Dick Perry and Rethugs Gearing Up For Round Two

[Highlord Laan]

Link

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) directly attacked state Sen. Wendy Davis (D) during a speech at the National Right To Life conference on Thursday, arguing that the state senator who filibustered for 13 hours to defeat an omnibus anti-abortion bill should have learned from her own life experiences as a single mother to value “every life.”
“Who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can’t grow to live successful lives?” Perry asked, before suggesting that Davis’ own struggles should have turned her against abortion:
PERRY: In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. She was the daughter of a single woman, she was a teenage mother herself. She managed to eventually graduate from Harvard Law School and serve in the Texas senate. It is just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters.

Perry has called the Texas senate into another special session on Monday in order to pass the bill, which would, in part, outlaw abortions after 20 weeks and effectively close down 90 percent of clinics in the state. Democrats will likely be unable to block the measure a second time. “We will ban abortion after 20 weeks!” Perry proclaimed at the conference.
During his remarks, the Texas governor also described Davis’ filibuster as “hijacking of the Democratic process” and said of the pro-choice movement, “the louder they scream, the more we know that we are getting something done.”
Perry’s policies are actually likely to encourage more unintended teen pregnancies. After the Texas governor defunded Planned Parenthood and slashed family planning funding, dozens of women’s health clinics in the state were forced to close. Studies from the state’s health department and the New England Journal of Medicine have both projected that fewer women in Texas now have access to birth control, and more of them will accidentally get pregnant.

I hope Davis or another human being has enough strength to stand up to Perry and his jackbooted goons in another round. Failing that, I hope a mob storms Texas' senate and either blocks the vote bodily or burns the place down.

[Broomstick]

What a condescending piece of shit Perry is - how dare that uppity bitch draw a different conclusion than I have! You lost, asshole, man up and deal with it.

It's like what I heard on the news last night about some people in California vowing to take the gay marriage issue to the Supreme Court. Uh, guys, that's just what happened this week. And you lost. Get the fuck over it already.

Really, the conservatards are very poor losers.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I have said it before and I will say it again, the reason the Republicans are such poor losers, is becasue they are basically "Fundamentalist Zealots" IE, in their mind they CAN NOT Be wrong...

Most 'normal' people when defeated will say "I guess I was wrong" or "I guess others do not agree with me"
But the hard core GOP are in ever way like a fundi chrstian, it is inconceivable that they or their ideas could be wrong. As such when defeated, the response is "I was defeated, not because I was wrong, but because evil people conspired against me because they KNOW I am right and fear me!"

That way of thinking is basically Republicans in a nutshell.

[Simon_Jester]

Two points. One, is this kind of thinking so rare on the left? Think about what happens when the Supreme Court or legislature does something we don't like on this forum. We get a mountain of "HOW DARE THEY?" like what Perry's saying. We get people vowing that the fight will go on. We get various trolls and weirdos (and sometimes not-so-weirdos) suggesting that to fix the problem, the system needs to be changed or 'reformed...' in ways that subvert the democratic process.*

The thing that's different and disturbing here is that Perry is (metaphorically) howling for blood because he was blocked by a relatively low-powered opposition. I do think it's a characteristic habit of the right to go berserk about a weak opponent, exaggerate their strength, and generally choke the political atmosphere with cries of "HOW DARE THEY?" and vindictiveness.

The sheer intensity of self-righteous bullying that you get on the far right is pretty remarkable.



Two, this is what the Republican Party has been making itself into ever since the Southern Strategy and the 'Goldwater was right after all!' stance of the Reagan Revolution. The strategy of appealing to the people who most bitterly oppose change and most intensely want society to look a certain way, then propagandizing and encouraging those people, creates some deeply fanatical politicoes.

[Ford Prefect]

'Dick Perry and the Rethugs'? Good to see you're really extricating yourself from the childish name calling that is destroying political discourse everywhere. Would you like to continue ruining Senator Davis' astonishing victory by lowering yourself to the standards of your opponents?

