Posted on 01/23/2010 10:19:54 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Paul Streitz has decided to call Sarah Palin by her real name, because she endorsed John McCain (who is trying to win a fifth term as Senator) and said she will campaign for him. Fanatic Palinites, such as the editors of the misnamed „conservatives4palin.com” website (they should rename it „liberals4palin.com”), lambasted him and called him a “backstabber”.
“If Paul Streitz’s support of Governor Palin is contingent upon his agreeing with every decision she makes or her selling out her deeply-held values, that’s unfortunate. While all support is appreciated, the governor has never been for sale. Ask the Alaska establishment, who learned that early in her political career.”
Palin has proven that she IS for sale – if one picks her for veep. She’s endorsed a despicable traitor because he chose her as his veep.
Palin is so dishonest (or so ignorant) that she didn’t even tell the truth about why she endorsed John McLame. She claimed that:
“John McCain is on fire to kill Obama’s government takeover of healthcare and that’s what I want to see.”
Which might be incorrect, because McCain favors the SAME policy on socialized medicine as Obama – he just might vote against this particular Act. McCain favors socialized medicine, as proven by Steven Warshawsky:
“McCain’s campaign website [of 2008 – ZM] demonstrates that his thinking on this issue is much closer to Hillary Clinton than Adam Smith. For example, McCain states that “controlling costs” is his top priority, and that “nothing short of a complete reform of the culture of our health system and the way we pay for it will suffice.” This is a recipe for massive government interference in the health care industry. McCain also supports universal coverage, claiming that “we can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens.” Completing the liberal trifecta, at the January 5 ABC NEWS debate, when Romney criticized McCain for “turn[ing] the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys,” McCain replied, “Well, they are.” Plainly, if he were president, McCain would serve as the Democrats’ “useful idiot” for their plan to impose socialized medicine on the nation.”
Also, I’ve heard from a friend that McCain will likely now try to save the socialized medicine bill. So on socialized medicine, McCain and Obama differ only about particular bills, NOT about the merits of socialized medicine itself.
What about the task of protecting the American people? No duty is more important than that one. But on that issue, McCain is also liberal and unreliable. Palin falsely claimed that:
“And his commitment and his leadership on national security to win the war on terror, that’s what we need. (…) national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.”
Palin is flat wrong. McCain is NOT committed to the task of defending the American people, and he’s not a leader on anything except liberal policies. He „doesn’t get it”. He doesn’t understand how to win the Global War on Terrorists, nor does he understand any defense issue or foreign policy issue confronting America now. I’ve written several articles pertaining to this guy, demonstrating what McCain’s specific policies are, and why they are wrong. So I’m not going to repeat those entire articles. Let me comment again on McCain’s policy on the GWOT, though, because that’s one specific issue that Palin mentioned.
John McCain does NOT say that America should attack its enemies before they attack America. He also endorsed Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo, and he opposes “enhanced interrogation techniques”, which are absolutely necessary to gain intel information and protect America.
McCain also buys the PC propaganda about the root causes of the Islamic threat. He believes that these root causes are “poverty, tyranny and despair”, and ignores what terrorists themselves say motivates them: the Quran, which contains several explicit commandments to kill nonbelievers.
In short, McCain doesn’t recognize the real nature of the Islamic threat, and he’s not prepared to combat it effectively. Anyone who isn’t prepared to combat it effectively is a person who doesn’t belong in the Senate. If the GWOT is the most important issue for you, McCain is undisputably the worst possible Senatorial candidate from Arizona.
I did not include McCain’s cretinous, liberal, anti-American policies on foreign policy issues other than the GWOT, even though I could (foreign policy is not limited to the GWOT, although Sarah Palin, as an ignorant person, doesn’t understand that). My articles about McCain refute his idiotic policies, so I just wrote a reply to what Palin explicitly said. She did not comment on McCain’s treasonous policies like nuclear disarmament and the progressive abolition of conventional weapon programs (which are necessary to protect America against China).
The failed 2008 VP candidate also said this about McCain:
“And he is a statesman, and I don’t hesitate at all to say, no.”
Which is not true. McCain is not a statesman; anyone who calls him a statesman insults real statesmen. A genuine statesman fights for the right policies, regardless of ideology; works for his country 24/7; and retires when he should.
McCain has spent the last 9 years promoting destructive liberal policies to punish the GOP for its decision to give Bush the 2000 Republican nomination; he’s been working against the US and for his liberal ideology (together with fellow liberals like Kennedy, Obama, Russ Feingold, and Hillary Clinton); and he has refused to retire – he’s vying for his fifth term as Senator. By comparison, George Washington refused to serve as President for a 3rd term, even though as of 1797, there were no presidential term limits. McCain is running to keep his salary, not to serve the American people, whose opinions are irrelevant for him.
Palin ended her statement thus:
“we do need his leadership, especially on those two fronts: Government takeover of healthcare, he wants to kill it; national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.”
See above. Her claims are false.
Whether she uttered those claims because she’s ignorant or because she knows they’re false and decided to lie for McCain, only Palin knows. Regardless of the answer to that question, she’s not qualified for the Presidency, as she has proven with these statements and other utterances. She embarrasses herself everytime she speaks. Conservatives4palin.com editors claim that she is simply behaving like a loyal person. But one’s own country is supreme to any person and any requirement for loyal individuals. When the choice is “Either the country or the person you should loyally endorse”, a real hero, a real patriot, a real statesman/stateswoman chooses the country, not the person. Palin has endorsed a strident liberal who’s trying to enrich himself with taxpayers’ money.
