Regarding Alaska...I would suggest you read up on....sm
Posted By: ms on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: This sharing the wealth...the pub mantra that escapes no one. - What about that.....sm
The Alaska Permanent Fund
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/permFund/aboutPermFund.cfm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Namecalling? I suggest you read it again.......
Most posts are related to the posturing in Congress - not the posturing in this side show on the board.
May I suggest
you do some research either online or through your pubic library? There is a wealth of information available. In that way you can make an informed opinion rather than accept the word of strangers. From my readings, I find her to be an extraordinary woman with a life-long interest in public issues and desire to make the world a better place. That she met and married Bill was simply serendipity.
I suggest
considering people's actions during disasters, not what their speech writers tell them to say. GW cared enough to fly over the disaster for a photo op and to attend a birthday party for McCain while people were drowning.
I suggest....
...you do some more research on these subjects. I would wager you may find that democrats are just as responsible for these topics you have outlined.
I can't believe you would suggest
that I DROP the flag pin. That is the symbol of this country. That is more important than fact, keeping the symbol. You are suggesting the same as stepping on a flag. People here will want to imprisoned for that.
May I suggest
if you're looking for info on John McCain, research JOHN MCCAIN not Obama. You know, posts like this probably does your Republican candidate more harm than good.
Well then, I would suggest you get
yourself elected President and change it!!
So, exactly what would you suggest...(sm)
we do in order to get the economy back on its feet? Nothing? W has shown us what nothing will do. We could let the pubs handle it, but Paulson has shown us what they would do with it (give handouts to the wealthy). We could sit back and wait for that ever famous trickle down effect, but I have yet to see a trickle.
So, please enlighten us as to what exactly you think should be done. I assume you have a better idea since you are so opposed to the one at hand.
I suggest
you and I think on different levels. The Nazi drivel, I won't stoop to comment on. I am saying that there are standards of society to be met in accepting a visitor into one's home or one's television program. We could say that a drunken bum has the "right" to be on any television program, however they are not usually invited as they really have nothing to say that deserves national exposure and they are offensive verbally and physically. Too esoteric, I know. Do you also feel this strongly about the "right" of Andrew Dice Clay to be on network programming?
What do you suggest then?
You guys can certainly bash every idea that the new administration comes up with.
If the Republicans had such good ideas we would not be in the mess we are today.
I suggest..........
you ingest a handful of pills or succumb to a bullet so you don't have to endure such dire predictions. The neocons were a cancer on this country and hopefully this stimulus has enough chemo to beat back the damage of the last 8 years.
So what do you suggest? That he do nothing?
Give me a break. You can't wait to feed on his bones, can you? It must be KILLING you that he is succeeding!!
Then I would suggest that we refrain
from reading/responding to each other's posts. Adding you to my growing list of those who are simply not worth the click of the mouse.
Have a lovely day.
You're not the first to suggest it
Sam should know better by now. Frankly, I don't know why she wastes her time on the, Red Diaper Doper Babies, anyway.
That is also interesting...I would also suggest getting rid of...
the RNC and the DNC. Let the candidates raise their own money and give us THEIR message, not the message of the "committee." Why let a few of the extreme left and extreme right make our choices for us?
The only thing I can suggest
Is take some time to read the Bible. Give yourself just half an hour a day to read. A lot of answers can be found in there. And find a nice small church where you can meet with supportive Christians if you feel comfortable. The first three churches I ever went to I hated, but I finally have one I can call home. We don't have anymore than 50 people, but we all get along and care for each other and help each other out. To me it is what church should be. No frills, just good old fashioned fellowship!
Good luck! Feel free to keep in touch if you ever need encouragement!
I would like to suggest a book.....
"People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, MD - excellent book and he makes reference to several other books that are good reads. This book is about the true meaning of evil - from a scientific perspective. It is not about "possession" but he participated in a few exorcisms performed by many people of different faiths, he said (and don't quote me) that the basic requirement was just that the participants love the afflicted enough to want to help them. He states that "possession" is extremely rare, but he witnessed it up close and personal when the patient was thought to be mentally ill. I have owned this book for years and every time I lend out my copy and don't get it back, another one presents itself at a yard sale, library book sale, whatever.
