With our apologies for once again talking about Perry, this is, in our opinion, exactly how you should answer this question:

In response to a question about whether there should be a national right-to-work law to prevent actions such as the recent National Labor Relations Board attempt to prevent Boeing from building a plant in right-to-work South Carolina, Governor Perry responded, “States compete against each other. … States that say, … ‘We don’t want to be a right-to-work state.’ Well, places like Texas or places like Florida or Virginia or Oklahoma, they are going to be more competitive with their tax policy and with their regulatory policy and with their legal policy. That’s how you make America more competitive. Get the federal government out of making one size fits all. Even if it’s for things that we think that we would like, there may be some states out there that say, we don’t want that. And then people can vote with their feet.”

Given a big slab of red meat in the form of a federal law mandating right-to-work status of all states, he didn’t bite. Which proves, to us at least, that he actually understands the idea of States’ Rights, which is really no surprise, seeing as how he hails from a State that didn’t choose to lick Lincoln’s balls, natch.

When you believe strongly in something, such as right-to-work, it can be bloody hard to resist the urge to say “hell yeah” if asked a question like that. It is, after all, something that is an undeniably Good Thing™. If you don’t believe us, look up economic growth statistics for right-to-work States as opposed to union fascist States. Also please make a note that corporations aren’t fleeing right-to-work states to hide under the shelter of States run almost entirely by unions. The trend is rather convincingly going in the opposite direction. Much like you don’t see very many Floridians (meaning “none”) jumping on jury-rigged rubber rafts to escape to Cuba.

It’s easy to agree with something that gives you what you want, even when it might not pass the smell test. People with principles are able to resist the temptation. Liberals, on the other hand, are not. To them, the ends always justify the means.

How about this for a slogan?: Perry in 2012. For States’ Rights.

It would be sure to give liberals and Beltway Republicans (but we repeat ourself) the vapors, wouldn’t it?

In other news, and lest this site becomes “All Perry, All The Time”, Newt continues to beat the snot out of MittRack ObamNey, but the most hilarious example of it wasn’t even something he has done. It’s MittRack ObamNey’s choice of proxies to do the dirty work for him because, Heaven forbid, he can’t get his hands dirty! He’s running for president, for Pete’s sake! Yes, he’s a coward, but anybody with any observational skills knows that already. Hmmm… Always having somebody else do all the mud-slinging while pretending to have nothing to do with it in order to remain above it all… Who does that remind us of? Oh yes, Il Douche. That’s who. We swear, Mittens and Obongo were separated at birth. But we digress…

Mittens’ stupid choice of proxies? Sununununununu-lalalala, as his designated “Gingrich is not really a rock-ribbed, consistent conservative (tell us something we don’t know, O Master of the Bleeding Obvious) hit man in New Hampshire. That would be the same Sununu who was all in when Bush 41 fell for the NSDWP’s obvious “we’ll gladly cut spending some day for massive tax hikes today” scam. Guess who was against that? Guess who warned time and time again that the NSDWP weren’t going to cut a damn thing once 41 had broken his “read my lips” pledge, but instead ride the disgust of the Republican base all the way to victory in ’92?

Gingrich, that’s who.

Not that you have to be particularly brilliant to see through that particular ploy, so we’re certainly not going to use it as evidence of Newt’s “crushing intellect”. All any sentient being needs is one afternoon in the company of a history book to note that liberals, in all of their history, have never, ever, not once kept their word in a deal and, furthermore, the only deal they’ll enter into is one in which they get all that they want now and the other side is promised their bite at some point in the future. And they always lie. Just ask the South Vietnamese. Oh wait, you can’t… How about the vigorous border control Reagan was promised in return for amnesty? Never mind.

It’s blindingly obvious to anybody with a brain and therefore way above Sununununununu’s pay grade, which means that Newt now gets to talk about how he was alone in being right about the liberals’ obvious “taxes for no spending cuts” scam, whereas his detractors, Sunununununu among them, were wrong. Thanks, Mittens ObamneyCare for being such a blithering, buttfuckingly incompetent buffoon as to choose a sub-retarded twat for your gopher. That is exactly what this nation needs. Another intellectually under-endowed imbecilic coward with a penchant for shooting himself in both feet, because Heaven knows we haven’t had enough of that over the last three years.

Finally, on a general note about Gingrich and the inevitable “he’s not a real conservative” outcries whenever somebody says something nice about him:

Tell us something we don’t know. We really have two discussions here, and it tends to become rather annoying when they get mixed up: Newt vs. Mittens or Newt vs. some other NotRomney. In the latter case Newt loses spectacularly, if you ask us. Except if we’re talking about Huntsman, but why waste time on a joke candidate? In the former case, well… We rest our case. Seriously, does anybody in their right mind prefer ObamneyCare over Newt?

