Schoolyard Taunting
- Thread starter snafu
- Start date
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
hugo said:
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.
snafu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
hugo you would'nt vote for your grandma if she were running. Your never happy.
Maybe this will make you happy.
BBC News - Sarah Palin: Fox News move widely discussed in US media
Hehe I guess you won't have to read the book.
Maybe this will make you happy.
BBC News - Sarah Palin: Fox News move widely discussed in US media
Hehe I guess you won't have to read the book.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
hugo said:
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?
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
snafu said:
In the long term you sell the land. Private enterprise better utilizes land than the state. In the short term you first apply the money to state projects and secondly rebate taxpayers. You may not pay a state income tax but there are other taxes. The last thing you do is pay people who don't work just for being in Alaska.
Got someone on ignore so I can go back to debating civilly now. Using TJ's style of ignoring the issues and attacking the person gets old after awhile. I guess I just don't have the adolescent male perspective TJ has.
snafu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
hugo said:
I have to disagree that we should sell the land. Second I disagree the private sect would utilize the land better than the people who own it. They would rape the land and not care what type of footprint it left. Not to mention in a democracy we would have to vote for selling the land.
We do use the money for state projects but as our constitution states everybody owns the land, not just the tax payer. We pay federal taxes so it wouldn't be proper to just return their money.
We have indigenous people here that we haven’t stolen their land yet. So we are paying them royalties for the use of said land. They even get more money from CRI in which they were paid more for their land and they also invested it as we did with the permanent fund. If you can gain more capitol by investment whats wrong with that even if ALL Alaskan’s benefit from it?
I get your gest of the damage it does with idol hands but that's not for you or I to determine. At one time I know they were thinking of some sort of bill that would take this money away from them and make them invest some of it but that would be unconstitutional.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
Wow. I sure hope it's full nude strippers or a-cups are a waste of time.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
snafu said:I'm sure if you owned a plot of land with an ocean of oil under you'd sell it.
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.......
snafu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
Yeah I don't think he really believes Alaska should sell the land and then let the oil companies wreak havoc.
Sarah gave that extra $1,200 dollars back to the people because of the gas prices were so high. If he wants to call the state making sure it?s people don?t freeze to death welfare than that?s his stance. But the money she gave back to the people belonged to the people int he first place. And your right. People pay taxes in many ways. If you had to spend $10 for a gallon of milk and everything else was as expensive you would need a break.
Sarah gave that extra $1,200 dollars back to the people because of the gas prices were so high. If he wants to call the state making sure it?s people don?t freeze to death welfare than that?s his stance. But the money she gave back to the people belonged to the people int he first place. And your right. People pay taxes in many ways. If you had to spend $10 for a gallon of milk and everything else was as expensive you would need a break.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
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?
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?
hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
I guess I am a Reagan conservative. I oppose windfall profit taxes. I guess y'all are Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama conservatives. I pray for our country.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosy think the oil windfall profit tax is a great idea.
More taxes, more welfare, government ownership of resources! The new conservative slogan.
I prefer the old conservative approach:
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
Ronald Reagan
That damn Reagan! Why did he repeal the federal tax on windfall oil profits? We could all be getting free money!
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosy think the oil windfall profit tax is a great idea.
More taxes, more welfare, government ownership of resources! The new conservative slogan.
I prefer the old conservative approach:
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
Ronald Reagan
That damn Reagan! Why did he repeal the federal tax on windfall oil profits? We could all be getting free money!
