Why the Left Fears Perry

[NCRAVEN]

My quote here and stand by it %100:

I hate it that I have come to this conclusion but human behavior needs to be regulated.

was in regard to things that do affect me like when someone utilizes a weak regulatory system to buy a house they can't afford and subsequently foreclose on it across the street from me and as a result, my house loses value. That impacts me when it shouldn't.
or when someone makes the "personal" decision to not carry health insurance and end up in the emergency room and subsequently raises the price of healthcare for me. That impacts me when it shouldn't.

or when companies spew pollutants into the environment that cause code red days that it is "recommended" we stay inside because the air sucks. That impacts me when it shouldn't. .

Nice try, but none of these have to do with regulating human behavior. The key was in that post you also said “refuse to do anything pro-social”

All of these adverse behaviors that impact me negatively are a result of greed. Greed should be regulated. For me personal responsibility trumps liberty and freedom and if personal responnsibility can't be guaranteed than a higher power must guarantee it and that higher power ain't god. .

AH, proof of what I thought all along. People need to believe in a higher power. Conservatives believe rights come from a creator (god or whatever you believe created the universe). Liberals believe they come from Government. The problem is what any person can give you, they can also take away.
Here is a video that addresses this more articulately than I can put it.

If someone up the streets doesn't want to be pregnant and finds themselves prenant and decides on an abortion it doesn't affect me. If a gay couple wants to get married that doesn't afffect me. .

Your dodging the point on Abortion, it is about protecting the life of someone who cannot protect their own. Something you’d think compassionate liberals would be all for.

You don't care about freedom or liberty. You've all but said so numerous times. And the quote above is just one example.

You might notice that I usually put liberty in quotes like this "liberty". I do that because the conservatives notion of liberty is whatever suits their best interest vs. true liberty.

Muslims can't open places of prayer
Woman can't decide their own reproductive outcomes
Gays can't marry or serve the country
A black man can't be President unless he shows three different froms of his birth certificate...and I am sure there would still be some problem
latinos should speak english if they want to live here

So aslong as you are a white, judeo-christian, heterosexual, english speaking, male, you may enjoy your "liberty". The remainder will have limits placed on them.

I am not wasting time going down this road with you AGAIN. This thread has been derailed enough.

But thanks for proving my point where I said

Take all the BS out of it the only reason you even brought this up is that same reason in Republican debates, the moderator always brings up, Gay marriage, Don't Ask Don't tell and abortion. Those are the areas you think you can play "GOTCHA!" and say that conservatives aren't for freedom or liberty. Much like HR said, you're just dusting off the ole' playbook

Houston put it best, if this about Perry and his stance on abortion and taking the stimulus money is all you have, than yes the left fears Perry.

Question. If it was wrong for Perry to take, than the case could be made it was wrong for Obama to hand it out, correct?

[TheExtraPoint]

Again, the problem is the contradiction inherent in conservative pleas for "liberty" and the multitude of policies they support that represent nothing short of moral imperialism, imposition, and/or superiority.

And why do you work so hard to paint women's rights, gay rights, and Muslim rights as insignificant fringe issues and distractions. Where is the distinction between the conversation about the rights of these people you seek to marginalize, and the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? There have been by some Republican estimates upwards of 50,000,000 legal abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade, untold millions of homosexuals and Muslims who are DIRECTLY affected by these issues. NONE of these people are Republicans for a reason, and for that reason, none of these people's feelings matter much to Republican politicians or their supporters. It's plainly obvious that, like always, the only perspective that matters to them is their own.

Humans are are humans, and liberty SHOULD be universally applied to each and every citizen of this country. The problem is, the policies of neo-cons don't support that very philosophy, even if they espouse to.

As for Perry taking the stimulus, it was wrong not because the stimulus was in and of itself wrong. Quite the contrary, it was wrong because he openly spoke out against it claiming Texas could take care of itself, then quietly accepted the funds to repair the state's infrastructure. By taking the stimulus, he either validated it's merits, or did something that was bad for the country. Or best case scenario for you guys, both.

