'Sarah Palin is a F'ing Retard' - Colbert

[quote]pushharder wrote:

What one needs to understand about the above especially in the case of Alaska is that vast amounts of relatively sparsely populated western states’ lands are owned by the federal government (usually Bureau of Land Management, National Forest Service, and National Forest Service). When the federal government owns that much of a state’s land you are going to see disproportionate spending in that regard.[/quote]

That’s a good point. That federal land isn’t available to generate revenue, and it’s a resource that’s made available to all, so the state is ‘paying’ the rest of the country in that way.

I wonder how a graph of ‘percentage of federal land vs. ratio of federal dollars received per federal taxes paid’ would look… Your point suggests a strong positive correlation.

Petulance is unbecoming.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It seems to me that that could not be counted as “their socialism” but rather Federal socialism, in a non-precise sense.

You could call it their receipt of Federal socialism, again in a non-precise sense, but the claim was that we are paying for “their socialism.”

While perhaps something else was intended, I would have to intepret that as referring to, while not actual government ownership of the means of production, government receipt of lease money on some important means of production, and distribution of these proceeds (with investment involved) to the people.

Or perhaps the government ownership of these investments, rather than receipt of the royalties, with resulting distribution to the people is “their socialism.”

If not these, then what is “their socialism” ?[/quote]

Makes sense (assuming I understand what you’re saying).

I have a feeling what I mentioned was not what he meant by “their socialism”, but that’s just a guess I can’t back up.

I tend to look at the ‘big picture’ – in a specific category there are almost always imbalances, but when combining all the categories (ie - big picture) the imbalances often/hopefully tend to balance out. (for example, one state may have a significantly greater share of federal monies, but that state may have less of something else to balance things out, so singling out one thing may create an inaccurate/skewed picture)

As per the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto, or at least pushing about as hard as could be done towards that.

(Note: the red areas represent only the percent ownership by the Federal Government, not exact spots of land.)

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It seems to me that that could not be counted as “their socialism” but rather Federal socialism, in a non-precise sense.

You could call it their receipt of Federal socialism, again in a non-precise sense, but the claim was that we are paying for “their socialism.”

While perhaps something else was intended, I would have to intepret that as referring to, while not actual government ownership of the means of production, government receipt of lease money on some important means of production, and distribution of these proceeds (with investment involved) to the people.

Or perhaps the government ownership of these investments, rather than receipt of the royalties, with resulting distribution to the people is “their socialism.”

If not these, then what is “their socialism” ?[/quote]

Makes sense (assuming I understand what you’re saying).
[/quote]

Man, nobody understand the words that come out of my mouth! :wink:

Due to unwieldy sentence structure, that is.

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:ZEB wrote:

First, Reagan also took on debt to:
-reduce taxes for the rich

I know you’re not stupid so please stop saying stupid things.

Reagan lowered taxes fore every single American who paid taxes, not just for the rich.

I didn’t say he only lowered taxes for the rich (top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28%).[/quote]

Oh knock it off, you posted that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich. If you felt otherwise you would have articulated it differently.

[quote]Should the rich be punished and not get a tax hike? Why should the rich be punished? Should they be punished for contributing more to the economy than the poor? No certainly not

Again – Strawman, as I never said they should be punished. You’re reading into my post things I didn’t say.
[/quote]

And you would have posted differently if you wanted to be clear about it. Wow, is that all you learned in college from your beloved liberal professors?

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Due to unwieldy sentence structure, that is.[/quote]

Not sure I can explain this well, so bear with me…

Things are related. When discussing a particular thing, many other things relate. Some folks see this so when they explain something they bring in the other related parts, and the more one sees linkages, the more complex the ideas, and the harder it is to put them all into words.

Some folks have a real gift for explaining complex issues simply.

Alas I do not…

I think you do pretty well, and my potential not-understandings are on my end, not yours.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:ZEB wrote:

First, Reagan also took on debt to:
-reduce taxes for the rich

I know you’re not stupid so please stop saying stupid things.

