You made your intent clear from the start and confirmed it in closing... your list is not very accurate, many on the list were from Bush and many did not receive funds... you need to look into fracking a bit more, It was Cheney who deregulated the safe water act that allowed fracking to use toxic chemicals... they used only high pressure water before, Fracking old wells is like squeezing a sponge to get the last drop, Natural gas has always been a by product of drilling and fracking, it was just burned off... You are incorrect, we do not have the resources to be the worlds largest oil exporter, we cant cover our own consumption, The waters off NC are said to be the largest natural gas reserves to date.. as the use of natural gas increaces they will tap it to market demand.. As far as g***n e****y goes try looking at holland, over 85% wind power... Electric cars.. look up EV1 ...so it can be done unless you think that America is done and cant compete any longer... I think you are wrong on many levels starting with your list.

Dave, The confusion is in your head not mine. Conservative values = conservative hypocrisy.Why don't you try and state your point clearly, because nothing in my post was relating to the conservative party, nor did I ever mention not enforcing paternity responsibilities. Was that just you typically and arrogantly posturing yourself in the usual judgmental approach. The reply had to do with a double standard and an extreme lack of respect which you and your cronies have plenty of. Woman are still fighting for equal pay for the same job, which of course the republican majority didn't want any part of, though they're the ones crying over the hand outs to single woman with children. If a woman was paid the same as her male counterpart, than maybe, just maybe she wouldn't need that little bit of money from the system. It is a degrading way of life, and you thinking it is some kind of gravy train, makes it extremely apparent that you are the clueless and one out of touch . Yours is a discriminative mind set that is still apparent in America and continues to hold us back.

Dave, The confusion is in your head not mine. Conservative values = conservative hypocrisy.Why don't you try and state your point clearly, because nothing in my post was relating to the conservative party, nor did I ever mention not enforcing paternity responsibilities. Was that just you typically and arrogantly posturing yourself in the usual judgmental approach. The reply had to do with a double standard and an extreme lack of respect which you and your cronies have plenty of. Woman are still fighting for equal pay for the same job, which of course the republican majority didn't want any part of, though they're the ones crying over the hand outs to single woman with children. If a woman was paid the same as her male counterpart, than maybe, just maybe she wouldn't need that little bit of money from the system. It is a degrading way of life, and you thinking it is some kind of gravy train, makes it extremely apparent that you are the clueless and one out of touch . Yours is a discriminative mind set that is still apparent in America and continues to hold us back.

I applaud you for sharing the proceeds of a sale of a successful business with your employees. As you said, you took the personal risk and thus deserve the profit in the sale. But you were also smart enough to recognize that you didn't make that business successful by yourself. Even the lowest person on your payroll contributed to the success. By voluntarily sharing, you showed your appreciation and recognition of that fact. Unfortunately many business owners (some who inherited the successful business) don't recognize that. Not everyone can be wealthy, but all are important and contribute to that wealth.

First, you apparently missed the point of my list. It was a response to the innane assertion by AnnMarie that only Republicans give taxpayer money to corporations.

You then accuse me of spreading misinformation, although the list is true.

You then assert that China is the reason that American solar panel companies failed and ask if we should have just not tried to compete. The answer to that is yes! China has three major manufacturing advantages over us. First they have an abundance of cheap unsk**led labor. We have unions and minimum-wage laws. Second they have abundant, cheap electricity. We have an aging electric grid running at capacity, and ever-increasing electicity rates to subsidize non-viable "g***n e****y" mandated by our president who proudly proclaims that "electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket". Third they are not hampered even by reasonable environmental regulations, much less the over-reaching ridiculous regulations our EPA and state environmental agencies impose on American manufacturers. Did you know that in most areas in this country, if a manufacturer uses water from a nearby river in their process, the wastewater they return to the river must be cleaner than it was when it came in? Does that make sense? Does that help American manufacturers compete economically? And don't even get me started on regulating CO2 as a pollutant, when in reality it is a trace gas essential to all life on earth.

You also assert that investments in "g***n e****y" are risky. That is correct simply because "g***n e****y" is not commercially viable. If it weren't for government incentives and mandates, nobody would use solar or wind power. IMO, if any product is commercially viable, then by definition it does not need government subsidies. Conversly, if a product needs government subsidies, then by definition it is not commercially viable. Look at I-phones. Apple didn't need govenment subsidies to make a product that is hugely successful.

You also say all-electric cars do have a place. They don't. The problem with all-electric cars is, and always has been, lack of range and time to charge. The only difference between electric cars from the turn of the last century and now is that today's all-electric cars have the added "benefit" of spontaneous combustion!

Fracking is cheap and crude oil is toxic, but oil from the fracking process is no more or less toxic than any other. Our president should be embracing the opportunity for this country to not only become completely oil-independent, but also the worlds largest oil exporter. We could and should be experiencing the largest economic boom in history. Instead, he is using the EPA and other regulatory agencies to try to stop the practice. You say you try to "look at both sides of everything and reason it out", so please explain to me how failing to take advantage of this opportunity is beneficial to this country.

You mentioned that our natural gas reserves are mostly offshore. That is incorrect. An added benefit of fracking for oil is that it also releases an abundance of trapped natural gas.

Lastly, you claim GE has been in many president's pockets, and that is probably true. I am not a Republican and, honestly, I think most Republican politicians are only slightly less abhorent than Democratic ones. The major difference I see is that there are a few halfway decent Republicans where virtually all Democrats have now converted to progressive liberal socialist f*****ts. Your mileage may vary.