Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has ignored research showing that polar bear populations are declining in the quest to plumb new sources of energy, according to scientists, and environmental groups who fought to put the bears on the endangered species list.That's not the only scientific research Palin has ignored or distorted. Because Palin also has a problem with a certain species of marine animal. Can you guess which one? (Answer here.)
Photo: a new Obama campaign volunteer.
great! someone with some common sense
ReplyDeleteIf one believes in evolution, it seems that the destruction of a species would not matter. A newer, more advanced species would simply rise up and take its place. By the way, evolution and creation are not necessarily exclusionary of the other. The only problem is when evolutionists declare that there is no author. With a Creator, comes purpose of life.
ReplyDeleteYes, Common sense and a Thinker.
ReplyDeleteImagine that, a politician who thinks and then acts in service to "we the people" not "we the special interests.
Just give Sara a club and drill already!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"Just give Sara a club and drill already!"
A club? It seems you don't know much about polar bears.
Sarah Palin is not against Polar Bears. She is very much for protecting them. Her point is that Polar Bears already enjoy complete protection under the Marine Mammals Act of 1972, which has increased their numbers 300% since the Act was passed. Polar Bear numbers are NOT declining.
ReplyDeleteWhat Alaska and Palin are against is that all this Endangered Species listing does is to give Al Gore followers a tool to stop oil drilling in Alaska as well as shutting down industry across our country.
The Endangered Species listing does not save one Polar Bear more than the Marine Mammals Act already does, so this is why Palin is sueing to have this listing reversed. She is doing her job as Governor to preserve the jobs and the economy of her State.
LOL - just simply supporting somone with no real facts behind your points will not create success in election time.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that she against abortion as well - this alone will alienate the majority of female voters.
Polar bear numbers ARE declining, and Sarah Palin has attempted to sue the Federal Government over granting Polar Bears protection. This is a fact.
She is also under investigation for abuse of power.
The GOP tries to indicate she is a "Maverick" who stands up to big oil - when all she has really pushed is to ease oil exploration restrictions in return for higher taxes on oil profit. We have seen time and time again that this is NOT what the American people want.
Palin supported a bill that gives 1200$ to each and every citizen of Alaska - what is up with that? Talk about wasteful spending.
Palin has asked for more ear marking than any other state - this is a fact. Alaska had $294 per individual for special projects when all other states average 34 dollars per person!
Even the most creative Republican spin doctors cannot hid the true Sarah Palin from the American People.
Obama will be the next American President.
Window4U apparently you didn't read the act. This definition is from the act itself and does not include polar bears.
ReplyDeleteMarine mammal means those specimens
of the following orders, which are
morphologically adapted to the marine
environment, and whether alive or
dead, and any part thereof, including
but not limited to, any raw, dressed or
dyed fur or skin: Cetacea (whales, dolphins,
and porpoises) and Pinnipedia,
other than walrus (seals and sea lions).
You can view the ACT at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/.
She is so hot and equally stubborn that it doesn't matter what she says, people just stare at her and agree...IM just kidding.
ReplyDeleteShe agrees that global warming exists...but however, its not attributed at all by industrialization by humans which leaves her open to allow to allow oil companies to ravage the land. I bet if her daughter wasn't busy on maternity leave to go to a science class, she could teach her some things.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In many cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
ReplyDeleteSome examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
Let the truth be told and known!
Good point-by-point list. The last point -- made by Romney -- was unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see someone go up against a polar bear with a club. What a stupid comment.
ReplyDeleteThe ultra-left liberals who don't want to drill in ANWR want us to think its this pristine snow covered fields with white bunnies hopping around. Its not. Where they want to drill is a rock covered barren wasteland. And only 2,000 acres out of millions.
And anonymous, lets talk more than just income taxes. For months he's been saying he'd cut income taxes for 95% of Americans. But what about social security taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, estate taxes.
What's funny about all of this Palin uproar is that for years the ultra left wing of the Democratic party has sought to make America believe that Abortion was the biggest issue on the Republican side. Now we have a woman VP candidate who believes otherwise, and we find out that it appears to be the biggest issue of the Democratic party. LOL. What a quandry for the Dems who have supposedly been the champions of women, only to find out they're only really champions of women who happen to believe what they believe. Real sexism is alive in the Democratic party.
Anonymous, you are so full of facts, but they all have a spin on them.
