RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon

RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 9:47:39 AM)
If he's not wrong, who is? The dead people? Their families? The press? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, no matter what he says in this area, he's wrong?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 9:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: The cartoon was not scoring political points it was pointing out that the govornor because he was busy sucking korporate amerika's cock had failed in his duty to protect his constituants from force and fraud. Please do not tell me that a worker has no legal expectation that he will be working in a safe environment...fraud. Please dont tell me that having an explosion up your ass is not force. Rick perry had a legal responsibility to see that that was a fact yet he brags that he does not. quote: Where was the failure of government? Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants. He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors . Any citations for all the assertions in there? quote: quote: Was the DHS supposed to be on top of this sort of stuff? One must wonder when some punkassmotherfucker whines that the federal government is too intrusive in the citizens life and that it is the states responsibility to regulate business within the state. Then that same punkassmotherfucker while govornor of the state of texas refuses to do his job to protect his constituants from force and fraud by not causing the appropriate safety regulations to be in place. Now you want to blame this on the lack of supervision by the federal govt. Your post is nothing but disingenuous bullshit. Sooooo, no actual response to the question. Nice. quote: quote: Who fined the company within the past decade? Are you telling me that there was no way DHS could know about West Texas Fertilizer? West Texas is liable for the damage they caused. Government failed at their jobs, too. While I don't believe government has a financial responsibility in any lawsuits that arise from the incident, there is a responsibility within government to fix the flaws that allowed West Texas to fly under the radar so long. If you were to cook this red herring it would be more useful in your belly than in this discussion. I prefer red snapper to red herring, personally. Not going to answer the question, though? DHS oversight of the plant. quote: The fertilizer plant that exploded on Wednesday, obliterating part of a small Texas town and killing at least 14 people, had last year been storing 1,350 times the amount of ammonium nitrate that would normally trigger safety oversight by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I sure do wonder where I come up with that crazy idea. Fines for the facility. I sure hope that's a good enough source for you. [qutoe] quote: Did Rick Perry de-regulate the Federal Oversight of the plant? Stupid ass question with no meaning except to take up bandwith.Why would any adult with a three digit iq and a pulse ask such a asanine question? Rick perry while sucking korporate cock refused to institute the regulations necessary to have prevented this disaster. It has nothing to do with dhs why would you think it did? Don't you know that govornors do not tell the federal bureaucracy what to do?Where do you find that authority for govornors in the constitution? So, no answer to the question, then. Got it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 9:54:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: What special treatment? That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? "What special treatment?" was in reference to Moonhead's claim that I was calling for special treatment for Perry. Thus, the question was asking for proof that I wanted Perry to get special treatment. How did you not understand that? The rest of it was asking if the special treatment I was calling for was that he not be blasted as being wrong solely for the fact that he has acted contrary to his current claim. Seriously, Thompson. I'm thinking that was really all that difficult to figure out.

thompsonx -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 9:55:56 AM)
quote: So, my not being in TX, not supporting his Presidential aspirations, but supporting his statement that the political cartoon wasn't in good taste has what to do with any previous actions he has taken? It has to do with your posts and it's perception of how to spin this so your boy does not look like the punkassmotherfucker he is. The piece of shit brags about how unsafe he allows bussiness to be in texas and yet your post continue to seek to justify his behaiour.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 9:56:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: Yep. He has no moral authority to say anything about this given his past record, I'm afraid. This actually makes life very simple. Since no one on the planet is perfect, that means no one has the right to say anything about anyone. So there ya go [:D] I was talking about a specific case of somebody using a double standard to their advantage, not a generalism. Isn't allowing something wrong to stand because it was called out by someone guilty of the same, a double standard in and of itself?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 9:58:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, my not being in TX, not supporting his Presidential aspirations, but supporting his statement that the political cartoon wasn't in good taste has what to do with any previous actions he has taken? It has to do with your posts and it's perception of how to spin this so your boy does not look like the punkassmotherfucker he is. The piece of shit brags about how unsafe he allows bussiness to be in texas and yet your post continue to seek to justify his behaiour. My post is nothing more than my agreement with his statement about the cartoon. Any other inferences you glean from my posts about Rick Perry are pure fabrications.

