Why do you hate Sarah Palin?

[JMohegan]

My understanding is that she cut property taxes. So basically, the feds (everyone else) pays for Alaskan social services and job subsidies, Alaskans get a fat check back, the place still functions somewhat simply by dint of having a *small population* and the governor is seen as so very rational and reasonable when she trashes cultural projects and social services projects for people with brain injuries and for vets. (it's in there mm mmm)

She's simply doing something that you CAN NOT do in NY, DE, MN, AZ or any other state. Duh. Well, you can and you do, but up the scale and it becomes a total impossibility to say "nah, we don't need that money for anything."

Duh is right.

Talking about property taxes shifts the discussion from her record as governor to her record as mayor. Which I'm happy to do! Because again, there's no evidence of Palin being fiscally conservative in that role.

"As mayor, she helped persuade Wasilla voters to approve the single largest government facility it has ever had: a $15 million indoor recreational sports arena. In 2002, voters narrowly agreed to raise the city sales tax a half percent to pay for it. They knew a good chunk of the bill would be paid by people who live in the rapidly growing areas outside the city limits. Wasilla was then and still is the commercial center for the most rapidly growing area of the state.

Wasilla's sports arena was supposed to pay for itself, but last year, it still required an annual taxpayer subsidy of about $150,000.

When Palin was mayor, Wasilla's population was steadily growing, and she presided over steadily growing city budgets. At the same time, though, she was able to cut property taxes. That's because the city's sales tax collections grew as the area's record-breaking growth continued.

Wasilla's operating budget was $6 million the year Sarah Palin was elected (1996); the year she left (2002), it had grown by 50 percent to $9 million. The city's sales tax, thanks to purchases by residents outside the city limits, have allowed Wasilla to enjoy government amenities without big property tax bills." Source.




As an aside, and referencing the discussion about the intelligence of small town people on a different thread, I think you'll like this piece.

 

[CutieMouse]

*growl*

That sort of 'hunting' (I hate to call it that) fiercely pisses me off. And it's not like the wolf population is strong enough nationwide to support such wholesale slaughter.

As if I needed more reasons to note vote for that ticket

Pesky logical girl that I am, I watched the ad and wanted to know if there was a reason for offering a bounty on wolves... coming from someone not feeling all that impressed with the candidate, BTW

Apparently air hunting of wolves has a long (often controversial) history in Alaska. (I only spent about 5 minutes Googling this, and wasn't able to find current regulations/statutes) As I suspected, air hunting (which I agree, doesn't seem very sporting) has been used to manage wolf populations, which impact moose/caribou/yadayadayada populations. On the surface, it does indeed look like a bad episode of redneck gone wild, and I haven't completely sorted out my feelings on the whole thing, but I tend to take all political ads with a grain of salt.

 

[JMohegan]

*growl*

That sort of 'hunting' (I hate to call it that) fiercely pisses me off. And it's not like the wolf population is strong enough nationwide to support such wholesale slaughter.

As if I needed more reasons to note vote for that ticket

Palin calls this "predator control," and claims it's positive for the state because fewer wolves mean more moose and caribou for Alaskan "sportsmen" to shoot.

Biologists disagree with Palin, asserting that the herds are plentiful and the slaughter totally unnecessary. They are fiercely pissed off too.

But, you know those elitist scientists. Such pussies! Always getting in the way of "real toughness and grit."

 

[SierraMoon]

GOP vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin cancels Silicon Valley visit
By Mary Anne Ostrom
Mercury News
Article Launched: 09/18/2008 05:52:36 PM PDT

Sarah Palin has canceled her two-day swing through California next week, including a huge fundraiser in Santa Clara, the McCain campaign said Thursday.

Citing her "fluid" schedule and a trip to New York City to meet with world leaders attending the U.N. General Assembly, McCain spokesman Rick Gorka said the decision was made to cancel her West Coast trip. He said there are discussions about possibly rescheduling fundraisers in Santa Clara and Orange counties in early October, but that it was too early to set any firm dates.

More than 1,000 people had RSVP'd for the Silicon Valley fundraiser, forcing organizers to move the lunchtime event, originally scheduled for Thursday, from the garden of Tom and Stacey Siebel's Woodside home to the Santa Clara Convention Center.

Palin also was to appear at a large Orange County fundraiser that evening and hold a rally the next day where more than 15,000 people were expected.

But a Field Poll released earlier this week found that while Palin had helped McCain solidify support among his GOP base in California, the ticket had made no inroads among independent voters, a key bloc the GOP needs to win to be competitive in California. Among likely voters, the Barack Obama-Joe Biden ticket has a 16-percentage-point advantage over the Republicans.

National polls released Thursday show Obama has taken a slight lead over McCain, the first time since the end of the national conventions. They are tied
Advertisement
in several key swing states, including Wisconsin and Florida. Another poll showed that a majority of women voters were flipping back to Obama, a sign the Palin momentum may be wearing off.

