Monday May 28, 2012

Romney, Perry spar over jobs, Social Security

World ( 55 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

55 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Serrano

    "defeat President Barack Obama"

    Good luck with that.

  • 0

    paulinusa

    "I'm the Ronald Reagan candidate". "I'm the Ronald Reagan candidate." "I'm the Ronald Reagan candidate." ........

  • -1

    soldave

    So James R. Perry and WIllard M. Romney... can anyone see anyone else being close to getting the Republican vote?

  • -1

    Tatanka

    Well if Gov. Chris Christie gets into the race (with a baseball bat) we will have a winner. @Serrano; what cosmic bunny hole did you fall into? Have you seen the poll numbers? Do you follow the unemployment rate and housing foreclosures? Although in all fairness Pres. Obama is not totally to blame -- guess where the buck stops?

  • -1

    Laguna

    Ronald Reagan would be unelectable with today's Republican Party.

  • 1

    yabits

    Well if Gov. Chris Christie gets into the race (with a baseball bat) we will have a winner.

    More like a total eclipse. Catch him? They can't even get around him.

  • -1

    JapanGal

    I am not Republican. I am me, and do what I want. These people are just picking on each other. So boring.

  • 0

    pawatan

    Absolutely disgusting that there are debates and campaigning 14 months before the actual election. Perry in particular has an actual elected job that he needs to be doing rather than wasting his constituents' time and money campaigning for a new job.

    And wonder America is going to the dogs with twits like these spending more time fighting and trying to get a new job than actually contributing to society and performing the job they actually have. At least Palin had the decency to resign her post before drifting across America.

  • -1

    smithinjapan

    pawatan: "Absolutely disgusting that there are debates and campaigning 14 months before the actual election."

    Why? It's the start of debates to see who will RUN for president, not the actual presidential election occurring next year. They need to elect a candidate before that can happen, and hence the current debates.

  • -2

    BreitbartVictorious

    yabits on Christie

    More like a total eclipse. Catch him? They can't even get around him.

    Agreed. Dude is a force of nature.

  • 0

    pamelot

    It was a good glimpse...

    Newt was in particularly good form.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Congrats in advance to Obama.

  • 1

    pawatan

    Why? It's the start of debates to see who will RUN for president, not the actual presidential election occurring next year. They need to elect a candidate before that can happen, and hence the current debates.

    And this needs to happen 14 months in advance... why? Democracy can't function properly if candidates don't spend their entire lives campaigning? I swear, these US politicians spend 75% of their time campaigning, 20% vacationing, and the other 5% doing actual work, most of which pisses everyone off.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    pawatan: I agree they waste a lot of time, but you wasted a lot in missing the point; the parties have to choose who is going to run for president, representing said parties, BEFORE the actual election. Once that's decided they can then start appealing for money for their eventual campaign to run for president. The representative for the Democratic party is decided, correct? Which is why we're not seeing Obama out campaigning at the moment.

    Anyway, I love this little tidbit from Perry, who sounds as stupid as most other GOP members when it comes to 'speaking': (on climate change) "Well, I do agree that there is -- the science is -- is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at -- at-- at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just -- is nonsense. I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell."

    The guy is clearly mentally challenged.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    smithinjapan,

    since when did being stupid disqualify anyone in the republican party to run for any office, including the President? I do agree that Parry does make even Bush seem like a intellectual. Galileo as an example of science being wrong? Wow. But the no nothings watching Fox news would believe the sun revolves around the earth today if fox news told them that.

  • 0

    sailwind

    I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell."

    Ummm smith, zurc,

    You should do a little research before you post and claim he's dumb.

    Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[10] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[11] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: It's stupid to use that as a defense, because ultimately Galileo was correct that the earth was round, no? So what's Perry saying, then... that it'll end up being true but we can be ignorant and deny it, dragging by horse anyone who disagrees?

    zurcronium: "I do agree that Parry does make even Bush seem like a intellectual."

    Actually, the entire tea party is making bush look like a genius, especially Bachmann. Anyway, I'm not sure if a Republican told people the sun revolved around the earth that supporters would believe it, but I'm pretty sure that if a Republican promised to MAKE the sun revolve around the earth (of course, without a plan as to how they'd do it) they'd lap it up.

