If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Rick Perry presidency would be a referendum on abortion and the ability to count to three   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 93
    More: Unlikely, abortions, presidents, referendum, parental leave, informed consent, social conservatism  
•       •       •

1029 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2013 at 11:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-10 12:32:01 PM  

ikanreed: Stone Meadow: Tremolo: You underestimate that farker at your own risk.

I think you overestimate his chances.

[motivationalsmartass.com image 318x318]

You get that Tarkin was wrong when he said that, right?


Considering Perry's history of running for POTUS, I think it doesn't matter that Tarkin was wrong. :)
 
2013-07-10 12:33:38 PM  

bdub77: Bush was a terrible president. Terrible.


Eeeeeh, he was Jimmy Carter/JFK/JQ Adams terrible, he didn't even touch the really bad ones like Tyler or Grant.  Even if you take out consideration of responses to shiat that came up versus actively farking up from scratch he's got a lot of catching up to do in damaging the country to touch even relatively competent presidents that miscalculated and dropped some heavy balls like Lincoln or Harding.

I stand by "mediocre", basically, though I'd put him on the low end of mediocre (across from Clinton, who was kinda the high end of mediocre, with Bush 1 between the two somewhere).

//Maybe I'm just inclined to take the broader historical view.
//I think he  did realize he wasn't very fit for the job and consciously decided to get out of politics after, though.  He's even stayed away from very popular political things like charities in favor of minding his own business.
 
2013-07-10 12:33:39 PM  

Jim_Callahan: After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo


Let's be clear: You are comparing the Invasion of Iraq, which killed almost 4500 US troops, injured over 32000 US troops and led thousands to suicide, depression and drug addiction, which cost several trillion dollars and had absolutely no compelling justification with the joint NATO operation in Libya which has been US casualty free?
 
2013-07-10 12:36:29 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Eeeeeh, he was Jimmy Carter/JFK/JQ Adams terrible,


Serious question: Are you high?

The only president worse than Bush was James Buchanan. You can't SERIOUSLY compare him with Lincoln?
 
2013-07-10 12:37:34 PM  
restoringtruthiness.org
 
2013-07-10 12:40:10 PM  

what_now: Jim_Callahan: After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo

Let's be clear: You are comparing the Invasion of Iraq, which killed almost 4500 US troops, injured over 32000 US troops and led thousands to suicide, depression and drug addiction, which cost several trillion dollars and had absolutely no compelling justification with the joint NATO operation in Libya which has been US casualty free?


Competently executing baseless wars of aggression doesn't actually absolve you, no.
 
2013-07-10 12:40:27 PM  

Tremolo: You underestimate that farker at your own risk.


No shiat. If the teatards manage to nominate the Texas Hair Ranger, he'll have all the power of the Republican party behind him.

And nothing is stopping the Democrats from nominating another Walter Mondale, except for the hope that Hillary is going to be healthy enough in three years to run.
 
2013-07-10 12:42:21 PM  

what_now: Jim_Callahan: Eeeeeh, he was Jimmy Carter/JFK/JQ Adams terrible,

Serious question: Are you high?

The only president worse than Bush was James Buchanan. You can't SERIOUSLY compare him with Lincoln?


I'd actually throw Harding in between Buchanan and Bush the Little. I could see arguments for Fillmore and Grant being tossed in there too, but not many more.
 
2013-07-10 12:43:33 PM  

what_now: Jim_Callahan: After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo

Let's be clear: You are comparing the Invasion of Iraq, which killed almost 4500 US troops, injured over 32000 US troops and led thousands to suicide, depression and drug addiction, which cost several trillion dollars and had absolutely no compelling justification with the joint NATO operation in Libya which has been US casualty free?


I'm not saying Obama's not better at it that Bush, I'm pointing out that the fact that the smarter guy still decided to get us involved in the affairs of other countries without anything really being in it for us puts Bush's decision-making process in a kinder light than it was in a vacuum.

Albeit if I were actually comparing policies I'd probably point to Obama's (admittedly somewhat reluctant) support of the surge tactic in Afghanistan and his handling of early smaller conflicts with pirates as better indicators that the overall attitude of our government toward farking about where we've really no business hasn't varied with administrations.  But sure, Lybia's likely the one that's had the most impact on the changes in the polls.

Counting casualties is a bit misleading as well, as Drone technology has matured to the point of actually replacing soldiers to a large degree in the last five years.  Had Bush had the option of running actual operations without risk to US troops he'd no doubt have been on it too... in fact, he was, since many of the contracts for development beyond the surveillance purpose originate with his administration.  I doubt that amount of thought went into anyone responding to general polls, though, they sort of operate by gut feeling so again it's probably more about the general slide of the Obama administration into the same shiat we called out Bush for.  Emotionally, you kinda either have to slide into "both sides are bad" or start to admit that maybe the other guy had a point or two.
 
