# Pallin Is a Public Liar



## rayboyusmc (Sep 9, 2008)

Sarah keeps up the sound bite that she said "Thanks but no thanks to the goverment for the bridge to nowhere.""

Not true.  She backed it  until it became a national scandal and then voted against it. By the way she kept the 300 million allocated for it and spent it elsewhere in Alaska.

So, backers of Mrs. Palin, is it okay for her to continue to lie like this day after day.  I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.


----------



## Article 15 (Sep 9, 2008)

Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims - WSJ.com


----------



## del (Sep 9, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.



how nice for you.
tissue?


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 9, 2008)

No, tissue just some TP for  you to wipe up the bullshit she is srpeading and you are supporting.

I guess you are saying it's oaky for side to lie since she is only a woman.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> No, tissue just some TP for  you to wipe up the bullshit she is srpeading and you are supporting.
> 
> I guess you are saying it's oaky for side to lie since she is only a woman.



only a woman  

God I love that---that's gonna win you tons of friends !


----------



## del (Sep 9, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> No, tissue just some TP for  you to wipe up the bullshit she is srpeading and you are supporting.
> 
> I guess you are saying it's oaky for side to lie since she is only a woman.



supporting? only a woman? 
you're on your own bud. has anyone pointed out to you that it's the 21st century?

tissue?


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Sep 9, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> only a woman
> 
> God I love that---that's gonna win you tons of friends !




That still doesn't answer the question and since you are a staunch supporter CLEARLY because she's a woman and not because of her qualifications(she has little), then please rationalize this?

As your name says, "The Uterus Has Spoken," right?  But this time she spoke on both sides of her mouth


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 9, 2008)

Article 15 said:


> Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims - WSJ.com



What is the purpose of posting this source?  It does not prove that Palin was for the bridge...  It is a typical loaded innuendo by 'progressives' to try and discredit their ideological superiors.

Spare us the "The WSJ is a conservative Paper..."  as it's nonsense.  The WSJ is hard left everywhere except the Editorial page.

Now what are the facts?  The facts are the Governor Palin shut down the BTNW...  Period.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2008)

bigdaddygtr said:


> That still doesn't answer the question and since you are a staunch supporter CLEARLY because she's a woman and not because of her qualifications(she has little), then please rationalize this?
> 
> As your name says, "The Uterus Has Spoken," right?  But this time she spoke on both sides of her mouth



"The uterus has spoken" is one of my favorite quotes by a poster so I thought I would hang onto it for awhile.
If you had bothered to read my posts re: Palin you will she that the ONLY reason I am the least bit interested in her is that she's about as a far from being a Washington insider as there has been for a LONG time. If she only screws up about 50% percent of the time she will have about the same record as anyone else there.
I'll see if she's worth voting for after the brainwashing.

Other than that having a woman in the mix has shook up the status quo and rocked everyones boat a bit. I've never seen so many women hate a woman that they know so little about-----oh ya-Robby too !


----------



## CA95380 (Sep 9, 2008)

"Only a woman", indeed!


----------



## Modbert (Sep 9, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> "The uterus has spoken" is one of my favorite quotes by a poster so I thought I would hang onto it for awhile.
> If you had bothered to read my posts re: Palin you will she that the ONLY reason I am the least bit interested in her is that she's about as a far from being a Washington insider as there has been for a LONG time. If she only screws up about 50% percent of the time she will have about the same record as anyone else there.
> I'll see if she's worth voting for after the brainwashing.
> 
> Other than that having a woman in the mix has shook up the status quo and rocked everyones boat a bit. I've never seen so many women hate a woman that they know so little about-----oh ya-Robby too !



Lets drag me into this convo for no apparant reason eh?

I don't hate Sarah Palin, I just think she is bat-shit insane. Like at Dubya insane level.

And I'm pretty sure I posted plenty about her positions on the other thread.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 9, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Lets drag me into this convo for no apparant reason eh?
> 
> I don't hate Sarah Palin, I just think she is bat-shit insane. Like at Dubya insane level.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure I posted plenty about her positions on the other thread.



CORRECTION: You "FEEL" Palin is bat-shit crazy... there is no means to have come to that conclusion through 'thought.'  Your position is a baseless 'feeling' that is in no way founded in reality or reason.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Lets drag me into this convo for no apparant reason eh?
> 
> I don't hate Sarah Palin, I just think she is bat-shit insane. Like at Dubya insane level.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure I posted plenty about her positions on the other thread.



What do you mean "no reason" ? I love to watch you go apeshit ! Just get some new material . If Sarah won't give you any just make shit up like everyone else.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 9, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> CORRECTION: You "FEEL" Palin is bat-shit crazy... there is no means to have come to that conclusion through 'thought.'  Your position is a baseless 'feeling' that is in no way founded in reality or reason.



No, I'm pretty sure my thoughts on her being bat-shit insane are based off my opinions on her positions. I posted her positions in a giant post in that thread.

It's founded in the reality or reason that if this woman gets the VP spot (with a chance at the President spot) then we're in deep shit.

And it's certainly not baseless in any manner.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 9, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> What do you mean "no reason" ? I love to watch you go apeshit ! Just get some new material . If Sarah won't give you any just make shit up like everyone else.



You haven't seen me gone apeshit Dillo. Though if you think you can read my feelings and thoughts through a computer, then feel free to continue thinking that BS.

I don't make up stuff and won't start doing so. But thanks for the advice.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 9, 2008)

Modbert said:


> You haven't seen me gone apeshit Dillo. Though if you think you can read my feelings and thoughts through a computer, then feel free to continue thinking that BS.
> 
> I don't make up stuff and won't start doing so. But thanks for the advice.



Well PM me then when you go over the edge----it's really got to be worth watching !  

Heard anything new from Sarah---yet ?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 9, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Well PM me then when you go over the edge----it's really got to be worth watching !
> 
> Heard anything new from Sarah---yet ?



Oh I'm sure you'll hear about it.

And yes, I have something new from Sarah. She's going polar bear hunting tomorrow with a helicopter. 

Of course I don't, if anyone heard anything new from her then I'm sure we'd be already talking about it.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 9, 2008)

bigdaddygtr said:


> That still doesn't answer the question and since you are a staunch supporter CLEARLY because she's a woman and not because of her qualifications(she has little)



gotta love you fools saying she has little qualifications while at the same time you back Obama. At least she has some executive experience unlike Obama.

I know you guys are all upset because by nominating Pallin McCain has gone from being behind to being the favorite.

Cry me a river fools.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 9, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Sarah keeps up the sound bite that she said "Thanks but no thanks to the goverment for the bridge to nowhere.""
> 
> Not true.  She backed it  until it became a national scandal and then voted against it. By the way she kept the 300 million allocated for it and spent it elsewhere in Alaska.
> 
> So, backers of Mrs. Palin, is it okay for her to continue to lie like this day after day.  I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.



Guess Obama is perfect? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4&feature=related]YouTube - Barack Obama - Gaffe Mania I - Dumber than Dumb[/ame]

So you keep focusing on Palin. Obama will eventually have to focus on a debate with McCain.


----------



## Article 15 (Sep 9, 2008)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4kQeHtgkWc]YouTube - Sarah Palin:The Two Sides Of "The Bridge To Nowhere"[/ame]


----------



## Article 15 (Sep 9, 2008)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fZPJtjNjvw&NR=1]YouTube - Sarah Palin says Yae for Bridge to Nowhere[/ame]

Maybe she got her position confused with Halcro's ...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 9, 2008)

Modbert said:


> No, I'm pretty sure my thoughts on her being bat-shit insane are based off my opinions on her positions. I posted her positions in a giant post in that thread.
> 
> It's founded in the reality or reason that if this woman gets the VP spot (with a chance at the President spot) then we're in deep shit.
> 
> And it's certainly not baseless in any manner.



Nope... There is no potential for intellectual consideration in that position.  Your position is an emotional reaction absent any discernable cerebral consideration; that it is your opinion is irrelvant.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 9, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Nope... There is no potential for intellectual consideration in that position.  Your position is an emotional reaction absent any discernable cerebral consideration; that it is your opinion is irrelvant.



So you saying Barack Obama is a muslim and is trying to destroy America has no potential for intellecutal consideration in this case. Your position is an emotional reaction absent from any discernable cerebral consideration; so therefore your opinion would be irrelvant. 

(See, I can do it too.)

I as a American have a right to a opinion and to express said opinion. I've looked very closely so far as to what Sarah Palin has supported, gone against,etc. Based off that information so far, I've come to a logical conclusion that it would be in my best and my country's best interests to not support any ticket she is on.

I came to the same logical conclusion with John McCain months ago.

You however base what you consider facts off what ifs, flimsy evidence, and a biased against Barack Obama.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 9, 2008)

Couldn't but notice that her name is spelled wrong in the title of thread. Just an observation.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 9, 2008)

Modbert said:


> So you saying Barack Obama is a muslim and is trying to destroy America has no potential for intellecutal consideration in this case. Your position is an emotional reaction absent from any discernable cerebral consideration; so therefore your opinion would be irrelvant.
> 
> (See, I can do it too.)



ROFL... No one that I know has advanced a contest that you couldn't submit a syntactical trainwreck...  

Setting that aside, would you care to provide the discussion with some evidence that my position is based in emotion and lacks the substance of reason and intellectual veracity?  I know I'd love to see that and perhaps som other member would enjoy it as well...  but who knows?



> I as a American have a right to a opinion and to express said opinion.



Indeed you do...  but that right is not limited to Americans... it is a human right, endowed to all human beings by their creator.  Americans simply enjoy government protections which prevent government sanction against a person that has advanced their opinion; now with that said, no one, including you is entitled to advance their opinion absent being held accountable for that opinion.  Which is where I come in...  



> I've looked very closely so far as to what Sarah Palin has supported, gone against,etc. Based off that information so far, I've come to a logical conclusion that it would be in my best and my country's best interests to not support any ticket she is on.



Yeah, this is the third time you've mentioned that fantasy... All I'm saing is there is no evidence from Governor Palin's recordwhich could lead a person to a conclusion; were they using logic and reason as the means to calculate that conclusion.  The ONLY means to such a conclusion is a knee-jerk emotional popular reaction, which is formed as a means adhere to what they perceive as an existing popular opinion, for the purpose of validation.

