Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:59 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5832
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
Here's my fearless prediction . . . .
Sara Palin won't be a "player" in the 2012 election. Here's why.
What happens in Alaska will now be subject of media attention. If the pipeline that she was touting as an accomplishment never gets built, that will cut against her credibility. Since she was "on record" as being against earmarks, any earmark received by Alaska will be subject to great scrutiny (like the request for a couple of million dollars to study the mating habits of a particular fish). While I do not claim to be a scholar of Alaska, I did take it upon myself to try to learn a little more about the history of the state and Palin's history as mayor and governor after she her nomination as VP. She will be under a microscope now. Federal funds received by the state and how they are spent will be subject to great scrutiny.

While Palin may be very good at selling herself as an outsider, I've read enough to believe that she is no different than most (if not all) politicians. Every time she claimed that Obama "tested the waters" before reaching a decision was the absolute height of hypocrisy. Her legacy in government is littered with examples of taking a particular position and reversing when it proved to be unpopular. And I'm not just thinking of the Bridge to Nowhere situation.

I am still waiting for someone to educate me why the GOP characterized Obama's "increasing taxes on the wealthy" as socialism or communism and is anti-American while praising Palin's "standing up to the oil companies, increasing their taxes and distributing that to Alaskans" as being a "maverick." I simply cannot synthesize these two positions.

Frankly, I think that Palin's best chance to become a national "player" was lost when Stevens lost his Senate re-election bid. If he had won, Stevens could have resigned and Palin could have appointed herself to take his spot. She could have spent 6 years in Congress, learning the ropes, exposing herself to the national political scene, demonstrating an interest in world politics and national issues and acheiving credibility. Instead, she'll still be seen as a pretty woman who is governing a large state with a small population.

Make no mistake, she is a polarizing figure within the GOP. The other GOP governors are not fond of her. Many in the GOP find her to be distasteful while others think that she is the "real deal." From afar, it is my view that the GOP needs a candidate to unite the party and I just don't see Palin as being able to carry the ball.

I think that she will be less and less relevant as time progresses.

Of course, I could be wrong. I also think that catcher's have game calling skills, at bats can be productive even if an out is made . . . . :)

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4242
Location: Zelienople, PA
Quote:
I am still waiting for someone to educate me why the GOP characterized Obama's "increasing taxes on the wealthy" as socialism or communism and is anti-American while praising Palin's "standing up to the oil companies, increasing their taxes and distributing that to Alaskans" as being a "maverick." I simply cannot synthesize these two positions.


Saw this part, and after bit, thought I might try to explain this.

In the oil & gas terms I work in, this is fairly easily explained.

First, a point of law (the only point I know, except the part about speeding tickets), oil & gas are real estate when they are in the ground, in reservoir. They become property at the wellhead and into a pipeline.

So, the oil in question in Alaska is real estate owned by Alaskans. This is not private property ownership, these are state and federally owned lands. Thus, the good Governer is not playing Robin Hood, but rather negotiating a contract for the exploitation of state owned real estate. Exxon et al are purchasing real estate at a price that becomes their property once extrapolated. The state is setting a royalty on their resouce. That money is contract money going to the owners, the taxpayers, in the form of a check for the sale of their real estate.

Contrasted to Obama's idea of arbitrarily taxing those who have a certain level of earned income that was earned privately, and was not previouisly owned (for the most part) by federal government. The federal government has no claim (theoretically) on the means by which the money was earned, and outside of providing stable, common law to operate within, does not provide the raw material or property by which the money was generated between two private parties. It is simply demanding money from those according to their means, for distribution to those according to their need. As decided by a central authority.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:51 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6284
In other words, the same as mineral rights on land? Lumber rights, etc?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4242
Location: Zelienople, PA
Yep, mineral rights. Not lumber though. You have to distinguish between surface real estate and subsurface real estate.

It gets funky fast in the subsurface. The law is a bit differant there according some O&G lawyers I learned this from. Its made for some real doozers of cases where guys legally could sell gas to a storage unit, then drill next to the storage field, extract the gas, and sell it again, and again... and again....

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:41 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Mike-- help me understand this ownership issue.

My twisted mind tells me that Alaska was purchased from Russia in LIncoln's time. If the national government bought the land, why don't they own it and therefore benefit from it's extraction?

After all, no one living in Alaska now or their ancestors bought the oil or gas, so how can they claim ownership? What we need here is a supreme court decision which takes ownership of those resourses and use it to carry part of the expenses of running our country.

Please explain why this is wrong headed thinking.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4242
Location: Zelienople, PA
Well, if you listen to the Russian's, they didn't "sell" anything, just leased it!

But, anyways, it goes back to Alaska becoming a state. Their entrance to the union had some clauses about being self sustaining, and providing the lower 48 with resources. In any case, when they became a state, all lands not designated as federal parks became owned by Alaska, or Alaskan's who had property already bought.

Property not privately held, or federally held is owned by the state including the subsurface rights not already privately held. This is a huge expanse of land in Alaska containing huge expanses of oil and gas.

By oil and gas law, those resources are real estate owned by the state. As my limited understanding of anything legal goes.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:30 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:09 pm
Posts: 2083
Location: Hingham, MA
Sixty percent of Alaska is owned by the federal government. This includes national parks (4) and forests, wildlife refuges, Army (3) and Air Force (2) bases, the former DEW Line radar/communications stations of what's now the North Warning System, and the North Slope Petroleum Reserve.

Less than 1 percent is privately owned by persons other than Native Americans (Tlingit, Aleut, and Athabascan Indians, and Eskimos) The Native Americans and the state own the rest. In total, Alaska comprises more than 375 million acres.

Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources

_________________
If you think nobody notices you and you're all alone, try not paying your bills.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Republican Party
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4242
Location: Zelienople, PA
MMMM... That's some serious Caribou Bar-B-Q!

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits