You are the self-professed perfect person, perfect candidate, and all-wise expert on lifting profits from Alaskan oil companies for the benefit of individual citizens.  No, sweetie, once again, you fail at reading comprehension.  You are the PERFECT poster child for privatizing the educational system via a voucher program.

Where did I say I was perfect?  Oh, that line, that, just as I predicted, flung you into total, extreme rage.  There is a way to read this line, and as your reading comprehension is weak, I will have to walk you through it.  Don't make me design a pop-up book for you.

"If I wanted the PERFECT presidential candidate, I would run for office" means that not everyone agrees with me and very very few in politics will mirror my philosophy.  Meaning that if I wanted someone who reflects my philosophies on governance, economics and foreign policy in toto, then I have to run, myself.  As I will not, guess what?  I have to make do with what I got.  You know, mature people come to that conclusion all the time.  This might explain how one as immature as yourself would miss the point. 

As for your constant insistance that Gov Palin is a Socialist, I ask you once again: as YOU are a Socialist, why aren't you backing her more fully than, say, Free Stinker? 

You should be explaining that process to us - at great length.  I did, frankie, and you need to learn to stop blaming others for your shortcomings (but then if you did that you'd show maturity and might even shift away from the Socialism you hold so dear).  The best you could do in response is whine something about a "second fund", and as usual, when I ask you to show me where this phantom "second fund" is, you bark orders at me demanding I prove your assertions.  That isn't the way this works.  You made the allegation; now stand and deliver, link or slink, put up or STFU. 

 If brevity is, indeed, the soul of wit you're, well, witless...but that's another story.  Ah, Polonius, another insult from one who will SCREAM and SCREAM and SCREAM about how all the big meanies on NB are insulting him and being rude to him.  All you do when you do this crap is show me you have the mentality of a four year old.  Don't you know that NB is for adults? 

Now, whenever you are dumb enough to reply to me, frankie, I am going to remind you of this comment you made to Vivaldi5 on July 14, 2009, at 19:28 EST, and the challenge I threw down to you 32 minutes later, that you refuse to answer for some strange reason:

It's not my fault it fits.  I'm not surprised there are so many sore losers here.  I will admit to being surprised by the amount of bigotry and racism, however.  Where, over what, and when?  I'm not from MO, but I have many relatives that are.  Show me anyway.  Link or slink. 

Put up or STFU. 

I ought to make this my signature so that all of NB can see what a condescending, hate-filled, extremely angry, perpetually pissed off person you are. 

And it is the height of stupidity to suggest I "do my homework" and I "come back when I am better prepared." Just for that, I will repeat myself again.  Maybe in the meantime you will learn to back an assertion when called upon to do so.  I'm not hilding my breath. 

Or that greedy oil companies should distribute their wealth to the good citizens of the state within which they operate (your Goddess Gov. Sarah Palin)?  That would be Governor Jay Hammond.  Try reading your history. 

By the way, I'll even help you.  From pages 492-495 of Alaska: Saga of a Bold Land by Walter R. Borneman:

"With the completion of the pipeline, Prudhoe Bay's oil tap was cranked wide-open.  Alaska was suddenly rich.  The big lease sale of September 1969 had made the state swagger, but that $900 million in revenues was a drop in the barrel compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that now flowed annually into state coffers from a combination of oil and gas leases, royalties, and taxes.  The words budget surplus took on a whole new meaning.  By one estimate, it was projected to be $2500 annually for the next thirty years for every man, woman, and child in Alaska.  "This is an absolutely unique situation", mused University of Alaska economics professor Arlon Tussing, "in that the state has money it does not know how to spend."

"In the tradition of the mining frontier, some Alaskans wanted to spend this newfound wealth on a spree - whether it be a new billion-dollar capital, a winter trip to Hawaii, or just about anything in between.  Others, including Governor Jay Hammond, took a longer view.  Back in his days as the part-time manager of the Bristol Bay Borough, Hammond has once proposed forming an investment corporation to be funded from a fishing-use tax, the vast majority of which was paid by nonresidents.  Hammond went on to suggest that after paying the costs of local government, local residents - as shareholders in the corporation - would receive an annual payment akin to a stock dividend for each year they had resided in the borough.  Most folks in Bristol Bay looked at him as if he were crazy, and promptly and overwhelmingly voted down the measure.