2013-07-10 12:43:54 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Jim_Callahan: Car_Ramrod: Former President George W. Bush's Image Ratings Improve

One could argue it's because he's not in office anymore, and he's done a decent job of being an ex-president, but still.

I think some of that is that some of the stuff he did that got him all unpopular was just kind of the government working as intended, the restrictions on domestic freedoms and the domestic surveillance and Gitmo especially.  After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo (or try particularly hard to do so for that matter) I think we've got some distance and are starting to see Bush as the mediocre president that failed to handle some bad shiat occurring as well as he could have, rather than the author of every bad thing happening from the collapse of the WTC to mid 2010.

What wars did Obama get us involved in? And how is the fact that Reps (and some Dems) have blocked his every attempt to close Gitmo his fault, let alone equal to Bush starting the whole shebang?

I would say the Bush administration set the tone of this country's response to 9/11, and that a lot of what is still happening under Obama's watch (which I don't necessarily excuse him for) wouldn't be considered acceptable by the majority of this country if the Bush administration had reacted differently (or perhaps prevented in the first place, but that's another discussion). Starting the War on Terror is one of the worst paths we could've gone down. I get that it was mostly Cheney and the other evil lunatics directing the administration, but it was still Bush's boat. This is the government "working as intended" because Bush wrote the instruction manual.




Horse hockey!

Veto everything.
 
2013-07-10 12:44:19 PM  
I think Wendy Davis has a shot at governor in the 2014 election. I really do.
 
2013-07-10 12:44:50 PM  

Ned Stark: what_now: Jim_Callahan: After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo

Let's be clear: You are comparing the Invasion of Iraq, which killed almost 4500 US troops, injured over 32000 US troops and led thousands to suicide, depression and drug addiction, which cost several trillion dollars and had absolutely no compelling justification with the joint NATO operation in Libya which has been US casualty free?

Competently executing baseless wars of aggression doesn't actually absolve you, no.


img.timeinc.net

There was that whole murder of 189 U.S. citizens, which is more than Timothy McVeigh killed.
 
2013-07-10 12:45:14 PM  

what_now: Jim_Callahan: After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo

Let's be clear: You are comparing the Invasion of Iraq, which killed almost 4500 US troops, injured over 32000 US troops and led thousands to suicide, depression and drug addiction, which cost several trillion dollars and had absolutely no compelling justification with the joint NATO operation in Libya which has been US casualty free?


BOTH

SIDES


BAAAAAD
 
2013-07-10 12:51:24 PM  

Jim_Callahan: bdub77: Bush was a terrible president. Terrible.

Eeeeeh, he was Jimmy Carter/JFK/JQ Adams terrible, he didn't even touch the really bad ones like Tyler or Grant.  Even if you take out consideration of responses to shiat that came up versus actively farking up from scratch he's got a lot of catching up to do in damaging the country to touch even relatively competent presidents that miscalculated and dropped some heavy balls like Lincoln or Harding.

I stand by "mediocre", basically, though I'd put him on the low end of mediocre (across from Clinton, who was kinda the high end of mediocre, with Bush 1 between the two somewhere).

//Maybe I'm just inclined to take the broader historical view.
//I think he  did realize he wasn't very fit for the job and consciously decided to get out of politics after, though.  He's even stayed away from very popular political things like charities in favor of minding his own business.


JQA wasn't that bad a president. He just faced tough opposition in the form of Andrew Jackson. In fact, Congress pretty much behaved exactly like how today's Congress is behaving: oppose everything the president does.

Bush, on the other hand, started two wars that's cost us trillions of dollars while concurrently lowering taxes (wtf???) and thousands of American lives (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Afgh/Iraqi lives), started the domestic spying program that Obama has been expanding, he greatly increased our debt and deficit, and, most importantly, he cost us the world's good favor that we had after 9/11. Oh, and let's keep in mind how the fall of Saddam Hussein has destabilized the entire Middle East. Iran wouldn't be saber rattling with us and playing around with created nukes if they still had to worry about Iraq.
 
2013-07-10 12:55:33 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Albeit if I were actually comparing policies I'd probably point to Obama's (admittedly somewhat reluctant) support of the surge tactic in Afghanistan and his handling of early smaller conflicts with pirates as better indicators that the overall attitude of our government toward farking about where we've really no business hasn't varied with administrations.


What? Obama campaigned on refocusing on the war in Afghanistan. He literally promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "somewhat reluctant."
 
