Stock Markets to best levels in nearly 4 years

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
And, still yet again you completely miss my point.

At this point I dont know what your point is or if you even have one other than to bash bush.

You dont want the proper industries to find/develope energy sources.
You dont want the fed to do it.
And you are dont even think starbucks or merrymaid is up to the task.

So answer me, who should be working on getting the US population the energy it needs?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
hydrogen - president has put reseach money this way.
FFV-??
ethanol-- more big farm subsidies?
natural gas--from where? Maybe those places the pres opened up for exploration?
electric -- more nukes, check
etc.
looks like the pres is going the direction you want, when it comes to energy.
mm hmmm

He postures a lot and if he's doing anything along any of those lines it's certainly not for the environment or for pragmatic purposes, it's solely for his business buddies to continue to make bank.
Try reading this again, charrison. That's the point I was trying to make. For some reason, you're just not able to understand. Might want to ask yourself why that is.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
hydrogen - president has put reseach money this way.
FFV-??
ethanol-- more big farm subsidies?
natural gas--from where? Maybe those places the pres opened up for exploration?
electric -- more nukes, check
etc.
looks like the pres is going the direction you want, when it comes to energy.
mm hmmm

He postures a lot and if he's doing anything along any of those lines it's certainly not for the environment or for pragmatic purposes, it's solely for his business buddies to continue to make bank.
Try reading this again, charrison. That's the point I was trying to make. For some reason, you're just not able to understand. Might want to ask yourself why that is.



So let me ask again, who should do it?If you want to write everr industry capable of supplying the energy this country needs, who should do it then?

This president is trying to create legislation that will help the energy situation in this country, but you only see it as a payoff to those industrys.


 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
You can bet your bottom dollar he'll gear legislation to benefit his friends in those industries, not just the industries. AND, he's not doing simply to help save the environment nor to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It's not being done out of the goodness of his heart.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
You can bet your bottom dollar he'll gear legislation to benefit his friends in those industries, not just the industries. AND, he's not doing simply to help save the environment nor to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It's not being done out of the goodness of his heart.


Congress writes legislation not the president...

It is time to take the blinders off for a little while.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
And the President and his party's leadership have NEVER gotten together to draft legislation or consult with members of Congress? mmmmkay
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
And the President and his party's leadership have NEVER gotten together to draft legislation or consult with members of Congress? mmmmkay

And the democrats would be able to draft legislation without polical favors? You are delusional....
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
If Europe can handle nuclear power (hell...Iran can do it), why can't we?

We can...it's just our ridiculous saftey regulations make nuclear power not profitable. That's actually the case for most of our businesses nowadays, ie. outsourcing. Most of the time, it's not the salaries killing manufactoring here, it's the taxes and regulations. Our govt is way too intruisive in business.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
If Europe can handle nuclear power (hell...Iran can do it), why can't we?

We can...it's just our ridiculous saftey regulations make nuclear power not profitable. That's actually the case for most of our businesses nowadays, ie. outsourcing. Most of the time, it's not the salaries killing manufactoring here, it's the taxes and regulations. Our govt is way too intruisive in business.

That's BS. It's the pay.

My company:

Average US worker pay and benefits (all plants): $20 plus an hour
Mexico: $1.02 an hour
China: $0.98 per DAY

Check our Mexico taxes vs US taxes while you're at it. You'll be suprised.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: conjur
If Europe can handle nuclear power (hell...Iran can do it), why can't we?
We can...it's just our ridiculous saftey regulations make nuclear power not profitable. That's actually the case for most of our businesses nowadays, ie. outsourcing. Most of the time, it's not the salaries killing manufactoring here, it's the taxes and regulations. Our govt is way too intruisive in business.
Ok, DeLay, Jr. We *need* the regulations. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to drink our water without expensive purification systems in every home and every city would be under Ozone Action Alert Days in the summer. It also helps products produced for our use be safe to operate or use.

And, corporate taxes?

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0

Read that and tell me how corporate tax increases compare to individual tax increases.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
hydrogen - president has put reseach money this way.
FFV-??
ethanol-- more big farm subsidies?
natural gas--from where? Maybe those places the pres opened up for exploration?
electric -- more nukes, check
etc.
looks like the pres is going the direction you want, when it comes to energy.
mm hmmm

He postures a lot and if he's doing anything along any of those lines it's certainly not for the environment or for pragmatic purposes, it's solely for his business buddies to continue to make bank.

If it results in our being able to transition to hydrogen, nuclear and other CLEAN sources of energy en masse versus staying on oil until the last drop runs dry, what's the goddamn difference what his motive is? LOTS of people will be helped by these transitions, NOT just business. A cleaner world where we aren't FUNDING the terrorist middle eastern nations of SAVAGES is something we ALL can benefit from and enjoy.