Between the two of them, at least Newt has the advantage of not having been spectacularly wrong every single time he’s ever opened his mouth. Not to mention that Newt has actually managed to accomplish something, which is more than you can say for Mittens. Unless designing and implementing The Father of ObamaCare counts as an “accomplishment” in your book, in which case you ought to vote for El Zero in ’12 since he managed to push Mittens’ plan through on a national scale.

If the choice comes down to Newt or Mittens, the choice ought to be pretty damn clear to anybody calling his or her own self a conservative. Yes, it’s the lesser of two evils, but it oughtn’t be too hard to figure out which one is the lesser one.

HOWEVER. We’re not at that point yet. Call His Imperial Majesty a hopeless optimist, but the show is not really over until the fat lady sings, and said show hasn’t even started yet. Who says Newt is “inevitable?” Bachmann, Perry and Cain all shared that dubious honor at some point and, again, the show is not over. There are still other fish in the sea and, as we’ve said in the past, we don’t care all that much about polls generally. Bugger us, if there was some way of declaring the Departments of State and Defense off-limits to the president we’d vote for Ron Paul. Screw that. If that was a possibility, we’d bloody well BEG him to become president.

Anyway: Have faith. IF it comes down to the wire between Mittens ObamneyCare and just about anybody else in the primaries, we’ll vote for his opponent, because we really, really don’t need a spineless coward in love with himself as president. We’ve tried that already.

It ain’t over yet. The primaries haven’t even started. Let’s see what it looks like as that race gets started.

1) Anybody but Mittens in the primaries.
2) Anybody but Obama in the general.

Thatisall.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

By Emperor Misha I

Ruler of all I survey -- and then some.

28 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tallulah
Tallulah
Guest
December 13, 2011 01:39

I still like Perry, but DAMMIT, what’s up with the EIGHT Supreme Court Justices? yeesh…. But I had to “share” this with y’all, in case you missed it. Heard it on WABC this morning, either Mark Simone or Rush played it. Have your “URP” bag handy! “THE COUNTRY IS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH OBAMA’S GIFTS” MIKE BARNICLE [tool]: I think Obama… Read more »

Tallulah
Tallulah
Guest
December 13, 2011 02:01

Re Perry: I gotta say, we all (mostly) wrote off Newton’s chances when his campaign staff quit en masse and defected — to Rick Perry. Newt’s numbers slid into the abyss. But look at him now! Gaining on the hapless Romney (really, I’m starting to feel sorry for the guy), and ahead in several states. We’ve still got a horse… Read more »

Elephant Man
Elephant Man
Guest
December 13, 2011 06:27

How about this for a slogan?: Perry in 2012. For States’ Rights.

It would be sure to give liberals and Beltway Republicans (but we repeat ourself) the vapors, wouldn’t it?

Better yet, I think their reaction would be this. :em05:

sleeper
sleeper
Member
December 13, 2011 06:28

Good for Rick on his understanding of States’ rights to pass differing legislation. Candidate Sleeper would have gone on to note that The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 is unconstitutional and should be repealed, so the Taft-Hartley act’s provision “allowing” states to pass right-to-work laws was obvious and unnecessary. So a paper route is slavery? My understanding is that… Read more »

BigDogg - Imperial Thread Killer (ITK)
BigDogg - Imperial Thread Killer (ITK)
Guest
December 13, 2011 10:32

Emperor Misha I says: They are trying to hurt my kids, they will hurt my kids if they’re not stopped, they’re taking away the opportunities that are my kids’ birthright, and if nothing else will get through their socialist skulls, then let it be this: You WILL pay for it and you WILL realize that the worst possible place you… Read more »

Mark12A
Mark12A
Guest
December 13, 2011 10:52

I guess I’m repeating myself, but these odious asswipes who are trying very hard to turn this country into the Next Worker’s Paradise are opposed by a few people. Well, maybe a hundred million or so people. A hundred million or so, well-armed people. Well-armed people who are not going to allow them to piss on our backs and tell… Read more »

LC Sir Clambake, Imperial Black Ops Technician, K.o.E.
Guest
December 13, 2011 18:58

Mark12A @ # 8: Soon, I’m thinking.
sleeper @ # 6: There you go with that logic crap again. Sheesh.

emily_nelson
emily_nelson
Guest
December 13, 2011 19:21

The Emperor wrote:
“lest this site becomes “All Perry, All The Time”

What’s wrong with that? I like reading about Perry. After reading a column about him, I don’t feel like I need to prepare for the imminent Apocalypse.

the botnet
Guest
December 13, 2011 21:59

For the Cripe’s I’m waiting for the heir to the Great Ronaldus Magnus to come from on high and elevate us to our rightful place of Liberty in the Shining City. There is no one. I am of the position that anyone… ANYONE is a major improvement over the first Marxist and his preening moron horde. Sure, Newt sucks, but… Read more »

