Why Perry Can't Win

[Cecilie1200]

Really? That's what you've got in response? Very weak.

Consider the source.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I thought mainstream Republicans were still rooting for Palin and Romney.

Perry will have less votes than Ron Paul in the end (Romney and Palin will have the highest), and Perry will not have enough outside the party to un-brainwash some of Obama's cult base; which would be needed to win the Presidency.

Well, that'll teach you to think when you're unequipped for the job.

By the way, the word is "fewer", not "less".

 

[JakeStarkey]

By the way, Romney is having no problem dealing with Perry.

 

[JoeB131]

Insofar as the Constitution says nothing about slavery for or against, Dred Scott had fuck-all to do with the Constitution. Comparing execrable Supreme Court decisions about state law issues to the election process is . . . about on par for your other bullshit posts, actually.

Japanese internment wasn't even vaguely Constitutional, fucknut. What planet do you live on?

The Supreme Court said otherwise. There were several decisions that upheld the policy as legal and constitutional.


Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirabayashi v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yasui v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roe v. Wade also had fuck-all to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with Black's fevered imagination.

Actually, it was more along the line of Black being a realist. There were no more abortions happening after Wade than there were before. The birth rate did not plummet in 1973 or 1974. Women who wanted to end pregnancies were ending them.

The Supreme Court's rather mild decision that the laws of the state of Florida should be upheld most certainly does NOT constitute "judicial activism". And it has shit to do with the Electoral College one way or the other. Gore wanted to do a reprise of the debacle surrounding the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in order to steal the election, and he was forced instead to respect the laws Florida enacted precisely to prevent that very thing from happening. The ignorance of history evidenced by you and so many other retards has no bearing on that fact.

I've got a degree in history... what do you have?

Now, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but the fact is, it was a 5-4 decision. What if Justice Kennedy went the other way, ordered more recounts and Gore won? Somehow, I don't think you'd be as understanding.

 

[JoeB131]

By the way, Romney is having no problem dealing with Perry.

If you consider trailing by double digits to be "no problem", then yeah, he's having no problem.

Besides all the other reasons I've listed as to why Romney can't win the nomination, here's another one.

He doesn't really believe what he's saying.

Back in 2008, when he decided he was going to work the far right end of the street when McCain and Guliani had the moderate side sewn up, he suddenly renounced nearly all of his past positions. Except nobody bought it. It was faker than Pamela Anderson's breast implants.

He'll try to make a play for the right again this time, and he'll sound fake and forced when he does it.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

I think he can win.

I think he has a very good shot at the nomination. And I think Obama is very vulnerable, which means that the GOP candidate can win. Because of Obama's vulnerability, I think most of the Republican candidates have a real shot. Perry is not as good of a general election candidate than Romney, but he still has a real shot.

Okay, given Obama's extremely poor performance, I guess it was a bit strong to say that Perry "Can't win". Fine he has a shot, albeit a long shot. I think the GOP would be better off with Paul than Perry - and that's saying something because Paul seems unelectable. But at least he wouldn't be perceived thus: W was horrible. Obama is W part II, Here comes Perry - W Part III.

Obama certainly did not turn out to be the President for Change, but don't go giving any kudos to the Republicans yet. They had a choice opportunity to step up, take the reins and look like they gave a G'damn about the future of this country. Instead, like the spoiled colicky 3-year-olds they are, they threw a bitch tantrum resulting in absolutely nothing getting done.

What irks me most are these "macho" 1-up-manship games continually being played by this worthless Congressional cadre. These do-nothing-leeches and their do-nothing-games are being played daily at our expense.

Obama may well not win a second term, but don't count on a pointy-toed religious hypocrite from Texas whose idea of American life got stuck somewhere in the 1950s being his replacement.

As for Mitt Romney - if he had a bit more of that old political know-how his father George Romney had, he might fare better. As for now, he still looks like a vacationing department store mannequin. That he doesn't like Perry is a three steps parlay for him where I'm concerned, however.

It seems to have completely slipped the elephant mind that it was a Republican who created this unmanageable swamp, which no one is able to figure a way out of much less how to drain. And no matter how often the Republicans shuffle those shells attempting to hide that fact, everyone over the age of 10 knows the truth.

What America should be saying is. Who cares who is to blame, only teenagers and politicians apparently. The questions of the hour are what are we as a nation going to do about it? Are our differences resolvable? How soon can workable plans or strategies be produced for getting us working again? Who is right for the job of spearheading this monumental project? That's the winning platform regardless of party politic. Unless of course the current Congress doesn't care whether or not the country, the people and our way of life survives. About that, I'm very sorry to say that the jury is still out.

Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody. — Franklin P. Adams

 

[The Rabbi]

I think he can win.

I think he has a very good shot at the nomination. And I think Obama is very vulnerable, which means that the GOP candidate can win. Because of Obama's vulnerability, I think most of the Republican candidates have a real shot. Perry is not as good of a general election candidate than Romney, but he still has a real shot.

Okay, given Obama's extremely poor performance, I guess it was a bit strong to say that Perry "Can't win". Fine he has a shot, albeit a long shot. I think the GOP would be better off with Paul than Perry - and that's saying something because Paul seems unelectable. But at least he wouldn't be perceived thus: W was horrible. Obama is W part II, Here comes Perry - W Part III.

Obama certainly did not turn out to be the President for Change, but don't go giving any kudos to the Republicans yet. They had a choice opportunity to step up, take the reins and look like they gave a G'damn about the future of this country. Instead, like the spoiled colicky 3-year-olds they are, they threw a bitch tantrum resulting in absolutely nothing getting done.

What irks me most are these "macho" 1-up-manship games continually being played by this worthless Congressional cadre. These do-nothing-leeches and their do-nothing-games are being played daily at our expense.

Obama may well not win a second term, but don't count on a pointy-toed religious hypocrite from Texas whose idea of American life got stuck somewhere in the 1950s being his replacement.

As for Mitt Romney - if he had a bit more of that old political know-how his father George Romney had, he might fare better. As for now, he still looks like a vacationing department store mannequin. That he doesn't like Perry is a three steps parlay for him where I'm concerned, however.

It seems to have completely slipped the elephant mind that it was a Republican who created this unmanageable swamp, which no one is able to figure a way out of much less how to drain. And no matter how often the Republicans shuffle those shells attempting to hide that fact, everyone over the age of 10 knows the truth.

What America should be saying is. Who cares who is to blame, only teenagers and politicians apparently. The questions of the hour are what are we as a nation going to do about it? Are our differences resolvable? How soon can workable plans or strategies be produced for getting us working again? Who is right for the job of spearheading this monumental project? That's the winning platform regardless of party politic. Unless of course the current Congress doesn't care whether or not the country, the people and our way of life survives. About that, I'm very sorry to say that the jury is still out.

Elections are won by men and women chiefly because most people vote against somebody rather than for somebody. — Franklin P. Adams

Wow are you stupid.
The GOP controls one house of Congress, and not by a huge margin either. They hammered out the best deal they could. The Democrats had no proposal. Obama had no clue. The only way the deal was made to begin with was when he was asked to leave the room so the adults could decide.
The deal sucked, as Boehner himself admitted. But it was the best one that was going to happen with Obama and the Dums not taking debt reduction seriously. The proof is in how OBama blew off the downgrade in his speech.

No, Obama is one and done. He has exhibited zero leadership and has no ideas. Perry will change things for the better.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Insofar as the Constitution says nothing about slavery for or against, Dred Scott had fuck-all to do with the Constitution. Comparing execrable Supreme Court decisions about state law issues to the election process is . . . about on par for your other bullshit posts, actually.

Japanese internment wasn't even vaguely Constitutional, fucknut. What planet do you live on?

The Supreme Court said otherwise. There were several decisions that upheld the policy as legal and constitutional.


Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirabayashi v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yasui v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roe v. Wade also had fuck-all to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with Black's fevered imagination.

Actually, it was more along the line of Black being a realist. There were no more abortions happening after Wade than there were before. The birth rate did not plummet in 1973 or 1974. Women who wanted to end pregnancies were ending them.

The Supreme Court's rather mild decision that the laws of the state of Florida should be upheld most certainly does NOT constitute "judicial activism". And it has shit to do with the Electoral College one way or the other. Gore wanted to do a reprise of the debacle surrounding the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in order to steal the election, and he was forced instead to respect the laws Florida enacted precisely to prevent that very thing from happening. The ignorance of history evidenced by you and so many other retards has no bearing on that fact.

I've got a degree in history... what do you have?

Now, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but the fact is, it was a 5-4 decision. What if Justice Kennedy went the other way, ordered more recounts and Gore won? Somehow, I don't think you'd be as understanding.

There you fucking go with that interpretation bullshit. Judges cannot legislate from the bench.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Insofar as the Constitution says nothing about slavery for or against, Dred Scott had fuck-all to do with the Constitution. Comparing execrable Supreme Court decisions about state law issues to the election process is . . . about on par for your other bullshit posts, actually.

