You replied: "Funny, I don't recall saying that. Bit defensive when someone dares to ask a simple question. Guess I touched a nerve."
Early in this thread, you asked, and I quote: "How is making oil companies send checks to Alaskans conservative?" You say it's what I WANT you to have written? IT'S WHAT YOU WROTE. That was the "simple question" that inspired a whole bunch of equally simple, straightforward posts here explaining how yes, it WAS indeed a conservative way to handle royalties paid to the state for extracting oil from state-owned property.
When people explained to you that the checks were royalties paid to the citizens of Alaska for the use of state-owned land for oil drilling, you continued to protest, leading one to the reasonable conclusion that you must therefore be advocating the idea that the oil companies should be able to use the land for free -- either that, or that the royalties paid by the oil companies should remain in the state's coffers, but THAT is certainly not conservative and it would be disrespecting your brains and dignity to think that's what you meant.
I continue to conclude that at the bottom, you're confusing Libertarianism -- the idea that the state shouldn't own the land in the first place -- with conservatism. I suggest that you're inclined to indulge the confusion because such misrepresentations boost the firepower of the ammunition you use to bash Palin.
It's interesting to see how few ways people can find to bash Palin without being misleading. Folks can legitimately bash her for her support of McCain (that bugs me) and for the fact that she did make it more expensive for oil companies to do business in Alaska. Those are two absolutely legit things folks can throw at Palin. But they're both fairly weak in the big Palin picture, so folks who don't like Palin have to resort to misrepresentation and distortion of truth to bash her more effectively.
Early in this thread, you asked, and I quote: "How is making oil companies send checks to Alaskans conservative?" You say it's what I WANT you to have written? IT'S WHAT YOU WROTE.
Uh, what you CLAIMED I said isn't what I wrote. Where did I write that any company should drill on state lands for free?
Answer: I didn't. You, though, have jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that because I asked "What's conservative about this position?" that means I think any company should be able to drill etc. etc.
You're either a liar, or you can't read. Pick one.
I continue to conclude that at the bottom, you're confusing Libertarianism -- the idea that the state shouldn't own the land in the first place -- with conservatism. I suggest that you're inclined to indulge the confusion because such misrepresentations boost the firepower of the ammunition you use to bash Palin.
And you continue to be wrong, for the same reason.
And, once again, I ask--where have I "bashed" Palin--when I simply asked about the conservative position on something which, we now learn from this thread, was merely her following the state Constitution and not something she dreamed up on her own, or when I said, if forced to choose now, that I would support her over any other candidate currently out there?
I'll put my independence of mind over your silly labelling of anyone as a "basher" as being the mark of a true conservative anyday, sporto. ;)