I was a fan of Palin myself. But I’m now convinced that she’s not a conservative, nor is she a politician qualied for the Presidency of the United States. She’s simply just another RINO endorsing another RINO. No real conservative would ever endorse McCain for the Senate.
I don’t want or need to read all that. How the state of Alaska describes and/or accounts for it’s resource extraction fees just doesn’t matter to me.
It is their deal and the oil companies can pump it there or not. Only thing I expect is that the fedgov stay out of it.
“A “Republican” is a dominantly political animal, willing to compromise its values in order to seek political gain. “
You are so full of shit you stink!!!!
Thank you jonrick46 for sharing your insights!
And you, sir, are the greatest Freeper of all time.
Are you a dolt or something? A profits tax is by definition based on an individual company's profit. Maybe you ought to look the word "profit" up some time. Company A drills 100 barrels of oil from said piece of land. Company B drills 100 barrels of oil from another piece of land. Both pay the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY to Alaska, a price based on the market price of a oil, for the privelege.
But because Company A is more efficient or pays less overhead or simply has better management, it makes a bigger profit from those 100 barrels than Company B does. Yet COMPANY A PAYS THE SAME AMOUNT TO ALASKA AS COMPANY B.
Why? Because this "tax" has nothing to do with the company's profit! Sure, the higher the price of oil the bigger the profit an oil company stands to make, but it by no means dictates the profit a company WILL make. The level of profit a company will make is dependent on how it runs its operations. It's why one company dealing in the same commodity can make a bigger profit on a $5 deal than a different company. Catfish is full of sh*t.
Catfish, All, lurkers, everyone -- UNDERSTAND that the catfish boob is lying to himself and to us. He slings around buzzwords like "windfall profits tax" because he knows it scares people. BUT HE IS LYING.
He asks me to explain how this isn't a windfalls profit tax? I ask him (but he'll just continue with his chest-pounding and name calling) to explain exactly how a fee paid to the state government for the rights to extract a resource from state-owned property, a fee based NOT on a company's profit but based on the going price of the resource that's being extracted, is in any way shape or form a "profits" tax?
Catfish is a liar and a propagandist, pure and simple. Don't take my word for it -- do research on your own, and ask yourself WHY Catfish only urges you to read the one-sided article in the Seattle Times, instead of an article that takes the same side he dies and is much more DEVASTATING, on the Hot Air Blog (which I linked above in an earlier post). On that blog, in August of 2008, Ed Morrisey wrote a compelling and thoroughly discouraging piece claiming the same thing Catfish claims, and the first two thirds of the posts are from people who say things like, "Gosh, I loved Sarah, but I guess she's just another RINO. Cross her off my list!" and "Everytime somebody comes along who looks so much like a true conservative, it turns out to be an illusion. I'm so disappointed in Sarah."
Now wouldn't you think Catfish would WANT YOU TO READ THAT STUFF because it so heartily supports all his claims here?
Here's why Catfish never links to that Ed Morissey piece that very effectively throws the same "windfall profits tax" charge at Palin that Catfish does: Catfish is afraid you'll read beyond the first two thirds of the posts and read the last third of the posts, complete with links to places with other discussions to back it up, that show pretty clearly that calling it a "windfall profits tax" is an out-and-out lie and fabrication, pure and simple, and that some argue that even calling it a "tax" is a stretch, and that in all probability Ed Morrissey fell for, or was manipulated by, a liberal hit-piece in the Seattle Times designed to get conservatives to become (falsely) disillusioned with Palin.
Catfish is the tool. If he doesn't like the fact that Palin made it more expensive for oil companies to do biz in Alaska, that's one thing, and I can totally sympatize and even agree with it. I'd think he was perfectly honest and honorable.
The fact -- and it is a FACT -- that he lies instead. He cannot attack Palin effectively by being honest, so he has to lie. That says a LOT about both Palin and Catfish.
Jeez!!!!
As for the Seattle Times article, you're right -- you didn't link to it in this thread, and maybe it wasn't you that linked to it in the other thread, either. You cannot find anything to link to that supports your claim that this is a "profits" tax because it isn't. It's a fee based on the price of the commodity being extracted from the land, using the same graduating royalties structure that an oil company would pay to a private land owner, at least according to a poster on one of the blogs who says that in his job, he wrote such contracts between private landowners and oil companies in the past.
"Moonbat," "Frothing at the mouth," all chest-pounding from a guy who has nothing more than anger because Palin made it more expensive for his industry to do business in Alaska. THAT is a legitimate complaint; I'd have more respect for you were honest enough to call this spade a spade. Instead, you pull a Joseph Goebbels and spin it with an illegitimate label designed for scaremongering, "windfall profits tax," when it has nothing to do with a company's profit, but only its potential profit.
You are a liar, and my calling you one has YOU frothing at the mouth, it appears.
Care to re-think the way the world works? I believe the Dems train wreck stopped that very well. You confuse what McCain would really do (sign bills after token opposition) and Obama is really able to do which is not get reforms passed, with what Obama’s assumed socialist intentions are. It doesnt matter what we THINK he wants to do, what matters is what he can do and what McCain would have done!
If McCain was president the Senate version of the bill would have been Signed by him in July. After the McCain Pelosi stimulus.
“If McCain was president the Senate version of the bill would have been Signed by him in July. After the McCain Pelosi stimulus. “
Absolutely!
It would be a watered down version of Obama Care, and Pelosi would have taken over from there.
I don't remember McCain being conservative and trustworthy, ever. Sometimes he fools people though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.