View Full Version : So.... what's up with Sarah Palin?
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
[
7]
8
9
10
11
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 03:43 PM
actually, Alaskan fish and game seems to know what they are doing pretty well ...
(snip)"The exact number of moose or caribou saved by thinning wolf populations is hard to determine. Fish and Game's ungulate survival calculations are based on an average consumption of approximately 12 moose or 24 caribou per wolf per year.
A kill of 124 wolves would thus translate to 1,488 moose or 2,976 caribou or some combination thereof."(snip)
from http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/410461.html
just out of curiosity, what's less humane about 124 wolves being cleanly shot via aerial hunting versus 1488 moose or 2976 caribou or some combination thereof being run down and ripped to shreds by wolf packs ?
Fish and Game is a lot different than Billy Joe Jim Bob and his gun.
Please........
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 03:45 PM
^^^ to counter your counter of my counter, what gives residents of the lower 48 states the right to dictate how Alaskans must manage their own affairs ... particularly so when such dictates would have a direct impact on the traditional way of life of native American peoples ? Of course, this sort of question circles right back to a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative policies.
Stop posting lies please.
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 03:46 PM
Alaska Wolves Management and Policy
Defenders has been involved in conserving wolf populations for more than 30 years. We are committed to ending the aerial gunning of wolves. Currently, we are attempting to achieve this goal through state litigation, passage of a third ballot measure (which will be voted on by Alaskans in August 2008) amending the federal Airborne Hunting Act and bringing greater diversity to the Board of Game.
History of Defenders' efforts on behalf of Alaska wolves (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolves/wolf_recovery_efforts/alaska_wolves/background/history_of_wolf_control_in_alaska/index.php)
Aerial Gunning Continues Its Toll on Wolves
Despite the passage of two ballot measures on the issue, aerial gunning continues to occur in Alaska. Since 2003, more than 600 wolves have been shot by aerial gunning teams in five areas of the state.
In addition to the loophole in the Airborne Hunting Act (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/policy_and_legislation/aerial_hunting.php), this is due to the passage of a state law in 1994 that requires restoring depleted caribou and moose populations to previously attained levels including historical highs. (See detailed history (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolves/wolf_recovery_efforts/alaska_wolves/background/history_of_wolf_control_in_alaska/index.php) )
In many instances such highs resulted from irruptions linked to large-scale predator control in the 1950s and 1960s. Peak populations were clearly unsustainable and restoring them now is likely unattainable. Furthermore, estimates of the magnitude of peak populations, even those reached as recently as the 1980s, are often little more than guesses and are often inflated. Alaska Board of Game
Most decisions regarding wolves rest with the Alaska Board of Game (BOG), a seven-member panel of citizens appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. This board has historically and currently consists primarily of hunters. The Board of Game, guided by the intensive management statute, has consistently set ungulate population and harvest objectives at high levels or raised previous objectives absent data on habitat quality and carrying capacity. The net result of this is to commit the Board of Game to approving perpetual predator control programs that chase unattainable objectives. The current programs will likely repeat the pattern of the past wherein wolf and bear control triggered ungulate irruptions followed by habitat damage and sharp ungulate declines.
Review our work related to the Board of Game process. (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolves/wolf_recovery_efforts/alaska_wolves/management_and_policy/alaska_board_of_game.php)
Summary of our legal work (http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/in_the_courts/legal_docket/alaska_wolf.php)
State Legislation
Defenders actively monitors the Alaska legislature for bills pertaining to the management of the state's wildlife. Currently we are monitoring two bills introduced by Governor Palin at the end of the 2007 legislative session. The bills are designed to thwart future legal challenges and were written at the behest of the Alaska Outdoor Council, a special interest group. They also intend to prevent a vote on the August 2008 aerial gunning ballot measure. Read our letter (http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/alaska_wolf/letter_to_ak_gov._palin.pdf) and see the full page ad in the Anchorage Daily News (http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/alaska_wolf/silencing_alaskans.pdf) asking Governor Palin if the bills she introduced are an attempt to thwart the ballot measure.
