Here are the current stats for New Hampshire:
The full results of the Democratic New Hampshire Primary are as follows (96% of precincts reporting):
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 110,550 votes (39%)
Barack Obama: 102,883 (37%)
John Edwards: 47,803 (17%)
Bill Richardson: 12,987 (5%)
Dennis Kucinich: 3,845 (1%)
Joe Biden (candidate withdrawn): 616 (0%)
Mike Gravel: 397 (0%)
Chris Dodd (candidate withdrawn): 195 (0%)
I read Hillary's positions on Wikipedia again and wow...so, here, why that ****ing whore should be killed and not become president of the US:
Fiscal policy
In her address to the 2000 Democratic National Convention on August 14, 2000, she stressed her support for the social programs, Social Security and Medicare, that were established during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. "We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt they didn’t create. Franklin Roosevelt said that Americans of his generation had a rendezvous with destiny. It’s time to protect the next generation by using our budget surplus to pay down the national debt, save Social Security, modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, and provide targeted tax cuts to the families who need them most."
Tax cuts for those that already provide the least for the government is idiotic. Social programs are in my opinion right out stealing money under a banner of altruism. Besides it creates more problems than it solves and is amazingly expensive
Energy policy
Clinton supports energy conservation, releasing oil reserves, increasing the number of hydrogen-powered vehicles, and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. She opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Bush administration's energy policy.[6]
Clinton introduced a plan to Congress to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development, and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol[not in citation given] and other homegrown biofuels, and more.[7]
Besides Kyoto being incredibly more harmful than even the theorized benefits...we should also remember that she is proposing to take 150$ out of every American's pocket and spend it on her stupid little whims, while the free market can provide it better and cheaper and already does so in many aspects.
Free-market capitalism
When asked if she agreed with the quote from Alan Arenholt that she used in her book, It Takes a Village: "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."[8] Hillary replied that
"I believe that"
Nevermind that the US would be less than a piece of shit if it wasn't for free market capitalism. And that socialist interference always makes things worse.
Trade
Clinton, together with fellow New York Senator Charles Schumer, welcomed a decision by the United States Commerce Department that called for a 108.3% duty on imports from Chinese candlemakers, as the imports sought to circumvent an Anti-dumping Duty Order.[10] Clinton stated that: "This is a real victory for the Syracuse candle-making industry. Our manufacturers deserve a level playing field and we owe it to them to make sure that others do not unfairly circumvent our fair trade practices. Syracuse has a proud history of candle production but attempts by importers to undercut our producers have put that tradition at risk. I am pleased that the Department of Commerce heeded our call to take action against these unfair practices and recognized the importance of this decision to local producers, especially here in Syracuse. We will continue to make the case on behalf of Syracuse candle-makers as the Commerce Department considers its final determination."
She is not realizing that she is taking money of American customers and give it to American Candlemakers by that I take it. I mean, what else will she do against free trade?
Her foreign policy on a whole are just aggressive and stupid. I don't see how they are different really to Bush. Maybe worse:
Security vs. human rights
On November 15, 2007, when asked "[is] national security more important than human rights?" Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely.
Humanitarian intervention abroad
As first lady, Clinton said, "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy." Hillary Clinton favored intervention in Haiti (1994), the Bosnian War (1995), as well as in the Kosovo War (1999). Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill Clinton from Africa. As she recalled later, "I urged him to bomb."
Iraq War
On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War.[57]
By February 2007, Clinton made a point of refusing to admit that her October 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it, as anti-war Democrats demanded. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Clinton told an audience in Dover, New Hampshire.[58]
W-what is the difference between her and Bush. Except that she wants to steal even more money for her social oppression as well?
Flag burning
Clinton supports making flag burning illegal, but without adopting the constitutional Flag Desecration Amendment to do so.[91]
Clinton introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005. The proposed law called for a punishment of one year in jail, and a fine of $100,000.
It's a piece of cloth, you dumb *****.
Gun control
In 1992 Hillary Clinton supported a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms before the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 and signed by President Clinton[92].
Of course she wouldn't want Americans to have guns. Harder to turn it into a fascist utopia she envisions with people owning weapons.
Executive authority
Clinton's advisors have said that she believes that the "president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority".[99] In 2003, Clinton stated that she was "a strong believer in executive authority," wishing that when her husband was president, Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority.
HEIL HITLER!
Death penalty
Clinton supports the death penalty
Murderer.
