Yes, Sarah Palin is a RINO.

The Reality Check ^ | 2010-01-23 | Zbigniew Mazurak

[Clinging Bitterly]

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.

[dalereed]

“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!!!!

[betty boop]

Thank you jonrick46 for sharing your insights!

[Paradox]

And you, sir, are the greatest Freeper of all time.

[Finny]

YOU'RE THE LYING TOOL, catfish, and you're frightening. HOW CAN YOU CALL SOMETHING NOT BASED ON A COMPANY'S PROFIT A 'WINDFALL PROFIT TAX"'?

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.

[catfish1957]

Do you realize how big an idiot you look like when start frothing at the mouth. Again, I think FReepers are an intelligent lot, and know and understand what constitutes a "windfall profist tax" And where did I state the Seattle Times article in this thread liar? What I posted was the Alaska statutory summary which clearly states that taxation rate goes up based on the price of oil. Its crystal clear, so quit spinning it like the moonbat you are.

Jeez!!!!

[Finny]

No, it's crystal clear that this "tax" is a fee for the use of land owned by the state of Alaska, and that the fee is graduating based on the price of oil, not on a company's profits. It means that the more a company drills, the higher the supply of oil, hence the lower the price of oil, hence the less "tax," or fee, the company pays per barrel for the use of the land. The idea was to make it so the oil companies have a financial incentive to INCREASE oil production. It's complicated. You are banking that it's too complicated for most people to go to the trouble of figuring out, and then you try to simplify it with the fearful title "windfall profits tax." And when somebody calls you on your propagandizing, you whine, "You're a frothing moonbat!" because you don't have any other defense.

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.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Would we have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE with Juan McLoser as President? Your answer will determine how honest you are.”

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.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“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.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Because McCain as the presidential contender was more conservative and trustworthy than McCain as the Senator.

I don't remember McCain being conservative and trustworthy, ever. Sometimes he fools people though.