Melonie
09-13-2008, 03:48 PM
^^^ well if you had read my link completely or done independent research you would discover that Alaska fish & game runs the aerial wolf hunting program - and will stop it when their wolf population control objectives are met. Bush pilots taking money to allow Billy Joe Jim Bob to do the shooting, IMHO, is a whole lot more cost effective than spending tax money to have gov't employees implement the same wolf population control measures. Coincidentally, this again circles back around to a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative policies !
G-Real
09-13-2008, 03:48 PM
^^^ to counter your counter of my counter, what gives residents of the lower 48 states the right to dictate how Alaskans must manage their own affairs ... particularly so when such dictates would have a direct impact on the traditional way of life of native American peoples ? Of course, this sort of question circles right back to a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative policies.
but in theory native alaskans/inuit have always had to compete with wolves, bears, other animals for food......so what gives them the right to change the natural order of things...
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 03:53 PM
Opponents of state wolf control are Alaskans
Nick Jans
Published Sunday, August 10, 2008
As the Aug. 26 primary election nears, opponents of Ballot Measure 2 are up to their usual tricks: a poorly aimed barrage of misinformation, distortion and fear-mongering. As a representative of Alaskans For Wildlife, the sponsors of Measure 2, which seeks to restrict private pilots from hunting and shooting wolves and grizzlies, I feel obliged to set the record straight. (By the way, if you’re one of those who don’t believe tracking down and killing wolves with aircraft isn’t hunting, try explaining that to a dictionary.)
Folks like Dick Bishop, president of the Alaska Outdoor Council, (News-Miner Community Perspective, Aug. 3) find themselves grasping at straws, huffing and puffing about everything from the danger posed by wolves to the potential La Brea tar pit of litigation that our measure supposedly poses.
Never mind that there has never been one documented fatality caused by a wild wolf in the entire history of the state. And never mind that we actually support science-driven wildlife management, including predator control (even in helicopters) when necessary.
I hate to disappoint some of you, but my two co-sponsors and I aren’t a pack of Outside greenie-weenies. We’re longtime Alaskans, with over a century of hunting, guiding and subsistence living between us. Not only are we Alaskans, but so are the folks who’ve twice voted by large margins to limit aerial predator control — people from across the state, including thousands of rural residents who don’t pay lip service to subsistence; they live it. I know, you’ve been told it was all wolf-hugging city-dwellers to blame, but check the voting record from the 1996 and 2000 elections. In 1996, 36 of Alaska’s 40 districts, many of them rural, voted to curtail aerial wolf control. In 2000, a long list of Native bush communities again voted the same way. If you examine the nearly 57,000 signatures we gathered for this current ballot measure, you will once more see thousands of Native signatures from across the state. To say that these people don’t understand the nature of subsistence or wolves is insulting. Likewise, tens of thousands of non-Native Alaskans, including longtime hunters like myself, feel insulted when we’re told by the Board of Game or the Alaska Outdoor Council that we just don’t grasp the issue because we don’t agree with their archaic, out-of-touch policies. Never mind that many of us have far more direct experience and knowledge regarding wolves than those who claim we know so little.
Ah, but sure — we were all hoodwinked en masse by a pack of slick, lying, environmentalist ads paid for by blue-haired ladies in Connecticut, not once, but twice!
And never mind that the AOC viewpoint is supported by hundreds of thousands of Outside dollars from upscale hunter/guide organizations like Safari Club International (a name that practically shouts “Alaska” — the word ‘safari’ is actually Swahili) and funneled to Outside dirty-tricks spin doctors like Oregon-based Pac West.
Speaking of knowledge, the Board of Game and the AOC would have you believe that Alaska’s predator control program is a model of scientific wildlife management. That comes as news to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, the American Society of Mammalogists, plus an independent group of more than 120 scientists who have all formally critiqued the state’s program over the past dozen years, and found it lacking. But of course, the board and their cronies didn’t mean those scientists—just the ones that agreed with them. I know for fact there are biologists currently with Fish and Game that loathe the current program; they say so quietly, afraid for their careers. They, like we, are for sound, science-based predator control done by professionals, exercised when necessary, not in support of ungulate farming driven by the ideology of intensive management.
