timesjoke

Nice try there Joe, you and hugo worked it out pretty well together but that is not actually what I said. I said only those who can prove they pay taxes should be allowed to vote because people who do not pay taxes always vote for socialist agendas and severely left leaning canidates. It was a joke actually because I know something like that could never happen, it would never be politically correct. Ever 'wish' you could win the lottery? Ever talk with friends about how you would spend the money "if" you won? This is the same thing. hugo on the other hand wants something that can and does happen all the time, to give individual politicians the power to "buy votes". Who cares what segment of votes they are buying? The result is the same, either the people getting the money "earned" the funds or they did not. So did hugo 'earn' the money that offsets his personal tax burdon in the State of Texas? Or is he instead getting 'free money' paid in on his behalf to lower his burdon? Is that welfare.........?

Well considering Obama rejected requests earlier in the campaign to help Coakley win, I am sure they all thought this was an "easy win". Only in the last few days has Obama and company took action to try and help her win, the problem is, they will not learn a thing from this. A republican has not won a Senate seat from Mass. sense 1972......... 1972......... But now the mostly democrat and independent area is close to electing a Conservative on the eve of some of the most socialist legislation America has ever seen.........and I bet Obama and the rest of the elite will never even consider why even the very liberal people of Mass. are rejecting him and his actions....... If not for the extreme left agenda, this seat would have been a slam dunk, but even the normally very liberal people of Mass. are going "wait a minute, this is just way too much". If the conservative does not win, it will only be because of the independent who is running that will take votes away from the Republican. A Libertarian named Kennedy (no relation) is refusing to step down from the election so he will get some of the votes that would normally go to a republican canidate, I just hope he does not hand the win to the Democrat.

Hugo suffers from an inferiority complex, he attempts to overcome that complex by acting all superior and know-it-all on internet forums where he never has to actually stand up to his crazy comments. I exposed his so called conservative writer for the true socialist he and hugo are, and to try and make up for that, he plays these games like the kid covering his ears and saying "I can't hear you" over and over again. I may be the most 'loud' person calling hugo out on his obviously screwed up notion of what a conservative is, or even what socialisism is, but at least we are all consistent to never vote for someone like Obama, his independents fully supported Obama as President and hugo all but admits he voted for Obama as well. Sure, we can all have little things that may not perfectly fit another person's view of what is, or is not conservative but my point to hugo is getting pissed off at Palin to the point your voting for someone ten times worse voting for Obama makes no sense at all. If Sarah is a socialist because she enforced laws and rights already in place before she took office, then everyone is a socialist, because even hugo is supporting "free money" to be given to the elites he thinks deserves it. I really do believe hugo voted for Obama, all from spite because he bought into the liberal hype against Sarah Palin, hugo was suckered, and now his way of dealing with that is to go even further down the liberal tactic of false accusations.

And yet hugo supports Big Government grabbing up the resources itself, and using it for individual political gain...... Hugo has always been two faced, he says he supports a conservative value system but at the same time he also says he wants the "free money" to go into his pocket. That is exactly what the writer of the piece he posted and called a great conservative said, so that must be his real possition. Now hugo is just dancing around the point, either the resources belong to someone or they do not. Should the oil companies get the oil out of the State for free? What is the real difference between politicians sharing the sale of oil with all members of the State or the same politicians using the sale of oil to reward 'select' members or companies in the State? Seriously, what is the real difference? Equal shares certainly makes it harder for the funds to be used for individual corruption in Government, and I like that idea. As much as hugo loves to "say" he is against Government, he sure does support the all powerful and corrupt Government methods of excluding the people and doing whatever they want for personal political gain a lot.

Danny, but hugo comes in close with this comment:

Oops, busted again. As much as hugo likes to claim I am the reason he does not debate in a reasonable way, it was not me who had to attack the other person's dead mother because I could not handle the hard questions being asked...... Hugo has avoided direct questions from IWS and snaf as well. I am just the most vocal to point it out each time hugo dodges an honest question or point.

But the point I made earlier of how these same Alaskans are still paying more tax money into the Government than they receive back in the form of a check still applies: You admit it there, every product purchased at a store has embedded taxes into it, all taxes are passed on to the consumer so when these "poor" people spend their money, they are actually paying the taxes of companies.......companies do not pay taxes, they pass the cost of the tax to their goods/services sold. Then there is property taxes and other government fees to cover just about every other aspect of life, no hugo, these people are not getting 'free money', they are getting a refund for "PART" of the money paid into the Government back. Your problem is people you have no respect for are getting a tax refund, you want a 'better' class of person to get 'free money'. I pointed out before, the writer you said was a good conservative wants the funds redirected into his pocket in a larger amount than he already gets, did this man do anything to actually earn funds made off of the oil? Did he extract the oil from the ground? Did he ship the oil to storage plants? Did he own the land? Did he do a single thing in his life to assist the oil collection/transport/sale process? So how has he "earned" the money, much less a greater percentage of the sale than anyone else in the State of Alaska?