[NCRAVEN]

Again, the problem is the contradiction inherent in conservative pleas for "liberty" and the multitude of policies they support that represent nothing short of moral imperialism, imposition, and/or superiority.

Like?

And why do you work so hard to paint women's rights, gay rights, and Muslim rights as insignificant fringe issues and distractions.

They are a distraction from this thread.

Where is the distinction between the conversation about the rights of these people you seek to marginalize, and the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? There have been by some Republican estimates upwards of 50,000,000 legal abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade, untold millions of homosexuals and Muslims who are DIRECTLY affected by these issues.

First off state the issues before you compare than to racism. I assume I know what you’re referring to but You need to state specifically before relating to one of the most important movements in this country.

Humans are are humans, and liberty SHOULD be universally applied to each and every one citizen of this country. The problem is, the policies of neo-cons don't support that very philosophy, even if they espouse to.

Agreed, but what about Hate crimes? To be qualified as a victim of a hate crime you have to fall into one of the protective classes you say don’t have equal rights, when in fact it’s the “white, Judeo-Christian, heterosexual, English speaking, male” (to quote Galen) that is not treated equally.

As for Perry taking the stimulus, it was wrong not because the stimulus was in and of itself wrong. Quite the contrary, it was wrong because he openly spoke out against it claiming Texas could take care of itself, then quietly accepted the funds to repair the state's infrastructure. By taking the stimulus, he either validated it's merits, or did something that was bad for the country. Or both.

So if he didn’t take the funds and stuck by what he said, you agree it was bad for the country. I don’t really need an answer, we both know that was an epic failure.

[TheExtraPoint]

Like?

The assortment of topics broached in this thread (and others).

They are a distraction from this thread.

Disagree. They are to varying degrees a part of Rick Perry's approach to governing or that of the broader conservative movement he seeks to represent, hence remarkably relevant even if inconvenient.

First off state the issues before you compare than to racism. I assume I know what you’re referring to but You need to state specifically before relating to one of the most important movements in this country.

No need to assume... you do in fact know the variety of issues related to real or perceived inequities in how conservatives approach the rights of women, members of the LGBT community, and Muslims when the in any way contradict their own values. Like I said, they're been spelled out clearly in this thread and others. Let's conserve 24x7's data storage space in lieu of redundancy.

Agreed, but what about Hate crimes? To be qualified as a victim of a hate crime you have to fall into one of the protective classes you say don’t have equal rights, when in fact it’s the “white, Judeo-Christian, heterosexual, English speaking, male” (to quote Galen) that is not treated equally.

The bolded portion of your quote is its most glaringly inaccurate portion. Hate crimes can be perpetrated just as easily against the W, J-C, H, E-S, M segment of society as it can be perpetrated by them. There's no legal delineation whatsoever made between groups that can and cannot be victims of hate crimes. That would go against the very principles they purport (which may explain why often times conservatives don't agree with them on the basis of principle).

Here's a prime example from about three weeks ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sh-around.html

So if he didn’t take the funds and stuck by what he said, you agree it was bad for the country.

First of all, he DID take the funds, so this "what if?" scenario is kind of pointless. But had he stayed true to his word and not taken the funds, I'd agree that he was at least consistent and true to his word, and that your argument against the stimulus would have some sort of backing even if I didn't necessarily feel something the size of the stimulus could be painted with a broad brush of acceptance or disapproval.

Or had he at any stage before or even after the fact acknowledged with the same fever of his protest that in fact both he and his state had or would have benefited from the stimulus, I'd commend him as being honorable, honest, flexible, and open-minded.

Courtesy of his actions, I find him to be none of these things, each of which I believe are essential to the "leadership" you guys are so desperately clamoring for.

[NCRAVEN]

The assortment of topics broached in this thread (and others).

I am talking about from your view point.

Disagree. They are to varying degrees a part of Rick Perry's approach to governing or that of the broader conservative movement he seeks to represent, hence remarkably relevant even if inconvenient.