It did not suggest to you that she felt...
"separation to avoid assimilation" was a good thing? That is segregation, and when practiced by whites against blacks, was viewed as racist. And it does not support what her husband said he is about: "There is no black america, there is no white america, there is only america." That thesis is the polar opposite of that line of thought...and brings to mind her comment about "we have a hole in our soul" talking about America.
Sorry...I believe she has an agenda shared by her husband and they want the white house as a bully pulpit to further their personal agenda. Still, that is only a secondary concern. My first concern is he is a far left radical socialist and wants this country to go the way of Cuba (only he thinks it will work here. Didn't in Cuba, didn't in Venezuela...hasn't anywhere it has been tried). I strongly disagree and will not vote for someone who believes that and fully intends to put it into practice.
Then may I suggest you educate yourself and
xx
How arrogant to suggest she should go elsewhere.
His/her opinions are just as good as your's.
I would suggest Phoenix. n/m
x
Oh, so clever. And I suggest
Obama's designation for the next four years be 'hopenchangeit.'
Wha do you suggest Obama should have done?
Declare WAR ON IRAN ?
As much as the US disagrees with the outcome of this election fraud, it has no right to undertake any actions against Iran, at this point.
You suffer from delusions.
80% x 683,478(Alaska) = 546,782 / 300,000,000(US) =
Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, maybe there are a lot of Americans who do agree.
Alaska..
Incumbent republican Senator Stevens. Convicted of 7 counts. He hasn't won yet, but the last I heard had about a 2-3 point lead. Below is a link for the whole story. Pretty much all news stations are saying the same thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06alaska.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The really bad thing about this is that they are waiting for counts from early voting and absentee votes, both of which may have been cast before his conviction. We may yet see another first in history.
May I suggest that you follow your own *instruction...*
and read a book before YOU spout off.
The National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), or NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.
The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich, under which the party gained almost unlimited power.
THAT is what happens when an entire nation is tied to the government for every need...a check, health care, education, and on and on and on. Then they have you, my friend, and that is when socialism turns into totalitarian dictatorship. It happened in Cuba. It happened in Venezuela. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy under Mussolini. So, I would suggest, my friend, that YOU do your research before attacking someone else.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution where the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists.
Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including self-titled Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.
NO THANKS.
First of all, only someone who is totally ignorant would suggest...sm
that a 17-year-old would have a Down Syndrome baby, very rare, most prevalent in women of advanced maternal age. That being said, her pregnancy would have to be announced at some point and I think that it is better now than later. Bristol is not a brave young lady, she is a young girl who made a mistake and is lucky to have such a supportive family. Hopefully, with the love and support of her family, she will be able to hold her head up high, but I imagine it is going to be very hard for her.
Ignorant or not...many did suggest that the child was hers...
and the reason I say that is that she chose to have the child. The child's father is in their lives; they plan to marry. I believe she is brave to be willing to take this public and still stand beside her mother, and I believe she will hold her head high. She has a wonderful support system and while I am sure it will not be easy, it will be easier than having that other nonsense hanging over her head. I feel sure this was discussed prior to her mother accepting the slot, because, as you say, it was going to come out eventually.
Don't you dare suggest we don't pray to the same God
you are bad
HC's campaign debt would suggest that
dontchathink?
I respectfully suggest to you that McCain
Your mistrust is based on the "Who is the REAL Obama" smear campaign. My mistrust of McCain is based on the very fact that I DO know McCain...his record and his campaign have clearly demonstrated he cannot be trust with MY country.
For key cabinet position, just where would you suggest
One key element of bringing change to Washington in my estimation would be to take US leadership one step beyond the "old guard" of the Boomer generation. I can say this with impunity since I am referring to my own generation. In any case, this is a bit of a tricky proposition since that means Obama would need to focus on younger individuals born in the early to mid 1960s and beyond, with ages approximately 46-48 or younger. These individuals would have reached their adult years and started building their professional careers AFTER the Carter administration. How many democratic presidents have we had since the Carter administration?
