Pallin Is a Public Liar

[PubliusInfinitum]

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..

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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...

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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...

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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).

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

No, I agree with you.

 

[Shogun]

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]

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.