Perry proposes mandatory sonograms

[Yssup Rider]

Well, I guess if he's going to jerk off, we might as well get a handjob out of it!

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by budman33

I thought this post was a joke. You do realize Perry isn't proposing any such thing. he already did, and he signed it into law back in May. Part's of the law have been struck down while it wades through court. Discuss that maybe? Otherwise it sounds like your a little behind the times... Unless that was your point because the OP was made the day after the Bill was to go into effect.

Let me clear things up for you. I spend 9 months out of every year outside of the United States. I've been doing so for the last 7 years. As much as I'd like to keep up with every single law or legislative bill while I'm in Afghanistan, sometimes some do slip through the cracks. I had never heard of this proposed sonogram bill until I came home on leave this time.
So no, it was not a joke, it was something I heard for the first time just before I posted and I was curious on people's opinions on the matter.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by Booth

It is a joke. The OP would have us believe that he has an open mind on this issue yet he clearly supports one side.

Of course. The fact that I have questions about this clearly means I support the "wrong" side. Got it! Don't know what we'd do around here without you having all the right answers Booth!

[DTorrchia]

Yssup, I usually try to cut you some slack because I was raised to have...well, a certain amount of respect for my elders. To be quite honest, I've also cut you slack after watching you have some epic meltdowns in your debates with certain board members here. Your constant conspiracy theories about the "evil Right" are wearing a bit old.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Tell me what beliefs guide today's viewpoint on abortion? It's a mighty wind a'blowin, DT. Depending on who's tooting the bugle, that viewpoint will vary from right to righter to somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun.

And you're picking nits again. Your post absolutely inferred that you believed that you could not compare the right to an abortion with the right to vote. From your post we can only infer that some rights are more important than others. That would make them more, er, guidelines than rights, eh?
Ahmm, the post I responded to you on was BEFORE F-Sharp mentioned the ridiculous vote comment. Nice of you to try to deflect here but the questions I asked you had NOTHING to do with what F-Sharp and I were talking about.

Don't deny it. You wanna be literal? Then stand by your bullshit! You ARE advocating a sliding scale based on prevailing "social" mores. BTW -- today, that's religion, in case you haven't been paying attention to your TV heroes! What else could you be saying?

Are you serious? Listen old man, when I have something to say, I say it and I have no problems standing behind what I say unlike some other cowards I've come across.
Not ONCE have I brought religion into this debate. Now you can run around screaming "religious right/zealots until you're blue in the face but that has NOTHING to do with my questions about sonograms. Whether or not I agree with abortion, sonograms or anything else has NOTHING to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. So once again you're barking up the wrong tree old man!

Even if you're not advocating this, then why are you defending it so vehemently?

"Defending it so vehemently"? Show me where I've said: "This law should pass" or "I'm for this law". Once again you're making the proverbial *ss out of yourself by ASSUMING what I believe or don't believe. My posts on this subject were me wondering aloud about the pros and cons of this. It's as simple as this. Asking "why's" on the various issues associated with this. Assume what you want, it's a free country but stop trying to put words in my mouth. You think I'm afraid of making a stand on this issue? You're silly if you think so. I got home on leave, I found about this for the first time and I started asking questions and debating the "why's" on this. Why is it wrong? Why shouldn't it be done? Why not take a moment longer to decide? These were questions that popped up in my head after I heard of this issue. So as I stated, I've never really gotten into the whole abortion debate, I haven't followed it closely and I wasn't even aware of this whole sonogram issue going on in Texas until I got back to the United States.

And you know, if you want to give the FETUS rights, then maybe you ought to explain why it's OK that you strip the mother of them.

This "I'm just learning about the process" stuff is a crock of bullshit, bro.

Really? See the above. If I've been out of the United States and just found out about this when I came home and heard/read about it in the news why is that a "crock of bullshit". Might be hard for you to believe but abortion issues aren't something I follow closely while I'm overseas.

You know it and I know it. This is all about you trying to align yourself with a fundamentalist right you aren't REALLY comfortable standing wtih. Don't blame you. They're fucking evil.

You are a sad old man. That's all I can say. For you to see the evil religious fundamental boogie man around every corner is bordering on....well...mental health issues.

Frankly, I have no problem with someone being shown a sonogram prior to an abortion -- IF THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTS. Forcing someone to do so is straight out FACISM. The government that says you CAN'T have an abortion is the one that can say you MUST. I thought you believed in freedom? Guess not.

Let's see --- somebody pointed out that Perry was an accredited dumbass, with a transcript to prove it. FROM TEXAS A&M IN THE DAY OF DUMBASSERY! How do you respond? BY PULLING A QUOTE OUT OF YOUR ASS and trying to convince us that Obama only got through Columbia and Harvard because of Affirmative Action! Sorry to say this, because I know you do put in some effort on these posts, but YOU'RE BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE WYLDEMAN! You're going to defend Perry by calling the President a liar and a cheat for getting his degrees from Columbia and Harvard? Apparently you are. Yeah, man. I guess he just BLACKED his way in there! DEMAND THE DIPLOMAS!

Of course, Obama's own words are me pulling a quote out of my ass??? Be mad at him, HE said it, I didn't. Check his grades at Columbia. I'm not calling the President a cheat or a liar, once again, that's you being a DRAMA QUEEN. Seriously, do you wear drag??!! What I said was...CHECK HIS GRADES AT COLUMBIA and then tell me he would have been offered a scholarship to Harvard based on his grades. Now put up or shut up old man! Don't play the Drama Queen with me about his race. It's very simple. Look at the grades then show me where Harvard issues scholarships based on those grades. If you can't do that then don't insinuate I'm a racist by pointing out the fairly obvious. His grades didn't merit a scholarship to Harvard, plain and simple.
"According to the New York Sun, university spokesman Brian Connolly confirmed that Obama graduated in 1983 with a major in political science but without honors". You think that merits admission into Harvard Law, one of the most sought after and difficult law programs to gain admission to?
"Harvard Law School is notoriously difficult to get into. Annually, some 7,000 applications apply for some 500 seats. Applicant LSAT scores generally chart in the 98 to 99 percentile range, and GPAs average between 3.80 and 3.95."
"As the New York Times concedes, Obama declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years."
"To Obama's good fortune, the HLR (Harvard Law Review) had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades – the president being the student with the highest academic rank – with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition.
This competition, the New York Times reported in 1990, was "meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review."


Read that Yssup? That's according to the New York Times, not FOX news, or Pat Robertson. It's the New York Times that reported that the standards at the HLR had changed. So stick your insinuations about me where the sun don't shine. It must hurt to read a liberal rag like the New York Times dispute your fantasy notions of Obama getting into Harvard or making the Harvard Law Review based on his grades. Oh, to save time, the above is addressed to you as well F-Sharp.

Show me Obama's grade point average at Columbia, then let's compare it to the above listed requirements to gain entry into Harvard Law. If I'm wrong, I will be the FIRST to come on this post and tell the world I was wrong and made an incorrect assumption. Until then, the facts are what they are.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Yssup, I usually try to cut you some slack because I was raised to have...well, a certain amount of respect for my elders. To be quite honest, I've also cut you slack after watching you have some epic meltdowns in your debates with certain board members here. Your constant conspiracy theories about the "evil Right" are wearing a bit old.

And so is your "I'm not really up on all this" bit.

Your posts tend to begin in a logical manner then drift, then rush to the defense when someone disagrees with your position.

BTW -- Affirmative Action = what in your opinion.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but can the insults. You're REALLY sounding like Wyldeman now.

Mental health? Right. Did you know that Perry cut the shit out of that budget too?

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And so is your "I'm not really up on all this" bit.

Your posts tend to begin in a logical manner then drift, then rush to the defense when someone disagrees with your position.

BTW -- Affirmative Action = what in your opinion.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but can the insults. You're REALLY sounding like Wyldeman now.

Mental health? Right. Did you know that Perry cut the shit out of that budget too?

You're absolutely right Yssup. The above reply to my post and complete lack of any intelligent response to ANY of my points, show that you clearly think things through before posting here. Good job!

[Booth]

The bottom line is that few people support this policy. Who IS supporting it besides Rick Perry?

[Guest020612]

Because the legislature only meets every two years here, it would have been nice if Perry would have handled the school budget crisis first, before sending this "special" bill right on through.


Otherwise there will be no one to teach the children that he so desperately wants to protect.

Ok, you can go back to what ya'll were doing...

[WyldemanATX]

Originally Posted by Ava Stone

Because the legislature only meets every two years here, it would have been nice if Perry would have handled the school budget crisis first, before sending this "special" bill right on through.


Otherwise there will be no one to teach the children that he so desperately wants to protect.

Ok, you can go back to what ya'll were doing...

Throwing more money at the school systems is not going to fix the problem. Yes the schools are fucked up and need a new approach to fixing it.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Booth

The bottom line is that few people support this policy. Who IS supporting it besides Rick Perry?

Obviously D'Torrchia is.



Er, Dan Patrick, too, who is so far to the right of Perry, he's about to fall off the end of the world!

And, er, whatever your name is: how about throwing ENOUGH money at the schools to keep 'em open?

[WyldemanATX]

I am for privatizing the school system to breed competition, or having a voucher system so everyone that actually wants a better education can get it.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I am for privatizing the school system to breed competition, or having a voucher system so everyone that actually wants a better education can't afford it.

Fixed.

[WyldemanATX]

F-taco that is not what I said at all. I have seen students that sleep in class, Do you think they deserve special treatment. I happen to think if you have a student that wants it and is willing to pay a price gets it. I am not talking with money either.. It could be competition driven. When it is free we take it for granted that it is free. When you have to earn it or pay in some way you appreciated more.

Based on your fixed it BS no wonder this country is divided. You are always looking at the negative and are not solutions oriented.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Show me Obama's grade point average at Columbia, then let's compare it to the above listed requirements to gain entry into Harvard Law. If I'm wrong, I will be the FIRST to come on this post and tell the world I was wrong and made an incorrect assumption. Until then, the facts are what they are.

Oh, get over yourself already. Obama graduated Harvard magne cum laude, which means his gpa there was at least 3.8. Do you really expect his Columbia gpa to be any different, and if it was, what would it matter? He still graduated Harvard magna cum laude!

Admit it, you're still looking for his birth certificate too.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Wyldeman30

I am for privatizing the school system to breed competition, or having a voucher system so everyone that actually wants a better education can get it.

Ahem. Something about the way you express yourself, buddy. Even when you're not trying to...

Also, what do vouchers have to do with getting a better education? They only subsidize private, mostly church schools with public tax dollars. They pay for charter schools, which, as you might know, are hardly bound to any academic standards. But at least if you have vouchers, you can keep your kids away from the public population without having to pay extra for it, eh?

Where do you send your kids, Wyldeman?