Rick Perry Physically Reprimands Ron Paul During Debate

page: 7
110
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Also, I am pro-death penalty. These are not innocent babies, these are convicted criminals. The only problem I have with the death penalty is that we authorize a third party to carry out the execution, and thereby sanction an additional murder. I think it should be up to the families of the victims to carry out the execution. If they want to do it, they flip the switch, not some uninvolved 3rd party. If the family declines that right, then the perpetrator gets life in prison. So, I'm all for the death penalty, I'm just not for an uninvolved party carrying it out.


I would be too if there were guarantees that no innocent human would die.. unfortunately during Perry's term he has executed 2 people that were most likely innocent.

Our system can never be 100% right therefor the death penalty can not be legal.

I will never stand being a death penalty if an innocent person is put down. It isn't worth it.
edit on 9/8/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I love RP but im concerned these pictures make him look extreamly weak. For crying out loud perry is grabing him and pointing at him like hes a little school girl that just got cought stealing someones lunch. If this goes main stream i dont think it will look good for Dr Paul


1st off.. they are both "RP"

2nd The only person it helps is Paul.

Who the hell would vote for an ahole bully that grabs their competition. Who would give an idiot like that "The Red Button?"

Not me!

Anyone who would is a stupid, stupid person.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Tgautier13
 


Not to mention Ron Paul was a champion athlete and Rick Perry was a cheerleader, no wonder he gets all aggressive, he probably just wants to be like the jocks...



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
It will be fascinating to see just how they try and spin this to say it's anything but what the pictures seem to clearly show. Perry is very aggressive and it's being kind to say he's invading Paul's personal space. Dr. Paul looks like he's just in a touch of shock while thinking "Is this REALLY happening in front of national media cameras?? Really??". This is really one of those off the cuff type moments we so rarely see of the candidates but that speak volumes for the brief glimpse they give. Incredible..... I am glad these pics are out and spreading so quickly.


Isn't that what you guys are doing here? Spinning the picture to say things it clearly doesn't show? I mean really, physically reprimanded? Ron Paul is making a fist? About to get a beat down? There's nothing in the picture to support any of those sensationalized claims.

Touching someone's wrist hardly qualifies as physically reprimanding them. You guys are letting your personal bias influence what you see. If you already perceive Ron as the underdog and Perry as a thug you are going to see this as an altercation about to happen. But someone looking at this photo without preformed opinions about Ron Paul or Perry would just see two people discussing something they are obviously passionate about. "Dr. Paul" doesnt look like he's in shock, he looks like he's listening intently.

Laying your hand lightly on someone's wrist can be done to get their attention, to show you are passionate about what you are discussing, or even as an intimate gesture. We have absolutely no idea what they are discussing, there's no reason to read violent overtones into the photo that aren't there.

[Sidebar: Ron Paul hasn't practiced medicine for almost 40 years, nor is he running for a position related to medicine, so why do people keep referring to him as Dr. Paul? It is a faux pas to refer to people by defunct titles, especially when they are succeeded by later titles of more prominance (Congressman). It is entirely unrelated to his political career and just comes across as petty.]



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 


How do you figure that grabbing someone's wrist and pointing your finger... getting really close in someone's face as not being threatening?

After listening to Perry, the fact you think that Perry was lightly touching a wrist is not correct at all. He grabbed his wrist. Look at the form of Perry's body. Also look at Paul's reaction.

Especially to the point Huntsman stood between them (at Paul's podium mind you)

Have you looked at all the pics.

I personally do not think the MSM has talked about this enough.

Doubting other ATSers is fine, but next time research it.
edit on 9/8/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 


Putting his hands lightly? what are you trying to diffuse a massive situation here?

It is unpresidential to act the way Perry did, his body language and glaring eyes shows what he meant, the man in the forefront of the first picture was identified as John Baeza, Ron's bodyguard, why did you think he had to show up during a mere commercial break?

Yes, it is wrong to get ahead and say assault but Perry did get physical, especially if Paul did NOT want to be touched or had a condescending finger in his face.

Would you want that? I sure wouldn't.

The difference here is an emotional and (several times over) out-of-control man and one that is calm and collected in situations regarding the public light. That is what is should be discussed here.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Looks like a Teacher admonishing a naughty Student to me...

I can only imagine the conversation in CODE;
"Ix-nay on the onest-hay..."


The dog and pony show is merely to act like they are believable PR reps -- nothing they say can or will be used against them in a court of law, so Lying, misconstruing, and of course, pulling nonsense out of their rears are all highly prized qualities of the next corporate PR rep for the United States.

Ron Paul has this whole "Maverick" thing going -- and I'm sure that he was getting pointers on how to act rogue, but not to stray too far from the script and startle the kids. Some of his ideas are good, but others are "privatize this and that" and basically -- doing EXACTLY what has been slowly happening the past 40 years.

Every one of these people at least -- are a bit more honest than Obama -- he still has people convinced he is a Liberal. They all have their various voter niches to go after, but nobody we are going to ELECT in 2012 is going to move this country AWAY from being a larger version of Haiti.

No regulations unless you are a small business, no protections unless you fly first class, and we have no money so we have to cut EVERYTHING but corporate welfare. Oh, and if you make over $1 Million a year -- the JUSTICE system has a hands off policy -- kill whomever you like.

Just don't be like Bernie Maddoff and steal from the wrong clan of mobsters -- if you steal from the Plebes -- that's just fine.


>> I know everybody WANTS hope -- I do to. I voted for Ross Perot simply because he was the LAST person to tell the truth about Lobbyists running the system and that NAFTA would cause a "giant sucking sound of jobs leaving our country." Ron Paul SEEMS like someone who would do that -- but he wouldn't be on that stage if he really were.

The battles between Democrats and Republicans, and the phony opposition of Libertarians and Tea Party (who want MORE rights for corporations), are squabbles over who gets to move their clan into the house of the Cosa Nostra, and get the graft to sell out the American people.

Obama FINALLY used the "Presidential Powers" to DECIDE -- and what did he do? He stopped his own EPA from regulating Ozone levels. Republican or party opposition didn't matter -- it was just DECIDED regardless of EPA policies, statutes, or congressional bills. And they arrested over 1,400 protesters against the Tar Sands pipeline -- so that we can get MORE smog for our kids. George Bush couldn't have done it any better -- nor would he have done it any differently.

The BENEFIT of Obama or a Slick Willy -- is I at least appreciate someone moving us towards fascism with some regard to subterfuge. George would just stumble into the room, make some history challenged moronic statement, and then the press would find some fairy dust to explain how this moved Congress to pass the Patriot Act -- or the "Bankruptcy Reform Act" or whatever. If I'm going to get run over -- I don't want it to be a Clown Car.


>> But these days, I think I would PREFER that one of these crazy Republicans won the election -- so that I can get rid of those nagging doubts of some sort of future in this country. There's something to be said for pessimism when you've got at least some guarantee of failure rather than a false hope of success.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
"Don't put me in a compromising position here Ron... Stick to the game plan... We're just here to make a close election but you know as well as I know that Obama is gonna win"



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   


Ron Paul is Pro-Life, as am I in 90% of cases




Also, I am pro-death penalty.


What?

Doesn't that sound contradictory to you?
edit on 8-9-2011 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth
 


I thought I explained it in the rest of that post, but the answer is NO.

How is it contradictory to want to protect the innocent life of a child, and also protect the innocent life of a child by killing predators that might harm them?

If a rabid wolf comes to the backyard of my neighbor, and eats their child, and then shows up in my yard, I won't be shooing it way with a broom and hoping it moves on to the next neighbor, instead I will kill it permanently and end the threat.

A convicted predator such as a serial rapist, or murderer, etc, is no different than that rabid wolf, and they should be put down permanently.

In my original post, I did offer a couple of ways to tweak the process though. There are exceptions where I think abortion should be considered, and I don't think the law needs to mandate it one way or another, and as for the death penalty, I think the victim's families should have the final say, and the opportunity to dole out the punishment. It seems wrong to task an uninvolved party with carrying out the execution.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Tgautier13
 


Jon huntsman belongs to the huntsman family (obviously) in which owns huntsman polyurethanes. Huntsman polyurethanes has numerous chemical manufacturing plants world wide and is right along there with Dow Chemical and Hexion. I used to work at a plant owned by huntsman and I have pretty extensive knowledge about the company. One thing for sure, I won't be voting for Jon. Reason being is his close connection with corporate business. Jon being ambassador to China is a big issue with me. Reason being is that huntsman has and is expanding it's chemical manufacturing in China - see where I'm getting at? Possible big time tax and or other financial breaks for the family business... With him being president, I think you would see huntsman polyurethanes grow immensely.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Sure, they're all sociopaths. Leave it up to a Republican audience to clap whenever the death penalty is mentioned.

It's just another dog-and-pony show and you've been fooled once again if you think anything is going to come out of this.

Ron Paul's views on abortion concern me only because government has no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

Those who strongly advocate something called FREEDOM should keep in mind that freedom is broad, freedom is free (don't listen to the soldiers who say otherwise) and freedom does not discriminate.


Ron Paul believes abortion should be handled at the state level, not the federal level. If your state advocates for abortion and you're anti-abortion, move to another state that supports your views...and vice-versa. This is a win-win for everyone.

Unlike some other politicians, Paul won't try to shove his beliefs down our throats. He does believe in freedom and following the Constitution and his Congressional voting record proves those facts.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Habit4ming because: keyboard sticking



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillyBoBBizWorth


Ron Paul is Pro-Life, as am I in 90% of cases




Also, I am pro-death penalty.


What?

Doesn't that sound contradictory to you?
edit on 8-9-2011 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)


ROFL.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The fascists cannot tolerate the threat that is Ron Paul.

Ron may not get the vote, but Perry your boat is sunk. Just look what you did to Texas! You must be the looniest bastard on Earth, and you look like a serial killer to boot!

Oh and, Cameron Todd Willingham was INNOCENT you sack of #!

Perry seeks to have the disabled and elderly pay for corporate tax breaks!

