[saganite]

No. But you have to look at the time frame. The Mass. Company received that grant in 2003 and declared bankruptcy this year. It was an ongoing concern in the interim. Trying to tie that in with Solyndra, which was nothing more than a payoff to donors, is no more than gotcha politics. The two examples are or even related.

[Yashcheritsiy]

No. But you have to look at the time frame. The Mass. Company received that grant in 2003 and declared bankruptcy this year. It was an ongoing concern in the interim. Trying to tie that in with Solyndra, which was nothing more than a payoff to donors, is no more than gotcha politics. The two examples are or even related.

This helps to show the depths of degradation to which Free Republic has fallen in such a short time.

Even six months ago, Freepers were rightly telling us that it was wrong on principle for government to use taxpayers' monies to pick and choose certain industries and businesses to subsidise, especially when the premises for why these businesses and industries were being subsidised was something spurious like concerns over "anthropogenic global warming."

Now, FReepers rush to assure us that it's okay for government to do this, so long as it's below a certain, apparently arbitrary, monetary amount and so long as the subsidised business doesn't fold within a certain, apparently arbitrary, number of years.

No offence, but that's pathetic.