I can't speak for Perry, but you know what sucks about our political discourse? The extremist positions that get forced on people. Republican in favor of small government? That means you can't believe the government can serve any purpose. Democrat in favor of big government? That means you want the government to socialize everything and pay people to be zombies.
I don't know if Perry believes the government "can serve any purpose." According to the article, however, we do know that, very specifically, Rick Perry believes in reducing the amount of government capability to serve the specific purpose of fighting wildfire. There is also no equivalence between the two sides. The following article, written by a recently retired Republican congressional staffer, is quite informative: http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779#[3]
Nothing has been forced on Perry, he's constantly speaking extremism's in public and then reneging on them under the table. Read the news once in a while...sheesh.
The guy slashes funding for volunteer firefighters by 75% and then cries for help from the federal government to deal with wildfires. So who's he going to beg for help when he slashes federal disaster spending as president? http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2...y-75-percent-this-year/#.TmaeKrXIHmQ.facebook
Ok, my bad. But what was the point of your post in this thread then? Not trying to be an ass, I just generally don't understand the motive. EDIT: Also, thanks again to whomever anonymously repped me to send vague insults about...something.
If I wanted to rationaize Perry's behavior as pragmatic, I'd do it like this: Perry doesn't believe in federal disaster assistance since it is a job for the states, but he knows it exists. So, there's no point in paying for it twice, so may as well cut the Texas budget. When he becomes president and cuts the federal budget, the Texas government should go ahead and re-fund the state's capacity with all the extra tax revenues they'd get from the inevitable boom in the economy caused by Republican cuts in the federal budget.
What's with the repetitive idiot language in Carl Herrera's posts and thread titles? Does he actually think anyone still finds that funny?
Do you think anyone actually gives a **** about this post? Do you think anyone actually find your Islamophobia crap useful? Do you actually believe anyone cares whether you live or die? What's with your continued existence?
My point was that in general Republicans who are in favor of smaller government get blasted anytime the government actually performs a function and the Democrats who want bigger government get blasted over "private sector" success. It drives me nuts. I argued with someone this morning over this very thing who was arguing that US Government should dissolve the Post Office because private industry could do it better and it's not the government's job. She used the USPS as a point that democrats and their big government strategies are all doomed to fail. It just hit the note with me when I saw this thread. A republican in a state ravaged by fire gets blasted for asking the government for help. It drives me crazy that are political climate is such right now that you have to be either or. And yes, even people like Perry are forced into these positions to get elected. If a repulican says he would raise taxes by 1% if it got him $2 trillion in budget cuts, brought about war peace and cured cancer he'd be blasted as a RINO. Stuff drives me crazy. Edit: And in case you were wondering, I didn't leave the neg rep!
Stop defending Perry with that a neutral and factual statement in a thread that is only for bashing Perry only! All republicans hate all government! It's science....if they believed in that too.
This is not a generic bashing of Republicans who want smaller government, it's a specific bashing of Rick Perry who actually made the budget on wildfire reponses smaller. Nothing wrong with wanting a less wasteful and less intrusive government, but what we have is a strand of right wingers who ignore objective/scientific evidence and make "starve the beast" and article of faith. There are more or less sensible Republicans out there, some in elected offices. They are just gradually getting out-numbered by the crazies nowadays.
That might be a sensible position, but it's not Rick Perry's position. I doubt there was a study done to analyze the Army Corp of Engineers firefighting capabilities before the budget for the forest services were cut. In fact, he's complaining about the inadequacy of the availability of Army Corp of Engineers assets just now.
But it's not just any republican. It's Rick Perry. The man who threatened to secede over the stimulus bill while simultaneously taking gobs of money from it to hide his states' massive budget quagmire. The same man who casually likened Bernanke to a traitor because he had the gall to want to avoid massive financial collapse. The guy who, for the very same bull**** political talking points hosed vast sectors of Texas' state infrastructure and is now facing (in some form) the actual physical effects of that ideology-based silliness and must run to the feds for help. You have a point, but Rick Perry is precisely the either/or type of guy you're lamenting. If he's "forced" into this, then you should turn your ire onto those idiots voting in such a fashion, not on those who point out the factual problems and inconsistencies inherent to such a platform.
I don't think you will find a post of mine advocating for Perry. I made the post in this thread because this thread sparked the thought. I specifically stated I wasn't referencing Perry at the beginning of the post, but the general idea of this thread can relate to what I was thinking and I don't think it was worth starting a new one. I know you don't like Perry, but set that aside for a second. I don't recall many people complaining about liberal posters taking thread about a liberal in a more general direction.
