McCain Caught Telling Two Lies In One Sentence Friday

[ProfJohn]

Before Palin was even thought of as VP they were talking about how the plane was sold for a profit.
That idea has been around for quite a while now.

 

[dennilfloss]

Republican politicians lying, err breathing? I am shocked.:shocked:

😛

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: jpeyton
What's your opinion on the fact that she brought 20 times the national average in earmarks per capita to Wasilla, and 10 times the national average to the entire state of Alaska?

Different issue. You should try to nail her hypocritical hide to the wall on that. Senator McCain sacrificed his "experience" and his "earmarks" issues when he selected his VP candidate.

And Obama sacrificed his "change" issue when he selected his VP candidate.

Which leaves Obama with nothing else to run on.

WRONG!!!!
He can still run on "Hope" :evil:

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Before Palin was even thought of as VP they were talking about how the plane was sold for a profit.
That idea has been around for quite a while now.

"idea" << good choice of words spinmeister

 

[Throckmorton]

He made a mistake. Obama makes mistakes all the time. This is ridiculous.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
He made a mistake. Obama makes mistakes all the time. This is ridiculous.

Except this mistake is used as a segue to the bigger lie of Palin's anti-earmark record, which by all accounts is completely false as well. She was the first mayor of Wasilla to hire a lobbyist to get earmarks for Wasilla, getting TWENTY times the national average of per capita earmark dollars. Now she governs a state that gets TEN times the national average of per capita earmark dollars, and expects us to think she's a reformer.

 

[palehorse]

This issue and thread are fucking pointless.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: palehorse
This issue and thread are fucking pointless.

Guess you missed who the OP is...should help you rationalize the thread.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: palehorse
This issue and thread are fucking pointless.

McCain thinks earmark spending is a keystone of his "reformer" image, and you think it's pointless?

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: AeroEngy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: AeroEngy
Well it really isn't that simple if you want to get into the details of loss / profit on aircraft.

I didn't say she sold it at $xxx loss; what I said is that she never "sold it for a profit", which is the stump speech lie.

profit: the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost

I would consider it a profit if you sold it for more than the original cost less depreciation.

Example (I made up the depreciation numbers).
If the plane cost 2.7 Mill, it depreciated 700k due to use, and you sold it for 2.1 Mill. Then IMO you made 100 k.

Similarly if you buy a car for 40K drive it for 10 years and can pawn it off on some poor sap for 30k. Due you really think you lost money?

I found a 1983 Westwind II for sale for 1.9 Mill, a 1982 Model for 1.65 , and a 1981 for 1.45 Mill. So I think she got a pretty good price.

That's what I'm thinking. I wanna live in the OP's never depreciating world.

 

[Double Trouble]

The plane was placed on ebay, it was sold (though not on ebay), and if you factor in depreciation (which anyone with a brain would), then there was a profit on book value. There's plenty of issues to go after McCain on, dumb hairsplitting attacks just serve to obscure real issues.

 

[biggestmuff]

This is the nail in the coffin! It's over! Keep up the great work, jpeyton.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: AeroEngy

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: AeroEngy
Well it really isn't that simple if you want to get into the details of loss / profit on aircraft.

I didn't say she sold it at $xxx loss; what I said is that she never "sold it for a profit", which is the stump speech lie.

profit: the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost

I would consider it a profit if you sold it for more than the original cost less depreciation.

Example (I made up the depreciation numbers).
If the plane cost 2.7 Mill, it depreciated 700k due to use, and you sold it for 2.1 Mill. Then IMO you made 100 k.

Similarly if you buy a car for 40K drive it for 10 years and can pawn it off on some poor sap for 30k. Due you really think you lost money?

I found a 1983 Westwind II for sale for 1.9 Mill, a 1982 Model for 1.65 , and a 1981 for 1.45 Mill. So I think she got a pretty good price.

A private business or individual can depreciate an asset for accounting and tax purposes.

The State of Alaska. No.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
A private business or individual can depreciate an asset for accounting and tax purposes.

The State of Alaska. No.

Uh wah? Are you smoking crack, or just stupid? Every entity can and should depreciate assets. How else do you account for the cost of using the asset? Do you think that a vehicle purchased 10 years ago by the state of Alaska is worth the same today as it was then?

Sheesh.

 

[rchiu]

Okay, so the fact that she did take action to reduce spending wasn't important, but details like where she sold it is important. And we got bunch of financial illiterate people thinking everything government sells must sell for its original value or it's a loss.....man.

 

[First]

Can be just ban jpeyton and ProfJohn and get it over with?