  • 0

    sailwind

    So what's Perry saying, then.

    I'd hazard a guess he's saying that the scientists in Galileo's day pretty much said the science was already settled. Galileo came along said it wasn't settled after all and got voted down by his scientific peers at the time.

  • 0

    pawatan

    The guy is clearly mentally challenged.

    As someone who lived with him as governor for years I would not disagree with that one iota.

  • 0

    pawatan

    Oh, but he loves to execute the mentally challenged! He's quite a big fan.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "I'd hazard a guess he's saying that the scientists in Galileo's day pretty much said the science was already settled. Galileo came along said it wasn't settled after all and got voted down by his scientific peers at the time."

    And his scientific peers, ie. the morons (much like those that deny climate change is caused in large part if not completely by human beings), were not only in complete denial and refused to look at the facts, but they were wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Again, brilliant defense by Perry. :)

  • 0

    sailwind

    And his scientific peers, ie. the morons(much like those that deny climate change is caused in large part if not completely by human beings),

    I suppose climate change never happened before human beings had ever existed on the planet and it is just a recent thing by your statement. Or I guess it did happen also then but it was caused by dinosaurs (lot's of methane gas being released by the large sauropods back then).

  • -2

    BreitbartVictorious

    in keeping with previous political battles in the US if the candidate with the R after his/her name has non-Americans who who loathe the US terrified well then I think we have a winner.

    smithinjapan

    Actually, the entire tea party is making bush look like a genius, especially Bachmann. Anyway, I'm not sure if a Republican told people the sun revolved around the earth that supporters would believe it, but I'm pretty sure that if a Republican promised to MAKE the sun revolve around the earth (of course, without a plan as to how they'd do it) they'd lap it up.

    Do you have any idea how wildly preposterous everything you said is ?You are hilarious. Anyone who isn't the member of the nominally left wing party in a country where you can't vote can only be dumb, or a 'dolt' or a 'fool.'

    And yet you fell for Obama's the earth-revolves-around-me rhetoric

    "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

  • 0

    Serrano

    Amercans may have had a brain fart when they gave the Republicans control of the House, but that was just a fluke, there's no way they'll be stupid enough not to re-elect Obama.

    The Republicans could nominate 24's David Palmer and Obama would still win.

  • -1

    Taka313

    Well, I'm glad that at least they both pointed out that neither of them are any good at creating jobs.

    Do you hear that America? Neither of these clowns is going to create any jobs. Texas miracle is a myth. Romney got rich tearing companies apart.

    Both of them should have worn red, rubber noses.

    Taka

  • 0

    herefornow

    Do you have any idea how wildly preposterous everything you said is ?You are hilarious.

    Briebart -- really? IMO the only thing preposterous and hilarious is that people are going to vote for absolute morons like Perry, Bachmann or Palin because they can recite a bunch of social conservative/Tea Party sound bites. The three of them combined don't have the intellectual capacity to be Pesident of the most powerful country in the world in the 21st century. Bush and his neo-cons proved how dangerous utilizing overly simplistic philosophies to set policy can be. I'd vote for a qualified Republican in a minute, as I believe Obama has been a huge disappointment. But Perry, Bachmann and Palin just scare the heck out of me.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    Breitbart: "Anyone who isn't the member of the nominally left wing party in a country where you can't vote can only be dumb, or a 'dolt' or a 'fool.'"

    Not all of them, no. All of the candidates in this debate? absolutely! Anyone who supports any of them... well, questionable. But at least I can comment on the thread at hand -- you seem to never be able to do so.

    herefornow: "Bush and his neo-cons proved how dangerous utilizing overly simplistic philosophies to set policy can be."

    100% bang on, although I have to admit that these morons are making bush and his cronies look pretty good.

    "But Perry, Bachmann and Palin just scare the heck out of me."

    They shouldn't scare you too much -- they assure a democratic victory next year, likely by a landslide. What's 'scary' is that people gobble up their twisted facts and lies and actually support them.

  • 0

    Laguna

    I'd vote for a qualified Republican in a minute....

    I hear what you're saying, herefornow, but let's not forget that even a qualified Republican is sympathetic towards Congressional Republican extremism. If there's any chance Congress will go Republican, I'd avoid choosing a Republican president, not matter how qualified.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    pawatan: And this needs to happen 14 months in advance... why? Democracy can't function properly if candidates don't spend their entire lives campaigning?

