Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?


Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pfft you wish :P

Rinse your mouth out with soap will ya? :lol:

Since my vote isn't gonna count anyways, it might as well go third party. It all adds up. Every lit bit helps. All we need is 15% and we can get in the debates the next election (I think thats the rule yes?)!

of course, now we just need a great debater to convince the American public that our cause is worthy and better than the two fuck ups and we're set B)

Harder than it sounds...

Edited by wanna be drummer
Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I have with your question is that you would consider any sport hunting as "tormenting" or animal torture and cruelty. The only set of circumstances where you would believe hunting is moral, is where there an imminent need for the meat in order to survive. I would assume that you believe that anytime there are other options for food outside of hunting or farming; then you probably believe that hunting is then only a sport that amounts to "tomenting and killing"?

I don't happen to believe that is the case. I have no problem with sport hunting whether or not the meat is needed for "survival" or not. As long as the species being hunted, whether it is a trout or a moose, is not being hunted to extinction... then more power to the hunters.

Many people including myself view "the hunt" in some what deeper spiritual terms. We recognize the skill and determination to be able to hunt, kill and process the animal. And in that aspect it remains a part of a human survival experience that has been passed on for thousands of years. I can assure you that outdoorsmen and people accross this nation from many rural and bordeing wilderness areas (like Alaska), appreciate the fact that at ANY GIVEN TIME they are trained and able to provide for themselves through these well practiced and established sets of skills. Skills which also include knowing how to survive in the elements, starting a fire, building a shelter, farming, finding and storing potable water, and knowing how to read the signs of changing seasons and make preparations. You won't see these people outside the New Orleans Superdome screaming for help because they could not handle 3 or 4 days without a supermarket and a welfare check.

Therefore, all of these skills and many more have a cross over in modern society to several outdoor "sport activities" like hunting, fishing and camping. And to me they are of great value. They have been taught to us by our fathers and grandfathers... and of course we pass these skills along to our children. That is the "family value" part of hunting that you just don't seem to get.

And of course many of us like Sarah Palin do not "worship the creation" the way the animals rights people do. We see "the creation" as being created for us. To be used sensibly of course. But used to our own means and needs. And if there is "sanctity of life" it applies to human life alone. Although we recognize and give thanks for the "bounty" that the creator of "the creation" has provided us. And as it is true even in many native cultures, "the hunt" has both practical and spiritual significance.

Is it really necessary to have readily available hunting skills in So Cal? Maybe against "human" gangs, but wild animals? Hunting for "sport" is barbaric, imo. It's killing another life for no reason except it makes you feel like a man. Killing is killing and unless your life is being threatened, or your need to hunt for your own survival, it's just murder. I'm not protesting against hunters (although i have little respect for them), but Palin condones killing wolves and bears, even by aerial hunting, for FUN. Does she care about the extinction of any species, hell no, she couldn't care less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's important to have a respect for nature. But if someone's going to choose a life and it's me or a bear... I'm saying the bear goes. But to start on this whole, I am above animals, is silly. Let's just say... God put them here too.

A life is a life... and it brings it back to war for me. What about the innocent life of a born baby... casualty of war. How is that ok? Cause I could post pictures of that. But you can look at this youtube clip if you want proof that people who claim they are pro-life are really just anti-abortion. So maybe that could be the answer, it's more effective to call it what it actually is, just anti-abortion and for killing everthing else.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/9/551...459/1023/591906

And I will add, that I am ok with hunting, my Dad is a hunter. He respects nature. There are good hunters and there are idiots. So some people give it a bad name unfortunately. But on the aerial gunning, that is not even sport, if you can't get in the ring, you shouldn't be in the match. Aerial gunning is for cowards, a gun already gives you the upper hand and then you need a plane to make a bunch of shots to kill it. Is she for cock fighting and dog fighting too?

Excellent, well said. I agree too, they should call it what it is "anti-abortion" not pro-life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't find that funny at all.

First, I'd like to know where you got that statistic.

And if it or something of its nature is true, I'd like to add that a lot of that is probably because of all the native villages who aren't educated at all. I don't even know if these people have access to birth control.

Here in Anchorage, the more civilized, modern cities, I don't believe it's that much of a problem.