Internet Neutrality
Senator Clinton on May 18, 2006 released a statement outlining her intentions to be an original cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, also known as the Dorgan and Snowe bill, as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that protects network neutrality in the United States. The bill aims to protect internet consumers and small businesses from Internet service providers charging large companies different amounts for Internet access than smaller customers. She says that the Internet must continue to use an “open and non-discriminatory framework” so that it may be used as a forum where “views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal”.
Shouldn't the providers be able to decide who to provide service for at what price? Why not go to a car salesman and force him to provide mercedes benz for 100 bucks to everyone?
Video game censorship
On March 29, 2005, Clinton called the popular video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a "major threat" to morality. She said, "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitization that teaches kids it’s OK to diss people because they are a woman, they’re a different color or they’re from a different place."
As far as stupid ideas go....that's one of the top.
Clinton's main concern was over the sexual content in the Hot Coffee mod portion of the game. She said that if the game's manufacturer did not change the game's ESRB rating from M (Mature 17+) to AO (Adults Only 18+), she would introduce federal legislation to regulate video games. In response to this threat, on July 20, 2005, the manufacturer changed the rating. As a result, the game was removed from the shelves of Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, and other stores.[134][135]
Five months later, Clinton introduced the legislation anyway. On December 16, 2005, Clinton introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, S.2126[136], a bill that would prohibit the sale of sexual or violent video games to anybody under the age of 18.
Hypocritical Cut-throat whore much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
[i]Originally posted by Bardock42
Tax cuts for those that already provide the least for the government is idiotic.
I actually think it's fair. It would easier for those lower wage earners to get by if they received a tax cut.
Originally posted by Bardock42
On November 15, 2007, when asked "[is] national security more important than human rights?" Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely.
Now I disagree. National security is important, but not when it infringes upon the rights of others.
[i]Originally posted by Bardock42
Clinton introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005. The proposed law called for a punishment of one year in jail, and a fine of $100,000.It's a piece of cloth, you dumb *****.
Agreed. Don't ask me why people get so angry over the burning of a flag that costs 50 cents in a discount store. 🙄
[i]Originally posted by Bardock42
On March 29, 2005, Clinton called the popular video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a "major threat" to morality. She said, "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitization that teaches kids it’s OK to diss people because they are a woman, they’re a different color or they’re from a different place."
I don't agree with what she said, but I do agree that this game in particular should be regulated - it should not be sold to children under 18.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I read Hillary's positions on Wikipedia again and wow...so, here, why that ****ing whore should be killed and not become president of the US:[b]Fiscal policy
In her address to the 2000 Democratic National Convention on August 14, 2000, she stressed her support for the social programs, Social Security and Medicare, that were established during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. "We’ll never accomplish what we need to do for our children if we burden them with a debt they didn’t create. Franklin Roosevelt said that Americans of his generation had a rendezvous with destiny. It’s time to protect the next generation by using our budget surplus to pay down the national debt, save Social Security, modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit, and provide targeted tax cuts to the families who need them most."
Tax cuts for those that already provide the least for the government is idiotic. Social programs are in my opinion right out stealing money under a banner of altruism. Besides it creates more problems than it solves and is amazingly expensive[/B]
Tax cuts for those that provide the least for the government is really great idea. I don't see how you could miss that. Everything else you said sounded good. I worked in insurance for a company that provided a Medicare replacement program. I had to explain insurance policies to the old people who had to pay thousands of dollars for prescription drugs because they ran out of benefits.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]Energy policyClinton supports energy conservation, releasing oil reserves, increasing the number of hydrogen-powered vehicles, and ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. She opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Bush administration's energy policy.[6]
Clinton introduced a plan to Congress to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development, and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol[not in citation given] and other homegrown biofuels, and more.[7]
Besides Kyoto being incredibly more harmful than even the theorized benefits...we should also remember that she is proposing to take 150$ out of every American's pocket and spend it on her stupid little whims, while the free market can provide it better and cheaper and already does so in many aspects.[/B]
WTF????!??!?!?
Energy Conservations. Good idea.
Releasing oil reserves. Good idea short term but bad idea long term. Something has to replace that shit.
Increasing the number of hydrogen powered vehicles. Excellent idea. (And tax breaks to companies who manufacturer those vehicles here in the U.S. for American use...also, a tax breaks to America's gas stations companies for outfitting their stations with hydrogen fuel pumps.)