With the selection of KEY positions, it is imperative that Obama appoint people with senior-level experience. Stop to ponder for a moment, the appointments that have been made thus far.
1. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, by all measures a "Clinton person."
2. Atty General Eric Holder served in the US Justice Dept during Ford, Carter and Reagan, who appointed him DC Superior court Judge in 1988, a post he held until 1993 before Clinton appointed him US atty in DC, later becoming Clinton's Deputy Atty General. In other words, 17 years of his experience was gained in service to the 3 former presidents prior to the Clinton appointments.
3. Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag, Director of Congressional Budget Office under W and served on Council of Economic Advisors under Clinton.
4. Senior Advisor Pete Rouse - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton and W.
Holder served under 3 different presidents prior to Clinton, Orszag's onlyh appointed position was under W and Rouse servced under 5 other presidents before Clinton. My question then is why is it that all of these people are suddenly "Clinton people?" Even if they all were, where would you expect Obama to look for his cabinet appointees...retired officials from the Carter administation perhaps? Would Reganites deliver Change? How about those Bush people (I am so sure).
I have no doubt that there will be appointees with roots in the republican camp, but please note that we are talking about only 4 choices at this point in time, 3 of which DO have ties to administrations other than Clinton's. Besides that, the most key factor is that all of these appointees will be serving under a DIFFERENT leader with a strong mandate for change, equipped with favorable legislative bodies. Perhaps it would be wise to reserve judgment on ALL of this until AFTER they take office and actually start doing their jobs, ya think?
I suggest you look to Bobby Jindal...that's the way
in Louisiana. Republican government, that is.
Doesn't matter what I would suggest,
no one in the upper echelon would listen anyway. Look how many people HAVE complained to the government and they went and did what they wanted to anyway.
First, home mortages/foreclosures should have been taken care of by way of being able to re-finance through banks (which probably will not happen), but in reality, should have been taken care of in the bank bailout. There should have been a lot of stipulations in the bank bailout that were not put in place but both dems and pubs voted for it. There should not have been government jobs/waste in the new stimulus plan; i.e., parks, high speed rail between Disneyland and Las Vegas, STD/sex stuff, and whoopdedo a $13 a week in our paycheck, but you know all that.
BTW, heard O state today that the $13 a week equals $65 a month. Do the math. He's going by a 5-week month, not 4. There are a couple months that have 5 weeks, but not many, so he's slightly wrong there.
There is so much wrong with this stimulus package. FYI, I'm not whining. I'm complaining but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Doesn't matter what I would suggest,
no one in the upper echelon would listen anyway. Look how many people HAVE complained to the government and they went and did what they wanted to anyway.
First, home mortages/foreclosures should have been taken care of by way of being able to re-finance through banks (which probably will not happen), but in reality, should have been taken care of in the bank bailout. There should have been a lot of stipulations in the bank bailout that were not put in place but both dems and pubs voted for it. There should not have been government jobs/waste in the new stimulus plan; i.e., parks, high speed rail between Disneyland and Las Vegas, STD/sex stuff, and whoopdedo a $13 a week in our paycheck, but you know all that.
BTW, heard O state today that the $13 a week equals $65 a month. Do the math. He's going by a 5-week month, not 4. There are a couple months that have 5 weeks, but not many, so he's slightly wrong there.
There is so much wrong with this stimulus package. FYI, I'm not whining. I'm complaining but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
I'm waiting for any alternatives....what do you suggest?...
x
Drilling in Alaska?
Whats up with liberals making a huge deal about Bush going to Iraq for oil and then they complain about Bush wanting to drill in Alaska.
Doesn't that controdict itself??!!
drilling in Alaska
They just want to argue with everything. Doesn't matter if nothing gets done, in fact, that is probably what they are trying to do, so they can say the Bush Whitehouse didn't do a thing. They (liberals) block everything, or try to, just because.
