A Palin thread from an Alaskan

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Corbett
And like clockwork, jpeyton ignore's the fact that Palin has an 85% approval rating in her home state and finds one of the few people who obviously don't like her.
Every governor would have an 85% approval rating if their sole job was to cash big oil checks and mail hand-outs to the residents while collecting 10 times the per capita average in earmark dollars for her constituency.

Money makes people happy.

Really? Would you care to explain why other governors of Alaska never had that kind of approval ratings given the exact same office where it's so easy to do? Hmmmmm?

You very easily forget the fact that she was on the job less than 2 years and her first budget is barely starting to take effect.

Even Bush had a 90% approval rating early on. See what a little time can do to opinions?

Every president at a time of war (or an event like 911) will get incredibly high approval ratings as the nation rallies around them. Show me another governor that after 1 year, or 2 years in office has her approval ratings. I'll be waiting.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I wonder if the OP, being from Alaska, could explain the concept of "small town values" to us city-folk. Palin refers to it in every stump speech, but never explains what it actually is.

Vic's response: It means vote for McCain so the rural areas can continue being welfare queens bleeding off the tax dollars of the urban areas.

That isn't correct and is quite inflammatory. Why don't you go ahead and look at what the median income is for Alaska. I'll tell you, it is quite high.

The PFD is not welfare. It is only $1-$2k per year, and is the investment of royalties made off oour oil. Pretty simple.

I'm not sure what she means by small town values. I think my values are pretty mainstream. Please remember that I frequently travel. I've been all over (you have to escape Alaska!) and love many other places. I frequently align with what I've seen.

 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

See. You did it again. You ran to her defense. You are completely partisan and loyal to her. Your opinion cannot be trusted as anything more than someone vehemently campaigning for her.

The sports complex was a major blunder according to all indications. It set the town (with a tax base of 6-9k into millions of dollars of debt every single year for the next few decades.

No one said that "a" bridge wouldn't be a good idea. We are saying that at $350M dollar bridge is a horrible idea. Bridges can be built a hell of a lot cheaper than that. The only reason she said no to that one was because it was political suicide to not change. Stevens didn't bother changing because he already knew that his corpse could win re-election in Alaska (and it has the last couple).

The jet issue might have some merits. But it could also be spun that she had no idea that it was being used for other purposes (prisoner transport) and also had no intentions of visiting the outlying areas of Alaska that are accessible by plane only.

Very few people have insulted her outside the lunatic fringe on the far left. Criticizing her policies, decisions and her actions are completely valid and should have been done by McCain's vetting team before he picked her because he knew he would have forced half the Republican party to stay at home in November if he had gotten his true wish and picked Lieberman.

He was too stupid to do it so the rest of the country and the press are tasked with it.

I can tell by your name that this will get us nowhere.

You think the sports complex wasn't voted on? It is Alaska. People in my hometown are trying to get a sports complex built because there is nothing to do in the winter (hence the highest teen pregnancy rate per capita :) ) It was a blunder, but not the Governer's fault.

You are spinning the bridge. I live here. We are all thinking "Good idea" and then it doubles in price and Sarah pulls the plug. Plain and simple. Just because it would be political suicide to not do it doesn't mean she only did it because it would be political suicide.

Why was a multi-million dollar private jet being used for prisoner transport? Alaska has the most amount of airplanes per capita. Commercial airlines (much smaller than Alaska Airlines) can use their jets to transport prisoners. And they do. Using a private jet to transport a prisoner across Alaska is akin to transporting prisoners in Ferrari's instead of busses. There are few places in Alaska you cannot reach with a plane. You do NOT need a private jet to get there.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Apple of Sodom...would gladly trade you Governors.
Christine Gregoire our beloved Washington state Exec. has taken us from a 2 Billion dollar budget surplus to a 2 1/2 Billion dollar deficit in three years.

Thx for your personal input. As you can see The extra energy/excitement Palin has brought to the ticket has Dems in a flutter.
I expect to see Obama begin to fade big in these last days of the never ending election.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo ~~snip~~

I would be interested in how you feel about the alternative of building the new gasline alone the existing right-of-way of the Alaska pipeline to a new LNG terminal at Valdez. It looks like a much better project for the citizens of Alaska, less expensive and more quickly built, and is better positioned to supply the future energy needs of our country. And beats the crap out of moving all that natural gas thru Canada into Chicago.