Ratification of the Kyoto Convention. Okay idea. We will definitely lose capital if we force policies down our companies throats that cause them to lose large amounts of money...but we really need to start operating "cleaner" and it would be a step in the right direction..but are we putting on the right shoe to take that step?
Opposing F***ing up/with wild life and its land. Of course it is great to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We need to get AWAY from oil...not find another way to depend on it. And F***king up the wildlife refuge like that is just plain shitty.
Out right funding for cleaner energy sources.(I am more of a tax break person myself...but bear with me on this one.) Great idea. Kill the campaign in Iraq, dissolve the DEA and police drugs at the municipal level, and close down 100 of our extra-national military bases. Use $100 Billion of that to increase funding in NASA and $100 billion of that on funding for the energy research and use the rest to bring the budget back under control. YEA!!!
Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]Security vs. human rightsOn November 15, 2007, when asked "[is] national security more important than human rights?" Clinton responded, "I agree with that completely.
Humanitarian intervention abroad
As first lady, Clinton said, "I am very pleased that this president and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy." Hillary Clinton favored intervention in Haiti (1994), the Bosnian War (1995), as well as in the Kosovo War (1999). Before the Kosovo war, she phoned Bill Clinton from Africa. As she recalled later, "I urged him to bomb."
Iraq War
On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War.[57]
By February 2007, Clinton made a point of refusing to admit that her October 2002 Iraq War Resolution vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it, as anti-war Democrats demanded. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Clinton told an audience in Dover, New Hampshire.[58]
W-what is the difference between her and Bush. Except that she wants to steal even more money for her social oppression as well?
Flag burning
Clinton supports making flag burning illegal, but without adopting the constitutional Flag Desecration Amendment to do so.[91]
Clinton introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005. The proposed law called for a punishment of one year in jail, and a fine of $100,000.
It's a piece of cloth, you dumb *****.
Gun control
In 1992 Hillary Clinton supported a federal ban on semi-automatic firearms before the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 and signed by President Clinton[92].
Of course she wouldn't want Americans to have guns. Harder to turn it into a fascist utopia she envisions with people owning weapons.
Executive authority
Clinton's advisors have said that she believes that the "president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority".[99] In 2003, Clinton stated that she was "a strong believer in executive authority," wishing that when her husband was president, Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority.
HEIL HITLER!
Death penalty
Clinton supports the death penalty
Murderer.[/B]
I have a hard time disagreeing with the points you made there. (Even if you didn't post anything about one of her points...which is really telling on Hilary's part.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
[BInternet NeutralitySenator Clinton on May 18, 2006 released a statement outlining her intentions to be an original cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, also known as the Dorgan and Snowe bill, as an amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that protects network neutrality in the United States. The bill aims to protect internet consumers and small businesses from Internet service providers charging large companies different amounts for Internet access than smaller customers. She says that the Internet must continue to use an “open and non-discriminatory framework” so that it may be used as a forum where “views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal”.
Shouldn't the providers be able to decide who to provide service for at what price? Why not go to a car salesman and force him to provide mercedes benz for 100 bucks to everyone?[/B]
This is one subject that I get pissed about. The ISPs of America need to be forced to upgrade their bandwidth capabilities via penalties. I am tired of paying $39 a month for 7Mbps down and 500Kbps up when someone in Japan is paying the same thing for 60-100Mbps down.
It is ridiculously stupid that we are so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to internet speed. Come on...we are just now getting things such as fiber to the home rolled out in big cities?
No. ISPs need to be brought down a peg or two and maybe a few need to go under. They need to wake up and stop catering to investors who desire short sighted investments. Where are the companies going to go? The hardware will still be in America...its is not like they can take their business to a third world company for cheaper. A lot of them already have hired Sandeep Gupta to answer the phone as Adam Sandler, anyway. (Sorry Bardock, this is where my libertarian ideals go out the window...I hate how America's ISPs are doing business with my money right now.) Instead, our other businesses are relocating sources and offices to other countries with faster connections.
Here is a nice little article on why our speed problem is not only hurting Americans, but hurting American's businesses as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html
Originally posted by Strangelove
While most of what you said was legitimate disagreement, this is just stupid.
I wouldn't say so. I think it is every person's right to defend themselves. And if the way Hillary wants government to be, would continue and even become more radical, I think even protection from the government is necessary. I understand that today we almost can't comprehend armed resistance against a government anymore...but it certainly is an option if governments continue. I mean, lets face it, at the moment most Americans live well. Better than people in most other countries, but that might not always be the case. A well armed population is a factor authoritarian leaders have to consider.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Tax cuts for those that provide the least for the government is really great idea.