Actually, to my knowledge, she hasn't done anything of that nature. I have no idea where you got that notion. :huh:

And to clear up something about the aerial hunting of wolves - it's not "for no reason". It's predator control, and it is saving our moose. We love our moose.

Also, I don't believe anyone is allowed to shoot anything directly from a plane - not even fish and game officials. The point is to find wolves with the plane, land, then do the dirty work. I'll admit, I see some ethics issues too. But so many people believe these shit ads, then try to persuade others with their false ideas. It puts me off sometimes, and I just wanted to clear things up for those of you who have been misled.

Carry on.

I heard the stats on teen pregnancy and STD's in Alaska on (dare i say the name) CNN. I believe it was on Anderson Cooper's show. I will look for a source.

This link is from the CDC in 2005:

http://www.npaihb.org/images/epicenter_doc...ds/National.pdf

More than 45 percent of births in Alaska are unplanned, much higher than the national average, which is 31 percent. That number includes all pregnancies.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=894...v=menu510_2_5_1

Some links and video about the aerial hunting. A brief description of the practice:

Have you ever heard of aerial hunting? It's a brutal practice. Wolves are shot from low-flying aircraft or chased to exhaustion, then killed at point-blank range.

Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for Vice President, promotes this barbaric practice, exploiting a loophole in the Federal Airborne Hunting Act to allow private wolf killers to shoot down wolves using aircraft. We have to get the word out about this!

Please watch this powerful video by Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and then share it with every wildlife lover you know:

http://www.npaihb.org/images/epicenter_doc...ds/National.pdf

http://actionfund.defenders.org/palinvideo

This link is from way before Palin was running for VP as the site says.

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

The Truth About Sarah Palin

(This page has been online since 2007, well before Palin was selected as the Republican VP nominee)

Barbarians for Sarah Palin (original unedited photo)

Top 10 Facts Everyone Must Know About Sarah Palin

All facts below about Sarah Palin are backed up by credible journal citations (click on links)

1) She is presently under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power

2) She offered a bounty of $150 for each right front leg of freshly killed wolves

3) She is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape and incest

4) She is a champion for big oil and supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and everywhere else

5) She believes creationism should be taught in public schools

6) She believes man-made global warming is a farce

7) She is opposed to listing the polar bear as an endangered species because she thinks it will limit oil exploitation

8) While mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire the city librarian because the librarian refused to censor books

9) She supports aerial hunting of wolves and bears even though Alaskans voted twice to ban the practice

10) She used $400,000 of state money to fund a media campaign in support of aerial hunting

Download Top Ten Facts About Sarah Palin in PDF format for easy printing

* You have permission to copy and reprint any text and photos on this website. Help us spread the truth!

I can't accept this kind of person as the second highest authority in this country. She is a disgrace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunting for "sport" is barbaric, imo. It's killing another life for no reason except it makes you feel like a man. Killing is killing and unless your life is being threatened, or your need to hunt for your own survival, it's just murder. I'm not protesting against hunters (although i have little respect for them), but Palin condones killing wolves and bears, even by aerial hunting, for FUN. Does she care about the extinction of any species, hell no, she couldn't care less.

I don't understand. By 'hunting for sport', you mean people hunting without a dire need to do so, right? It's no different than buying a chicken at the store, except you do everything yourself. There is no buying a moose. You buy a gun, you buy ammo, you buy tags, you drive somewhere, you find a moose, you shoot it. You clean it, you haul it to your car, you drive it to a meat processing factory, you wait for them to process it, you pick it up, and voila! Delicious, fresh meat.

The only difference is who kills the animal. Does it really matter?

By your definition of murder, is harvesting chicken or cows morally wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand. By 'hunting for sport', you mean people hunting without a dire need to do so, right? It's no different than buying a chicken at the store, except you do everything yourself. There is no buying a moose. You buy a gun, you buy ammo, you buy tags, you drive somewhere, you find a moose, you shoot it. You clean it, you haul it to your car, you drive it to a meat processing factory, you wait for them to process it, you pick it up, and voila! Delicious, fresh meat.

The only difference is who kills the animal. Does it really matter?

By your definition of murder, is harvesting chicken or cows morally wrong?

