A look at some of Palin's executive decisions

[Von Tonner]

Pretty impressive wouldn't you say - that is if you don't give a rats arse for the environment.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/377955_palinenvir07.html




http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/executiveexperience.jpg

[August]

And it even came with a cartoon? Impressive!

[UnderseaLcpl]

So, basically, she's a conservative. She must be so ashamed:roll:

[Von Tonner]

And it even came with a cartoon? Impressive!
So, basically, she's a conservative. She must be so ashamed
You know guys, they say sarcasm is the last flickering flame of dying intelligence. While I would resist labelling you two with that affliction, neither of you address the issues in the article. Interesting:hmm:

The pattern is clear. On the environment, Sarah Palin is essentially George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and perhaps James Watt rolled into one, but with a more pleasant demeanor. At a time when the nation and world urgently need strong environmental leadership from the United States, it is important to look beyond charisma and carefully consider the environmental implications of our vote in November.

[Digital_Trucker]

You know guys, they say sarcasm is the last flickering flame of dying intelligence.
Just who is this "they" that your refer to?

Edit : I noticed you left Mikhayl's sarcasm out of your examples, too:D Could that be because you didn't consider it sarcasm because you agree with it?http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b173/digital_trucker/Smilies/sarcasm.gif

[August]

You know guys, they say sarcasm is the last flickering flame of dying intelligence.

And yet only two of the three of us has an actual say in the election. It must be so frustrating to you. :D

While I would resist labelling you two with that affliction, neither of you address the issues in the article. Interesting:hmm:

But why should we? It is merely yet another Democrat attack article in a long list of Democrat attack articles. Even the part you quoted basically says nothing more than "Ooh the Republicans are teh ebil!!!!1one!"

[Tchocky]

Climate change isn't really a conservative/liberal issue. Response to it certainly is, naturally.

Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "NA NA NA" is not a conservative position.

On the environment, one should not consider the Republican Party to be conservative. A Party that roars "Drill, baby, drill!" is adolescent, or possibly infantile. That is all.

[August]

Climate change isn't really a conservative/liberal issue. Response to it certainly is, naturally.

Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and screaming "NA NA NA" is not a conservative position.

On the environment, one should not consider the Republican Party to be conservative. A Party that roars "Drill, baby, drill!" is adolescent, or possibly infantile. That is all.

Good thing you don't have those concerns in your country, eh? :D

[Tchocky]

Misseed your post, copying this edit over from my last one.

But why should we? It is merely yet another Democrat attack article in a long list of Democrat attack articles. Even the part you quoted basically says nothing more than "Ooh the Republicans are teh ebil!!!!1one!"
August, this really is a stretch. The writer makes his position clear at the beginning, it is obvious that this will not be a Palin-friendly piece. However, the remainder of the article is a clear list of events and positions taken by palin on issues that pertain to the environment. No amount of misspellings or stereotypes on your part will change that.

Regarding voting, yes, sometimes it is frustrating.

Good thing you don't have those concerns in your country, eh? :D

We certainly don't have the denial problem to the same degree.

[Skybird]

McCain constantly declined in my recognition. Where years ago I thought I eventually could arrange myself with him if needed, today I just see him as a foolish old man lacking some key knowledge on important things, and beyond that just humming the same old outdated tunes. Palin, however, beat him in speed at which she raced down the ladder of my recognition, from "neutral" (I did not know her) to "worst case scenario". the more I learn about her, the more hostile I become to her.

I eventually could end up supporting Obama not for supporting Obama, but just to prevent the world suffering from another four desastrous years in the US. In a way there is no internal policies in the US. what they do "internally", very often has consequences for all the world.

Very bad speech of McCain at the party convent. as a german paper titled: he spoke much but said little. Palin was called a "lipstick-bullterrier". :D

[Tchocky]

Very bad speech of McCain at the party convent. as a german paper titled: he spoke much but said little. Palin was called a "lipstick-bullterrier". :D

She actually labelled herself a "pit-bull with lipstick". Which makes the already hilarious spectacle of Republicans complaining about sexism very, very, tiring.

[August]

Very bad speech of McCain at the party convent. as a german paper titled: he spoke much but said little. Palin was called a "lipstick-bullterrier". :D
She actually labelled herself a "pit-bull with lipstick". Which makes the already hilarious spectacle of Republicans complaining about sexism very, very, tiring.
First off she didn't say she was a "pit-bull with lipstick", that's the democrat, and apparently Irish, partisan spin. She jokingly asked what was the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull, the answer being "lipstick". 1+1 does not equal 3 no matter how hard you want to believe it Tchocky.

Second you are very quick to use that single joke to excuse repeated Democrat lies that she cheated on her husband or tried to cover up her daughters pregnancy. Lies that are both blatantly untrue and far and away more disgusting than one single self deprecating joke.

Third i'm not addressing the points of the article because until it comes from a more reputable source than an opinion article written by someone who admits right from the start he is writing an attack piece, as far as I and my vote is concerned it changes nothing.

[Tchocky]

First off she didn't say she was a "pit-bull with lipstick", that's the democrat, and apparently Irish, partisan spin. She jokingly asked what was the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull, the answer being "lipstick". 1+1 does not equal 3 no matter how hard you want to believe it Tchocky. Whuh? She's casting herself as a hockey mom, sexualising herself immediately. I think the joke can be fairly summarised that way, given that half the coverage was reporting the aggressiveness of her speech, and the other half her beauty pageant past. I'm not spinning anything here.

Second you are very quick to use that single joke to excuse repeated Democrat lies that she cheated on her husband or tried to cover up her daughters pregnancy. Er, no. I'm saying that if she's going to use her gender as a political plank, then she may asked questions about it. Kind of like her children, if she's going to use them, there will be a response.
You're ascribing actions to me that I haven't taken, I didn't say it excused anything, nevermind specific issues. I'm saying that it's not acceptable to use something in a manipulative fashion, then complain when asked about it. Observe how John McCain almost never mentions his children, fair enough. But Palin made hay over her son signing up on the 11th September, then the GOP went crazy when reporters asked about her kids. Either they're on the table or not. "Don't ask me about this child, ask me about this one" Listen to what Obama said, families are off-limits.

Third i'm not addressing the points of the article because until it comes from a more reputable source than an opinion article written by someone who admits right from the start he is writing an attack piece, as far as I and my vote is concerned it changes nothing. Why, is everything now invalid because of the first two paragraphs? Why not find out for yourself? Why do you instantly lapse into stereotype?
Here's another story on her environmental record - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-the-real-scandal-920803.html
Another - http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepenviro30-2008aug30,0,6706698.story
Another - http://www.usnews.com/blogs/fresh-greens/2008/8/29/4-things-sarah-palin-believes-about-the-environment.html

These took a few seconds of googling. Think I'll lie down for a bit.

[SUBMAN1]

I will respectfully decline from entering this thread. :D Though I am tempted!

-S

[Von Tonner]

Third i'm not addressing the points of the article because until it comes from a more reputable source than an opinion article written by someone who admits right from the start he is writing an attack piece, as far as I and my vote is concerned it changes nothing.
You know August, and I say this respectively, please reconsider your above statement, they (oh, let me rephrase that in respect of Digital Trucker) it is said that in Third World countries to succeed in politics all one has to do is appeal to the lowest common denominator in the voting populace to carry the vote. Is this what is happening in the foremost First World country by your reply - you (August) won't expand your knowledge on pertinent issues because the writer cites facts which you either cannot dispute, or, like the ostriches in my country, by sticking their heads into the sand, hope to go away. Are you the 'lowest common denominator' in US politics - just asking.

