Hillary is at it again!!!

[QuickJet]

In a speach yesterday Hillary Clinton advised that it would be in our best interest to add an addtional tax on the profits of major oil companies. She went on to say that the monies from this new tax would go twords alternative fuel research. She also would impose a $2,500 dollar SUV on all new SUV's. Another idea she has is to increase the gas tax on all suv's.
What Hillary doesn't understand (mainly due to her dissconection to the real world) is that raising the taxes of oil companies profits only hurts the consumer since big companies in reality pay no taxes. If their taxes go up, it is imediatly passed onto the consumer. WE WOULD PAY HIGHER GAS TAXES!!!
Al Gore's stand on it all is an imediate gas tax hike of 50 cents a gallon.
Many of you stand where I do on politics, however there are a few out there that need a little FYI.

[Old Texan]

These are scary people. They want to tax everything in sight and have no clue what this will do to the economy. The ignorance of the American people fuels their abilities to work the room. The "Party of Rhetoric" plays to the emotions of fools.
Alternative fuel research is going full swing and like QJ pointed out taxes won't help only hinder. Oil company profits help fund research in the private sector. And where would this additional tax money go anyway? Into the hands of government to waste, that's where!
The Dems are quick to point fingers but too many citizens don't get the old adage 1 finger pointing out, 3 fingers pointing back at the actual culprit.

[Seadog]

Just as stupid is the notion of cutting taxes on fuel or rebates, etc. to ease the pain at the pump. If gas is cheaper, we will use more of it. That will push the price up. The market will create what changes need to be made. As the prices increase, people will drive less and switch to fuel efficient vehicles.
We do not need to cut the fuel tax, but we need to make sure that all fuel taxes goes to repairing and replacing roads and bridges. We waste a lot of fuel with poor roads and bottlenecks. Unfortunately, the most economical way of handling the problem will be to create more toll roads. Oklahoma is vilified in state and out for its toll roads, but they have proven to be the only way that we can produce good roads and maintain them. The big advantage is that unlike fuel taxes, anyone who uses the roads are paying for them. And if you don't use the roads, it doesn't cost you anything. We are paying road taxes on fuel used for boating, mowing and everything else. You can only make it viable for certain classes of roads, but with Pike Pass type system, it is almost painless to use.

[HOSS]

And to think I wanted to pipe Hillary in the anus at one time. Old girl just doesn`t know when to quit. Do you think she really has a penis? Or is that just a nasty rumor?

[Poster X]

I'm sure you're very honest but a link to what they really said would be nice.

[572Daytona]

I agree that traffic bottlenecks are a major fuel waster and contributor to green house gases, vehicles are very inefficient at idle and tend to not burn fuel completely. Where my parents live near Chicago, they've been doing major construction on I-94/I-80 for the last 5 years or so and there are pretty much traffic jams 24x7 on the interstates as well as feeder roads. I can't imagine how much gas has been wasted by this poor planning. As for toll roads, I think they just add to traffic congestion.

[hbpdub]

In a speach yesterday Hillary Clinton advised that it would be in our best interest to add an addtional tax on the profits of major oil companies. She went on to say that the monies from this new tax would go twords alternative fuel research. She also would impose a $2,500 dollar SUV on all new SUV's. Another idea she has is to increase the gas tax on all suv's.
What Hillary doesn't understand (mainly due to her dissconection to the real world) is that raising the taxes of oil companies profits only hurts the consumer since big companies in reality pay no taxes. If their taxes go up, it is imediatly passed onto the consumer. WE WOULD PAY HIGHER GAS TAXES!!!
Al Gore's stand on it all is an imediate gas tax hike of 50 cents a gallon.
Many of you stand where I do on politics, however there are a few out there that need a little FYI.
The real question is: when is the american society as a whole going to grow some balls and stop this shit in it's tracks? I thought this country was for the people by the people? But you have this **** spewing this phucking shit like it's normal thinking which is very scary. When are going to say enough is enough? I'm sure if american society as a whole were to say hey phuck it I've had enough of this shit lets do something about it, things would change.

[Poster X]

I'm sure if american society as a whole were to say hey phuck it I've had enough of this shit lets do something about it, things would change.
The general rule of thumb is to associate it with some historical comparitive. That way it seems ok. For example: in this case you could say, "Bush Sr once said, "Read my lips, no NEW taxes" and then follow it up with, "at least she's being honest about it right up front." Now it doesn't seem so bad does it? I learned this technique from smokin n hackin low rider. You can use it for almost anything.

[Schiada76]

And to think I wanted to pipe Hillary in the anus at one time. Old girl just doesn`t know when to quit. Do you think she really has a penis? Or is that just a nasty rumor?
Tumor not rumor.

[Old Texan]

"The general rule of thumb is to associate it with some historical comparitive. That way it seems ok. For example: in this case you could say, "Bush Sr once said, "Read my lips, no NEW taxes" and then follow it up with, "at least she's being honest about it right up front." Now it doesn't seem so bad does it? I learned this technique from smokin n hackin low rider. You can use it for almost anything." -PX
Does this qualify for "insultfest"?
__________________
"I'm sure you're very honest but a link to what they really said would be nice." -PX
Why a link? What validifies a link as producing fact?
A statement based on personal experience can be conveyed intelligently and the recipients can intelligently interpret it to be reliable or BS information. This is a new / different concept for some, but there are those that do quite nicely with the principle.