Now if you contest that position, then you merely need to post for this discussion the evidence on which you're position rests and show your math...  take a given Palin position and show the board how it is you have come to conclude that her position indicates some form and lvel of psychosis... 

When you fail to do so after a reasonable period of time, I will reasonably conclude that you've conceded the point.


----------



## Chris (Sep 9, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> ROFL... No one that I know has advanced a contest that you couldn't submit a syntactical trainwreck...
> 
> Setting that aside, would you care to provide the discussion with some evidence that my position is based in emotion and lacks the substance of reason and intellectual veracity?  I know I'd love to see that and perhaps som other member would enjoy it as well...  but who knows?
> 
> ...



I'm a hockey mom, and I like to shoot stuff. YEE HAW!!!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 9, 2008)

Chris said:


> I'm a hockey mom, and I like to shoot stuff. YEE HAW!!!



 Hey Chris... we get it that you're not very bright and need to cling to little cliches, so if that is the only point you were hoping to make, I want you to know that you've made it. 

But with that said, let me also add that it's clear to me and I'm sure the others recognize this as well; that you're clearly doing _the very best you can_; God bless ya.  Given that, perhaps you should find some other way to express your invalid opinions...


----------



## plt42 (Sep 9, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Sarah keeps up the sound bite that she said "Thanks but no thanks to the goverment for the bridge to nowhere.""
> 
> Not true.  She backed it  until it became a national scandal and then voted against it. By the way she kept the 300 million allocated for it and spent it elsewhere in Alaska.
> 
> So, backers of Mrs. Palin, is it okay for her to continue to lie like this day after day.  I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.



Well...she backed it until McCain 1) came offering an opening in the VP slot and 2) had a shit-fit that the lobbyist team she sent to DC for earmark congressional funds came back with the cash.  And you're right... Alaska kept the $233 mil.

She and McCain are a great match... Sneak and Sneakier.


----------



## SwingVoter (Sep 9, 2008)

Modbert said:


> if this woman gets the VP spot (with a chance at the President spot) then we're in deep shit.



I was a lot more worried about Quayle.   Palin's going to get Mac elected if Obama doesn't start firing some advisers soon.


----------



## Haro (Sep 9, 2008)

Does anyone vote based on the issues anymore.  The last several posts were you bashing each other.  Does anyone have a political reason for liking or not liking Palin?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 9, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Sarah keeps up the sound bite that she said "Thanks but no thanks to the goverment for the bridge to nowhere.""
> 
> Not true.  She backed it  until it became a national scandal and then voted against it. By the way she kept the 300 million allocated for it and spent it elsewhere in Alaska.
> 
> So, backers of Mrs. Palin, is it okay for her to continue to lie like this day after day.  I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.



Keep up your attacks rayboy, and tell all your lefty friends. So far none of them has proved true, but they have pissed people off to the point where they have decided to support her candidacy....


----------



## glockmail (Sep 9, 2008)

Haro said:


> Does anyone vote based on the issues anymore.  The last several posts were you bashing each other.  Does anyone have a political reason for liking or not liking Palin?


 Lots of them. My three favorites:
1. She's conservative, unabashedly so.
2. She's smart- her teleprompter went down near the beginning of her Veep speech- did anyone notice?
3. The lie of NOW is fully exposed, in all its sagging glory!


----------



## plt42 (Sep 9, 2008)

SwingVoter said:


> I was a lot more worried about Quayle.   Palin's going to get Mac elected if Obama doesn't start firing some advisers soon.



So true!  He needs to take on McCain, not Palin.  That's Biden's job.  The more he responds to her, the more publicity she gets.  He needs to get on the offense on the issues.

Everytime Palin is speaking, McCain is standing just behind and a little off to the side of her.  I'm starting to think it's a Charlie McCarthy act.


----------



## plt42 (Sep 9, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Lots of them. My three favorites:
> 1. She's conservative, unabashedly so.
> 2. She's smart- her teleprompter went down near the beginning of her Veep speech- did anyone notice?
> 3. The lie of NOW is fully exposed, in all its sagging glory!



Re 1.   She way too conservative.  That's not a plus in my book.
Re 2.   Her teleprompter was down for about 15 seconds and she had a script in front of her.  This does not a genius make.
Re 3.   She's only begun to step in "it" for her "fibs".


----------



## CA95380 (Sep 9, 2008)

onthefence said:


> Guess Obama is perfect?
> 
> YouTube - Barack Obama - Gaffe Mania I - Dumber than Dumb
> 
> ** So you keep focusing on Palin. Obama will eventually have to focus on a debate with McCain. *



** Only if Sarah say's it's okay for him to debate Obama.* 

She might not wear_ pants_ in Alaska, but wanna bet who would be wearing the pants if McCain and her won?


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 10, 2008)

The only a woman is a republican thing, buttwads.  That is why she was picked.

I happen to resepect women.  I married one for 40 years, so piss off.

But no one seems to address the fact that she has lied repeadetly and when callled on it, the right plays the picking on the little lady thing.  Why the hell do you think she has been hid out?

Here is another one of her parsing the truth.



> Sarah Palin bolstered her reputation as a reformer  and got one of her biggest cheers in her Republican convention speech last week  when she said she had sold the governor's official jet on eBay as her first act on taking office in Alaska.
> 
> 
> What she didn't say was that the aircraft had failed to sell over the internet and was eventually sold off at a loss.
> ...



Actually the jet was also used extensively for convict transport.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 10, 2008)

Keep trying Rayboy. The more you liberals whine, the higher her popularity rises.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 10, 2008)

plt42 said:


> Re 1.   She way too conservative.  That's not a plus in my book.
> Re 2.   Her teleprompter was down for about 15 seconds and she had a script in front of her.  This does not a genius make.
> Re 3.   She's only begun to step in "it" for her "fibs".




1-Too Conservative?  How so? And on what basis would do you feel that one can be TOO MUCH an Advocate for conserving the Principles and Protections set forth in the US Constitution?
2-No, it just makes her LOOK like a genius when you compare her speaking skills to the Hussein Obama...  the Marxist Muslim the Democrats are runnig only 7 years after the US was attacked by Marxist Muslims...
3-You're clearly confusing 'Palin Fibs' with damn lies of the discredited variety advanced by the moderate-centrist-progressive-radical left...


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 10, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> What is the purpose of posting this source?  It does not prove that Palin was for the bridge...  It is a typical loaded innuendo by 'progressives' to try and discredit their ideological superiors.
> 
> Spare us the "The WSJ is a conservative Paper..."  as it's nonsense.  The WSJ is hard left everywhere except the Editorial page.
> 
> Now what are the facts?  The facts are the Governor Palin shut down the BTNW...  Period.



Enough of this bullshit, you can google it and find hundreds of credible sources that support she was for it, its not even a valid argument and there are people on here trying to substantiate it.  I posted a quote from her earlier on 1 of the 100 Palen threads straight from the pigs mouth that she supported it.  Me and navy were going back and forth.  This is a waste of thread.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 10, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> The only a woman is a republican thing, buttwads.  That is why she was picked.
> 
> I happen to resepect women.  I married one for 40 years, so piss off.
> 
> ...



ROFLMNAO... SO you feel that because she put the jet on e-bay and that it eventually sold elsewhere, that this represents a lie?  LOL... _You're an imbecile.  _

Here's another clue pogue, it's a rare aircraft that is sold at anything other than a loss...  In terms of an investment, airplanes are one of those rare items, which make boats look like solid gold.  But its a matter of accounting; which is wholly subjective, as to the judgement that the sale resulted in a loss or a profit; if you idiots want to consider it a loss, GREAT... who gives a damn?  You aren't responsible for the accounting and your opinion on the issue is one absent a valid basis in fact.

What's more Governor Palin did not say she 'sold' the jet on E-bay... she said she 'put it on e-bay...'  *Which is precisely what she did...*



> The Westwind II jet had been bought for $2.7m in 2005 by Mrs Palin's predecessor as governor, Frank Murkowski. It had become one of the symbols of excess in the governor's mansion which would help the young, right-wing Mrs Palin sweep to power the following year.
> 
> "That luxury jet was over the top," she told the convention last week, in a feisty speech that was watched by 37 million on TV and established the self-described "hockey mom" as a scrappy new force in national politics. Grinning, she said: "I put it on eBay."




"Grinning, she said: "*I put it on eBay*.""


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 10, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> Enough of this bullshit, you can google it and find hundreds of credible sources that support she was for it, its not even a valid argument and there are people on here trying to substantiate it.  I posted a quote from her earlier on 1 of the 100 Palen threads straight from the pigs mouth that she supported it.  Me and navy were going back and forth.  This is a waste of thread.



False... There are not hundreds of sources to be found on this issue on google.  There are hundreds of idiots braying the same caucophonous nonsense... 

YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS as a result fo your failure to support the assertion on which it rests.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 10, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> .... In terms of an investment, airplanes are on of those rare items, which make boats look like solid gold. ...


  I didn't know that.


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 10, 2008)

publiusinfinitu said:


> false... There Are Not Hundreds Of Sources To Be Found On This Issue On Google.  There Are Hundreds Of Idiots Braying The Same Caucophonous Nonsense...
> 
> your Argument Fails as A Result Fo Your Failure To Support The Assertion On Which It Rests.



If You Say So Tough Guy!

It will all come out in the wash.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 10, 2008)

It seems the "loyal" opposition should have an easy go of this issue.

If the govenor was FOR the bridge and congress had already allocated the funds all the detractors have to do is show us the bridge.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 10, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> If You Say So Tough Guy!
> 
> It will all come out in the wash.



Very true...  Only, it's already been washed and what came out was that you failed to support your assertion...


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> 1-Too Conservative?  How so? And on what basis would do you feel that one can be TOO MUCH an Advocate for conserving the Principles and Protections set forth in the US Constitution?
> 2-No, it just makes her LOOK like a genius when you compare her speaking skills to the Hussein Obama...  the Marxist Muslim the Democrats are runnig only 7 years after the US was attacked by Marxist Muslims...
> 3-You're clearly confusing 'Palin Fibs' with damn lies of the discredited variety advanced by the moderate-centrist-progressive-radical left...



First of all obama is not marxist or muslim.  we were not attacked by marxists you retard.  You equate 'marxist' and 'communist' with evil and unamerican.  You are the type of person who is ruining America.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> First of all obama is not marxist or muslim.  we were not attacked by marxists you retard.  You equate 'marxist' and 'communist' with evil and unamerican.  You are the type of person who is ruining America.



so cial ism  (ssh-lzm) KEY &#65533;

NOUN: 

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. 

government confiscated healthcare
"windfall" profit taxes
CEO salary caps
government controlled energy laws
mortgage bailouts

Nope, no socialism here from the Saul Alinsky community organizer friend of Marxist Bill Ayers and congregant of the "liberation theologian" Jerry Wright.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> so cial ism  (ssh-lzm) KEY &#65533;
> 
> NOUN:
> 
> ...



by that definition, obama is a capitalist.  confiscated is not the correct turn.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> by that definition, obama is a capitalist.  confiscated is not the correct turn.



con&#65533;fis&#65533;cate &#65533;&#65533; (knf-skt) KEY &#65533;

TRANSITIVE VERB: 
con&#65533;fis&#65533;cat&#65533;ed , con&#65533;fis&#65533;cat&#65533;ing , con&#65533;fis&#65533;cates 
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury. 
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at 

Learning can be fun!


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> con&#65533;fis&#65533;cate &#65533;&#65533; (knf-skt) KEY &#65533;
> 
> TRANSITIVE VERB:
> con&#65533;fis&#65533;cat&#65533;ed , con&#65533;fis&#65533;cat&#65533;ing , con&#65533;fis&#65533;cates
> ...



Yes it can! Now while we are learning, when a government confiscated money from you in return for services such as protection, it is called taxing. Do you not enjoy learning?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 11, 2008)

Here we go again on this *bridge to Nowhere*  I've said this before and will keep saying it, *"THANKS BUT NO THANKS ON THAT BRIDGE TO NOWHERE" Sarah Palin RNC* So what part of that don't you understand? The part on Sept. 21st 2007 when she cancelled it ? or the part on Sept. 21st when she  cancelled it? I see the spin though, in your mind it's like this, if someone is for something, then they must alway be for it then? sort of like when Joe Biden says' "Barack Obama is not ready to lead"  soemthing like that? and then changes his mind and becomes his VP choice? Does this make him a liar?  hardly, nor does Sarah Palins make her one either. There is plenty of evidence to support her word's out there not from a democrat talking points memo, but from real sources  CNN, ABC, AP, Alaska State Legislature, etc.  but I suppose if you choose to see it that way , then there is nothing I can do but to say , the evidence does not support your claim nor does it on the jet.  My suggestion though is that the democrats keep this up though, because it does nothing but keep your candidate off message and get more and more people sympathetic to Sarah Palin. 

Oh and by the way try seeing where  Barack Obama stood on the Coburn Amendment to kill that very same bridge. When he was offered a second chance to kill it is voted against it again, and some of that money when it was killed was supposed to go to Katrina relief. Only a google search away.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

Haro said:


> Yes it can! Now while we are learning, when a government confiscated money from you in return for services such as protection, it is called taxing. Do you not enjoy learning?


Defending us from armed aggression is a legitmate--and enumerated--function of our constitutional government.

Salary caps and confiscating people's freedom of healthcare is not.


----------



## Haro (Sep 11, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Defending us from armed aggression is a legitmate--and enumerated--function of our constitutional government.
> 
> Salary caps and confiscating people's freedom of healthcare is not.



If you knew anything about Obama's plan, he is not going to force national health care onto us, he will just make affordable health care available to all who can not afford it otherwise.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 12, 2008)

Haro said:


> If you knew anything about Obama's plan, he is not going to force national health care onto us, he will just make affordable health care available to all who can not afford it otherwise.


 Yeah sure. Where is it legal to steal from some and give to others in the Constitution?


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Yeah sure. Where is it legal to steal from some and give to others in the Constitution?



Funny you should mention the contitutional right for the government to steal from us...16th amendment.  
"U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment

Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax 

Amendment Text | Annotations   
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment)


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 12, 2008)

Telling a private Business how much it can pay its bosses or employees is socialism. Taking "windfall" taxes from companies for the affront of actually making money is SOCIALISM.

Taxing people MORE cause they make more is SOCIALISM. 

The idea that the Government is not going to be footing a HUGE bill to run health care for all is delusional. Ohh and taking over health care is SOCIALISM.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 12, 2008)

Haro said:


> Funny you should mention the contitutional right for the government to steal from us...16th amendment.
> "U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment
> 
> Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax
> ...


 How does that authorize Congress to set different rates based on income, and to "rebate" [complete misnomer] those on the lower end who pay no taxes?


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)




----------



## MalibuMan (Sep 12, 2008)

Cmon folks. What politician doesn't lie? 

When they aren't kissing babies they are stealing their lolipops.

They all are sick.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

MalibuMan said:


> Cmon folks. What politician doesn't lie?
> 
> When they aren't kissing babies they are stealing their lolipops.
> 
> They all are sick.



how true.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 12, 2008)

MalibuMan said:


> Cmon folks. What politician doesn't lie?
> 
> When they aren't kissing babies they are stealing their lolipops.
> 
> They all are sick.


  Bullshit. Many have integrity, even (gasp) _some _Democrats.


----------



## MalibuMan (Sep 12, 2008)

C'mon Rayboy. All politicians lie. Wake up.  Everything a politician says dem or repub can be twisted, spun into a lie. Which is disgusting IMO.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

okay...knuckle guards are needed.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

Haro said:


> First of all obama is not marxist or muslim.



False...  Hussien was born to a Muslim father and that uncontrovertible fact ALONE makes him a Muslim.  

That you are ignorant of what Marxism represents is not a valid defense.  Marx merely believed, in short,  that the working class was entitled to and equal share of industry; that it was incumbent upon government to redistribute all property equally and of course revenue is property; Marx felt that itn was only fair that those who produced should be forced to subsidize those who do not produce. 

Hussien's entire economic policy rest upin these absurd principle-less policies.  This Hussien is in point of fact, Hussein is a Marxist. 




> We were not attacked by marxists you retard.



False.  Radical Islam is Marxist to the core.  That you don't recognize their socialist foundation proves your ignorance. 




> You equate 'marxist' and 'communist' with evil and unamerican.  You are the type of person who is ruining America.



Marxism is the purest essence of evil.


----------



## MalibuMan (Sep 12, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Bullshit. Many have integrity, even (gasp) _some _Democrats.



True. I was being devils adcovate. But where are they? Why aren't they running?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2008)

MalibuMan said:


> True. I was being devils adcovate. But where are they? Why aren't they running?



I don't have a list of who was good and who was bad under the Tom Delay government from 2000-2006, but very very very few Republicans spoke out on any of the crap the party was doing.  

And what they were doing led us to the housing crash, the debt doubling, Katrina not being handled properly because Brownie was not an emergency management guy, he was a bush buddy and a horse trainer.

Is there any doubt Alberto Gonzales politicized the justice department?

hell, every branch of government was politicized.

I just don't think most Americans realize how serious this is, or how much of a problem doing this causes to a democracy.  It becomes a NON democracy.

If 75% of the GOP are corrupt, 25% of the Democrats are corrupt.  I'd say that's probably about fair.


----------



## sitarro (Sep 12, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> The only a woman is a republican thing, buttwads.  That is why she was picked.
> 
> I happen to resepect women.  I married one for 40 years, so piss off.
> 
> ...



That aircraft is a piece of old technology shit, they were lucky to get anything for it. Using a leather seat, gas hog, lead sled for moving convicts makes a lot of sense, whose brilliant idea was that? Why not a limo? 

She never said she sold it on eBay, she said she put it on eBay. There are plenty of things on eBay that don't meet the reserve price. Selling a Westwind is not easy, I've seen 737s going for less on eBay.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I don't have a list of who was good and who was bad under the Tom Delay government from 2000-2006, but very very very few Republicans spoke out on any of the crap the party was doing.
> 
> And what they were doing led us to the housing crash, the debt doubling, Katrina not being handled properly because Brownie was not an emergency management guy, he was a bush buddy and a horse trainer.
> 
> ...



oh hey---we all trust your assessment of the situation since it's all scientific and everything !


----------



## Clay Buster (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Marx felt that itn was only fair that those who produced should be forced to subsidize those who do not produce.



So by that definition Palin is a marxist?

With her oil-windfall tax she decided to increase taxes on the oil companies doing business in Alaska becasue they were doing well (which I thought was the American way) and then redistribute that wealth to the citizens of her state.

First everyone claims she is a true conservative Republican and now by your definition she is being charged as a marxist.

Quite the interesting thread.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

Also.. if socialism is EVIL what does that make the christian bible? How the fuck does Islam promote socialism anyway?  


Im ready to bitch slap you with quotes for jebus, dude.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I don't have a list of who was good and who was bad under the Tom Delay government from 2000-2006, but very very very few Republicans spoke out on any of the crap the party was doing.



Specify "the Crap" to which you speak...  



> And what they were doing led us to the housing crash, the debt doubling, Katrina not being handled properly because Brownie was not an emergency management guy, he was a bush buddy and a horse trainer.



What SPECIFIC GOP policy lead to the Housing crash?  Your failure to specify SPECIFIC GOP policy WHICH YOU CAN CORRELATE TO BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HOUSING CRASH will realize, by default your concession that your point here is absolute NONSENSE!




> Is there any doubt Alberto Gonzales politicized the justice department?



Of course, by 'politicised" you mean to say that when they wanted to hire lawyers that agreed with their ideas?  Here's the thing, they can do that...  I don't hire anyone that disagrees with me... 

Now if you're saying that the Bush administration used their power to unjustly prosecute those who disagreed with them politically, well then all you need to do is prove that and you girls can walk that impeachment you've been braying about for all these years, right through congress... 