Actually, yes i mean people who hunt for the fun of it. I don't make it a big issue if it's "hunting season", but it bothers me. People who can afford to buy groceries all year round, and drive Ford F250's (i'm exagerrating of course) don't need to hunt for food. Still, i don't go to protests over it. I ignore it. If there is truly a need for hunting a particular species due to overpopulation, so be it. Unfortunately overpopulation is the effect of man's tampering with the natural environment the animals once lived in. Deer are overpopulated because we have pushed them out of their homes, and left them with little food sources as well (in my part of the country anyway).

Funny to me, we can kill off all the species because we are so "superior" but we can't get the insect populations under control (off topic rant).

Yes, i do consider meat that is bought in the food markets, murdered animals. It also bothers me greatly. I don't eat a great deal of meat, but i do eat a little bit (poulty and pork). I was a vegetarian years ago. I could live without meat, but not seafood. Anyway, i'm not a Peta certified fanatic about this stuff, but i am an animal lover, and i loathe cruelty to animals. I despise the manner in which animals are bred for food. Most of the meat i do eat is purchased from a Lancaster Dutch farmers market, where they are raised in a more humane environment than most. But thank you, Matthew, i will now eat even less meat than i already do. btw... meat isn't really that good for our health. Contributes not only to heart disease (red meat being the worst) but many types of cancer.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=894...v=menu510_2_5_1

Bottom line, the issue that strikes a cord with me, and many others, is the mean manner in which this woman finds enjoyment. Palin sued the Bush Administration over the protection of polar bears (endangered species). As i heard it put, one of the only times she disagreed with GWB. This article is more than 3 months pre McCain/Palin.

From The TimesMay 23, 2008

Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor

Tim Reid in Washington

The polar bear should be removed from the endangered species list because its protected status will hamper drilling for oil and gas in Alaska, the state's Republican Governor has demanded.

Sarah Palin is suing the Bush Administration over its decision last week to place the animal under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, claiming that climate models predicting the continued loss of sea ice - the main habitat of polar bears - are unreliable.

The lawsuit came as a surprise because most of the outcry after last week's decision came from environmental groups. Although pleased that the Bush Administration had singled out climate change as a reason to place an animal under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, the green lobby were dismayed about restrictions attached to the listing.

The listing came with a big caveat: that it should not be misused to harm the economy and “set backdoor climate policy”. Some environmentalists also accused the Administration of deliberately delaying the ruling to make it easier for oil companies to finalise $2.7 billion (£ 1.35 billion) in offshore oil leases in the Chukchi Sea, an area that is home to about 20 per cent of the world's polar bears. Numerous lawsuits were threatened by the green lobby.

Related Links

US moves to protect polar bear

Polar bears on an Arctic safari

Yet the Governor of Alaska - a state whose residents overwhelmingly support oil exploration - is arguing that the polar bear does not need added protection, and the bear populations have increased significantly over the past 30 years because of conservation. Ms Palin maintains that any commercial development in Alaska requiring federal permits or funding would have to go through a consultation process - described by Steven Daugherty, Alaska's assistant Attorney-General, as “basically a big time-and-money waster”.

He added: “We believe that the listing was unwarranted and that it is unprecedented to list a currently healthy population based on uncertain climate models.”

There are an estimated 20,000-25,000 polar bears in the Arctic, but scientists from the US Geological Survey predict that two thirds of the world's bears will disappear in the next 50 years because of a decline in the Arctic sea ice.

In a stark warning last year, scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre said that the total Arctic ice cover had melted to its lowest level in modern times, and that if melting rates continued the summertime Arctic could be ice-free within 80 years.

Kassie Siegel, of the Centre for Biological Diversity, said that it was unconscionable for Ms Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to the polar bear's habitat. “Even the Bush Administration cannot deny the reality of global warming,” she said. “The Governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this. “She is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming. ”

Dirk Kempthorne, the US Interior Secretary, who made the listing, said that it was based on three findings. “First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival; second, the polar bear's habitat has dramatically melted; third, sea ice is likely to further recede in the future.”

