Texas Senator Accidentally Endorses Gay Marriage In Twitter Typo

[her209]

http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-senator-accidentally-endorses-gay-marriage-twitter-typo-1558169

Still, that didn’t stop Patrick from performing a little damage control after his typo went viral. He says he’s now in the market for a social media intern to prevent him from accidentally endorsing progressive views in the future.

He better be quick with that intern to throw under the bus cause he might accidentally tweet his endorsement of non-discrimination next.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

....and it looks like the person who typed it is looking for a new job

https://mobile.twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/438780372000595968?screen_name=DanPatrick

edit: I'm not sure if he is kidding or serious

 

[Newell Steamer]

Oh the horror - a government employee (who again, should be working for the people), accidentally endorses something that is constitutional.

 

[TerryMathews]

Oh the horror - a government employee (who again, should be working for the people), accidentally endorses something that is constitutional.

So when will President Obama be endorsing gun ownership? The right to be secure in your person and papers?

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Newell Steamer]

So when will President Obama be endorsing gun ownership? The right to be secure in your person and papers?

Obvious troll is obvious.

Makes sense - put an inanimate object ahead of a human being,...

 

[fskimospy]

So when will President Obama be endorsing gun ownership? The right to be secure in your person and papers?

Obvious troll is obvious.

You realize Obama has endorsed gun ownership, right? He is on the record saying that he believes the second amendment confers an individual right to own a gun.

 

[Newell Steamer]

You realize Obama has endorsed gun ownership, right? He is on the record saying that he believes the second amendment confers an individual right to own a gun.

We are speaking about the constitution and human beings. He whips out the bill of rights a hunk of metal.

He's an idiot.

 

[TerryMathews]

Makes sense - put an inanimate object ahead of a human being,...

Aww did I hurt your poor liberal feelings?

Rights are rights. Maybe you'd find some more bipartisanship amongst conservatives if you all stopped denigrating the rights we hold dear.

Let's be clear here too. You and I dont know this person's true feelings on the situation. All we know is hes playing damage control over a statement that wouldn't be well received among his constituents.

I challenge you to find a politician who wouldn't.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Aww did I hurt your poor liberal feelings?

Rights are rights. Maybe you'd find some more bipartisanship amongst conservatives if you all stopped denigrating the rights we hold dear.

Nope. But, just as you value a hunk of metal more than a human being,.. the same applies to you as well.

Also, do you know what the constitution is? Try googling it 1st, before you begin making an argument for an entirely different document.

For example. The constitution was created on May 25, 1787. The Bill of Rights was created September 25, 1789.

If you want to talk about the Bill of Rights, create another threat, you buffoon. No need to hijack the one discussing the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage - or rather on topic; outwardly opposing it from a government position,.. since it is unconstitutional to do so.

You dimwit.

 

[TerryMathews]

Nope. But, just as you value a hunk of metal more than a human being,.. the same applies to you as well.

Also, do you know what the constitution is? Try googling it 1st, before you begin making an argument for an entirely different document.

For example. The constitution was created on May 25, 1787. The Bill of Rights was created September 25, 1789.

If you want to talk about the Bill of Rights, create another threat, you buffoon. No need to hijack the one discussing the unconstitutionality of banning gay marriage - or rather on topic; outwardly opposing it from a government position,.. since it is unconstitutional to do so.

You dimwit.

God this post is so full of fail it makes my conservative brain defect hurt.

Eskimo, I expect you to back me up on this...

The bill of rights are amendments to the ____________________?

 

[Newell Steamer]

God this post is so full of fail it makes my conservative brain defect hurt.

Eskimo, I expect you to back me up on this...

The bill of rights are amendments to the ____________________?

Answer this simple question, herp-a-derp; has the banning and oppression of homosexual marriage been deemed unconstitutional?

 

[TerryMathews]

Answer this simple question, herp-a-derp; has the banning and oppression of homosexual marriage been deemed unconstitutional?

Answer mine first.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Answer mine first.

You direct that question to Eskimo - read your own post and answer the question.

 

[TerryMathews]

You direct that question to Eskimo - read your own post and answer the question.

No, I expected Eskimo to back me up on your ignorance.

If you dont have the ethical integrity to admit the flaw in your post there is no further point to discussing with you.

 

[Newell Steamer]

No, I expected Eskimo to back me up on your ignorance.

If you dont have the ethical integrity to admit the flaw in your post there is no further point to discussing with you.

Here is the Oath of Office, for a US government employee;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

Where does it state they have to uphold the Bill of Rights?

No where.

They are to uphold the constitution.