Of course, your failure to specify SPECIFIC BUSH ABUSE OF POWER, which you can correlate to his having politicised the Justice Department, will realize, again by default, your concession that your point here is absolute NONSENSE!




> hell, every branch of government was politicized.



Evidence... ?  Or... well you know.




> I just don't think



Well look at that... even a blind nut, finds a squirrel now and then...


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Also.. if socialism is EVIL what does that make the christian bible? How the fuck does Islam promote socialism anyway?
> 
> 
> Im ready to bitch slap you with quotes for jebus, dude.



The Christian bible isn't socialist, anything but.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> The Christian bible isn't socialist, anything but.



oh rly?  I've got jebus feeding five thousand with collected fishes and loaves.  Mind quoting ANYTHING that even REMOTELY suggests that the bible is steeped in capitalism?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> So by that definition Palin is a marxist?
> 
> With her oil-windfall tax she decided to increase taxes on the oil companies doing business in Alaska becasue they were doing well (which I thought was the American way) and then redistribute that wealth to the citizens of her state.
> 
> ...



Hmm... did she?

I hadn't heard that...  Now I know that she held oil companies to their long term agreements; agreements which were made decades ago, where they AGREED to pay royalties to the state of Alaska and that those royalties were, as was required by Alaska's constitution to be broken out amongst every citizen of Alaska... and which has been executed since the first oil company hit oil way back when.   


But as I said, that is old news and I'm sure you're aware of it and that you're bringing us _new information _here.  So if you could just post the evidence that _Governor Palin_ EO'd a 'windfall profits tax' on big oil... we can go ahead and discuss it.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Also.. if socialism is EVIL what does that make the christian bible? How the fuck does Islam promote socialism anyway?
> 
> 
> Im ready to bitch slap you with quotes for jebus, dude.



ROFLMNAO...

Well any time you're ready Scooter...  HIT ME!  Knock yourself out...


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Well any time you're ready Scooter...  HIT ME!  Knock yourself out...



35By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. "This is a remote place," they said, "and it's already very late. 36Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat."

 37But he answered, "You give them something to eat."
      They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages[a]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"

 38"How many loaves do you have?" he asked. "Go and see."
      When they found out, they said, "Fiveand two fish."

 39Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. 42They all ate and were satisfied, 43and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.




your turn.  SHOW ME anything from the bible that is even REMOTELY capitalist in nature..


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Slave ownership. Slaves are supposed to be happy being slaves.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> your turn.  SHOW ME anything from the bible that is even REMOTELY capitalist in nature..


"Thou shalt not steal."

"The man that does not work shall not eat."


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

And giving away your possessions because you want to follow Christ is a little different from forcing people to distribute their wealth or get dragged into a tiny hovel and gunned down with their family and servants.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> "Thou shalt not steal."
> 
> "The man that does not work shall not eat."



Hehe.
I would rep you, but I've already given out my allotted 5 or 6 or whatever the paltry allottment is....


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Slave ownership. Slaves are supposed to be happy being slaves.



uh.. WHAT?  Yo mean like the slaves that the Pharaoh had?  How the hell does this validate capitalism in the bible?




"Pharaoh!  Let my HAPPY people go!"


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Because it supports class distinction.

And you'll note, the Hebrew slaves did  not revolt. They were turned loose.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> "Thou shalt not steal."
> 
> "The man that does not work shall not eat."



socialists work.  Who the hell do you think the proletariat is?


STEAL?  Is being your brothers keeper STEALING?  

I mean.. lets take another gander at what your bible says..

*
36For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?*



OR, if you'd rather hear it from the MAN himself:


*
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
*
 22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.*

 23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
*
 24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25*It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of 
God."* 





REAL capitalist, that jebus!


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And giving away your possessions because you want to follow Christ is a little different from forcing people to distribute their wealth or get dragged into a tiny hovel and gunned down with their family and servants.



thats what YOU say.. not what your MESSIAH said.


but, hey.. this is why you pharisee christians are such a joke.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Still doesn't support socialism. Because the distribution must be personal and individual.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Hehe.
> I would rep you, but I've already given out my allotted 5 or 6 or whatever the paltry allottment is....



of course you would... when scripture fails to support your laughable "slaves in the bible validate capitalism" bullshit...


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> thats what YOU say.. not what your MESSIAH said.
> 
> 
> but, hey.. this is why you pharisee christians are such a joke.



Actually, it is what he said. He told individuals to distribute their wealth. He didn't tell them to have armies take it.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Because it supports class distinction.
> 
> And you'll note, the Hebrew slaves did  not revolt. They were turned loose.



The OLD Testament also allowed the brutal maulings of kids who made fun of a prophets bald spot.  The mass killing of cannanites (among others)...  now, which TESTAMENT applies to YOU, *christ*ian?


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Still doesn't support socialism. Because the distribution must be personal and individual.




riiiiiiiiight...  when JESUS says to go sell everything and give it to the poor.. thats just a suggestion to get fair market price after a 10% markup profit.






you spiritually weak bastards sure are funny.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

New Testament, dear.

Kindly explain how maintaining a slave class, and refusing to rebel, supports your Commie Bible theory.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, it is what he said. He told individuals to distribute their wealth. He didn't tell them to have armies take it.



he also said to give to ceasar what is ceasars because YOUR reward is heaven.. not your fucking 401k.





face it, baba.. you'd twist the bible to rationalize slavery if it meant you needed to.


SPEAKING of classes.. you sure the fuck DID see jesus validating class distinctions, didnt you?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> riiiiiiiiight...  when JESUS says to go sell everything and give it to the poor.. thats just a suggestion to get fair market price after a 10% markup profit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is a suggestion. Please show me where he advised people how they should vote or run a government?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 12, 2008)

MalibuMan said:


> True. I was being devils adcovate. But where are they? Why aren't they running?


 Two are currently on the GOP ticket for President.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> New Testament, dear.
> 
> Kindly explain how maintaining a slave class, and refusing to rebel, supports your Commie Bible theory.



oh.. so why do you ONLY reach for the OT thus far in your "evidence"?  How many SLAVES did JESUS have?  Did JESUS treat slaves any different than the rich in regards to salvation?  Is there a fucking Valet at the gates of heaven for the wealtheir sort?




this never gets old.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It is a suggestion. Please show me where he advised people how they should vote or run a government?



HAHAHAHAHAHZAHAHAHAHAHA!


YEA!


JESUS JUST MADE A *SUGGESTION*!



oh man THATS killing me!  a SUGGESTION!  "like, yo dude.. it's cool if you don't want to beleive me and all but you might check out this tract on selling all your stuff and giving to the poor if you want salvation.. uh yea..."






He DIDNT tell you to invade the politics of ceasar.  THAT was the point in "giving unto ceasar".  HIS message was not validation for your full frontal attack on the government while TAKING HIS NAME IN VANE TO DO IT.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Is it your day off, Shogun? Are you partaking of the weed and grape?

I'll stand by for your idiotic self-congragulatory hooting that you've won an argument I never entered into, now.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Oh, wait, you already did that.
Well good, we got it over. You derailed the thread with your ridiculous off-topic tirade, so you accomplished what you set out to do. What the hell was the thread about, anyway?


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Is it your day off, Shogun? Are you partaking of the weed and grape?
> 
> I'll stand by for your idiotic self-congragulatory hooting that you've won an argument I never entered into, now.



we can both talk shit, baba... I seem to be as good at deciphering your holy back as I am handing you your ass with ad hominems.


Now, did you have anything else to add to the charge that the bible is CAPITALIST and not SOCIALIST or is this just the latest of my happy fun times with your laughable faith?


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh, wait, you already did that.
> Well good, we got it over. You derailed the thread with your ridiculous off-topic tirade, so you accomplished what you set out to do. What the hell was the thread about, anyway?



go run for the hills, baba.. When the next dipshit makes a laughable comment about the "EEEEEVIL" of socialism despite your faith i'll let you know.


----------



## Clay Buster (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Hmm... did she?
> 
> I hadn't heard that...  Now I know that she held oil companies to their long term agreements; agreements which were made decades ago, where they AGREED to pay royalties to the state of Alaska and that those royalties were, as was required by Alaska's constitution to be broken out amongst every citizen of Alaska... and which has been executed since the first oil company hit oil way back when.
> 
> ...



Here you go: Bloomberg.com: Worldwide



> Palin Boosted Oil-Company Taxes While Alaska Had Budget Surplus
> By Alison Fitzgerald
> 
> Sept. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus...
> ...



Please read the full article and then explain again how Palin is not a marxist by your definition.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> 35By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. "This is a remote place," they said, "and it's already very late. 36Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat."
> 
> 37But he answered, "You give them something to eat."
> They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages[a]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"
> ...



ROFLMNAO... So you think feeding people is what socialism is about...

Of course you're mistaken...  Capitalism born of the individual liberties which rest upon God given human rights (the foundation of the United States) has fed more poor than any other human notion or effort in the history of humanity.

Now you're confusing charity, with socialism... you'll note that Jesus freely took of his own time, talents and means to feed those people.  What he did NOT do is to go about the countryside forcing people to part with their food so that he could take that food and give it to those he decided were entitle to it, because they have a perceived need.  

Now do you see the difference?  One is voluntary, where people give frm their own heart, from their own means... The other is involuntary and property is taken by armed force or threat of force.

Now what we're going to need you to do is to produce examples of Christ stealing from people he felt could 'afford it' to give to people he felt had a need for it...

BRING IT! Sis...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> Here you go: Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the full article and then explain again how Palin is not a marxist by your definition.



Ok I read the article...  it says what I said.  Alaska gets substantial royalties from oil companies that drill in Alaska.  They're paid on the oil that they take out of Alaska's ground.  Now the oil companies agreed to pay those royalties...  

If you need to call it a tax, that's fine with me, but in truth it's not a tax, it's a royalty.  

Now the bottom line, as the article points out and as I believe I mentioned, Alaska has from day one distributed that money to its citizens...  Alaska does not have a state income tax, it has no sales tax and it has a budget surplus.  Alaska's government is the closest thing to what the US constitution was designed to produce that presently exits on this earth.  Alaskan government is literally taking the profits which are being generated by  the sale of Alaskan resources and giving it to the people that own that land: Alaskans...

