- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I suppose you would also like me to explain for you what the definition if IS is? You can't bully me into doing your homework for you, this isn't high school. Well, it isn't for me, it might be for you.
As The Prof would say, GROW UP......
The Center has been criticized for accepting large funds from George Soros, a politically active billionaire and critic of the Bush administration.[28][31][32][33] The Web site of one of Soros' organizations, the Open Society Institute, discloses four grants to the Center, all made before his entry into the 2004 presidential contest. They are:
A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[35]
A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[36]
A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[37]
A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project."[38]
Center for Public Integrity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just so every one knows, Cat used an article earlier put out there by "the center for public integrity" Great name I know....But further research into the funding of this site shows that it is far from on the up and up....
So that should be enough to take a skeptic eye at Cat's rhetoric.
j-mac
Shows I must be right and you have nothing to counter it
Theres no need to counter it. The fact that you believe either party, on the whole, cares about anything other than their individual gain just shows how deluded you are.
Just look at the facts: Who do the dems fight for and who do the republicans fight for? The answer, big corps just different brand-names of big crops
Whom are corps made up of?
j-mac
Go back through the thread, its already been documented that our gas prices are so much lower than the rest of the world because of our heavy subsidies to the oil companies through our taxes.
I thought you were opposed to higher taxes?
Really? You are going to try to play that argument? In the legal sense, thanks to a host of Supreme court issues, a crops is a super individual who sole purpose in life is to make money and is legally obligated to do so, at any cost. Its immortal, more ore less.
When a crops gets a favorable ruling in a court, or a special pass from the executive or legislative branch, the crops prospers but thats about it, in the long run anyways. Sure, a few people may get the transitory benefit of a job, but thats not permanent because as soon as profits start to decrease those people get fired and the CEO will get a bonus for making that decision.
Or more probably the outrageous taxes EU countries charge on gas. An article was posted that Norway laughs at our gas prices. Maybe if they didn't have to pay $5.38 per gallon in taxes, they wouldn't have anything to laugh about.
I see, so corporations should be unprofitable?
j-mac
well, here ya go
today: Obama floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile - The Hill's Floor Action
know the man
Go back through the thread, its already been documented that our gas prices are so much lower than the rest of the world because of our heavy subsidies to the oil companies through our taxes.
I thought you were opposed to higher taxes?
Are those "subsidies" really just tax cuts that are available to all corporations?
The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.
Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."
The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."
The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.
The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.
The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.
External pollution costs? Consumers should be paying for that, not oil companies. Consumers are the ones who burn the oil, afterall. Furthermore, the "program subsidies" is transportation which we all use. It is not a specific oil company subsidy. And saying that they are subsidized by a US military presence is very misleading. And these tax breaks, again, are they only for oil companies? It does not state that. It implies it, but never states it, leading me to believe that these people are trying to spin.
Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile - The Hill's Floor Action
vote obama, 2012!
tax drivers by the mile!
The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.
Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."
The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."
The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.
The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.
The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.
Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile - The Hill's Floor Action
vote obama, 2012!
spend 300 million!
to increase public awareness regarding the need...
to tax drivers by the mile!
LOL!
You just counting on people reading your headline without reading what your article says here
I see, so corporations should be unprofitable?
j-mac
Thanks once again for your completely unsubstantiated opinion! :sun
Great idea, With no profit to be concerned with, just doing what you like to do, not being forced to make more and more money, you wouldn't have ulcers, early heart attacks, or guilt feelings, and you'd have more time to spend with your families.
"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death." John Ruskin
ricksfolly
Thanks once again for your completely unsubstantiated opinion! :sun
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?