[Irbis]

Two points. One, is this kind of thinking so rare on the left? Think about what happens when the Supreme Court or legislature does something we don't like on this forum. We get a mountain of "HOW DARE THEY?" like what Perry's saying. We get people vowing that the fight will go on. We get various trolls and weirdos (and sometimes not-so-weirdos) suggesting that to fix the problem, the system needs to be changed or 'reformed...' in ways that subvert the democratic process.

IMHO, it is rarer, yes. Left typically embraces cooperation, right atomization. Typical response is more likely cooperating to overcome issue, not to firebomb clinic, shoot island meeting, or bomb federal building 'lone wolf against evil world' style.

Also, even if both sides were perfectly equal, the fact one is pressing for more liberty and social security while the other wants to make rich richer and is pushing inane readings of book written by goat herders millennia ago (inane because concerning issues and outcomes you can't find even with microscope in said books) would be enough to make everyone sane declare for first side.

'Dick Perry and the Rethugs'? Good to see you're really extricating yourself from the childish name calling that is destroying political discourse everywhere.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

[Simon_Jester]

Two points. One, is this kind of thinking so rare on the left? Think about what happens when the Supreme Court or legislature does something we don't like on this forum. We get a mountain of "HOW DARE THEY?" like what Perry's saying. We get people vowing that the fight will go on. We get various trolls and weirdos (and sometimes not-so-weirdos) suggesting that to fix the problem, the system needs to be changed or 'reformed...' in ways that subvert the democratic process.

IMHO, it is rarer, yes. Left typically embraces cooperation, right atomization. Typical response is more likely cooperating to overcome issue, not to firebomb clinic, shoot island meeting, or bomb federal building 'lone wolf against evil world' style.

Rarer, maybe. That may have to do with different levels of radicalization on both sides, but I swear, I've seen stuff that would translate directly into speeches like this, if you gave power to radicalized people on the left.

Rick Perry's a disgusting ass, SB5 is a disgusting bill that should be opposed. But I really wish we'd pay more attention to discouraging the people on our side whose rhetoric gets violent or anti-democratic just because they're losing right this minute. It's dangerous when such people grow up to have power.

Also, even if both sides were perfectly equal, the fact one is pressing for more liberty and social security while the other wants to make rich richer and is pushing inane readings of book written by goat herders millennia ago (inane because concerning issues and outcomes you can't find even with microscope in said books) would be enough to make everyone sane declare for first side.

Why does that change anything? I'm not talking about which side is correct; my point is that this type of thinking is common on both sides, because it's a normal human thing to be vindictive and upset when we risk losing a conflict of some kind. Especially when we're intensely convinced that we are right and the other side is wrong.

I look around here, and we just take for granted that the system is rigged, that the opposition derives its strength through a combination of cheating and exploiting the idiocy of the people around it, and that democracy is a decreasingly respectable institution because it keeps not giving us what we want. Even given that we're right in every detail of what we want and believe, the mindset is still far from unique to the right. And still dangerous because it leads to a lack of perspective; just ask Jub a gun control question if you don't believe me.

'Dick Perry and the Rethugs'? Good to see you're really extricating yourself from the childish name calling that is destroying political discourse everywhere.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

What of it, there's still a name-calling problem. It ties into what I was talking about, I think.

[Gandalf]

What a condescending piece of shit Perry is - how dare that uppity bitch draw a different conclusion than I have! You lost, asshole, man up and deal with it.

It's like what I heard on the news last night about some people in California vowing to take the gay marriage issue to the Supreme Court. Uh, guys, that's just what happened this week. And you lost. Get the fuck over it already.

Really, the conservatards are very poor losers.

If something like universal health care had been defeated under similar circumstances, would you insist that people "man up" and deal with it?

[Metahive]

Gandalf, why are you trying to draw equivalency between a policy beneficial to most people and policy that's solely there to oppress minorities and serves nothing but bigoted interests? These differences make it perfectly justified to react with disdain in the former case but not the latter.

[Gandalf]

Gandalf, why are you trying to draw equivalency between a policy beneficial to most people and policy that's solely there to oppress minorities and serves nothing but bigoted interests? These differences make it perfectly justified to react with disdain in the former case but not the latter.

It's the "lol man up and accept your losses" attitude I dislike. Is being a sore loser entirely contingent on the righteousness of one's cause?

[Simon_Jester]

If something like universal health care had been defeated under similar circumstances, would you insist that people "man up" and deal with it?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at.

There are people here, and elsewhere, who wouldn't. They'd freak out, they'd make hysterical claims about THIS SHALL NOT STAND. Some of them would mutter darkly about changing the way government works so they can't lose again.

And I find that very distasteful.

[Flagg]

Expanding healthcare to save lives versus restricting abortion to please a non existent sky fairy are not the same thing.

[Metahive]

It's the "lol man up and accept your losses" attitude I dislike. Is being a sore loser entirely contingent on the righteousness of one's cause?

If said cause is a malicious one, I'd say yes.

And I find that very distasteful.

Ahh, good ol' indulging in the disease of american intellectuals, abusing the Golden Mean.

[Losonti Tokash]

If you only like democracy when it does what you want, you should probably just admit you'd be fine with a dictatorship as long as it agreed with your values. As it is, Laan and Metahive are basically just "progressive" versions of Freepers, particularly Laan's constant inane nicknames and calls for violence.

[Metahive]

If you only like democracy when it does what you want, you should probably just admit you'd be fine with a dictatorship as long as it agreed with your values. As it is, Laan and Metahive are basically just "progressive" versions of Freepers.

So it's bad for me to have principles that I'd demand any state praising itself for being modern and progressive to follow? The disease rears its ugly head again.

[Mr Bean]

Look there is a valid point in here being poorly argued. The Texas Republicans said all year and prior to being elected that they were going to leave abortion alone. They spent a year sitting on this issue not doing anything and got all sorts of free good PR because of it. Only to turn around and after the legislature was out of session to call a special session to try and pass their moralist laws.

Had they really believed in this stuff they should have brought it up on time during normal working hours so to speak. So they call a special session to try and pass everything and fail publicly.

You want to bring it back up? Fine, goverment will be back in session anyway sooner or later bring it up then. And pass it then, it's abuse of process to call special session after special session in hopes to get your legislate passed. The proper action would have been to let it sit by the wayside, start touring your state to build support then go back during the next normal meeting and get it passed.

However there are some extenuating circumstances because doesn't Texas under Perry almost never meet in full session for like half the year?

[Losonti Tokash]

If you only like democracy when it does what you want, you should probably just admit you'd be fine with a dictatorship as long as it agreed with your values. As it is, Laan and Metahive are basically just "progressive" versions of Freepers.

So it's bad for me to have principles that I'd demand any state praising itself for being modern and progressive to follow? The disease rears its ugly head again.

Good god, could you be more dramatic and overbearing?

[Metahive]

If you only like democracy when it does what you want, you should probably just admit you'd be fine with a dictatorship as long as it agreed with your values. As it is, Laan and Metahive are basically just "progressive" versions of Freepers.

So it's bad for me to have principles that I'd demand any state praising itself for being modern and progressive to follow? The disease rears its ugly head again.

Good god, could you be more dramatic and overbearing?

Text book ad-hominem. Didn't think I'd see the day.

[Losonti Tokash]

Look, I understand that your proto-fascist worldview requires conformity and a full throated assault of the other, but you could do with a bit of self analysis. It's apparent that you have become so deranged by the concept of the Golden Mean that you view any comparison between you and your supposed enemies as inherently fallacious, despite how little there is to separate you from the American Tea Party.

[Metahive]

What, showing glee at the bigots suffering setbacks already makes one as bad as the bigots? Who's being melodramatic now?