If the oil companies are not satisfied with their deal, then they are entitled to stop drilling and can move on.  I expect you'll find that there will be a new oil guy showing up shortly thereafter to take their place.  However,  what we can be certain of, is that IF the Alaskan government does tax the oil industry beyond what they feel is a fair exchange, the state of Alaska will suffer a substantial reduction in revenue as industry flees the abuse; not unlike the flight of the US steel, electronics, textile and soon to be automobile industries.

If you think this is 'income redistribution' in the socialist sense, you're mistaken.  Alaskans actually own their state and they're entitled to reap the product of that which comes from the sale of that which they own.

What the left wants to do is to confiscate the product of the labor of others... that is property which the left does not own; they are NOT entitled to a share in that product, as they had nothing to do with its generation.

Now it should be pointed out that the US Federal government is also entitled to and damn well does tax the oil industry... it gets royalties for oil that is drawn from Federal land, it gets taxes on the sale of oil, it gets taxes on the sale of every bi-product which stems from oil, it taxes the profits of Oil companies, it taxes the profits of the officers of oil companies, the employees of oil companies and it taxes and regulates every facet of human activity and in contrast to Alaska's sizable budget surplus, the US Federal government has a _500 billion_ dollar deficit.

Now what's the difference between the Alaskan government and the US Federal Government?  

Leftists...


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

That's right. And it appears the American Public agrees.

Stand by psychiatrists...the few remaining elitist POS lefties are about to be disowned...again...this election.


----------



## -Cp (Sep 12, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Sarah keeps up the sound bite that she said "Thanks but no thanks to the goverment for the bridge to nowhere.""
> 
> Not true.  She backed it  until it became a national scandal and then voted against it. By the way she kept the 300 million allocated for it and spent it elsewhere in Alaska.
> 
> So, backers of Mrs. Palin, is it okay for her to continue to lie like this day after day.  I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.



It's a COMPLETELY TRUE statement...

She first said "Thanks" - then after seeing how jacked up it was, she said "No Thanks"......

Sorry that's so difficult to wrap your liberal mind around...


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> he also said to give to ceasar what is ceasars because YOUR reward is heaven.. not your fucking 401k.


Let me se if I get this...

Caesar ruled an expansionist empire.

Jesus was the citizen of a disarmed nation conquered by said empire.

As a buttress to Jesus' alleged socialist/anti-capitalist credentials you claim Jesus was ENDORSING paying taxes to caesar?

Was caesar supposed to be some sort of former community organizer who knew best how to provide for his conquered peoples and Jesus was pitching for him?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 12, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> Here you go: Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the full article and then explain again how Palin is not a marxist by your definition.



Don't really have to go that far to look for an explaination. it's called the 10th Amendment. You know the one, that pesky states rights one, that always seems to get in the way? I've taken the liberty of putting it here along with a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the matter too, might help clear up the issue as to Alaska's right to do with their resources what they want. 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"The States should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government"
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Let me se if I get this...
> 
> Caesar ruled an expansionist empire.
> 
> ...



uh, do you even realize that this is EXACTLY the reason the phaisees asked this question in order to pull a fast one?  for real.. do you even fucking FATHOM the answer that was given?  WHAT PART OF YOUR CHRISTIAN SALVATION EVEN REMOTELY VALIDATES ACCRUING WEALTH?  

It's cool, dude.  If you have anything else to quote from the bible then go ahead and do it.  Your snarky comments are a goddamn joke when paired with your ability to comprehend the very book you take your dogma from.  


Come on, puss... post those scriptures...


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> uh, do you even realize that this is EXACTLY the reason the phaisees asked this question in order to pull a fast one?  for real.. do you even fucking FATHOM the answer that was given?  WHAT PART OF YOUR CHRISTIAN SALVATION EVEN REMOTELY VALIDATES ACCRUING WEALTH?
> 
> It's cool, dude.  If you have anything else to quote from the bible then go ahead and do it.  Your snarky comments are a goddamn joke when paired with your ability to comprehend the very book you take your dogma from.
> 
> ...


I've already told the other cretin that I'm not a Christian.

I know where the quote came from but to imply rendering unto caesar is the same as disavowing capitalism in favor of some liberal government programs, no matter how charitably-minded, is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm just crazy-talking here but Jesus struck me as beyond politics but while he preached charity I don't see him demanding government welfare statism.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> I've already told the other cretin that I'm not a Christian.
> 
> I know where the quote came from but to imply rendering unto caesar is the same as disavowing capitalism in favor of some liberal government programs, no matter how charitably-minded, is ridiculous.
> 
> Maybe I'm just crazy-talking here but Jesus struck me as beyond politics but while he preached charity I don't see him demanding government welfare statism.



Instead of crying about millions going to the poor, why don't you pay attention to the billions going to corporate welfare, stupid?

Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and other Wall Street giants helped foreign investors dodge billions of dollars in U.S. taxes on stock dividends while the IRS looked the other way, a Senate investigation found.

The firms worked with shell hedge funds that had little more than offshore mailing addresses in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. The funds arranged complex equity swaps and stock loans aimed at circumventing U.S. tax laws, a staff report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said.

The IRS has neither enforced existing rules prohibiting the transactions nor tried to draft new standards, the 77-page report said.

These are gimmicks peddled by American financial institutions to deny Uncle Sam taxes owed under our law, Senator Carl Levin, who heads the panel, told reporters. The IRS has pussyfooted on this.

Morgan Stanley enabled foreign clients to avoid payment of more than $300 million in U.S. dividend taxes from 2000 to 2007. (THE SAME TIME THE REPUBLICANS RAN ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT) 

Lehman estimated its customers eluded payment of as much $115 million in 2004 alone. 

UBS helped clients escape payment of $62 million from 2004 to 2007.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Let me se if I get this...
> 
> Caesar ruled an expansionist empire.
> 
> ...



He said, "render unto ceaser what is ceasers".  In other words, pay your fucking taxes.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> uh, do you even realize that this is EXACTLY the reason the phaisees asked this question in order to pull a fast one?  for real.. do you even fucking FATHOM the answer that was given?  WHAT PART OF YOUR CHRISTIAN SALVATION EVEN REMOTELY VALIDATES ACCRUING WEALTH?
> 
> It's cool, dude.  If you have anything else to quote from the bible then go ahead and do it.  Your snarky comments are a goddamn joke when paired with your ability to comprehend the very book you take your dogma from.
> 
> ...



Ahh...  Well, let's see...  The Individual right to accumulate wealth has fed more poor than any other effort in human history...  Now if you'd like to contest that, I challenge you to post an example of another human effort which you feel has fed more poor than the United States...

What's more the freedom to accumulate wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other concept in the history of human history...  

Now since you're example dealt with Christ's teaching that all men were created equal and each was entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their own life... and since leftism has enslaved, starved and impoverished more human beings than any other human effort... I'd say that Capitalism is the way that Christ taught.

Poor can't feed the poor... Starving people are going to have a VERY HARD time feeding the hungry; but an affluent culture can and does feed vastly more poor through their CHARITABLE contributions than the US federal government does through its fascist income redistribution.  What YOU people want to do is what you ALWAYS want to do... you want to hoist the notion that people are ENTITLED to the product of another man's labor, that way you don't have to listen to his demands when you ask him for charity.

Socialism cannot rid the town, county, parish, state or nation of poverty... it can only make it the norm.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Telling a private Business how much it can pay its bosses or employees is socialism. Taking "windfall" taxes from companies for the affront of actually making money is SOCIALISM.
> 
> Taxing people MORE cause they make more is SOCIALISM.



You really are stupid, taking more from people who have more is called a graduated income tax.  Socialism is the collective ownership of wealth.  I swear...


----------



## Clay Buster (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Ok I read the article...  it says what I said.  Alaska gets substantial royalties from oil companies that drill in Alaska.  They're paid on the oil that they take out of Alaska's ground.  Now the oil companies agreed to pay those royalties...
> 
> If you need to call it a tax, that's fine with me, but in truth it's not a tax, it's a royalty.
> 
> ...



I hear what you are saying and I acknowledge that the redistribution of wealth has always been part of their state consitituion.

The point I was making is that in 2007 Palin INCREASED those taxes on oil companies above and beyond what was already in place, basically changing the rules mid-stream.

Whether we want to call it taxes or royalties, when Palin noticed the oil companies were pulling in higher profits she instituted policies to get more money than originally agreed upon.

Why is that any different than Obama's plan? As McCain has stated numerous times, he is against windfall taxes which is exactly what Palin pushed through in Alaska. 

Remember, I'm not referring to the original agreement, I'm talking about her calling a special legislative session in order to get more money from the oil companies above and beyond the original agreement.

It sure smells like this program is raising taxes on the wealthy (oil companies) to give the less fortunate (citizens).


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 12, 2008)

SillyBobo,

I do pay my taxes and I disapprove of welfare, corporate or otherwise.

Tax cuts are not welfare because the tax can only be levied on something produed/owned; so by taxing something less is not the same as giving money not earned through productivity.

What I--and if you are true to your principles--you can agree on are subsidies. Subsidies destroy the marketplace. Take the biodiesel debacle as our most recent example. Do REPUBLICANS as well as democrats legislate subsidies.

Absolutey.

Which is why the federal congress needs to be held to its constitutionally mandated enumeration of powers. If congress only did what was allowed to it by Article 1 then you would not have to rail against corporate welfare because congress has no legal right to assign corporate or any other form of welfare.

Alas, while I'm willing to give up the former as part of my principles I think you would rather gut one side while preserving your own privileges.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> I hear what you are saying and I acknowledge that the redistribution of wealth has always been part of their state consitituion.
> 
> The point I was making is that in 2007 Palin INCREASED those taxes on oil companies above and beyond what was already in place, basically changing the rules mid-stream.
> 
> ...



She only increased those taxes to make more money to put into her own pocket, in order for the Robbin Hood effect to take place, you need to give back.


----------



## Clay Buster (Sep 12, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> Don't really have to go that far to look for an explaination. it's called the 10th Amendment. You know the one, that pesky states rights one, that always seems to get in the way? I've taken the liberty of putting it here along with a quote from Thomas Jefferson on the matter too, might help clear up the issue as to Alaska's right to do with their resources what they want.
> 
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> ...