"A decade later, Jay Hammond was governor, and it was the State of Alaska that was awash in excess revenues.  Hammond thought his original idea of a dividend-paying corporation was still a good one.  To promote it among Alaska voters, he created a traveling town meeting called the Alaska Public Forum.  This became a raucous roundtable for discussing controversial state issues, but Hammond's dividend idea didn't receive much support.  Undeterred, the governor introduced a bill in the Alaska legislature to amend the state constitution and create Alaska, Inc.  Under Hammond's proposal, Alaska, Inc. would receive 50 percent of all mineral payments and tax dollars for a trust fund, the principal of which could be invaded only by statewide vote.  Half of the fund's annual earnings would be distributed as cash dividends to all Alaskans in the form of one share of dividend-paying "stock" for each year of residency since statehood. 

"While various committees of the state legislature sparred with Hammond's proposal, there was no shortage of other ideas.  Most Alaskans had come to agree that the enormous economic bounty being harvested from oil royalties should be used for something less Brazilian than building a new capital, but there the consensus stopped.  Senator Billy Ray, a Democrat of Juneau, termed Hammond's dividend proposal "well intentioned, but misguided"  and gave it "not much chance of passage".  Loans to small businesses and marginal enterprises, outside investment in blue chip stocks, a host of community development projects, and an Alaskan version of the World Bank to finance megaprojects such as the still simmering Susitna-Devils Canyon Hydroelectric Project, were among the ideas discussed.

"One thing was clear.  Alaska's initial $900 million lease windfall had been spent rather quickly to catch up on long-neglected infrastructure and public works, education, and social programs.  Meanwhile, in less than a decade the state budget had tripled from just under $300 million, and its growth showed no signs of slowing.  It seems that government was expanding to consume whatever revenues were available.

"Rather than have that happen Governor Hammond opined, "I would far rather take that oil money - money from nonrenewable resources - sail it back out to the people in the form of a dividend, and then, through the normal taxing process, provide for the funds for normal state services."  In other words, base the state budget on necessary expenditures and not black gold reserves. 

"When the legislature first presented Governor Hammond with a fund bill, it was for a statutory investment fund, not an invasion-proof trust created by a constitutional amendment.  Instead of depositing 50 percent of all mineral revenues into the fund, it called for crediting 25 percent of only the leasing and royalty revenues, not severance taxes as well.  Alaska, Inc.  wasn't mentioned, and these shortcomings made Hammond skeptical despite the proposed name: the Alaska Permanent Fund.  In Hammond's mind, this was not a case where half a loaf was better than no loaf.  Legislation could be changed depending on what bunch might congregate in Juneau every two years.  Hammond wanted something permanent in more than just name or at least something so firmly embedded in the state constitution that it would take a vote of the people to change it.  Hammond vetoed the measure. 

"The legislature got the message and redrafted the legislation.  On November 2, 1976, Alaska voters approved an amendment to the state constitution creating a truly permanent fund.  It was to be the repository for at least 25 percent, but conceivably 100 percent, of all mineral revenues received by the state: lease bonuses and rentals, royalties, oil and gas sale proceeds, and federal mineral revenue-sharing payments.  The Permanent Fund was to invest these revenues in an attempt to provide long-term security from the sale of the state's nonrenewable resources.  Just how this was to be done and for what purposes the fund's income could be used were left to the governor and legislature to decide.  There was no mention of a dividend to individual Alaskans, but the fund itself was a good start. 