ReplyDeleteOK, so Palin is the Governor of Alaska which is the 47th ranked state by population. So what, Biden is a Senator from Delaware which is the 45th ranked state by population. So if Alaska produces 20% of the Nation's oil, how much does Delaware produce?
And I think you made a typo. You said Obama has a meager record when compared to McCain. Didn't you mean Obama has a meager record when compared to Palin. 39% of America believes Palin is more qualified to be Presdient than Obama.
Its funny how republicans only provide rhetoric and no substantive arguments or supporting facts for their case. We Liberals on the other hand support our arguments with facts and provide sources. You know; the kind of legitimate info that stands up in a court of law… :)
ReplyDeleteThat WAS a great point by point list above, calling out Palin's hypocrisy. Here's some more info, (not just rhetoric like Republicans focus on)
Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." Republicans say she is better qualified than Obama on foreign affairs because “Alaska is right next to Russia”. But for someone who is supposed to be better qualified she's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." The war is a national issue, affecting all states including Alaska. 1, 2
Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3
Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4
Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5
Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. The “Abstinence Only” campaign is ironically linked with teenage pregnancy. 8
As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9
She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It wasn’t until there was national criticism of the project that she abruptly changed her stance. 10
The plain fact of the matter is that - sure - Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech last night. That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn't make her views any more palatable for voters. Americans don't really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.
P.S. If you haven't seen it, check out the Daily Show clip on Palin. It's worth a watch
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24753&id=13709-5178602-J88UxHx&t=5
Sources:
1. "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'," Associated Press, September 3, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24701&id=13709-5178602-J88UxHx&t=6
2. "Palin wasn't 'really focused much' on the Iraq war," ThinkProgress, August 30, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24702&id=13709-5178602-J88UxHx&t=7
3. "The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/
4. "McCain and Palin differ on issues," Associated Press, September 3, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24703&id=13709-5178602-J88UxHx&t=8
5. Ibid
6. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/
7. Ibid
8. Ibid.
9. "Mayor Palin: A Rough Record," Time, September 2, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24704&id=13709-5178602-J88UxHx&t=9
10. The Sarah Palin Digest," ThinkProgress, September 4, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/
yo Fred,
ReplyDeleteWhat does the oil in Alaska have to do with Biden? It has nothing more to do with Biden than the fact that Sarah Palin went to 6 colleges in 6 years, and only holds a Bachelors degree in Journalism? What's your point?
Talk about spin? Name the source for your info. Was it Rasmussen Reports? The only sources saying that 395 think she is more experienced also show that 49% think Obama is more experienced...
And here's the REAL info:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/51_say_reporters_are_trying_to_hurt_palin_39_say_she_has_better_experience_than_obama
"...But 49% give Obama the edge on experience, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey – taken before Palin’s historic speech Wednesday night to the Republican National Convention."
Regarding taxes, here's some tax info from CNN:
ReplyDeleteNEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- John McCain and Barack Obama have starkly different philosophies about tax policy - how to raise the revenue needed to support government programs, spur growth and ensure economic fairness.
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most - in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income - are in the lowest income groups.
Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.
"Distributionally, they're markedly different. But in terms of their impact on revenue, the two plans are not terribly different," said Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center and the former deputy assistant director for tax analysis at the Congressional Budget Office.
A closer look
In addition to making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, McCain says he would double the exemption for dependents, lower the corporate tax rate, make expensing rules more generous for small businesses and lessen the bite of the estate tax and Alternative Minimum tax.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%.
*BUT* those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.
Like McCain, Obama would lessen the bite of the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, but to a lesser degree.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.
*BUT* those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
The campaigns respond
Jason Furman, a newly appointed senior economic adviser to Obama, said his preliminary response is that the report's findings bear out what Obama's campaign has been saying: that he's for the middle class.
"Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain," Furman said. "And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%."
There you go Fred. Do you have any other questions?
The simple true is many of you had your minds made up before you even knew who Palin was. The republicans could have put Gondi in as McCain's running mate and you would find some reason to despise him.
ReplyDeletePalin was never put on the ticket for her foreign relations experience. She doesn’t claim to be an expert on it at all. McCain has that part taken care of. Sarah is there to appeal to a large base of people who
a. Care about their family
b. Care about their country
c. Care about their religion.
d. Care about women braking through the glass ceiling.
e. Special needs families
f. Energy independence
g. Our sons and daughters fighting for your independence.
and the list could go on and on...
