Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Is that so? When Ronald Regan caused the largest percent increase in the deficit and the national debt, was he giving away "conservative money" or "liberal money"? What about Bush? When he bankrupted the American economy, did he give away "conservative money"? Get real, for all their talk, right wingers have caused the largest increases in the deficit and the national debt. Their "tax breaks" did not save the economy, they just sank it into a deeper hole.
> Liberals want to take money from others and distribute it. That is what most liberals mean by heart.
Yes, it is terrible to tax the rich and give to the poor. I mean, it is horrible to help poor people. We should just let them all starve to death. Then when they are poor and desperate we can have a revolution and let the communists take over. For all of their talk, right-wingers are incapable of admitting that without social programs that "redistribute wealth" we would have massive social unrest. If anything, all those social programs arose in order to stop communism from continuing to expand and gain support among the poor.
> Look at the Geek. He's so happy to vilify the big oil companies. Are those of you on the left so foolish to really believe that there isn't billions to be made on green energy as well? Even while the promises of going green are bigger than the reality, those in the green business are just as bad, if not worse, than those in the big oil companies. Only a completely gullible person would think a green CEO isn't in it for the money.
Like I said, who deserves my hard-earned cash, a polluter or a cleaner. You tell me. Do you truly believe that a company that encourages pollution (like Exxon has done by giving money to anti-climate change "experts") deserves your hard-earned dollars?
Yes, "Green CEOs" are in it for the money. This is supposed to be capitalism, or should the state openly work for the benefit of oil companies like the Bush admnistration did? Oh, just to remind myself, what does Arbusto Energy mean, who worked for Haliburton, who worked for Chevron? Should the state favor companies that pollute more or companies that pollute less?
(убрать) Если Вы ждете своего хода, нажимите на "изменить" рядом с "обновить" на главной странице и установите обновление страницы 30 секунд, чтобы увидеть свою очередь хода быстрее. (Servant) (Показывать все подсказки)