Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Clasic. Your post was SOMEWHAT TIC (thanks for the caps on that one), followed by your "guarantee" that it will happen. I think you may need to brush up on the TIC meaning.
Obama didn't say the government was going to pay for it. He said he would ensure it was available to everyone. Private enterprise is making this a reality in many cities already (ala San Francisco). Corporations have proven that they are far more than willing to foot the bill to put in wifi in many cities where they have received cooperation from local governments. He is simply promising the support of the federal government.
The US IS behind in wifi technology. Far behind. You can whine and say "yeah, but they are socialist!" But it doesn't change the fact that they are beating our socks off in that area. Wifi is good for everyone. So why shouldn't we want it for everyone as a matter of national policy?
Oh, and I do love the hypocrisy of saying that this is "buying votes" (when he hasn't promised to fund it in the first place), but cutting taxes isn't the same thing- right?
Pray tell- what is the difference? I know you support a candidate who promises to cut taxes.
|
Hey Wannabe-Cali Coug (since you never answered if you are a CA native or not, I will assume youre not, thus you are now "Wannabe" until you inform otherwise), I guarantee that people will call for the government to provide free laptops, not that the gov will actually do it. Understand? Sorry for assuming too much regarding your reading comprehension.
The difference is, one candidate is telling me what the government is going to do with my money, the other is telling me I can keep the money and do what I want with it. That's the difference between idiots like Hillary Clinton, and people that support her. They think the government can do a better job spending my money than I can.