    They do this so you can really know who you are voting for, and they also do it to prevent the election from becoming a quick popularity contest. Wasn't Bachamnn in the lead a month ago or so? It takes time for us to learn she's insane. You don't want elections happening too soon.

  • -1

    qazwsx

    Nobody I know is that excited about Obama, and I seriously doubt that there will be any improvement in the economy by election time. Obama is in serious trouble if he loses the independents and young voters. I think his only chance is if the GOP pick a candidate who is scary enough issues-wise to force people to vote for the saner Obama

  • -2

    AiserX

    S.S Should be abolished altogether. After the mess that was created, young Americans ages 40 and under should vehemently oppose of S.S. The idea that this age group should pay benefits for the older citizens after wrecking the countries economy should be unacceptable.

    @ smithinjapan---

    Well, I do agree that there is -- the science is -- is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy at -- at-- at jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just -- is nonsense. I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell."

    The guy is clearly mentally challenged.

    Clearly your mentally challenged there is a basis in fact in that statement in regards to the economy. The premise is that because climate is changing, then we need to adopt a "green economy" to save the planet. This means a massive altering the economy to an economic model that already failed in less then 30 years. Spain is the perfect ideal economic model the greens advocate for. As a result unemployment in Spain is over 20% and every green job comes at the cost of 2 jobs.

    At the very end how ever the current president must not be allowed to be given a 2nd term. A man whom is only a lawyer by profession with no experience in the private sector and refuses to acknowledge states rights and the disastrous results of too much regulation makes this man too dangerous to serve as president. Of course he also really believes that he can run an entire economy by simply signing a bill is lunacy. Democrats sincerely believe they can micro manage the lives of an entire population and manage an entire economy at the federal level it's just scary and insane.

  • -1

    BreitbartVictorious

    HereFornow

    Briebart -- really? IMO the only thing preposterous and hilarious is that people are going to vote for absolute morons like Perry, Bachmann or Palin because they can recite a bunch of social conservative/Tea Party sound bites.

    Only one of them can get the vote for the R. choice for prez. You do understand this, yes? My guess is it will be Perry or Romney. I mean seriously, anyone hyperventilating about Bachman or Palin need only go to Intrade.com to see how slim a chance those two candidates have. But of course for the Look-at-me,I-Hate -America-Crowd here, pretending that Michelle Bachman (straight out of uber liberal Minnesota) is going to impose a Lutheran theocracy (or whatever sect it is she belongs to) is just too good a Facebook circle jerk to pass up.

  • 0

    TigermothII

    I find it interesting how the left has to consistently refer to anyone who leans right or supports values addressed by the Republican party as 'dolts, morons, idiots' - choose your insult. I find that offensive - not surprising at all - but offensive none-the-less, and very childish. I think political diversity and discussion is important and necessary for a healthy democracy, and of course the two sides will never mesh in opinions as the dichotomy is too great, and the value system different. I don't agree with much that a died-in-the-wool well-left leaning Democrat might hold in faith as dogma, but I don't think they are an idiot for their beliefs; idealistic, misguided maybe - but don't feel the anger necessary to insult.

    Perhaps the left's anger and vitriol that causes instant insult is due to past actions. Fair enough - but all should be reminded that life has not always been roses and happy nirvana under rule by the left - not by any stretch. Our current leader - no matter how much it kills any of you to admit it (but the polls show otherwise) - seems unable to affect much of anything that is of any great help. Of course I do realize you will blame the right and the previous administration for that. Ironic that if the roll was reversed most of you would be the first to blame a Republican president and likely call them an idiot I suppose.

    Odd that everything in your world has to be so black and white, and that anger and intellectual supremacy so important.

    Having said that, I will admit that none of the Republican candidates are obvious Rhodes scholars. While the last one couldn't keep it in his trousers and mind to task, he wasn't a bad President certainly (my opinion). But to those of you who knock my man Ronnie Reagan I can only say this. Under the Carter administration (and there is one Prez that I loathe - although I won't call him stupid as he certainly was not - just not a good president) I saw a great deal of unemployment, gas lines, and horrible foreign policy. Under the Reagan administration my father - a blue collar working class slob - went from unemployment to thinking of buying a piece of lake property for vacation purposes. Most of you on here who insult RR were probably too young to be more than a few years old when he was President.