Here is the truth of the whole matter boiled into a democratic nut shell. The Democrats’ are upset because they nominated a candidate for the presidency that does not have a chase of winning, and for all your efforts to put a woman in the Whitehouse the Republicans beat you to the punch!
From Cleveland
ReplyDeleteto anonymous who said...
If one believes in evolution...blah blah blah
Yeah, another creature will rise up to take it's place after idiots kill them off.
Sad to say that it will take a long time before that happens.
It'll be long after you and I are dead, and so will be your creator
But then again... you prob don't believe in History either.
Anonymous, you make my point. Oil in Alaska has absolutely nothing to do with Biden. It was you who made the point that Alaska was the 47th state by population. Who cares, its a meaningless fact other than your attempt to dismiss Palin because she comes from the 47th least populous state. My point was that Biden comes from the 45th least populous state. So what. BOTH VP candidates come from VERY small states. So quit using useless facts to make a point that has no point, or that you won't hold your candidates to the same standard.
ReplyDeleteOkay, sources are relevant. Looks like several of your facts are, in fact, lies, or at best stretches.
You were actually doing quite well in defense of your previous list of arguments, until you decided to mix in the pack of lies the bloggers are spreading. Just couldn't stick to the facts that you can defend and you had to jump on the bash Palin at all costs bandwagon. Making you look intelligentlly stupid.
Lie #1 Alaska Secesseionist Party
Lie #2 Palin wants to teach Creationism
Lie #3 Palin Opposes Sex Education
Source:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/#comment-606358
(the article lists additional substantiating sources)
And I gave you income taxes. I'm sure Obama will cut income taxes as you, and he, have indicated. But you completely sidestepped my point on the issue of taxes on everything else.
Do you honestly believe that Obama can pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars, and even "trillion" of dollars of new programs by raising income taxes on 5% of the population?
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/allard_obama_spendorama.pdf
(A statement read on the floor of the United States Senate.)
The entire budget of the US Military is only $439 Billion dollars (2007). One possiblilty would be to dismantle the entire US Military just to pay for only a third of his identifiable expenditures. That's the kind of money Obama's talking aobut spending. You may be right about lower income taxes, but our overall tax burden will go up with Obama.
And, Polar Bear populations are not declining.
http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf (2008)
The rather long and tedioius report indicates that most of the studies of Polar bears have not followed scientific methods. The report concludes that while there are alot of uncertanties with regards to the long-term polar bear population trend (which is upward) which might cause concern to predict the continuing increase of populations, there was nothing indicated that the population is decreasing.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/polarbear.html
The problem with today's arena is that you will always have a source that you quote saying one thing, and someone else will always have a source that they quote that says something else. what you say is truth, I say is a lie, and what I say is truth, you say is a lie.
I could cite a source showing Palin in a flag bikini holding a rifle, but we both know its a lie with no intent other than to discredit and harm.
The reality is that the truth probably lies somewhere in between all of our arguments. And if there's one certainty about politics, it is that what we know today will change by next week.
Minds made up? Sheesh. We have the right to pick the candidate we think is qualified, and the polls show Sarah Palin does not make the American people feel comfortable with her lack of experience. Mayor? yes. Governor? Sure. VP? Hell no.
ReplyDeleteIronically, the sames principles you list are even more true for Democrats, except the part about religion...
a. Care about their family.
b. Care about their country.
c. Care about their religion. (not so much)
d. Care about women braking (breaking)through the glass ceiling.
e. Special needs families.
f. Energy independence (alternative fuels - not more drilling and polluting)
g. Our (Democratic) sons and daughters fighting for your independence.
If Ghandi was McCains running mate, I guarantee you the Dems would convert in large numbers... Ghandi has TONS of experience as a community organizer and would be way better qualified than Palin.
She also hates wolves and was a major proponent of the Bridge to nowhere: http://actionfund.defenders.org/palinvideo
ReplyDeleteAnd you continue to ignore the issues of taxes (other than income tax)and how much its going to cost all of us. What's the matter - can't count that high?
ReplyDeleteAnd you've got to be kidding. You want to extol "democratic" values of family, special needs families, and women while the liberal democratic machine, and yourself in your posts above, are continuing to besmerch, villanize and attack Gov. Palin for being a woman who chose to have a 5th child, when the child was known to have special needs.