I think it would be a fantastic idea. It would give us LNG now. However, I still firmly believe in drilling ANWR. We do need the oil. Look at all the cars on the highway. People talk about reducing dependency, but that is all it is.

Thanks for your input!

I guess part of the problem with the new Trans-Alaska gasline and LNG terminal was Murkowski being a crook. It looks like the 'real deal' for Alaska and the citizens (and the US). Might also keep yah toasty on those long winter nights if they build the 'spurs' they are talking about ...

The issue with drilling ANWR with me is that it will only further our dependence on oil. Way back in the 1970's as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo we managed to cut our consumption of oil by over 20%.

If we get that serious again and slash oil consumption with CNG, LNG, electric, hydrogen, nuclear, biofuels, clean coal, solar and every possible alternative energy available to us .... I just think that's the best way to give the middle finger to the Saudi royal family.

For the next few generations we can make ourselves less and less dependent on oil - and still utilize resources like natural gas from Alaska.

Who knows? In fifty years we could have hybrid-electric cars and trucks that are so efficient they can travel 100+ miles on a gallon of gas. That's where I'd like to be - not at 14mpg in my Chevy - lol
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: JD50
I didn't say that, I said that this particular person is not trolling. If you'd take the time to actually read the thread, you'd see that he's engaging in a reasonable debate with everyone that challenges him. That's not trolling.

To the frothies, everyone who doesn't drink the kool-aid and agree with them is "trolling".




I guess everyone who doesn't share your opinion is a "frothie".

Troll on, PokerGuy!
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: daniel49
Apple of Sodom...would gladly trade you Governors.
Christine Gregoire our beloved Washington state Exec. has taken us from a 2 Billion dollar budget surplus to a 2 1/2 Billion dollar deficit in three years.

Dang, I must have missed the news the day they announced that the executive branch took over legislating and appropriating money. The congress (federal or state) decides what money to spend and how, and they decide how they try to bring in money with taxes etc. The executive branch does not get to make those decisions, at most they can use a veto to reign it in a little.

The problem with crazy spending is congress, not the president, though the president can make it worse if he's not willing to veto stupid spending bills (which is why McCain is the correct choice).
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Thanks for your input!

I guess part of the problem with the new Trans-Alaska gasline and LNG terminal was Murkowski being a crook. It looks like the 'real deal' for Alaska and the citizens (and the US). Might also keep yah toasty on those long winter nights if they build the 'spurs' they are talking about ...

The issue with drilling ANWR with me is that it will only further our dependence on oil. Way back in the 1970's as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo we managed to cut our consumption of oil by over 20%.

If we get that serious again and slash oil consumption with CNG, LNG, electric, hydrogen, nuclear, biofuels, clean coal, solar and every possible alternative energy available to us .... I just think that's the best way to give the middle finger to the Saudi royal family.

For the next few generations we can make ourselves less and less dependent on oil - and still utilize resources like natural gas from Alaska.

Who knows? In fifty years we could have hybrid-electric cars and trucks that are so efficient they can travel 100+ miles on a gallon of gas. That's where I'd like to be - not at 14mpg in my Chevy - lol

I see your point. I don't think America is at a point where we are ready to ween. If we want to cause action by holding onto oil, that is one thing and I can go either way on it. Not drilling because ANWR is pristine? BAH! It is a place no one lives or even visits. Imagine a desert with only sand. No water. No buildings. No tribes. That is ANWR, only colder and with snow.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Corbett
And like clockwork, jpeyton ignore's the fact that Palin has an 85% approval rating in her home state and finds one of the few people who obviously don't like her.
Every governor would have an 85% approval rating if their sole job was to cash big oil checks and mail hand-outs to the residents while collecting 10 times the per capita average in earmark dollars for her constituency.

Money makes people happy.

Really? Would you care to explain why other governors of Alaska never had that kind of approval ratings given the exact same office where it's so easy to do? Hmmmmm?

You very easily forget the fact that she was on the job less than 2 years and her first budget is barely starting to take effect.

Even Bush had a 90% approval rating early on. See what a little time can do to opinions?

Every president at a time of war (or an event like 911) will get incredibly high approval ratings as the nation rallies around them. Show me another governor that after 1 year, or 2 years in office has her approval ratings. I'll be waiting.