Zia_Abq
09-13-2008, 03:56 PM
“despite earlier promises to the contrary, Sarah Palin is now refusing to cooperate with the trooper-gate investigation”
PS: sorry if this has been posted already. This thread is moving so fast it's hard to keep up!
Melonie
09-13-2008, 03:57 PM
but in theory native alaskans/inuit have always had to compete with wolves, bears, other animals for food......so what gives them the right to change the natural order of things...
... hmmm, equal rights for wolves and Inuits ... isn't it amazing how this thread just keeps circling back to the differences between liberal and conservative policies !!!
Look - it doesn't matter how you or I personally feel about aerial wolf hunting or any of the spin-offs. What DOES matter is how the people of Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Colorado (i.e. swing states in the upcoming election) might feel about the subject. If the Democrats come across as 'animal rights' extremists on this issue, that's simply not going to fly well in these swing states. If the Democrats come across as 'federalists' on this issue, attempting to dictate an unpopular national policy on Alaska, it's also not going to fly well in these swing states. But hey feel free ...
G-Real
09-13-2008, 03:59 PM
... hmmm, equal rights for wolves and Inuits ... isn't it amazing how this thread just keeps circling back to the differences between liberal and conservative policies !!!
well bring it back to capitalism, survival of the fittest.....if the wolves have a monopoly on caribou, is it up to the government to break that monopoly??;D
Eric Stoner
09-13-2008, 04:10 PM
the counter-arguments to the aerial wolf hunting are threefold
#1 - aggressive control of Alaskan wolf populations is necessary to prevent resulting damage to populations of other animals, primarily Caribou and Moose
#2 - native Alaskans depend on the hunting of Caribou and Moose for their subsistence / culture, thus allowing these animal populations to be decimated by wolves would pose a direct threat to their native way of life
#3 - the issue was put to Alaskan voters on a recent election ballot, and it was the Alaskan voters themselves who voted in favor of continued aerial wolf hunting.
In other words, the issue of aerial wolf hunting in Alaska really doesn't involve any major component of 'sport'. Regardless of how aerial wolf hunting may appear to residents of California or New York or Illinois, in a context of Alaskan real world issues it appears to make sense for Alaska.
Mooseburgers ! Wolves help keep the elk; caribou and moose herds healthy.
Native Alaskans have to compete with NON - ALASKANS for the hunting quota so the obvious solution is to, when necessary, limit the caribou and moose hunt to Alaskan residents and if necessary just to the Inuit and other original indigenous people.
Just because it has "popular support" among Alaskans doesn't give it immunity from objective criticism. There are plenty of Canadians who support seal hunting. So what ?
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 04:47 PM
well bring it back to capitalism, survival of the fittest.....if the wolves have a monopoly on caribou, is it up to the government to break that monopoly??;D
Speaking of survival of the fittest, I think you will see Obama come out swinging, Republicans can't run for 2 months on insults/laughs from a convention, sleazy ads and Sarah Palin as the big secret weapon. She's not that great.
Melonie
09-13-2008, 05:16 PM
^^^ an apt analogy, given that republican 'back room boys' would like nothing better than to sucker Obama into a few more rounds of 'rope-a-dope'.
"They are swiftboating Obama and if he and Biden don't stop using the rope a dope tactic like Mohammed Ali did to wear-out his opponents, they will get KO'd just like Kerry and they will be left in November scratching their heads and saying, are the American people really that blind." - from a liberal blog !
leilanicandy
09-13-2008, 06:46 PM
^^^ an apt analogy, given that republican 'back room boys' would like nothing better than to sucker Obama into a few more rounds of 'rope-a-dope'.
"They are swiftboating Obama and if he and Biden don't stop using the rope a dope tactic like Mohammed Ali did to wear-out his opponents, they will get KO'd just like Kerry and they will be left in November scratching their heads and saying, are the American people really that blind." - from a liberal blog !
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Yes I think it is time to use another tactic. Some Americans just don't know any better :)
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 10:58 PM
I feel bad posting this because it's really not my style....but sometimes you just can't help it.
