The State of Sarah Palin

[True blue (and gold)]

One of the main components of socialism (as a repeat for those of you that may not have heard it the first 25 times I have said it) is the collective ownership of the means of production. This IS lacking from any connection trying to be made between Obama and socialism.

 

On Larry King last night, McCain was asked if he thought that Obama was a socialist. He said, "absolutely not."

[Hoot Gibson]

One of the main components of socialism (as a repeat for those of you that may not have heard it the first 25 times I have said it) is the collective ownership of the means of production. This IS lacking from any connection trying to be made between Obama and socialism.

 

On Larry King last night, McCain was asked if he thought that Obama was a socialist. He said, "absolutely not."

Gov. Palin did not write the Alaskan Constitution but it is her sworn duty to uphold it. That seems like a pretty simple concept. Inaccurately painting Sarah Palin as a socialist does not make Barack Obama any less of a socialist.

 

Maybe Obama's political philosophy fits those of William Ayers' self-described small "c" communism better than classical socialism. Whatever Obama's political philosophy is it does not seem to include capitalism and economic freedom as cornerstones.

[Fastbreak]

Exhibit "A"

It is good to know that things you would say (that you decided not to) are far beyond what I can comprehend. I'm so very gracious that you decided not to confuse me.

 

Exhibit "B"

I understand just fine. According to Palin's absurd definition of socialism, she herself is a socialist. Nevermind she's wrong. If you're going to pour gas on a fire, you should sure as hell make sure you don't pour it on yourself.

 

 

Exhibit "C"

:lol:

 

You guys are bright, and well ahead of your years in regard to your awareness and interest in political and social issues. Although I can easily understand you you may have taken it as "condescending" my previous post was more an expression of frustration of dealing with someone, although clearly and admittedly "bright" that has already predetermined the side they will come down on, no matter what the evidence may be. For this reason, it can seem incredibly futile to spend any amount of time presenting information contrary to your worldview... because, as Habib does in his post above, it is often dismissed with a broad brush swipe and snippy retort.

 

Watusi has essentially framed the point I was making. Every state in the nation has some type of "excise" tax levied upon the natural resources of the state. What they do with these taxes varies widely. As far as Alaska goes, they use them to offset the disadvantages of living and working there... a much higher cost of living, lower overall infrastructure and other conveniences found in warmer states. It is a capitalistic tool used to attract and retain more people to the state, thereby growing their economy and improving revenues and quality of life.

 

By Habib's definitions, Palin is in no way taking over industries and making them holdings of the state. She is not confiscating what some may deem "excessive wealth" to redistribute it to the proletariat. She is saying, "If you're gonna remove these resources and refine them for your profit, you will pay ?% at the time of their removal. At that point, the companies tapping those resources have a choice of whether they feel it is worth it to them or not.

 

This is a normal and accepted practice in a free and capitalistic society. It is not in any way, socialism. In fact, this type of thinking lightens the tax burden on the achievers and producers in a society, thereby increasing incentive to work and produce more, which in turn raises revenues and growth across the board. It is a means of oiling and fueling the engines of commerce, not sucking the productivity out of the system as BO proposes.

 

I could go on in much greater detail, but this will suffice to validate my original premise which is, "I could go on, but I honestly don't expect you to agree or understand" BUT hey, I went the extra mile just to prove I was not intending to condescend. :thumb:

[Habib]

You guys are bright, and well ahead of your years in regard to your awareness and interest in political and social issues. Although I can easily understand you you may have taken it as "condescending" my previous post was more an expression of frustration of dealing with someone, although clearly and admittedly "bright" that has already predetermined the side they will come down on, no matter what the evidence may be. For this reason, it can seem incredibly futile to spend any amount of time presenting information contrary to your worldview... because, as Habib does in his post above, it is often dismissed with a broad brush swipe and snippy retort.

 

The problem is, Fastbreak, I could have just as easily said this to you.

[Fastbreak]

The problem is, Fastbreak, I could have just as easily said this to you.

 

Which clearly leads us right back to:

I could go on, but I honestly don't expect you to agree or understand.

 

My frustration with you Habib, is the fact that you will post at length to support your POV, but wink, nod, overlook and won't lift a finger to debunk what you know beyond a shadow of doubt is an even weaker suggestion of "socialism" attributed to Palin, because it does not assail your political leanings.

 

But hey, you could say that about me too, so here we are.

[Habib]

Which clearly leads us right back to:

 

 

My frustration with you Habib, is the fact that you will post at length to support your POV, but wink, nod, overlook and won't lift a finger to debunk what you know beyond a shadow of doubt is an even weaker suggestion of "socialism" attributed to Palin, because it does not assail your political leanings.

 

But hey, you could say that about me too, so here we are.

 

What are my political leanings, exactly?

 

And I intended to convey that Palin was not a socialist in my first post in this thread. My point was that she's simply changing the definition when convenient, i.e. if she were consistent she would be the subject of her own smears.

[Fastbreak]

What are my political leanings, exactly?

Not touching this one with a stick, other than to state my observation that your longest posts tend to be in defense of BO, or in assaults on Palin.

 

And I intended to convey that Palin was not a socialist in my first post in this thread. My point was that she's simply changing the definition when convenient, i.e. if she were consistent she would be the subject of her own smears.