You liberals are just incredible. [not in a good way] You want to hold up values and claim you have them even more than republicans, yet destroy a woman who holds and displays those same values. Do you not see the double standard you have?
Good god, if McCain kicks the bucket while in office and Palin is the President of the US, I think I'd have to move to the Middle East and join the Taliban.
ReplyDeleteOver the past few years I've noticed one major difference between liberals like you and conservatives - and I'm not talking about views on issues.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we [conservatives] just consider liberals to be Americans with a different view and opinion. And that's okay because that's what makes America great - that we can have those differences, even if they're big differences - those differences bring about change.
But liberals seem to think that conservatives are actually the enemy.
You'd leave America if McCain wins - what a line of BULL. But if you would, I'd send you money to help buy the one way ticket. But now you're like so many Hollywood celebs who've made the same claim. And even better, you'd join a islamic group to take up arms against NATO, the US and the governemnt of Afghanistan - where by the way your Senator Obama wants to send more US troops to defeat the Taliban.
You are the perfect Liberal, aren't you.
Keep in mind there are more than one "Anonymous" poster here. Anyone without a registered name is displayed this way.
ReplyDeleteLastly, citing biased sources and FOX news (ROFLMAO) are the sadest forms of reference for source material I have ever seen. Of course those sources support the right wing views you espouse.
Reason's I am voting for Mcain/Palin!
ReplyDelete1.Because she has a firm belief in God and has been redeemed by the blood of His one and only Son Jesus Christ. We need this type of person in one of the ultimate Servant/Leadership roles.
IE the People rejoice when the rightoues rule.
2.Because she holds that the unborn is priceless. That Abortion is Murder . IE Rape, insest, etc etc etc. The Baby had nothing to do with His/Her Comception, and does not deserve a death sentence.
3.Because she believes that America should be as energy independant as it can be.
4. Because she will stand with Israel in their time of need and not back down from terrorist.
Terrorist that want to Destroy not only Israel but America as well.
I am one of those that was not going to vote.. One of the ones that felt like Mcain was pushing away. Now with Sarah Palin on the ticket.. I have a place to put my Vote.
I Say God Bless Sarah Palin.. May she reamain strong under pressure and fullfill the call that God has placed on her life.
Mcain/Palin 08
Anonymous, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteReason's I am voting for Mcain/Palin!
1.Because she has a firm belief in ....
2.Because she holds that . . .
3.Because she believes that . . .
4. Because she will stand with . . . .
I notice your list only includes beliefs and opinions.
I was under the impression that the Palin is applying for a job -- and an important job at that. Why no skills on your list?
She is a joke.
ReplyDeletePalin won't even answer any questions. She sticks to a script. She is simply a puppet for McCain and the GOP.
Palin claims change? Change? What change? Backwards change?
Palin wants to push religion in schools. What happened to separation of church and state?
Did preaching "abstinence only" sex education help her daughter? Maybe if she had a sex ed class in school she would have known about birth control...
Pushing oil exploration has nothing to do with us being energy independent - the sources of oil would not even have an impact on prices for several decades, and would never go even part of the way to satisfying our energy demands. Only the uninformed ignorant masses buy into that Republican rhetoric - and even the majority of Republicans know that drilling wont solve any energy issues. (but it sure gives the republicans a ton of special interest money)
I see some change - the change I foresee if Palin was in office is women going back to illegal abortions if they are outlawed. The McCain-Palin campaign should have an emblem of a bent wire hanger in the middle signifying their stance.
Changing - our environmental laws back so Oil companies can profit and wildlife suffers.
Changing – the economy so we lose even more jobs? Obama and Biden have a plan and share the details – what do McCain and Palin propose? Yeah – the same old failed policies of the Bush administration.
Let's hear something of substance. Something... Anything... LOL
You can't make ice cream out of dog poo. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called "change" but it will still stink after four years...
We can't wait until Obama is President and Palin and McCain can drift off into obscurity -- where they belong.
Hey Fred! Watch these clips - you are gonna LOVE them. The first one speaks to your erroneous comment that Liberals have a double-standard...
ReplyDeleteFriggin hilarious!