[Von Tonner]

I will respectfully decline from entering this thread. :D Though I am tempted!

-S

Common Subman1, lets hear your position on the environment.

[SUBMAN1]

I will respectfully decline from entering this thread. :D Though I am tempted!

-S
Common Subman1, lets hear your position on the environment.

OK, just one! My question is, why is it that all you foreigners even give a damn about what we do to 'our' country? All these things mentioned in this article have absolutely no effect on you. We drill, so what? We mine, so what? Its not your country. Has absolutely no effect on your environment.

Just curious.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

:|\\
Are you saying that the average conservative is a religious nut that could care less about his own environment ? :D

Not really, but I didn't feel like posting another ridiculously long treatise on the subject.

You know guys, they say sarcasm is the last flickering flame of dying intelligence. While I would resist labelling you two with that affliction, neither of you address the issues in the article. Interesting:hmm:

Firstly, thank you for not just calling us stupid outright.

Secondly, this article does not bring up any "issues". Assuming that it is true and objective, for a conservative, many of these policies are common sense.

Contrary to popular liberal belief, conservatives do care about the environment. Granted, they care about it less than liberals do, and they care about it for different reasons.

Now, I am someone who would be considered an extremist when it comes to matters of conservative fiscal policy, so I cannot speak for all conservatives, but my concern for the environment lies principally in the area of sustainable exploitation. That is, economically beneficial use of natural resources whilst maintaining their integrity for future use as much as possible.
This includes many things; aforestation, recycling, aquaculture, modern agricultural methods, nuclear energy, pollution taxes to create incentive for things like industrial carbon scrubbers, so on and so forth.
What we conservatives do not advocate is excessive government intervention in these matters. It is a paradox to us that liberals believe the solution to environmental problems lies in government when the dirtiest countries in the world are socialist.

Also, citing once again my extremist nature, please consider my views on endangered species. I do not believe that the government has a right to forcibly accquire citizens' money and then use it to preserve species that private industry has no interest in preserving.
Plenty of money for such efforts can be gathered from private supporters. Just look at PETA! They're a huge pain in the ass even when they aren't lobbying for ecological legislation.
I, myself, support efforts by charities to protect horses and rescue them from owners that neglect them. But I would never support any legislation to do the same. I don't have any right to force you to hand over money that you earned to support a cause I am fond of, so please don't force me to hand over my earnings to support your causes.
Horses I care about. Polar bears, I do not care about. You support the polar bears if you like and I'll support horses. Don't drag the government into it and try to force me support polar bears.

And finally, the nature that liberals seek to protect is guilty of destroying far more species than mankind ever has. Who are you to value one species or the other besides your own?


On to the issue of climate change, I fear I must reiterate once again.

Yes, it is there. Claiming otherwise would be like saying that the Earth does not revolve around the sun.

But it has not been proven that man has anything to do with it. There have been more extreme climate changes in the past, without the benefit of mankind.
If mankind is causing global climate change, we have a while do so something about it. But the economic harms inflicted by excessive eco-legislation take effect almost immediately.

Countries that have poor economies cannot afford to combat environmental damage. They don't have environmentally-friendly policies now, they never have, and they never will.
Why would liberals plunge wealthy countries like the U.S. into economic poverty in the name of environmentalism?

Liberals do not have the answers. Just like Obama, they continually advocate a message of "change". Ends without means. They trust others to provide means to their goal without considering first that everyone else is just like them. Politicians like Al Gore and environmental activists like those that have joined the ranks of the IPCC have their own agenda. It serves their interests to have a "climate crisis". It allows them to appropriate your money to fund their work, and careers.
Of course they are not intentionally doing something bad. It is easy to justify one's own ends and means when one can cover them in a veil of rightousness.

At least conservatives admit that they are interested in their own benefit and use the profits from their endeavours to invest in business, once again for their own gain. But by doing so they create jobs and wealth. Business, by its' very nature creates wealth. If it didn't it would go out of business.

Look at the "champions" of Liberal philosophy in America. Democratic politicians, film stars, media personalities, rich people, all.
And despite their concern for the disadvantaged and poor, they remain wealthy and live lavish lifestyles.
This is the differnce between conservatives and liberals. Conservative figureheads say " I'm wealthy and I earned it." while Liberal figureheads say "Some people are poor. Everyone else should do something about it."
And don't bother telling me how much important liberal people give to charities. They're still disgustingly rich, and they use legal loopholes to escape the taxes they should be paying. Odd that they are so in favor of taxes for the "common good" when they sidestep them themselves.

In summation, liberals love to tell people that they know what is best for everyone, while conservatives love to let people enjoy success or failure based upon their own merits, and let private charity make up for the shortcomings.

Take a good look at your political philosophy. Are you really so arrogant as to believe that you can serve people's interests better than they could themselves?
Would you support others that do so?

Please, don't support government and inadvertently support business exploitation of the government. Leave it to consumers and the general citizenry to decide whether or not a business is worthy of their patronage.

You don't have a one-size-fits-all solution. Think about that. Neither you, nor any Liberal, can decide what is best for everyone. We are all individuals, with our own beliefs and values. Please do not force me to endorse your beliefs via legislation.



@ August Please back me up with a more moderate view, here.

[Von Tonner]

I will respectfully decline from entering this thread. :D Though I am tempted!

-S
Common Subman1, lets hear your position on the environment.
OK, just one! My question is, why is it that all you foreigners even give a damn about what we do to 'our' country? All these things mentioned in this article have absolutely no effect on you. We drill, so what? We mine, so what? Its not your country. Has absolutely no effect on your environment.

Just curious.

-S
You know Subman1, even though I disagree with you on most of your posts I still rated you as one poster who was fully informed on current affairs. But your above post proves you have absolutely no idea on world affairs. The USA is a representative on a NUMBER of World Bodies which effects countries beyond your borders. Are you trying to tell me that you are unaware of this.

[SUBMAN1]

You know Subman1, even though I disagree with you on most of your posts I still rated you as one poster who was fully informed on current affairs. But your above post proves you have absolutely no idea on world affairs. The USA is a representative on a NUMBER of World Bodies which effects countries beyond your borders. Are you trying to tell me that you are unaware of this.

That's the point - this has nothing to do with your borders regardless which way it spins. Now we are starting to see eye to eye on this.

-S

[August]

You know August, and I say this respectively, please reconsider your above statement, they (oh, let me rephrase that in respect of Digital Trucker) it is said that in Third World countries to succeed in politics all one has to do is appeal to the lowest common denominator in the voting populace to carry the vote. Is this what is happening in the foremost First World country by your reply - you (August) won't expand your knowledge on pertinent issues because the writer cites facts which you either cannot dispute, or, like the ostriches in my country, by sticking their heads into the sand, hope to go away.

Or perhaps i have just gotten back from a weeks vacation and don't particularly feel like defending Palin against an Op Ed article written by someone with an obvious axe to grind.

I'm sure that as our Presidential election progresses these issues will be brought up repeatedly *if* they have any legs. Until then i will reserve judgment aside from gently chiding you for posting such an obviously biased article (complete with cartoon).

@Subman1: Damn good question. Don't hold your breath for a straight answer though.

@UnderseaLcpl: Well said, I agree 100%. But far from moderate though i must say that if I were Alaskan I'd be just about fed up with do gooders enjoying the fruits of life in the drilled and developed lower 48 telling me what i can and can't do with the resources on my land.

[VipertheSniper]

I really have to wonder what the definition of a liberal is, because what you describe as a liberal is certainly not a liberal by any stretch. Sounds rather like a social democrat. On the other hand, what you describe as a republican is what I would consider to be a liberal. Some serious mislabelling going on on your side of the pond.

