Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Can you say Governor Davis ?

Posted 1 year ago on July 1, 2013, 5:58 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

37 Comments

37 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28314) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Here it is - that e-mail I mentioned earlier : ( BTW - "GF" - LOOK - pink tennies - That's So HOT ) {:-])

right-wing Gov. Rick Perry has called for a special session of the legislature to start today to force through the outrageous anti-choice bill that Wendy Davis filibustered last week. We need Rick Perry out of the governor’s mansion to stop these outrageous attacks on women and choice and to restore some common sense to Texas government. Sign the petition to draft Wendy Davis for governor.

Wendy Davis’s brave stand against Rick Perry and the Republican legislature last week has painted a huge target on her back.

Republicans will make Wendy a top target in 2014—and the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision on the Voting Rights Act last week gives Republicans the power to redraw legislative district lines to make it even harder for Wendy to win reelection to the state senate.

But we can turn the tables on them. We can draft Wendy to run for governor with the power of hundreds of thousands of grassroots progressives behind her and end Rick Perry’s War on Women once and for all.

Draft Wendy Davis for governor: Sign the petition.

Keep fighting, Michael Langenmayr Campaign Director, Daily Kos

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

She did a good job. I was pretty impressed. She should save Texas or let us kick the entire state out of the Union.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28314) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not to be missed. Texass.

[-] 1 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

Sorry guys, this abortion bill will pass. It passed out of committee yesterday. The floor vote is expected to happen next Tuesday or Wednesday. Both sides will use every trick in the book, but in the end it will pass. Then it will spend the next ten years in the courts before being implemented.

The one positive thing is it has created even more hatred toward Gov. Perry. I think this may be a career stopper for him.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

A career stopper? Nah. He will just move on and buy another political action figure.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

ugly actors doing a scare job

[-] 2 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

Texans are more likely to say they'd vote against Gov. Rick Perry (R) than for him if he runs for reelection in 2014, according to an online UT-Austin/Texas Tribune survey released in March.

Just 26 percent said they would vote for Perry, compared to the 36 percent that said they'd vote against him. The rest said they were unsure, or that they'd need to wait and see who is running against him.

While the wording of the question is a somewhat unusual way of gauging a politician's chances at reelection, the results are in line with a survey from Democratic pollsters PPP that found most voters, including a healthy percentage of Republicans, don't want Perry to run again.
HUFFPO

[-] 1 points by JasonWyngarde (-2) 1 year ago

Interesting

[-] 2 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

IMHO- every organization relating to voting rights should stop wasting money in court. They should use money to develop a simple state by state registration & voting "manual" and send busses out to give free rides to take citizens to register and to vote.

[-] 0 points by Narley (280) 1 year ago

I don't like Perry. In fact I can't stand him. But the problem is most Texans won't vote for a Democrat. Texas is still very much a red State. They see Perry as the lessor of two evils.

If he runs again in 2014 I'd say it's a flip of a coin. His success will depend of how liberal his opponent is. A middle of the road democrat might have a chance.

The stats you mention come from The University of Texas in Austin. UT and Austin is the liberal stronghold on Texas. Most Texans are contemptuous of Austin. I know, I live in Austin, and Waco. They're less than 100 miles apart in distance, but a million miles apart in political and social views.

Bottom line is Perry could win again. And that sucks.

[-] 1 points by gwb (42) 1 year ago

if 25% of women who voted for perry in 2010 vote D in 2014
D will win If the D can get the truth out on texass stats-
things WILL change
average SAT score #47/50
expenditures per student were 27 percent less than the national average.
% of population uninsured #1/50

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28314) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Perhaps billboards could be placed in strategic locations - saying something like:

Rage Against The Machine - Don't Be A Stepford Wife. Curious as to what a stepford wife is? Watch the movie. If You Are Allowed To.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Ever wonder how the "pro-life" crowd is all gungho about capital punishment and never ending wars? Hypocrisy abound.

4th Amendment- once you let the state in a bit, they have the ability to manipulate and stage and change and push and all sorts of other shit.

Abortion is either a 4th Amendment right or not. All this nonsense with deadlines, and weeks in, and trimesters, and whatnot, its not valid. Its either privacy or not. The state cant come in and say "Ok, its your privacy up until week 28, then after that its our business". Then next its week 25, then 20, then who knows what.

And I get why some people dont want any abortion at all. They deem that life starts the minutes its conceived. Certainly when a couple is trying to get pregnant, and they find out they are, they are pretty excited. Because there was a very significant event that happened. They created something.

The fact there are over one million abortions a year is a bit disturbing. But if its a 4th Amendment issue, then it has to stay that. You cant let the state in on rights AT ALL. NONE.