Think about the bigger picture for once.

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Because if he was that damn worried about protecting our environment, he'd have been pushing hard all throughout his presidency. He was more worried about making money for the military-industrial complex and spreading the new colonialism.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
You don't. But, you're missing the point I was making. The president is pro-business. He's Tom DeLay with better advisors. He'll do anything that benefits businesses over individuals and the environment.

He probably WOULD, given his stance on illegal immigration, but you're barking up the wrong tree on this issue. These measures will benefit EVERYONE, not just business.

Jason
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Three points.

1. No one mentioned Venezuela. They were one of our bigger sources of oil. That was, until President Clinton supported Hugo Chavez and helped him into power. Given that Chavez is a Communist once the oil began to flow out of Venezuela again it was going not flowing toward the U.S.

2. Better to be pro-business than in league with businesses like the Fascists. (Fascism = Communism but with big business working with the Government to control.) At least with businesses we can vote daily with our money.

Now, go look at the top big business "owners" and see where their loyalties lie. Here are two for you. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Should I mention that Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay sent 80% of their money to the democrats... well, until a few months before us minions found out about their corruption. They sent huge donations to the republicans at the last minute hoping that they could be protected or even bailed out.

Notice that the biggest businesses (Unions, both Teachers and Labor) illegally force their members to make politcal donations (via dues) and, in the case of the Teachers unions, illegaly donate to to their favorite politicians. The democrats.

Look at the the average contributions made to the presidential candidates. The average contribution is many times higher for the democrats than the republicans. Yes, I am aware of the stats that show them to be fairly equal when contributions UNDER $200 are ignored.

Look, both parties are corrupt. We need a third party to fix the problem. No third party can be viable unless run off elections are forced when no candidate gets 50% of the electoral votes. Thus, we can't fix it easily.

How to fix it? Get rid of partisan politics by voting for which ever candidate most strongly supports the Constitution and demonstrates good character. One party, however, says character doesn't matter which makesOUR job (liberal and conservative) harder.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: conjur
You don't. But, you're missing the point I was making. The president is pro-business. He's Tom DeLay with better advisors. He'll do anything that benefits businesses over individuals and the environment.
So basically you want new natural gas finds, ethonal and nuke plants, but you dont want business to do it. I guess you want these to be state run operations?
And, yet again, my point sails HIGH over your head.

Actually what happened is that yet again you FAILED TO MAKE A POINT. It's a common enough occurrence, however, so I don't know why any of us should be surprised. I mean, today does end in "y", after all.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Because if he was that damn worried about protecting our environment, he'd have been pushing hard all throughout his presidency. He was more worried about making money for the military-industrial complex and spreading the new colonialism.

Ah yes, the buzzwords of your Socialist clique rise again.

:cookie:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.

And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
Because we have NO RIGHT to force our way of life onto any other country! That's the problem!
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
Because we have NO RIGHT to force our way of life onto any other country! That's the problem!

You have a serious failure to understand principles here, which doesn't surprise me. Capitalism and Civil Liberty is NOT the imposition of "our way of life" on others. It is the *REMOVAL* of impositions upon them by their own tyrannical forms of government. Your argument is tantamount to saying "Those poor [deleted] are used to being slaves! We have no right to force freedom on them!"

In other words, Conjure, you fail entirely to understand what the hell you're talking about. Again.

Jason

---

I understand you were trying to make a point, but your choice of language is a bit excessive on forums that are read internationally.

AnandTech Moderator
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
Because we have NO RIGHT to force our way of life onto any other country! That's the problem!
You have a serious failure to understand principles here, which doesn't surprise me. Capitalism and Civil Liberty is NOT the imposition of "our way of life" on others. It is the *REMOVAL* of impositions upon them by their own tyrannical forms of government. Your argument is tantamount to saying "Those poor awesome people are used to being slaves! We have no right to force freedom on them!"

In other words, Conjure, you fail entirely to understand what the hell you're talking about. Again.

Jason
No, you fail to understand that we have NO RIGHT telling or forcing another country how to form their government or run their industries and extract their resources. Simply because we have a big military gives us NO RIGHT to make use of that military to make more profits for American companies.

Do you even know how many democratically-elected leaders (that weren't a threat to the U.S. nor slaughtering their own people) the U.S. has forcefully removed from other countries? It's not zero and it should be.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
Because we have NO RIGHT to force our way of life onto any other country! That's the problem!
You have a serious failure to understand principles here, which doesn't surprise me. Capitalism and Civil Liberty is NOT the imposition of "our way of life" on others. It is the *REMOVAL* of impositions upon them by their own tyrannical forms of government. Your argument is tantamount to saying "Those poor awesome people are used to being slaves! We have no right to force freedom on them!"

