So... she DIDN'T build that.

Prince Of Dorkness

The Republican convention's 'We Built It' Speaker didn't actually build it all herself.

Sher Valenzuela is scheduled to speak at the Republican National Convention next week. She's running for lieutenant governor in Delaware and started an upholstery business with her husband in their garage more than a decade ago.

But there's a problem. Republicans wanted Valenzuela's story to boost the convention's "We Built It" theme. But she didn't actually build her company without the government's help.

Valenzuela's company received roughly $17 million in federal loans and contracts and she's openly encouraged other business owners to rely on taxpayer funding.

Do these people think we don't have The Google or something?

:fp:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... r=Politics

dancepartner

so! an informative post. I'll keep checking more then. thanks!

unsung

And the stadium that the convention is being held in had taxpayer funding as well.

Both parties are the same.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

And the stadium that the convention is being held in had taxpayer funding as well.

Both parties are the same.

I'm not sure I see your point with that one.

The democrats are pointing out that tax payers support small businesses with creating a strong infrastructure and the republicans are getting people who took $17 million to say "no, I did this all by myself."

How is that "the same."

unsung

I'm speaking in general terms. It doesn't matter who is in charge, unless one only cares about select social issues.


Economy-wise neither party is committed to fix the problem, that is my main concern.

unsung

And since I brought it up about talking stadiums and politics, the stadium the Dems are using, the pro-union, pro-worker Dems, was built non-union.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

I'm speaking in general terms. It doesn't matter who is in charge, unless one only cares about select social issues.


Economy-wise neither party is committed to fix the problem, that is my main concern.

Not sure I'd totally agree with that, either, but I do see that both parties seem to have odd, if not totally opposite, priorities when wanting to fix the economy.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

And since I brought it up about talking stadiums and politics, the stadium the Dems are using, the pro-union, pro-worker Dems, was built non-union.

True, but the theme of the democratic convention isn't "if it's not union made, it sucks" and they don't have a union construction worker scheduled to speak about how nothing gets built without a union.

unsung

I understand your point, I guess I'm just becoming very apathetic to the entire thing. I'm sick of both parties screwing up this country. There are great amounts of hypocrisy on both sides.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

I understand your point, I guess I'm just becoming very apathetic to the entire thing. I'm sick of both parties screwing up this country. There are great amounts of hypocrisy on both sides.

But on a personal note, one is planning on writing an amendment into the constitution to keep my family from having many legal rights and protections, the other is planning on making us fully equal.

So that's kind of a deal maker/breaker for me.

unsung

I don't believe that would ever pass a vote. I can't see a 2/3 majority going in that direction. Each day brings more acceptance for equalization for all.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

I don't believe that would ever pass a vote. I can't see a 2/3 majority going in that direction. Each day brings more acceptance for equalization for all.

No, it wouldn't.

But I'm still not going to vote for a billionaire with such little spine that he's bullied by Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown and Donald Trump into supporting that.

He ran Massachusetts quite well. Marriage equality, universal health care, good education... The man running for president is a very different and very untrustworthy person if he's going to turn around and grab his ankles for people like that.