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.
Strangely, the Obama administration has been a wake-up call to many who previously were not interested in the debate.
This is the part I don't get: From what I understand of Sarah Palin's values and philosophical commitments (i.e., traditional, constitutional, specifically American), I would have thought she'd have preferred campaigning for J. D. Hayworth.
It seems clear to me Sarah "agrees" more with Hayworth philosophically and even temperamentally than she does with McCain.
Is this a stupid question: "Why is she then campaigning for McCain?"
My response on FR on the thread you threaten to resurrect was the same as it is now: to ask lurkers and FReepers to do their own due diligence and not take YOUR or MY word for it. It is a complicated and convoluted issue which you deceitfully attempt to simplify by falsely labeling it with scary communist-sounding buzzword terminology "windfall profits tax." I would have cut-and-pasted from blog posts I LINKED FOR ALL TO EASILY ACCESS on the thread, which addressed and refuted your arguments years before you posted them here on FR, but to cut-and-paste verbatim would be in violation of ethics and would probably get JimRob in trouble. I'm not going to spend the hours it would take to absorb, analyze, and summarize their informed posts to oblige you; instead, I urged then and urge now any FReepers and lurkers who wonder whether you are telling the truth or not to go investigate for themselves.
Is what you're really saying that instead of basing the State's leasing charge to oil companies (I think that's what you're calling a "windfall profits tax") on the unit of oil produced, the leasing charge is based on the going price of the unit of oil produced?
And IF that is so, if the going price of oil was at a low and the unit charge was fixed at a price that made its production too costly, wouldn't the oil companies be a whole lot less incentivized to increase production? And if the unit charge was fixed at a price extremely low compared to the going price of oil, while the companies would have incentive to produce more oil, would that be an extraordinarly stupid business move on the part of the owners of the land being leased? Wouldn't that be a pretty dumb exective decision for someone watching out for the state's self interests?
In other states, lease income derived from activities on state-owned land goes right back into government bureacracy. If I correctly understood the material I spent hours reading after googling the issue online (which, again, I urge FReepers and lurkers to do as well, because this serious charge against Palin is worth investigating) the leasing negotiation change that Palin made ended up putting more than $1000 MORE on top of the $1200 already being paid in dividends to individual citizens in Alaska that year (I think it was 2007) to spend, invest, or save as they please. HOW exactly was that a negative impact to business?
From the OLR Group... ALASKA OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX
Alaska's oil and gas production tax (Alas. Stat. Sec. 44. 55. 011) applies a percentage tax rate on the net value of oil and natural gas produced in the state. In the case of oil, the net value is the market value of the oil that is shipped to the West Coast, after deducting the producer's production costs (currently about $ 25 a barrel). The law provides for transferable credits against the tax for various expenditures, including oil and gas exploration investments and contributions to higher education institutions in the state. This tax is in addition to royalties paid to the state from production on state land and income and property taxes.
There is a minimum tax based on the gross value of oil produced from the state's North Slope. The minimum is 4% of the gross value so long as the average price of oil on the West Coast is at least $ 25 per barrel (the percentage decreases if the price falls below this level).
There are separate tax rates for (1) oil and gas produced from the fields around the Cook Inlet in southern Alaska and (2) oil and gas produced from property that constitutes a landowner's royalty interest.
In 2007, HB 2001 increased the base tax rate from 22. 5% to 25. 0% of the net value of the oil or gas. The legislation modifies a feature of the tax under which the tax rate increases once the market price reaches a specified level. Under the act, if the net value of oil or gas is less than $ 92. 50 per barrel of oil equivalent, it is subject to a tax of 25% of the net value plus 0. 4% times the difference between the net value and $ 30. Thus, if the net value was $ 80 per barrel equivalent, the tax would be $ 20. 20 (25% times $ 80, plus 0. 4% times $ 50). The rate of the added tax falls to 0. 1% times the difference between the net value and $ 30 if the net value exceeds $ 92. 50.
The act has many other provisions. These include (1) increasing credit for exploration expenditures, (2) making certain expenditures, such as those associated with cleaning up spills, ineligible for the credits; (3) establishing a state fund for purchasing the credits.
Now let me repeat the key aspect of point... and please.....repeat please tell me how this is not a windfall profits tax?
