Governor Palin Used Her Executive Authority to Make Government Smaller and More Ethical

true. In a purely capitalist model, however, there would be no publicly (collectively) owned lands or resources. They would have to pay a landowner or if no one owned the land, set up shop and drill for free.

If I am not mistaken, since the resources are “collectively” owned, even if this was on oil company land or other private property, the company would still have to pay the citizens of Alaska

lets not beat around the bush. It creates collective ownership of natural resources, rather than private ownership.

WW.....I believe they could. The delegates at the convention could indeed get together and withdraw their support for the stain and select another candidate. But I'm thinkin' that we'd all know who that other candidate was prior to the convention.

Now...I could be wrong here, but I believe that it is during the convening of the electoral college that the delegates are "pledged" to a particular candidate...but I'm not sure.

"Now that is funny, I don't care who you are."

Let me get this straight, you are complaining because I dared to comment on a Palin thread? LOL! I wasn't aware that there was some sort of restriction that one had to be a Palin supporter, exclusively, to comment on a Palin thread. Please, show me in the rules where it says that. Oh yeah, and while you're at it, you might want to take a look over on the pro-Perry threads where a bunch of your, oh so innocent, fellow Palin partisans have been engaged in a hate fest, spreading lies, half-truths, and distortions in an effort to destroy Perry and disrupt the threads. You do understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy," don't you?

As for my comment, I find it interesting that you took offense at a post that was very carefully worded so as NOT to paint all Palin supporters with a broad brush . . . my comment must have struck a nerve. Here, let me re-post the relevant portion of my comment so that you can re-examine it:

. . . but many of her supporters are very little different from the Paul cultists. No matter what you say, if you criticize Sarah in any way, you are instantly a liberal and a troll and nothing you can say will convince these zealots otherwise.

They are exactly the same as the left-wing moonbats on DU in that. They will hate on you and lie about you and call you names because you dare to criticize their beloved obsession. It's been that way from day one--sad to say.

All you can do is bask in the fire of their hatred and enjoy it. To waste time arguing with them is the same as trying to convince a committed liberal that he is wrong and equally futile.

They will hate and lie about Perry just as the Paulettes do and the have absolutely no guilt about doing so, because they KNOW they are right.

You chose to ignore my very forthright praise of Sarah and my careful qualification to exclude those who choose to remain rational in supporting her and who can tolerate some criticism of her without becoming outraged and belligerent, and latched right on to my criticism--not of her--but of the extremists who exist among her supporters.

Are you a zealot? Are you one of those who believes that Sarah is so perfect that she can't be criticized? Are you one of those who attacks anyone who dares to say anything--even if it's factual--that is in the least way critical of Sarah? If so, you are irrational. If not, they why are you offended?

I came late to Sarah's camp, although I liked her, I didn't believe she was qualified for the Presidency. I will stand by my original position at the time it was taken, but Sarah has grown magnificently and while she retains the intellect, the razor sharp wit and magnetic personality that attracted so many, she has added depth to her knowledge and understanding. She still can eviscerate a liberal with her tongue, but when talking the issues, she is much more comfortable and knowledgeable and comes off as such.

I have also taken the time to learn the facts about why she resigned, and though it will always look bad to outsiders who don't take the time to inform themselves, her reasoning was good and her position at the time was untenable. She made a good decision for her and for Alaska.

Her remaining problems now are solely those of perception. She has been so badly abused by the MSM, I am not sure she can recover sufficiently to make a successful bid for the Presidency. I suspect the same thoughts are going through her mind as well. "Can she break through the fog of MSM and establishment Republican criticism, lies and ridicule sufficiently to get her message across to the voters?

The jury is still out on that and I believe that is one reason she has not announced and probably won't. If she does, that will be good, but I suspect she is deciding for whom she will come out--if anyone--during the primaries and building up her cachet with the people for a future run.

Well, that’s worthy of a new tagline.

You don’t understand the Alaska Constitution.

And, from my research, both the citizens AND the oil companies were satisfied and profited from the deal.

But it’s in the context of individual rights, which is the opposite of socialism.