Changing list

48 species have been removed from the endangered list since 1976

17 of these were taken off after errors in the original data

9 species have been been delisted because of extinction

Rocky mountain grey wolves were removed from the list this year after controversial reintroduction programmes increased their numbers to more than 1,500

Idaho springsnail was removed from the list last year after the Fish and Wildlife service responded to a petition from the Idaho Governor’s Office arguing that its listing in 1992 was in error

Yellowstone grizzly bear was removed from the list last year. In 1975 their numbers in the Yellowstone ecosystem dwindled and the species was in danger of total disappearance. But by 2007 there were more than 500 — no longer meeting the Endangered Species Act’s definition of threatened or endangered

Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Have your say

I am still amazed how people believe spin and hype without doing research. New energy sources? Why are we still using technology from the early 1900's? The gasoline engine has been outdated for decades. We need a replacement, not better fuel economy.

Brian Vaught, La Grange, GA, USA

Sarah Palin is a crazy extreme religious wak job. Her type should never be allowed in the white house. It is bad enough we had Bush for 8 years. This woman will roll back every protection and women's rights that have been hard won by women over the many years.

Jane, Savannah, GA., USA

Go for it Sarah! What really counts in this world is money and more of it! When every thing in the world is finally gone, we can stuff our mattresses with it!

Nelson, Hudson, USA

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/environment/article3987891.ece

edit: and Matthew! if you read the links about her aerial killing policies, you must understand why the criticism and judgement of her is so harsh. It's well deserved.

Edited by ~tangerine~
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand. By 'hunting for sport', you mean people hunting without a dire need to do so, right? It's no different than buying a chicken at the store, except you do everything yourself. There is no buying a moose. You buy a gun, you buy ammo, you buy tags, you drive somewhere, you find a moose, you shoot it. You clean it, you haul it to your car, you drive it to a meat processing factory, you wait for them to process it, you pick it up, and voila! Delicious, fresh meat.

The only difference is who kills the animal. Does it really matter?

By your definition of murder, is harvesting chicken or cows morally wrong?

:blink: ...only a complete wuss would take it to a meat processing factory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever the purpose of the kill may be, the animal is indeed being tormented and killed.

That's a fact that your self-serving "sport hunting" rationalizations cannot change, Del.

I will agree that the animal is being killed. I will also agree that it may also be painful. However, I also know that most hunters would prefer a 'clean kill' because nobody wants to have to track down a deer for five miles that has been shot through the jaw or been gut shot. But using the term "tormented" would suggest that hunters are attempting inflict maximum pain on the animial over a quick and instant death. You would have to pove to me that "tormenting" is the goal, because I have never seen that to be the case anywhere.

Subsistence hunting cultures recognize that fact as being part of the overall 'circle of life' equation. They do not deny it as you do; they recognize it and acknowledge it, and as a result they feel a sense of deep respect and gratitude toward the animals who suffer and die so that they, the hunters and their families, may survive.

I guess you have never seen a Christian pray over their meal then have you? I really don't think that you can seperate a person with a Christian world view from their brand of the "circle of life" equation. Especially since Christians do in fact acknowledge that animals have been provided to us by God for all or our purposes. (read Genesis 1 if you doubt what I am talking about).

So-called "sport hunters", on the other hand, hunt for meaningless self-glorification and to further glut their already glutted bellies. Do they care if the animals experience pain and suffering? Ha! Hell, a lot of hunters don't even believe animals are capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

That is just your opinion. For many the abilty to hunt is not meaningless or without a higher understanding of the spiritual nature of our food chain. I would argue that in all cultures it is of great honor to be counted among "the mighty hunters." The hunter always held the higest postitions in the tribe. As the hunter's role was the most essential to the tribe. And even today, you never know when these skills may be needed again.

... the same way you never know when that Ak-47 and 2000 rounds of ammo might come in handy. So why not be prepared as the Boy Scout motto says.

You choose to disregard the fact that the animals being killed for your BBQ dinner and NOT for your survival "need" are being NEEDLESSLY tormented, inflicted suffering upon, and killed. Why? For your self-glorification and culinary pleasure. Wow; how very righteous.

If God hadn't intended for us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

:D

Yes, it is your legal right to "choose" to torment, inflict suffering upon, and kill animals for your culinary pleasure, Del. And fwiw, although I would not make that choice myself, I do support your legal right to make that choice for yourself. It's a moral issue that each person must address for him/her self according to his/her own conscience.

