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: Alighieri who wrote (836344)	2/13/2015 12:57:12 PM
From: locogringo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575727

Read the thread for the last few days and see how conservatives deal with issues like alternative energy, public transportation, climate change, and the like. They ask for facts and links and reject hype and fabricated statistics. Pretty darn smart. Of course you and your ilk would have a problem with following that course.

To: Alighieri who wrote (836344)	2/13/2015 1:08:25 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575727

Al, LOL...companies like Toyota go out on that limb because liberals embrace progress...conservatives resist it.

To: Alighieri who wrote (836344)	2/13/2015 2:19:08 PM
From: i-node	4 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Tenchusatsu THE WATSONYOUTH Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575727

>> Who do you think would buy a Toyota Mirai? A conservative from Arkansas or a liberal from California? Well, I'm not sure they are energy efficient at this point, but if they were, and if there were no taxpayer subsidies, I wouldn't hesitate to own one. I've always believed fuel cells could become a Holy Grail if there were a way to efficiently produce Hydrogen. I suspect most people who think like me would find no objection to it, other than the taxpayer subsidies, which are outrageous and offensive to thoughtful people. California, though, doesn't mind being subsidized by Arkansans and Alabamans. The fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives imo is that liberals generally do not understand economics. We see that reflected in the discussions here and in the public arena. Liberals do not understand that money doesn't grow on trees and that if you take money from people who earn it and give it to those who didn't, ultimately, economic productivity stops. Most other disagreements derive from this fundamental misunderstanding. I believe in public transportation if local taxpayers want to pay for it. Otherwise, it should be funded by private companies or tolls. Period. If Seattle or California wants public transportation they should not ask Arkansans to pay for it. And there should be a federal prohibition on funding such projects. Federally funded highway projects should be rare and justifiable to avoid bridges to nowhere, which are, of course, everywhere. Climate change is bunk until legitimate (non-political) science exists to support it. I have no opposition to federally funding reasonable research costs. But it is utterly stupid to be funding taking action against it until it is shown that it exists, that it is harmful, and that we can actually do anything about it at reasonable cost. None of these criteria have been met at this point although an argument could be made that if it existed it MAY be harmful. At the same time I see liberals bitching about GMOs all over the place, even idiotically trying to avoid them. An utterly unscientific pursuit, but I don't hear you complaining about that idiocy. You see, the problem here is that some of us simply have better understanding of complicated topics than others. And while liberals do get drawn in by the emotions, most of you, it is fair to say, do not understand economics.