[Thomen]

I really have to wonder what the definition of a liberal is, because what you describe as a liberal is certainly not a liberal by any stretch. Sounds rather like a social democrat. On the other hand, what you describe as a republican is what I would consider to be a liberal. Some serious mislabelling going on on your side of the pond.

Tell me about it. It confused me big time when I moved to the USA. In Europe, I would have considered myself a Liberal, but damn.. the concept of liberalism is totally different in the US.

[Platapus]

A liberal is usually someone you disagree with. :lol:

[Thomen]

A liberal is usually someone you disagree with. :lol:

Haha.. thats a good one. :up:

[Frame57]

Rick Steiner is as worse as they come. He like others are in the pockets of Alfonse Gorlioni and others. He needs an education for sure. First of all the Artic Ice cap has been just water before and where the %^&$ were the Polar Bears then??? They live on land mass just as well my friends, so even if the mass hysteria of the myth of Global warming were true the Polar Bears will survive just fine. I will let the people of Alaska speak on behalf of Sarah Palin and not some dimwitted liberal biased reporter from the state of Washington. The people of Alaska approve of their Governor's performance mainly due to the fact that she uprooted the corruption in that state.

[Von Tonner]

I really have to wonder what the definition of a liberal is, because what you describe as a liberal is certainly not a liberal by any stretch. Sounds rather like a social democrat. On the other hand, what you describe as a republican is what I would consider to be a liberal. Some serious mislabelling going on on your side of the pond.
Tell me about it. It confused me big time when I moved to the USA. In Europe, I would have considered myself a Liberal, but damn.. the concept of liberalism is totally different in the US.
I too am confused. When I lived in the US I was totally Republican in belief - but then I came from a country that banned Playboy and any depiction of the female anatomy. 42nd street, New York was my home. Every lunch hour from university I watched enthralled as the most powerfull man in the world was subjected to investigation (Nixon). But, now, with McCain playing to the extremists on the right wing of his party, pro-life, censorship, creationism etc, Obama, to me, becomes the liberator of the free world.

[Thomen]

I really have to wonder what the definition of a liberal is, because what you describe as a liberal is certainly not a liberal by any stretch. Sounds rather like a social democrat. On the other hand, what you describe as a republican is what I would consider to be a liberal. Some serious mislabelling going on on your side of the pond.
Tell me about it. It confused me big time when I moved to the USA. In Europe, I would have considered myself a Liberal, but damn.. the concept of liberalism is totally different in the US.
I too am confused. When I lived in the US I was totally Republican in belief - but then I came from a country that banned Playboy and any depiction of the female anatomy. 42nd street, New York was my home. Every lunch hour from university I watched enthralled as the most powerfull man in the world was subjected to investigation (Nixon). But, now, with McCain playing to the extremists on the right wing of his party, pro-life, censorship, creationism etc, Obama, to me, becomes the liberator of the free world.

Do not get me wrong, personally I would not mind having Obama as a neighbor or what have you. But, imo I do not think that he would make a great President or 'liberator of the free world'.
Higher taxation is hardly an answer to problems or having the opinion that pregnancy and babies are a punishment. He has some great ideas, though.

I am not against socialized health care, but unfortunately it will not work as easily as he makes it sound. Who is going to pay for it? For the sake of my bank account, I don't want to pay more taxes.

Than, what is that about that Obama will give every one $4000/year for education in tax credits? Is that on top of the federal and state grants? And what is with those that are not working because they concentrate on their education, or are low income and dont pay enough taxes to qualify? I allready get more than those $4000 in grants and scholarships. Will I loose those if he takes office?

Furthermore, I have problems with someone not admitting that he was wrong. He admits that the troop surge was a success, but declines to acknowledge that he was wrong. He chose to talk around the question. IMO, he would had gained more respect if he was honest and just plainly admitted that he erred.

[Von Tonner]

Furthermore, I have problems with someone not admitting that he was wrong. He admits that the troop surge was a success, but declines to acknowledge that he was wrong. He chose to talk around the question. IMO, he would had gained more respect if he was honest and just plainly admitted that he erred.

There I have to agree with you, and like you, this does not, in my opinion add to his self proclaimed political honesty.

[Sailor Steve]

Secondly, this article does not bring up any "issues". Assuming that it is true and objective, for a conservative, many of these policies are common sense.

Contrary to popular liberal belief, conservatives do care about the environment. Granted, they care about it less than liberals do, and they care about it for different reasons.
I have to disagree here. The article makes no reference to what Conservatives may or may not care about. It addresses specific references to some of Palin's policies as governor, and how they relate to her potential positions as vice-president, and yes, as a possible president. I won't be so smug as to say they must be answered, or even that they should be answered, but I would certainly like to see them answered by her.

I, myself, support efforts by charities to protect horses and rescue them from owners that neglect them. But I would never support any legislation to do the same. I don't have any right to force you to hand over money that you earned to support a cause I am fond of, so please don't force me to hand over my earnings to support your causes.
Horses I care about. Polar bears, I do not care about. You support the polar bears if you like and I'll support horses. Don't drag the government into it and try to force me support polar bears.
Again, I see a different problem. I agree that being forced to support (i.e. have money taken from you) a cause you don't like is questionable, but that's not what I see addressed in the article. The Feds wanted to declare polar bears an endangered species. Palin opposed it. Fine. But, she lied about a supposed scientific study and claimed that Alaskan scientists said exactly the opposite of what they actually said. That is a different subject altogether.

And finally, the nature that liberals seek to protect is guilty of destroying far more species than mankind ever has. Who are you to value one species or the other besides your own?
True, but neither nature nor any of her children are capable of rational thought. I like to point out that anyone who claims man is the only animal who kills for fun has never watched a cat eviscerate a mouse, or toy with one before doing so. But, for all their intelligence, no cat has ever shown the ability to actually question these actions. We're different.

But none of this has anything to do with Sarah Palin's opposition to animal protection. I agree that the questioning of that opposition by the writer could be taken as Liberal opposition in this case, but it's still a valid argument from his point of view, and my feeling is that the question of endangered species is not the real question being raised here.

On climate change we're agreed.

[Skybird]

I really have to wonder what the definition of a liberal is, because what you describe as a liberal is certainly not a liberal by any stretch. Sounds rather like a social democrat. On the other hand, what you describe as a republican is what I would consider to be a liberal. Some serious mislabelling going on on your side of the pond.
Well, they also say billion but mean Trillion, don't they. :lol:

[VipertheSniper]

I see what you're getting at, but it's the other way round, they say trillion but mean billion, at least for someone speaking German.

[Skybird]

I see what you're getting at, but it's the other way round, they say trillion but mean billion, at least for someone speaking German.
Oh, is that a hole in my own foot...? I wonder how it got there... :lol:

[Blacklight]

A friend of mine sent me these while we were discussing Palin. I forget the sources but I'd imagine that these are fairly easy to fact check.

When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

"I told Congress, 'thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge-to-nowhere," Palin said. Congress killed off the earmark well before Gov. Palin formally abandoned it. And while the bridge is in fact a dead project, the state still kept the money all $233 million in federal funds, for other transportation needs.

"That luxury jet was over the top," Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, said to loud cheers. "I put it on eBay." Palin's statement implied the plane was sold through the online auction site revered for empowering millions of small entrepreneurs, and Palin's spokeswoman insisted Thursday that the transaction occurred. But the plane failed to sell on eBay. She sold it for a loss to someone she knew...hooking up the friend base while shorting the people of Alaska.

