Wrong, Just Crazy is more accurate.
How else to explain someone who relies heavily on 'what ifs' and hyperbole to support their non-sense arguement.
You see, one has to commit something in the first place to be accused of it, but you insist that he is guilty of "Theft" when none EVER took place. This is crazy and insane.
"Again, please explain how the property owners who would have had their land taken by the TTC via emminent domain would be compensated 100% for their land."
Why should I explain something that never happened? This is very bizzarre.
The theft never took place because Perry was stopped by people, unlike Perry, who believe in property rights. People who are real conservatives. That does not change the fact that Rick Perry actively wanted to take property away from Texans without due compensation. He also wanted to make girls be forced by executive order to submit their bodies to his mandate. Both the TTC and the Gardasil BS were stopped.
The fact that Rick Perry took these shots at Texans is the issue. There are no "what if's" to his actions. The fact that he would push the TTC is the very important. Anyone that was paying attention at that time knew why Perry was carrying water for Cintra. He was looking for his next job just as he is now as he pretends to be a conservative.
Most people consider what others try to do when evaluating the character of a person. If that is not the case then by your way of thinking if a guy takes a shot at you that is OK as long as he misses.
Crazy is calling Rick Perry a conservative.