Japanese internment wasn't even vaguely Constitutional, fucknut. What planet do you live on?

The Supreme Court said otherwise. There were several decisions that upheld the policy as legal and constitutional.

The Supreme Court has said a lot of stupid shit in its history, most of which has been overturned later. This is why we're talking about the CONSTITUTION, not about "Supreme Court rulings". For no reason I can understand, the retards in this country - like you - cannot seem to tell the difference, or even realize that there IS a difference. Are you really that uncertain about your own literacy that you feel unable to READ THE WORDS and decipher their meaning for yourself, rather than looking to someone else to tell you what the little ink squiggles say?


Once again for the thinking-impaired: slavery is not in the Constitution as any sort of policy. On the rare occasions that it is alluded to, it is merely acknowledged to have existed, not endorsed OR condemned.

I repeat: Dred Scott was not a Constitutional issue. The suit was not brought on Constitutional issues, but based on state law (Scott's owner had taken him to a state where slavery was illegal). While the court tried to claim its decision was based on the Constitution (Scott, as a slave, was not a citizen, and they held that he therefore had no standing to bring the suit), it wasn't, since non-citizens have pretty much always had access to our legal system, as they do now.

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirabayashi v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yasui v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roe v. Wade also had fuck-all to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with Black's fevered imagination.

Actually, it was more along the line of Black being a realist. There were no more abortions happening after Wade than there were before. The birth rate did not plummet in 1973 or 1974. Women who wanted to end pregnancies were ending them.

No more abortions happening after Roe than before it? Really? There were a million abortions a year in this country before Roe v. Wade? Prove it.

And I just LOVE "the birth rate didn't plummet right after, so it had no effect." Is that what passes for logic in your dream world, Sparky? There's no reason the birth rate OR the pregnancy rate should plummet, fucktard, if you know anything about human nature

Laws aren't passed in a vacuum, and the specific issues they're intended to address don't occur in a vacuum. The idea that society would remain exactly as it was with the handing-down of such a ruling only exists in the minds of liberals and the droolers who blindly listen to them.

Roe v. Wade changed society and the way people looked at sex, having the - entirely predictable - effect of RAISING the pregnancy rate by increasing the amount of pressure ALL women - including those who would never dream of having an abortion - feel to have sex outside of marriage. Which also means that more of the babies created by this change in attitude also made it all the way to being born, AND that there were even more pregnancies to be aborted overall.

I don't even know what to suggest to correct such a shocking paucity of knowledge about humanity.

The Supreme Court's rather mild decision that the laws of the state of Florida should be upheld most certainly does NOT constitute "judicial activism". And it has shit to do with the Electoral College one way or the other. Gore wanted to do a reprise of the debacle surrounding the election of Rutherford B. Hayes in order to steal the election, and he was forced instead to respect the laws Florida enacted precisely to prevent that very thing from happening. The ignorance of history evidenced by you and so many other retards has no bearing on that fact.

I've got a degree in history... what do you have?

Now, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but the fact is, it was a 5-4 decision. What if Justice Kennedy went the other way, ordered more recounts and Gore won? Somehow, I don't think you'd be as understanding.

Well, since this is the Internet, I have a PhD in history. Like I give a fuck what you do or don't claim on an Internet message board, halfwit. I can see what you write, and how mind-bogglingly idiotic it is, and that's really all I need. In the future, if your claims can't stand on their own, please don't think making unprovable claims about your personal life makes them any stronger. It actually makes everything you say weaker.

No, I wouldn't be as understanding about a bad and technically illegal decision as I would about a decision that was in compliance with the written law. Why would you think I should be? Because you think I'm like you, and slavishly worshipping every word dripping from the mouths of a bunch of lawyers in black dresses, with no consultation to my own common sense and reading abilities?

 

[Unkotare]

No one is saying, "We really need to stay longer in Afghanistan".

We most certainly DO need to stay longer in Afghanistan.

 

[Unkotare]

I've got a degree in history... what do you have?

Now, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but the fact is, it was a 5-4 decision. What if Justice Kennedy went the other way, ordered more recounts and Gore won? Somehow, I don't think you'd be as understanding.

Wow, a degree in History! Only someone with a pulse could get one of those!

And if you are going to play "what if," why don't we just go back and rewrite ALL of history until it makes you comfortable?

 

[JoeB131]

No one is saying, "We really need to stay longer in Afghanistan".

We most certainly DO need to stay longer in Afghanistan.

When you walk down to the recruiter and sign away your life for three years, then I'll take your position seriously.