You want Obama to uphold the Bill of Rights (which he has endorsed and supported),... on a converstaion related the unconstitutional actions of a Texas Senator speaking against gay marriage.

The only flaw here is your wild and thoughtless act to bash the liberals/progressives.

 

[fskimospy]

Here is the Oath of Office, for a US government employee;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States

Where does it state they have to uphold the Bill of Rights?

No where.

They are to uphold the constitution.

You want Obama to uphold the Bill of Rights (which he has endorsed and supported),... on a converstaion related the unconstitutional actions of a Texas Senator speaking against gay marriage.

The only flaw here is your wild and thoughtless act to bash the liberals/progressives.

The bill of rights are a part of the constitution the same as any word in the original document.

 

[Newell Steamer]

The bill of rights are a part of the constitution the same as any word in the original document.

They are indeed amendments - no doubting that.

But, does the judiciary branch of the government deem something unconstitutional or "un-bill of rights-able"?

We fall back to the constitution - the core of this country. The Bill of Rights are a way to update the constitution, without going back and revising the original over and over again.

Bill of Rights have been passed, denied, removed, updated, etc.

The argument against same sex marriage, is unconstitutional, therefore, against the Oath and purpose of the government figure in question.

 

[fskimospy]

They are indeed amendments - no doubting that.

But, does the judiciary branch of the government deem something unconstitutional or "un-bill of rights-able"?

We fall back to the constitution - the core of this country. The Bill of Rights are a way to update the constitution, without going back and revising the original over and over again.

Bill of Rights have been passed, denied, removed, updated, etc.

The argument against same sex marriage, is unconstitutional, therefore, against the Oath and purpose of the government figure in question.

The text of the bill of rights is indistinguishable from the rest of the constitution in a legal sense. For all intents and purposes it is part of the document. There is nothing in the constitution that cannot be amended away.

 

[TerryMathews]

They are indeed amendments - no doubting that.

But, does the judiciary branch of the government deem something unconstitutional or "un-bill of rights-able"?

We fall back to the constitution - the core of this country. The Bill of Rights are a way to update the constitution, without going back and revising the original over and over again.

Bill of Rights have been passed, denied, removed, updated, etc.

The argument against same sex marriage, is unconstitutional, therefore, against the Oath and purpose of the government figure in question.

Do you understand what the word "amend" means?

Let's indulge your fantasy for a moment. Suppose youre correct and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are separate documents and that the Constitution takes precedence.

Without the 14th amendment, the federal government lacks the authority to regulate marriage on the state level.

 

[TerryMathews]

The text of the bill of rights is indistinguishable from the rest of the constitution in a legal sense. For all intents and purposes it is part of the document. There is nothing in the constitution that cannot be amended away.

The bill of rights are a part of the constitution the same as any word in the original document.

I have to give the devil his due. :beer:

Would be more fitting if you called him stupid however. I guess you only reserve that privileged for those you really respect.

 

[Texashiker]

Oh the horror - a government employee (who again, should be working for the people), accidentally endorses something that is constitutional.

Is obama going to endorse a citizens right to due process before his administration kills US citizens with a drone strike?

Is obama going to uphold our right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Moonbeam]

The text of the bill of rights is indistinguishable from the rest of the constitution in a legal sense. For all intents and purposes it is part of the document. There is nothing in the constitution that cannot be amended away.

Interesting.... Then, we hold these truths to be self evident...could be changed to We hold these truths to be a matter of opinion....

 

[TerryMathews]

Interesting.... Then, we hold these truths to be self evident...could be changed to We hold these truths to be a matter of opinion....

If you can get enough votes you can do anything, even transform property into citizens...

 

[Newell Steamer]

Do you understand what the word "amend" means?

Let's indulge your fantasy for a moment. Suppose youre correct and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are separate documents and that the Constitution takes precedence.

Without the 14th amendment, the federal government lacks the authority to regulate marriage on the state level.

Yes - change, update, etc.

The fall back from the courts has always been the constitution. Especially on these issues. And, any issue frankly.

Where the constitution did NOT spell out what is/isn't constitutional, the bill of rights sprung from them. I look at the bill of rights as leaves from a tree - and, they constantly get trimmed and cut - especially when there this country is less than 300 years old.

Falling back on the constitution is the final say.

Apologies for the comments I made towards you. Especially since my issue with you was flying off the handle - I clearly am guilty of that, more so actually.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Is obama going to endorse a citizens right to due process before his administration kills US citizens with a drone strike?

Is obama going to uphold our right to keep and bear arms?

What do you care about due process and citizens' rights? You were calling for the murder of medical doctors performing legal procedures.