(I did it for the wolves and bears)
First McCain sign I agree with.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2zibyc1.jpg
Zia_Abq
09-14-2008, 10:50 AM
Republicans can't run for 2 months on insults/laughs from a convention, sleazy ads and Sarah Palin as the big secret weapon. She's not that great.
If only that were true. It may or may not work this time but running on nothing but sleazy ads is par for the course from that party. They are allergic to addressing issues and it’s something they try to avoid as often as possible.
Ps: I really like your new avatar :great:
bem401
09-14-2008, 10:57 AM
If only that were true. It may or may not work this time but running on nothing but sleazy ads is par for the course from that party. They are allergic to addressing issues and it’s something they try to avoid as often as possible.
Ps: I really like your new avatar :great:
Talk about glass houses. The dems have an ad out presently ridiculing McCain for being unable to email, a result of his years in captivity. They are also the party that took the James Byrd case and tried to run with that for all it was worth a few elections back.
Let's just agree neither party is without some balme in this regard. It's part of politics.
Zia_Abq
09-14-2008, 11:04 AM
And now for something on the lighter side. In case anyone missed it last night here is Tina Fay doing Palin for the first time on SNL.
bem401
09-14-2008, 11:17 AM
^^^^ That was funny.
fancygirl
09-14-2008, 12:55 PM
re: aerial wolf hunting:
I don't support it, however for a wolf population of 7-8,000
killing off 150 or less a year doesn't sound like too much.
Granted, we don't know how many wolves are being killed
off in other ways and I'm sure aerial hunting doesn't need
to be one of them. Plus, I can't see rural hunters using helicopters
and if they need to curb the wolf population-- they've got guns.
So it does seem like a rich person's game to get a wolf.
Something about planning to take an organism out of its
environment when it's most vulnerable and then doing it in
what is likely the most painful way possible just smacks
of partial-birth abortion to me. How can a person be so
rabidly pro-life and then take pleasure out of hunting everything
she can in every way possible?
If she wants to curb a certain population and use resources
and population protection (of moose and caribou and then
the subsistence hunters) as a support, then what sort of
cognitive dissonance is occuring that she can't see the need
for her own species because of her religious/political beliefs?
Or should we just make fetus-hunting fun and have rich people
charter air balloons and get the fanciest, most up to date sniper
rifle and start gunning down fetuses in their natural habitat?
Oh and don't forget to collect that southpaw for the $150 smackaroos!
Zia_Abq
09-14-2008, 01:03 PM
How can a person be so
rabidly pro-life and then take pleasure out of hunting everything
she can in every way possible?
A one word answer to that question. Hypocrisy.
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 01:17 PM
How can a person be so
rabidly pro-life and then take pleasure out of hunting everything
she can in every way possible? ...and favor the death penalty.
sapphiregirl
09-14-2008, 01:53 PM
A one word answer to that question. Hypocrisy.
Yep....I think you will see the Democrats start fighting back now with the Clintons fighting for them too. If you think about it, they kind of had to wait until Sarah Palin spoke and Mccain acted to know how to approach them. I think Republicans dug themselves into a hole.
Sarah Palin does not have that much momentum/accomplishments to keep voters distracted until the election and she barely gave McCain a bump....a little bump that won't last. :P
However, I'm sure Sarah Palin has made every comic in America happy....especially Tina Fey.
sapphiregirl
09-14-2008, 02:04 PM
One other thing.....I hope Biden starts going after Palin and Obama sticks to going after McCain. Sarah Palin is no match for Biden's experience in Washington.....she seemed nervous and flustered with Charlie Gibson.
I see Biden doing that on the news now and even Hillary added Palin to her speech today....:wizard:
Sarah Palin = :witch:
Zia_Abq
09-14-2008, 03:07 PM
If you think about it, they kind of had to wait until Sarah Palin spoke and Mccain acted to know how to approach them.
Keeping the Dems at bay was also likely one of the main reasons the GOP has kept her away from the press for so long too.
bem401
09-14-2008, 04:10 PM
. How can a person be so
rabidly pro-life and then take pleasure out of hunting everything
she can in every way possible?