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/04/daily-show-on-republ.html
And this one too! Priceless!
http://jezebel.com/5045887/the-daily-show-palin-is-able-to-make-the-choice-she-doesnt-really-want-other-people-to-have
You know what's funny, that people will go to such lengths to try to kick up dirt on Palin that they use headlines like "Palin has a problem with polar bears". I bet Palin has such a big problem with polar bears that she will start systematically exterminating them.
ReplyDeleteMy point is the Republican nomination ticket has made huge cuts into Obama's lead in the polls and the left is scrambling for anything they can use to reverse the shifting popularity trend of McCain/Palin. Also im not exactly sure where you are going with your creationism argument since the majority of Americans believe in some sort of theism as opposed to atheism
I bet Palin has such a big problem with polar bears that she will start systematically exterminating them. . .
ReplyDeleteI like that you get straight to the point.
The bottom line is that Palin supporters dont even know what she stands for. When you get into a discussion with Palin supporters about her stance on the issues they simply dont know what to say.
ReplyDeleteWhat is her stance on healthcare?
What is her stance on education? What is her stance on the deficit?
What is her stance on the Iraq war?
What is her stance on Russia?
What is her stance on North Korea or Iran?
Unemployment?
The economy?
Nuclear proliferation?
Global warming?
International trade?
Housing market?
Why won't she answer any questions... ???
Doesnt she believe in anything, or stand for anything?
Obama and Biden answer questions, and have a clear plan of action for each area and every important issues...
McCain made some major flubs in accepting the nomination.
ReplyDeleteWe checked the accuracy of McCain’s speech accepting the Republican nomination and noted the following:
McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.
McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.
He promised to increase use of "wind, tide [and] solar" energy, though his actual energy plan contains no new money for renewable energy. He has said elsewhere that renewable sources won’t produce as much as people think.
He called for "reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs," but as in the past failed to cite a single program that he would eliminate or reduce.
He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.
from Cleveland
ReplyDeleteOf course everyone has heard by now about the lip stick issue that was so important today.
Was it directed towards Palin?
I think it might have been. But here is the thing to keep in mind. The GOP was looking for anything to attack Obama with and they feel into a well constructed trap. All day they bitched and moaned... and it blew up in their faces.
And also... why didn't Palin have anything to say in her own deffense if the comment was against her?
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown voiced support on Wednesday for U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, saying he would help Americans struggling with an economic downturn.
ReplyDeleteIn a move seen by some British media as breaching a political convention requiring foreign leaders to remain neutral ahead of U.S. elections, Brown praised Obama as a fellow "progressive politician" who would help ordinary Americans in tough times.
Brown described the race for the White House as "electrifying" and said: "It is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times."
A BBC poll of 22 countries around the world on Wednesday showed that all would prefer to see Obama elected U.S. president ahead of McCain. In 17 of the 22, people expect relations between the United States and the rest of the world to improve if Obama wins.
Fred Said:
ReplyDelete>Anonymous, you make my point. Oil in Alaska has absolutely nothing
>to do with Biden. It was you who made the point that Alaska was the
>47th state by population. Who cares, its a meaningless fact other than
>your attempt to dismiss Palin because she comes from the 47th least
>populous state. My point was that Biden comes from the 45th least
>populous state. So what. BOTH VP candidates come from VERY small
>states. So quit using useless facts to make a point that has no point, or
>that you won't hold your candidates to the same standard.
Anon: Actually, I was speaking directly in retort to McCain’s comments – specifically that his phrasing exaggerates both claims. When he says it’s the, “largest state” it “sounds” like it’s a big responsibility – when we all know in relative terms it is not. Biden however, never made such a claim to dispute. My use of the term was valid and relevant in its use.
Fred Said:
>Okay, sources are relevant. Looks like several of your facts are, in
>fact, lies, or at best stretches.
>
>You were actually doing quite well in defense of your previous list of
>arguments, until you decided to mix in the pack of lies the bloggers
>are spreading. Just couldn't stick to the facts that you can defend and
>you had to jump on the bash Palin at all costs bandwagon. Making you
>look intelligentlly stupid.