Under Palin the unemployment rate for Alaska has risen above the national average of 6.1% to 6.9%, and that's up from June's 6.7% high.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence." Palin implies that construction has begun on a major natural gas pipeline from the top of Alaska into Canada. That is not correct. In fact, no building has begun and actual construction is years away, if it ever happens.

Sarah Palin Slashed Special Needs Education by 62%...
These funds provide supplementary educational services to students with severe disabling conditions. Without the supplementary services the child's needs would not be met by the local school district in most cases.

Palin's husband Todd, was a member of the AIP (the party calls for a state vote that includes secession from the United States) from October 1995 through July 2002.

Palin's daughter Bristol, attended a school where abstinence only education was taught. Abstinence-only sex education is a form of sex education that emphasizes abstinence from sex to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. This type of sex education promotes sexual abstinence until marriage and either completely avoids any discussion about the use of contraceptives, or only reveals failure rates associated with such use. Palin has expressed her opposition to "explicit" sex education, and supports Alaskan schools to abstinence only education. Looks like Palin's message of abstinence didn't work, even with her own daughter.

2007 provided Palin with her only foreign experience, with a trip to Kuwait and Iraq. It was her only foreign travel apart from visits to Canada. Though she tried to squeeze in Ireland as a place of travel, where she had a flight layover to refuil on her return from Iraq.

Under Gov. Palin, Alaska applied for $197 million of earmarks for the 2009 fiscal year. And when Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,500, she was a champion of earmarks. In her second term, ending in 2004, Mayor Palin hired a well connected lobbying firm, with offices just outside Washington, which helped the town take in $11.9 million worth of earmarks. Leaving Wasilla $20M in debt.


Palin faces a state investigation into why she fired the Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan - the allegation being she fired him for personal reasons, because Monegan refused to fire a state trooper, the ex-husband of Palin's sister.


Governor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank. She also introduced legislation to make it easier to kill wolves and bears and which would have also removed the aerial hunting initiative from the ballot and block the ability of citizens to vote on the issue. The Board of Game, which she appoints, has approved the killing of black bear sows with cubs as part of the program and expanded the aerial control programs. Palin has repeatedly opposed the listing of endangered animals under the Endangered Species List despite overwhelming scientific evidence that such listings are warranted.


As recently as August 2008, Governor Palin questioned whether man-made fossil fuel emissions are responsible for global warming, defying worldwide scientific consensus. And her drill-drill-drill approach to energy issues will do nothing to ease the causes of global warming, promote the use of clean, renewable energy sources, or break our addiction to foreign oil. Palin is a strong supporter of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vital wilderness area. It is home to hundreds of thousands of caribou who use the refuge as a calving ground, more than one million migratory birds, and countless other wildlife. It's the most important onshore denning habitat for female polar bears. Senator McCain himself has repeatedly voted to protect this pristine wilderness area. Palin is also a supporter of drilling in Bristol Bay and other offshore sites despite the risks to sensitive marine wildlife in the area, including the endangered polar bear and Beluga whale. Palin's sister owns a gas station as is part of big oil, holding back many Amricans.

[August]

OMG Palins sister owns a GAS STATION! :o

Burn the witch! :x

[Blacklight]

OMG Palins sister owns a GAS STATION! :o

Burn the witch! :x

Hehe... That one was an oops. I didn't mean to post that one. That point was kind of a head scratcher for me and I don't think it's relevant wether or not her sister owns a gas station. The rest of the post I believe is relevant.

With all the extreme Democrat and Republican leanings here, I'm waiting for the brawl to start. I'm surprised we're not involved in a "Royal Rumble" right now. :lol:

[August]

OMG Palins sister owns a GAS STATION! :o

Burn the witch! :x
Hehe... That one was an oops. I didn't mean to post that one. That point was kind of a head scratcher for me and I don't think it's relevant wether or not her sister owns a gas station. The rest of the post I believe is relevant.

With all the extreme Democrat and Republican leanings here, I'm waiting for the brawl to start. I'm surprised we're not involved in a "Royal Rumble" right now. :lol:

Well maybe it's more relevant than we think. After all they can't accuse her of being out of touch with the average person when her sister is a gas station owner.

[Frame57]

McCain will be the Pres and Palin the VP and guess who will be secretary of defense...? Ted friggin Nugent!!!:up:

[Zero Niner]

OK, just one! My question is, why is it that all you foreigners even give a damn about what we do to 'our' country? All these things mentioned in this article have absolutely no effect on you. We drill, so what? We mine, so what? Its not your country. Has absolutely no effect on your environment.

Just curious.

-S
Subman, and all other Americans who may also have this unspoken question -

We have a saying where I come from, "When America sneezes, the world catches a cold".

What it means is that the USA is a fundamental player on the world stage, that a lot of whatever it does affects the world.

Case in point - the mortgage crisis. What started as bad debts caused by questionable lending practices has ballooned into a global financial crisis.

As another example, why is the US$ being used as a global currency of sorts?

So there is global interest, simply because the ramifications of US policy are felt globally.

We looked to Bush for leadership on climate change. Instead we got a flat rejection of the Kyoto protocol. It was only earlier this year that he tried to assuage global opinion by making some half-hearted concessions. Too little too late.

The last 8 years have been a disaster for the world. We do not want a repeat of a Bush administration for the next 8.

[SS107.9MHz]

I will respectfully decline from entering this thread. :D Though I am tempted!

-S
Common Subman1, lets hear your position on the environment.
OK, just one! My question is, why is it that all you foreigners even give a damn about what we do to 'our' country? All these things mentioned in this article have absolutely no effect on you. We drill, so what? We mine, so what? Its not your country. Has absolutely no effect on your environment.

Just curious.

-S
So if your neighbour's a crackpot and has a drug den at his flat, you ain't got nuttin' to talk about right? or if Some middle eastern country decides to produce nuclear powerplants/weapons (starts with an I, ends with a ran:hmm:), the US should sit tight and just watch... I wonder what would U did If u r kennedy during he uban missile crisis?... Mhhh think it's best just to leave them alone, after all it's their country not my business...

And that thing of not affecting nothing beyond the extraction site? C'mon man?! Clearly you've never seen a big minning compound...one thing that brough me to this site was the oportunity to have serious(kind of:)!) discussions about matters like this one. Do u really mean what ur saying when U've written that above... I'm not even start talking about by air contmination and oil spills from sea carriers, cuz I know they want to use pipelines, but remember, Alaska's not even adjacent to the majorty of US territory, it's more of an enclave surrounded by canada, ask any canadian if they are't apreensive about oil drilling up there...

[Kapt Z]

OK, just one! My question is, why is it that all you foreigners even give a damn about what we do to 'our' country? All these things mentioned in this article have absolutely no effect on you. We drill, so what? We mine, so what? Its not your country. Has absolutely no effect on your environment.

Just curious.

-S
Subman, and all other Americans who may also have this unspoken question -

We have a saying where I come from, "When America sneezes, the world catches a cold".

What it means is that the USA is a fundamental player on the world stage, that a lot of whatever it does affects the world.

Case in point - the mortgage crisis. What started as bad debts caused by questionable lending practices has ballooned into a global financial crisis.

As another example, why is the US$ being used as a global currency of sorts?

So there is global interest, simply because the ramifications of US policy are felt globally.

We looked to Bush for leadership on climate change. Instead we got a flat rejection of the Kyoto protocol. It was only earlier this year that he tried to assuage global opinion by making some half-hearted concessions. Too little too late.

The last 8 years have been a disaster for the world. We do not want a repeat of a Bush administration for the next 8.

We put a man on the Moon and elected Dubya twice....

