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/opinio...inenvir07.html

[August]

And it even came with a cartoon? Impressive!

[UnderseaLcpl]

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

[JoeCorrado]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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

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.....

[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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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

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

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by August

And it even came with a cartoon? Impressive!

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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 Could that be because you didn't consider it sarcasm because you agree with it?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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".

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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".

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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.

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!"