Reagan lowered taxes fore every single American who paid taxes, not just for the rich.

I didn’t say he only lowered taxes for the rich (top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28%).[/quote]

Oh knock it off, you posted that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich. If you felt otherwise you would have articulated it differently.[/quote]

Zeb go fuck yourself.

I said reagan lowered taxes for the rich (I should have said tax rates as was pointed out), and he did.

I didn’t say for the rich only, or if that was a good thing, or whatever else you decide to claim I said.

[quote][quote]Should the rich be punished and not get a tax hike? Why should the rich be punished? Should they be punished for contributing more to the economy than the poor? No certainly not

Again – Strawman, as I never said they should be punished. You’re reading into my post things I didn’t say.[/quote]

And you would have posted differently if you wanted to be clear about it. Wow, is that all you learned in college from your beloved liberal professors?[/quote]

I called you on your parroting the silly/hypocritical teleprompter stuff and your feelings are hurt so you’re trying to save face by making up shit to argue against.

Grow the fuck up.

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Due to unwieldy sentence structure, that is.[/quote]

Not sure I can explain this well, so bear with me…

Things are related. When discussing a particular thing, many other things relate. Some folks see this so when they explain something they bring in the other related parts, and the more one sees linkages, the more complex the ideas, and the harder it is to put them all into words.

Some folks have a real gift for explaining complex issues simply.

Alas I do not…

I think you do pretty well, and my potential not-understandings are on my end, not yours.
[/quote]

Thanks! But really, when I type rapidly and as I naturally think, quite often the sentences are found by people to be hard to puzzle out. So while I think here that you did in fact get exactly what I meant, having a little uncertainty about the meaning was I’m sure in fact due to my, excessive, use, of, commas.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As per the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto, or at least pushing about as hard as could be done towards that.

(Note: the red areas represent only the percent ownership by the Federal Government, not exact spots of land.)[/quote]

That’s a good graphic (thanks!). I’ll use the info from that 2005 link, ranking the top 10 states by how much they get back per dollar sent to the feds (the starred states have a relatively high percentage of federal land by eyeballing your picture):

*1 New Mexico
2 Mississippi
*3 Alaska
4 Louisiana
5 W. Virginia
6 North Dakota
7 Alabama
8 South Dakota
9 Kentucky
10 Virginia

Looks like not a real good correlation. From the states listed I’m guessing poverty is a bigger causal effect, but that’s just a guess.

I still think what’s-his-names point is valid tho. Perhaps poverty is just a bigger factor?

I’d think so, but have never analyzed it.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Petulance is unbecoming.[/quote]

Imitation is the… you know.

petulance

  1. the condition or quality of being irritable, peevish, or impatient.
  2. an irritable or peevish statement or action.

Your last few posts – this one included – have devolved to pure peevishness.

At least you’ve abandoned the Strawman stuff, so there’s that.

You should stick with your ‘crocodile tears’ shtick.

Yeah but Obama… uh, Obama… uh, Obama… Well, he Community Organized! He won a lawsuit against Citibank for not giving enough loans to blacks. Um… He taught in a classroom! Yes! He, uh… voted present in the Illinois State Senate. He, uh… uh…

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman. As posted in comments on Greta’s article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.

The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.

1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough Son of a gun, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt B******* Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.

2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.” Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork.” She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started… This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.

6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.

By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let
her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.

You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents’ wives.

So “You go, Girl.” I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.

I rest my case.
[/quote]

Well, now that I have seen the results from her work I can at least say she knows how to get things done. If Ron Paul doesn’t run she has my vote.

I just find it hilariously pathetic that the Dems are so threatened by someone so “stupid”.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
As per the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto, or at least pushing about as hard as could be done towards that.

(Note: the red areas represent only the percent ownership by the Federal Government, not exact spots of land.)[/quote]

That map makes a big point, but how do you equate it to comumunism?