyers. I wouldn't vote for an abortion ban, however I think minors need parental or court permission, and its an elective procedure that the government should not pay for.
> ...



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.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2014)

martybegan said:


> You can't make the claim that it "doesn't bring closure" to the victims families because you obviously haven't talked to all of them.



The execution doesn't bring their loved one back, so no, it doesn't. 




martybegan said:


> Incarcerating a person for 50 years and eventually providing old age care to them is probably JUST as expensive, or close enough to not matter. Why don't we just let them out?



well, first, how many people actually live 50 years in prison? 

Costs of the Death Penalty Death Penalty Information Center


Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).


----------



## Toro (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > You said we should "hang every CEO who outsources to China." Which is, you know, almost every CEO in the Fortune 500.
> ...



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.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2014)

Toro said:


> 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!!!"


----------



## martybegan (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > You can't make the claim that it "doesn't bring closure" to the victims families because you obviously haven't talked to all of them.
> ...



Ah, so you are the only one that gets to decide what is "closure" got it. You are such a pompous fucking ass.

again, you ignore the health care costs for the inmates. 

Health care costs for older inmates skyrocket



> A 2012 ACLU study estimated that it costs nearly $70,000 a year to house a prisoner over 50, compared with an average of $34,135 for a younger inmate. The increase is primarily driven by much higher health care costs for the older population.



So double their cost (at least) when they hit 50, and since we are not letting these guys out until they die, your "cost savings" goes down dramatically.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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.  



martybegan said:


> 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.  



martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 11, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


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



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 (Dec 11, 2014)

Toro said:


> 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 (Dec 11, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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

Your love of oligarchy is noted.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 12, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Gun laws that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, there fixed it for ya.
> ...



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 (Dec 13, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 13, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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. 



martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you would.
> ...


^ that Toro


----------



## squeeze berry (Dec 15, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




Obama fatigue factor > than anything else


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2014)

squeeze berry said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


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



Because the easy way is unconstitutional and fascist.

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


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Because the easy way is unconstitutional and fascist.
> ...



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


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2014)

martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


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



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!


----------



## martybegan (Dec 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > its about militias AND gun ownership. You have lost this argument countless times before.
> ...



You have been proven wrong again and again, but keep it up, it makes you look even stupider.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2014)

birddog said:


> 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!



When you rush out and try to stop common sense gun laws even after dozens of children are slaughtered, you aren't even in the same zip code as "responsible".


----------



## martybegan (Dec 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



You are a gun banner, any time you use the term "common sense" we know its a fucking lie.

Now go back to sucking off kellerman while giving Bloomberg a reach around.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 16, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




You Communists fear Rick Perry?

Interesting.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2014)

martybegan said:


> You are a gun banner, any time you use the term "common sense" we know its a fucking lie.
> 
> Now go back to sucking off kellerman while giving Bloomberg a reach around.



well, you see, that's where you actually work on the whole compromise thing.  You get me a compromise where you keep guns out of the hands of guys like Lanza and Holmes, I'm totally willing to let you compensate for your tiny peckers.


----------

