That is interesting. I know many of the big oil companies are investing in alternative fuels as well (not just natural gas, but renewables). I think they know oil is on the way out and, smartly, are trying to transition into another emerging industry.
2 Likes
Is that why you seem so happy all the time?
Your sources are incorrect.
âThere is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isnât there.â - Thomas Hardy
You are being more obstinate than usual and that is actually comical.
You are not denying that Hillary would have raised my taxes. You are now saying that she would have had to get it through CongressâŠwell I think we both know that. But her plan was in fact to raise my taxes.
Based on your logic nothing that Trump said matters as he has to get it through congress. Yet that didnât stop you from commenting on every word that he said. And you were correct to do so.
SoâŠyou are going to stick with the âshe would have had to get it through congressâ thing?
Itâs okay to be wrong once in a while TBâŠno big deal.
My sources are finding the names of Bushâs entire cabinet and looking them up individually. More specifically, looking at their career history.
My sources feel pretty correct. Especially considering I did any amount of research.
No, Iâm not - but I am amused that such a self-proclaimed political expert (and proclaimed and proclaimed) apparently doesnât know how basic legislation works.[quote=âzeb1, post:806, topic:229190â]
You are not denying that Hillary would have raised my taxes.
[/quote]
Hillary canât raise your taxes.[quote=âzeb1, post:806, topic:229190â]
You are now saying that she would have had to get it through CongressâŠwell I think we both know that.
[/quote]
Actually, Iâm not as sure we both know that. [quote=âzeb1, post:806, topic:229190â]
Based on your logic nothing that Trump said matters as he has to get it through congress.
[/quote]
He has a Republican Congress, so he can run the table, theoretically - but thatâs neither here nor there. You didnât say Hillary said she wanted to raise taxes on the campaign trail, you said youâd be paying more right now had she won. Thatâs different, your goal post shift notwithstanding.[quote=âzeb1, post:806, topic:229190â]
SoâŠyou are going to stick with the âshe would have had to get it through congressâ thing?
[/quote]
Yes, because you flat out claimed that had Hillary won, you would be paying more in taxes as we sit here.
That wasnât true, was it?
@zeb1 - here is your quote:
âAnd if we listened to your fearless leader who said âHillary Clinton would be better (for the US) in the short and long termâ I would be paying about 5% more in federal taxes.â
You can see my point more clearly, I hope.
Well by all means please post your information.
LOL TBâŠare you actually claiming that I meant as soon as Hillary were sworn in as President that I would automatically be paying 5% more in taxes?
NoâŠyou canât be saying such a thing.
Like I said itâs okay to be wrong once in a while. We are all human mistakes are part of that human experience.
Youâre more than capable of using google. Iâm not particularly hung up on you knowing Iâm right since the facts are on my side. If you want to do any research at all on the claim you made youâre more than welcome to do so.
Nope, I didnât say that.[quote=âzeb1, post:811, topic:229190â]
NoâŠyou canât be saying such a thing.
[/quote]
Nope, but you wouldnât be paying 5% more in taxes had Hillary won, and what you said isnât true. You know this, but pride wonât let you admit it, but I donât care either way - I raised this only because you launched into another one of your smug âyouâre always wrongâ-type rejoinders above. Pot meet kettle.
I did my research and posted a link. You have done nothing but make a claim and now you are backing away form that claim. I donât really understand why. If I am wrong please show me and then I will have gained something from our conversation. If you are wrong on the other hand then you have learned something.
This is a positive experience either wayâŠright?
So please post the information to support your assertion, which as I said, I believe to be wrong based upon the link that I posted.
Thank you
Not quite TB. What I said is exactly true. I said that if Hillary were to become President that she would raise my taxes by 5% and that is exactly what she had planned to do.
Here is one article that talks about a 4% hikeâŠstill mighty ugly for a small business person.
There are even quotes of her claiming that she wanted to raise taxes on the middle class. I donât know why you are so disagreeable but that is neither here nor there. But I think most people understand that Hillary wanted to raise taxes on folks like me.
Edit: Keep in mind I am not super wealthy but S Corps income is taxed to the individual as direct income which puts me in that category.
I understand your request. I just donât have enough motivation to look them all up again when you can do that yourself. Itâs pretty simple.
The facts are easily and widely available. I donât actually care if anyone thinks Iâm correct. I know Iâm correct, which is what matters to me. Feel free to look up Bushâs cabinet. Youâll find 19/21 held public positions prior to being cabinet members, and of those 2 non public appointees, 1 was forced to resign after fraud allegations.
What did your research entail exactly? It couldnât have entailed actually looking these people up.
Itâs your claim not mine. In any debate the person making the claim is the one who supports that claim with evidence that THEY present. But, I think you know all of this.
Well, thatâs fine but when you post things like this be ready to back them up, or just keep the information to yourself.
Okay, and all I am asking you to do is back this up. Like I said if you are correct I will freely admit it and will have learned something. But the evidence that I posted states that about half came from the private sector. So I guess I will continue to believe that as their is no conflicting evidence that I have found. And you refuse to post whatever it is you say that youâve read.
Actually I just posted that link and also have a memory of such. I have faith that it is correct since no one else has contradicted it with facts. Also, the link stated that only 8% of Obamaâs cabinet came from the private sector and I did check that out and it seems to be correct give or take a percentage or two. I also have a good recollection that about half of GW Bushâs cabinet were from the private sector.
But againâŠeveryone is fallible and if the link that I posted is wrong and my memory is also wrong then please post your information. It will only help me out.
If not no problem have a good day.
A few things:
- they didnât even read the studies just the abstracts
- they would go through studies quite quickly, he went through 65 in a 72 hour period
- often times theyâd come to their own conclusions and completely ignored the author of the studyâs conclusion
I must have missed a cabinet member the first time I searched. I thought he only had 21. Either way here you go.
Edit: Iâm slow. It counted the template link as 1. Back to 21 cabinet members.
Was the original discussion about George HW, or George W? And I did ask that above. Not that it matters a whole lot.
The original discussion was about HW and Reagan. I was going to look up Reagan after HW but I got discouraged after the 19/21 thing
Edit:
And you are claiming that the majority of George HW Bushâs cabinet held elective office prior to becoming part of his cabinet?