Hey, you win some you lose some.:oops:

[SS107.9MHz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY

Glen Beck: "Is it true that the nearest tree from where they want to start drilling is more than 700miles?" No kidding... Trees in the ocean... in alaska... This guy just discovered gunpowde GDuh....:88)
Glen Beck is a Douchebag... _Fortunately cnn international doesn't feature him, that vid was just enough for me...

Really I know there are a lot of republicans in the forum, could some of U direct me to someright wing analyst/comentator whatever that iis cometent and not a smartass like glen here? it's that there are increasingly big numbers of Aholes supporting both parties and it's very hard to get quality perspectives from either sides... but holy FSM, those Fox news kinda things are really getting on my nerves... I can't stand Zealots...:nope:

[SS107.9MHz]

And what the Fudge does the fact that Palin has a kid with Down S. do with the Polar Bear Lawsuit?! Who is this guy?

We have bad reporters in Portugal... but this is hilareous... these kinda of guys ussually are on the taverns at sundays, discussing the weekend footbal matches (the real one, with round balls, mind you:p), while being stoned drunk before 3 pm...

[August]

So if your neighbour's a crackpot and has a drug den at his flat, you ain't got nuttin' to talk about right? or if Some middle eastern country decides to produce nuclear powerplants/weapons (starts with an I, ends with a ran:hmm:), the US should sit tight and just watch... I wonder what would U did If u r kennedy during he uban missile crisis?... Mhhh think it's best just to leave them alone, after all it's their country not my business...
Can you tell me what any of that has to do with a country exploiting their own natural resources?

And that thing of not affecting nothing beyond the extraction site? C'mon man?! Clearly you've never seen a big minning compound...one thing that brough me to this site was the oportunity to have serious(kind of:)!) discussions about matters like this one. Do u really mean what ur saying when U've written that above... I'm not even start talking about by air contmination and oil spills from sea carriers, cuz I know they want to use pipelines, but remember, Alaska's not even adjacent to the majorty of US territory, it's more of an enclave surrounded by canada, ask any canadian if they are't apreensive about oil drilling up there...
I think you need to take a geography class dude. A land mass twice the size of Texas and larger than all but 18 other countries in the entire world can hardly be called an "enclave", nor could it be considered to be surrounded by Canada seeing that their shared border is only 1500 miles long and Alaska has a coastline that is 33000 miles long.

Also I wouldn't worry so much about Canada seeing as how they have no problems exploiting their own oil resources. Google Alberta oil sands...

[SS107.9MHz]

So if your neighbour's a crackpot and has a drug den at his flat, you ain't got nuttin' to talk about right? or if Some middle eastern country decides to produce nuclear powerplants/weapons (starts with an I, ends with a ran:hmm:), the US should sit tight and just watch... I wonder what would U did If u r kennedy during he uban missile crisis?... Mhhh think it's best just to leave them alone, after all it's their country not my business...
Can you tell me what any of that has to do with a country exploiting their own natural resources?

It's the principle of the thing (actually doesn't Iran's exploiting nuclear power plants fall into that category?:)) don't mess in other countries internal affairs, right? something the US have never done before (sometimes for the worst, sometimes for the best - I'm not one of those anti-USA guys mind you, quite the opposite!)

And that thing of not affecting nothing beyond the extraction site? C'mon man?! Clearly you've never seen a big minning compound...one thing that brough me to this site was the oportunity to have serious(kind of:)!) discussions about matters like this one. Do u really mean what ur saying when U've written that above... I'm not even start talking about by air contmination and oil spills from sea carriers, cuz I know they want to use pipelines, but remember, Alaska's not even adjacent to the majorty of US territory, it's more of an enclave surrounded by canada, ask any canadian if they are't apreensive about oil drilling up there...
I think you need to take a geography class dude. A land mass twice the size of Texas and larger than all but 18 other countries in the entire world can hardly be called an "enclave", nor could it be considered to be surrounded by Canada seeing that their shared border is only 1500 miles long and Alaska has a coastline that is 33000 miles long.

Also I wouldn't worry so much about Canada seeing as how they have no problems exploiting their own oil resources. Google Alberta oil sands...
Touche;)

[SS107.9MHz]

Plus, canadians kill baby seals with bats.
That's the real Canadian bacon fer ya!:dead:
(Though shooting wolves from planes dosn't go on my goodguy records:down:, only thing U can shoot from a plane is people:/\\chop)
Who the hell gets kicks from shooting dogiies frm planes? Same kind that appreciate getting babies into people ovens?http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon8.gif

[August]

It's the principle of the thing (actually doesn't Iran's exploiting nuclear power plants fall into that category?:)) don't mess in other countries internal affairs, right? something the US have never done before (sometimes for the worst, sometimes for the best - I'm not one of those anti-USA guys mind you, quite the opposite!)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. You do have a point about Iran, although i suspect that if there weren't the very reasonable suspicion the Iranians were going to use their nuke technology to build a bomb nobody would have problem with their program.

[August]

Plus, canadians kill baby seals with bats.
That's the real Canadian bacon fer ya!:dead:
(Though shooting wolves from planes dosn't go on my goodguy records:down:, only thing U can shoot from a plane is people:/\\chop)
Who the hell gets kicks from shooting dogiies frm planes? Same kind that appreciate getting babies into people ovens?http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon8.gif

As a sport i agree with you, however i do believe this is more like a varmint eradication program, though i may be wrong about that.

[SS107.9MHz]

I doubt it, there's still to be proved that any predatorial species should be controlled by huntng... Predators vary directly with the avaiability of preys and competition with other predators, sometimes there may be a need to control large herbivore groups like elephant populaions in africa, but there is not one single case I am aware of, of there being a need to contol a predator population, because their racio is naturally very low... The only times that there can be a unbalanced number of predators is when human interaction (by means of food abundance - live stock, landfills - or when there's over exploration on the same prey the predators ussually hunt - in wich case predator numbers plummet almost immediattly) since there isn't much livestock production in Alaska, or so i've perceived, the wolf and bear hunting most likely turns out to be for sports.

[SS107.9MHz]

There's big bucks to be earned on these kinds of hunts, about a year + halfago a kind of safari game reserve (completelly illegal) was taken down near the spannish-portuguese border.
They had big game "hunters" come over and hunt old animals they'd buy from circuses who didn't wanted them anymore because they could't perform at the shows. They had tigers. lions, bears, leopars, elephants, they even had wolves apparently imported from russia... they were seemingly registered as a private mini-zoo, and instead had these mock hunts with guys driving jeeps and shooting at the animalshttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon8.gif... fcking reatards, but again, they'd pay great sums of money, and to some people that's enough... I've heard that there's a lot of these parks around in Russia and China too...

[Enigma]

She does an awful lot of killing for such a pro lifer....:lol:

[SS107.9MHz]

yupo found something about that: http://www.santohuberto.com/sh_conteudo.asp?id=459

"O jornal espanhol ‘El Mundo’, que revela a notícia, afirma que um lobo custa 24 mil euros e um leão ou um tigre mais de 36 mil."
http://img.humor.orange.es/noticias/314_img.jpg
Wolf - 24.000 E
Lion or Tiger - 36.000+ E
http://bp3.blogger.com/_vXWV99IG2LY/RxeraihseeI/AAAAAAAAAZc/lKgna9L1WKA/s1600-h/tigre_matado_furtivamente_en_Monterrubio_de_la_Ser ena_y_decomisado_por_SEPRONA.jpg
http://ecologistasextremadura.blogspot.com/2007/12/celebrado-juicio-oral-sobre-el-safari.html

[SS107.9MHz]

You can say hatever you wnat about hunting, and I even think that a well managed game reserve can be good for the environment (the hunted animals take one for the team as a sacrifice for their species...) but this is just wrong... This has nothing to do with the thrill of the hunt, or difficulty or whatever, this is just people getting kicks by being powerdrunk saddists...