Why?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see how you could miss that. Everything else you said sounded good. I worked in insurance for a company that provided a Medicare replacement program. I had to explain insurance policies to the old people who had to pay thousands of dollars for prescription drugs because they ran out of benefits.
Cool
Originally posted by dadudemon
WTF????!??!?!?Energy Conservations. Good idea.
Energy conservation is likely a good idea. Throwing money and tax breaks at it isn't though, it's harmful to competition and does not create the best alternatives. A free market could and would create better alternatives. Government funding, though looking great on paper, is usually worse than letting it evolve in the natural way.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Releasing oil reserves. Good idea short term but bad idea long term. Something has to replace that shit.
And it will, once it is necessary. It isn't yet. The market tells us that it isn't yet.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Increasing the number of hydrogen powered vehicles. Excellent idea. (And tax breaks to companies who manufacturer those vehicles here in the U.S. for American use...also, a tax breaks to America's gas stations companies for outfitting their stations with hydrogen fuel pumps.)
No, it harms competition. Hydrogen cars will have their time...but if it hasn't come yet, throwing money at it that people could use for much better things....like buying toilet paper....is not a good idea.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ratification of the Kyoto Convention. Okay idea. We will definitely lose capital if we force policies down our companies throats that cause them to lose large amounts of money...but we really need to start operating "cleaner" and it would be a step in the right direction..but are we putting on the right shoe to take that step?
Not only will you lose immense money, the whole world will lose immense money. The harm done to the economies of the countries would far outweigh the costs if we just did NOTHING....and let Global Warming happen. And that doesn't even take into account smart measures, we could take. So, no, Kyoto, even if you fully believe in man made global warming, which is certainly quite possible, is NOT a good idea.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Opposing F***ing up/with wild life and its land. Of course it is great to oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We need to get AWAY from oil...not find another way to depend on it. And F***king up the wildlife refuge like that is just plain shitty.
Though hardly harmful to humans. It will come sooner or later. Oil is immensely important and will be in the future. Also, the sooner the oil is running out the sooner it is viable to develop new alternatives. Environmental issues are important....if they harm humans. Socialist ideals wrapped in a disguise of environmental issues....are shit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Out right funding for cleaner energy sources.(I am more of a tax break person myself...but bear with me on this one.) Great idea. Kill the campaign in Iraq, dissolve the DEA and police drugs at the municipal level, and close down 100 of our extra-national military bases. Use $100 Billion of that to increase funding in NASA and $100 billion of that on funding for the energy research and use the rest to bring the budget back under control. YEA!!!
O-or give the money back to the people and see how the economy rises so incredibly that it is viable to invent whatever the **** you want cause every person has a billion to spend and life in a Utopia for evermore....but nah, government funding is also great....just....not at all. 200 billion. That is almost 700$ on average that every consumer in the US misses to spend in American companies which in turn would produce more wealth. Wow.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a hard time disagreeing with the points you made there. (Even if you didn't post anything about one of her points...which is really telling on Hilary's part.)
I made three points together, because they all showed her aggressive nature and then replied to them.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is one subject that I get pissed about. The ISPs of America need to be forced to upgrade their bandwidth capabilities via penalties. I am tired of paying $39 a month for 7Mbps down and 500Kbps up when someone in Japan is paying the same thing for 60-100Mbps down.
Why forced? What if they can't afford it. What if the gain doesn't outweigh the cost as of yet. I mean, we all know it will come in the future. But someone will have to pay for it. And it should be the consumers.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It is ridiculously stupid that we are so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to internet speed. Come on...we are just now getting things such as fiber to the home rolled out in big cities?No. ISPs need to be brought down a peg or two and maybe a few need to go under. They need to wake up and stop catering to investors who desire short sighted investments. Where are the companies going to go? The hardware will still be in America...its is not like they can take their business to a third world company for cheaper. A lot of them already have hired Sandeep Gupta to answer the phone as Adam Sandler, anyway. (Sorry Bardock, this is where my libertarian ideals go out the window...I hate how America's ISPs are doing business with my money right now.) Instead, our other businesses are relocating sources and offices to other countries with faster connections.
And you want to force ISPs to provide that, even if their businesses go bankrupt over it? And at what price? Why at that price? Is Internet an elementary good that everyone has a right too...or are there people that actually invested in it and should get money in return?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why?
