Palin says no to the Bridge , but only after saying yes, Keeps money

[Federal Farmer]

I liked him a lot when I first saw his ads. Get rid of the IRS, he was proud to talk about his faith and would defend faith based people.

but then I felt like he attacked Romney. and the lower in the polls he got the more he tried to drag Romney down with him and now we are stuck with McCain. So now I am just so darn mad at him.

But my being mad at him is all about how I felt he treated Mitt Romney in the primary. In general you are right, he is nice and funny and articulate. I just dont know If I can get over the primary

You need to get a little background on that story No O. The reason he was going after Romney was because Romney was the one behind most of the slander, and frankly outright LIES that were being spread about Mike.

Mike is a FairTax guy, and Romney was being supported (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) by Stephen Moore, the founder of the Club for Growth, and the author of the Flat Tax! The problem with that came in when Stephen, through his group, started intentionally and willfully misrepresenting Mike's record as Governor of Arkansas, using the same typical Libtard tactics that top gun and poopeye use here on a regular basis, while at the same time intentionally and willfully WHITEWASHING Romneys record!! It's real simple NO O, if Mike got elected, and was able to push the FlatTax through, Moore would have been 1) out of a job, and 2) relegated to obscurity, and he wasn't about to let that happen, so he supported Romney, knowing that Mitt would go along with the Flat Tax, and they BOTH set out to try to ruin Mike.

Now, I know you said that you were a Romney supporter, but I think I've proven myself as far as being able to do the really hard, in depth research on things, and believe me when I tell you, Romney was NO conservative, not even by Massachussetts standards, and the fact is, and I KNOW you're not going to like this, Romney was in Moore's pocket, bought and paid for.

 

[Pandora]

You need to get a little background on that story No O. The reason he was going after Romney was because Romney was the one behind most of the slander, and frankly outright LIES that were being spread about Mike.

Mike is a FairTax guy, and Romney was being supported (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) by Stephen Moore, the founder of the Club for Growth, and the author of the Flat Tax! The problem with that came in when Stephen, through his group, started intentionally and willfully misrepresenting Mike's record as Governor of Arkansas, using the same typical Libtard tactics that top gun and poopeye use here on a regular basis, while at the same time intentionally and willfully WHITEWASHING Romneys record!! It's real simple NO O, if Mike got elected, and was able to push the FlatTax through, Moore would have been 1) out of a job, and 2) relegated to obscurity, and he wasn't about to let that happen, so he supported Romney, knowing that Mitt would go along with the Flat Tax, and they BOTH set out to try to ruin Mike.

Now, I know you said that you were a Romney supporter, but I think I've proven myself as far as being able to do the really hard, in depth research on things, and believe me when I tell you, Romney was NO conservative, not even by Massachussetts standards, and the fact is, and I KNOW you're not going to like this, Romney was in Moore's pocket, bought and paid for.

The News said Romney paid for his own campaign but what you are saying is interesting. I never thought of Romney as an uber conservative but I liked that he knew about business.

What is the differnce between flat and fair tax?

I am not sure what one I like best

oh and I never heard mitt talk about mike badly, but I did her McCain flat lie about Mitt at the debate in florida, I am not sure ill ever forgive him either.

But I do respect that you like Huckaby

 

[Federal Farmer]

The News said Romney paid for his own campaign but what you are saying is interesting. I never thought of Romney as an uber conservative but I liked that he knew about business.

What is the differnce between flat and fair tax?

I am not sure what one I like best

oh and I never heard mitt talk about mike badly, but I did her McCain flat lie about Mitt at the debate in florida, I am not sure ill ever forgive him either.

But I do respect that you like Huckaby

As a businessman, I too appreciated Mitt's business experience, and thought that it added to his Executive experience level. What turned me off to him was his rather "liberal" definition of "raising taxes" while he was Governor of Mass., and the fact that he knew he couldn't go head-to-head with Mike on accomplishments AS Governor, so he sent his attack dogs (Moore and the Club for Growth) to smear him. That's BS Libtard tactics IMNSHO, and has no place in the GOP.


I'll try to find the time to work on a new thread dedicated to the Flat Tax v FairTax over the next couple of days. It's rather complex but the basics are these;

Flat tax = same system we have today, only instead of different tax rates based on income level, everyone pays a "flat" percentage of their earnings to the IRS.

Good side, "levels the playing field".
Bad side, does nothing about the "underground economy", and we still have the IRS.

FairTax = Guts the IRS, eleminates the collection arm of the IRS and replaces it all with a consumption tax.

Good side, we decide what we'll give to the government by what we decide to purchase. It eliminates the underground economy because taxes are no longer tied to wages, only to purchases. Eliminates taxes on the "basic necessities of life" through the Prebate.
Bad side, we still have the IRS (although not as it exists today).

 

[Pandora]

As a businessman, I too appreciated Mitt's business experience, and thought that it added to his Executive experience level. What turned me off to him was his rather "liberal" definition of "raising taxes" while he was Governor of Mass., and the fact that he knew he couldn't go head-to-head with Mike on accomplishments AS Governor, so he sent his attack dogs (Moore and the Club for Growth) to smear him. That's BS Libtard tactics IMNSHO, and has no place in the GOP.


I'll try to find the time to work on a new thread dedicated to the Flat Tax v FairTax over the next couple of days. It's rather complex but the basics are these;

Flat tax = same system we have today, only instead of different tax rates based on income level, everyone pays a "flat" percentage of their earnings to the IRS.

Good side, "levels the playing field".
Bad side, does nothing about the "underground economy", and we still have the IRS.

FairTax = Guts the IRS, eleminates the collection arm of the IRS and replaces it all with a consumption tax.

Good side, we decide what we'll give to the government by what we decide to purchase. It eliminates the underground economy because taxes are no longer tied to wages, only to purchases. Eliminates taxes on the "basic necessities of life" through the Prebate.
Bad side, we still have the IRS (although not as it exists today).

I like the second one best because then even the drug dealers and hookers have to pay

but the first one is better than what we have now.

It makes me so dang mad that they target rich people to pay for everything.

One day I will be rich and when I am, I will cheat the IRS

 

[Bunz]

Fed, just a few things to note about the Gravina Island Bridge. While you are generally correct in your research, it is worthy of pointing out that while the death of that individual earmark was not on her watch. It was Palin's decision to not pursue any further funding of that project on the federal, state and local levels. At least while she is in office, the project is dead. How long that remains is yet to be decided.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Fed, just a few things to note about the Gravina Island Bridge. While you are generally correct in your research, it is worthy of pointing out that while the death of that individual earmark was not on her watch. It was Palin's decision to not pursue any further funding of that project on the federal, state and local levels. At least while she is in office, the project is dead. How long that remains is yet to be decided.

As I have stated on several occasions. From an engineering standpoint, the bridge project was a boondoggle from the very beginning. There are entirely too many concerns for a bridge of that nature in Alaska, and I know that I wouldn't have proposed one of that scope in that location.

Icing problems, both on the roadbed, as well as in the channel rapidly degrade concrete so the long term maintainance expenses would be heavy.

Concerns over shipping traffic hitting the bridge during bad weather.

Keeping the bridge de-iced for motor traffic during the winter months.

A pair of tunnels under the channel makes far more sense, is far easier to maintain, and would be cheaper.

 

[Bunz]

As I have stated on several occasions. From an engineering standpoint, the bridge project was a boondoggle from the very beginning. There are entirely too many concerns for a bridge of that nature in Alaska, and I know that I wouldn't have proposed one of that scope in that location.

Icing problems, both on the roadbed, as well as in the channel rapidly degrade concrete so the long term maintainance expenses would be heavy.

Concerns over shipping traffic hitting the bridge during bad weather.

Keeping the bridge de-iced for motor traffic during the winter months.

A pair of tunnels under the channel makes far more sense, is far easier to maintain, and would be cheaper.

This certainly debatable in general. A tunnel has been studied and for one reason or another had issues that have prevented its feasibility. Though I will say that your concerns about ice in that part of the state is minimal compared to all others. Ketchikan has more Seattle like weather than even Juneau weather. Ketchikan is closer to Seattle than Anchorage.

Either way, the cards being played by the Palin camp is a bluff. There is no substance to her stance. In the meantime, the 5th largest city in the state has no road access to its airport and despite decaded worth of work towards solving that problem, it has come to a streeching halt with few options of changing a broken situation.

Which is the problem with the current McCain-Palin ticket. There are major issues going on with this country and they want more of the same. I was told once that the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different outcome. That certainly is the place we find ourselves in.