In 2007, HB 2001 increased the base tax rate from 22. 5% to 25. 0% of the net value of the oil or gas. The legislation modifies a feature of the tax under which the tax rate increases once the market price reaches a specified level. Under the act, if the net value of oil or gas is less than $ 92. 50 per barrel of oil equivalent, it is subject to a tax of 25% of the net value plus 0. 4% times the difference between the net value and $ 30. Thus, if the net value was $ 80 per barrel equivalent, the tax would be $ 20. 20 (25% times $ 80, plus 0. 4% times $ 50). The rate of the added tax falls to 0. 1% times the difference between the net value and $ 30 if the net value exceeds $ 92. 50.
Nice spin trying to rationalize the amount of extra money for lease holders and not state the increase tax revenues that the Alaska realized. Sounds like a democratic party talking point. Tell the whole story.... how much did this tax increase add to the Alaskan government coffers?
Secondly, which is really jaw dropping you state "How is this a negative impact to business". Any time (extra) money changes hands from business to a government is a negative impact.
McCain's character is a perfect fit for what I call the independent mindset. This mindset is a culture of its own. It is the get along Charley who goes with the flow. They are fence sitters and reachers across the aisle. Their independent characteristic is a reflection their doing what works best for them.
Sarah Palin is everything that the independent is not. She is what the independent wishes they could be but are afraid to do it. They have no faith and strength in their convictions. I think this is the attraction that McCain has for her. He wants to be able to do what she does and endure the stress that comes with it. He could learn from her and this is how: She could teach him about her own relationship with Jesus Christ that brings her the strength he needs to endure all that brings him pain. Instead of a “bipartisan spirit” he will have the power of the Holy Spirit at work in his heart. If she succeeds, don't you think it would be even better than a magic wand?
This is a very good point. This is the dynamics that has the DemonRATs in great fear. The Tea Party has successfully appealed to the uncommitted independent who, because of the failure they see with the Obama regime, are very fearful and frustrated. Through the Tea Party Movement, independents are being transformed by the conservative message. Independents are finding out it is alright to stand up for their convictions and give up their get along Charley philosophy. They are finding out that if they do nothing, the government will take it from them.
Rush spoke about this transformation last week. The Tea Party is causing independents to vote Republican. It has brought new life into the Republican Party. And the Republican Party everyone thought was road kill has now been brought back to life. How? The conservative message seemed before to be just empty words that spoke about political theories that did not relate to reality. However, with the events brought forth by the Obama regime, the conservative message has taken on a reality that people can relate to. The Obama regime is the embodiment of everything the conservative message opposes. The Tea Party Movement has provided that incubator in which the conservative message can grow in new believers.
Sheeesh, what a comment that is totally devoid of any common sense logic.
Yes, we get it - Juan's name was at the top. But most Americans voted for the TICKET because of 1 person, Sarah Palin, in spite of Juan's name anywhere on the ticket.
Your attempt at semantics falls laughably short and sounds quite clintonian (his "IS means" comment).
Nice tag line Al!
The fact of the matter is that you couldn’t have voted for Sarah Palin w/o voting for Juan McCain! It doesn’t matter what your “feelings” were...you voted FOR McCAIN!
Deal w/ it.
Sorry :)
Now go back to your losing 3rd party nonsense....
"A windfall profits tax is defined as a higher tax rate on profits that ensue from a sudden windfall gain to a particular company or industry."
Since the amount collected by the state of Alaska is tied to the price of oil, hence profit (i.e price of oil tends to increase the profit margin)(see earlier note)Explain to me, how this is not a windfall profit tax.
No one will doubt that Sarah is generally pro business, but for someone like me who works in the oil industry, how do I know she won't pull the same stunt as president.
Again a little hint for those who may question my motive for not wanting to support this woman.
Yes I got it all backwards,someone suggested I consider a lobotomy, perhaps I think about it :)
Sarah Palin is NOT a RINO.
She energized folks and still does.
Had it been a Palin-McRINO ticket instead
of the McRINO-Palin ticket, we might not
have The Obamassiah Wrecking Ball in DeeCee
right now. Who knows? :)
Conservatives may be fooled if Brown votes more like Snowe than DeMint, but he is obviously no reliable conservative. Hardly anyone is.
Otay.
Now back to FB and Mafia Wars for me. :)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1794667501
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.