[know whatta mean, Vern? ;) ]

Your self-delusion runs deep, my bruthah! :lol:

A few posts back you said: "MEAT. IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER! :D "

Uhh.. that hardly reflect a "deeper spiritual view of the hunt", bud.

No, you missed my point! The fact that animals are "what's for dinner" is my spiritual view. They [the animals] are God's gift to us. And I give thanks for that gift from the creator.

And if the people stranded in New Orleans (the ones relying on food stamps

and supermarkets) had been hunters,.. they would have hunted.. what, exactly?

Actually they could have lasted many days without food. It's the water that you need within a few days.

But they didn't even have the sense to get out of the way of a scale five hurricane. So I doubt any amount of emegency preparedness would have helped most of those dumb bunnies anyway.

And if you are ever "stranded" in downtown Los Angeles due to an earthquake.. and find

yourself without a supermarket or a functioning freezer, you will hunt.. what, exactly?

..stray kitty cats? :P

Sure, stray cats. Peoples pets, dogs -- whatever it takes. But in all seriousness, I keep in my car a weeks worth of food and water, as does my wife. In addition, we keep food and water inside our workplace as well. I could go on and and on about our emergency preparedness, and what I have at home is almost ridiculous... I could keep my whole block in food and water for at least two weeks... months just for my own family.

But in terms of earthquakes, you never know if you will even survive the initial shock if the building falls on you. However, it would not be hard to scavenge for nearly everything you need in a city as large as Los Angleles. Given that you aren't injured or could at least walk out of the epicenter.

Great ideal for a thread topic though--- Emergency Preparedness.

People who live off the land.. and who are sustained by the animals who share that land.. they do have a "deeper spiritual view of hunting" and a "spiritual relationship with the animals they hunt" that you will never have, Del. Your so-called "deeper spiritual view" of hunting is nothing but self-glorifying, self-deluding imagination. Pure fantasy. You have never expressed the slightest sense of gratitude for the animals that sacrifice their lives for your dining pleasure. You mock their very being; you look down upon them as lesser creations; and you feel ENTITLED to take their lives so that you can have something juicy and bloody upon which to smack your lips and fill your belly.. a belly that has probably never truly known "hunger".

What do you mean I have never known hunger? Yesterday I was so hungry I could have eaten the heart out of dead rhinoceros. That's how hungry I was! :lol:

But you still miss my point. I do give thanks everday for the bounty that is on my table. For every morsel of vegetable and meat. I really don't think you can suppose to know my 'spiritual' understanding of my standing in God's creation.

And of course animals are lesser creations. Animals have no moral agency, how can they be equal to humans?

For people who will never ever have to live off the land.. you know, like you, Delbro..

that's merely the "fantasy" of the "family values" aspect of tormenting and killing animals.

Sure, it's an exciting, old-west-romantic "survival in the wild" story you tell yourself (and your kids),.. but it is just a story. You can kid yourself (and your kids) into believing that story,.. but you can't fool me, bro. ;)

Yeah, I get it.

You feel ENTITLED to take the lives of other living beings. That's not a "spiritual view"

of hunting, friend, that's a "religious view",.. and a "self-serving religious view" at that.

People like you and Sarah Palin claim to value the "sanctity of life", but you qualify your

definition of "life" to such degree that you render the phrase "sanctity of life" meaningless.

Why don't you say "the sanctity of unborn American human life".. since that's what you really mean?

If by "other America" you mean "more evolved", "more aware", "more spiritual", "more empathetic", "more conscious", "more spiritual", "less self-centered" America.. then you're probably correct. That "other America" will never again accept your archaic view. But make no mistake about it, my good friend, it's not for a lack of understanding that archaic, self-centered, self-important view,.. it's due to thoroughly understanding it. ;)

And yeah,.. you answered the question.

To the best of your ability.

Thoughtfully and articulately.

I'm sorry, I missed that last part... I had a grease flare-up on the BBQ and nearly burned $50.00 worth of filet mignon. :D

But I pretty much get your meaning buddy. I just don't think you get mine.

I give you due credit for (unlike a few other chowder heads who litter this board with povs they don't have the guts or wits to step up and address in a more-substantive manner) stepping up and addressing the issue head on. Thoughtfully. I don't expect you, or anyone else, to necessarily agree with me, nor do I expect to change your minds,.. but I do appreciate the discussion. You are consistently willing to actually discuss the difficult issues, Del, and for that I tip my hat to you.