The point I'm making does not center around who has the right to raise taxes or why it is done. As a strong state's rights proponent I love the fact that they have much more latitude than most states and it's a shame so many issues which should be handled at a state level are now in the federal realm.

My point, regardless of "right", is that Palin further increased taxes/royalties on oil companies when it was determined that they were making more profits.

As I stated in my previous post, that sounds very similiar to Obama who believes the wealthy should pay more since they are doing well.

Try to eliminate state vs federal in the argument and let's simply discuss the practice of raising taxes on successful entities.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> The point I'm making does not center around who has the right to raise taxes or why it is done. As a strong state's rights proponent I love the fact that they have much more latitude than most states and it's a shame so many issues which should be handled at a state level are now in the federal realm.
> 
> My point, regardless of "right", is that Palin further increased taxes/royalties on oil companies when it was determined that they were making more profits.
> 
> ...



As I have stated, Palin wants to increase revenue.  Obama want to increase revenue and then use it to restimulate the economy.  Palin's intentions were purely business, she would have been a moron not to jump on a deal like that.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> SillyBobo,
> 
> I do pay my taxes and I disapprove of welfare, corporate or otherwise.
> 
> ...




No, I agree with you.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> I've already told the other cretin that I'm not a Christian.
> 
> I know where the quote came from but to imply rendering unto caesar is the same as disavowing capitalism in favor of some liberal government programs, no matter how charitably-minded, is ridiculous.
> 
> Maybe I'm just crazy-talking here but Jesus struck me as beyond politics but while he preached charity I don't see him demanding government welfare statism.



Dude.  again.. if YOU can find a single fucking scrap of scripture to suggest that CAPITOLISM in any way, shape or form is validated by the christian saviour Im ready to see it.  I"VE POSTED my evidence. where is yours?


I suggest you go ask a preacher why wealth was never a concern of jebus on your way to asking a second question about brothers being keepers and charity to your fellow fucking man.


you might just learn something.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> He said, "render unto ceaser what is ceasers".  In other words, pay your fucking taxes.



yes.. but also because CEASAR and his MONEY was OF THIS WORLD rather than the promise of heaven which is what the entire premise of jesus was all about.  He didn't die on the cross for some asshole's 401k.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Dude.  again.. if YOU can find a single fucking scrap of scripture to suggest that CAPITOLISM in any way, shape or form is validated by the christian saviour Im ready to see it.  I"VE POSTED my evidence. where is yours?
> 
> 
> I suggest you go ask a preacher why wealth was never a concern of jebus on your way to asking a second question about brothers being keepers and charity to your fellow fucking man.
> ...



I agree with you Shogun, but I also think this guy is reasonable.  He seems new, so probably doesn't realize that we have to deal with totally one sided neo kooks on these boards so we're a little defenses.  I think this guy is willing to be intellectually honest.  I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.  

Republican talking points had merit, about 10 years ago.  I think the only wrong with this guy is he is willing to believe/trust that McCain & Palin are being honest.  

And I assure you, they are not.  They are giving the voters what they want to hear.  

And remember, people like him have been brainwashed to think Liberals are crazy and want to make America socialist.  We need to extend the olive branch and let him know we aren't one sided lefties.

Being pro choice doesn't make me a lefty.  It makes me an American.  

Being anti war does not make me a lefty

Being pro social security doesn't make me a lefty

Being against the tax break to the rich doesn't mean I want warshington to keep and spend it.  I want them to redistribute it to all of us.  And, I want the GOP to not spend double what the Democrats spent. 

They may have been able to convince me that the Republicans are better than the democrats had they only been fiscally responsible.  But they were not, so the GOP has NOTHING to offer me.  Except lies, bullshit and scare tactics.


----------



## Shogun (Sep 12, 2008)

*Ahh...  Well, let's see...  The Individual right to accumulate wealth has fed more poor than any other effort in human history...  Now if you'd like to contest that, I challenge you to post an example of another human effort which you feel has fed more poor than the United States...*


are yu fucking kidding me?  kinda stretching real far here, arent ya?  sucking dick in a brothel feeds kids to.  How do you think that relates to the message of jebus?  And, be sure, YOU have no records of every charitable effort by EVERY culture that has EVER been the product of congregating human beings so your ethnocentrism is about as impressive as an ants dick.

*
What's more the freedom to accumulate wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other concept in the history of human history...  *


AND, it's also PUT more people into slavery than ANYTHING ELSE this side of religion.  Please.. continue to grasp for straws.  I take it this rhetorical bullshit is your substitution for biblical scriptures?


*
Now since you're example dealt with Christ's teaching that all men were created equal and each was entitled to pursue the fulfillment of their own life... and since leftism has enslaved, starved and impoverished more human beings than any other human effort... I'd say that Capitalism is the way that Christ taught.*


Are you fucking kidding me?  You think SLAVERY was an invention of the left you mercantile wannabe motherfucker?  You think COMMUNISM drives China's sweatshops?  LOLOLOL!

Hey, fuck it.  SHOW ME YOUR EVIDENCE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS.

whip out your fucking SOURCES.

*
Poor can't feed the poor... Starving people are going to have a VERY HARD time feeding the hungry; but an affluent culture can and does feed vastly more poor through their CHARITABLE contributions than the US federal government does through its fascist income redistribution.  What YOU people want to do is what you ALWAYS want to do... you want to hoist the notion that people are ENTITLED to the product of another man's labor, that way you don't have to listen to his demands when you ask him for charity.
*


LOL

Dude.. if you don't have a rebuttal just say so.  No one cares to hear you gloss over the entire fucking economic reality of the American south for 3/4ths of it's fucking history.

*
Socialism cannot rid the town, county, parish, state or nation of poverty... it can only make it the norm.
*


NICE RHETORIC!  Im just all kinds of impressed!  


sorry dude.. you FAIL.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Haro said:


> You really are stupid, taking more from people who have more is called a graduated income tax.  Socialism is the collective ownership of wealth.  I swear...



And I don't believe there's any scripture which supports this..which I believe was Shogun's first claim? That socialism was a biblical concept?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> *Ahh...  Well, let's see...  The Individual right to accumulate wealth has fed more poor than any other effort in human history...  Now if you'd like to contest that, I challenge you to post an example of another human effort which you feel has fed more poor than the United States...*
> 
> 
> are yu fucking kidding me?  kinda stretching real far here, arent ya?  sucking dick in a brothel feeds kids to.  How do you think that relates to the message of jebus?  And, be sure, YOU have no records of every charitable effort by EVERY culture that has EVER been the product of congregating human beings so your ethnocentrism is about as impressive as an ants dick.
> ...




When Rockafellor, JP Morgan & Carnege took over America in 1913 when they bribed Congress to let them control our finances and start the Federal Reserve & put the income tax on our labor, I believe they gave half of their fortunes away then too.

I'll give away millions if I know billions are coming to me too.  Big fucking deal.  But it made them look like good guys.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> And I don't believe there's any scripture which supports this..which I believe was Shogun's first claim? That socialism was a biblical concept?



Elements may or mat not have have been in the bible but I think that means little to the definition of the terms.  You can not just say something is socialist if it does not allow maximum profits by companies and people.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Haro said:


> Elements may or mat not have have been in the bible but I think that means little to the definition of the terms.  You can not just say something is socialist if it does not allow maximum profits by companies and people.



As I said, Shogun said it. Not me.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> As I said, Shogun said it. Not me.



Then why did you criticize my remark against him/her? I was just alerting him/her that he/she got their definition mixed up.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

Haro said:


> Then why did you criticize my remark against him/her? I was just alerting him/her that he/she got their definition mixed up.



I wasn't criticizing your remark. I was using your remark to illustrate a point..which is that the Bible doesn't have socialist content.


----------



## Haro (Sep 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I wasn't criticizing your remark. I was using your remark to illustrate a point..which is that the Bible doesn't have socialist content.



Sorry, my fault.  I would have to aggree.  I would think the authors of the bible would have prepared a theocracy, like the Holy Roman Empire


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> Ahh...  Well, let's see...  The Individual right to accumulate wealth has fed more poor than any other effort in human history...  Now if you'd like to contest that, I challenge you to post an example of another human effort which you feel has fed more poor than the United States...
> 
> What's more the freedom to accumulate wealth has lifted more people out of poverty than any other concept in the history of human history...
> 
> ...



christainity has also caused more wars and killings...millions of witches were killed by christians...look it up.... your god is a weak and jealous god...have not other gods before me....lol....but then i love the passing of the "holy trinity" as the one true god.....One? 

as for the charitable works....isnt that what you are suppose to do with your giving...tell me...do you give 10% of your gross income to the church?  as required by your bible?

do you follow all the laws of the old testament?  or just the ones slamming gays and women?

how much will you be selling your daughter for?  do you have slaves...if so....keep them reading that book that tells them to be good slaves.

so dont blow your horn about how great your god is....or your religion....
this country is based on freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

you have ever right to believe what you believe...you have no right to try to shove it down anyone else's throat.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> christainity has also caused more wars and killings...millions of witches were killed by christians...look it up.... your god is a weak and jealous god...have not other gods before me....lol....but then i love the passing of the "holy trinity" as the one true god.....One?
> 
> as for the charitable works....isnt that what you are suppose to do with your giving...tell me...do you give 10% of your gross income to the church?  as required by your bible?
> 
> ...



"Millions of witches"?

The rest of this post is just too out there to even respond to. But I will tell you, Christianity didn't "cause" anything. Men and the devil do what they will, and they will do it in the name of God...but that doesn't mean it's sanctioned by God. 

And while we live in the US, we will speak freely of our religion and our beliefs if we so desire. If you don't like it, you are welcome to plug your ears or take your sad ass off to a different place, where Christians aren't allowed to speak, or...er...how did you put it..."shove it down anyone else's throat". 

BTW, referring to your religion is not shoving it down anyone else's throat. Nor is responding to questions about it. Take your bias and shove it up your stupid ass. Then look up the "millions of witches" that the Christians slaughtered and provide a fucking link.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

o sorry it was just a million...i am not here to find links for your ass....

you can find out your own christian histories....


and yes christians with their witnessing try to shove it down your throat......

just ask someone who  is not christian nor wants to be..how it is...to hear the continue...our god is so true and great but yours isnt....


