Thread: So whats so wrong with being able to speak French?

Originally Posted by gugi

2?
3?



Uhhm, you must be confusing me, I only eat poor irish babies, not my rich brethren.

And yeah, I hate it when the facts get in the way, but that shouldn't stop you labeling them 'false statements'. Obviously you can read, so next time no excuses about 'not being able to find any evidence'.

OK, so I vapor locked the numbering. It was pre-coffee this morning so cut me some slack. Proof that the Alaska Permanent Fund program has been around for years? PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I lived in Alaska from 86 to 92 my family and I received the permanent fund many times and it was quite cool (and yes it's taxable income.) At the time I think the literature said the program had been in place since 1975 or something. Source for Alaska Budget Data? Alaska state budget - Sunshine Review it would appear that unlike the quisslings in Washington DC, the state of Alaska actually does a budget and unlike the most transparent Administration in History, publishes it on a website for citizens to review. On the site I saw clear references to Federal stimulus money (what state DIDN'T belly up to that teet?) but no mention of any other state injecting funds into Alaska. The unemployment rate figure 7.3% was the product of a simple Google search.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I would just like to thank all of the fellow conservatives who posted to this thread and stood up for what's right in the face of the liberals here who try to pressure us into staying silent or feeling ashamed for our right beliefs! Slartibartfast, people like you cannot intimidate us!

Roger that! Slarti-your top hat and purple frock coat aren't the least bit scary

Originally Posted by commiecat

In '08 Palin approved the Alaska Resource Rebate which gave an additional $1200 check to all Alaska residents.

If memory serves, the Permanent Fund checks were part of an agreement signed years and years back that the people would divy up X% of the oil revenues. Oil prices being what they are the increase in the amount given to the people was bound to go up and was probably pursuant to previous legislation.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

I lived in Alaska from 86 to 92 my family and I received the permanent fund many times and it was quite cool (and yes it's taxable income.)

Yeah, I suppose it's pretty cool if you're getting paid for doing nothing. But I hope it's not news to you that for people like me who pay for that largesse it's far from cool.
I never said Palin put that program in place, I said that for decades Alaska has been collecting less money in revenue than it has spent, and the difference has come from the rest of the country (i.e. gets more money by the federal government than it puts in). In other words, it can not make it on its own. Given that, I find giving any windfall surplus money back to the moochers instead of fixing its economy to be fiscally sound, pretty slimy.

You should've noticed on that page you linked the difference of the current administration:

The FY2011 budget totaled $8.2 billion, an increase from FY2010's budget of $8.19 billion. Alaska had a $260 million surplus, an amount equal to nearly 4 percent of its general fund.budget surplus, due largely to higher-than-expected revenue from oil taxes. The governor has proposed using the surplus funds to repay education funds that were previously raided to balance the budget and also using the funds to offer tax incentives for oil companies to drill additional wells, thus possible increasing future revenue.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

(what state DIDN'T belly up to that teet?)

How about the one you live in right now? Do you really pay attention to what's happening around you, or you're just making stuff up to fit an ideological narrative?

BTW the federal proposed budgets are all available at your fingertips. The President of the US is required by law to submit a budget and I am not aware of any president failing to do that. Now, may be you will be so kind to tell me when was the last time that the US congress (yes that means both houses) passed a real budget, instead of continuing financing resolutions.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The problem with your argument is that while the vast majority of Muslims are not violent, neither will they condemn the ones that are.

Right. And when will the Americans start comndemning everything one of their own does wrong?
Just last week, a couple of American soldiers got left off the hook after massacring a village of Afghan civilians.
Where was the public American outcry? Did the US issue a public apology?

Americans are more than happy enough to ignore or make excuses for whatever other Americans are doing, because it is Americans doing those things. You are no different.

Yes the violent ones are a tiny minority, and yet 20 of them managed to kill 3000 Americans in an hour. This was their third attempt to bring those buildings down.

I agree there. But that they succeeded was not due to the billion other muslims, nor does it have any bearing on them

I know a Muslim that used to work with my wife. He thinks it's perfectly alright for Iran to build nukes. They are still celebrating 9/11 selling T-shirts with the burning building on them.