    The point of this? Just because you might strongly disagree with someone else's point of view, that does not make them automatically stupid. Not all Republicans are gap-toothed, gun toting rednecks with rebel flag bumper stickers and Hank Williams Jr cd's in their trucks. Just as not all Democrats are weed smoking, unwashed know-it-alls who drive Volkswagens and think protesting 'against the man' is just the cool thing to do. Only a fool and an idiot thinks their opinions are the only ones that matter.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Tiger,

    A defunt two-party system is not a healthy democracy as you put it.

    And besides, anger and stupidity are omni-present on both sides of politics.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    AiserX: "Clearly your mentally challenged there is a basis in fact in that statement in regards to the economy. "

    Maybe I am challenged, because I sure can't understand the English in this sentence! :) The moron used Galileo to defend his argument that the idea that climate change is caused by man is not 'settled', when Galileo was 100% right but suffered at the hands of fools who refused to acknowledge the truth. The economy was what he tried to use to justify his ignorance.

    TigermothII: "Just because you might strongly disagree with someone else's point of view, that does not make them automatically stupid."

    You make some good points in your post. You're right that not agreeing with someone doesn't make them stupid -- them being stupid does, and that's about all these GOP candidates actually qualify for. Sorry, but true, and if it helps, like I said, they make bush look good.

  • -2

    herefornow

    I find it interesting how the left has to consistently refer to anyone who leans right or supports values addressed by the Republican party as 'dolts, morons, idiots' - choose your insult. I find that offensive - not surprising at all - but offensive none-the-less, and very childish.

    Tigermothll -- thanks for the laugh. Have you really read anything Perry, Bachmann or Palin have said/written? Like Perry's book? Or Bachmann's viwes on how to "cure" homosexuality? They are morons. Deliberately so. Because they realize the social conservative/Tea Party folks want simplistic solutions to everything, not big intellectual solutions. Nothing childish in saying that. Just recognizing that the FOX News crowd wants to make everything a sound-bite and not truly engage in any intelligent debate. And, Breitbart, say what you want, but Bachmann just won the straw poll in Iowa, so that isn't "facebook circle jerk". (Talk about insulting.)

  • 0

    Madverts

    Heh, another right-winger foaming at the mouth with a "cure" for homosexuality? I haven't seen anything so funny since Bush's spiritual advisor declared himself "cured" of meth and man-sex urges. No wonder normal people consider these individuals cranks!

  • 0

    TigermothII

    Madverts - excellent points

    Smith -

    You make some good points in your post. You're right that not agreeing with someone doesn't make them stupid -- them being stupid does, and that's about all these GOP candidates actually qualify for. Sorry, but true, and if it helps, like I said, they make bush look good.

    True, but too much guilt my association. Yes, these candidates are stupid - but that doesn't make all Republicans stupid by default, despite the fact that most Dems may feel that way. By my example, despite the left's love of the man, I thought Carter's policies were stupidity in motion, but the man is not stupid at all.

    Tigermothll -- thanks for the laugh. Have you really read anything Perry, Bachmann or Palin have said/written? Like Perry's book? Or Bachmann's viwes on how to "cure" homosexuality? They are morons. Deliberately so. Because they realize the social conservative/Tea Party folks want simplistic solutions to everything, not big intellectual solutions.

    herefornow - again you cast all as one and the same, and in the world of politics that just isn't so. I do realize that Palin and Bachmann are intellectually retarded. I don't watch Fox news nor do I believe everything I read and hear just because it comes from someone who might espouse views more similar to my own. But haughtily declaring all Republicans as 'stupid' is as bad as any racial stereotype that concludes all black people eat chicken and all Jews covet money. Each equally insulting and ignorant in my book. Saying you lean more to the right or are a card carrying member of the Republican party does not mean you are in agreement with the Tea Party or think Palin is a genius. Any more than being a Democrat makes you a socialist.

    Actually Madverts puts it best, and in reality I misspoke myself in trying to allude to the fact that differing of opinions and the rational discussion of a variety of viewpoints makes for a healthier political and social environment. The two-party system has shown itself to be anything but useful, except for the too often failed idea of checks and balances. I had at the very beginning hoped the Tea Party might have been a legitimate reactionary group who simply wanted to make a statement that both parties are full of shite and the whole system needs to revert back to what our government was supposed to be. That hope was short-lived, but hey I wasn't the only one fooled by a promise of hope and change now, was I.

  • 0

    TigermothII

    guilt by association. Damn I wish they had an editing tool. Quite easy to add.

  • 0

    yabits

    I find it interesting how the left has to consistently refer to anyone who leans right or supports values addressed by the Republican party as 'dolts, morons, idiots' - choose your insult.

    This is nothing new. John Stuart Mill -- one of the 19th century's brightest minds -- put it this way: "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people tend to be conservative." It's just as true today as it was then.

    People who lean right or support values of the Republican Party are not necessarily idiots. But there sure are a lot of idiot who seem to follow them. Let's use an example from the debate regarding the human impact on global climate.

    When it regarded a state we don't like getting nasty weapons, Dick Cheney put forth a "one-percent doctrine" whereby it was justified for the United States to launch an attack even if the evidence was stacked 99% against. Many potential conservative idiots went along with this, believing Cheney's paranoia that the stakes are just too great.

    Well, the evidence of human activity influencing climate change is far greater than 1%. FAR, FAR greater. And the consequences for people around the globe are potentially far more devastating than a terrorist attack. So why don't the conservatives adopt the same attitude towards the threat that they do in Cheney's scenario?

    I believe the only rational explanation for that obvious contradiction is that so many of these conservatives are just plain idiots.

  • 0

    Novenachama

    Debates are not boring but stimulating and it's a effective way to inform and involve other voters in the political process. They serve a purpose beyond simply show-casting the candidates most likely to get the votes eventually on election day for those that make that far. Debates serve to educate the public about the candidates and the issues and recognize that often a candidates view are important to the political dialogue even if that candidate does not have enough support to win the presidency. Hence debates serve not only to help voters choose when they will vote but often to help voters decide whether they will vote at all period.

  • 0

    TigermothII

    yabits Mills also had a nervous breakdown at 20, should we conclude then that most liberals are bordering on mental illness? He also believed in despotism (single 'absolute' rule) for what he considered 'backward's nations. A bright mind to be sure, but also a member of Parliament (I think he was a serving MP wasn't he?) for the English Crown and therefore a monarchy still very much interested in Empire building at the time. Point being that a 19th Century English 'liberal' is not quite the same thing as the term implies in the US today so not sure I grasp the link.

    True, there are a lot of idiots who call themselves Republicans. But do you honestly believe there are fewer idiots that call themselves Democrats? Go into any inner city and poll the population. I doubt many of them would call themselves Republicans, nor would they identify with conservative values (well, to a degree) but you won't find many scholars amongst their ranks. Doesn't make them bad people either; actions do that.

    I don't want to move too far off the article's topic and have this deleted, but the problem is place and perception to a degree. The perception of liberals that their party is one of intelligence and that the 'other side' are knuckle draggers comes from several truths. But these truths can be misleading. Yes, if one goes to your average university in California for example, most of the professors, and many of them brilliant (if not self-centered and annoying), are liberals. The college environment promotes this because it is an environment somewhat removed from the 'real world'. Campuses are entities within themselves, and the professors are kings/queens of their realms. Liberal thinking is promoted and flourishes. The students get into it as well and they become liberal enclaves, and thus a conclusion is drawn that liberals are the party of the intelligentsia. But ask these same students after they moved on to the 'real world' and particularly those that moved to cities or careers in industry. I would bet you that those same liberal ideals are no longer as prevalent, if present at all. Conversely, when you go to somewhere like the deep south where people love to hunt and things like gun control are looked at as threats to way of life, yes you get more conservative types that most likely would not be at University.

    But life is a leveler - the sheltered liberal might become more conservative, or the conservative might realize another point of view and become more liberal. Add to it the problem that with things like Fox News and the true idiots that are now interested in running for office, you get folks like you concluding that all Republicans are idiots. I suppose we have to leave it as opinion. I think it small-minded but if you wish to believe that it's your right. I personally think that way of thinking is no different than racism, sexism or class-ism. It all involves stereotyping, and while there is grain of truth to any stereotype, it's a small-minded way to be.