If you want to hunt for sports get a bow and arrows, or learn falconry...That's a challenge.

[Sailor Steve]

If you want to hunt for sports get a bow and arrows, or learn falconry...That's a challenge.
Disagree. Using a falcon is letting someone else (the bird) do it for you.

I say if you want to truly hunt for sport, and prove how tough you really are, use a knife.

[Von Tonner]

I doubt it, there's still to be proved that any predatorial species should be controlled by huntng... Predators vary directly with the avaiability of preys and competition with other predators, sometimes there may be a need to control large herbivore groups like elephant populaions in africa, but there is not one single case I am aware of, of there being a need to contol a predator population, because their racio is naturally very low... The only times that there can be a unbalanced number of predators is when human interaction (by means of food abundance - live stock, landfills - or when there's over exploration on the same prey the predators ussually hunt - in wich case predator numbers plummet almost immediattly) since there isn't much livestock production in Alaska, or so i've perceived, the wolf and bear hunting most likely turns out to be for sports.
You know it amazes me that there are some who argue that a countries resources are exclusive to outside interference. If, (and I use the word lightly as I do not know) Polar Bears are endangered then I'm sorry, it is not an exclusive matter to Palin or the USA. The USA does not allow ANY spotted skin such as Leopard or Cheetah to be brought into the country simply because they are on the endangered list of CITES. The USA is a member of this international body. So. if we (SA) had a politician, or as a country, told the world (and posters on forums:D) to sod off, we are going to shoot leopards, elephants, lions, cheetahs etc,as we see fit - do you not think that would be highly irresponsible to the world community at large? Do you not want your children's children to be given the opportunity to see an elephant in the wilds, a pack of lions on the hunt, a cheetah speeding across the plains or a polar bear rumbling across the pack ice? If you shrug your shoulders and say "So what" - IMO, not only do you have no heart, you have no compassion for your dumb friends of this planet whose only hope for survival for many of them is if we care enough.

[SS107.9MHz]

Bare hands and teeth!:lol:
Against the lions! eheheh

[SS107.9MHz]

I doubt it, there's still to be proved that any predatorial species should be controlled by huntng... Predators vary directly with the avaiability of preys and competition with other predators, sometimes there may be a need to control large herbivore groups like elephant populaions in africa, but there is not one single case I am aware of, of there being a need to contol a predator population, because their racio is naturally very low... The only times that there can be a unbalanced number of predators is when human interaction (by means of food abundance - live stock, landfills - or when there's over exploration on the same prey the predators ussually hunt - in wich case predator numbers plummet almost immediattly) since there isn't much livestock production in Alaska, or so i've perceived, the wolf and bear hunting most likely turns out to be for sports.
You know it amazes me that there are some who argue that a countries resources are exclusive to outside interference. If, (and I use the word lightly as I do not know) Polar Bears are endangered then I'm sorry, it is not an exclusive matter to Palin or the USA. The USA does not allow ANY spotted skin such as Leopard or Cheetah to be brought into the country simply because they are on the endangered list of CITES. The USA is a member of this international body. So. if we (SA) had a politician, or as a country, told the world (and posters on forums:D) to sod off, we are going to shoot leopards, elephants, lions, cheetahs etc,as we see fit - do you not think that would be highly irresponsible to the world community at large? Do you not want your children's children to be given the opportunity to see an elephant in the wilds, a pack of lions on the hunt, a cheetah speeding across the plains or a polar bear rumbling across the pack ice? If you shrug your shoulders and say "So what" - IMO, not only do you have no heart, you have no compassion for your dumb friends of this planet whose only hope for survival for many of them is if we care enough.

Can't agree with you more, Spain and Portugal are a vital part of the migration routes of a butloads of bird species, many endangered,and here they're somewhat protected, and then when they reach north coast of africa, or corsica and sicilly they're slaughtered because either they don't have laws about it or simply don't give a rat's arse about them...

[Sailor Steve]

The USA is a member of this international body. So. if we (SA) had a politician, or as a country, told the world (and posters on forums:D) to sod off, we are going to shoot leopards, elephants, lions, cheetahs etc,as we see fit - do you not think that would be highly irresponsible to the world community at large?
Von T, you have to remember that the USA is the country who said that part of the reason we had to go into Iraq because that country had violated UN decrees, but when the UN decreed they didn't want us going into Iraq we turned around and said "Who cares what you think? We're doing what we want and you don't tell us what to do!"

[August]

The only times that there can be a unbalanced number of predators is when human interaction (by means of food abundance - live stock, landfills - or when there's over exploration on the same prey the predators ussually hunt - in wich case predator numbers plummet almost immediattly) since there isn't much livestock production in Alaska, or so i've perceived, the wolf and bear hunting most likely turns out to be for sports.

Like I said i'm not sure but there have been three bear attacks within Anchorage city limits this year alone.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1112142,CST-NWS-bear17.article

[August]

I say if you want to truly hunt for sport, and prove how tough you really are, use a knife.

You and I have different ideas about hunting Steve.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Like I said i'm not sure but there have been three bear attacks within Anchorage city limits this year alone.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1112142,CST-NWS-bear17.article

Easy fix, call Russia and order up some Tu-95s :D

[SS107.9MHz]

The only times that there can be a unbalanced number of predators is when human interaction (by means of food abundance - live stock, landfills - or when there's over exploration on the same prey the predators ussually hunt - in wich case predator numbers plummet almost immediattly) since there isn't much livestock production in Alaska, or so i've perceived, the wolf and bear hunting most likely turns out to be for sports.
Like I said i'm not sure but there have been three bear attacks within Anchorage city limits this year alone.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1112142,CST-NWS-bear17.article

That's bound to happen, they're dwellers, most probably young adults seeking new territory...Bears are smart, they can smell food miles away, so they're atracted by easy meals, and there´s always food around people... It's what I said above, as longas there is food (landfills, even accessible trashbins , things like that), animals get atracted by it...In the Uk it's the badgers and foxes, California is coyote's, in Portugal it's just the stray dog and cats... Thing is,a fox or a bagder isn't capable of ripping you appart, are they...

[Konovalov]

Three bear attacks so far this year in one city doesn't sound like a major problem. :-?

[August]

Here's a link to the US Geological Services webpage on Alaska bear attacks over the last 100 years.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

[SS107.9MHz]

In the big scheme of things no, but if you were the one attacked...
But thing about this, how many people have ben attacked and seriously injured by dogs on that same town? It's all relative, if a dog kills a person, nobody is going to start to shoot any dogs on sight, but if it is a wild animal people there is always going to be people ready to fire... it's the same thing about the sharks in the 70's and 80's around the USA and Australia coast...
Even in Portugal ,We've got one of the most threathened populations of Iberic Wolves (About 200) and the sheppards stil use poison or shoot them on sight because "those damn wolves are everywhere!"...exceppt the vast majority of attacks are from dogs they abandon...
It's the eternal "not my fault,blame it on the others " excuse...

[SS107.9MHz]

Here's a link to the US Geological Services webpage on Alaska bear attacks over the last 100 years.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

Now there's the solid, ground concrete data I'm so fond offhttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon10.gif
Nice one August:up:

[August]

Here's a link to the US Geological Services webpage on Alaska bear attacks over the last 100 years.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm
Now there's the solid, ground concrete data I'm so fond offhttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon10.gif
Nice one August:up:

Here's another about aerial hunting in particular.