Once you do, you end up with a never ending shitstorm of nonsense.

Watch were our "free speech zones" get us in another 10 years. Once they wiggle their way in, it usually turns out bad. The few instances of people actually getting GRANTED rights go against this.

Take voting rights and marriage rights. The state comes through every now and then and grants something. But who are they to grant it to begin with?

Who were they to be able to make rules on who could and couldnt vote to begin with? Whose brilliant idea was that? Oh, a bunch of rich old men. Thats right.

A right is a right. And we have certain rights as human beings. And thats all they do is take them from us, one here, another there, slowly and slowly. A nibble here, a chunk there.

And we end up in this system where voting rights, abortion rights, and marriage rights are being decided by the state, on previous situations that were implemented by the state to begin with!! I mean, a license to get married? What in the hell is that?

People need to simply declare THEY ARE FREE, and that these clowns in DC and state capitals have NO say whatsoever in their lives. None at all. Tell them to get lost.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you think texass should control women's body parts -
tell that to Angelina Jolie
also
we all know the real reason for the abortion restrictors - RELIGION
I must admit I am furious at the obvious lies the polititians spew -
"we want to protect women"

NOT the liars who are paid to lie -
but the lemmings who vote for them

do the math - if 25% of the R female voters switch their votes to D,
Wendy will be the next governor

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

What changes do you see coming from Texas is they have Wendy as a governor? I dont see a whole lot happening.

I dont see a whole lot happening with any state these days. Bernie is the only one who seems to really care. This authoritarian system of top down power is the problem. Battling between an F and a F- gets tiresome on people.

Choosing new masters is the opposite of freedom. Pick your new boss.

The rest are there just to be in the club, and then hopefully get re-elected.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

There are so many things wrong with texass. A D governor is only one key.

So you like Bernie - so do I.
It is so easy to condemn any group

Can you tell me SPECIFICALLY and IN DETAIL what any of these progressives did that you disagree with:

The Best 99%ers

Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Alan Grayson
Wendy Davis ( TX )

James Clyburn
Tom Harkin
Al Franken
Tammy Duckworth
Sherrod Brown
Amy Klobuchar Patty Murray
Angus King
Sheldom Whitehouse
Ron Wyden
John Conyers
Donna Edwards
Peter Defazio
John Lewis
Ed Markey
Rick Nolan Mark Pocan

.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by justiceforzim5 (-3) 1 year ago

Well, Texas leads the nation in executions, so why wouldn't they support a Governor that endorses infanticide?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

fetuses are not infants - legally or biologically

unless you believe the organization that put scientists in jail for saying the earth is the center of the universe;
and that teaches that evolution is not a fact;
and that homosexuality is a sin

[-] 0 points by justiceforzim6 (-25) 1 year ago

BD, you confuse embryos with fetuses. Your new hero fillibustered for late term abortion. Would think the Dr Kermit would give you some pause over murdering viable babies?

Just as those who do not agree with homosexual "marriage" are labeled bigots and "anti homosexual", when in fact they are only against "marriage" fully aware that there were other ways to give those loving couples equal monetary benefits/"rights", those who oppose murdering viable babies are labeled "anti abortion": and whatever other nonsense you spewed above.

Is there ANYTHING a leftwinger can debate solely on facts, instead of building strawmen and engaging in ad hominem bs?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

FACT: a woman's body is her own
FACT: an unborn has no constitutional rights
FACT: gosling was convicted of murder, not abortion
FACT: jimmy bakker was convicted of fraud - should this be the basis to pass a law eliminating born-again money raising?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by 15deadflies (12) 1 year ago

Trying to stop homosexuals from being able to marry and thus have the same rights as heterosexual couples is being bigoted no matter what degenerate excuse you come up with.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim6 (-25) 1 year ago

You know what....marriage has been around since before Christ. If homosexuals want to "commit" the civil union thing should suffice. They could have made the govt change the wording from "spouse" to "spouse or civil partner" regarding benefits and inheritance tax.and gotten what they wanted. Marriage is a religious rite, anyway.

[-] 1 points by 15deadflies (12) 1 year ago

It doesn't matter how long something has been around. Doesn't matter at all. Slavery was around for centuries, we banned it. The only thing that matters is if laws adhere to the modern Constitution of the United-States. Basing laws on what people did before Jesus Christ is ludicrous to say the least.

The problem of your camp is that you want to put your moral code, a moral code derived from religion, into law for the whole nation. Lucikly, law follows the Constitution in US, not religion. Your fight is a lost one. Eventually, every state in US will allow homosexual marriages, just like many modern civilized countries already do.

