100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Spreading the wealth...the Palin way! | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
pingpong
on
Thu 10/30/08 01:21 PM
|
|
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. 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.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist. So, for those of you who are voting for McCain and criticize Obama for being a "socialist" for wanting to "spread the wealth"--which is worse, a socialist or a communist? Because by the same logic being used to call Obama a socialist, Sarah Palin is a communist who governs a state where The People collectively own oil resources.   edit: forgot the link! http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Its true. And the real Socialist candidate for president (Yes,there is a socialist party) was asked and he said that Obama isnt a socialist. Its kinda funny that the REAL socialists are saying that Obama isnt one of them So much for right wing logic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. 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.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist. So, for those of you who are voting for McCain and criticize Obama for being a "socialist" for wanting to "spread the wealth"--which is worse, a socialist or a communist? Because by the same logic being used to call Obama a socialist, Sarah Palin is a communist who governs a state where The People collectively own oil resources. edit: forgot the link! http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg 100% with you |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CircuitRider
on
Thu 10/30/08 01:42 PM
|
|
I say "Yea for Gov. Palin and the people of Alaska"....
 Foreign Oil companies have been collecting Our Oil from the Gulf of Mexico for years, Royalty -Free.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really ignorant viewpoint.
Obama's way: Take money earned by one group and give it another. Alaska's way: The natural resources belong to all Alaskan citizens, so they receive a share of the profits from the exploitation of the resources. Basically, the author of the article is lamenting that Alaskan citizens are able to make a profit off of something they own. So of course the author is defending Obama, socialists stick together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really ignorant viewpoint. Obama's way: Take money earned by one group and give it another. Alaska's way: The natural resources belong to all Alaskan citizens, so they receive a share of the profits from the exploitation of the resources. Basically, the author of the article is lamenting that Alaskan citizens are able to make a profit off of something they own. So of course the author is defending Obama, socialists stick together. So, should we also get checks from the airplane companies since they are using our skies to fly their planes in? What about my boss? He owns a ranch and uses the natural lakes and streams on there to water his animals, which he then sells--hey! Those lakes and streams belong to all Texans! I should get a cut of his sells. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really ignorant viewpoint. Obama's way: Take money earned by one group and give it another. Alaska's way: The natural resources belong to all Alaskan citizens, so they receive a share of the profits from the exploitation of the resources. Basically, the author of the article is lamenting that Alaskan citizens are able to make a profit off of something they own. So of course the author is defending Obama, socialists stick together. So, should we also get checks from the airplane companies since they are using our skies to fly their planes in? What about my boss? He owns a ranch and uses the natural lakes and streams on there to water his animals, which he then sells--hey! Those lakes and streams belong to all Texans! I should get a cut of his sells. 1) The skys do belong to the American people, but the Federal government doesn't have the right to do that. The Federal government only has the rights that are given to it by the Constitution. 2) Your boss OWNS the ranch. The people of Alaska get money from the oil drilled on STATE lands (The mineral rights of those lands belong to all Alaskans by their laws). If an Alaskan owned land and oil was discovered on that land, the oil would belong to the owner of the land. It's because the State of Alaska has given the mineral rights of State land to it's citizens that causes the Alaskan citizens to get some of the money the state gets from selling that oil to the oil companies. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Texas has it's own oil money. That's why Texans don't pay a state income tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really ignorant viewpoint. Obama's way: Take money earned by one group and give it another. Alaska's way: The natural resources belong to all Alaskan citizens, so they receive a share of the profits from the exploitation of the resources. Basically, the author of the article is lamenting that Alaskan citizens are able to make a profit off of something they own. So of course the author is defending Obama, socialists stick together. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's a really ignorant viewpoint. Obama's way: Take money earned by one group and give it another. Alaska's way: The natural resources belong to all Alaskan citizens, so they receive a share of the profits from the exploitation of the resources. Basically, the author of the article is lamenting that Alaskan citizens are able to make a profit off of something they own. So of course the author is defending Obama, socialists stick together. Yes, you are. Our country is based on states rights. The founders didn't give the US government the right to allocate state resources, so the STATE and not the federal government decides what to do with their natural resources. I'm pretty sure you were complaining about my education in another thread...ironic since your education is sorely lacking in the workings of our government. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JasmineInglewood
on
Thu 10/30/08 03:35 PM
|
|
Its true. And the real Socialist candidate for president (Yes,there is a socialist party) was asked and he said that Obama isnt a socialist. Its kinda funny that the REAL socialists are saying that Obama isnt one of them So much for right wing logic I can better that... MCCAIN HIMSELF said in an interview with Larry King that he doesnt believe obama is a socialist... KING: You don't believe Barack Obama is a socialist, do you? MCCAIN: No. But, I do believe -- I do believe that he's been in the far left of American politics. He has stated time after time that he believes in "spreading the wealth around." He's talked about courts that would redistribute the wealth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its true. And the real Socialist candidate for president (Yes,there is a socialist party) was asked and he said that Obama isnt a socialist. Its kinda funny that the REAL socialists are saying that Obama isnt one of them So much for right wing logic I can better that... MCCAIN HIMSELF said in an interview with Larry King that he doesnt believe obama is a socialist... KING: You don't believe Barack Obama is a socialist, do you? MCCAIN: No. But, I do believe -- I do believe that he's been in the far left of American politics. He has stated time after time that he believes in "spreading the wealth around." He's talked about courts that would redistribute the wealth. It's because he's not a socialist!!!! Some people need to look that word up. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. 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.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist. So, for those of you who are voting for McCain and criticize Obama for being a "socialist" for wanting to "spread the wealth"--which is worse, a socialist or a communist? Because by the same logic being used to call Obama a socialist, Sarah Palin is a communist who governs a state where The People collectively own oil resources. edit: forgot the link! http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg What if you criticize both for ignoring big issues? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, all Obama is, is a pointy headed, pinko, liberal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, all Obama is, is a pointy headed, pinko, liberal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was a joke
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was a joke |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, all Obama is, is a pointy headed, pinko, liberal Ohhh, stick you tongue back in. Better watch it. Some people may think what you said is the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was a joke You are bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, all Obama is, is a pointy headed, pinko, liberal You left out his ears. |
|
|
|
|
