Carly Fiorina on Taxing the Internet

Youtube ^ | July 2000 | Carly Fiorina

[pissant]

Carly Fiorina repeatedly advocates for Internet taxation during her July 7, 2000, testimony in front of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee.

[pissant]

Just another one of those "common sense conservative ideas"

[Noumenon]

Just another one of those wacky Vichy Republicans, eh?

[bamahead]

IB4TSB

[pissant]

Yup. Now that she has Sybil’s blessing though, she’s a tough minded conservative, dontchya know?

[pissant]

LOL

[humblegunner]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2509095/posts

You needed to post it twice?

[pissant]

Different videos, spanky

[ken21]

she’s a rino.

[Rocky]

In before the SB?

What?

[Tarpon]

So you think Boxer would not be worse?

[chicken head]

heres a good one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZOvfwqDoBk&feature=related

[humblegunner]

Wow, have you ever tried writing correctly, with capitalization and punctuation and stuff?

I bet folks would take you more seriously.

[bamahead]

Either you stand for something, or you don’t.

Fiorina was for cap & trade and believed in AGW. That is, until she needed Inhofe’s endorsement.

Fiorina was obviously for overbearing internet regulation...until she needs -blank’s- endorsement.

This is how vote panderers operate. They have no principles. They shill for votes.

And if elected, they’ll simply lick their finger, stick it into the wind, and vote which ever way the latest MSM poll says they should.

Conservatives can’t keep making mistakes like Fiorina, and expect different results.

[militanttoby]

LOL. She seems fine in this, stating that if eCommerce was taxed it should only be if the current taxation system was overhauled completely, ie “simplified and modernized”.

Never happen of course ...

Smart stuff from a person who headed a technology company at the time. Deflecting proposals by counter proposals.

I’m liking her a bit better. She is not advocating a tax on the internet.

[kabar]

Devore would be better than Boxer and Fiorina.

[Tarpon]

It’s not a question of better, more conservative, I agree with you — But it’s who can win. It’s a calculation, not a certainty.

Personally I find Fioriana’s(can’t even spell her name) positions repugnant. But assuming she votes for a Republican Majority leader, it’s better than nothing. It is after all Kalifornia.

Steps, one step at a time. Although I admit, it did not work out with the current governor creep, but we have to continue to try.

[Tarpon]

I agree, and Fiorina is a RINO at best, from the start. You do not have to compromise your principles and values to make a calculation.

Is it better that we have one more vote in the Senate for majority leader, or is it better the Democrats get that vote. That is the simple calculation here, and I think in the end what Sarah did.

We must have that vote, even if it proves worthless in the end.

[Tolsti2]

Politicians. Can’t trust any of them. If you do, you’ll just be let down.

[bamahead]

We must have that vote, even if it proves worthless in the end.

Sorry, that statement is so thick in oxymoron, I can't touch it!

The same logic was used to elect Linseed Grahamnesty and Olympia Snoweball, no doubt.

I hear what you are saying as far as strategy, but I've just seen it not work enough to be fooled by it.

The crux of the GOP's problem is that they need an energized conservative base, which is hard to attain when you endorse 'mainstream' GOP'ers who campaign on one thing, then start promoting taxation and regulation once elected. This is how you get voters to sit on their hands in an election year.

[RJL]

It’s not a question of better, more conservative, I agree with you — But it’s who can win.

I understand what you are saying, but Gov Arnie was also the candidate who could win. Arnie has been a disaster for California and the Republicans.