2013-07-10 12:57:44 PM  

what_now: Jim_Callahan: Eeeeeh, he was Jimmy Carter/JFK/JQ Adams terrible,

Serious question: Are you high?

The only president worse than Bush was James Buchanan. You can't SERIOUSLY compare him with Lincoln?


I had a sarcastic post about dropping the ball despite having an overwhelming advantage and letting a situation drag on for years killing people and the validity of the analogy, but this thread of the conversation is kinda wandering from the thread topic of Perry being an idiot, so I'mma stop with it.

I'll save the "compare the presidents" game for another thread involving actual presidents and history rather than people who just wish they were president that'll be forgotten by history.
 
2013-07-10 12:58:03 PM  
President Rick Perry anagram: "Creepy Drinker Trips".
 
2013-07-10 12:59:35 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Had Bush had the option of running actual operations without risk to US troops he'd no doubt have been on it too... in fact, he was, since many of the contracts for development beyond the surveillance purpose originate with his administration.


And Bush began the Afghanistan campaign with Clinton's military (the one Rumsfeld had called "not ready for duty" less than a year prior). The budget surplus he felt the need to spend (rather than use to pay for either of these two wars) on taxcutz was generated by Clinton. Much of the operational intel on Iraq was gathered using Clinton-era (if not earlier) sources and methods. Much of the intel on OBL, which was ignored when the Bush team first took over, was generated by Clinton's ONI (or whatever precursor).

Around and around we go, though I think most people can recognize the difference between bad decisions and bad policy. Policy is largely set by Congress 2+ years in advance of whatever problem (though signed off on by the president unless they override a veto), while bad decisions are made by presidents alone.

I doubt that amount of thought went into anyone responding to general polls, though, they sort of operate by gut feeling so again it's probably more about the general slide of the Obama administration into the same shiat we called out Bush for. Emotionally, you kinda either have to slide into "both sides are bad" or start to admit that maybe the other guy had a point or two.

You got that right.
 
2013-07-10 01:00:25 PM  

FuturePastNow: There may be a parallel universe in which Rick Perry is president. Sucks to be them.


Everyone there is a genius, they elected him for the lulls
 
2013-07-10 01:01:24 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I'm not saying Obama's not better at it that Bush, I'm pointing out that the fact that the smarter guy still decided to get us involved in the affairs of other countries without anything really being in it for us puts Bush's decision-making process in a kinder light than it was in a vacuum.


Person A got hooked on meth and heroin and stole from his family and friends in order to sustain the habit, which eventually killed him. Person B smoked weed in college. The fact that the smarter guy still did drugs puts the other guy in a kinder light.

Jim_Callahan: Albeit if I were actually comparing policies I'd probably point to Obama's (admittedly somewhat reluctant) support of the surge tactic in Afghanistan and his handling of early smaller conflicts with pirates as better indicators that the overall attitude of our government toward farking about where we've really no business hasn't varied with administrations.  But sure, Lybia's likely the one that's had the most impact on the changes in the polls.


You mean the pirates that had an American captain hostage in international waters? What the fark does that have to do with anything?

Look, Obama has indeed continued some Bush-era policies. There is an argument to be made there. But you're doing it horribly.
 
2013-07-10 01:04:02 PM  

dionysusaur: vernonFL: Go ahead, lets have a national referendum on abortion.

Please, proceed.

you forget the gerrymanders and suppression of non-derpbot voters.

let's not.


A national referendum wouldn't care about gerrymanders - although some of the suppression techniques could be a problem.  Of course, those suppression laws may not work out the way they're intended by their sponsors.  Old people are old and forgetful everywhere.  Get some Dem poll watchers making sure granny geezer can't vote R because she left her ID at home and I think those voter ID laws will be gone in 2014 at 9am Nov. 5th.
 
2013-07-10 01:07:25 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Eh, the thing about the governorship of Texas is that it can't really do much of anything, we usually shove someone in there that's amiable and fairly OK to listen to, but that we kind of want staying the hell out of actual power.


You know who else was governor of Texas?

Hint: Not Hitler.
 
2013-07-10 01:26:33 PM  

bdub77: Weaver95: A Rick perry presidency would scare the shiat outta me. Anyone not a heterosexual white male Christian would be farked.

As a heterosexual while male non-practicing Christian...I think I would seriously just leave the f*cking country if a douchenozzle like Perry ever got elected. At that point I'd have to assume the American people are too f*cking dumb to live among them anymore.

And yes I have the means of becoming a citizen in another country.


Take me with you.
 
2013-07-10 01:27:49 PM  

king of vegas: tion. I really


She will win Austin, Houston and San Antonio hands down.  And then get her ass handed to her in the rest of Texas which will end her public political career.