No point in slowing down spending money we do not have........ I wonder how deep in debt we will be at the end of this administration? Not saying I don't "want" to help people, but where does the money come from?

Well I partly agree with hugo in that handouts are bad most of the time, at least handouts run by Governments are bad, run by churches and such are usually very good for the community. Where hugo is missing the boat is he refuses to see the oil as belonging to the people. Hugo wants to give the politicians free reign to use the oil for personal political gain. Look at it this way: Obama promises to steal money from my paycheck and after extracting some of it for the overhead of buracracy, to give that to people and buy votes, 'free money' to those who did nothing and gave nothing up to receive this money in exchange for a vote. If the main concern is that people got money they did not "earn", then how is it any different to redirect these funds from the sold oil to "only" people who pay large amounts of taxes? Did the people paying higher taxes go out and extract the oil? Did these people own the land? Explain how these people "earned" the oil sale money? Otherwise it is just another form of welfare, only to what hugo would call a "better class" of person. To me it is about the law, if the oil "belongs" to the people, then they should be reimbursed for it's sale. I seriously doubt a politician who was given complete control over the oil would do anything but figure out how to line his own pockets with money. I believe texas also shares the oil proceeds with all residents in one form or another, keeping fees and taxes low for just about everything. That must be welfare too right?

Hard to do while you independents claim to be conservative but then put the pure socialists in power by voting for Obama. At least the Republicans are not voting for Obama, you guys are. That is the real reason independent canidates have a hard time getting popular, they can't seem to get behind the least evil when it is the most important thing to do. Take McCain, no he was not the most conservative person in the world, I had a lot of issues with him myself, but you independents would not vote for him and instead voted for Obama. Obama has done more damage in his first year than McCain could have done in 20 years and yet you guys still could not get behind him. You can't always get what you want, but sometimes you can help stop the worse things you don't want, and for some reason, you guys can't understand that concept. Like your attacks on Palin, while it is good to consider things like if letting the people of Alaska own oil, it is wrong to say you would never vote for her when she is head and shoulders more conservative than anyone else "right now" you could name as having enough National popularity to win a National election. That means you would rather the true socialists win.

Hugo says the money should go to people who pay taxes, and I have shown that there are many, many ways to pay taxes, even hugo party agreed that there are different ways people pay taxes, so why is it hard for him to understand that while the people getting the 'free money' may not pay one kind of tax, they are most likely paying other taxes that still amount to more than the payments they get from the Government? Take for example that the various Government levels make way more money from the sale of gas than the oil companies. When prices were hitting record highs I remember story after story about the 'evil' oil companies and the profit they make but not one story about how the Government made three times as much profit without any risk. So hugo wants the all powerful Government to own all the oil too? Give the oil away for political contributions and personal gain? Is that not welfare for politicians? Did the politicians "earn" the oil? Why give the oil to politicians? Seems to me hugo is still inconsistent, in one breath he says police deserve to be screamed at because they represent an oppressive Government, then he says the same oppressive Government should be able to take oil resources for personal political gain.......... Weird.......

No, your completely missing the point, hugo wants welfare, but he wants it for himself. Look at what the writer said, he wants the money to go to offset the taxes he pays, hugo says this is his idea of a great conservative so there you go. Hugo and the writer both say it is fair to take the money and give it back to those who pay taxes, well I just pointed out that there are many ways each person pays taxes and the average alaskan is still paying in more money in taxes than they are getting back with these payments for sold oil so where is the problem? For someone who loves to pretend to be so educated and talking down his nose at everyone, I wonder why hugo is incapable of understanding that point.

Thanks Ali. Very nice poem Chopper, thank you for that, I am printing it out and I am considering passing it out to people, I liked it very much.

All that matters is they vote the right way. If they do vote the right way, then anything they say is okay. Could you imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that about Obama?

No, the question is who has the right to own something? You say only a select few can own the oil, only 'your' kind of people, lol. The elite show their true colors once again. Why is it your willing to take away property rights from some and then redistribute "their" possessions to you hugo?

First you say this: Then you say this: Your a piece of garbage hugo, you obviously have no decency in you at all.