Would that be Manhatten style chowder or that creamy New England stuff?

I actually just like to bake my clams right on the coals, fresh off the beach.

But I do appreciate your kind words you goofy liberal you. Besides, if we ever find ourselves in the same human tribe (after some nuclear winter or something), I'll be happy to allow you to spear fish since you are the one with the exceptional diving skills. And I will be happy to hunt for larger game, like deer, elk and those tasty wild boars.

Think of it. We will feast like kings my man.

:beer:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it really necessary to have readily available hunting skills in So Cal? Maybe against "human" gangs, but wild animals?

I live in the foothills. Although I don't hunt per se, there is plenty of game that most people aren't aware of. If there was ever a need, already know the best places to hunt for game here.

Btw - I have these pesky cottontail rabbits that keep invading my lawn. I would say that in any given month I probably shoot (with a pellet gun) at least ten of those little buggers. It's really not a good idea to eat rabbits taken in warm climates, or in the summertime in cooler climates... too many diseases in their guts as they are an animal that eats it's own feces. But most of the ones I kill are left out for the coyotes to come and get. Not only do I help keep the rabbit population down, but having the coyotes welcome in my yard keeps the neighbors cats away as well.

Hunting for "sport" is barbaric, imo. It's killing another life for no reason except it makes you feel like a man. Killing is killing and unless your life is being threatened, or your need to hunt for your own survival, it's just murder.

I challenge you to provide me a law in any state of the union that defines killing an animal as "murder"?

I'm not protesting against hunters (although i have little respect for them), but Palin condones killing wolves and bears, even by aerial hunting, for FUN. Does she care about the extinction of any species, hell no, she couldn't care less.

Many animal population require culling, even some predators from time to time. As long as hunting is properly managed; there really isn't much of a problem as far as I can tell.

action_figures.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all my liberal/Democratic friends on this board:

I watched Obama on Letterman last night (who I've come to absolutely abhor for his unabashed bias and bashing).

I enjoyed listening to him goof with Letterman, especially talking about going to Disneyland as a kid - funny stuff.

He seems a nice enough guy.

I simply don't agree with his policies.

I remember enjoying watching Clinton many times as well when he was just goofing and relaxing - pretty enjoyable guy.

Again, just don't agree with him.

Just thought I'd share.

I think a lot of people perceive me (and others, I imagine) as a blind follower with no personal philosophy.

Actually not, but like all of us, I have pretty firm opinions and beliefs.

I guess it's in the spirit of 9/11.

peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To all my liberal/Democratic friends on this board:

I watched Obama on Letterman last night (who I've come to absolutely abhor for his unabashed bias and bashing).

I enjoyed listening to him goof with Letterman, especially talking about going to Disneyland as a kid - funny stuff.

He seems a nice enough guy.

I simply don't agree with his policies.

I remember enjoying watching Clinton many times as well when he was just goofing and relaxing - pretty enjoyable guy.

Again, just don't agree with him.

Just thought I'd share.

I think a lot of people perceive me (and others, I imagine) as a blind follower with no personal philosophy.

Actually not, but like all of us, I have pretty firm opinions and beliefs.

I guess it's in the spirit of 9/11.

peace.

Nice thoughts. I feel the same way about McCain. He's certainly more honorable than the clown we have now. Bush's treatment of McCain during the 2000 election primaries was one of the most sickening things i've ever witnessed. McCain called him on it, and America ignored him. After watching Bush get away with the same crap with Swiftwater, and then watching America elect this man twice.....sure seems like a sad commentary about the state of this country. Are people really that frickin' stupid ? If McCain wins, I will support him. If he wins, and occasionally pisses of the religious right, I might even grow to like him. I still think he's going to lose though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a good friend who lived in alaska for several years and explored the land very extensively. He told me the inuit and eskimo people SWEAR that polar bears arent even close to extintion. Their generations have lived in certain places for all their lives and know the wildlife much better than some beurocratic biologist who only reports what he CAN find. They dont even expolre and study a ton of areas up there that Inuits know like the back of their hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just thought I'd share.

I think a lot of people perceive me (and others, I imagine) as a blind follower with no personal philosophy.

Actually not, but like all of us, I have pretty firm opinions and beliefs.

I guess it's in the spirit of 9/11.

peace.

Hmm, unlike African-Americans though, according to you, who all have the exact same conservative thoughts as each other

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep on trashing Sarah, it is working real good. The more the dems and liberal media trash her, the more that the American people like her. Most Americans now think that the major media outlets are biased towards obama anyway.

McBrillant / Palin............08

I have a feeling McBrilliant is going to be as tasteless, bland, tepid, breeding bacteria and as bad for your health as McNugget and McChicken are...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, unlike African-Americans though, according to you, who all have the exact same conservative thoughts as each other

Typical lib tactics.

Distort facts in order to take a jab.

ohai Troll Blaster, ya fuckin' loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a feeling McBrilliant is going to be as tasteless, bland, tepid, breeding bacteria and as bad for your health as McNugget and McChicken are...

...well you could put some lipstick on that McNugget along with a bit of hot mustard.But I guess you'll still have the same old MacBushDaddy,duhuh :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is true that Palin doesn't care about certain animals being extinct she has lost points with me. I would hate to see the Polar Bear or Tiger go extinct and I am for protecting endangered wildlife. Show me where she does not care. I find it hard to believe that being an Alaskan she would not care about protecting Polar bears for instance. Shooting the rabbits in your yard Del Zep isnt really a crime, though I dont really approve of it. Id shoot the damn coyote's first. You must be like my mother who hates cats. I don't get it. I have more respect for most animals than I do for many humans. They are innocent and have a right to live on this planet as much as we do. If you are going to judge living things by how intelligent they are and base their right to live on that, then there should be alot of dead humans also. Stupid dead ones. Just look how much dogs and horses and cats have done for us for so long. I am an animal lover. I don't respect people that hate animals very much and my sister is on that list. I agree you can't eat the rabbits in warm weather. But I don't like to see animals killed for no reason, even though your argument for controlling their population is a good one. Just like with deer. You must live out in the boonies? If I fired my gun in the backyard I'd be eating peanut butter sandwich's for dinner in a 4 X 4 cubical and being hollered at by a bunch of "animals".

She went so far as to sue the Bush admin. over this issue. This looks like a good source, coming out of Anchorage. I posted more links last night on the other Presidential thread, one from months ago, long before most of us knew her name.

http://www.akwildlife.org/content/view/116/61/

Polar Bear Lawsuit by State of Alaska

Comments / Anchorage Daily News / August 4, 2008

So Palin once again bows to the Alaska Outdoors Council which is so worried it might not have enough Alaskan wildlife to kill for trophies, eh? The federal biologists have shown the polar bears are in trouble. Alaska state biologists have warned they are in trouble. Even the Natives along the Northern Coastal Plain have noted how things are getting worse for the polar bears.

But, like Palin, there are commenters in this discussion who are willing to sell Alaska down the drain for a few oil-soaked dollars. I can see the true VECO mentality (?) is alive and well and can be found here in their comments.

Palin allows airborne killing of wolves and bears, wants polar bears to remain huntable for trophies, and has generally shown she is even worse than Murkowski could ever have been when it comes to selling out our wildlife to the highest bidder.

In response to the March 11 article "Hunters team up for baited bear kills": A thousand years ago, before politically correct phrases like "predator control" (read: slaughter), one has to wonder how the ratio of black bears to moose in Alaska was kept in balance. Hmmm, can we maybe say ... nature?

Yes, I'm the meat-eating, beer-drinking type of guy that is rampant in our state, and I was born here, but even I can't stomach one of the rules of this so-called "hunt." And I quote, "hides and skulls have to be salvaged and sealed; meat does not." Seems to me that not one of the bears soon to die has a set of moose antlers hanging on the wall of his den. Bears don't kill for sport, they kill for survival. But man, the "intelligent creature," likes to kill for pleasure. I hope my life never gets that empty.

Michael Wilber, Wasilla

EDIT

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h3EH5jd...bDGBhgD93011S81

Environmentalists can't corral Palin

By DINA CAPPIELLO – Sep 4, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — At the National Governors Association conference where she first met John McCain, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had other business: making her case to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne against classifying the polar bear as a threatened species.