[Losonti Tokash]

I don't think that's actually what I'm criticizing. I certainly enjoy it when regressive policies and their supporters are defeated.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

One thing to consider about the relative democraticness here is that, at least from what I've read which might be wrong, public support in Texas for measures like SB5 are something less than (and potentially significantly less than) 30%. Especially in states like Texas, the system's already pretty stacked in favour of the existing power structure, so there's definitely room to complain about these events from a democratic standpoint.

And that sort of thing also makes me think about the not-immediate term consequences here. If what Bean is saying is true and the Texas GOP made promises of making no laws to restrict abortions, the high profile nature of this abrogation may have a chance to backfire significantly for them. It may have happened a year too early to have lasting effects by the time the polls happen, but one can hope.

[Simon_Jester]

Expanding healthcare to save lives versus restricting abortion to please a non existent sky fairy are not the same thing.

No, they're not. You're right.

Expanding healthcare is great. Banning abortion is stupid.

Getting a raving case of fanaticism is ignoble. Only liking democracy when it does what you want, and not being able to tell the difference between "losing" and "tyranny" is contemptible.

The first two statements have nothing to do with the last two.

And I find that very distasteful.

Ahh, good ol' indulging in the disease of american intellectuals, abusing the Golden Mean.

Which is obviously a uniquely American vice?

The fact that I find you personally tiresome and disgusting for the way you approach politics has nothing to do with my actual political views. Or yours, for that matter. There are outright communists I respect much more than you, because I can reason with them and they're willing to look at a statement about political philosophy on its merits. It's not just a big tribal game for them.

Look there is a valid point in here being poorly argued. The Texas Republicans said all year and prior to being elected that they were going to leave abortion alone. They spent a year sitting on this issue not doing anything and got all sorts of free good PR because of it. Only to turn around and after the legislature was out of session to call a special session to try and pass their moralist laws.

Had they really believed in this stuff they should have brought it up on time during normal working hours so to speak. So they call a special session to try and pass everything and fail publicly.

You want to bring it back up? Fine, goverment will be back in session anyway sooner or later bring it up then. And pass it then, it's abuse of process to call special session after special session in hopes to get your legislate passed. The proper action would have been to let it sit by the wayside, start touring your state to build support then go back during the next normal meeting and get it passed.

I fully agree with this. The Texas legislature stinks, and this is contemptible behavior on their part.

And if they promised NOT to pass sweeping abortion legislation to get elected, then started using the legislature as a venue to grandstand for anti-abortion fanatics once they got into office... that just compounds their dishonesty and treachery.

One thing to consider about the relative democraticness here is that, at least from what I've read which might be wrong, public support in Texas for measures like SB5 are something less than (and potentially significantly less than) 30%. Especially in states like Texas, the system's already pretty stacked in favour of the existing power structure, so there's definitely room to complain about these events from a democratic standpoint.

Yep. The Texas legislature stinks, and I hope this backfires on them.

[Metahive]

Which is obviously a uniquely American vice?

Would it make you sleep easier if it was not? Would it mean you could dismiss it as a weak spot simply because you're in "good" company? That's lazy.

The fact that I find you personally tiresome and disgusting for the way you approach politics has nothing to do with my actual political views.

If you're done hurling shit at me, you can tell me what's exactly so tiresome and disgusting about the way I approach politics.

There are outright communists I respect much more than you, because I can reason with them and they're willing to look at a statement about political philosophy on its merits. It's not just a big tribal game for them.

Maybe I considered medieval misogyny for a great long while, argued with many proponents of it and then decided to dismiss it? Do you think you're the only one who ever thought long and hard about his political convictions? Do you think everyone but you is just a chatbot who doesn't have an existence outside this board?

[Flagg]

I'd also like to point out that this was an actual filibuster, where someone stood and talked on topic for 11 hours, not the bullshit republican filibuster where they just say "yeah, we're gonna filibuster" and then the bill is dead.