My mother just died and you have the balls to say something like this? Be damn lucky you can hide behind your computer screen and spout crap like that you coward because if you ever grew a set enough to say that to my face we both know you would not be telling anymore lies ever again. But there is the real point, hugo is really the socialist he tries to call other people. He wants the 'free money' to go to him, and not to those he looks down his nose at, but guess what, the law is the law and these people are earning money from the sale of their property, if hugo and the writer is too stupid to understand the difference between selling what you own and welfare.........well clearly they don't, that is why both hugo and the writer are not asking to end welfare..... Instead they are asking for the welfare to be redirected into "THEIR" pockets....... No, hugo is definately not a conservative minded person, he is really a socialist himself asking for handouts, and me exposing his true socialist self is why he feels he has to attack me in such nasty ways. You feel like a big man now hugo? Proud of your accomplishment to attack a man's dead mother? Your a sick, twisted piece of garbage hugo, and one day you will eat a bullet out of your own gun because even you will come to understand just how worthless you are to humanity. Anyway, the point is made where even the most stupid can understand that the funds each Alaskan earns from their share of sold property is only offsetting the taxes everyone pays into the Government in many, many ways. Just buying every day items from a department story will have the average person paying a massive amount of Government taxes burried into the cost of the goods they purchase. Buying a hunting liscense, registering their car, almost everything we do involves people giving money to the Government. But hugo wants to pretend like these forms of paying taxes is not really important and should not be considered in the discussion because it ruins his desire to redirect the welfare to other people instead of the people he is looking down his nose to. But even the poor have the right to the law hugo. Under the law they own property, the property they own is the oil. The funds they receive is from the sale of their property. If you want to steal away their property, then why not steal "YOUR" property? Property laws are at the heart of a capitalist system and if you are ready to erase a segment of our population's legal rights to property to give yourself more money in your pocket you did not earn, then your clearly embracing a socialist government...... Why? Because we all know there is no such thing as a "pure" socialist system, men are still in the middle controlling things so there are still the advantaged few who think they are better than the rest. You can tell the way hugo talks of these poor people as if they are less than roaches, subhuman and not deserving of any respect and certainly have no right to possessions. So hugo is one of those "elite" that deserve the 'free' money, but that is not welfare, that is just what the world owes him.........

The problem with hugo is he still has a mental block (self imposed) against the concept of laws that say the oil "belongs" to the people. Sarah did not write those laws, she only enforced them. Hugo reminds me of the liberal idiots who claimed that because Sarah was against abortion, she would eliminate legal abortions for all women if she was to be the vice president, simply stupid. But guess what, time to kill all of hugo and the socialist writer's possitions...... How many ways do we pay taxes? It a payrol tax the only way the Government dips into our pockets? Of course not. Certainly payrol taxes and such are the most obvious but even every item we buy in the store has an inflated price to pay for the taxes each company has to pay and passes that cost down to the consumer. All taxes are passed down to the consumer, basic cost of doing business process. How about fees? A fee is just another tax, most current fees used to be covered under our basic taxes such as 'fire and rescue' fees that are added on top of our land taxes. There are litterally thousands of ways our Government extracts money from each of us so still, the average Alaskan is still paying more into the Government than they are getting back. Keeping this in mind, offering all Alaskan people a fair share of the sold property of all Alaskans is still only a refund to taxes paid into their Government. Can you undersatand that concept hugo?

Thanks again, my son and his wife is flying in today while my sister in Ohio and her two daughters (one 22, one 12) is comming in tomorrow, my once 'roomy' home is about to be packed, lol.

I did not miss the authors point, his point is to take the resources from everyone and only let the few most wealthy members of society get paid from the sale of those resources. Fine except you miss one very important point, that is not legal under the Alaskan constitution. All Alaskan people equally own the oil resources and the money they receive is from "SELLING" what they own. You may not like that fact, but there is the reason individual States were supposed to retain their own control and not have an 'all powerful' Government dictate down to the States what they can or cannot do. RO ran off because he was completely embarrassed and ashamed of being guilty of what he tried to accuse me of. RO was a pretty smart guy, but like you, he was incapable of looking past assumptions. You believe the people of Alaska should not be able to own the oil and as such, benefit from it's sale, so when Sarah Palin enforces that right (that already existed before she took office) somehow that makes "her" a socialist in your eyes. But you independents voted for Obama and that act does not in your eyes make you socialists. Double standards? Yep. Look at Sarah's record, give some actual examples of her not supporting conservative values and limited Government other than this one thing your stuck on that is not welfare.........if you can.