Homosexuals should have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. Period. Wanting them to have less is bigoted no matter what excuse you come up with.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim6 (-25) 1 year ago

You are talking about religion. I am talking about nature. Whether you believe in God, Gaia, or the BIGBANG, most every living thing comes boy or girl. All lifeforms exist to procreate and keep their species going. Homosexuality can NEVER do that.

As for the concept of "rights" that has become so bastardized during my lifetime that the word no longer really means anything. AND, fyi slavery may be 'banned' but it sure as hell aint dead.

[-] 1 points by 15deadflies (12) 1 year ago

The nature arguments works against you for a couple of reasons:

  1. Homosexuality is natural and can be found in almost all mammals.
  2. Marriage is not about procreation. People can procreate inside or outside of marriage, and many people who get married never procreate. In fact, many people who marry are not able to procreate due to illness, or age factor. Furthermore, one can always adopt children to make a family.
  3. The Constitution is not based around nature, it's about on the idea that every human should have the same rights. If the Constitution were based on nature, then a person born disabled might find themselves in a lot of trouble since being born "inferior" would give them less rights. Because the Constitution is based on human rights, it's the opposite. Public buildings need to accommodate everyone, even those with disabilities.

In any case, it's really not useful to debate this issue. The courts will decide and you will lose. In a few generations, no one will hold bigoted views against homosexuals like you are doing now.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim6 (-25) 1 year ago

You are right about the futility of this discussion, but I would ask, just what is a "right"? Cannot any club/group form over some uniqueness? I mean, much as she would probably LOVE TO, Pelosi can never be a member of the black congressional caucas, can she?

Cannot the union of a man and a woman have it's own special word to describe it? As I said, homosexuals can enjoy the same financial benefits of marriage, but can't they call it something else?

[-] 1 points by 15deadflies (12) 1 year ago

Cannot the union of a man and a woman have it's own special word to describe it?

It does have a special expression to describe it: heterosexual marriage, or heterosexual union if not married.

As I said, homosexuals can enjoy the same financial benefits of marriage, but can't they call it something else?

Being married gives you more rights than being in a civil union. It's not the same thing in law. This is about law. It's about making sure people have the same rights under law when they choose to live a life as a couple.


Also, using a different name for heterosexuals is just being bigoted again since it stigmatizes homosexuals in society. Why would we need a special word for heterosexuals who are living lives as couples? There's no need unless you want to point out a difference between them and homosexuals, and the only reason you would need to do that is for bigoted reasons. Do you think there should be a special word so we can distinguish between black couples, interracial couples, couples with disabilities, etc...


Tell you what. We can make a deal. If homosexuals can have the exact same rights as heterosexuals, then I agree to use a different word to distinguish their marriage as long as we use different words for other types of marriages as well. There should be a special word for all these types of marriages.

  1. Marriage between poor people.
  2. Marriage between rich people.
  3. Marriage between people of different races.
  4. Marriage between people with disabilities.
  5. Marriage between asians.
  6. Marriage between blacks.
  7. etc... (ad infinitum)

This way, the homosexuals will not be stigmatized by being the only ones with a special term for their marriage. It's a good way to make you happy, and to keep it fair.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim6 (-25) 1 year ago

Oh Puhleez......I guess I am a bigot then, even I don't care who is pleasuring who and how they are doing it!

But, since you brought up benefits again, the laws could have been changed to substitute "spouse" with "spouse or civil partner".

BTW, do you think "copulate" describes homesexual sex?

Am also laughing that we have gone from late term abortion to homosexual UNIONS. Have a good one. Am sure I will be jz7 next time I visit here!

[-] 1 points by 15deadflies (12) 1 year ago

.I guess I am a bigot then, even I don't care who is pleasuring who and how they are doing it!

We were talking about marriage, not about sex. Two completely different things. From what I understood you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals by being able to get married. And, you stated that if they did have the same rights, you think they should use a different term, which I explained would only be useful if you wanted to stigmatize them. My opinion is that your views on this matter are bigoted, you and others may disagree with me.


Copulate can describe homosexual sex if they are having anal sex. Copulate comes from the Latin word prefix copulat- which means "fastened together".

However, I don't think sex has anything to do with marriage at all. You don't need to prove you will be having sex to get married.

OK, take care. I'll also have another username next time we meet.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Are they life? Whether its a 4th amendment right protection is another issue. Very tough issue. Very easy to argue on both sides.

That being said, it is nice to see an intelligent politician from time to time.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Were Tammy Duckworths feet life ?

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

???

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

look it up

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Are you comparing feet to this issue?

Davis did a good job with the last two weeks. Lets try to keep pace with her.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

are feet life?

do you want to tell Angelina Jolie what she can do with her body ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

obama owns texas with international terror killings

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim5 (-3) 1 year ago

He owns sandy hook, too