In other words, Conjure, you fail entirely to understand what the hell you're talking about. Again.

Jason
No, you fail to understand that we have NO RIGHT telling or forcing another country how to form their government or run their industries and extract their resources. Simply because we have a big military gives us NO RIGHT to make use of that military to make more profits for American companies.

Do you even know how many democratically-elected leaders (that weren't a threat to the U.S. nor slaughtering their own people) the U.S. has forcefully removed from other countries? It's not zero and it should be.

You're wrong, yet again. A FREE nation has *every* moral right to topple a dictatorial nation at any time. That's not to say we have a DUTY to do so, but we ALWAYS have the RIGHT to do so.

Setting people FREE is not "telling them how to do things", it's telling those who OPPRESS the masses of their people that THEY have no right to dictate the terms of these people's lives. A good case in point is Saddam: He was a DICTATOR who murdered by the millions and forced the people to practically worship him. People lived in constant fear of his or his son's wrath, afraid to speak their opinions because to do so was to risk being tortured, imprisoned or murdered.

Will you stand here and say that Saddam had a RIGHT to put the Iraqi people through that kind of lifestyle but WE had no right to stop him?

Jason
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
Because we have NO RIGHT to force our way of life onto any other country! That's the problem!

You have a serious failure to understand principles here, which doesn't surprise me. Capitalism and Civil Liberty is NOT the imposition of "our way of life" on others. It is the *REMOVAL* of impositions upon them by their own tyrannical forms of government. Your argument is tantamount to saying "Those poor awesome people are used to being slaves! We have no right to force freedom on them!"

In other words, Conjure, you fail entirely to understand what the hell you're talking about. Again.

Jason

I for one am totally offended by your flippant use of the "n" word, particularly in such a ridiculous analogy. Only an idiot would use the system of slavery that the USA itself implemented as an example of the USA bringing freedom to oppressed people. Little wonder you can't fathom the hypocirsy and criminal nature of what Bush is doing in Iraq.



 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Do you even know how many democratically-elected leaders (that weren't a threat to the U.S. nor slaughtering their own people) the U.S. has forcefully removed from other countries? It's not zero and it should be.

Do tell, Conjur, how many? How many democratically elected leaders, who lead countries that were peaceful and the government respected the private rights of the people, including civil and economic liberties, have we removed? I would like an itemized list of who, where and when and under what circumstances.

You claimed it, now BACK IT UP.

Jason
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
What buzzword? Spreading capitalism has been the prime directive of the GOP since at least the Reagan years.
And the problem with spreading Capitalism is what? Or perhaps you don't understand enough about political economy to realize that Capitalism is the economic corollary to civil liberty?

Jason
Because we have NO RIGHT to force our way of life onto any other country! That's the problem!
You have a serious failure to understand principles here, which doesn't surprise me. Capitalism and Civil Liberty is NOT the imposition of "our way of life" on others. It is the *REMOVAL* of impositions upon them by their own tyrannical forms of government. Your argument is tantamount to saying "Those poor ****** are used to being slaves! We have no right to force freedom on them!"

In other words, Conjure, you fail entirely to understand what the hell you're talking about. Again.

Jason
No, you fail to understand that we have NO RIGHT telling or forcing another country how to form their government or run their industries and extract their resources. Simply because we have a big military gives us NO RIGHT to make use of that military to make more profits for American companies.

Do you even know how many democratically-elected leaders (that weren't a threat to the U.S. nor slaughtering their own people) the U.S. has forcefully removed from other countries? It's not zero and it should be.

You're wrong, yet again. A FREE nation has *every* moral right to topple a dictatorial nation at any time. That's not to say we have a DUTY to do so, but we ALWAYS have the RIGHT to do so.

Setting people FREE is not "telling them how to do things", it's telling those who OPPRESS the masses of their people that THEY have no right to dictate the terms of these people's lives. A good case in point is Saddam: He was a DICTATOR who murdered by the millions and forced the people to practically worship him. People lived in constant fear of his or his son's wrath, afraid to speak their opinions because to do so was to risk being tortured, imprisoned or murdered.

Will you stand here and say that Saddam had a RIGHT to put the Iraqi people through that kind of lifestyle but WE had no right to stop him?

Jason
Who's talking about dictatorships? I'm talking about countries with freely elected leaders that are not tyrants killing, torturing, etc. their people. There's more to this world than Iraq, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia.


BTW, how'd you get that slur past the word filters? Good job.