Posted on 09/06/2011 10:25:55 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
The eventual nominee, McCain had a paltry 8%, which just happens to be the same percentage NON-declared candidate Palin has in that idiot Faux poll, although she beats all the other declared candidates, save for the two front runners.
*********************************
Those are interesting numbers. It appears at the moment that Bachmann and Cain are falling behind while Perry and Romney seem to be moving forward, with Sarah holding on to her supporters while continuing to inspire excitement and crowds, despite the fact that she has yet to declare.
We shall see.
I KNOW absolutely that as long as Obama is in the WH, we will not repeal Obamacare.
ok, you win. Corporations have nothing to do with freedom and prosperity and economic growth.
They only have to do with greed.
The whole thing could be shut down now by the supposedly led Republican House of Representatives. The Republicans could have left out of their budget all the funny funding business old Nanny the RED Pewlouise planted in the legislation. But a Republican Boehner said he was not going to break one of Nancy's rules... We have to watch very carefully what politicians say and then who it is they get their political funding from before we can believe what they claim.
Is this a Palin thread? On a Perry story, with a Perry title? Sorry. I am traveling with my itty bitty cell phone and itty bitty key board & print.
oh come on now!
Corporations exist to make money for their owners, period.
There is nothing wrong with this. Most of us either work for or own (through our 401ks etc.) corporations.
I love ‘em!
The idea that they give a rat’s ass about you or your freedom is a joke and at odds with their sole reason for existence.
Corporations making money and my freedom are completely intertwined. They are inseparable.
It matters not what they care about. It only matters that they are profitable.
And they should be spending some money to protect their ability to make profits.
I want them to do so and expect them to do so, and I am glad when they spend money for that cause.
Maybe you ought to read this: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/09/defunding-obamacare-istook-testifies-in-the-house/
Lol. Right on the way to her coronation, sure.
Sure, you mentioned it for NO REASON whatsoever. You just randomly picked a couple and mentioned their marital status in a post attacking Perry for his associations, but you didn’t mean anything at all by it, it’s just a fact you thought of and wanted to say just for the fun of it.
Seriously? We aren’t stupid. The only reason to mention it is in the hopes it associates Perry and Romney in the minds of people — that is a classic guilt-by-association attack. No evidence of anything untoward, just hopes the insinuation sticks. Like when people posts years-old pictures of politicians with well-wishers who later turn out to be crooks.
You mean like this admission from one of the posters?: His supporters are gonna have to play “Whack-A-Mole’ to defend all the canards that’ll be coming up.
Canard: a false or unfounded report or story, especially a fabricated report; a groundless rumor or belief
And certainly, Perry's supporters HAVE had to play whack-a-mole trying to knock down all the false and unfounded stories, fabricated reports, and groundless rumors. Just like he promised.
This is a thread discussing how Perry has people willing to spend millions of dollars to help him beat Obama and save our country. What does this have to do with Palin?
Yep, conservatives attacking corporations. Burn it all down. Damn entrepeneurs, creating companies and then seeing regulations crushing them and seeing Perry standing up for small-government principles and donating money to try to stop Obama. Curse them for having money.
Your probably shouldn’t have written this then:
and I say “it’s about time” that corporations started spending some money to protect their (ie, our) freedom...
We aren't talking about small businesses that employ MOST of the US. BIG corporation own government and make most of their money overseas and avoid taxes through loopholes that their pals in DC make for them.
You know, some people get it and some don't.
They are in part, jealous, that Perry has been launched to the top in just weeks, has raised admirable amounts of support and money, but more significantly, he has gained wide appeal to a very broad range of voters.
It's how he won 3 terms as Governor, it's how he will win this election. This rag-tag bunch of bitter populists are powerless to stop it. Because of their nasty demeanor, I can say, it serves them right.
Palin hired Michael Glassner to be her chief-of-staff. He’s a long-time establishment political operative; he worked for Bob Dole. He was part of the McCain for President team that you criticize here.
I thought it was Romney’s “turn”, and we were dedicated to find a true conservative to stop him. We found a guy Sarah Palin called a “true conservative”, but it seems some want to tear him down for some reason, even though when Sarah Palin gets in the race he’ll be an afterthought.
I not ready to fall into the populist trap. Populism is not conservatism (it’s not liberalism either, it’s an orthoganal trait). I don’t mind a bit of populism. But I’m not going to burn down the corporations simply because they know how to game a system built by our politicians.
We fix government, we limit it’s scope, the corporations have no reason anymore to influence the system. Excessive regulation requires corporations to try to influence the regulators and the regulation-writers to protect themselves, and to turn the regulations on their competitors.
I don’t think the liberals will mind at all if the tea partiers turned into an anti-corporate movement. I don’t think it will happen — most of us are employed by corporations who want nothing more than for the government to let their companies alone to react to market conditions rather than political ones.
Populism becomes more popular in economic downturns, and the liberals are counting on it. I hope we don’t fall into that trap.
If anyone would know nasty, it’s you.
Tell me the advantages of a politician owned by people from whom they accepted money? Oh, well, the people are limited to giving just small amounts of money, so they don't really own the politicians right?
That's because of Campaign Finance Reform, limiting the amount of money people can give to candidates. An idea conservatives loathed, except now it appears not so much.
What is the difference between a politician doing the right thing, and corporations seeing that and donating large sums of money to get them elected, and your "politicians owned by big corporations because politicians accepted their money?"
Do you want to ban corporate contributions? Do you loathe the Citizen's United Supreme Court decision as much as Obama does? If not, do you simply think they should be allowed to give, but no candidate should ever TAKE their money?
And if no candidate will take their money, should they be allowed to create SuperPacs, and put their money there, to elect candidates that will do what is best for the corporations, which is to throw Obama out of office and institute limited government principles?
Or should corporations be banned from putting their money into a SuperPac and advocating for their choice of candidates?
Or should candidates be allowed to force SuperPacs to close down?
Because the law states that SuperPacs are the independent method by which corporations are allowed to use their own money to advocate for their own best interests, without interference from candidates.
How do you know whether how many of the companies donating to this pack are "BIG corporation" that own government and make money overseas, and how many are small businesses that employ most of the US? Did you already find their PAC filings?
I just want to know, do you want to ban SuperPacs?
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.