The hunting efficiency of wolves in winter is what led state wildlife officials to support aerial wolf hunting -- or wolf control as it is commonly called -- in areas of the state where biologists believe moose and caribou populations have been depressed by predation from bears and wolves, bad winters or in some cases by humans overhunting them.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/410461.html

[Enigma]

There are alot of "hunters" around here. I've always wanted to ask them when they are actually hunting. They go to designated land, bait the area with a substance that will attract a deer, climb a tree, and when it shows up, they shoot it.

I'm not against hunting, per se, I know around here it does some good in controlling the deer population. But this isnt hunting. It's waiting.

Also, when a bear kills a hunter in the woods, I have a very hard time feeling bad for the hunter. Sounds like fair play to me.

[SS107.9MHz]

"Meanwhile, the number of moose and caribou saved for reproductive purposes, wildlife viewing and some hunting could be much smaller if wolves killed in March or April are quickly replaced by cubs in the summer. Wolves have high reproductive rates, leading some biologists to question the effectiveness of the hunts.
Studies conducted on the Kenai Peninsula by noted biologist Rolf Peterson from Michigan Technological University found that even if 40 percent of the wolves in a pack died over a winter, pack sizes could be rebuilt by the start of the next winter.
Peterson found the Kenai wolves killed, on average, one moose every 4.7 days."

Many of the wolves killed in these hunts or trapped would probably die during the winter season anyway, that's why the reproduction rate is so high...to compensate the losses and balance the numbers during the preys reproduction. As with predators, the main variables that rule herbivores numbers are 1.Food avaiability 2.Weather conditions 3.Disease, 4.Where applicable, man.

Can't see this population control as more than taxpayer's waste really...



"1. The department will never again conduct widespread and continuous wolf
control to increase ungulate populations. The monetary costs are too high and the
general public does not want their wildlife to be managed in that manner. "- MANAGEMENT OF LARGE PREDATORS IN ALASKA
W.L. Regelin, P. Valkenburg, & R.D. Boertje

[Enigma]

Off the topic of hunting, but, wouldn't it be better to have a VP that actually knows what Fannie and Freddie are during an economic down turn? This isn't just a case of someone misspeaking. This is someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.....

Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."

[SS107.9MHz]

Here's a link to the US Geological Services webpage on Alaska bear attacks over the last 100 years.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm
Now there's the solid, ground concrete data I'm so fond offhttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon10.gif
Nice one August:up:
Here's another about aerial hunting in particular.

The hunting efficiency of wolves in winter is what led state wildlife officials to support aerial wolf hunting -- or wolf control as it is commonly called -- in areas of the state where biologists believe moose and caribou populations have been depressed by predation from bears and wolves, bad winters or in some cases by humans overhunting them.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/410461.html

And then it's the way it's done... You should never, by any means, completely terminate any given group/pack/pride, just remove some members and let the group restructure! On the link you posted there were a few other news about the population control... What they do is select a wolfpack and completely obliterate them. They kill every member of the group. That's not control, that's genocide.That group's DNA is removed from the gene pool just because their at the wrong place at the wrong time... Even the trappings, though more cruel, aren't that destructive, in the genetic sense.

[SS107.9MHz]

Off the topic of hunting, but, wouldn't it be better to have a VP that actually knows what Fannie and Freddie are during an economic down turn? This isn't just a case of someone misspeaking. This is someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.....

Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."

Please summ it up, I'm all aware of the submorgage and house market crisis, but I'm not shure what the Fannie and Freddie Hell is:lol:sorry!

[SS107.9MHz]

Wait just seen a glimpse about that... Wait,did the US went Hugo Chavez all over Fannie and Freddie?

[Tchocky]

Off the topic of hunting, but, wouldn't it be better to have a VP that actually knows what Fannie and Freddie are during an economic down turn? This isn't just a case of someone misspeaking. This is someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.....

Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."


:o:o:o:o:o


Well, Bush did call her an "inspired pick"...

[Konovalov]

This may explain why Palin has hardly done an interview since being picked as the Republican VP candidate.

[Frame57]

Being a hunter IMO aerial hunting would not be sporting in my view. There is just something about being in the sticks and stalking prey that is fun. You are more in the environment and have to know something about the game rather than spooking them and getting them to run and then shoot them. Not sporting IMO.

[August]

Being a hunter IMO aerial hunting would not be sporting in my view. There is just something about being in the sticks and stalking prey that is fun. You are more in the environment and have to know something about the game rather than spooking them and getting them to run and then shoot them. Not sporting IMO.

I don't think aerial hunting has anything to do with sport hunting. From what i read it was something being done by wildlife management.

[Frame57]

Being a hunter IMO aerial hunting would not be sporting in my view. There is just something about being in the sticks and stalking prey that is fun. You are more in the environment and have to know something about the game rather than spooking them and getting them to run and then shoot them. Not sporting IMO.

I don't think aerial hunting has anything to do with sport hunting. From what i read it was something being done by wildlife management.I think you are right. I do not recall seeing this done other than by Fish and game to tranq. an animal.

[Platapus]

Excuse the naïve question but : When Fannie and Freddie made profit, did they redistribute it to taxpayers ?

No but they redistributed the profits to the stockholders. Fannie and Freddie Mae are not government entities they are for profit corporations operating under a government charter.

[Platapus]

Internet hates/ate my sarcasm :oops:
Privatization of profits and globalization of the losses at its best. I've read the government is ready to put 100 billions in each of the 2 companies which basically got bankrupt because of their greed. Now how much was the ludicrous amount of money asked in the thread the other day about rebuilding New Orleans ?

Well actually the government is not putting any money into the two companies. All the government is doing is guaranteeing the loans that Freddie and Fannie sell to investors. So it is not a corporate "bail-out" like has happened in the past.

The government will have to pay money only in the instances where both of the follow occur.

1. Fannie/freddie could not sell their bundled loan bonds to investors and
2. The original borrower defaults on the loan.

Here is a quick review of what Freddie/Fannie do.

a. Citizen A borrows money from Bank B for their house

b. Bank B sells the loan to Fannie or Freddie. Bank B now has money to lend to Citizen D.

c. Fannie/Freddie bundles up these loans from across the country and bundle them up into investment packages and sells bonds to investors such as your mutual funds. Fannie/Freddie will guarantee the loan to the investors. Fannie/Freddie now have money to buy more loans from Bank B (and many other banks)

And the very nice circle continues.

What has happened is that investors are becoming reluctant to buy the mortgage bonds from Fannie/Freddie. This has less to do with anything Fannie/Freddie have done "wrong" and more to do with the general economy.

However, since the business model of Fannie/Freddie requires the passing of the mortgages in the form of bonds, When investors start slowing down, Fannie/Freddie are stuck with loans that they can't sell (or more accurately can't sell at the appropriate interest rate).

If Fannie/Freddie can't sell the bonds, Fannie/Freddie don't have any money to buy more loans from the banks.

If Fannie/Freddie can't buy loans from the banks, the banks don't have money to lend people.

As banks are loaning out less money, the interest rates for mortgages go up.

And an undesirable circle continues.

[Konovalov]

Internet hates/ate my sarcasm :oops:
Privatization of profits and globalization of the losses at its best. I've read the government is ready to put 100 billions in each of the 2 companies which basically got bankrupt because of their greed. Now how much was the ludicrous amount of money asked in the thread the other day about rebuilding New Orleans ?

Well actually the government is not putting any money into the two companies. All the government is doing is guaranteeing the loans that Freddie and Fannie sell to investors. So it is not a corporate "bail-out" like has happened in the past.

The government will have to pay money only in the instances where both of the follow occur.

