Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bsdaddict on September 15, 2008, 04:42:14 PM
-
From Chuck Norris (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75313)
The coming revolution:
I believe a revolution is coming to America. Just as certain as Hurricane Ike slammed into my home state of Texas, I am more and more convinced as every year passes that a needed voter revolution is brewing and imminent to America's shores and ballot boxes.
Like the turbulent winds at my ranch outside of Houston, the signs for this voter revolution can be seen through the highs and lows of current political polarities. I believe it was felt through the surge of the constitutional community supporting Rep. Ron Paul. I believe it was felt in evangelicals' and conservatives' frustration with our present presidential picks. I believe it is felt in the heightened responses to John McCain's "Hail Mary throw" for vice president in Sarah Palin. And I believe it is felt in Americans' virtually unanimous disapproval rating (roughly 91 percent) for Congress.
Most Americans have grown cold over partisan politics. They cringe over the political power plays and pollution emitting from the Capitol. They expect that their representatives will stand for special interests or their own, rather than the people's. Americans are sick and tired of politics as usual. And the fact is: Only a voter revolution is strong enough to change the current tides of corruption.
Of course America has some good congressmen and senators, like Ron Paul or members of the "gang of 10" (which has grown to 20), who are hoping that both chambers will "drill here, drill now" and immediately set a course for producing alternative energies. But the fact is those good politicians are few and far between. The majority needs to be replaced, and the minority needs our help to do it.
So how do we do it? With a voter revolution. By discovering, raising up and electing great Americans who truly represent average America. Those like "maverette" Sarah Palin, who is a fresh, reputable outsider who isn't afraid to confront Washington corruption and government stalemate. Despite liberal hecklings, Alaskan politics remain proof of her reputation, and so does her 80 percent favorable rating there. If Alaska can do it, the rest of the nation can too.
A voter revolution should usher in politicians who make sweeping and radical changes, like disposing of the unconstitutional IRS and replacing it with a Fair Tax. These are the types of leaders who genuinely commit to the America established by our Founders, drastically cut government waste, immediately stop pork barrel spending, reject political perks and lobbyists, quit borrowing from other nations (like China), cease imperialism and nation building, lessen the flow of so much government aid overseas and bring back production and pride in American commerce, etc.
[continues...]
I don't agree with Chuck a lot of the time but he makes a lot of sense here to me. He's basically saying we can take back our gov't if enough of us get behind candidates who truly respect the Constitution. He implies an endorsement of Palin (and McCain) so didn't go out and say "Vote Third Party" like Ron Paul did last week, but he did mention third parties in his earlier article, The Maverette (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74637). I do find a lot to admire about Palin, but my confidence in the GOP has fizzled so I don't share Chucks confidence. I do find his admonishment to get involved at the grassroots level to be right on target. We can't just sit back, be apathetic about the process and MAYBE actually get out and vote the party line come election day. Voting the party line and allowing candidates with no integrity into office is what's gotten us into this mess, if we're gonna fix it We the People need to get involved.
-
It makes me chuckle every time I see Palin's 80% favorable rating in her home state. Alaska is the single most republican (and possibly conservative) dominated state in the union. Use it for what you will, but the statistics are severely misleading.
-
No duh Moray, and a liberal would have the SAME approval rating in the single most Liberal State in America.
-
It makes me chuckle every time I see Palin's 80% favorable rating in her home state. Alaska is the single most republican (and possibly conservative) dominated state in the union. Use it for what you will, but the statistics are severely misleading.
Has there been another republican governor in Alaska that has even come close to her 80% approval rating? Just asking cuz I don't know. :)
-
No duh Moray, and a liberal would have the SAME approval rating in the single most Liberal State in America.
Show me a liberal that has an 80% approval rating in any state.
-
No duh Moray, and a liberal would have the SAME approval rating in the single most Liberal State in America.
Quite possible, and neither makes them correct, fundamentally.
Interesting knee jerk reaction from you.... And proving my point quite effectively, thanks.
-
Show me a liberal that has an 80% approval rating in any state.
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
-
Show me a liberal that has an 80% approval rating in any state.
Interestingly enough, when looked at, all the governors of the smallest states had mostly high approval ratings (>60%)
(circa 2005)
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateGovernorApproval0905SortedbyApproval.htm (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateGovernorApproval0905SortedbyApproval.htm)
-
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
What.. you expect the percentage to change because there's more people in most states?
...or do you expect the percentage to change in a state where there's more people in more ghettos?
-
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
lol... never realized it was that small... that means the metropolitan area of my home city (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) is only 40,000 people smaller than Alaska... and Harrisburg isn't a particularly large city.
Can't find Mayor Reed's approval rating.
He's a Democrat btw...
-
Interestingly enough, when looked at, all the governors of the smallest states had mostly high approval ratings (>60%)
(circa 2005)
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateGovernorApproval0905SortedbyApproval.htm (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateGovernorApproval0905SortedbyApproval.htm)
Yeeeaaaa 05 is sooo relevant now. :rolleyes:
-
Interestingly enough, when looked at, all the governors of the smallest states had mostly high approval ratings (>60%)(circa 2005)
This just proves smaller government is better.
-
This just proves smaller government is better.
yeah, the smaller the better... :)
-
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
Belittling the small population of one of the top 5 states with regards to economic impact on this nation does not change the fact that it is an economic powerhouse. One that is being governed very efficiently by the current Governor.
-
Show me a liberal that has an 80% approval rating in any state.
You're right, I cant find one :lol
-
Me first.
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
What.. you expect the percentage to change because there's more people in most states?
...or do you expect the percentage to change in a state where there's more people in more ghettos?
-
crack me up...sure take back the government... but just not my part.
Slightly over half of all Americans – 52.6 percent – now receive significant income from government programs, according to an analysis by Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J. That's up from 49.4 percent in 2000 and far above the 28.3 percent of Americans in 1950. If the trend continues, the percentage could rise within ten years to pass 55 percent, where it stood in 1980 on the eve of President's Reagan's move to scale back the size of government.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.html?page=1
i guess that's another hidden reason why ron paul never had a chance... when he should by all accounts be ahead by a landslide... :rofl
-
Yeeeaaaa 05 is sooo relevant now. :rolleyes:
I suppose there's been some major evolution of the species since '05? People are people, and trends such as that don't change. All of the smallest states had the highest governor's ratings. Is there any better representation of herd mentality?
-
I suppose there's been some major evolution of the species since '05? People are people, and trends such as that don't change. All of the smallest states had the highest governor's ratings. Is there any better representation of herd mentality?
To me it represents the fact that small state governments have small state budgets, and since gov't in general causes more problems than it solves the more efficient a governmental body is forced to be, the happier the citizens will be with said body.
-
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
No, I meant State. :)
-
I suppose there's been some major evolution of the species since '05? People are people, and trends such as that don't change. All of the smallest states had the highest governor's ratings. Is there any better representation of herd mentality?
Considering the fact that.. ohh say Mitt Romney has been replaced by a leftist weenie since then... Yup.
-
Interestingly enough, when looked at, all the governors of the smallest states had mostly high approval ratings (>60%)
(circa 2005)
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateGovernorApproval0905SortedbyApproval.htm (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateGovernorApproval0905SortedbyApproval.htm)
Interesting.....
-
lowest per capita ghetto dwellers.
-
According to windbag Jack Cafferty, Alaska is populated by 13 people and some Carbou. There's your liberal regard for Alaska :rolleyes:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/30/cafferty-insults-alaska-state-has-13-people-some-caribou
-
Show me a liberal that has an 80% approval rating in any state.
What was kennedy's approval rating last year (before the dreaded brain cancer finally discovered)?
more importantly, what was his victory margin last election?
-
What was kennedy's approval rating last year (before the dreaded brain cancer finally discovered)?
more importantly, what was his victory margin last election?
No idea on either, that's why I asked what I did. :)
-
It makes me chuckle every time I see Palin's 80% favorable rating in her home state. Alaska is the single most republican (and possibly conservative) dominated state in the union. Use it for what you will, but the statistics are severely misleading.
Because what the liberals do in Congress affect them the most.
-
hang.. forget it.. moray does not get it. He thinks that only socialism and big government and us all living in big craphole cities will work.
People in the rural areas feel more in control of their lives and resent government less.. that is all there is to it.
lazs
-
Belittling the small population of one of the top 5 states with regards to economic impact on this nation does not change the fact that it is an economic powerhouse. One that is being governed very efficiently by the current Governor.
Not to mention the fact that Alaskan government has to deal, on a regular basis, with some of the heaviest hitters, not only in U.S. government and lobbyist, but those worldwide.
-
just a note that the smaller the population the more effect a singular vote will have on an opinion poll. Also the more insular the opinions will be. in small populations an individual will have more sway on effecting a persons attitude to an issue. It's easier to get 20 people to think nice things of you than to get 4000 people to think well of you. ergo opinion polls of places such as Alaska should be viewed with much caution .
-
that's hogwash. most national opinion polls bantered about in the daily media consist of less than 2000 people polled, typically 1200 to 1400 from a national "sample". Hence the plus or minus extrapolation :rolleyes:
Nice thinking on your part, but flawed.
-
Belittling the small population of one of the top 5 states with regards to economic impact on this nation does not change the fact that it is an economic powerhouse. One that is being governed very efficiently by the current Governor.
Yeah, no other economic powerhouse receives so many federal subsidies. Alaska gets $1.8 in return for every tax $ sent to Feds.
There's not much to whine about in Alaska and no matter who's the governor, approval rating will be high.
-
Yeah, no other economic powerhouse receives so many federal subsidies. Alaska gets $1.8 in return for every tax $ sent to Feds.
Alaska is 69% federally owned. Seems we should be paying 69% of the upkeep.
-
Alaska is 69% federally owned. Seems we should be paying 69% of the upkeep.
"Upkeep" is not included in state budget but federal budget...
-
"Upkeep" is not included in state budget but federal budget...
So feds never use state roads?
-
bastards better not.. gotta pay the toll.
-
So feds never use state roads?
What do you think how the roads are maintained? How the bridges are financed? Where does the money come from? Where from feds buy the gas?
-
Don't you mean city, since Alaska only has 683,000 people.
Afte looking a the swing state wiki article America can be resumed by : in redneck we trust
:rock <= emoticon inserted by Thibault , my 6 year old son :)
-
What do you think how the roads are maintained? How the bridges are financed? Where does the money come from? Where from feds buy the gas?
When I own land, I owe property tax.
When the federal government owns land, they are exempt from property tax.
At least that is the way it is in 53% federally owned Oregon.
-
When I own land, I owe property tax.
When the federal government owns land, they are exempt from property tax.
At least that is the way it is in 53% federally owned Oregon.
Really, what property tax has to do with federal subsidies to state of Alaska? Besides, Alaska earns lots of $$ taxing companies for goods coming from federal lands.
-
Really, what property tax has to do with federal subsidies to state of Alaska? Besides, Alaska earns lots of $$ taxing companies for goods coming from federal lands.
Owners of land pay money to the local governments which govern the land in which the land exists.
I think that this should not too difficult to grasp.
-
It makes me chuckle every time I see Palin's 80% favorable rating in her home state. Alaska is the single most republican (and possibly conservative) dominated state in the union. Use it for what you will, but the statistics are severely misleading.
And yet they are cool with anyone growing up to 10 mj plants, whats up with that? Alaska is confusing.
-
that's hogwash. most national opinion polls bantered about in the daily media consist of less than 2000 people polled, typically 1200 to 1400 from a national "sample". Hence the plus or minus extrapolation :rolleyes:
Nice thinking on your part, but flawed.
Take a statistics class. Polls that give a +- 3 % took a good sample. Nice thinking on your part, but flawed. :aok
-
Owners of land pay money to the local governments which govern the land in which the land exists.
I think that this should not too difficult to grasp.
Local governments DO NOT govern federal lands. Majority of federal land is in public domain and only Congress has the exclusive right to administer the public lands.
I think that this should not be too difficult to grasp.
-
hang.. forget it.. moray does not get it. He thinks that only socialism and big government and us all living in big craphole cities will work.
People in the rural areas feel more in control of their lives and resent government less.. that is all there is to it.
lazs
Completely not how I think. I want neither socialism, nor big government.(a reminder that this administration has grown government more than any other this CENTURY) Please refrain from your idiocy, if that is possible, and cease the personal agenda you have with me.
Possibly the people in rural areas are more "out of touch", is more likely. Or that they just plain don't care until it affects them, personally? In either respect, all of the smallest states, population wise, either democrat or republican leaning, had the highest approval ratings for their governor.
-
...because there are fewer welfare recipients, fewer inner city ghetto dwellers, fewer urban crawlers per capita.
The small states are in fact 'in touch' with what works. It's just not working for your liberal agenda.
-
...because there are fewer welfare recipients, fewer inner city ghetto dwellers, fewer urban crawlers per capita.
The small states are in fact 'in touch' with what works. It's just not working for your liberal agenda.
Yep because most of those are state employees. Alaska has about one state employee per 50 citizens, California has one per 150.
-
...because there are fewer welfare recipients, fewer inner city ghetto dwellers, fewer urban crawlers per capita.
The small states are in fact 'in touch' with what works. It's just not working for your liberal agenda.
That truly sounds like you are quite the racist. In any case...
Meanwhile, in the real world of facts, Alaska had just about the same number of recipients of welfare that NY did, per 10,000 residents, 15th in a ranked list of all 50 states. There aren't too many ghettos there in the arctic, I recall...nor, big Urban crawlers. Have another argument not jaded by your own racist thought?
Rank Region Recipients Per 10,000 Residents
United States 138
NA District of Columbia 667
1 Tennessee 293
2 California 286
3 Rhode Island 221
4 Michigan 218
5 New Mexico 210
6 Washington 194
7 Maine 192
7 Pennsylvania 192
9 Indiana 184
10 Vermont 172
11 Kentucky 163
12 Kansas 159
13 Missouri 156
13 New York 156
15 Alaska 147
16 Ohio 145
17 Massachusetts 142
18 Delaware 137
19 Nebraska 135
20 Arizona 134
21 Iowa 133
22 Hawaii 131
23 Minnesota 130
24 West Virginia 123
25 New Jersey 113
26 Oregon 112
27 North Dakota 109
28 Montana 104
29 New Hampshire 103
30 Connecticut 102
31 Alabama 92
32 Mississippi 89
33 South Carolina 79
33 South Dakota 79
35 Maryland 78
36 Colorado 76
37 Wisconsin 71
38 Illinois 68
39 Utah 67
40 North Carolina 64
41 Texas 63
42 Arkansas 60
42 Oklahoma 60
44 Georgia 59
45 Louisiana 55
46 Nevada 48
47 Florida 45
48 Virginia 33
49 Idaho 20
50 Wyoming 10
http://sourcebook.governing.com/subtopicresults.jsp?yr=16&cha=n&sort=n&mrtype=2&ctype=1&ind=710&x=39&y=13 (http://sourcebook.governing.com/subtopicresults.jsp?yr=16&cha=n&sort=n&mrtype=2&ctype=1&ind=710&x=39&y=13)
-
That truly sounds like you are quite the racist. In any case...
Meanwhile, in the real world of facts, Alaska had just about the same number of recipients of welfare that NY did, per 10,000 residents, 15th in a ranked list of all 50 states. There aren't too many ghettos there in the arctic, I recall...nor, big Urban crawlers. Have another argument not jaded by your own racist thought?
lol, burn.
-
That truly sounds like you are quite the racist. In any case...
Meanwhile, in the real world of facts, Alaska had just about the same number of recipients of welfare that NY did, per 10,000 residents, 15th in a ranked list of all 50 states. There aren't too many ghettos there in the arctic, I recall...nor, big Urban crawlers. Have another argument not jaded by your own racist thought?
LOL.. I'm not a racist.. I'm a member of an urban minority, live in an urban area and some of my best friends are white.
So, how does racism make your point that palin's (or any other small states' governor) approval rating is skewed?
-
LOL.. I'm not a racist.. I'm a member of an urban minority, live in an urban area and some of my best friends are white.
So, how does racism make your point that palin's (or any other small states' governor) approval rating is skewed?
The scream of "racist" or "racism" signals the end of meaningful discussion, and the loss of the argument by the person screaming it. Those are the only points proven by it.
-
The scream of "racist" or "racism" signals the end of meaningful discussion, and the loss of the argument by the person screaming it. Those are the only points proven by it.
Simply put, "Ghetto" is slang for a poor, african-american neighborhood. Using it in the manner he did, implies that poor african-americans are the reason for welfare. Please replace your critical thinking bulb...I think it's out.
-
Hangtime, Alaska is such a special case among the states, that governor's approval rating (whether high or low) doesn't say much about how good or bad that governor actually is.
-
Simply put, "Ghetto" is slang for a poor, african-american neighborhood. Using it in the manner he did, implies that poor african-americans are the reason for welfare. Please replace your critical thinking bulb...I think it's out.
Pretty wild assumption for a normal thinkin human being... which gives you the out you need.
Hangtime, Alaska is such a special case among the states, that governor's approval rating (whether high or low) doesn't say much about how good or bad that governor actually is.
As evidenced by what??
-
Simply put, "Ghetto" is slang for a poor, african-american neighborhood. Using it in the manner he did, implies that poor african-americans are the reason for welfare. Please replace your critical thinking bulb...I think it's out.
No, I'm thinking just fine. I do not assume "racism" every time I see a statement I do not agree with. Try taking off the "racism" filter, and viewing things without it.
-
LOL.. I'm not a racist.. I'm a member of an urban minority, live in an urban area and some of my best friends are white.
So, how does racism make your point that palin's (or any other small states' governor) approval rating is skewed?
Racism doesn't. You implied that smaller states were less likely to have recipients of welfare. Less likely to have "ghettos" (Poor african-american neighborhoods). I simply showed you the facts that the second smallest state in the union is number 15 out of 50 in Welfare recipients, when applying facts. Your argument is null.
-
Hangtime, Alaska is such a special case among the states, that governor's approval rating (whether high or low) doesn't say much about how good or bad that governor actually is.
where do you guys get this stuff? it cant be made up its too golden.
-
Racism doesn't. You implied that smaller states were less likely to have recipients of welfare. Less likely to have "ghettos" (Poor african-american neighborhoods). I simply showed you the facts that the second smallest state in the union is number 15 out of 50 in Welfare recipients, when applying facts. Your argument is null.
Dude.. you gotta get out more. Urban ghettos come in all flavors.
-
A ghetto is described as a "portion of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure."
I'm incorrect. It's all minorities, not just one.. although most recently has been applied to poor, black neighborhoods residing within U.S. cities.. So, using the word makes one implicit in minorities being the reason for welfare.
-
I'm still waiting.
-
When I think of ghettos I think of a poor neighborhood. I don't immediately think of a poor black neighborhood, or mexican or....well, you get it.
-
the country conservative whine no doubt derived from that daily rush hour commute to get to their city job... :rofl
-
Didn't Elvis do a ghetto song? wth was that about?
-
Local governments DO NOT govern federal lands. Majority of federal land is in public domain and only Congress has the exclusive right to administer the public lands.
I think that this should not be too difficult to grasp.
I'll bet the county sherriff can arrest me if I break the law in the national forest.
State Game Wardens can cite me for fishing or hunting illegally in a national forest.
-
As evidenced by what??
As evidenced by their revenue, budget surplus, low taxes and billions of federal subsidies. There's not much Alaskan can complain about when compared to other states.
-
I am a rascist. If you are not a member of the human race I hate you and I will shoot you and eat you (probably in a mixture of peas and carrots). :D
-
I'll bet the county sherriff can arrest me if I break the law in the national forest.
Sheriff has no jurisdiction on federal lands. Although some agreements and cooperation do exist between agencies when it comes to law enforcement, but that's not a rule.
State Game Wardens can cite me for fishing or hunting illegally in a national forest.
Not unless feds hired them to do that.
-
Sheriff has no jurisdiction on federal lands. Although some agreements and cooperation do exist between agencies when it comes to law enforcement, but that's not a rule.
It is commonplace. I doubt there is a National Forest anywhere west of the Mississippi that has only Federal law enforcement.
Ft. Jones, CA (February 26, 2007) - Shawn D. Woodman, a 31-year-old Klamath National Forest employee, lost his life on Thursday evening, February 22, in a car accident. Shawn was driving on Scott River Road when, for unknown reasons, the car left the roadway. A Siskiyou County Road Department employee saw tire tracks going off the road on Friday morning. Later that day, the Siskiyou County Sheriff dive team extracted his body from the vehicle in Scott River. The Sheriff's Department is investigating the accident.
MOUNT MCLOUGHLIN — Officials have called off a search for a missing Beaverton man who apparently traveled last weekend to Southern Oregon for a hiking trip and has not been heard from since.
The hunt for John V. Zazzara, 54, was suspended late Friday, Klamath County Sheriff Tim Evinger said in a news release.
"It is very difficult to make the decision to scale back any search before a missing person has been found," Evinger said. "In this instance, little is known about (Zazzara’s) intended whereabouts and how he was prepared for his outing. In this case, time and conditions were not in our favor."
Not unless feds hired them to do that.
A quote from the 2008 OREGON BIG GAME REGULATIONS
www.dfw.state.or.us
Hunt #134 - Upper Deschutes Unit - One buck with visible antler - Oct. 4 - Oct. 15
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/regulations/2008gamewebnoads.pdf (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/regulations/2008gamewebnoads.pdf)
The Upper Deschutes unit is almost entirely federally owned land.
If I take a doe, I am in trouble with State authorities.
The point is, to take the largest and richest landowner off the property tax roles is a burden that western sparsly populated areas bare more than densly populated areas. To send tax money to these sparsly populated areas is a way for the feds to pay the local governments tax money that they would normally get if the land were in private hands.
That Alaska gets a big per capita share of federal money is saying two things: not many people live there and the federal government is the owner of the majority of Alaska, and therefore has the majority of responsibility.
-
That Alaska gets a big per capita share of federal money is saying two things: not many people live there and the federal government is the owner of the majority of Alaska, and therefore has the majority of responsibility.
Ah yeah, that justifies $13,534 per capita of federal money for Alaskans (#1), yet Nevada with 86% of federal land gets mere $5,692 (dead last).
What does that say?
-
I am a rascist. If you are not a member of the human race I hate you and I will shoot you and eat you (probably in a mixture of peas and carrots). :D
I'm not that biased. Might be why they cut my screen time from the first season of "Survivor".
"Man, I'm starting to get weak from hunger..."
"Matt, its been like four hours...."
"I didn't have breakfast...do we resort to cannibalism yet?"
"IN FOUR HOURS?!?!?"
"Well, there you have the mistake people make. They wait weeks and weeks to resort to cannibalism, and by that time there ain't much meat on the bones. Stringy too..."
"I don't think we should talk about his anymore..."
"Uh, Okay. Say, ever read that short story, "The Most Dangerous Game?"
-
Ah yeah, that justifies $13,534 per capita of federal money for Alaskans (#1), yet Nevada with 86% of federal land gets mere $5,692 (dead last).
What does that say?
Nevada has four times the population of Alaska
Alaska has 272 million acres under federal ownership
Nevada has 141 million acres under federal ownership
272 / 141 = 1.9
1.9 x 4 = 7.6
So Alaskans take care of twice the federal land with 1/4 the people.
7.6 x 5,692 = 43,259
Maybe Nevada is actually doing better than Alaska?
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Per capita federal spending is a statistic that can be bent and twisted to say whatever one wants it to say.
-
nice return there, holden... cross court and euff top spin to keep it there.
yah still got it. :aok
-
huh?
What federal monies are we talking about here guys?
Why are we even bringing how much land is federal in a state into the equation?
-
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Per capita federal spending is a statistic that can be bent and twisted to say whatever one wants it to say.
Listen, per capita spending is a good measure. And before you go too deep into your statistics, federal lands are managed by BLM, NPS, NFS, USDFW, DOD, etc. Alaskans don't have to spend $$ for federal lands. In fact they greatly benefit from those (jobs, mining, oil, fish, game, forestry).
Point is, on top of all the goodies they have, they get subsidies which they don't need and as such ripping off the rest of US.
-
Listen, per capita spending is a good measure. And before you go too deep into your statistics, federal lands are managed by BLM, NPS, NFS, USDFW, DOD, etc. Alaskans don't have to spend $$ for federal lands. In fact they greatly benefit from those (jobs, mining, oil, fish, game, forestry).
Point is, on top of all the goodies they have, they get subsidies which they don't need and as such ripping off the rest of US.
Thats what I thought we were discussing.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Per capita federal spending is a statistic that can be bent and twisted to say whatever one wants it to say.
Wow, funny how you're the one looking to use funny statistics to make you look like the w!nner and you even had a cheerleader!
nice return there, holden... cross court and euff top spin to keep it there.
yah still got it. :aok
Incredible.
-
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Per capita federal spending is a statistic that can be bent and twisted to say whatever one wants it to say."
game... set.
*yawn*
-
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Per capita federal spending is a statistic that can be bent and twisted to say whatever one wants it to say."
game... set.
*yawn*
way to contribute buddy! :aok
:rolleyes:
-
LOL.. yup. Guilty. I got nuthin. Just spectatin and cheerleading this one.
...care for a bag of nuts?
-
No thank you, any beer though?
-
How 'bout a Sam Adams... gotta rack in the kitchen concentration camp, chillin and just begging for freedom...
-
How 'bout a Sam Adams... gotta rack in the kitchen concentration camp, chillin and just begging for freedom...
Now your talking my language! :aok
-
rgr, two up; 4 on deck.
-
Iced tea for me, but hold the sugar please. Can toss in a bit of Splenda if ya have it though. :D
-
Quote from: Holden McGroin on Yesterday at 04:11:07 PM
State Game Wardens can cite me for fishing or hunting illegally in a national forest.
Not unless feds hired them to do that.
Listen, per capita spending is a good measure. And before you go too deep into your statistics, federal lands are managed by BLM, NPS, NFS, USDFW, DOD, etc. Alaskans don't have to spend $$ for federal lands. In fact they greatly benefit from those (jobs, mining, oil, fish, game, forestry).
Point is, on top of all the goodies they have, they get subsidies which they don't need and as such ripping off the rest of US.
1. Do the feds hire local governments for law enforcement or game regulation as you assert? yes
2. Does it cost the locals money to do that? yes
3. Do the feds pay for that service? yes
4. Does that increase "federal subsides (to the states) that they don't need"? yes
5. Is it a contradiction for you to assert that feds hire out services and then pay for them and then assert that they do not need to pay for them? yes
-
Quote from: Holden McGroin on Yesterday at 04:11:07 PM
State Game Wardens can cite me for fishing or hunting illegally in a national forest.
1. Do the feds hire local governments for law enforcement or game regulation as you assert? yes
2. Does it cost the locals money to do that? yes
3. Do the feds pay for that service? yes
4. Does that increase "federal subsides (to the states) that they don't need"? yes
5. Is it a contradiction for you to assert that feds hire out services and then pay for them and then assert that they do not need to pay for them? yes
The Department of Fish and Game in Alaska does a lot of their patrolling with aircraft. I'd hazard a guess and say that requires a ton of money and that the feds probably fund a substantial portion of that.
-
Quote from: Holden McGroin on Yesterday at 04:11:07 PM
State Game Wardens can cite me for fishing or hunting illegally in a national forest.
1. Do the feds hire local governments for law enforcement or game regulation as you assert? yes
2. Does it cost the locals money to do that? yes
3. Do the feds pay for that service? yes
4. Does that increase "federal subsides (to the states) that they don't need"? yes
5. Is it a contradiction for you to assert that feds hire out services and then pay for them and then assert that they do not need to pay for them? yes
When will you understand that those are budgeted separately. For example if BLM pays state of Alaska for some services that's in BLM budget and not included in federal subsidies.
Here, just few nuggets: Do you think Alaska needs grant for "State Criminal Alien Assistance Program"? or maybe $25,000,000 for housing choice vouchers, which is enough to pay full rent for 10% of Alaskan households?
Or $1,433,462 for agricultural basic and applied research when agriculture makes for 0.1% of US total, yet California gets only $4,460,073 from the same grant and it feeds more than half of America...
-
Here, just few nuggets: Do you think Alaska needs grant for "State Criminal Alien Assistance Program"?
Is that assistance in enforcement of federal immigration policy? If so, yes it needs it, as all states do. Feds should pay to enforce federal law.
Or $1,433,462 for agricultural basic and applied research when agriculture makes for 0.1% of US total, yet California gets only $4,460,073 from the same grant and it feeds more than half of America...
Seems to me that California already knows how to farm pretty well, and besides, they are tearing down orchards to make new housing, so we will have to grow food someplace else soon anyway. Is the 1,433,462 just a million and a half dollars? or is there a few zeros missing. The US govt wastes more than that on rubber bands for offices.
I pay property tax on my home, even though I pay for upkeep, I mow the lawn, I pay for... you know? It costs the local government nothing to keep my house up. I pay thousands and get nothing for it. wait... it pays for schools... but I have no children attending.
---
Why should the largest and richest landowner in my county not contribute to the property tax burden in my county?
-
In FY 2005, Alaska received $1.87 in federal expenditures for every dollar it paid.
New Mexico recieved 2.00, Hawaii, 1.60; SD, 1.60; MT, 1.58; WV, 1.83; ND, 1.73; MS, 1.77; VA, 1.66
Oregon received 0.97; CA, 0.79; NH, 0.67; IL 0.73
AK was ranked second in this number, but in line with some other big, rural western states, as well as Al, MS, WV, and VA
-
Why should the largest and richest landowner in my county not contribute to the property tax burden in my county?
Do you understand what 'public domain' means?
Do you know why the borders between states are drawn as they are no matter the federal lands?
Since you're from Oregon, are you familiar with Donation Land Act?
-
Do you understand what 'public domain' means?
It means somebody from New Jersey tells Oregonians what we can do in Oregon.
>> Oh yeah, and it means the largest and richest landowner in my county does not contribute to the property tax burden in my county.