Frankly, my position is, what are we actually trying to accomplish there at this point? Establishing democracy? That was over when Krazy Karzai stole the election in 2009. Prevent the Taliban from coming back to power? Karzai talks about joining them every five minutes while we've been secretly negotiating with them.

 

[JoeB131]

I've got a degree in history... what do you have?

Now, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but the fact is, it was a 5-4 decision. What if Justice Kennedy went the other way, ordered more recounts and Gore won? Somehow, I don't think you'd be as understanding.

Wow, a degree in History! Only someone with a pulse could get one of those!

And if you are going to play "what if," why don't we just go back and rewrite ALL of history until it makes you comfortable?

No, it isn't about "rewriting history", stupid. It's about pointing out your own hypocrisy. You have developed this great love for the electoral college because it produced a result you wanted. It got Bush into office. If Obama won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote next year, you'd be on here screaming bloody murder (as well you should.)

I don't support bad systems because they occassionally produce a result I like.

 

[Unkotare]

No one is saying, "We really need to stay longer in Afghanistan".

We most certainly DO need to stay longer in Afghanistan.

When you walk down to the recruiter and sign away your life for three years, then I'll take your position seriously.

Then you are an illogical fool, and your emotive reactions may well lead to many, many, many more young men ending up there years from now than might otherwise have been necessary. Way to think ahead, genius.

 

[Unkotare]

I've got a degree in history... what do you have?

Now, I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but the fact is, it was a 5-4 decision. What if Justice Kennedy went the other way, ordered more recounts and Gore won? Somehow, I don't think you'd be as understanding.

Wow, a degree in History! Only someone with a pulse could get one of those!

And if you are going to play "what if," why don't we just go back and rewrite ALL of history until it makes you comfortable?

No, it isn't about "rewriting history".

Of course it is. That is all "what if" bullshit is ever about. Your boy lost over a decade ago and you still can't get over it so you play in fantasy land and bitch about our electoral system instead of moving forward. "You would do this or that" is the same kind of weak-minded bullshit. Get a grip.

 

[JoeB131]

We most certainly DO need to stay longer in Afghanistan.

When you walk down to the recruiter and sign away your life for three years, then I'll take your position seriously.

Then you are an illogical fool, and your emotive reactions may well lead to many, many, many more young men ending up there years from now than might otherwise have been necessary. Way to think ahead, genius.

People like you are very good at volunteering other people's children to die over there.

Address the point. What are we still trying to accomplish over there at this point?

 

[Unkotare]

Still can't think beyond your emotional state of the present moment? Goldfish have greater mental capacity than you.

 

[JoeB131]

Still can't think beyond your emotional state of the present moment? Goldfish have greater mental capacity than you.

Duly noted you couldn't answer the question.

One more time.

What are we actually trying to accomplish over there at this point.

Not "Establish Democracy". We lost crediblity on that point when Karzai stole the election.

Not "Prevent the Taliban from coming back". We are negotiating with them.

What are we trying to accomplish that is worth ONE MORE AMERICAN coming back in a body bag?

Pride? Saving Face? Not having to have people flown off the embassy roof in helicopters?

Doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Unkotare]

Ok, I now believe you that you really are this stupid. I guess that's not your fault, but you don't seem to be trying very hard to improve.

If we leave Afghanistan before a stable, functioning government is in place that can police itself and exert control over all its provinces, in a few years (or maybe just a few months) it will become an incubator, sponsor, and haven for the kind of evil that enabled a certain problem we had about ten years ago (remember?). If that happens and we have to return again it will be even harder and more 'expensive.' Leaving a job unfinished always ends up being more, not less, trouble.

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, I now believe you that you really are this stupid. I guess that's not your fault, but you don't seem to be trying very hard to improve.

If we leave Afghanistan before a stable, functioning government is in place that can police itself and exert control over all its provinces, in a few years (or maybe just a few months) it will become an incubator, sponsor, and haven for the kind of evil that enabled a certain problem we had about ten years ago (remember?). If that happens and we have to return again it will be even harder and more 'expensive.' Leaving a job unfinished always ends up being more, not less, trouble.

But Afghanistan has NEVER had a functioning government that has exerted control over all its provinces.

Afghanistan has always been a spot on the map they gave a name to, but it's never been a place with a national identity.

The Soviets tried for 10 years to do what you say, and they put a lot more effort into the project. The minute they pulled out, all their boys were taken out and shot.

The British tried for years to conquer it and couldn't do it, either.

Only a Moron thinks we are going to be able to turn this place into a functioning democracy or give it a government that'll do our bidding.

Oh, wait, I forgot I was talking to a guy who thinks he's wearing magic underpants.