A look at some of Palin's executive decisions

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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

-S

Common Subman1, lets hear your position on the environment.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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]

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.

[Von Tonner]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

A liberal is usually someone you disagree with.

Haha.. thats a good one.

[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]

Originally Posted by Thomen

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]

Originally Posted by Von Tonner

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]

Originally Posted by Thomen

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]

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.