Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (391746)	6/17/2008 12:30:38 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578101

So in typical lib fashion you put the penalty on the poor and elderly who either can't afford new cars or prefer the size for safety. Of course in your head it's people being piggish and they need to be taxed to conform. Perhaps we need to give vouchers and tax breaks to the poor. What about the poor illegals that need to haul their lawn equipment to your house? Exactly. It is the same as with the low-flush toilets -- a totally unnecessary government interference that ended up being counterproductive and more expensive for the end user.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (391746)	6/17/2008 1:14:12 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578101

So in typical lib fashion you put the penalty on the poor and elderly who either can't afford new cars or prefer the size for safety. Of course in your head it's people being piggish and they need to be taxed to conform. Perhaps we need to give vouchers and tax breaks to the poor. People can afford to buy brand new efficient cars if they get a $5K a year subsidy. That almost pays the car payment on a $20K car. And would accelerate the replacement cycle, which is the point.