Perry can not win the presidency, but he could win the VP spot under somebody else, and then be president a few years later.  I find this scenario the most likely.  Clinton would make a strong candidate 5 years ago.  In 2016 the republicans will dump an epic amount of evidence they have been saving for the occasion on her involvement in various scandals and her odds of winning will drop to maybe dead even.  And then we have president perry to look forward to 3 years later when somebody like Paul or the water boy comes down with a case of the mysterious sudden death syndrome.  I find this the most likely scenario.

Right now all democrats have is Clinton, thats it.  If they can sink/get rid of her, its over for democrats.  Biden wont be president and democrats have nobody else with their popularity.  If you ask people (you know, real people, not us) who the democratic contenders are they will say: Clinton, Biden.....uhhh.. and suddenly draw a blank.  Ask them who the Repubican contenders are: Gingrich, Perry, Water Boy, Frothy, Paul, Paul, Cruz, Bachman, Romney, and they might just keep farking going.  Most of them are joke candidates that bring in a few electorals, but they can swing those electorals back at who they want and in the end, they all come behind ONE candidate.  And they can all campaign, they can all raise money.

2016 will be won by a Republican Zerg attack.  Kiss Abortion goodbye, Kiss same sex marriage goodbye, we will never see affordable medicare.  Only a civil war could stop this.

Personally I'm praying for a meteor to come down and kill us all ASAP to put us out of our daily misery.
 
2013-07-10 01:30:07 PM  

Sgt Otter: Ned Stark: what_now: Jim_Callahan: After watching the guy we don't reflexively assume is either wrong or an idiot get us involved in several wars in the middle east, spy on us, and fail to close Gitmo

Let's be clear: You are comparing the Invasion of Iraq, which killed almost 4500 US troops, injured over 32000 US troops and led thousands to suicide, depression and drug addiction, which cost several trillion dollars and had absolutely no compelling justification with the joint NATO operation in Libya which has been US casualty free?

Competently executing baseless wars of aggression doesn't actually absolve you, no.

[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]

There was that whole murder of 189 U.S. citizens, which is more than Timothy McVeigh killed.


I've been told that 103 was a long time ago, we already got revenge, and that Libya's clever op to get the bomber released and sent home was no big deal. Of course, that was all told to me by Tea Party Patriots, who really don't care about any of those three words.
 
2013-07-10 01:31:22 PM  

Weaver95: A Rick perry presidency would scare the shiat outta me. Anyone not a heterosexual white male Christian would be farked.


You forgot rich.
 
2013-07-10 01:32:14 PM  
Until all campaign contributions can be embargoed (as is done with drug kingpin money) when the candidate drops out, Perry is just playing banker until the real candidate emerges.

He'll then spend his holdings on whatever his handler tell him to. Of course, he'll need to charge a services fee, say 25% to a close associates account.
 
2013-07-10 01:33:58 PM  
In other words, he'd ride into Washington on one lame horse, shoot it, and then have no horses. Always good policy if you don't plan to ever leave town.

It's Texas for burning your bridges. Just kidding. It's Texas for riding one issue voters into office and then doing as you damn well please because you didn't make any promises and are beholden only to your crypto-masters--and a dead horse.
 
2013-07-10 01:34:23 PM  
Perry/Palin 2016!

Book it.

Done.
 
2013-07-10 01:35:09 PM  

MindStalker: Jim_Callahan: Eh, the thing about the governorship of Texas is that it can't really do much of anything, we usually shove someone in there that's amiable and fairly OK to listen to, but that we kind of want staying the hell out of actual power. You know who else was governor of Texas? Hint: Not Hitler.


George W. Bu...

Wait, it's a trick question! The answer is Izayoi Sakuuya, Izayoi Satuuya, Izayoi Sakuo, Sakuyaizayoi, or


AH-AAAAAAA~N!!!
One of those, right?
 
2013-07-10 02:15:14 PM  
TFA: a clear majority of Americans, 52%, tell pollsters they believe abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances". For some reason, pro-life advocates always take this number to mean a tendency to support their extreme position. I see it as just the opposite: Americans are loath to dictate actions to their countrymen, especially when it comes to sex; our tradition of personal liberty is too strong, our discomfort with the icky specifics of reproduction too innate.

i580.photobucket.com

You see 52% of Americans saying that that there should be limits on abortion, and you choose to interpret it as 52% of Americans shouting FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM!?
 
2013-07-10 02:18:21 PM  
TFA: those calls for mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds and lectures from doctors that seem to mark open season for male ignorance.