Jindal at 77%

Mike Beebe of Ark above 70%

Bill Ritter of CO was above 70% during his first year and a half

Charlie Christ at 73%

Do I really have to keep showing you how wrong you are on this topic? I'm only at Florida going down the list of 2006 governors. That isn't even going back through past elections.


Edit for Apple of Sodom: by your post count and your "newness", I'm sure you are like everyone else on this board prior to my explanation assuming/insinuating that my name is political in nature. It isn't. It is based more on existentialism in nature and my questioning whether our current views of right and wrong are even remotely accurate.
 

AeroEngy

Senior member
Mar 16, 2006
356
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: AeroEngy
I am just trying to point out that being a governor is sufficient qualification.

That's great. And I think that my original point was that being governor does not make someone automatically competent at governing.

snip

And I agreed with that point ;)

Originally posted by: AeroEngy
Agreed it doesn't automatically qualify you ...

I was not necessarily aiming that at you but I have heard others immediately discount her because she is only a governor.

I also agree that I would like more information and confirmation about what she did while she was a governor to see if her time qualifies as good valid experience. I am not however immediately discounting all of it because of a latent distrust of the current administration in Washington.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Let me preface this by stating the following:

I was born in Alaska, and have been here over 25 years. I frequently travel, both within the USA, and out of the country.

I am not really a Republican or Democrat. I don't like to align with a single party. I think Bush has screwed this country for the last several years, as well.

I am not really religious. I don't believe in the whole speaking in tongues thing. I don't go to church, although I do believe that there is some higher being, which is probably remnants of going to church as a kid.

---------------------------------------

There are a lot of people from outside who only hear the mudslinging and rumors about Sarah Palin. Let's set a couple of things straight.

1) Troopergate. Yes, the trooper involved was her brother-in-law. However, he tased his ten year old step-son. Yes, it was in a controlled environment. However, people do die from tasers and this was terrible judgement from a trooper.

The guy was also a drunk and a terrible officer. Most of us believe Sarah was right in pressuring to have him reprimanded more than he was. When they say the problem was taken care of, they are referring to slapping his hand. That is not enough for us. He needed to lose his job. We aren't talking about a Wal-Mart employee; this is a man that carries a loaded weapon for his job and was seen drinking beer in his patrol car.

As noted, the trooper was previously punished for his indiscretions. Additional punishment may be seen by some as punitive and 'double jeopardy'. It also appears that as part of the 'punishment' privacy rules were broken and workman compensation laws violated. It also looks like Todd had a vendetta and was using his wife's authority (with her permission) to go after this guy.


2) Bridge to nowhere. This whole thing is silly. It started off as a legitmate need to connect a mainland town (albeit small) to the island where their airport is. Sarah initially accepted the money, but then the price of the bridge doubled, and it became ridiculous. Sarah then told congress that if Alaskan's wanted a bridge, they would build it themselves. Did she keep the money? Yes, but it went into other programs. It isn't as if she stole it. We would have been pissed if she just gave it back and didn't pour it into our state.

So yes, she said no to a somewhat good idea that got too big and out of hand. I'm not sure what the controversy is. She said yes to a good idea, that idea got way out of hand and budget, lost popularity with everyone, including her, and she said no.

I understand the issues surrounding the Ketchikan bridge and its purpose. I personally feel it is not our responsibility to tell Alaska what transportation infrastructure they want. The point of the controversy is that the Governor is representing the event in a false fashion. As part of her campaign for governor she supported the bridge. The US Congress stripped the earmark designation for the bridge. And the month before the Governor 'turned down the project' the Alaska DOT recommended that the project be canceled and suggested the ferry as a more prudent option.

This is what the Governor said on September 21, 2007:

""Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it?s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public?s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.""

3) She has done a lot for the state. She is regarded as the best governer here in 28 years. She is launching an investigation into why our oil prices are so high, and took state revenue from oil and sent us each $1200 back so we could pay for it. She DOES NOT control the price of oil.

She raised royalty fees and taxes on the oil companies by 9% - maybe that has something to do with the cost of your gas. The State oil royalty payment (coming out this week ??) to citizens is now over $3,200.00 as I understand it.


4) Our previous governer bought a jet. The first thing Sarah did: put the jet on e-Bay. It did not meet reserve prices and the state ended up negotiating a deal to sell it. How many of you would have done this?

The plane was purchased in 2005 for $3.7 million and used 58% of the time to transport prisoners both in and out of state. Yes. Murkowski was wrong in purchasing the jet outside of the legislative budget process. The jet was taken out of service when Palin became governor and sold 6 months later for $3.1 million. Note the variations in the following funding from the Alaska State budget ...