They are not inconvenient. They are getting tiresome to fight the stereotype you paint every conservative with about those views, and after breaking through the stereotype you ignore the point only to bring it up again in another thread (same with Galen)

No need to assume... you do in fact know the variety of issues related to real or perceived inequities in how conservatives approach the rights of women, members of the LGBT community, and Muslims when the in any way contradict their own values. Like I said, they're been spelled out clearly in this thread and others. Let's conserve 24x7's data storage space in lieu of redundancy.

If you want me to address the issues you referring to as you see them, as inconvenient as it may be, you will need to state how you see them.

The bolded portion of your quote is its most glaringly inaccurate portion. Hate crimes can be perpetrated just as easily against the W, J-C, H, E-S, M segment of society as it can be perpetrated by them. There's no legal delineation whatsoever made between groups that can and cannot be victims of hate crimes. That would go against the very principles they purport (which may explain why often times conservatives don't agree with them on the basis of principle).

Here's a prime example from about three weeks ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sh-around.html

Great you found A example. When she is charged with one let me know. Hate Crimes, were basically created to protect classes, socially, religious or what have you. More often than not they do protect the classes you mention are not treated equally.

To me though Hate Crimes are a joke and are nothing more than thought police.

But again, we are getting off the topic of this thread!

[Galen Sevinne]

To address the original point of "why the left fears Perry", I have yet to read about this fear. HR can project that fear onto the left but I still don't see anyone on the left talking much about Perry right now. Maybe that changes with his announcement if he chooses to run.

Secondly, Perry social conservatism isn't an old playbook from the left but is a reality that moderates and liberals typically reject. There are those 30% of social conservatives that will vote soley on Perry rejecting gays and women's rights but they wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

Thirdly, Texas isn't some magical oasis for budget neutrality as it faces huge deficits this year and the coming year. Sure, on paper their budget might look balanced but if so, it will come at the expense of cutting more spending on a public school system that ranks near the bottom and a healthcare system that has already been shredded. How hard is it to balance a budget by cutting all programs around healthcare and education? Do you want an education system nationally that mirrors the one in Texas?

Finally, Perry has created jobs and that is a big deal for sure. Look closely though, how many of those jobs are oil related? and how many are government jobs? A substantial amount in fact. Additionally how many are created with taxpayer-funded subsidies? Read about Texas Enterprise Fund and Texas Emerging Technologies Fund. How hard is it to lure jobs to Texas from other states because of gov. subsidies? And is that really job growth or job transfer? Why is that when Obama wants to invest tax payer money into technology related jobs, he is accused of big government spending but when Perry does it it is job growth?

I really don't think the left is scared of Perry. I see him as another fringe social conservative candidate with a history of controversial job growth that proposes no ideas that Obama hasn't proposed and been criticized over by conservatives.

[4G63]

You know who would do a better job with this country than 0bama?

[NCRAVEN]

4G, that is hilarious.

Galen, you know there is not story out there from the left on why they are afraid of anybody. Like they are going to say who, why and how Obama can be beaten. Come on, Bud your smarter than that, right?

But there are plenty out there that pretend to tell us who they're afraid of like your boy "T PAW"

[Galen Sevinne]

4G, that is hilarious.

Galen, you know there is not story out there from the left on why they are afraid of anybody. Like they are going to say who, why and how Obama can be beaten. Come on, Bud your smarter than that, right?

But there are plenty out there that pretend to tell us who they're afraid of like your boy "T PAW"

Ha no one is afraid of T-Paw after that debate last night. I thought the guy had more game than that. He will need to step up if he is going to prove me right in my prediction.

[NCRAVEN]

Ha no one is afraid of T-Paw after that debate last night. I thought the guy had more game than that. He will need to step up if he is going to prove me right in my prediction.

Exactly my point.

He seems like a nice guy, and no doubt he would be a better Pres than Obama.

But he is trying to hard to answer every question perfectly, he almost reminds me of McCain - trying to be everything to everybody.

[HoustonRaven]

You know who would do a better job with this country than 0bama?

A bunny with a pancake on it's head could give tater a run. Both still beat Obama though.

[AirFlacco]

HR - I don' know anything about Perry. Like the sound of him but is he a

real conservative or another W masquerading as one? I know he balanced
the budget but I don't know much about him.