Truth about oil in Alaska
The facts below have been corroborated in many studies:
1. Will drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do anything to solve our current gasoline and heating oil supply problems and reduce prices?
No. Most experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for 7 - 12 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years. A new study by the US Energy Information Agency (March 2004) entitled Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shows that even if oil were being pumped today, it would only reduce our oil imports from about 70% to about 66%, having no real effect on overall prices or supply.
2. Are estimated oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge expected to significantly change our long term energy prospects?
No. It is estimated that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than a six month supply of oil at our current consumption rates.
3. Given the current war against terrorism, shouldn’t we do absolutely everything we can to maximize our oil supply to be self sufficient?
No, it's not possible to be self sufficient given the amount of oil we consume as a nation. We use more oil than we could ever find domestically, even if we were to drill on all public lands, in all of our national parks and monuments, national forests, etc. The United States uses 25% to 30% of all of the oil produced in the world, yet we only have less than 3% of known oil reserves. These numbers are well known. The amount we could recover from the Arctic Refuge is literally a drop in the bucket by comparison. Also, any oil that is produced, regardless of its source, is bought and sold on the world market. That's how major commodities like this work. Even now, oil from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, often is exported to Asia. The only way to really enhance national security is to develop alternatives that reduce oil consuption. Our current usage as well as archaic public policy that encourages more oil development and consumption is actually what puts our nation at risk. And why destroy a unique treasure for something that will make no difference in our reliance on foreign oil?
is cindy from alaska?
x
Residents of Alaska
last night on CNN said she was absolutely vicious to those who opposed her or believed differently and was very vindicative. Come on Joe, bring this personality trait to light in the debates.
80% x 683,424 (Alaska) = 54,7892 / 300,000,000 (US) =
nm
I have family in Alaska and they
think very highly of S. Palin. FYI, people don't like her JUST because she is likeable. She's smart, courageous, well-grounded with good morals for starters. She doesn't flip-flop to appease the public (like Obama/now for drilling), and she is NOT self-serving (gave up her plane, personal chef, etc etc that came with the job). She is and has been SERVING THE PEOPLE, not playing politics; McCain has the same history, and together they ARE the party of change. p.s. when was the last time Obama had any part in giving money BACK TO THE PEOPLE like Palin did in Alaska? Look at the facts. You have 2 track records of standing up for the people on the McCain/Palin ticket and pretty talk along with old party politics on the Obama/Biden side. It really scares me to think of Obama winning, with his demonstrated lack of judgment and lack of record, poor associations, etc. p.s., if there is a revolution/take-over of the USA it could only be under Obama. notice too, that now his future position in the white house is challenged, he keeps changing his tune to sound more middle-ground. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing; beware.
Blacks in Alaska.......
Well, I have several long-time very close friends who have lived in Alaska for 28+ years. My best friend married a native Alaskan. That conversation did come up one time and you know what her husband told me (this is a man who worked on the north slope for dozens of years). He said the blacks in Alaska are some of the most hard working people he has ever met. Blacks and whites work alongside one another on the slope and other hard jobs. He said many blacks came to Alaska to get higher paying jobs. The comments he would hear would be how they detested their black relatives/friends who sat on their butts and took government (taxpayer)handouts and used their color as an excuse not to better themselves. Their children all went to school together, played together, and helped one another. He also told us that a close friend of his who was from black/Alaskan heritage had told him he couldn't understand with all the advantages his generation and those still to come have, why they don't take advantage of them and why they continue to kill one another in gangs and spend so much time hating one another and "whites", blaming whites for all their problems. Now, this comes from a black man in Alaska. He said many of his friends came up after he suggested they could find higher paying jobs. They were hard working people who just wanted a better life and they refused to raise their children thinking they had to have handouts and they didn't want them "around" other blacks who were drug pushing and calling each other the "n" word in their schools. It wasn't the Republican whites they were trying to get away from. By the way, he thought social programs were a joke!! He felt social programs were one of the biggest problems in black society and that they encouraged handouts and free rides without offering a solution.