I'm fine with that, but why no dissertation on what socialism is and isn't as you've posted in defense of BO so HB20 and others might more clearly understand that what Palin has done in AK bears no resemblance to true socialism?

[halfback20]

Not touching this one with a stick, other than to state my observation that your longest posts tend to be in defense of BO, or in assaults on Palin.

 

I'm fine with that, but why no dissertation on what socialism is and isn't as you've posted in defense of BO so HB20 and others might more clearly understand that what Palin has done in AK bears no resemblance to true socialism?

 

I don't believe I ever said this was socialism. I believe I said, "I was curious what some of you thought about some quotes from Palin in this article. This paragraph specifically".

 

I wanted to hear everyone else's opinion.

[Habib]

Not touching this one with a stick, other than to state my observation that your longest posts tend to be in defense of BO, or in assaults on Palin.

 

Assaults on Palin, I'll give you. My defense of Obama is typically that of correcting misinformation. Though I do agree with a few of his policies, I've certainly never given him a ringing endorsement.

 

I think most objective posters would agree that I'm firmly in the moderate camp, perhaps just right of center (I am a Republican, afterall). But, it seems a lot of posters find it offensive that I don't tow the line on every issue. If I think an idea is right, I'll endorse it no matter which side of the fence it is on. For instance, I think Obama is right on foreign policy, but not quite right on the economy - the trouble being that McCain isn't quite right either. Apparently, it is incomprehensible that ideology doesn't guide my opinion. What I object to is this incessant labeling of anyone who doesn't agree with the very conservative leanings of some posters as liberals/lemmings/whatever.

 

I'm fine with that, but why no dissertation on what socialism is and isn't as you've posted in defense of BO so HB20 and others might more clearly understand that what Palin has done in AK bears no resemblance to true socialism?

 

When I can't open a thread without reading it you can rest assured I will. It's the perversion of its meaning that annoys me, not its application to a particular politician.

[cch5432]

Which clearly leads us right back to:

 

 

My frustration with you Habib, is the fact that you will post at length to support your POV, but wink, nod, overlook and won't lift a finger to debunk what you know beyond a shadow of doubt is an even weaker suggestion of "socialism" attributed to Palin, because it does not assail your political leanings.

 

But hey, you could say that about me too, so here we are.

While I too get very frustrated with Habib for, for the most part, only defending left-leaning politicians, it boils down to a few things:

 

1. Habib don't care about no parties, he just has some vendetta against political misinformation.

 

2. Hoot Gibson defends the righties as much or more (and normally does a great job) than Habib does lefties- if Habib is really about political truth, then he should focus on those who are most often mislabeled on this site- the liberals.

 

3. Normally, if I feel that Habib isn't doing his normal job fighting mislabels and untrue terminology, I try to jump in- and often, when I get flustered, I will PM him, and he helps me out sorting through the garbage.

[Pancake]

I think she is a whack job! I see nothing about her that makes me think she should be in the White house. McCain should have picked someone who brought something to his campaign besides a pretty face. I think McCain could be a good president, but choose a candidate that screams gimmick instead of someone who would be better for the country. The republican party had a lot more qualified people and if you want to break it down to gender, he even had more qualified female republicans...

[MountainThunder]

:thumb: Add in the "where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources" part and you add another tier to the tie in with socialism. That's the part missing from Obama's "socialism."

 

What about Alaska having no state income tax. You will NEVER find that missing from Obama's plan (or anyone else in Washington for that matter).

[MountainThunder]

The bottom line is that the state has no income tax because Alaska generates enough other revenues that they don't need them (other states do not have income tax either. eg. Florida). The state also issued a refund check to all Alaskans based on the revenues they recognized last year from the surplus of state government revenues. The state does not control the businesses which is a key element of socialism, so the argument that Alaska or Palin are 'socialists' is based on faulty logic.

 

That being said, I don't believe Obama is a 'socialist', but some of his statements and plans just make people wonder what kind of policies he would enact/sign and how they would impact the free market system.

 

We certainly don't want anyone in Washington who would give a surplus back to the people they were elected to represent. That would be so wrong.

[PepRock01]

Assaults on Palin, I'll give you. My defense of Obama is typically that of correcting misinformation. Though I do agree with a few of his policies, I've certainly never given him a ringing endorsement.

 

I think most objective posters would agree that I'm firmly in the moderate camp, perhaps just right of center (I am a Republican, afterall). But, it seems a lot of posters find it offensive that I don't tow the line on every issue. If I think an idea is right, I'll endorse it no matter which side of the fence it is on. For instance, I think Obama is right on foreign policy, but not quite right on the economy - the trouble being that McCain isn't quite right either. Apparently, it is incomprehensible that ideology doesn't guide my opinion. What I object to is this incessant labeling of anyone who doesn't agree with the very conservative leanings of some posters as liberals/lemmings/whatever.

 

 

 

When I can't open a thread without reading it you can rest assured I will. It's the perversion of its meaning that annoys me, not its application to a particular politician.

 

 

PepRock and Habib are often in agreement on many many things and I doubt anyone on here would call me a lefty or liberal.

 

Of course many would also not call me a conservative either.