Perry decided to gut child support services, despite a report from the Center for Public Policy Priorities that found nearly one in four Texas children lived beneath the poverty line.

Perry seeks to end the programs we use to fight extreme poverty and the third world like problems that come along with it. Perry seeks to have America on par with Lagos, and has done nothing to combat the influx of illegals into his state.


FU PERRY!

edit on 8-9-2011 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by BillyBoBBizWorth
 

I thought I explained it in the rest of that post, but the answer is NO.
How is it contradictory to want to protect the innocent life of a child, and also protect the innocent life of a child by killing predators that might harm them?
If a rabid wolf comes to the backyard of my neighbor, and eats their child, and then shows up in my yard, I won't be shooing it way with a broom and hoping it moves on to the next neighbor, instead I will kill it permanently and end the threat.


Yeah make abortion illegal and pretty soon birth control will be illegal. Pregnant ladies will be drinking their fetus to death and using coat hangers in the back alley. America has been through this before and other countries are dealing with this issue to this day. Comparing an unborn fetus to a child in a back yard being attacked by wolves is not a fair comparison.

How can most right-wingers believe in fetuses if they can't even believe in other scientific facts?

Besides I am personally Pro-life, but I think it is a persons choice, not mine to make unless it is my fetus.

I think pro-lifers are hilarious because they are predominately right wing which is against big gov. Telling a female what they can/can't do is pretty much an ultimate form of big government.

No offense, but that is how I see it. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk either, but I think Pro-life is as two-faced as religion and politics.
edit on 9/8/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clisen33
reply to post by Tgautier13
 


Jon huntsman belongs to the huntsman family (obviously) in which owns huntsman polyurethanes. Huntsman polyurethanes has numerous chemical manufacturing plants world wide and is right along there with Dow Chemical and Hexion. I used to work at a plant owned by huntsman and I have pretty extensive knowledge about the company. One thing for sure, I won't be voting for Jon. Reason being is his close connection with corporate business. Jon being ambassador to China is a big issue with me. Reason being is that huntsman has and is expanding it's chemical manufacturing in China - see where I'm getting at? Possible big time tax and or other financial breaks for the family business... With him being president, I think you would see huntsman polyurethanes grow immensely.


Epic post. This would make a great thread on it's own.
Huntsman Corp Wiki


Huntsman holds global leadership positions in MDI (diphenylmethane diisocyanate), polyurethane catalysts, epoxy adhesives, epoxy powder coating systems, aerospace composites, electrical insulating materials, textile effect chemicals, polyetheramines, ethylene and propylene carbonates, and maleic anhydride.



2010 revenues were over $9 billion.


Thank you for the head's up on this information. I can see an excellent expose' possible here.

If anyone decides to make a big thread about it, I'll flag it and check out the findings for sure. There is always good ATS fodder in chemical corporations.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   


I thought I explained it in the rest of that post, but the answer is NO.


I just had to ask myself.



How is it contradictory to want to protect the innocent life of a child, and also protect the innocent life of a child by killing predators that might harm them?


That isnt contradictory,but saying your "pro-life" 90% of the time,but your "pro-death" 100% of the time sounds contradictory to me.

Just curious,does "pro-life" or "pro-death" apply to just human life,or all lifeforms?
In your opinion?

Whats worse? killing and/or eating a chickens egg? or the chicken itself? they are both lifeforms arent they?
Does it only apply to the egg or the chicken? or both of them?
In your opinion?





edit on 8-9-2011 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed
reply to post by Akasirus
 


How do you figure that grabbing someone's wrist and pointing your finger... getting really close in someone's face as not being threatening?

After listening to Perry, the fact you think that Perry was lightly touching a wrist is not correct at all. He grabbed his wrist. Look at the form of Perry's body. Also look at Paul's reaction.

Especially to the point Huntsman stood between them (at Paul's podium mind you)

Have you looked at all the pics.

I personally do not think the MSM has talked about this enough.

Doubting other ATSers is fine, but next time research it.
edit on 9/8/2011 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)


I didn't say it wasn't threatening. It may or may not be. I said it wasn't physically reprimanding because we have no way to know the context of the gesture. The picture with Huntsman also could have happened before or after the 'altercation'. You are assuming he was 'seperating' them, but again, we don't know the context. Maybe he came to join the conversation. Maybe they called him over to dark his opinion. It is fine to draw your own conclusions, but it's not fine to assume that the conclusions you have jumped to is the only correct one and that no one could possibly draw a different conclusion.

What am I supposed to research? What can I possibly research that could tell me what is happening I'm those photos?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I actualy worked at one of the plants that had the highest production of MDI. Not going to reveal more about myself lol.. MDI is used in a plethora amount of applications. When mixed with a polyol, it turns into foam. Huge industry.

Jon being ambassador and running for president screams of foul play.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tgautier13
 


Rick Perry was just upset that Ron asked him how long Rick's been dyeing his hair. Perry is a d-bag. When your confronted with the facts, just bully and pick on a man who's 15 years your senior.





top topics
 
110
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join