Olberman SLAMS into Palin for being a huge bitch

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Alaska's checks for oil was setup long before Palin showed up. It was constitutionally created 30 years ago.

But she could say she is against it, if she wanted to; instead, she praises it.

But I think it's a non-issue, given the situation in Alaska, *except* for her so dishonestly attacking Obama.

The right's one-sided views on the system 'redistributing wealth' - ok as long as it's going up, not down - are wrong IMO.

My view is simple: the system should promote egalitarianism and reward productivity.

That requires both an investment in people, a moral safety net for people, and freedom for people to 'get rich' - just not to the point it's counterproductive concentration of wealth.

We're at that point, where the concentration of wealth is not productively incenting productivity, but rather is warping power in our society with the wealthy dominating.

Collecting income taxes from individuals isnt the same as collecting royalties from gas companies extracting profit from public lands.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Alaska's checks for oil was setup long before Palin showed up. It was constitutionally created 30 years ago.

But she could say she is against it, if she wanted to; instead, she praises it.

But I think it's a non-issue, given the situation in Alaska, *except* for her so dishonestly attacking Obama.

The right's one-sided views on the system 'redistributing wealth' - ok as long as it's going up, not down - are wrong IMO.

My view is simple: the system should promote egalitarianism and reward productivity.

That requires both an investment in people, a moral safety net for people, and freedom for people to 'get rich' - just not to the point it's counterproductive concentration of wealth.

We're at that point, where the concentration of wealth is not productively incenting productivity, but rather is warping power in our society with the wealthy dominating.

Collecting income taxes from individuals isnt the same as collecting royalties from gas companies extracting profit from public lands.

Is the idea of "public lands" a Socialist idea?

 

[dennilfloss]

I like Olberman, great voice, delivery and word choice, plus no-nonsense. He is quite instructive and entertaining. Reminds me of Bill Buckley during the 80s.:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Alaska's checks for oil was setup long before Palin showed up. It was constitutionally created 30 years ago.

But she could say she is against it, if she wanted to; instead, she praises it.

But I think it's a non-issue, given the situation in Alaska, *except* for her so dishonestly attacking Obama.

The right's one-sided views on the system 'redistributing wealth' - ok as long as it's going up, not down - are wrong IMO.

My view is simple: the system should promote egalitarianism and reward productivity.

That requires both an investment in people, a moral safety net for people, and freedom for people to 'get rich' - just not to the point it's counterproductive concentration of wealth.

We're at that point, where the concentration of wealth is not productively incenting productivity, but rather is warping power in our society with the wealthy dominating.

Collecting income taxes from individuals isnt the same as collecting royalties from gas companies extracting profit from public lands.

Is the idea of "public lands" a Socialist idea?

No, why?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
How the h3ll is Alaska "socialist"?

Fern

How many checks a year do you get from your state?

Amazingly I don't get any. I also don't get an energy subsidy check from anyone.

Where's my handout?

Then pack your bags and head for Alaska, Free money, Yahooooo!!!!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
How the h3ll is Alaska "socialist"?

Fern

How many checks a year do you get from your state?

Amazingly I don't get any. I also don't get an energy subsidy check from anyone.

Where's my handout?

Do you live in a state which extracts a highly valued energy source?

I live in Texas, and natural gas is extracted by the buttload (lol). I don't get a state check for it. Strange.

Do you think it proper to pay Alaskans just for living there?

Obviously the state of Alaska should be letting the oil companies pump all tha oil and natural gas for free, right?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
I like Olberman, great voice, delivery and word choice, plus no-nonsense. He is quite instructive and entertaining. Reminds me of Bill Buckley during the 80s.:thumbsup:

You have gotta be kidding. Olberman is no Buckley. He is to the left what Rush Limbaugh was to the right.

 

[DealMonkey]

IMHO, Palin is running a mini version of Venezuela up there in America's 49th state.

First the state takes an ownership share in one of the state's only and best means of production, the North Slope. Then, they start to extract royalties from the oil companies who plunder it, redistributing the wealth to the state's citizens. Now, Palin, like Chavez, has increased those oil royalties, distributing even more of the wealth to the state's citizens.

Remember, this is land that the federal government paid for, but now the state is assuming control of both the natural resources but also heavily invested in the infrastructure to deliver it, seeking to own pipelines, etc.