Months later she sued Kempthorne, arguing that the Bush administration didn't use the best science in concluding that without further protection, the polar bear faces eventual extinction because of disappearing sea ice as the result of global warming.

Palin, McCain's vice presidential running mate, has had frequent run-ins with environmentalists.

In her 20 months as governor, Palin has questioned the conclusions of federal marine scientists who say the Cook Inlet beluga whale needs protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.

She has defended Alaska's right to shoot down wolves from the air to boost caribou and moose herds for hunters, and — contrary to a view held by McCain — is not convinced that global warming is the result of human activity.

Environmentalists have nicknamed Palin the "killa from Wasilla," a reference to the small town where she formerly was mayor.

"Her philosophy from our perspective is cut, kill, dig and drill," said John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, maintaining she is "in the Stone Age of wildlife management and is very opposed to utilizing accepted science."

While acknowledging the climate is changing, Palin expresses doubt as to whether emissions from human activities are causing it. McCain, on the other hand, supports legislation to reduce heat-trapping pollutants, primarily from the burning of oil and coal.

"John McCain was all about global warming and the integrity of the science. The selection of Sarah Palin is a complete reversal from that position," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., who traveled to the South Pole with McCain in 2006 to visit with scientists studying climate change. "She is disturbingly part of the pattern of the Bush administration in their approach to science generally and the science of the environment in particular."

The McCain campaign Wednesday characterized Palin as a leader on climate change, noting she set up a sub-cabinet office to map out state response strategies and sought $1.1 million in federal funds to help communities threatened by coastal erosion and other effects.

Palin's administration relied in part on research from scientists funded by the oil industry to fight against the polar bear's listing, arguing that the impact of global warming on the bear 20 years from now can't be predicted. But e-mails obtained by a University of Alaska professor show that the state's marine mammal experts supported the federal government's conclusions on the bear.

On Thursday, the federal government announced that there was enough scientific evidence to consider listing three ice seal species that inhabit the waters of Alaska as threatened and endangered species because of melting sea ice. The seals use the ice to give birth and raise their pups.

Doug Vincent-Lang, Alaska's endangered species coordinator, said the state had not yet taken a position on the ice seals' status.

But he stressed that while there were differences in opinion about the science, the state has supported the protection of other endangered species and its position on the polar bear "was not a decision to protect resource development in the state."

Supporters say Palin, a self-described hockey mom who knows how to handle a gun and dress a moose and once worked as a commercial fisherman, is simply a reflection of her home state, where the extraction of oil, natural gas, gold, zinc, fish and other natural resources is the primary source of state income and jobs.

The polar bear isn't the only wildlife issue where Palin's administration is at odds with environmentalists and at times with the Bush administration and members of Congress.

For example:

_Her administration disputes conclusions by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service and its science advisers that the beluga whale population is in critical danger. The state argues that 2007 data shows the whale rebounding.

_Palin opposed a state ballot initiative to increase protection of salmon streams from mining operations. It was defeated.

_She also opposed a ballot initiative barring the shooting of wolves and bears from aircraft except in biological emergencies. It was also defeated.

Under Palin, the state Board of Game authorized for the first time in 20 years the shooting of wolves by state wildlife officials from helicopters. The order resulted in the controversial shooting this summer of 14 one-month-old wolf pups taken from dens on a remote peninsula 800 miles southwest of Anchorage — an act that environmentalists claim was illegal.

State officials characterized the killings as humanitarian, saying the pups would have suffered and eventually died without the care of their parents. Environmentalists argued they were killed to boost caribou populations to the benefit of hunters.

Like many other Alaska officials, Palin argues her critics don't understand the North Country.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who has complained Alaska is killing more wolves than necessary and has pushed a bill that would put additional restrictions on the aerial killing of predators, has been among Palin's targets.

Miller "doesn't understand rural Alaska, doesn't comprehend wildlife management in the North, and doesn't appreciate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that gives states the right to manage their own affairs," Palin said in a press release a year ago.

and one more link...http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/palin_polarbear_climate_anwr/

Edited by ~tangerine~
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of you catch that interview with her on ABC? Holy fucking shit. My sister could answer these questions better, and she doesn't have the foggiest clue about anything politics-related.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

Imagine her reading those responses like a robot. Oh but wait, there's more:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

OH SNAP.

PALIN: Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...