Perry 'taken aback' by debate crowd reaction

I never thought of the 'innocent unborn' as 'being around.'
I guess why I don't get that argument.

The question was pretty ugly - hypotheticals like that can always get anyone
"If you had a terrorist that could stop a bomb would you torture him?"

I hate those questions. They assume you already know everything there is to know, but yet you don't know.

I bet there were people planted in that crowd last night to make them all look bad.
OR, there were really some mean, ignorant people there that should have kept quiet.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by TheWorldSpins

Perry distinguished from that the issue of "justice," reiterating his strong support and "respect" for the death penalty on a state-by-state basis. "But the Republican party ought to be about life and protecting, particularly, innocent life," he added.

Kinda contradicting him self, don't ya think. While it's a small percent of error, innocent people do die because of the death penalty.

Compared to the abortion mill industry, a few on death row is but a speck in the universe.

Totally not the same thing. You guys are cold, extraordinarily short sighted or ignorant -- now which would that be??

Originally posted by neo96
did i get the jist of this?

people are upset about a person dying because they killed someone already themselves?

and the dude is catching flack from thinking hey maybe those people need to be taken out

ends the cost of keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives and eating up taxpayer money

or hey heres a tip dont kill anyone and you wont die but wait for it.

the murderer isnt responsbile for their own actions.

meh

Didn't the jist --hell you missed the whole boat.

He was talking about some ........... hell if you didn't get it first time, I'm wasting my time

Originally posted by LDragonFireNo they were clapping because some one going to die because they didn't show personal responsibility because they didn't buy health insurance. Just like they applauded the death penalty deaths.

Yes, because the right wingers are people who have been mentally scarred by early experiences, particularly religious indoctrination, resulting in their profound judgmentalism. Everything to them is about what a person "deserves," and because they believe that all humans are created equal by God, they believe that there are no inherent defects of person or character that cannot be overcome by human will.

It's elementary school level thought, really.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

No they were clapping because some one going to die because they didn't show personal responsibility because they didn't buy health insurance. Just like they applauded the death penalty deaths.

Kill em all

Burn em

$750 monthly premiums for everyone!

Personal Responsibility, Yee Haw!

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


Democrats have always said Bush was to blame. Whereve ya been for 11 years? But anyway, that is how far back the meddling goes with the Middle East, all the way back to Jimma Carter. Iranians have hated us since.

reply to post by spyder550


IM cold because I am Pro Life and see abortion for what it is???? Who are the cold ones really? Try the guy who co counselled at Roe V Wade who said that it was a good way to depopulate. Puts things in a different perspective if one was going to be honest about it.

Originally posted by spyder550

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by TheWorldSpins

Perry distinguished from that the issue of "justice," reiterating his strong support and "respect" for the death penalty on a state-by-state basis. "But the Republican party ought to be about life and protecting, particularly, innocent life," he added.

Kinda contradicting him self, don't ya think. While it's a small percent of error, innocent people do die because of the death penalty.

Compared to the abortion mill industry, a few on death row is but a speck in the universe.

Totally not the same thing. You guys are cold, extraordinarily short sighted or ignorant -- now which would that be??

edit on 13-9-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)

gee how come you can go around calling people here ignorant and cold and Im the one getting posts removed????

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


To be fair, the TRC and the CFR both have members of both parties. Carter was Tri Lateralist.

Facing an Islamic revolution, the Shah appealed to Carter for help. On November 4, 1978 U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Shah and said the United States would "back him to the hilt." This would never be the case. Brzezinski insisted to Carter that the U.S. must encourage the Shah to "brutally suppress the revolution". State Department officials believed Carter should reach out to the Revolutionaries in order to smooth the transition to a new government. This was a deciding moment in world history. Carter decided not to take either recommendation and to this very day, the world is suffering the consequences of his indecisiveness.

When the Grand Ayatollah took power in February of 1979, the Shah held over 3,000 political prisoners, most of them spies or informants for the neighboring Soviet Union. The Ayatollah did not release them as the world expected. He deemed them "godless Communists" and placed them up against walls alongside more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians and murdered them all by firing squads. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested for owning satellite dishes and viewing Western programs. And, of course, American diplomats were taken hostage.

Also resulting from Carter's abandonment of the Shah was the Iran-Iraq war, which would have never occurred if the Shah remained in power. Over a half million people died during that war, including thousands of Iranians from Sadam Hussein chemical weapons. Hussein continued building his military to avoid future land attacks, which would become the cornerstone for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. This of course became Desert Storm.

www.americanthinker.com...

Brzezinski was heavily involved in all this.

And here's another article, from teh Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com...

Now I read that the CIA was involved in supporting the Shah to begin with. Then Carter came along and I read somewhere they secretly supported Khomeini behind the scenes while pretending to give support to
the Shah.
This meddling is the basis for Ron Paul's talk about our froeign policy.
The Shadow govt is always involved behind the scenes and presenting a different face to the American public.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


True... but something chills me more about the possibility of knowing you are innocent and being in a cell KNOWING YOU ARE GOING TO DIE and not being able to do anything about it. It's a little different. Being on death row is almost cruel and unusual in my opinion.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Do you all know this wasn't about Perry's execution of an innocent man - it was about the Tea Parties approval of just leaving people to die on the streets.

Originally posted by spyder550
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Do you all know this wasn't about Perry's execution of an innocent man - it was about the Tea Parties approval of just leaving people to die on the streets.

Seems to me that the dots are easily connected between the two.

that is how far back the meddling goes with the Middle East, all the way back to Jimma Carter.

The CIA was intervening in Iran in the 50's, but you blame it on Carter? Are you really that ignorant, or you just hope people are dumb enough to fall for blatant lies?