>
>Lie #1 Alaska Secesseionist Party
>Lie #2 Palin wants to teach Creationism
>Lie #3 Palin Opposes Sex Education
>
>Source:
>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-
>untruths-about-sarah-palin/#comment-606358
>(the article lists additional substantiating sources)
Anon: Fred, you are referencing FOX news – a blatantly anti-liberal propaganda machine – not credible information. We all know this, and you do too. My comments I can attest in this particular case are in no way politically motivated. The bias of FOX news has been well documented since the early 2000s and before as described here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
Additionally, here is some info from the LA Times supporting the claim she was indeed a member of the secessionist party:
“…The McCain campaign denies that Palin ever joined the AIP. But while it is in dispute whether she attended its 1994 convention, she did visit the 2000 one and addressed AIP conventions in 2006 and 2008. Her husband, Todd, was a registered AIP member from 1995 to 2002, and the AIP leadership certainly considers her one of their own.
Video footage shows AIP Vice Chairman Dexter Clark describing Palin at the 2007 North American Secessionist Convention as an "AIP member before she got the job as a mayor of a small town -- that was a nonpartisan job. But you get along to go along. She eventually joined the Republican Party, where she had all kinds of problems with their ethics, and well, I won't go into that." (No need to. The Alaska Legislature's ethics investigators are on the case.) Apparently with Palin in mind, Clark then went on to urge AIP members to "infiltrate" the major parties…”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks4-2008sep04,0,5675222.column
>Fred Said: And I gave you income taxes. I'm sure Obama will cut income
>taxes as you, and he, have indicated. But you completely sidestepped
>my point on the issue of taxes on everything else.
>
>Do you honestly believe that Obama can pay for the hundreds of billions
>of dollars, and even "trillion" of dollars of new programs by raising
>income taxes on 5% of the population?
>http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/allard_obama_spendorama.pdf
>(A statement read on the floor of the United States Senate.)
>
>The entire budget of the US Military is only $439 Billion dollars (2007).
>One possiblilty would be to dismantle the entire US Military just to pay
>for only a third of his identifiable expenditures. That's the kind of
>money Obama's talking aobut spending. You may be right about lower
>income taxes, but our overall tax burden will go up with Obama.
>
Anon: You are incorrect on both counts – and thirdly grossly off on military spending. My point was, as illustrated in my post, that we would have all the benefits of the increased spending of Obama’s plans, AND ninety five percent of all Americans would have a higher income, AND – get this – AT THE SAME TIME - we would have a lower deficit than with McCain. This was clearly indicated by my earlier post of the following – how McCain would create more debt than Obama:
“…Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion….”
As to the military budget – there is a huge difference between a budget and what is spent. For example, “current military” spending really includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget’s misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the “war on terror.” “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.
>Fred Said: And, Polar Bear populations are not declining.
>http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/PolBears.pdf (2008)
>The rather long and tedioius report indicates that most of the studies
>of Polar bears have not followed scientific methods. The report
>concludes that while there are alot of uncertanties with regards to the
>long-term polar bear population trend (which is upward) which might
>cause concern to predict the continuing increase of populations, there
>was nothing indicated that the population is decreasing.
>http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/polarbear.html
Anon: Again, I must disagree. While the site you are referring to is one educational institution, the global and international community supports the claim:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
Fred Said:
>The problem with today's arena is that you will always have a source
>that you quote saying one thing, and someone else will always have a
>source that they quote that says something else. what you say is truth,
>I say is a lie, and what I say is truth, you say is a lie.
>
>I could cite a source showing Palin in a flag bikini holding a rifle, but
>we both know its a lie with no intent other than to discredit and harm.
>
>The reality is that the truth probably lies somewhere in between all of
>our arguments. And if there's one certainty about politics, it is that
>what we know today will change by next week.
Anon: I appreciate this somewhat equal view to “agree to disagree” – and the fact that you did not resort to any type of overly angry attacks in your commentary. The values of freedom of speech are of course some of the things that make the US a great nation.
sarah palin is by far the biggest idiot ever to run for vp.
ReplyDeleteher lack of interest in the enviornment is unbelievable.
we need someone with a voice who will improve our enviornment.not destroy the things left on it.
she is selfish and power hungrey.0
Not only she killing polar bears, she's also trying to get rid of the wolves!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDeletesarah palin is by far the biggest idiot ever to run for vp.
her lack of interest in the enviornment is unbelievable.
we need someone with a voice who will improve our enviornment.not destroy the things left on it.
she is selfish and power hungry.
I completely and totally agree! If she REALLY wanted to be president... well... I guess she would like... get a lobotomy or something. But she's stupid, power hungry, and arrogant. I'm glad Obama was elected.
♥ Zetricon