FY 2008 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,965,200

FY 2007 Budget
Inmate Transportation $1,947,500

FY 2006 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,475,700

FY 2005 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,272,500

FY 2004 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,731,800

Coincidence? It looks to me like the jet was saving the State of Alaska $500,000.00/yr in inmate transportation costs. Governor Palin has acknowledged the potential need in purchasing another aircraft.


5) Our capital has no roads (I know, it is stupid) and can be reached by ferry or airplane. This is why Murkowski bought himself a jet. At any rate, not only did Sarah sell the private jet, but she flies coach to and from Juneau.

6) She got rid of her personal driver. She saved us money by driving herself to work.

7) She got rid of the family chef. She, or her husband, cook themselves, saving us money.

Ask yourself this: how easy would it have been for her to say "Well, we already bought the jet, and all the other governers get a chef and driver, so I'll just maintain that." ?

I know I would have.

The 'chef' is still employed by the State of Alaska

8) She billed us for travel within the state. This is acceptable. You have to realize how large Alaska is. If we cut Alaska in half, Texas would be the third largest state. There are many, many places in this state only accesible by airplane. And no, Delta doesn't fly there. To fly from interior Alaska to, say Ketchikan, it can take 20 hours of travel. Let me reiterate: we have flights to Germany from here for $900 that take 8 hours. To fly from one Alaska city to another can mean 4 different connections on 4 small airlines, and can cost thousands of dollars for one trip. However, being governer, she is expected to travel and go to these small towns.

9) She billed per diem when she was at home. This is a little iffy. She followed the law though. Her "home" is technically the governer's mansion in Juneau. She chooses to live in Wasilla instead of uprooting her family. Instead of having everything provided in Juneau, she lives at her home at gets reimbursed.

Not only did she bill the State of Alaska a 'per diem' for staying in her own home, she billed the State $43,000+ to transport her husband and children.

10) She is Christian, as is 80% of the US. She goes to church, but never once have I heard her reference god or religion in any decisions she has made for the state.

11) She was "only the mayor of a small town." I've driven through that small town dozens of times. I remember how it was just a blip on the radar several years ago. Since Sarah has become mayor, that small town has boomed. Now it isn't just a blink on your way to another destination; for many, Wasilla is a destination. As a matter of fact, it is a place that attracts a lot of the money makers. They get to live an hour from Alaska's largest city, and can have their home in a small, albeit very nice, town.

The Town of Wasilla as a 'commercial hub' voted in a sales tax increase (I think it took less than 350 affirmative votes.) which the 70,000+ residents of Mat-Su borough now pay when they shop there.

12) She wants to drill ANWR while looking for alternative energy. Look, almost all Alaskans want to drill ANWR, including many native villages. Why?

First, ANWR is a very, very large desolate tundra. Think of Texas, only flatter and with nothing on it. It is not a place worth visiting.

Second, we see pictures. Caribou and other animals flourish around the pipeline. They like the warmth of it. It has not interrupted the migration of animals.

Third, there are ways to drill without disturbing the flora. In winter, they build massive ice roads that support the weight of the vehicles without realling impacting what is beneath.

If you do not want to drill ANWR, please come and see it first. Please come and see our pipeline and our current drilling stations on the north slope, and see the animals that simply walk under a 4 foot wide pipe on their way to their final destination. Come see the bears walking on top of the pipeline, and come see the caribou lying around near it. You will understand that ANWR is not a nice place, and that animals are not disrupted by the small structures we have on the slop.

We don't need more oil. We do, however, need the natural gas from the North Slope. Governor Palin pushed thru legislation that pays TransCanada $500,000,000.00 dollars with no requirement that the gasline be built.


I would be interested in how you feel about the alternative of building the new gasline alone the existing right-of-way of the Alaska pipeline to a new LNG terminal at Valdez. It looks like a much better project for the citizens of Alaska, less expensive and more quickly built, and is better positioned to supply the future energy needs of our country. And beats the crap out of moving all that natural gas thru Canada into Chicago.


Sarah is not perfect. She has made a few mistakes, but she is overall pretty honest. Alaskans love her, and many of them love her so much as governer that they will have a hard time voting for her as VP because it means she leaves us. Sarah doesn't take crap, and isn't bullied. She is a woman who cannot be bought, and it is pretty clear that she does the right thing in most cases.