I guess the same way liberals can be pro-wolf, pro-environment, anti-war, and yet pro-abortion, killing fetuses who are more helpless than any of the other "vicims" mentioned above. The hypocrisy runs in both directions, but more so in your direction.
More hypocrisy on the Dem part:
How can LIbs liken Obama to Christ ( via the community organizer statement ) and then oppose the mentioning of Intelligent Design in the teaching of evolution?
Finally, exactly what does a community organizer do and what did Obama accomplish as a community organizer? I am asking this seriously.
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 04:19 PM
Finally, exactly what does a community organizer do and what did Obama accomplish as a community organizer? I am asking this seriously.Don't you have access to Google?
G-Real
09-14-2008, 05:04 PM
Don't you have access to Google?
People would rather be told what to believe, then to look it up themselves.
CKXXX
09-14-2008, 05:09 PM
I guess the same way liberals can be pro-wolf, pro-environment, anti-war, and yet pro-abortion, killing fetuses who are more helpless than any of the other "vicims" mentioned above. The hypocrisy runs in both directions, but more so in your direction.
More hypocrisy on the Dem part:
Because they are more concerned with helping the living creatures who are actually LIVING on the planet as opposed to favoring the rights of a potential person over the actual person carrying it??
For the record..I'm a registered Independant..because I enjoy thinking for myself. I'm anti-hunting, pro CHOICE(NOT pro abortion...I support whatever choice someone makes...and if nobody chose to have an abortion anymore, thats fine with me), and pro-death penalty(because I also believe in justice and in paying for the crimes you commit with the punishment fitting the crime)
I'm sorry,but picking off innocent animals rom the safety (and ease) of a helicopter is insane. Theres no sport to it,what are they doing with the carcasses?Letting them rot?...and anyone who would enjoy such a hunt is sick.
Zia_Abq
09-14-2008, 05:23 PM
Because they are more concerned with helping the living creatures who are actually LIVING on the planet as opposed to favoring the rights of a potential person over the actual person carrying it??
Exactly.
People would rather be told what to believe, then to look it up themselves.
That and if they learned what they were told by FoxNews was incorrect then they would have to admit they were wrong.
bem401
09-15-2008, 06:09 AM
So what did Obama accomplish as a community organizer? Thata's what I'm getting at. You know it, you just can't answer it. I googled it before and it was a very nebulous description. What did he do? He facilitated government-subsidized loans for associates who later defaulted on said loans. if what he did was such a valuable experience, why aren't they talking about his accomplishments during this ( or asny other, for that matter ) period of his life?
For the record, I am anti-hunting as well. I think its stupid. I don't even like to fish. But if the program is designed to control the wolf population because they are perceived as having negative consequences for their environment , what's the problem? Around here, they kill deer every Spring to keep their numbers in check. You make it sound like the law is just designed to provide an excuse to be cruel to animals.
And re: abortion : so pro-lifers are victimizing the would be aborters, but the aborters are not victimizing the fetuses?
bem401
09-15-2008, 07:02 AM
Keeping the Dems at bay was also likely one of the main reasons the GOP has kept her away from the press for so long too.
This is quite close to an admission that the press is an arm of the DNC. Actually, as i re-read it, it is more than quite close, it is a de facto admission of it.
bem401
09-15-2008, 08:54 AM
More proof that Palin isn't such a "cocky whacko" as the loser ex-US Senator from my state described her. Her statements on religious subjects pale in comparison to any of these:
(snip)Fabricating a GOP tyrant
By Michelle Malkin • September 15, 2008 06:06 AM The entire editorial is on point, but here’s the best part of the Colorado Springs Gazette’s lead editorial yesterday, titled “Fabricating a GOP tyrant,” which rips ABC’s Charlie Gibson and the rest of the MSM for their desperate attempts to demonize Sarah Palin’s faith:
This is the dishonest marginalization of a candidate some members of the mainstream media simply do not like. If she won’t marginalize herself with outrageous statements, some will pull them from thin air. Even if Palin were as bold about God as the media pretend, it wouldn’t put her in odd company. Consider the following presidential quotes.
Certainly no one should feel inclined to agree with them, but if Palin is too religiously extreme for public office, how do we explain Washington, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Reagan?
“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible.” - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” - John F. Kennedy, inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1961
“Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness. Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind. Justice will Prevail.” - Bill Clinton, April 23, 1985, after the Oklahoma City bombing
“Those who are lost now belong to God. Some day we will be with them.” - Clinton, April 23, 1985, Oklahoma City
“You can not divorce religious belief and public service. I’ve never detected a conflict between God’s will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other.” - Jimmy Carter, Atlanta, June 16, 1978
“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.” - Ronald Reagan
One can agree or disagree with any or all of the above statements about God, and a great many others that have been made by presidents since the beginning of the this republic. What’s indisputable, however, is the fact that presidents - on the left and right - have a tradition of claiming partnerships with God as they’ve steered the executive branch.
Palin, by contrast, has merely spoken of prayers that God might have a plan. She has been nowhere near as boldly religious as the men who have governed us for 200-plus years. Perhaps standards are different for women.
(snip)
sapphiregirl
09-15-2008, 10:39 AM
More proof that Palin isn't such a "cocky whacko" as the loser ex-US Senator from my state described her. Her statements on religious subjects pale in comparison to any of these:
(snip)Fabricating a GOP tyrant
By Michelle Malkin • September 15, 2008 06:06 AM The entire editorial is on point, but here’s the best part of the Colorado Springs Gazette’s lead editorial yesterday, titled “Fabricating a GOP tyrant,” which rips ABC’s Charlie Gibson and the rest of the MSM for their desperate attempts to demonize Sarah Palin’s faith:
This is the dishonest marginalization of a candidate some members of the mainstream media simply do not like. If she won’t marginalize herself with outrageous statements, some will pull them from thin air. Even if Palin were as bold about God as the media pretend, it wouldn’t put her in odd company. Consider the following presidential quotes.
Certainly no one should feel inclined to agree with them, but if Palin is too religiously extreme for public office, how do we explain Washington, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Reagan?
“It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible.” - George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
“Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” - John F. Kennedy, inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1961
“Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness. Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind. Justice will Prevail.” - Bill Clinton, April 23, 1985, after the Oklahoma City bombing
“Those who are lost now belong to God. Some day we will be with them.” - Clinton, April 23, 1985, Oklahoma City
“You can not divorce religious belief and public service. I’ve never detected a conflict between God’s will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other.” - Jimmy Carter, Atlanta, June 16, 1978
“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.” - Ronald Reagan
One can agree or disagree with any or all of the above statements about God, and a great many others that have been made by presidents since the beginning of the this republic. What’s indisputable, however, is the fact that presidents - on the left and right - have a tradition of claiming partnerships with God as they’ve steered the executive branch.
Palin, by contrast, has merely spoken of prayers that God might have a plan. She has been nowhere near as boldly religious as the men who have governed us for 200-plus years. Perhaps standards are different for women.
(snip)
That's doesn't prove squat....Ronald Reagan was a DISASTER....responsible for the largets PANDEMIC on the planet because he could not seperate his religion from politics.
John McCain and Sarah Palin WILL HAVE TO KISS the religious right whackjobs to get elected. That is why John McCain picked her. PERIOD
sapphiregirl
09-15-2008, 10:57 AM
Keeping the Dems at bay was also likely one of the main reasons the GOP has kept her away from the press for so long too.
I don't think the Republicans are getting the Hillary supporters.
http://i35.tinypic.com/2saavq1.jpg
Eric Stoner
09-15-2008, 10:57 AM
That's doesn't prove squat....Ronald Reagan was a DISASTER....responsible for the largets PANDEMIC on the planet because he could not seperate his religion from politics.
John McCain and Sarah Palin WILL HAVE TO KISS the religious right whackjobs to get elected. That is why John McCain picked her. PERIOD
Reagan invented the "gay bathouse" ? He globe trotted deliberately infecting people with HIV ?
Was he slow to recognoze the nature and extent of the problem and inter alia, properly fund the CDC ? Yes and so were many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The gay community is not blameless either as they fought to keep the bathouses open and against various reporting requirements.
But to lay the whole AIDS epidemic at his feet is both ridiculous and unfair.
sapphiregirl
09-15-2008, 11:01 AM
Reagan invented the "gay bathouse" ? He globe trotted deliberately infecting people with HIV ?
Was he slow to recognoze the nature and extent of the problem and inter alia, properly fund the CDC ? Yes and so were many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. The gay community is not blameless either as they fought to keep the bathouses open and against various reporting requirements.
But to lay the whole AIDS epidemic at his feet is both ridiculous and unfair.
Gay bathhouses would not have mattered my little gay grapevine friend.
Reagan would not even say the Word AIDS until what 7 years too late???
All you have to do is research the politics behind AIDS.....I know Frontline did an excellent series on it.
Eric Stoner
09-15-2008, 11:50 AM
Gay bathhouses would not have mattered my little gay grapevine friend.
Reagan would not even say the Word AIDS until what 7 years too late???
All you have to do is research the politics behind AIDS.....I know Frontline did an excellent series on it.
Gay bathhouses didn't matter ? !!!!! How do you think AIDS became an epidemic in the late '70's and early '80's ?
AIDS was, and is, certainly a political issue. Reagan certainly could have done more and acted sooner.
Btw, why are you so concerned about my sexuality ? Were you hoping I'd ask you out ?
eagle2
09-15-2008, 09:48 PM
I guess the same way liberals can be pro-wolf, pro-environment, anti-war, and yet pro-abortion, killing fetuses who are more helpless than any of the other "vicims" mentioned above. The hypocrisy runs in both directions, but more so in your direction.
I doubt that there is anyone who is “pro-abortion”. There are people who support abortion rights, but if a pregnant woman decides not to have an abortion, I doubt there is anyone who would condemn her for it. Most of those who favor abortion rights do so because they are concerned about women. In many countries where women don’t have access to safe, legal abortions, illegal abortions are the leading cause of death for young women. Those who support abortion rights don’t want to see that happening in this country.
How can LIbs liken Obama to Christ ( via the community organizer statement ) and then oppose the mentioning of Intelligent Design in the teaching of evolution?
It’s not liberals who oppose the mentioning of Intelligent Design in the teaching of evolution. It’s anyone who wants fraudulent pseudo-science kept out of legitimate science classes and anyone who wants public schools to obey the Constitution. It was a conservative judge, recommended by Rick Santorum, and appointed by George W. Bush who ruled that intelligent design could not be mentioned in the teaching of evolution. Intelligent Design has no more of a place in a legitimate science class than does “flat earth theory”.
eagle2
09-15-2008, 10:05 PM
Marissa Tomei giving a good description of what it's like for a deer to be hunted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba7QvrreqU4
bem401
09-16-2008, 05:46 AM
[QUOTE=eagle2;1710372]I doubt that there is anyone who is “pro-abortion”. /QUOTE]
Sanitize any way you want, pro-choice = pro-abortion. It is not used to describe the right to choose anything but an abortion.
Saying pro-choicers ( and yes, I use "pro-abortion" to antagonize ) aren't pro-abortion because they don't condemn women who choose to have babies is a ridiculous argument.
As far as their being concerned about the rights of women, what about the female fetuses that are being aborted? There is a 50% chance that the aborted fetus is female, in effect, a future woman ( as long as its allowed to live ).
bem401
09-16-2008, 05:47 AM
I doubt that there is anyone who is “pro-abortion”.
Sanitize any way you want, pro-choice = pro-abortion. It is not used to describe the right to choose anything but an abortion.
Saying pro-choicers ( and yes, I use "pro-abortion" to antagonize ) aren't pro-abortion because they don't condemn women who choose to have babies is a ridiculous argument.
As far as their being concerned about the rights of women, what about the female fetuses that are being aborted? There is a 50% chance that the aborted fetus is female, in effect, a future woman ( as long as its allowed to live ).
bem401
09-16-2008, 06:05 AM
That's doesn't prove squat....Ronald Reagan was a DISASTER....responsible for the largets PANDEMIC on the planet because he could not seperate his religion from politics.
John McCain and Sarah Palin WILL HAVE TO KISS the religious right whackjobs to get elected. That is why John McCain picked her. PERIOD
Reagan was responsible? I wasn't aware he told gays to engage in anonymous unprotected anal sex and drug addicts to share dirty heroin needles, activities the average person would see as deviant. Don't blame Reagan. Blame the reckless behavior on those who chose to play sexual and chemical Russian roulette. ( I realize also that tainted blood was an issue but those infected that way didn't participate in the spreading of it and bear zero responsibility for their situation )
McCain did pick Sarah Palin to consolidate his support on the right. And guess what? It worked. They appear to have Obama reeling now, supported by the fact that the left and the MSM is having such a hissy fit over her.
Richard_Head
09-16-2008, 07:07 AM
McCain did pick Sarah Palin to consolidate his support on the right. And guess what? It worked. They appear to have Obama reeling now, supported by the fact that the left and the MSM is having such a hissy fit over her.I think that Palin bubble will burst the more people get a look at her, it's inevitable.
TheSexKitten
09-16-2008, 07:09 AM
As far as their being concerned about the rights of women, what about the female fetuses that are being aborted? There is a 50% chance that the aborted fetus is female, in effect, a future woman ( as long as its allowed to live ).
hahaha great argument. no really.
bem401
09-16-2008, 07:34 AM
I think that Palin bubble will burst the more people get a look at her, it's inevitable.
Time will prove one of us right and one of us wrong, RH. I disagree with you that the bubble will burst, though the novelty will certainly wear off. I just think she resonates more with middle-America than the other side.
Eric Stoner
09-16-2008, 07:39 AM
I think that Palin bubble will burst the more people get a look at her, it's inevitable.
AS of right now, the opposite seems to be occurring. Part of it, I'm sure, is a backlash against the shrill and snarky attacks on Palin.
The bottom line is that every day the Obama campaign spends on Palin is a day NOT spent discussing Iraq, energy or the economy.
Miss_Luscious
09-16-2008, 07:43 AM
The bottom line is that every day the Obama campaign spends on Palin is a day NOT spent discussing Iraq, energy or the economy.
Yep. And this is a good thing for McCain because if we get down to arguing the real issues, they will lose. I'm tired of Palin anyway and I want them to start discussing the real problems we're facing. I can't wait for the debates just so I can hear some substance instead of shit about lipstick, sexism and hockey moms.
bem401
09-16-2008, 08:11 AM
The bottom line is that every day the Obama campaign spends on Palin is a day NOT spent discussing Iraq, energy or the economy.
You mean the war we are winning? Casualties are neglible as of late. And Obama supposedly asked them to delay occupation-ending actions till after the election.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?page=0
You mean the energy issues that the dems don't want to address because of their environmentalist interests?
You mean the economy that the left and the right are equally responsible for?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDA4YTY1N2ZhMDhmNjIwNTk4OTI2MDYxZWU4Dg1Y2Q=
In truth, the Dems don't want an issues-based discussion. Why do you think Obama is unwilling to have more than the 3 requisite debates? Their new focus is on linking McCain to Bush and screaming "Bush sucks".
Zia_Abq
09-16-2008, 08:59 AM
Yep. And this is a good thing for McCain because if we get down to arguing the real issues, they will lose.
And that is their master plan. They don’t want things to be about the issues and have even admitted as much through a top campaign manager.
Eric Stoner
09-16-2008, 09:05 AM
And that is their master plan. They don’t want things to be about the issues and have even admitted as much through a top campaign manager.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html
Yeah BUT McCain's campaign isn't doing it. IT's THE MEDIA ! It's all the Dem. loving talking heads like Olberman, Gibson and Matthews. It's Eleanor " Rodham " Clift.
It's Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem and the gals at NOW who have daily conniptions on T.V. and in the Op Ed pages. Not that the McCain campaign is complaining.