Posted on 09/04/2011 12:42:11 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Yes, your complete ignorance of what drug companies must go through before they are allowed to put a drug on the market is quote clear. If Perry has been involved in shady dealings that do not withstand scrutiny it would seem to make sense to point out specifics that can be documented and have no rational explanation that is not “shady.” Ill informed general accusations indicate nothing other than a prejucial bias.
Is there some way to credibly confirm what you assert? What is your source of information for this assertion and how can the truth of it be verified?
There are NO studies on the long term effects, ESPECIALLY when given to prepubescent girls. They aren't even sure how long it lasts. AND you DON'T get HPV by sitting next to someone in class.
Perhaps someone should subpoena Rick’s emails. ;)
Do a search. It’s been posted on FR. And the reports on online. Wagglebee has links to Gardasil being a killer.
I agree it was Perry's knee-jerk, nanny state reaction that bothered me, as well as the ties (no matter how some here dismiss them) to Merck. Funny, too, last month he admitted it was a mistake to rush the law, but has done nothing to rescind it, other than to say people can opt out. If people can opt out, what's the point of the law in the first place?
That white sweater should be standard uniform for her speeches.......... err, I mean,
That Iowa speech Sat. was incredible!
I know you think the same way. This is just insane. MORE government marching orders but it's ok because it's Perry? Nope.
To me, it almost encourages sexual activity among young teens.
A search reveals that there are some 91 reported deaths conneted with the use of the drug and many more reported adverse reactions. Thus this would not appear to have been a decision that was as well thought through as it should have been. It would seem that the FDA has not withdrawn approval of the drug and one wonders why. While the drug has been provent to be an effective preventative it would seem that any parent who allows their child to receive the drug without being tested for possible adverse reactions and consulting with a responible and knoweledgeable physician is not making a good decision.
Gardasil is more about genital warts than cancer. But they can't or won't say that.
Yes. The way it was marketed makes them think they are protected.
If you think she was taking shots at Gov Perry, you haven't been paying attention.
I’d like to apologize for using the words “assinine argument”.
It beats the evidence the Palinstinians have that “Oh, the majority loves her. Trust us.”
Google "Perry net worth", and you'll see that everybody is estimating. I posted one link from this past week that said his net worth was $1.1 million. Do you really need more links?
You are focusing on how much money he made in a real estate deal -- maybe you should focus on how much money he actually has.
Did you know he trained as and became a licensed realtor, although he never worked in that field -- he took a keen interest in real estate. Way back in 1981, he was already appointed to the Bill Clements appointed him to the advisory committee of Texas A&M University's Real Estate Center.
A amart guy with an eye for real estate can make some good investments, especially if he saves his money, which apparently he did when his wife and he both worked for rather average wages.
In the 1990s, he decided he wanted to live in then-rural Travis County, but everytime he found a good deal and bought some land, his wife said it was too far away. In 1991, Perry bought some land at an FDIC liquidation auction for $55,288, and he sold it 3 years later for $125,000. No indication any politicians or contributers were involved. Just a smart investment.
He bought other undeveloped property in 1993. Then it turned out Dell needed it to reach public utilities, so Dell paid him a lot more for it, and he made $342,000. There is no evidence that Perry knew Dell would need the land (pretty odd in fact if Perry would know it before Dell did, which he obviously did or Dell would have bought it when it was on the market). He bought the land on the open market -- a lobbyist friend who became his campaign manager closed the sale for him, but he didn't buy or sell the property, or make any under-the-table deal for it, so the only argument there is guilt-by-association.
THen there was the deal involving a Senator, Perry bought it in 2001, for $315,000. Normally people point to a cheap sale, but this wasn't, or a short turnaround, but again this wasn't. Perry held this land for six full years. Those six years were a great boon in real estate -- everybody doubled and tripled their money, if they sold at the right time.
The right time? We were told that here on Free Republic -- the bubble was going to burst. Perry sold in 2007, right at the peak, and at a little more than 3 times the purchase price; he cleared $780,000 on that deal; but again, nothing improper was found in either the purchase or the sale. Yes, people sometimes make money in real estate, there is NOTHING in that deal that suggests any favors from a legislator OR anything having to do with a contributer.
You are simply saying words "Legislator","COntributer", "Big Gain", and thinking because they are in the same sentence, it means something bad. IN fact, you have to show that there was an actual deal made for which Perry got money that nobody else could have gotten. The land in this case wasn't unique, anybody could have purchased in the same area in 2001, and sold in 2007, and made the same amount of money.
He also wrote two books, just like Sarah Palin. Now, they didn't sell nearly as well as Palin's book, but in fact he made NO MONEY from the sale of either book. The reason: "Perry directed proceeds from one of his books to legal defense for the Boy Scouts of America and proceeds from the other to an Austin-based conservative think tank."
Perry, with a net worth of somewhere just north of $1 million, gave the proceeds of his Boy Scout book to the Boy Scouts, and the proceeds of his Fed Up book to a conservative think tank. Is that the move of a guy who tries to use his public position to make money?
The argument comes down to "Perry made money, so he must have been making crooked real estate deals to clean up on his public job, while he was giving away legitimate book royalties to charity." It makes no sense, it's not supported by any evidence.
IN fact, a lot of the information for the anti-PErry stories on his finances come from the Texas Ethics Commission -- because they investigated ALL of these deals, and found nothing wrong.
Have you taken this up with the poster who posted it?
As for Perry’s record in general, it doesn’t impress me.
What is your opinion regarding his apparent support for entities tied to the Islamic movement?
You seem to put high value on being informed. As you should.
Can you tell me what was Perry’s reasoning for thinking it was a good idea to give this vaccine to nine year olds?
Plus, she has to win the primary. If she can do that, Obama will be a cakewalk, because she’ll already have shown she can overcome the negative stereotyping.
There’s really no downside to her running, whether or not you like her.
And for the record, I absolutely love her.
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.