Posted on 08/17/2011 4:41:52 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
“Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. And you cannot continue to ignore what Sarah Palin has stated in regard to Rick Perry. That is, unless you believe Sarah Palin was lying. Do you believe she was lying, Brices Crossroads?”
You are a veteran Palin basher who have infested nearly every Palin thread ever begun here. Now you post statements Palin made during the gubernatorial campaign and make it appear that she is endorsing Perry for President, which is hogwash. Perry has said nice things about Palin too. I could post those and make it look like he is endorsing her, but I don’t do that because I don’t deliberately try to mislead people. I won’t sink to your level.
Endorsing him against KBH and a truther is a lot different than endorsing this open borders zealot who likes Islamofascists for the Presidency. In the governor’s race he was the least of three evils. In this race he is just the least.
You really are nothing buy a propagandist. I usually ignore you, but I reply only to set the record straight lest anyone be misled by you.
It's either/or, aye? Either she's correct, or she's lying, right?
There's a third posibility of course. Palin could be just plain wrong about Perry.
In 2009, the idea that is might be more dangerous was publicized. But, as of 2007, it was vetted by the board we use to vet drugs. So at the time of the EO, with the information available, it was not unproven.
Also, the article you linked says that a person at a conference took the researcher’s promotion of the the vaccine to be negative, and specifically stated that the lead researcher did not offer that suggestion. 1/3 of the article showed the lead researcher to say that HPV is not as serious as it is portrayed, and unless 70% of girls get the vaccine, it will be hard to determine the results. The last 1/3 is pure speculation. The article also appears to be on a Catholic website, written in the point of view that the author was against Gardasil before doing any research. A quick Google search shows there is strong opposition to Gardasil within the Catholic community, so the objectivity of this report is questionable.
The other point I was making was in reference to the post before it, which was complaining of mandated “unproven” vaccines. I addressed the “unproven” aspect first. Then I addressed the mandated aspect. Its not my fault you didnt see the context in your own post.
You really are desperate. Using that warped logic, Thalidomide was proven.
Fact: Gardasil is unproven in that the effectiveness and the side effects are still unknown.
Fact: Dr. Harper said that "with the use of Gardasil, there will be no decrease in cervical cancer until at least 70% of the population is vaccinated,
Fact: Dr. Harper's comments in an ABC News report concur with the National Vaccine Information Center's claim that "...a whopping 89 percent of the reports Merck did file were so incomplete there was not enough information for health officials to do a proper follow-up and review.
You're free to continue your hopeless cause of denying the obvious but I will not allow you to waste any more of my time. This drug is unproven by any definition of the word and a researcher who helped develop it along with the National Vaccine Information Center both agree. Bye
Again what is your point ?
When Palin took on the Murkoski machine she was threatened and that was back in 2006 ?
Are you this clueless ?
They are all over the net now !
Someone named Axelrod created the strategy .
Go Google his name and educate yourself.
Read that Doctor's comment about this program which makes Michelle ranting column appear way off the mark.
Texas is way better off than 45 states in the US .
Texas is the second largest state in the US so I think the Gove will expand.
I thought the TX Gov has limited powers and the TX Congress had more controlled over spending so how is that Perry's fault ?
Well, when we talk about electability, we’re talking about the ability to beat the Democrat in November 2012.
Electability is not the ability to win the Republican Primaries.
That would be Palin, the most able to win the Republican Primaries.
Ron Paul does appeal to a group of people - young males in particular - that other Republicans don’t appeal too.
Ron Paul would win Republican votes in November, and those young males.
The other Republicans wouldn’t be winning those young males.
Republicans might prefer a different candidate, but that other candidate wouldn’t appeal to those young males. That’s what makes Ron Paul more electable.
Just look at the polls, the polls show this.
You don’t understand what “electable” means.
Any Republican is capable of winning the Republican primary, or, put differently, the ability of winning the Republican primary is not a reason to vote for a person.
Especially if you’d lose in November. Winning or losing in November is what people mean when they talk about “electability”.
If Democrats and Independents in Ohio and Indiana hate Rick Perry, it doesn’t help Perry at all that 10 percent of Republicans are switching from Romney to Perry. Unless Perry gets votes from Independents and Democrats north of the Ohio River, he’s not electable. Ron Paul gets more of those votes.
Yes, it’s true that Rick Perry does well with elderly Republican women.
Check these crosstabs of the Merrimack NH poll.
Paul is in 3d place with 14%, Perry in 2d place with 18%.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62506259/New-Hampshire-2012-Republican-Primary-Survey-Crosstabs-081711
Paul does better than Perry with Independent Men - 21 / 13.
That right there points to Perry’s electability problems.
The R’s will vote for Paul over Obama. Some would rather have Perry, but they’d vote for Paul.
The I’s won’t vote for Perry, especially young male independents.
“he listened to the public and killed the plan and it never went into effect” << False!
WRONG - IT IS NOT FALSE!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2765343/posts
Get back to me in November. Rick Perry just got in the race. Summer is vacation time. Once people get to know Rick his polls will be very favorable. He will win New Hampshire (Live Free or Die) with ease. Iowa caucuses...prolly not
Rick will easily be raising tens of millions to prevail in the primaries and the Nov6th 2012 election. He’ll beat Bammy Boy by 15 points
Free Republic is not a Rick Perry board. There are people who will disagree with your opinion. They are allowed to do so. Right now EVERY candidate has detractors on threads about them. Perry is not unique. And you only harm your candidate when you are insulting other posters.
I'm not clueless, but you're delusional when it comes to your slanderous accusation, which needs to stop right now.
Several FReepers are trying to learn about your candidate and others have already formed their opinions which differs from yours. Too bad for you and Governor Perry. He's been a career politician for 27 years with part of the time as a democrat, so some FReepers are convinced that he's not a conservative and that's their right.
Me? I am still trying to learn about him, thankyouverymuch.
FWIW, just this morning on Imus, Kinky Friedman, who ran against him for Governor, spoke highly of him! He said he's the real deal, a job creator in Texas, an Evangelica who loves God and gays, and is not a right-wing whacko!
Quite the endorsement, huh?
Yes,it is false.
He fought the legislature bitterly before they bested him in the struggle. He remains bitter and sarcastic on the subject.
I commend you on your insight and your common sense reply. Well said.
There are a number of issues that he would have lost me on.
The worst (for me) was his Executive Order” requiring every sixth grade girl have proof of Gardasil vaccination before being allowed to attend classes.
This is a non-communicable disease, and over 100 deaths are already attributed to the vaccinations. Thousands of other girls and young women are experiencing immune system abnormalities and other rather serious ongoing problems.
It was his willingness to circumvent due process that bothered me most, and indicated this man is not worthy of my trust.
Luckily the state Legislature over-ruled him. I would suspect it took a two-thirds majority to do it. And they got it, this EO was so bad.
"Sarah Palin Will Not Run for President"
Ha.
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.