See bolded. And the question about the new gasline and LNG terminal

Thank you for the time and effort you put into your thoughts .... I appreciate your support for the Governor and hope you get to keep her :)

I take it you missed Puffy's little cry fest about how much it cost him to fly his plane from NY to LA with current conditions which is why he was taking a commercial flight.

But please continue talking in yet another thread about all these dollar figures when ya still come responds to the obama/biden voting record on earmark laden bills.
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Also, right before Sarah left, she dropped the 8% state tax on oil to lessen the burden on us until prices come down closer to US average.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Also, right before Sarah left, she dropped the 8% state tax on oil to lessen the burden on us until prices come down closer to US average.

Hey, why not when Alaska gets 3 times as much back in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Corbett
And like clockwork, jpeyton ignore's the fact that Palin has an 85% approval rating in her home state and finds one of the few people who obviously don't like her.
Every governor would have an 85% approval rating if their sole job was to cash big oil checks and mail hand-outs to the residents while collecting 10 times the per capita average in earmark dollars for her constituency.

Money makes people happy.

Really? Would you care to explain why other governors of Alaska never had that kind of approval ratings given the exact same office where it's so easy to do? Hmmmmm?

You very easily forget the fact that she was on the job less than 2 years and her first budget is barely starting to take effect.

Even Bush had a 90% approval rating early on. See what a little time can do to opinions?

Every president at a time of war (or an event like 911) will get incredibly high approval ratings as the nation rallies around them. Show me another governor that after 1 year, or 2 years in office has her approval ratings. I'll be waiting.

Jindal at 77%

Mike Beebe of Ark above 70%

Bill Ritter of CO was above 70% during his first year and a half

Charlie Christ at 73%

Do I really have to keep showing you how wrong you are on this topic? I'm only at Florida going down the list of 2006 governors. That isn't even going back through past elections.


Edit for Apple of Sodom: by your post count and your "newness", I'm sure you are like everyone else on this board prior to my explanation assuming/insinuating that my name is political in nature. It isn't. It is based more on existentialism in nature and my questioning whether our current views of right and wrong are even remotely accurate.

Any recent approval rating polls before she was named VP? This guy claims her numbers are currently around 65% (not sure where he gets that), which is high, but not remarkable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/DI2008082902052.html
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Also, right before Sarah left, she dropped the 8% state tax on oil to lessen the burden on us until prices come down closer to US average.

Hey, why not when Alaska gets 3 times as much back in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes?

Almost like a distribution of wealth? Kind of like how some people want those that don't make as much to be handed money from those who make more? Sort of like a social welfare program.

You clearly support Obama, who is all about social programs and redistribution of wealth. How do you support that, but not support Alaska receiving more money back than it puts into the system?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Also, right before Sarah left, she dropped the 8% state tax on oil to lessen the burden on us until prices come down closer to US average.

Hey, why not when Alaska gets 3 times as much back in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes?

Almost like a distribution of wealth? Kind of like how some people want those that don't make as much to be handed money from those who make more? Sort of like a social welfare program.

You clearly support Obama, who is all about social programs and redistribution of wealth. How do you support that, but not support Alaska receiving more money back than it puts into the system?

At least you admit McCain is in favor of taxing the poor more than the rich to prevent such redistribution. ;)
 

AeroEngy

Senior member
Mar 16, 2006
356
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

The plane was purchased in 2005 for $3.7 million and used 58% of the time to transport prisoners both in and out of state. Yes. Murkowski was wrong in purchasing the jet outside of the legislative budget process. The jet was taken out of service when Palin became governor and sold 6 months later for $3.1 million. Note the variations in the following funding from the Alaska State budget ...


FY 2008 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,965,200

FY 2007 Budget
Inmate Transportation $1,947,500

FY 2006 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,475,700

FY 2005 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,272,500

FY 2004 Budget
Inmate Transportation: $1,731,800

Coincidence? It looks to me like the jet was saving the State of Alaska $500,000.00/yr in inmate transportation costs. Governor Palin has acknowledged the potential need in purchasing another aircraft.

See bolded. And the question about the new gasline and LNG terminal

Thank you for the time and effort you put into your thoughts .... I appreciate your support for the Governor and hope you get to keep her :)

Actually I believe it was purchase for 2.7 Million and sold for 2.1 Million. Which is probably a good deal counting depreciation. But that has been discussed in another threads.