"In his next State of the State address address in January 1977, Hammond renewed his proposal for the dividend-paying Alaska Inc. and urged the legislature to put at least 50% of revenue, rather than the 25 percent required by the amendment, into the Permanent Fund.  A reluctant gubernatorial candidate in 1974, Hammond ran for reelection in 1978 in large measure because he wanted to see the benefits of the Permanent Fund accrue to Alaska's residents and not remain a large slush fund subject to legislative whims.

"In that 1978 election cycle, Hammond managed an unusual political hat trick.  He beat the same candidate, former governor Walter J. Hickel, three times: in the Republican primary, in a court-ordered runoff for the Republican nomination, and in the general election when Hickel refused to give up and ran as a write-in candidate.  Hickel likened fellow Republican Hammond's idea to something akin to socialism and preferred to view the surplus as a huge pot from which to fund development projects.  By then, Hickel and become something of an antiestablishment hero for having been fired as Secretary of the Interior by Richard Nixon, but even pro-development Alaskans still remembered the Hickel Highway. 

"Two years later, the Alaska Permanent Fund became law.  Essentially, it provided each Alaskan with one "share" of dividend-paying stock for each year residency in Alaska since statehood.  Aside from resembling Hammond's first dividend idea at Bristol Bay, this approach seemed a fair way to compensate old-timers for the leaner years they put in before the oil boom.  The first dividend was set at fifty dollars per "share", or year of residency.  But before the state treasury could crank out the checks, two young attorneys freshly arrived in the state and admitted to the Alaska bar filed suit alleging that dividend payments based on length of residency were unconstitutional.  A lower Alaska court agreed, but the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the ruling and upheld the law.  The law's critics appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Meanwhile, earnings continued to accumulate in the fund. 

"On June 14, 1982, in an 8 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the payments based on residency.  The courtheld that such a system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no valid state interest to be rationally served by distinguishing between long-term and short-term residents and newcomers.  Such a distinction, the court said, could lead to other similar classifications. 

"Anticipating the high court's decision, Hammond and the legislature had recrafted the dividend program to provide that one-half of the annual income of the Permanent Fund be distributed equally to all Alaska residents, including children, who had lived in the state for six months.  A portion of the remaining income was to be added to principal to at as a hedge against inflation, and the annual payments were to be based on five-year income averaging that would avoid large yearly fluctuations.  A few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, more than 400,000 $1000 checks were distributed to Alaska residents, roughly the amount of three years of dividends that had accumulated during the litigation."   

Finally, sweetie, you decided to post a condescending, insulting post, and why?  Because it ultimately is easier than reacting to this: 

And jumping up and down like a petulant little boy screaming "SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE!  SEE! SEE!  SEE!  McCain's Socialist too!  Palin's Socialist too!" gets you absolutely nowhere.  In fact it only shows me you know less than nothing about politics in this country.

I cannot think of a single candidate, frankie, that would do everything I want to do exactly how I would want it done.  I can't think of anyone who wants to set a "flat tax" on income at 17% with absolutely no breaks or loopholes, placing this rate in the Constitution; who wants to eliminate capital gains taxes, who wants to gradually privatize Social Security and Medicare, who will tell people up front to stop turning to government for doctors, or much else outside of defending the country and delivering the mail; or who will be committed to paying off the national debt.

Nor can I think of a candidate who pairs such thinking with standing up for freedom in the world; meaning, praising Honduras for nipping a potential dictatorship in the bud and doing what we can to aid the aspirations of Iranians that are fed up with dictatorship and theocracy.  In short, I can't think of a candidate, who, unlike your God, His Majesty The Shahinshah, who travels the world apologizing to everyone and everything for the very existence of the United States, wants to use the superpower, power-projecting abilities of the United States as a force for good.

In other words, frankie, to use a phrase that can and has thrown you into explosive, violent RAGE: if I wanted the PERFECT Presidential candidate, I would run for office.  (See above for my brilliant breakdown of this comment, if you dare, if you have any intellectual honesty.)  As such, the perfect presidential candidates (or for whatever office) do not exist.  I therefore have to be mature and determine who most closely matches my philosophies and vote accordingly. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)