What's next? A Chavez-style move to assume ownership of the state's oil reserves?

Palin is both a socialist and a redistributor. Although I'm quite sure the usual apologists (Fern?) will arrive shortly to both apologize and argue semantics, while shifting the socialist label to Obama who merely wants to tweak our nation's progressive tax system and whose policies have nothing to do with socialism.

Go for it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
IMHO, Palin is running a mini version of Venezuela up there in America's 49th state.

First the state takes an ownership share in one of the state's only and best means of production, the North Slope. Then, they start to extract royalties from the oil companies who plunder it, redistributing the wealth to the state's citizens. Now, Palin, like Chavez, has increased those oil royalties, distributing even more of the wealth to the state's citizens.

Remember, this is land that the federal government paid for, but now the state is assuming control of both the natural resources but also heavily invested in the infrastructure to deliver it, seeking to own pipelines, etc.

What's next? A Chavez-style move to assume ownership of the state's oil reserves?

Palin is both a socialist and a redistributor. Although I'm quite sure the usual apologists (Fern?) will arrive shortly to both apologize and argue semantics, while shifting the socialist label to Obama who merely wants to tweak our nation's progressive tax system and whose policies have nothing to do with socialism.

Go for it.

Hey, that's not fair! Palin called Obama a Socialist first!!!

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Alaska's checks for oil was setup long before Palin showed up. It was constitutionally created 30 years ago.

But she could say she is against it, if she wanted to; instead, she praises it.

But I think it's a non-issue, given the situation in Alaska, *except* for her so dishonestly attacking Obama.

The right's one-sided views on the system 'redistributing wealth' - ok as long as it's going up, not down - are wrong IMO.

My view is simple: the system should promote egalitarianism and reward productivity.

That requires both an investment in people, a moral safety net for people, and freedom for people to 'get rich' - just not to the point it's counterproductive concentration of wealth.

We're at that point, where the concentration of wealth is not productively incenting productivity, but rather is warping power in our society with the wealthy dominating.

Collecting income taxes from individuals isnt the same as collecting royalties from gas companies extracting profit from public lands.

Is the idea of "public lands" a Socialist idea?

No, why?

1st plank of the Communist Manifesto:

Marx and Engels:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

The elimination of private property and rent acquired through public lands to be used for public purpose. Certainly, the state of Alaska has not abolished private ownership, but they certainly own this specific piece of land upon which they do collect rent from a private industry. This rent is then given to the public. One might certainly make the case this is a Socialist idea. The conservative National Taxpayers Union believes so anyway.

Of course, free public education, progressive taxation, etc are planks as well. One plank that conservatives here might like

Marx and Engels:

Equal obligation of all to work.

 

[digiram]

I'm from Buffalo, and I don't get a dime for a single chicken wing that's produced.

 

[Lanyap]

Olberman is a bitch. He needs to go back to sports. He's like Billo on steroids.

Originally posted by: digiram
I'm from Buffalo, and I don't get a dime for a single chicken wing that's produced.

You need a wing tax. Don't eat the rooster fries.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Olberman is too intense for me. I agree with his sentiments but I won't watch his show.

Yup... Correct on most issues, but way overly dramatic, and... annoying. Is he possibly related to Pelosi?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Lanyap
Olberman is a bitch. He needs to go back to sports. He's like Billo on steroids.

Originally posted by: digiram
I'm from Buffalo, and I don't get a dime for a single chicken wing that's produced.

You need a wing tax. Don't eat the rooster fries.

Bitchiness + media = profit

Coulter has made a CAREER out of this principle.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
IMHO, Palin is running a mini version of Venezuela up there in America's 49th state.

First the state takes an ownership share in one of the state's only and best means of production, the North Slope. Then, they start to extract royalties from the oil companies who plunder it, redistributing the wealth to the state's citizens. Now, Palin, like Chavez, has increased those oil royalties, distributing even more of the wealth to the state's citizens.

Remember, this is land that the federal government paid for, but now the state is assuming control of both the natural resources but also heavily invested in the infrastructure to deliver it, seeking to own pipelines, etc.

What's next? A Chavez-style move to assume ownership of the state's oil reserves?

Palin is both a socialist and a redistributor. Although I'm quite sure the usual apologists (Fern?) will arrive shortly to both apologize and argue semantics, while shifting the socialist label to Obama who merely wants to tweak our nation's progressive tax system and whose policies have nothing to do with socialism.

Go for it.

You do realize that the federal government gets a 50/50 split over the oil leases, this is not Alaska is not just getting the benefit from the oil.

The state doesn't in a income tax, it pays for its services, it has money left over. Give the money back to the people. This is not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

If the Federal government could some how pull the miracle of not taxing people and have a budget surplus - i wouldn't have a problem it giving money back to the people either.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Fern
How the h3ll is Alaska "socialist"?

Fern

Because Alaska gets more from the federal government than its citizens pay in federal taxes.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Face it Republicans. The socialist argument is a joke and you know it. You have nothing to run on, only character assassination. It's actually really sad to see you keep fighting.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Alaska's checks for oil was setup long before Palin showed up. It was constitutionally created 30 years ago.

But she could say she is against it, if she wanted to; instead, she praises it.

But I think it's a non-issue, given the situation in Alaska, *except* for her so dishonestly attacking Obama.

The right's one-sided views on the system 'redistributing wealth' - ok as long as it's going up, not down - are wrong IMO.

My view is simple: the system should promote egalitarianism and reward productivity.

That requires both an investment in people, a moral safety net for people, and freedom for people to 'get rich' - just not to the point it's counterproductive concentration of wealth.

We're at that point, where the concentration of wealth is not productively incenting productivity, but rather is warping power in our society with the wealthy dominating.

Collecting income taxes from individuals isnt the same as collecting royalties from gas companies extracting profit from public lands.

Is the idea of "public lands" a Socialist idea?

No, why?

1st plank of the Communist Manifesto:

Marx and Engels:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

The elimination of private property and rent acquired through public lands to be used for public purpose. Certainly, the state of Alaska has not abolished private ownership, but they certainly own this specific piece of land upon which they do collect rent from a private industry. This rent is then given to the public. One might certainly make the case this is a Socialist idea. The conservative National Taxpayers Union believes so anyway.

Of course, free public education, progressive taxation, etc are planks as well. One plank that conservatives here might like

Marx and Engels:

Equal obligation of all to work.

Nice reach. Public lands such as national\state refuges and parks imo dont fall under the guise of socialism. Especially in this situation where a private party is allowed to make a profit off the public lands.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Alaska's checks for oil was setup long before Palin showed up. It was constitutionally created 30 years ago.

But she could say she is against it, if she wanted to; instead, she praises it.

But I think it's a non-issue, given the situation in Alaska, *except* for her so dishonestly attacking Obama.

The right's one-sided views on the system 'redistributing wealth' - ok as long as it's going up, not down - are wrong IMO.

My view is simple: the system should promote egalitarianism and reward productivity.

That requires both an investment in people, a moral safety net for people, and freedom for people to 'get rich' - just not to the point it's counterproductive concentration of wealth.

We're at that point, where the concentration of wealth is not productively incenting productivity, but rather is warping power in our society with the wealthy dominating.

Collecting income taxes from individuals isnt the same as collecting royalties from gas companies extracting profit from public lands.

Is the idea of "public lands" a Socialist idea?

No, why?

1st plank of the Communist Manifesto:

Marx and Engels:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

The elimination of private property and rent acquired through public lands to be used for public purpose. Certainly, the state of Alaska has not abolished private ownership, but they certainly own this specific piece of land upon which they do collect rent from a private industry. This rent is then given to the public. One might certainly make the case this is a Socialist idea. The conservative National Taxpayers Union believes so anyway.

Of course, free public education, progressive taxation, etc are planks as well. One plank that conservatives here might like

Marx and Engels:

Equal obligation of all to work.

Nice reach. Public lands such as national\state refuges and parks imo dont fall under the guise of socialism. Especially in this situation where a private party is allowed to make a profit off the public lands.

Marx only mentions that these entities pay rent. I'm not claiming Alaska is a Socialist state, merely stating the idea of public ownership of land that is rented to a private entity for the purpose of using that rent money for the public good is quite Marxist.

New Yorker

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist?Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine?that ?we?re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it?s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.?

Collective ownership of resources at least sounds a little Socialist, doesn't it? At least as much as "spread the wealth."