Also considering the price of jet fuel is $3.13/gal and used to be around $1.20/gal in January of 2005. A 500,000 dollar increase doesn't seem that bad.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Also, right before Sarah left, she dropped the 8% state tax on oil to lessen the burden on us until prices come down closer to US average.

Hey, why not when Alaska gets 3 times as much back in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes?

Almost like a distribution of wealth? Kind of like how some people want those that don't make as much to be handed money from those who make more? Sort of like a social welfare program.

You clearly support Obama, who is all about social programs and redistribution of wealth. How do you support that, but not support Alaska receiving more money back than it puts into the system?

Are you saying 2 wrongs make a right then? Or just that 1 wrong is better than a similar wrong? It's not "almost" like a distribution of wealth, it IS a distribution of wealth.

What I did right here was point out that this positive you brought up about Palin is something that she could not do on the federal level, due to the different economics involved. As in, the state of Alaska is a welfare queen bleeding off the US. You reply here was nothing but a duh-version to that.

And what I support is what your candidate will not do, which is end the immensely hypocritical welfare and redistribution of wealth that blue states and urban areas pay to red states and rural areas. I don't support Obama so I much as I am opposed to your crooks who have already run and raped this country for far too long, all the while pretending to be opposed to exactly what they're doing. I'm supposed to worry about social programs in light of this fraud? Get a clue.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Good to know you like her as governor, because that's going to be her job for a long time :D
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic

Are you saying 2 wrongs make a right then? Or just that 1 wrong is better than a similar wrong? It's not "almost" like a distribution of wealth, it IS a distribution of wealth.

What I did right here was point out that this positive you brought up about Palin is something that she could not do on the federal level, due to the different economics involved. As in, the state of Alaska is a welfare queen bleeding off the US. You reply here was nothing but a duh-version to that.

And what I support is what your candidate will not do, which is end the immensely hypocritical welfare and redistribution of wealth that blue states and urban areas pay to red states and rural areas. I don't support Obama so I much as I am opposed to your crooks who have already run and raped this country for far too long, all the while pretending to be opposed to exactly what they're doing. I'm supposed to worry about social programs in light of this fraud? Get a clue.

Remember that Alaska is the welfare queen that produces 25% of domestic oil.

Yes, you are welcome.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Also, right before Sarah left, she dropped the 8% state tax on oil to lessen the burden on us until prices come down closer to US average.

Hey, why not when Alaska gets 3 times as much back in federal spending than it pays in federal taxes?

Almost like a distribution of wealth? Kind of like how some people want those that don't make as much to be handed money from those who make more? Sort of like a social welfare program.

You clearly support Obama, who is all about social programs and redistribution of wealth. How do you support that, but not support Alaska receiving more money back than it puts into the system?

At least you admit McCain is in favor of taxing the poor more than the rich to prevent such redistribution. ;)

You mean the 15 million poor that George Bush took off the income tax rolls?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
Originally posted by: Vic

Are you saying 2 wrongs make a right then? Or just that 1 wrong is better than a similar wrong? It's not "almost" like a distribution of wealth, it IS a distribution of wealth.

What I did right here was point out that this positive you brought up about Palin is something that she could not do on the federal level, due to the different economics involved. As in, the state of Alaska is a welfare queen bleeding off the US. You reply here was nothing but a duh-version to that.

And what I support is what your candidate will not do, which is end the immensely hypocritical welfare and redistribution of wealth that blue states and urban areas pay to red states and rural areas. I don't support Obama so I much as I am opposed to your crooks who have already run and raped this country for far too long, all the while pretending to be opposed to exactly what they're doing. I'm supposed to worry about social programs in light of this fraud? Get a clue.

Remember that Alaska is the welfare queen that produces 25% of domestic oil.

Yes, you are welcome.

Are you implying that the rest of America doesn't pay out the nose for this oil?
 

Apple Of Sodom

Golden Member
Oct 7, 2007
1,808
0
0
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Thanks for your insight. I am extremely leery however to take your post seriously because of a lesson I learned a long time ago that has been proven right over and over again...

Never trust someone that is unable to see the negatives.

You dismissed everything that she has done and supported her on every single issue. That to me screams and opinion that is blindly loyal and untrustworthy.

Or perhaps it's just because your a bitter, negative person. 90% approval rating shouldn't be spat on.