Moonhead -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:04:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub quote: Yep. He has no moral authority to say anything about this given his past record, I'm afraid. This actually makes life very simple. Since no one on the planet is perfect, that means no one has the right to say anything about anyone. So there ya go [:D] I was talking about a specific case of somebody using a double standard to their advantage, not a generalism. Isn't allowing something wrong to stand because it was called out by someone guilty of the same, a double standard in and of itself? Not when I'm talking about a specific case and somebody tries to use a ridiculously hyperbolic generalisation to try to make me look like a bigger cunt than Perry for trying to point out his hypocrisy, no. Still waiting for your answer, btw.

cordeliasub -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:18:03 AM)
Honestly Perry should have just ignored the cartoon. I mean, has he ever watched South Park? Or SNL? Sometimes humor is biting, and sometimes people are tactless. It's not like an animated image can reach out and stab him or anything. People on all sides of the aisle do stupid and immoral things from time to time, and any one of them can expect to find themselves fodder for humor. I admit that I get sensitive from time to time too...but this whole "don't hurt my feeeeeelings" thing we have become obsessed with in our country just makes us all look like a bunch of pre-K whiners.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:19:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub Honestly Perry should have just ignored the cartoon. I mean, has he ever watched South Park? Or SNL? Sometimes humor is biting, and sometimes people are tactless. It's not like an animated image can reach out and stab him or anything. People on all sides of the aisle do stupid and immoral things from time to time, and any one of them can expect to find themselves fodder for humor. I admit that I get sensitive from time to time too...but this whole "don't hurt my feeeeeelings" thing we have become obsessed with in our country just makes us all look like a bunch of pre-K whiners. [sm=agree.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:21:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 If he's not wrong, who is? The dead people? Their families? The press? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, no matter what he says in this area, he's wrong? The people who are wrong in this case, are the people who are saying his comments in this case are wrong.

Moonhead -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub Honestly Perry should have just ignored the cartoon Obvs, but the man's clearly too much of a whining fuckwit to take any sort of criticism like a man, rather than trying to spin it as a political issue. (It isn't a political issue, btw: it's a state governor throwing a tantrum because somebody pointed out that his actions have consequences and so he isn't entitled to have everybody ignore the bad ones if he spends time bragging about the good ones, FFS.) Maybe Ted Nugent is the true voice of the Republican party these days, rather than Rush Limpdick. Dearie me.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:26:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Isn't allowing something wrong to stand because it was called out by someone guilty of the same, a double standard in and of itself? Not when I'm talking about a specific case and somebody tries to use a ridiculously hyperbolic generalisation to try to make me look like a bigger cunt than Perry for trying to point out his hypocrisy, no. No? Really? I support Rick Perry's comments in this specific case. I have not supported (nor refuted) any of his comments in any other case. Now you want to limit this to this specific case? How about you do that? You are the one that is bringing in his past to qualify his statement now. How about you comment on this specific case, solely on this specific case? quote: Still waiting for your answer, btw. 11? lol I don't know what question you are referring to. Honest. Please let me know what post your question is in and I'll get to it later today.

Moonhead -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:30:00 AM)
Post 36: "So why don't you have a problem with Perry's hypocrisy, then?" You know, the simple yes/no question you've been refusing to provide an answer for for two pages now.