1. Fannie/freddie could not sell their bundled loan bonds to investors and
2. The original borrower defaults on the loan.

Here is a quick review of what Freddie/Fannie do.

a. Citizen A borrows money from Bank B for their house

b. Bank B sells the loan to Fannie or Freddie. Bank B now has money to lend to Citizen D.

c. Fannie/Freddie bundles up these loans from across the country and bundle them up into investment packages and sells bonds to investors such as your mutual funds. Fannie/Freddie will guarantee the loan to the investors. Fannie/Freddie now have money to buy more loans from Bank B (and many other banks)

And the very nice circle continues.

What has happened is that investors are becoming reluctant to buy the mortgage bonds from Fannie/Freddie. This has less to do with anything Fannie/Freddie have done "wrong" and more to do with the general economy.

However, since the business model of Fannie/Freddie requires the passing of the mortgages in the form of bonds, When investors start slowing down, Fannie/Freddie are stuck with loans that they can't sell (or more accurately can't sell at the appropriate interest rate).

If Fannie/Freddie can't sell the bonds, Fannie/Freddie don't have any money to buy more loans from the banks.

If Fannie/Freddie can't buy loans from the banks, the banks don't have money to lend people.

As banks are loaning out less money, the interest rates for mortgages go up.

And an undesirable circle continues.
It would probably be helpful if you could tell Sarah Palin all this with regards to Fannie and Freddie.

[Platapus]

It would probably be helpful if you could tell Sarah Palin all this with regards to Fannie and Freddie.


I am afraid I don't have the time to explain all that Ms Palin needs to know about the United States and the world. :nope:

[SS107.9MHz]

Internet hates/ate my sarcasm :oops:
Privatization of profits and globalization of the losses at its best. I've read the government is ready to put 100 billions in each of the 2 companies which basically got bankrupt because of their greed. Now how much was the ludicrous amount of money asked in the thread the other day about rebuilding New Orleans ?
Well actually the government is not putting any money into the two companies. All the government is doing is guaranteeing the loans that Freddie and Fannie sell to investors. So it is not a corporate "bail-out" like has happened in the past.

The government will have to pay money only in the instances where both of the follow occur.

1. Fannie/freddie could not sell their bundled loan bonds to investors and
2. The original borrower defaults on the loan.

Here is a quick review of what Freddie/Fannie do.

a. Citizen A borrows money from Bank B for their house

b. Bank B sells the loan to Fannie or Freddie. Bank B now has money to lend to Citizen D.

c. Fannie/Freddie bundles up these loans from across the country and bundle them up into investment packages and sells bonds to investors such as your mutual funds. Fannie/Freddie will guarantee the loan to the investors. Fannie/Freddie now have money to buy more loans from Bank B (and many other banks)

And the very nice circle continues.

What has happened is that investors are becoming reluctant to buy the mortgage bonds from Fannie/Freddie. This has less to do with anything Fannie/Freddie have done "wrong" and more to do with the general economy.

However, since the business model of Fannie/Freddie requires the passing of the mortgages in the form of bonds, When investors start slowing down, Fannie/Freddie are stuck with loans that they can't sell (or more accurately can't sell at the appropriate interest rate).

If Fannie/Freddie can't sell the bonds, Fannie/Freddie don't have any money to buy more loans from the banks.

If Fannie/Freddie can't buy loans from the banks, the banks don't have money to lend people.

As banks are loaning out less money, the interest rates for mortgages go up.

And an undesirable circle continues.

Seems almost like a pyramid scheme to me...

[Wolfehunter]

Banks always have money... and One bank rules them all lol.:rotfl: Hint hint the ring hehehe;)

[August]

Hint hint the ring hehehe;)
Ring? What ring?

Did you mean:

A ring of Shteel!?
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/hh/images/thumb/d/d1/Major_Hochstetter2.jpg/250px-Major_Hochstetter2.jpg

or

A ring of fire?
http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/7163/cover8qw.jpg

or maybe


Ring around the Rosy?
http://www.kudzugallery.net/Images/Low-RingAroundTheRosy.JPG



Bathtub ring?
http://water.me.vccs.edu/waterplant/bathtub.jpg



Ringworm?
http://images.rxlist.com/images/SlideShow/ringworm_s1.jpg



Bill Ring?
http://www.advisorsadvantage.com/images/portfolio/billbio.jpg



Too. Many. Choices! Aaaaarrrrggggg!
http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2004/features/20040324/gollum_2.jpg

[JoeCorrado]

So, basically, she's a conservative. She must be so ashamed:roll:

I don't know why you would attempt to make that argument. It is far deeper than that and the issues go much further than her positions related to the environment, global warming or whether to just "drill baby drill." This must surely go beyond these issues and the answers will be important to all of us- red or blue, or any other color.

I don't believe the issue is a conservative or a liberal one. I believe the issue with Sarah Palin is that what little we have learned of her with absolutely no help or "transparency" from her- is that she is not to be trusted to even be honest with America.

During her acceptance speech she made several material misrepresentations concerning her "stated" positions and/or "accomplishments" which were designed to paint a picture of her as somebody who was a "straight talker" and reformer. And yet since that speech- she has "refused" to make herself available to the media in order to answer questions. A reasonable expectation that most Americans, Republican and Democratic alike certainly and justly expect of a candidate for the second highest office in America.

Instead of being "transparent" and a "reformer" she has done everything possible to avoid transparency. What we have been left with to date are lies and avoiidance. Her latest self inflicted wound has been her refusal to turn over hundreds of emails concerning the so called "trooper gate" investigation. She cites... "executive privilege" in denying the release.

The fact is that while it has already been proven that Husband Todd made several contacts with Alaska's highest law enforcement official in order to advocate for the troopers dismissal the Palin Camp denied that he did so as an official representative of the Governors office. Problem is that Husband Todd was carbon copied on these emails. If her claim is "executive privilege" then the admission must be that Todd DID bring inappropriate pressure to have the trooper fired in an "official" capacity. If the claim is that Todd was NOT acting on behalf of the Governor then the admission is that the emails were never covered under "executive privilege" since they had already been released to the public... ie: Mr. Todd Palin- private citizen.

Either way- Mrs. Palin is doing herself no good and the longer this continues, and the more we learn, the more it appears that Sarah Palin is herself a political creature prone to abuses of power and cover up on a much grander scale that we have learned in just these 10 short days despite her every effort to pretend otherwise.

John McCain made a bad selection and it is being compounded by his failure to conduct and real vetting. And THAT poor decision was the first real example of what we can expect from his administration were he to be elected. Off the hip decisions not grounded in fact, not supported by a careful and realistic examination of the action to be taken, with no real thought given to the final outcomes, and based soley upon his "instincts" and "gut" feeling.

Hey- isn't THAT the same BUSH process that landed us in Iraq?? :|\\

Apologies for going further afield than this thread perhaps warranted- but we are talking same person, same issue with the sense of discovering just who this lady really is and where she would take us if John McCain for any reason were unable to complete a full term if elected.

The fact that she plans on giving her first ever interview on 9-11 does not impress me much either. I believe 9-11 should be a day free of politics and her decision is one that screams "Me first, country second."

Shame on Sarah Palin for that alone.

[Enigma]

Joe,
All very well said, mate. Couldn't agree more.....:up:

[Platapus]

Rule 1 for the country - get rid of the "executive privilege" crap.

I can understand that there may be some information that should not be released to the public, but in that case it can be released to appropriately cleared people. There has to be some form of checks and balances.

We can not have government officials (local, state, or federal) saying that they have super secret information that no one else can see.

This is what dictators do. :nope: