Posted on 08/28/2011 2:46:54 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
I can't get over the naivete of liberal journalists. In this case, the writer spells out all of the dastardly principles that Perry upholds! Problem is, those are the exact principles conservative Americans are wanting in their President. The fact that the journalist is so totally blinded by his socialist agenda is just downright hilarious!
I love this: Perry's proposed fixes for the healthcare system would do nothing to slow the growth of healthcare costs or reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Maybe not. But they also wouldn't make me pay 35% more every year for my existing health policy!
I’ll have to differ with you on Palin. She’s their fallback plan in case liberty-lovers on the right don’t fall for the usual suspects. They would not give her the attention they do if she was a true threat to them, they would black her out. They did the same thing with her that they are doing with Perry in this article - focusing liberal hate on them so that conservatives think they are one of them without investigating the details too closely.
I just spent the weekend with my ultra liberal sister in law. I sent her in a twenty minute rant (I didn’t say a word) by asking her if she was going to buy Dick Cheney’s book. He he hee.....
Really? I thought that you could taste the vitriol.
I’ve been hearing this “The left is playing 3-D chess” thing for years and it’s just too silly. Liberals demonize and attack—they don’t set up these complicated “We’re SAYING we don’t like him, thus proving we DO like him” scenarios because they DO NOT WORK.
The things they criticize Perry for are things they have always disagreed with, so I just don’t see this “Ah-HA!” stuff. It strikes me as just folks who don’t like Perry coming up with some bizarre reason why when the same people who attack their chosen candidate attack Perry it isn’t the same thing.
8/6/2011
I’m aware. I see that date every time I put out a sound argument here that cannot be refuted, but is uncomfortable for people who haven’t thought a particular subject through all the way.
Pity us nonthinkers
This concept of universal participation conspiracy is illogical and unsustainable.
Given the depth of his loathing for the federal government, it’s a little surprising that Texas Gov. Rick Perry
They could have ended the article right there and I’d have to look hard at him as my candidate. I don’t like everything about Rick but he stands for most of the things I think are important.
He handles questions directly.
He's gotta' start crawling through broken glass ~ denounce his former mistaken beliefs and foolish affiliations.
I'd like to see a two or three hour session where he denounces the Algore and that crowd.
That's just a start.
.....I'd like to see a two or three hour session where he denounces the Algore and that crowd.....
Rick Perry worked on Al Gore's Texas bid for votes in the 1988 Democratic Party Primary that Michael Dukakus won.
......."During his time in Congress, [Al] Gore opposed federal funding of abortion, voting in favor of a bill which supported a moment in silence in schools, and voting against a ban on interstate sales of guns. His position shifted later in life after he became Vice President and ran for president in 2000…”…… Source
Gore his wife led the charge on putting warning labels on records back in the 1980s. In fact, Gore had an 84% pro-life record back in the 1980s:http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Al_Gore - According to ontheissues.org -- Gore had an 84% anti-abortion voting record and voted pro-life 27 times. Evolving Gore
Rick Perry: Al Gore's gone to Hell
Rick Perry started as a Democrat in West Texas (essentially THE only party). He served in the Texas legislature - was known as one of the "pit bulls," conservative members who sat in the lower pit of the House Appropriations Committee and bitterly fought spending increases.
Perry changed parties in 1989, joining Phil Gramm and other conservative Texas Democrats, who now had a true ideological party with a burgeoning Texas GOP.
When Perry campaigned for Lt. Gov. [1998], he and his campaign staff were in it to win and his hard-nosed style was against the "friendly" advice and request of GWB [in re-election bid for Texas Gov] and Rove to run easy against Sharp, a popular democrat (and Aggie friend of Perry's from their A&M years together). Rove wanted to broaden Bush's base for his upcoming White House run. Perry told them where to stick their advice, because he knew the voters would vote for Bush for Gov. and then cross back over and vote for Sharp (D) for Lt. Gov, if he just walked through the motions like the Bush-Rove team asked him to do.
Perry won the seat for Lt. Gov. -- the first Republican elected to that office since Reconstruction. Now 13 years later and into his 3rd term as Texas governor, the GOP holds a super majority. So Perry has earned his conservative spurs -- fighting both parties!
[The Bushes and Rove supported Kay Bailey Hutchison's primary challenge against Gov. Perry in the 2010 election too]
What is about to happen here is hardly "3-D chess". It's more like a rigged prizefight.
The One-World Government Elites can live happily with either a President Barak Obama, or a President Rick Perry. Either way, they win & we lose.
That's the reason the controlled Media is trying to get Conservatives excited about Rick Perry & sour on Sarah Palin.
They own & control Rick Perry (just as they do McCain & Graham & others), but they don't own & can't control Sarah Palin.
I can give you the quick and easy Free Republic difference between conservatives and socialists:
Conservative - my particular chosen candidate for the GOP nomination, and other people who support him or her.
Dirty, stinking socialist - any other candidate for the GOP nomination besides the one I support, and any people who support these obvious stinking lowlifes.
No offence to SARAH! but you don't really *know* that. She could well be just as bought and paid for as you think any of the rest of them are. Could explain her support for the Law of the Sea Treaty.
If Perry is attacked by the MSM, that's because they want him to win. If Perry is praised by the MSM, that's because they want him to win.
Then how can a mandate for all Americans to fund a private retirement account - Perry's preferred replacement to Social Security - be constitutional?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.