thompsonx -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 10:46:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What special treatment? That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? quote: "What special treatment?" was in reference to Moonhead's claim that I was calling for special treatment for Perry. Thus, the question was asking for proof that I wanted Perry to get special treatment. How did you not understand that? quote: That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? This is the part of your post that this was directed at I am sorry you were unable to recognize what I was speaking of perhaps if you were to actually read my post before you respond your post would not appear so insipid.........Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? quote: The rest of it was asking if the special treatment I was calling for was that he not be blasted as being wrong solely for the fact that he has acted contrary to his current claim. Bullshit here is your post. quote: That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? My question still stands unanswered: unless your premis is that his sniviling about being called on his record is his new stance.... Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? quote: Seriously, Thompson. I'm thinking that was really all that difficult to figure out. Your intentionally obtuse post certainly seem to try and make it that way

thompsonx -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 11:02:01 AM)
quote: quote: Did Rick Perry de-regulate the Federal Oversight of the plant? Stupid ass question with no meaning except to take up bandwith.Why would any adult with a three digit iq and a pulse ask such a asanine question? Rick perry while sucking korporate cock refused to institute the regulations necessary to have prevented this disaster. It has nothing to do with dhs why would you think it did? Don't you know that govornors do not tell the federal bureaucracy what to do?Where do you find that authority for govornors in the constitution? quote: So, no answer to the question, then. Got it. My post is quite clear that govornors do not have the ability to deregulate federal oversight.Funny that you did not notice that,perhaps if you were to actually read my post before you respond your post would not seem so childish. My post also pointed out that it would be fatuous,asanine,and ignorant for any adult u.s. citizen to think such a thing and it questioned the validity of your post for even asking such a stupid question. Have I now disabused you of your ignorance?

thompsonx -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 11:16:30 AM)
Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants. He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors . quote: Any citations for all the assertions in there? Which of my assertions would you like a cite for? ....................................................... Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants? ....................................................... If you need proof of that I think google can be your friend here but most adults with a three ditgit iq and a pulse would recognize that a govornor has responsibilities to his constituants. .................................................... He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas. ................................................... This is a matter of public record so why would you need validation for that? ...................................................... for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors . ...................................................... Can you think of an alternate reason? or Would a pic of the crater and the dead bodies do for you?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 2:46:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Post 36: "So why don't you have a problem with Perry's hypocrisy, then?" You know, the simple yes/no question you've been refusing to provide an answer for for two pages now. Thank you for the post reminder. It's not a simple closed-ended question. A yes or no answer won't actually answer the question. You: Why don't you have a problem with Perry's hypocrisy, then? Me: Yes. --- or --- You: Why don't you have a problem with Perry's hypocrisy, then? Me: No. See? Neither yes/no response answers the question. Thus, it isn't a simple question to answer. You want to make assertions specific to this case without other things being called into question, but want me to answer for things other than this specific case. Pick one or the other and stick with it. And, I'd also like to point out that I sorta did answer this question before it was even posed. Check out Post#9. quote: quote: DomKen: It's not like Perry would let a man die to score political points. Oh wait.... Me: So, it's okay for others to do so, but not okay for Perry? IMO, neither is okay, but, what's that have to do with anything, right? [Emphasis added] See how I stated that it isn't okay for Perry to use deaths to score political points.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 3:06:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx What special treatment? That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? quote: "What special treatment?" was in reference to Moonhead's claim that I was calling for special treatment for Perry. Thus, the question was asking for proof that I wanted Perry to get special treatment. How did you not understand that?/quote] quote: That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? This is the part of your post that this was directed at I am sorry you were unable to recognize what I was speaking of perhaps if you were to actually read my post before you respond your post would not appear so insipid.........Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? I made no claims about Rick Perry's regulation/deregulation supports. I made the claim that he was correct in his assessment of the political cartoon being tasteless. quote: quote: The rest of it was asking if the special treatment I was calling for was that he not be blasted as being wrong solely for the fact that he has acted contrary to his current claim. Bullshit here is your post. quote: That he not be blasted as being wrong in this situation because he has previously acted contrary to what he is saying now? How is that BS? quote: My question still stands unanswered: unless your premis is that his sniviling about being called on his record is his new stance.... I made no premise about his sniveling or not. I supported his assessment of the tastelessness of the political cartoon. quote: Are you saying that that little punkassmotherfucker is now in favor of strict safety regulations for bussiness within texas? If so I am going to need a cite. If not then just what the fuck is your post saying? quote: Seriously, Thompson. I'm thinking that was really all that difficult to figure out. Your intentionally obtuse post certainly seem to try and make it that way I have never made any claim to what Perry is or isn't in favor of.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 3:25:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: quote:Did Rick Perry de-regulate the Federal Oversight of the plant? Stupid ass question with no meaning except to take up bandwith.Why would any adult with a three digit iq and a pulse ask such a asanine question? Rick perry while sucking korporate cock refused to institute the regulations necessary to have prevented this disaster. It has nothing to do with dhs why would you think it did? Don't you know that govornors do not tell the federal bureaucracy what to do?Where do you find that authority for govornors in the constitution? quote: So, no answer to the question, then. Got it. My post is quite clear that govornors do not have the ability to deregulate federal oversight.Funny that you did not notice that,perhaps if you were to actually read my post before you respond your post would not seem so childish. My post also pointed out that it would be fatuous,asanine,and ignorant for any adult u.s. citizen to think such a thing and it questioned the validity of your post for even asking such a stupid question. Have I now disabused you of your ignorance? Actually, your post did nothing but spew hate and demonstrate your need of anger management skills. Instead of answering the question, you went off about how governor's don't have any Constitutional authority to tell the Federal government what to do. Now, you're criticizing me for not reading your posts, which isn't an accurate allegation anyway. You seem to enjoy being aggressive in your posts. Might want to actually try answering the questions next time. So, I'll answer it for you. No. Rick Perry did not strip the Federal government of oversight of this plant. Was there Federal oversight of this plant? I'm not exactly sure, honestly. There was no oversight by the DHS, but that is more about the plant not following the rules that were in place (so, that regulation was still there, just not followed). The EPA (Federal) had gone in in 2006 with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The US Dept of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Commission was there in 2011. There was still Federal oversight, and state oversight. Apparently, there were regulations in place. How did the fire start? Couldn't that have some impact on the responsibility of West Texas Fertilizer? That's not to say they weren't negligent, but they might not be the only one that bears responsibility. And, that Federal regulatory agencies still aren't talking to each other certainly doesn't seem to be of concern for most, either. I don't believe any Federal Agency bears any responsibility for the incident, but they do need to work the whole lack of communication thing out. If there was no signs of arson, IMO, West Texas Fertilizer would be the only entity that would bear responsibility for this. Having said all that, can you cite de-regulation that allowed West Texas Fertilizer to fly under the radar for 28 years?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Texas Gov. vs. An Editorial Cartoon (4/30/2013 3:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants. He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors . quote: Any citations for all the assertions in there? Which of my assertions would you like a cite for? ALL (ôl): adj. 1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole. 2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom. 3. Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness. 4. Every: got into all manner of trouble. 5. Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt. 6. Pennsylvania Finished; used up: The apples are all. See Regional Note at gum band. 7. Informal Being more than one: Who all came to the party? See Regional Note at you-all. n. The whole of one's fortune, resources, or energy; everything one has: The brave defenders gave their all. pron. 1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality: All of us are sick. All that I have is yours. 2. Everyone; everything: justice for all. adv. 1. Wholly; completely: a room painted all white; directions that were all wrong. 2. Each; apiece: a score of five all. 3. So much: I am all the better for that experience. quote: ....................................................... Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants? ....................................................... If you need proof of that I think google can be your friend here but most adults with a three ditgit iq and a pulse would recognize that a govornor has responsibilities to his constituants. That isn't an assertion. That's a statement of fact regarding his elected position. Thus, no citation is needed for this, as it isn't an assertion. quote: .................................................... He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas. ................................................... This is a matter of public record so why would you need validation for that? Good. Then it will be easy for you to provide. quote: ...................................................... for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors . ...................................................... Can you think of an alternate reason? No citation for this assertion, then? You do understand that when you make the assertion and are asked for a citation, that it is your responsibility to come up with that citation, right? quote: or Would a pic of the crater and the dead bodies do for you? Are you claiming that Rick Perry wanted a crater and lots of dead bodies for the Citizens of Texas? That's what is sounds like you're doing.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625