Why not? Like you said, putting money back into the consumers hands is a great thing. Remember?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Energy conservation is likely a good idea. Throwing money and tax breaks at it isn't though, it's harmful to competition and does not create the best alternatives. A free market could and would create better alternatives. Government funding, though looking great on paper, is usually worse than letting it evolve in the natural way.
Energy conservations is already employed by the federal government and their operations and on many different levels. If we reduce the size of the federal government, we can eventually provide tax breaks. I am not a "throw a money at the problem" type of person. I like to let the people/companies keep more of their hard earned money.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And it will, once it is necessary. It isn't yet. The market tells us that it isn't yet.
I know it sounds weird and idiotic...but the market IS ready and the consumers have literally been asking for alternatives but the American people are not being given them fast enough. It is literally a conspiracy of the large oil companies. We will transition on their terms, not our terms. You mean to tell me that you wouldn't buy a car that was clean for the environment if it cost just as much as another car? (As long as it runs well and has just as good of quality, I would buy that shit like its hot.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it harms competition. Hydrogen cars will have their time...but if it hasn't come yet, throwing money at it that people could use for much better things....like buying toilet paper....is not a good idea.
You mean allowing companies to keep more of their money who are doing things that are better for the environment is harming their competition? Obviously. I want it that way. Growing is going to hurt companies who refuse to change. It has been that way for thousands of years and if you are too stupid change with everyone else, suck it and your employees will work for a company that is sky rocketing in success. The US seems to be lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to this change because we are a bunch of arrogant lazy fat asses. The people WILL buy the cars if they are made available. There are talks of installing hydrogen fuel pumps at Quick Trip and 7-11 gas stations...they are waiting on the manufacturers to make the cars. (I know this...because my brother is a manger for Quick Trip.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not only will you lose immense money, the whole world will lose immense money. The harm done to the economies of the countries would far outweigh the costs if we just did NOTHING....and let Global Warming happen. And that doesn't even take into account smart measures, we could take. So, no, Kyoto, even if you fully believe in man made global warming, which is certainly quite possible, is NOT a good idea.
I really don't disagree with you there...but there is a counter to that: That is a short sighted opinion because wtf will your stupid economies and money mean when your countries are flooded hundreds of miles inland and your water is undrinkable and some land is not occupiable?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Though hardly harmful to humans. It will come sooner or later. Oil is immensely important and will be in the future. Also, the sooner the oil is running out the sooner it is viable to develop new alternatives. Environmental issues are important....if they harm humans. Socialist ideals wrapped in a disguise of environmental issues....are shit.
I disagree. I already indicated the the American people want alternatives. The market is becoming more and more saturated with a desire to change fuel sources BECAUSE of gas prices.
Originally posted by Bardock42
O-or give the money back to the people and see how the economy rises so incredibly that it is viable to invent whatever the **** you want cause every person has a billion to spend and life in a Utopia for evermore....but nah, government funding is also great....just....not at all. 200 billion. That is almost 700$ on average that every consumer in the US misses to spend in American companies which in turn would produce more wealth. Wow.
But you just disagreed with tax cuts...hmmm.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why forced? What if they can't afford it. What if the gain doesn't outweigh the cost as of yet. I mean, we all know it will come in the future. But someone will have to pay for it. And it should be the consumers.
The gains greatly outweigh the costs. Read the article. If that isn't enough, google search the topic and read to your hearts content. Also try www.broadbandreports.com for the latest news and you can also look up previous articles/debates on this issue.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And you want to force ISPs to provide that, even if their businesses go bankrupt over it? And at what price? Why at that price? Is Internet an elementary good that everyone has a right too...or are there people that actually invested in it and should get money in return?
I will answer your questions in order...
Yes.
Because they don't care about the consumer, they care about the investors which is hurting the US economy.
The price is the most corrupt/unwilling-to-change companies will go under and the companies spending money on their customers by trying to roll out much faster speeds to Americans like Verizon*, AT&T*, and comcast*, will prosper.
Yes. Surely you know that. Don't you want to keep the jobs/businesses in America AND make America much more profitable?
*They are companies working on deploying much faster internet connections through fiber to the prem and newer technologies. F**k the other companies to hell who refuse to upgrade their infrastructure because their investors/board members do not want to spend money on their networks.
I will just go over your thing loosely cause I don't think iot will resolve much.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why not? Like you said, putting money back into the consumers hands is a great thing. Remember?