LC Jackboot IC/A
Admin
December 13, 2011 23:05

the botnet says: He seems to me to be a libertarian. These are not the same. Our friend DOCTOR Luap (as his familiars constantly remind us of), is a big “L” libertarian of the most odius (read: foolish isolationism that is used to hide vicious anti-semitism.) kind. He is NOT a conservative or a small ‘L’ libertarian of which we… Read more »

LC Sir Clambake, Imperial Black Ops Technician, K.o.E.
Guest
December 13, 2011 23:06

the botnet @ # 11: “Help us Zombie Reagan, you’re our only hope”? Would that there were another him, but there isn’t. Yet, at least. I kinda like Newt, I detest Mittens, and I rather like Perry. Cain had some promise, he would have taken the race card RIGHT away, but he couldn’t hang. We need Congress. ODG, we need… Read more »

LC Ogrrre - Imperial Heartless Bastard
Guest
December 14, 2011 19:34

Sorry, yer Meanness, but I must disagree with you about a national Right to Work law being a Bad Thing. The Bad Thing is compulsory Union membership. Such is a violation of an individual’s first amendment right to freely assemble, or not to assemble and the implied rights of association and belief. Because monies from compulsory union dues are contributed… Read more »

LC Ogrrre - Imperial Heartless Bastard
Guest
December 15, 2011 12:05

A federal law is sufficient. I refer again to my third sentence. Compulsory unionism is a violation of the workers’ first amendment rights, including the implied rights of association and belief. Therefore, the laws allowing compulsory union membership are unconstitutional. A federal law would only reinforce and guarantee the workers’ rights. An amendment is not necessary, no more than it… Read more »

Southern Libertarian
Southern Libertarian
Guest
December 15, 2011 16:55

LC Jackboot IC/A @ #12: Our friend DOCTOR Luap Did I miss the meeting? Why spell out his name backwards? Do you believe that if you say his name backwards he will be exiled from our dimension? He’s not going away no matter how much you may want him to. Are you concerned that he is polling so well in… Read more »

Southern Libertarian
Southern Libertarian
Guest
December 15, 2011 16:59

Also, I’m from Tennessee and that’s where I vote. The dems haven’t come close to winning my state’s electoral votes since Clinton in 96. So, even if I do choose to vote 3rd party it won’t change anything.

LC TerribleTroy
LC TerribleTroy
Guest
December 16, 2011 14:02

Southern Libertarian @ #:

So does this mean you support all of your preferred candidates positions on foreign policy?

Southern Libertarian
Southern Libertarian
Guest
December 16, 2011 18:33

LC TerribleTroy @ #20: No, I actually disagree with RP on some of his foreign policy stances such as his cutting off Isreal from financial aid. Although I can kinda sorta see where he is coming from seeing as how our deficit is at 1.4 trillion. We are in a fiscal crisis and every bit of government spending should be… Read more »

sleeper
sleeper
Member
December 16, 2011 19:48

LC Ogrrre @ #17: Therefore, the laws allowing compulsory union membership are unconstitutional. A federal law would only reinforce and guarantee the workers’ rights. It sounds to me like you’re saying we should have a federal right to work law, even though you acknowledge that an unconstitutional federal law allows compulsory union membership. Why patch an unconstitutional law with yet… Read more »

LC Ogrrre - Imperial Heartless Bastard
Guest
December 16, 2011 22:27

Repeal of the law would be the same as passing a National Right to Work Act. Ideally, the Supreme Court should have ruled long ago that Compulsory Unionism was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, as well as a violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. However, this is not an ideal world.

LC TerribleTroy
LC TerribleTroy
Guest
December 17, 2011 10:06

Southern Libertarian @ #: No Offense taken and I apologize for the tardy response. I don’t have a preferred candidate. I kinda liked Cain but that’s moot. Your guys position on Iran concerns me most as anyone with any sense at all understands that Iran declared war on us over 20 yrs ago and continues to be the greatest threat… Read more »

Southern Libertarian
Southern Libertarian
Guest
December 17, 2011 13:24

LC TerribleTroy @ #:25 I agree that Iran is a threat, however I do no believe that the United States is prepared to deal with the threat of a nuclear Iran if we are still heavily involved in Afghanistan. I believe that if we are truly serious about the threat that Iran poses we need to reconsider the configuration of… Read more »

LC TerribleTroy
LC TerribleTroy
Guest
December 17, 2011 15:16

#1 Thank You so much for your continued service. I cant properly express the appreciation that us “old doggies” feel for you and the sacrifices you (and your fellow servicemen and women) make while serving us. Please accept my wishes for your continued good health, safety, and success. In regards to Afghanistan, I dont get a warm and fuzzy feeling… Read more »