Posted on 09/14/2011 8:47:54 PM PDT by meadsjn
No, she made her "case" against Perry in an a throw-away comment on FoxNews, and without any evidence. She made her case against Obama tonight clearly, though. Why didn't she follow up on her claims against Perry?
I suspect that Gov. Palin’s “throw-away” line may well have gotten her crossed off Perry’s Christmas card list.
But the article you sight says “but the words “tax benefit” are so ambiguous that it’s not clear what they mean,” If Palin is referring including federal grant money into the equation then she is correct, and she states that Federal grant money in her article. Apparently the term tax benefit is ambiguous rather than a term like net profit.
On the whole I liked the article and I think she is delivering a solid conservative message. I don’t think we should split hairs over a ambiguous term and loose sight of the salient points.
They are not "claims."
They are facts which do not require "follow ups."
Have a good night...
.
Like that. Nice way with the words.
Nice post, and it sounds like somebody is about ready to challenge the system. She almost seems to be backing Bachmann’s position without syaing so.
Palin proved that she is willing to take on crony capitalists when she went after the oil companies in Alaska. That took some real courage. It’s not a new subject for her.
Just about ready ...
“This is not crony capitalism or anything like it. This is just plain old theft. They knew this company was already in trouble, and they knew there were cheaper products out of China.”
Bullseye. Solyndra was nothing more than a vehicle for transferring taxpayer money into the pockets of Obama’s friends.
Well for one thing, the day she talked about perry, there was a debate. Did you notice? And today, there wasn’t. How simple does your logic have to be before you get it? perry does not dominate everybody’s waking hours like he seems to dominate yours...or maybe it’s really Palin that dominates your waking hours, because you seem to never get enough of throwing out those stinky red herrings.
t/rick perry can drum up publicity, good or bad, all by hisself. Why do you want Palin to do it for him? Hiding behind her skirts? Hmmmm?
Carling, darling, (Hey! that rhymes!) anyway, she made no accusation against perry. She spoke about his CoS and the appearance of impropriety, which there was...not to mention his mother-in-law. BIG difference. If we judge oblama by the company he keeps and call it fair, then why the hell shouldn’t it be fair to say the same thing about Republicans with questionable associations? (Like perry’s two big moneymen who got the sanctuary cities law dropped in he great state of Texas.)
What these Perry dopes fail to realize is, Perry needs Palin a helluva lot more than Palin needs him. And they can’t stop talking about HER instead of trying to garner support for him. How pathetically sad.
(((((PING)))))
So how many elections have you won?
Wrong about GE?
Wrong yourself.
This is mercky issue like Gardasil, but it envelops
GE with no taxes as they transport technology to China
AND defend Obama with MSNBC.
Like Perry’s Crony Capitalism, it is real. You betcha.
Thank you.
In her Indianola speech, she made clear that both parties are guilty of keeping the crony scheme going. The only question is which team and sectors or corporations are in or out of favor with a given administration. I thought the elimination of the corporate income tax was a great idea, as it will dry up a great deal of the demand for lobbying as well as placing small and mid sized corporation on a level playing field. Small and mid sized corporations are more nimble on costs and thus, capital flows would move their direction. Not to mention and immediate 20% boost to everyones 401k accounts.
Hopefully, there will be some splanin' about how the regime made sure the taxpayers take the 1/2/ billion dollar hit two weeks before they declared bankruptcy so obama bundlers don't get hurt.Talk about corrupt! This is undoubtedly the most corrupt regime ever.
GE pays taxes. They didn’t get a tax refund. Palin is wrong on this. Plus, she looks at crony capitalism from the wrong side.
“Investopedia explains Crony Capitalism
Both socialists and capitalists have been at odds with each other over assigning blame to the opposite group for the rise of crony capitalism. Socialists believe that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of pure capitalism. This belief is supported by their claims that people in power, whether business or government, look to stay in power and the only way to do this is to create networks between government and business that support each other.
On the other hand, capitalists believe that crony capitalism arises from the need of socialist governments to control the state. This requires businesses to operate closely with the government to acheive the greatest success.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cronycapitalism.asp#ixzz1Y1ZDQ6Hg
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.