And yet you can't find even one example of a socialist move by Palin, you hide behind the false assumption that the oil is not the property of every Alaskan. It is not socialist to sell what you own. Again, who owns the oil hugo, why is it your so scared of answering a direct question? As far as co2 and such, even your own artical said there is a diminishing rate of return for co2 as a 'greenhouse gas', if you lack the ability to understand such basic scientific concepts, what else can I say? It was you independents who voted for Obama, not me, everyone here who did not vote for Obama agrees the oil belongs to the people of Alaska and their payments from the sale of that oil is reasonable, you not being able to tell the difference between welfare and a sale of owned goods means you most likely cannot understand the real issues of the day, or even what a conservative really is. And that same writer wants 'free money' taken from oil companies to be diverted into his pocket. If you think this guy is a conservative, then that explains why you independents voted for Obama. The author is not asking for money back from what he sent in, he is asking the funds to "replace' what he would otherwise have to pay. That is him taking money he did not earn, welfare. What is the difference between taking money from the oil companies and giving it to every Alaskan resident equally or instead giving the same money only to "select few" Alaskan residents based on their wealth? Who owns the oil hugo? Someone will always benefit, what you and this writer seem to be saying is only those residents of Alaska who pay very high taxes should have the right to own/sell property. I go back to the same question you cannot answer.....who owns the oil that is being sold hugo? Don't be scared, answer the question.

I am sorry for not wording that correctly to offer my point in the right way. What I meant was she has been fully involved in the forum and having conversations and such while at the same time there have been many, many conflicts on that forum. So if the same behavior at the jungle does not stop her and other people from talking there, why would that be the reason to stop talking here?

You know hugo, if you had a thought of your own some time it would be nice, you always seem to lean on the words of other people instead of having your own voice, your like a puppet. This guy you call a conservative is actually a socialist who is asking for more 'free money' for his group and to take it away from people he feels are unworthy of their share of the oil sales. The writer is obviously a mess, first he admits he is also cashing the checks but he wants to "preach" against the checks, if he decided to live the life he is preaching about I would give him some respect, if he is acting like a drug addict and calling drugs 'bad' as he is himself shooting up, I cannot respect that. Anyway, let's consider the main point the writer is trying to make but runs all around that point like he is scared to actually say the words: The people of Alaska do not own the oil This must be his point, he keeps calling the payments "free money", that the people are getting money they do not deserve. So who owns the oil? At the same time the writer is saying the people of Alaska do not own the oil and should not get 'free money', the guy says people who pay taxes deserve 'free money'. 'Free money' is 'free money'. You either earned that specific dollar or you did not. The writer simply wants to change "who" gets the 'free money', not end the practice of giving away money not earned. Either the oil belongs to the people of Alaska or it does not. Either everyone benefits from the "sale" of the oil or they don't. I see no reason to take away ownership of the oil from 'some' people, and give their share of the oil to 'other' people who the writer feels is more deserving of 'free money' than someone else.

I just don't think your sane hugo. Time after time when your asked specific questions for you to explain "why" you say things, you run away from the questions like your azz is on fire but at the same time, you say 'other people' are "sipping the Kool-Aid". If all you can do is spout accusations and never explain "why" you believe what you believe in a coherent way, that means your the unthinking robot. Your only example of Sarah Palin being socialist was her helping her people to "sell" the oil they own to oil companies....... Instead of just saying Sarah is a socialist, how about offering some examples, we already shot down your first example, was that the "only" thing you were basing your accusation on? You don't make assumptions based on one example do you? Educate us all with your vast knowledge of Sarah Palin proving her a socialist as you claim. And socialist after that right? The vast majority of independents voted for Obama, how can you call Sarah a socialist when even you vote socialist? Even if you call supporting the sale of oil a socialist move, that is "one" socialist move, you independents have made a much larger socialist impact on America by putting people like Obama into office.

Like Wez was not also attacking or otherwise putting people down who were doing the judging.....right? Face it, we all make judgements based on our own experiences in life, Wez likes to pretend he is "above" it but in reality he is just as judgemental and critical of people, just from another angle. When I asked him if he would call the cops to get his stolen property back, he said yes, that means he supports violence as long as that violence is serving him. I don't know why you say "leaves a person open to attack here". Here? You can say that after the wars that have been fought at the jungle that you personally have been up to your neck in before this forum was ever created? I think many people all over the world have let personal attacks creep into their discussions, here, at the jungle, and millions of other places. Humans love to fight. But we also love to love, interesting how the same person can be so completely different at the same time. Anyway, as Tori pointed out, there can be many opinions of what are the most likely reasons for this young girl to have thrown away her life in drugs and other useless endevers, but taking the time to figure out the "why" might possibly lead to stopping future events like this from happeneing, even if it is just a case by case basis. Burrying your head in the sand, refusing to see the causes or reasons for something like this will help nobody and even can make it worse. ] Society has been turning a blind eye to things like this for a very long time, and thingsa are getting worse, maybe it is time to see some judgements being made to help instead of just sitting back watching this stuff happen with a bag of popcorn in your hand.