I would do the same if I were Iran. Having nukes seems to be the only way to keep the Americans from messing up the country whenever they feel like.
The US already toppled a democratically elected government in Iran when they didn't like them cozying up to the russians.
That event alone caused major upheaval, death and destruction. And it led to the current fundie regime.

I am still waiting for the righteous condemnation that you expect from a billion muslims.
Or is that not necessary when it is the US doing those things?

The non-violent ones are also a problem. As their numbers increase they attempt to force society to change to fit their religion by trying to get the court system to recognize Sharia law as they are trying to do in this country continuously and they are making headway. The "separation of Church and State" that the liberals are so proud of (even though the idea that this is in the Constitution is a lie) applies only to Christians.

As long as they operate within the constitutional framework, that's perfectly allowed.
That's no different from Bush banning the use of stem cells because of his Christianity.
I am not entirely sure, but it seems that whether or not a politician is a Christian or not is very important in the US.
How is Christians making sure that their leaders act on Christian values different from Muslims voting for people who do the same?

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

There is no global religious, political, and military effort to destroy non-Christians simply because they are non-Christians.

Not these days, no, but just have a look at the medieval history of Europe. Look at all the things our own ancestors did to non-Christians.
The same intolerant mindset (if not the methods) can these days still be found within a certain brand of "conservative christians".
Religious intolerance is not limited to the muslim world. They only act upon it in a different way.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I know a Muslim that used to work with my wife. He thinks it's perfectly alright for Iran to build nukes.

Well, can't you see their point of view ? The US, Rusia, UK, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India etc. all have nuclear weapons. If I had as many enemies as Iran I would want to have nukes as well. And to be honest, I think Iran possessing nuclear wapens is way safer than Pakistan possessing them. Yet I hear no great outrage when it comes to Pakistan but then, actually possessing those things changes the politics doesn't it? Come to think of it, that's yet another reason for Iran to want nukes.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The non-violent ones are also a problem. As their numbers increase they attempt to force society to change to fit their religion by trying to get the court system to recognize Sharia law as they are trying to do in this country continuously and they are making headway.

Substitute Sharia law for Bible law and you just described what's happening in your own country.
Sorry, I see less and less difference between extremist muslims and extremist christians.

About the nukes: Mutually Assured Destruction only works if it is mutual.
Take North Korea. The only reason noone bothers them is that they have seoul within artillery range, and enough artillery lined up along the border to kill a million people within minutes.
Their artillery range is so long that even nukes would not be able to take out enough of them to prevent them from killing tens or hundreds of thousands.
Of course, a coordinated nuke strike with multiple warheads at the same time might be able to get the desired effect. But then you're also nuking seoul, so that doesn't work out.

Right now, Iran feels that the only way to keep out the US and Israel is to have nukes.
From what happened in the last decades, I can't blame them. Countries like Iran don't enjoy being invaded or having their population dropped into chaos, just because it has a short term benefit to the US.

It's always been un-American to speak French. Don't you remember that we had to fight them for our Independence back in 1776. And if it wasn't for the English coming to our aid we'd still be a French Colony!
Wait a minute ** that was someone's campaign ad**. The French were the ones to help us! I guess it was all about French Fries and the Fat and it not being good for us and putting a Tax on them because of ... Wait a minute... That was another Campaign ad... Well if you speak French then your smart! That's it; and we can't have smart people!!

Originally Posted by Jimbo7

To the OP, I don't think I'm oversimplifying it too much in thinking that one of his goals in saying that is just to try to paint him as a bit of a sissy. No offense to our French friends, but that's the stereotype in the States, and I'm sure that comes as no surprise. Sometimes the basest implications can be the strongest. No one wants a sissy leading the country!

Also, I think "anti-intellectual" is the wrong term. Anti-European, sure. Anti-elitism, yes. There may be fine lines between these concepts (especially for our European members) but I think they're discernible lines nonetheless.

For example, one of the complaints lodged against Obama is that he at times seems more interested in how the rest of the world views us than many of us really care. Many Americans, including myself, don't see the European system as something to emulate. To many, Obama's seeming to be constantly seeking the rest of the world's approval doesn't jive well with our western, cowboyish, rugged-individualist foundation. He could certainly be playing to that sentiment.

Plus, likening your opponent to John Kerry in any manner is a pretty good tactic.

Well said

Jeff