  • 0

    Taka313

    I find it very ironic that no one has complained that neither Romney or Perry was wearing a flag lapel pin.

    Wasn't Candidate Obama an unpatriotic bastard for not wearing one?

    How soon the tune changes.

    Taka

  • 1

    yabits

    you get folks like you concluding that all Republicans are idiots. I suppose we have to leave it as opinion

    When Mitt Romney said that he thought global climate change was occurring, and that human activity played a role, he was certainly not being an idiot.

    But what can one say when he shifted his position after receiving heat from it -- pardon the pun -- from the idiots in his party who don't think there's anything to the science.

    Yes, there are definitely Democrats who are idiots too. But it appears to me that the current Republican Party is absolutely hopeless.

  • 0

    Madverts

    The Tea Party might yet still be useful in that effect, Tigermoth, if not a blessing in disguise. They were always going to divide the Republican vote...

  • -1

    Serrano

    "Neither of these clowns is going to create any jobs"

    But Obama is, lol.

  • -1

    BreitbartVictorious

    taka three one threee

    I find it very ironic that no one has complained that neither Romney or Perry was wearing a flag lapel pin.

    When a politician has congruency, when actions match words, something as superficial as a pin is hardly necessary.

    Wasn't Candidate Obama an unpatriotic bastard for not wearing one?

    In those exact words, no. His pastor of 25 years shrieking "G_d damn America" from the pulpit kinda had some of us a little worried though.

  • -1

    BreitbartVictorious

    Repub debate drew 5 million viewers; tops for the week. That's a lot of independents who regret voting hopey changey.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Briebart,

    You might analize the shriekinggs from your own crowd for a change. As it stands they're only sending independents towards the safety and sanity "hopey changes" offers, even if many are disatisfied at his performance.

  • 0

    TigermothII

    For me, the whole party thing is just disturbing. Why put such blinders on rather than just judging merit for what it is? And I'm not an independent per say. Of course died-in-the-wools for either side would call me a wishy-washy traitor who only hurts the party line - to which I would say party line be damned. Think for yourself for Christ's sake, not because a group you affiliate yourself with thinks it should be so.

    I can't say that I agreed with my parents on a great many things growing up, but having grown up at the tail end of the Depression they chose to vote for whomever they thought was best for the country, which didn't always mean the party candidate. They were conservative by nature, but absolutely adored JFK and readily voted for him. I think they may have even made the mistake of voting for Carter - but went with Reagan when they saw more in agreement with him. It's like buying a car - if Ford is producing rubbish, buy elsewhere. Loyalty can equal stupidity at times.

  • 0

    Madverts

    Loyality vs stupidity sums it up nicely.

    The two together bollocks the job up

  • 0

    Taka313

    In those exact words, no. His pastor of 25 years shrieking "G_d damn America" from the pulpit kinda had some of us a little worried though.

    That still doesn't explain why Candidate Obama was put through the wringer for not wearing a freaking lapel pin. A LAPEL PIN.

    Think about what you are saying. A lapel pin does not equal patriotism.

    You guys are something else.

    Taka

  • 0

    yabits

    During last night's debates (9/12) in Tampa, a question was asked of Ron Paul as to whether a young man of 30 should be allowed to die if he opts out of health care programs and suddenly has an emergency where he needs six months of treatment.

    Several of the Tea Party members in the audience pre-empted Paul's response with shouts of "Yeah!" -- followed by laughter from many of the Tea Party supporters in the audience. (The debate was hosted by the Tea Party and the audience was predominantly made up of Tea Party supporters.)

    This comment reveals some of the real spirit that drives so many of today's conservatives -- the lust for punishment and death. (Note that they cheered at the previous debate when the moderator mentioned the number of prisoners executed by Governor Perry.)

  • 0

    illsayit

    what are you on about yabits-punishment is not good?

    Ive been thinking-America, the Christian country, can even stand up with a Muslim leaning leader, I guess it's only reasonable and fair that they take on a Mormon based leader. The hidden theology surrounding that interests me more than the Muslim/Christian history.

  • 0

    yabits

    what are you on about yabits-punishment is not good?

    Cheering for an execution reveals the lowest of the low.

    Ive been thinking-

    I wonder.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all