I have several black neighbors and we are in the south, that will not hesitate to tell you they "hate" social programs, they are sick and tired of paying for them, and suggest those that like them so much be the only ones who pay for them. They are hard working people like us who want to actually keep their money. One couple put two of their daughters through medical school without a single social program in their lives. They detest being taxed to pay for all these social programs when we can see in our own communities they are just unjustified, just throwing more money into a big pit.
Now, I'm not sure where you get your info from, but all republicans are not white...matter of fact the above mentioned blacks vote republican and think the democrats are the problem for the plight of the black man. Keep giving them handouts and making them believe they "need" help, can't do without the government, can't make their own decisions, and you will have nothing but a welfare state before long.
Rich republicans don't pay taxes? Who in the h*ll do you think pay for all those social programs now.....you? The 1% of rich republicans as you put it are the ones in the highest tax brackets, pay the most taxes, and fund the greatest majority of your social programs. Taxation is relevant to your income, not your political party. You make more, you pay more in taxes. How do you think they made more money....it fell from the skies? Yes, there are those who inherit a lot of money and have done nothing to deserve it (even though those they inherited it from worked their butts off for it), but in a free country, they are free to inherit it if it is given to them. I don't feel negative towards them for that. And there are those who have made fortunes from hard work, not coming home at 5, and have pretty much given up any life of their own to succeed to the level they feel they want to be. You say rich like it's a bad word. Should we fault people for being hard working and succeeding financially in life and making more than us? I know people who have lots of money and they have sacrificed a LOT to get there.
I feel pretty certain if you had lots of money you would certainly lavish it on your children. That would be your right. And you probably wouldn't want it taken from you to give to everyone else when you can make the decision to donate/give as you see fit.
Our government, however, feels they have the right to have death taxes, which by the way, Whoopie Goldberg, detests and thinks that is wrong (she's black and rich)and why does she think that's wrong? Because she wants to give her wealth to her family when she dies and that's how it should be, without government interference. They have no right to take it....they didn't make it. I don't hear her jumping on the bandwagon saying TAKE MY MONEY, PLEASE, and give it to anyone you want and pay for hundreds of social programs with it. After all, she made it and should give to those as she sees fit, not as our government sees fit. Matter of fact, I don't hear any rich blacks screaming take my money. I hear some of them backing Obama and say they believe in what he wants for this country, but they just don't want to pay for what he wants. Make up your mind...can't have it both ways!
You sure are an expert on Alaska!
()
Please see the post below from the Alaska...
Fish and Game site. No one is shooting wolves for the fun of it, and I have seen nothing to indicate that she personally participates on a regular basis. As to giving a hoot for the peoples' well being, 85% of Alaskans disagree with you, as do I.
If Alaska ceceded from the US, and
I know what Sarah would say: 'I saw the Russian tanks approaching from my house!'
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Then why is she hated in Alaska?
.
I understand your confusion. I would suggest that you look at both candidates....
and their stand on all the issues that are important to you, and please, exercise your right to vote, no matter which candidate you choose. And try not to get bound down in the gotcha politics, concentrate on the issues, and vote for the one that most closely follows what you want for your country.
I suggest YOU study up on Obama's plan...sm
and see if his plan remotely resembles national healthcare in other countries. All plans are not created equal.
I suggest you ask your congressman...should your precious Obama...sm
take office, along with the superliberals, this is exactly what you'll get.
I am amazed and astounded at the left's lack of care and internal warning systems. This should scare the bejesus out of every man, woman, and child in this country.
Don't say you haven't been warned. They've been conducting secret congressional sessions on how to best take away your life savings away, i.e., 401k.
Not only that, but should you die before you are eligible for your alleged "benefits" you are to receive, along with your social security check.....if you should die.....
They will take 50% of it away from your heirs.
And you think it's just propaganda.......that's exactly what your democratic majority wants you to think......they think most of us are all too stupid to know what's coming before it hits us.
Well, in some cases, that appears to be true, unfortunately.
But I'm scared enough for you, too.
|