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

why are christians even bitching on this thread...isnt it suppose to be about palin?


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

i bet there is a forum for christains ...and religion......on this board somewhere...why not go there to discuss religion..  instead of bringing to the elections forum.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

Religion and Ethics - US Message Board


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 12, 2008)

there is a link to discuss your god and your religion....why not go to that board...
i understood this to be an election discussion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

If Shogun can't keep focused on a convo, he'll throw in religion to derail it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> o sorry it was just a million...i am not here to find links for your ass....
> 
> you can find out your own christian histories....
> 
> ...



Christians aren't the ones who started carping about "Jebus" and "Christianity" and the Bible.

You don't have a link. In other words, you were lying about "millions of witches" being killed by Christians. You're a lying bigot. Thank you. 

Next subject.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 12, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Dude.  again.. if YOU can find a single fucking scrap of scripture to suggest that CAPITOLISM in any way, shape or form is validated by the christian saviour Im ready to see it.  I"VE POSTED my evidence. where is yours?
> 
> 
> I suggest you go ask a preacher why wealth was never a concern of jebus on your way to asking a second question about brothers being keepers and charity to your fellow fucking man.
> ...


* 10% flat tax (consider what we pay in taxes and it's amazing how "progressives" damn churches as money-fleecing schemes but extol the supposed virtues of big government)

* No stealing.

* The man that doesn't work shall not eat.

Those aren't capitalist endorsements but no progressive could tolerate so much economic freedom and responsibility to the masses. 

But in a similar vein: biblical charity is hardly an endorsement of socialism.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the authors were interestd in matters higher than public economic policy.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 12, 2008)

The bible is not a blueprint for socialism. As I pointed out before this thread completely veered out of control, Shogun was just posting that as a red herring. It was stupid to even respond. Look at all the crap we've brought through the door now, with the witches and "your god" this and "your religion" that.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 13, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> I hear what you are saying and I acknowledge that the redistribution of wealth has always been part of their state consitituion.
> 
> The point I was making is that in 2007 Palin INCREASED those taxes on oil companies above and beyond what was already in place, basically changing the rules mid-stream.
> 
> ...



It's different because it's not a royalty on the oil being drawn out of federal lands, based upon the State's constitution...  Based upon long standing agreements, it's tax...    

It's different because it' the Federal Government of the United States, not a state government; 

It's different because The US Government taxes Oil companies in innumerable ways, while Alaska sells the oil companies the right to explore for energy in in their state and requires them to pay royalties on _production_...  _Alaska does not tax their income, Alaska does not tax their sales_; Alaska only asks that oil companies pay for what they take out of Alaska and for fixing what they tear up in the process...

As to Governor Palin raising the royalty...  I damn well expect she did.  In my experience any product which finds itself realizing massive increases in profitability at retail, will inevitably realize exponential increases up and down the supply chain that supports that product.  You can believe that Oil Companies are paying more for everything...


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 13, 2008)

PubliusInfinitu said:


> As to Governor Palin raising the royalty...  I damn well expect she did.  In my experience any product which finds itself realizing massive increases in profitability at retail, will inevitably realize exponential increases up and down the supply chain that supports that product.  You can believe that Oil Companies are paying more for everything...



Consider the genesis of the whiskey rebellion.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I agree with you Shogun, but I also think this guy is reasonable.  He seems new, so probably doesn't realize that we have to deal with totally one sided neo kooks on these boards so we're a little defenses.  I think this guy is willing to be intellectually honest.  I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Republican talking points had merit, about 10 years ago.  I think the only wrong with this guy is he is willing to believe/trust that McCain & Palin are being honest.
> 
> ...



Well I'm touched... Let's review.



> Being pro choice doesn't make me a lefty.  It makes me an American.



American&#8217;s ARE pro-Choice...  But no American believes that there is ever a valid choice to strip an innocent human of its life.  American's understand that there are only two valid justifications to take a human life: 

First: to defend one's own life from Death and or Serious Bodily Injury.

Second: to defend the life of another in one's sphere of influence from death or serious bodily injury.

American's understand the principles on which human rights rest and that human rights rest on nothing BUT the responsibilities inherent in each one...  and that the failure to uphold those responsibilities can only provide for the forfeiture of that right.  For instance, where one exercises their right to their life and the fulfillment of that life by causing harm to another human or in such a way that prevents another from being able to exercise their own right, that person has failed to uphold the responsibility in their right to life and as a result, has no basis on which to stand when someone else does the same to them...  

So yes, Americans are pro-choice...  but Americans understand that the choices we make cannot violate the rights of other humans; Americans defend, _offering no quarter_, against lazy thinkin' which seeks to strip the individual of responsibility because Americans know that _it is the responsibility that their individual rights rest._




> Being anti war does not make me a lefty



That's true; being anti-war does not make you a lefty...  Being anti-war makes you irrational.  Those who are not prepared to defend their life are what nature has designated as FOOD.

Leftism is certainly not anti-war, as leftism has caused hundreds of wars; leftism has murdered hundreds of millions of people...  Leftism merely advances an anti-war perspective where the war is challenging leftism.  Leftism is against the US engaging in war, because the left wants to weaken the US and undermining US cultural resolve to defeat their leftist enemies is an effective way to do that.



> Being pro social security doesn't make me a lefty



Again you're correct, being for a secure society does NOT make you a leftist.  However being pro-strong armed confiscation of the product of an individual's labor for the purposes of distributing that product to others _is a leftist position_.  So while that does not mean, per se, that you're a leftist, it does indicate that you are ignorant of the principles on which your human rights rest.



> Being against the tax break to the rich doesn't mean I want warshington to keep and spend it.  I want them to redistribute it to all of us.



This position is an incontrovertible indicator that you're a leftist...  You've no right to the product of someone else's labor; and that principle doesn't change just because an individual has more than you have and you 'need' some of what they have.




> And, I want the GOP to not spend double what the Democrats spent.



Well the GOP could never outspend the Democrats and sure as hell has never done so...  They just as surely spent too much but they did so with the ascension of the left and for that there should be no forgiveness.  My opinion is that 'he who compromises with a leftist, surrenders their liberty and that of their grandchildren in so doing.'

Deficit spending is 100% a function of social entitlements...  period.

Gut all social spending from the Federal Budget and the budget is balanced immediately.  It's completely unconstitutional and will inevitably destroy the US culture.  





> They may have been able to convince me that the Republicans are better than the democrats had they only been fiscally responsible.  But they were not, so the GOP has NOTHING to offer me.  Except lies, bullshit and scare tactics.



Republicans are simply members in a political party...  It is meaningless. Olivia Snow is a Republican, but ideologically she is indiscernible from Ted Kennedy.

What you're looking for are Americans; AKA: US Conservatives.  They don't spend tax money outside the principles of the US Constitution and there is absolutely NOTHING; no principle, no words... in the US Constitution which provides for the redistribution of the product of the labor of the rightful individual.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 13, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Dude.  again.. if YOU can find a single fucking scrap of scripture to suggest that CAPITOLISM in any way, shape or form is validated by the christian saviour Im ready to see it.  I"VE POSTED my evidence. where is yours?
> 
> 
> I suggest you go ask a preacher why wealth was never a concern of jebus on your way to asking a second question about brothers being keepers and charity to your fellow fucking man.
> ...



You have not posted a single word from the Christian Bible that supports Socialism ON ANY LEVEL...

Your assertion that you have advanced is a damnable LIE~

Now you have failed and you return to demand that your opposition post Scripture in evidence that Christ was a capitalist.  Christ was a capitalist.  

Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties...

You YOURSELF cited Christ feeding the 5000...  Christ exchanged goods and provided services that HE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE... GOODS AND SERVICES THAT HE OWNED, THAT HE AND HIS SYNDICATE POSSESSED; it was THEIRS TO GIVE.  Christ exchanged those goods and services for that which HE SOUGHT TO EXCHANGE...  the attention of those whom he was feeding.

Christ did *NOT* demand that his syndicate go through the countryside stripping people of the product of their labor and bring that stolen property back to him so he could use it to feed 5000 people...  He took goods and servces that HE HAD and asked for what it was he wanted in exchange for that food from those that sat to eat it.  

That's a capitalist pal...


----------



## frazzledgear (Sep 13, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Sarah keeps up the sound bite that she said "Thanks but no thanks to the goverment for the bridge to nowhere.""
> 
> Not true.  She backed it  until it became a national scandal and then voted against it. By the way she kept the 300 million allocated for it and spent it elsewhere in Alaska.
> 
> So, backers of Mrs. Palin, is it okay for her to continue to lie like this day after day.  I just heard 7 sound bites where she repeats this shit.



Your criticism here is what isn't true.  Originally this bridge was supported by most Alaskans, Palin included.  If she is to be criticized because she changed her opinion about it -so should 80% of everyone in the state -including nearly every Democrat.  Who also originally supported it but also changed their minds when further detail about what was really involved became known.  

She IS credited with stopping the bridge -even by the Alaska Democrat Party which officially credited her for it on their website. FOR A REASON!  Congress deals with the GOVERNOR on these things, the decision is hers about whether to go forward or not.  If she ultimately decides to move forward on a project like this that was to require some funding from Alaska as well, then she would have had to take it to the state legislature with a request they allocate the necessary funds.  That is the role the state legislature plays in it.  But Palin never even took it to the state legislature.  She officially withdrew the state of Alaska from it first.  As governor, she could have withdrawn Alaska from this project at any point -she did so before it even went anywhere.  This deal wasn't dead until SHE killed it.

A governor is not an empty figurehead.  Do you boobs even know how your own different levels of government work?  In this country, each state is in most ways like a small country.  Many states have higher operating budgets than that of many countries in the world.  In most things, each state operates independently from each other and from the federal government.  The governor is the equivalent of President of that little country.  We are essentially a nation of 50 little countries joined under one flag.  Which is why governors are considered to be qualified to run for President -their experiences are far more relevant to the job than those holding a non-executive office on any level of government. 

