MSNBC's Chris Jansing: Is Rick Perry 'Too Far Off Even for the GOP?'

News Busters ^ | August 24. 2011 | Scott Whitlock

[magritte]

RINO = NOT SARAH PALIN

[magritte]

Palin threads are defacto Caucus threads now. Gotta be a member to post.

[presently no screen name]

It’s a long time and a lot of campaigning before anyone casts a vote.

Sshhh! Don't wake them - they are on a blinded mission looking for sympathy and trashing anything Palin in spite of their *LIKES*. In their minds, they closed the door to any candidate who may decide to run. They are in unteachable mode.

[presently no screen name]

Why was not this venereal shot just made available to those who want it? Freedom to take or not to take - what did Perry have against that? For it certainly would be a ‘We The People’ approach.

[presently no screen name]

Do we need a venereal shot to be a part of the Perry Caucus or would an opt out through gov’t intervention be enough?

[magritte]

No, you can get your venereal shot from wherever you normally get it.

[9YearLurker]

You’re right. The election’s over in their mind, even though most of the electorate still hasn’t a clue about who Perry is.

[thackney]

It was (and still is) available to those that can afford it. More than 35 million people in the US have received it.

He tried to make it required so that all insurance companies would cover it, to make it available to more people. Just like the required Hepatitis A & B vaccines.

The had the Freedom not to take it under the executive order. The order clearly states that the parents are the final authority on their children’s health care.

[presently no screen name]

The had the Freedom not to take it under the executive order.

So now our freedoms come from executive order and not the Constitution and you see nothing wrong w/that. Gotcha.

Like the barry voters - they will bend as low as is necessary to support their guy.

[presently no screen name]

They are demonstrating a barry voter mentality.

[thackney]

You claimed they did not have the Freedom not to take it. That is not true.

The requirement was made with the clear statement “to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care”.

Why do you want to ignore that part? If you have to be deceptive to make your point, maybe you should rethink your stance.

The executive order was a mistake, in that we agree. If one even agrees with the concept, he handle the subject horribly. But we don’t need to be dishonest in what the EO required.

[presently no screen name]

You claimed they did not have the Freedom not to take it. That is not true.

That IS TRUE - something your liberal mind cannot wrap itself around. FREEDOM is NOT being required to sign something in the gov't database to opt out of something you don't want it to begin with. Freedom is taking a shot - here it is - take it or leave it.

Why do you want to ignore that part?

First of all - it's my right - it's call Freedom - something you need a lesson on!! You reek of liberalism!

If you have to be deceptive to make your point, maybe you should rethink your stance.

Excuse me? I'm being deceptive in ignoring something that the gov't 'gives me' to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care”. that I ALREADY HAVE? Are you nuts?

I ignored it because they don't tell me I have something - I already have - as if they are giving me something to COUNTERACT what they have taken away! You fell for it hook line and sinker!

It's an insult but you think it's the greatest thing and how could I ignore it! And not addressing it - I already knew 'the type' I was responding to. You aren't capable of handling too much information and your posts prove that!

You better consider YOUR STANCE here, bucko - this is a conservative site and you just dropped your mask. Talk about deception.

in that we agree

Hear this chump - don't ever say 'we' when you are addressing me. For Perry's sake - here's some good advice - don't open your mouth about him or take it upon yourself to defend him/his actions - for you are his worst nightmare.

[thackney]

FREEDOM is NOT being required to sign something in the gov't database

By this definition, we do not have the Freedom to Vote, Freedom to Marry, or the Freedom to drive on the Streets.

It looks to me like you are making up your own definition.

[presently no screen name]

By this definition, we do not have the Freedom to Vote, Freedom to Marry, or the Freedom to drive on the Streets.

WOW! So now you don't know the difference between 'required to' and 'want to'. It's obviously above your paygrade to realize people WANT to get married, vote and drive in the streets!

It looks to me like you are making up your own definition.

It looks to anyone you like make an *hole out of yourself. Don't post to me anymore - you are ridiculous and not worthy of my time. Liberalism is a mental disease - I can't help you.

[thackney]

By your definition

Freedom to Vote: okay to be required to first register in a government database.

Freedom to take or not to take: not okay to be required to first register in a government database.

Good luck convincing anyone else those are not contradictory statements.