Because when I think "ignorance", the first thing I think of is getting a lecture from an MD about a medical procedure.
 
2013-07-10 02:53:50 PM  

MindStalker: Jim_Callahan: Eh, the thing about the governorship of Texas is that it can't really do much of anything, we usually shove someone in there that's amiable and fairly OK to listen to, but that we kind of want staying the hell out of actual power.

You know who else was governor of Texas?

Hint: Not Hitler.


Even Hitler had standards.
 
2013-07-10 03:24:00 PM  

Son of Thunder: Because when I think "ignorance", the first thing I think of is getting a lecture from an MD about a medical procedure.


Do you think a woman who wants an abortion doesn't know she's pregnant or do you think she doesn't understand what an abortion does?  There is no need for a lecture or an ultrasound.
 
2013-07-10 03:34:36 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Son of Thunder: Because when I think "ignorance", the first thing I think of is getting a lecture from an MD about a medical procedure.

Do you think a woman who wants an abortion doesn't know she's pregnant or do you think she doesn't understand what an abortion does?  There is no need for a lecture or an ultrasound.


And how does that make the doctor ignorant?
 
2013-07-10 03:36:33 PM  

Son of Thunder: TFA: a clear majority of Americans, 52%, tell pollsters they believe abortion should be "legal only under certain circumstances". For some reason, pro-life advocates always take this number to mean a tendency to support their extreme position. I see it as just the opposite: Americans are loath to dictate actions to their countrymen, especially when it comes to sex; our tradition of personal liberty is too strong, our discomfort with the icky specifics of reproduction too innate.

[i580.photobucket.com image 197x151]

You see 52% of Americans saying that that there should be limits on abortion, and you choose to interpret it as 52% of Americans shouting FREEEEEEDOOOOOOM!?


I agree that the point the author was trying to make is stupid. However, the pro-lifers are also stupid for thinking "legal only under certain circumstances" isn't a general enough statement to mean stuff like, "not in the last trimester" or "only when the fetus is nonviable." Pro-lifers always assume it means, "not if she's a slut."
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-07-10 03:38:25 PM  
Here is one of the Mental Giants of this debate...

http://freakoutnation.com/2013/07/10/author-of-texas-pro-birther-bi ll- argued-against-prenatal-care-because-theyre-not-born-yet/"Author of Texas pro-birther bill argued against prenatal care because "they're not born yet"
 
2013-07-10 04:24:20 PM  
I read that as "Rick Perry pregnancy"

...and then I needed brain bleach.
 
2013-07-10 06:08:47 PM  
I thought thw whole point of a constitutional or civil right is that you can't hold a referendum on whether people have it or not. The extension of that point being, the more a right is challenged, the more of minority the rightholder is (since they are subject to losing basic components of citizenship to a dominating group). And the more of a minority the group is, the more forcefully the government and the courts will need to protect the right being challenged.
 
2013-07-10 09:17:53 PM  

MadHatter500: dionysusaur: vernonFL: Go ahead, lets have a national referendum on abortion.

Please, proceed.

you forget the gerrymanders and suppression of non-derpbot voters.

let's not.

A national referendum wouldn't care about gerrymanders - although some of the suppression techniques could be a problem.  Of course, those suppression laws may not work out the way they're intended by their sponsors.  Old people are old and forgetful everywhere.  Get some Dem poll watchers making sure granny geezer can't vote R because she left her ID at home and I think those voter ID laws will be gone in 2014 at 9am Nov. 5th.


If the referendum is by congresscritter district - which seems likely - the gerrymanders matter.
 
2013-07-10 10:03:05 PM  

russlar: Car_Ramrod: AnonAmbientLight: d23: we already proved two times in 2000 and 2004 that we are willing to vote a moron into office.

I don't think Rick perry can shake the bush 2.0 look.

He looks like bush. Sounds like bush and is dumber than bush.

I know Americans can't remember what happened on Monday, but I don't think they'll easily forget how shiatty bush was.

Former President George W. Bush's Image Ratings Improve

One could argue it's because he's not in office anymore, and he's done a decent job of being an ex-president, but still.

So, Bush the Second is the right's Jimmy Carter?


Yeah, but would you trust dubya with a hammer?
 
2013-07-10 10:06:27 PM  

RminusQ: Rick Perry presidency would be a referendum on abortion and the ability to count to three

Sorry, RON PAUL fans.


i.dailymail.co.uk
Five is right out!
 
2013-07-10 10:08:12 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: RminusQ: Rick Perry presidency would be a referendum on abortion and the ability to count to three

Sorry, RON PAUL fans.

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x372]

Five is right out.


Damnit!
 
Displayed 43 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report