Palin gets the credit for killing this project -not anyone else.  The fact she changed her mind along with nearly everyone else in Alaska after seeing what was really involved - is using GOOD JUDGMENT -exactly what she was elected to do.  

Now let's be honest, if Palin had gone ahead with this project even AFTER finding out in greater detail what was involved  -who would you be blaming for it?  You don't get it both ways here.  If she's is the one you'd blame for going forward with it, then she's the one who gets credit for withdrawing from it.  The blame OR credit is laid at her feet because it falls under HER official duties as governor and no one else's.

In ANY state, it is the governor who gets either the credit or the blame for involving the state in any well-thought out or poorly planned federally funded project.  Because its their job and no one else's to decide on those projects in the first place.  That's the way it works.  But THIS TIME, you bozos are pretending that because this governor actually did the job she was elected to do by withdrawing from a poorly planned federally funded project -it means someone else gets credit for HER work and something that was only within HER authority to do anyway?  LOL  

This constant whining that "hey, she once supported it so it doesn't count if she changed her opinion on it after finding out in greater detail what was really involved" is IDIOTIC -as is this claim that she doesn't get the credit for killing it.  The credit for killing it goes to no one BUT her.  Get real.

She kept the $300 million in Alaska because it was allocated for Alaska infrastructure -originally intended to go towards the bridge, but with no bridge being built -it was simply used for other Alaskan infrastructure.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Sep 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> gotta love you fools saying she has little qualifications while at the same time you back Obama. At least she has some executive experience unlike Obama.
> 
> I know you guys are all upset because by nominating Pallin McCain has gone from being behind to being the favorite.
> 
> Cry me a river fools.



Hey isn't Obama a senator? And Palin a governor?


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> Hey isn't Obama a senator? And Palin a governor?



What part of 'executive' are you having a problem with?


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> What part of 'executive' are you having a problem with?



What part of "good judgement" do you have a problem with?


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> What part of "good judgement" do you have a problem with?



Hmm, that wasn't the crux, but fine. Obama's good judgement: Biden? Wright and his 'church'? Throwing his grandmother under the bus, before tossing Wright there? Being involved with Rezko? Ayers? Taking credit for Meeks work? Spending millions as a 'community organizer', but not accomplishing diddly? The email commercial? The lipstick gaffe? Getting caught up with the accolades from Europe, but forgetting they can't vote? Being against the surge, then for it, then against it? A reformer, that has reformed nothing. 

Great judgment there.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Hmm, that wasn't the crux, but fine. Obama's good judgement: Biden? Wright and his 'church'? Throwing his grandmother under the bus, before tossing Wright there? Being involved with Rezko? Ayers? Taking credit for Meeks work? Spending millions as a 'community organizer', but not accomplishing diddly? The email commercial? The lipstick gaffe? Getting caught up with the accolades from Europe, but forgetting they can't vote? Being against the surge, then for it, then against it? A reformer, that has reformed nothing.
> 
> Great judgment there.



Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, and a $500 billion dollar budget deficit.

Let's end this madness. 

Vote for Obama/Biden on November 4th.


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Rising unemployment, rising gas prices, record foreclosures, record trade deficit, the Big Three on the verge of bankrupcy, $700 billion dollars wasted on Iraq, and a $500 billion dollar budget deficit.
> 
> Let's end this madness.
> 
> Vote for Obama/Biden on November 4th.



As I thought, you have 'hope', but little else.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> As I thought, you have 'hope', but little else.



Bush is the worst president in American history.

It makes no sense to elect a man who voted with Bush 90% of the time.


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bush is the worst president in American history.
> 
> It makes no sense to elect a man who voted with Bush 90% of the time.



Again, you're clueless and spouting what you've heard. McCain is not even close to the 90% agreement. The fact that he isn't reacting to that has more to do with 'his base', which really trusts him very little on domestic issues. Picking Palin was brilliant, but then one would need to understand American politics and how it's played. You obviously do not.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Again, you're clueless and spouting what you've heard. McCain is not even close to the 90% agreement. The fact that he isn't reacting to that has more to do with 'his base', which really trusts him very little on domestic issues. Picking Palin was brilliant, but then one would need to understand American politics and how it's played. You obviously do not.



John McCain disagrees with you. Watch the video of McCain saying he voted with Bush over 90% of the time....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc]YouTube - John McCain Voted With Bush 90%[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> John McCain disagrees with you. Watch the video of McCain saying he voted with Bush over 90% of the time....
> 
> YouTube - John McCain Voted With Bush 90%



Read what I wrote again. It's that time of year.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Read what I wrote again. It's that time of year.



Read what I said.

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Read what I said.
> 
> McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.



Saying it again and again will not make it true, not even if McCain says so.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Saying it again and again will not make it true, not even if McCain says so.



So you are saying McCain is a liar?


----------



## Annie (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> So you are saying McCain is a liar?



Already explained. 

Anyways, it's been fun sparing with you I think I'll head to bed now. Have a good day.


----------



## del (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> So you are saying McCain is a liar?



no , she's saying you're a moron. not exactly a news flash,almond boy.


----------



## Ame®icano (Sep 14, 2008)

Clay Buster said:


> So by that definition Palin is a marxist?
> 
> With her oil-windfall tax she decided to increase taxes on the oil companies doing business in Alaska becasue they were doing well (which I thought was the American way) and then redistribute that wealth to the citizens of her state.
> 
> ...




This would be correct if money came from taxing. Since money came from increased revenue from selling Alaskan oil at higher market prices, it cannot be called marxism.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

Ame®icano;782966 said:
			
		

> This would be correct if money came from taxing. Since money came from increased revenue from selling Alaskan oil at higher market prices, it cannot be called marxism.



Bush raised taxes more than any president in history. 

Deficit spending is an invisible tax.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

Actually, the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS raised taxes more, dumbass.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS raised taxes more, dumbass.



Wrong.

Bush started the Iraq war when the Republicans controlled Congress. Then Bush borrowed $700 billion dollars from the Chinese to fund it. Reagan and the two Bushes are responsible for 90% of the National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

Gosh, I recognize that voice..that ridiculous link...omg, it's the left wing loon KIRK!
Where ya been, buddy?


----------



## del (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bush raised taxes more than any president in history.
> 
> Deficit spending is an invisible tax.



how many people have died from gun related violence since 1960?


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Gosh, I recognize that voice..that ridiculous link...omg, it's the left wing loon KIRK!
> Where ya been, buddy?



You can't dispute the facts, so you result to insults. That's when I know you have nothing.


----------



## del (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> You can't dispute the facts, so you result to insults. That's when I know you have nothing.



well,everyone knows you're an expert on nothing......

.............and almonds, stooge.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

del said:


> how many people have died from gun related violence since 1960?



Over one million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

Thanks for asking....

VPC - Where Did You Get That Statistic? - Firearms Violence - General


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> You can't dispute the facts, so you result to insults. That's when I know you have nothing.



Why are you even bothering with the charade? You're using the same standards, it's not like everyone doesn't know...


----------



## del (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Over one million Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> Thanks for asking....
> 
> VPC - Where Did You Get That Statistic? - Firearms Violence - General



and how much have the arctic ice caps shrunk?

there's a treat in it for ya, kirky, c'mon good boy, how much?

sit.


----------



## Chris (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Why are you even bothering with the charade? You're using the same standards, it's not like everyone doesn't know...



Visit this website and follow the links to the treasury websites....

Thanks for bringing this up, because most people don't know about this. You are the best!

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


----------



## Ame®icano (Sep 14, 2008)

Chris said:


> Bush raised taxes more than any president in history.
> 
> Deficit spending is an invisible tax.



I was replying on Alaska taxing.


----------



## freethought (Sep 15, 2008)

The Palin stuff is getting insane.  Between the lies (money, going to Iraq etc), and her ignorance (what's the Bush Doctrine?), the hands off approach needs to stop and a direct confrontational approach needs to be adopted. And those of us online also need to do things, in a productive manner. (I'd post a link of a really good example video I came across on youtube when I was looking for Palin videos, but as a new poster I can't post links).

Last time we let a politician get away with lies like this we wound up fighting a war in Iraq!


----------



## glockmail (Sep 15, 2008)

freethought said:


> The Palin stuff is getting insane.  Between the lies (money, going to Iraq etc), and her ignorance (what's the Bush Doctrine?), the hands off approach needs to stop and a direct confrontational approach needs to be adopted. And those of us online also need to do things, in a productive manner. (I'd post a link of a really good example video I came across on youtube when I was looking for Palin videos, but as a new poster I can't post links).
> 
> Last time we let a politician get away with lies like this we wound up fighting a war in Iraq!


Oh look another Obamabot.


----------



## freethought (Sep 15, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Oh look another Obamabot.



and let the highly intelligent debate begin...


----------



## glockmail (Sep 15, 2008)

freethought said:


> and let the highly intelligent debate begin...


 Yes please do.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 15, 2008)

freethought said:


> and let the highly intelligent debate begin...




did i hear the word intelligence mention  with debate?  come on?    you will only find that in the "flame zone"...

<--always trying to help....


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 15, 2008)

del said:


> well,everyone knows you're an expert on nothing......
> 
> .............and almonds, stooge.



How do you feel good about yourself when you come here and waste space?  If I was going to come here and say you suck, I would at least include something of value, like McCain has melanoma, a very serious kind of cancer that no one knows a lot about.  At 70, he has a 1 in 3 chance of making it to 70.

So if you are not a religious wacko, don't vote for McCain, because Palin will be the president.  More likely than not anyways.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> How do you feel good about yourself when you come here and waste space?  If I was going to come here and say you suck, I would at least include something of value, like McCain has melanoma, a very serious kind of cancer that no one knows a lot about.  At 70, he has a 1 in 3 chance of making it to 70.
> 
> So if you are not a religious wacko, don't vote for McCain, because Palin will be the president.  More likely than not anyways.



melanoma is a very serious form of skin cancer but the survival rates for people with it are going up.  as with anyone with skin cancer of any type...he will be required to have full body physicals...at the intervals recommmended by his doctor.  

President Kennedy was in great health when he arrived in Dallas....


----------

