People who read the article?
Therefore, to be consistent, whatever angle is used against Rick Perry...whatever one, no exceptions, can be used legitimately against Nikki Haley.
It can? There's an enormous difference between a legislator backing a bill and then changing their mind vs a governor meeting with the manufacturer of a product, taking money from that manufacture through various avenues, and then mandating it by executive fiat.
No matter how you slice it, the two actions are not even close to being comparable no matter how bad Perry fans might like it to be.
I don’t subscribe to the distortions that you use to describe what happened in Texas.
You mean the truth? You can ignore it all you like, but facts are facts.
I have proven that he did not, could not, have done what he did unless he believed the people of tx would welcome this addition to the school vaccine program.
I think you might need a refresher course on the definition of the word 'proven'.
Otherwise, you would have to stupidly believe that he wanted to have the people rebuff him, that he wanted to be embarrassed for life that he had to backtrack when he heard the voice of the people.
LOL! That's the funniest thing I've read yet about this.
That proves he would not have gone ahead, Merck or no Merck, let me repeat, he would not have gone ahead, Merck or no Merck, if he had not thought it would be welcomed Cancer protection for kids, not rejected and thrown back in his face as an embarrassment for all time to come.
Again, it doen't 'prove' anything. It doesn't even make a persuasive case for it.
Likewise, Nikki Haley obviously thought it was the thing to do. Let me repeat, she obviously thought it was the thing to do.
Maybe she did. Let me repeat, maybe she did. Obviously, she changed her mind and didn't try and impose her will on the entire state before that. Let me repeat, obviously, she changed her mind and didn't try and impose her will on the entire state before that.
Incorrect: that the Legislature had to override. No, it didn’t come to that.
Seriously, how about looking at this thing objectively without the whole 'defend the candidate at all costs' glasses on? It seems you're not being honest with people reading this or even with yourself about this.
I don’t have a candidate.
I do defend where I see distortions against the truth. And efforts to destroy everyone except Palin or whoever...we don’t know the chosen one in some instances.
I’m as honest as the day is long.
Again, repetition is the way we learn.
Rick Perry would have never, ever, done what he did if he had known that the vaccine would never be used in the mandated program because the people of Texas would quickly and strongly reject the plan. It is to his everlasting embarrassment, therefore, it is clear he believed they would welcome it and he believed it was the right thing to do to protect against Cancer in these young kids.
Exactly the same, Nikki Haley thought this was the right thing to do and would be publicly accepted.
Neither one, again to repeat...this is how we learn...would have done what they initially did it they had understood what would rebound back on them from a public backlash.
Therefore, I reject the notion that ill motives have been proven against either one of them.
To the contrary, Merck or no Merck...again, we learn by repetition...Haley or Perry, makes no difference to me, would not have done this if they had seen the future of it.
Period.
They heard the voice of the people and wished they had that hanging curve ball back.
Nothing dishonest about my posting of this. In fact, since the post has your name on it, it might just be the most honest, irrefutable post your name was ever on.