do you have a link to those comments? I would love to see more of what she said.
Of course it smacks of socialism and she is trying to pander to the far left right now, if that quote is accurate.
It's funny, the Liberals claim to be angry at the fact oil is so big, but are willing to prop up alternative energies, basically saying they would rather have alternative energy companies make the all the money... What does that actually say about them?
Socialism is the wrong direction for this country, but they don't care, it is about the appearance of caring, not the end results.
2007-02-03 00:24:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Stone K 6
·
1⤊
4⤋
The last two days have had an increased work load and I have failed to keep track of current events. Hillary sounding off like this just shows how stupid she is. If she said this to appease her following, she is mouthing off without thinking.
I don't believe she can take profits away from a company. Isn't that called stealing? And, why should the oil companies have to support alternative energy research?
This shows the lacking in leadership and in what's best for the American public as a whole. Her first rattle out of the box was health care. Now she is attacking oil companies. Is she going to attack Bill Gates next? Or, Wal Mart? Or, McDonald's?
2007-02-03 00:17:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by jack-copeland@sbcglobal.net 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
DAMN good question! What HAS happened to free enterprise? Why was Halliburton given billions in a no-bid contract? Why was NO ONE else allowed to even TRY to get in ion some of those contracts?
If the government is supposed to subsidize business (?)when "times are slow", why is the Republican government STILL giving hundreds of million in subsidies to Big Oil NOW? Is $360 Billion gross profit still considered "slow times" by Republicans? If not, why are we still subsidizing them??
"Taking" a profiteering business's windfall profits is a pretty good way of ensuring they dont try to engineer artifical shortages to boost prices again in the future, doesn't it? How woud YOU punish them? Slap the wrist and say NAUGHTY?
Look Im not a Hillary fan, I have nothing against voting for a qualified female for the nation's highest office, and even though I was a Reagan Republican who voted for Bush 1 and Bush 2 in the first election (which I believe he actually lost), I even respect Bill Clinton for the job he did as President. I don't even care if we have a 20 odd year "Bush/Clinton" dynasty (which is stupid: The Bush's are blood and you KNOW what they say about 'talent skipping a generation', so tell me, which Bush is the shortchanged one?- While Hillary is no blood relation to the Clinton clan, if anything, this would be a Bush- Clinton- Bush- Rodham dynasty.), I care about whether the damn candidate is gonna make MY life easier or his/her buddies in business?
Just answer me one question: Who was the last Repubican president to record a surplus in the Federal Budget? Go back in history as far as you need to.
2007-02-03 00:30:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
One thing is for sure, America needs to end its dependence on foreign oil. Our options are: 1) Increase domestic production (This is only a short term solution to a long term problem). 2) Conserve energy use (American people are too spoiled for this) and the only way to get them to conserve is to raise prices. 3) Nationalize the energy industry. 4) Develop alternative sources of energy (someone has to pay for this).
2007-02-03 00:30:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you think that what the oil companies engage in is free enterprise, you are not thinking. Every 10 cents a gallon the gas prices go up is a billion dollars profit a month. YOu know how many ten cent increments the price has gone up in since Bush? You remember the huge dramatic drop in prices right before the election? You heard of Cheney's secret meeting with the energy folks in 01? You heard of Bush's oil war in Iraq?
This is not free enterprise. Free Enterprise would be nice.
2007-02-03 00:06:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by cassandra 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
what's at situation right it truly is the conflict. even as us of a has its troops in harms way, we could no longer be attacking their Commander-in-chief through calling him names, claiming he's stupid or making wild accusations of criminality. Doing so harms our troops moral and encourages the enemy. as well to, that is a possibility to be in competition to the targets of the President's administration without personal assaults or phony investigations. The time period for the celebration no longer in skill has continually been the "dependable competition". There are sturdy strategies to oppose and undesirable strategies to oppose. bill Clinton dedicated a criminal offense as President. He lied less than oath and suborned the perjury of Monica Lewinsky. For this he develop into impeached. The Senate did not imagine those costs rose to the point the position he could were removed from place of work. there's a huge difference between criticizing the President and bashing the President. i develop into intense of bill Clinton for most stuff yet i did not bash him. i'm intense of Hillary for most stuff yet i do no longer bash her. the subsequent time a Democrat turns into president, he/she will be in a position of be my president only as a lot as a Republican. you may wager i'd be an outspoken member of the dependable competition even as pick be yet i am going to also help the President even as his/her moves are nicely proper. One can't be so skinny skinned that each and each and every criticism is considered as bashing nor could any American have interaction in bashing the President. like it or no longer, the President is President because he received the election. that is an noticeably complicated activity and the President benefits our help and the great element about any doubt. although, now that that is election time, one expects the gloves will come off. After the election, we pick to get lower back to being us of a, One usa less than God, Indivisible. .
2016-11-24 20:49:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Free enterprise is not practicing monopolistic in nature, they are real lucky that they are not nationalized as in other country's and told how much profit they can make. Alternative energy is the way out of the middle east and with their huge profits on the backs of the people of the world I can not think of nicer people to fund this enterprise.
2007-02-03 00:16:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I don't listen to Hillary. I think she's a nincompoop.
Wouldn't it be nice if, rather than just playing politics and trying to ride on people's anger over the high gas prices and record profits, Hillary was actually looking for the United States to become energy independent so we can stop giving our money to terrorist nations? Its doubtful, but it would be nice.
2007-02-03 00:07:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by mamasquirrel 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
It's called Democracy, and the solution to global problems is to take from the rich and give to the poor!
2007-02-03 00:42:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Hunter 4
·
2⤊
3⤋
All she does is Squeal like a pig,Can you imagine having to listen to her for 4 years while she gets nothing done. Lord help us~
2007-02-03 00:05:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Classic96 4
·
1⤊
4⤋