No. I said giving them the money back they deserve equally and fairly is a good thing. Giving them tax cuts and thereby defacto giving them money that more productive members of the society earned...that's bullshit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Energy conservations is already employed by the federal government and their operations and on many different levels. If we reduce the size of the federal government, we can eventually provide tax breaks. I am not a "throw a money at the problem" type of person. I like to let the people/companies keep more of their hard earned money.
Same.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know it sounds weird and idiotic...but the market IS ready and the consumers have literally been asking for alternatives but the American people are not being given them fast enough. It is literally a conspiracy of the large oil companies. We will transition on their terms, not our terms. You mean to tell me that you wouldn't buy a car that was clean for the environment if it cost just as much as another car? (As long as it runs well and has just as good of quality, I would buy that shit like its hot.)
I would too. And they are developing alternatives. The thing is, just like Green Lantern rings, it is not always as easy and cheap and unrisky to create those things. It will take time.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean allowing companies to keep more of their money who are doing things that are better for the environment is harming their competition? Obviously. I want it that way. Growing is going to hurt companies who refuse to change. It has been that way for thousands of years and if you are too stupid change with everyone else, suck it and your employees will work for a company that is sky rocketing in success. The US seems to be lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to this change because we are a bunch of arrogant lazy fat asses. The people WILL buy the cars if they are made available. There are talks of installing hydrogen fuel pumps at Quick Trip and 7-11 gas stations...they are waiting on the manufacturers to make the cars. (I know this...because my brother is a manger for Quick Trip.)
Of course you have to adapt to things. But those should not be oppressively put on to you by a government. They might want it one way, because they are deluded or stupid or evil or all of that in case of Hillary, but it is the market that should force the changes. Sure, if you harm others that is wrong and should be illegal. To hurt free market competition though is bad for all in the end...and unfair tax cuts achieve just that.
And if you think the people want Hydrogen cars soooooo desperately, invest in companies researching in the field. You might make a fortune.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I really don't disagree with you there...but there is a counter to that: That is a short sighted opinion because wtf will your stupid economies and money mean when your countries are flooded hundreds of miles inland and your water is undrinkable and some land is not occupiable?
There's a counter to that too though. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Not even the scientists believing in manmade evolution believe that. Those are end of world scenarios journalists and politicians like, cause they sell well.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I already indicated the the American people want alternatives. The market is becoming more and more saturated with a desire to change fuel sources BECAUSE of gas prices.
And then it will change in time. Probably much faster if the government stops wasting your money on trivial shit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But you just disagreed with tax cuts...hmmm.
Unfair tax cuts. Tax cuts on the whole are awesome. It's like, I agree with people being allowed to marry...I disagree with only white people being allowed to marry.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The gains greatly outweigh the costs. Read the article. If that isn't enough, google search the topic and read to your hearts content. Also try www.broadbandreports.com for the latest news and you can also look up previous articles/debates on this issue.
Your opinion. Not your money though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I will answer your questions in order...Because they don't care about the consumer, they care about the investors which is hurting the US economy.
And they should. It's the investors hard earned money you are talking about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The price is the most corrupt/unwilling-to-change companies will go under and the companies spending money on their customers by trying to roll out much faster speeds to Americans like Verizon*, AT&T*, and comcast*, will prosper.
And that will happen anyways. Buy your stuff with AT&T if they provide that...the others will have to follow once they lose consumers.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. Surely you know that. Don't you want to keep the jobs/businesses in America AND make America much more profitable?
No. I don't want to keep them there. I want them to do what they want. I just think they would stay there if they wouldn't be persecuted by socialist idiots.
Originally posted by Bardock42The pro-gun lobby seems to think that guns/bullets called "cop killers" are somehow constitutional. Handguns are fine. Hunting rifles are fine. But assault weapons in the hands of street gangs are most certainly not.
I wouldn't say so. I think it is every person's right to defend themselves. And if the way Hillary wants government to be, would continue and even become more radical, I think even protection from the government is necessary. I understand that today we almost can't comprehend armed resistance against a government anymore...but it certainly is an option if governments continue. I mean, lets face it, at the moment most Americans live well. Better than people in most other countries, but that might not always be the case. A well armed population is a factor authoritarian leaders have to consider.
Plus the "fascist state" crack was a potshot.
Originally posted by Strangelove
The pro-gun lobby seems to think that guns/bullets called "cop killers" are somehow constitutional. Handguns are fine. Hunting rifles are fine. But assault weapons in the hands of street gangs are most certainly not.Plus the "fascist state" crack was a potshot.
I take it you've never run up on one of those inner city deer.