Gorka could not say where Palin would go instead of California late next week. This week, McCain and Palin are campaigning in Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Gorka said the decision to send Palin elsewhere next week was not influenced by the polls.

It's a scheduling thing," he said. He noted the campaign was thrilled about the enthusiasm her visit had generated in California in terms of fundraising and new volunteers.

He acknowledged Californians expecting to get their first glimpse of Palin since she was named McCain's running mate might be disappointed.

"Folks always want to see her. We don't want to cause any disappointment. We want to get her in front of as many Americans as we can."

She would have been in my backyard!!!!!! This really disappoints me.

 

[CutieMouse]

Palin calls this "predator control," and claims it's positive for the state because fewer wolves mean more moose and caribou for Alaskan "sportsmen" to shoot.

Biologists disagree with Palin, asserting that the herds are plentiful and the slaughter totally unnecessary. They are fiercely pissed off too.

But, you know those elitist scientists. Such pussies! Always getting in the way of "real toughness and grit."

See yeah - that's the sort of thing I'd need to research from both sides before making a judgment call on that ad.

 

[00Syd]

Palin calls this "predator control," and claims it's positive for the state because fewer wolves mean more moose and caribou for Alaskan "sportsmen" to shoot.

Biologists disagree with Palin, asserting that the herds are plentiful and the slaughter totally unnecessary. They are fiercely pissed off too.

But, you know those elitist scientists. Such pussies! Always getting in the way of "real toughness and grit."

Thats why I'm a fan of Teddy Roosevelt. He was ALL toughness and grit, loved few things more than hunting, but he still understood the need to preserve the wildlife that he so admired and enjoyed so that future generations could enjoy it too.

 

[JMohegan]

Pesky logical girl that I am, I watched the ad and wanted to know if there was a reason for offering a bounty on wolves... coming from someone not feeling all that impressed with the candidate, BTW

Apparently air hunting of wolves has a long (often controversial) history in Alaska. (I only spent about 5 minutes Googling this, and wasn't able to find current regulations/statutes) As I suspected, air hunting (which I agree, doesn't seem very sporting) has been used to manage wolf populations, which impact moose/caribou/yadayadayada populations. On the surface, it does indeed look like a bad episode of redneck gone wild, and I haven't completely sorted out my feelings on the whole thing, but I tend to take all political ads with a grain of salt.

Taking political ads with a grain of salt is a very good thing. If you can find a study from reputable scientists claiming that the sustainability of the moose & caribou herds in Alaska is threatened, and that the slaughter of wolves is necessary to prevent their demise, I would be happy to read it and consider altering my view.

As an aside, though, please keep in mind that this ad was not funded by the Obama campaign. There are people who actually vote Republican because they believe the absurd notion that the Democrats want to take away their right to hunt and fish in places like Nowhere, Montana. That's asinine, but the NRA has been very successful at distorting the issue and influencing votes. For this reason, the Obama campaign would never run an ad like the one to which I linked. That ad was put up by the Defender's of Wildlife group.

 

[Molniya]

Thats why I'm a fan of Teddy Roosevelt. He was ALL toughness and grit, loved few things more than hunting, but he still understood the need to preserve the wildlife that he so admired and enjoyed so that future generations could enjoy it too.

But if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would not be a Republican. He would be apalled at the way his party has thrown out so many of it's former core values to become a wholly owned subsidiary of big buisness.

 

[bambikiller]

She got my vote when she said she was a life time NRA member.

You are wrong to think hunters think the Dems want to take away our rights.
I hunt with some Dems, but Obama sure wants to take them away look at his voting record what little there is.

 

[00Syd]

But if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would not be a Republican. He would be apalled at the way his party has thrown out so many of it's former core values to become a wholly owned subsidiary of big buisness.

Yes, that's likely. Same with Lincoln. Its very irritating that the Republicans can claim these greats when their ideals are so opposite to them.

 

[JMohegan]

Thats why I'm a fan of Teddy Roosevelt. He was ALL toughness and grit, loved few things more than hunting, but he still understood the need to preserve the wildlife that he so admired and enjoyed so that future generations could enjoy it too.

I am a firm advocate of hunting to put dinner on the table, as long as the hunting methods are not unnecessarily cruel and the sustainability of wild populations is not threatened.

Compared to the way livestock is treated on most factory farms in this country, I'd say that putting a bullet through the head of deer is a whole hell of a lot more humane.

 

[graceanne]

Yeah, I'll go with this one. I dont hate her, I just dont think she's right for the job, for one. And secondly, I dont like the lies intentional or otherwise - the bridge to nowhere, and I dont like what I've seen of her management skills: leaving her town in debt, wanting to start a transparency program that's already in effect, making rape victims pay for their own rape kits. I think choosing her has cheapened the whole "circus" in that it was almost like.. "John, just pick someone for VP, anyone with boobs and a vagina will do, but pick a cute one."

Yeah, that's pretty much what K and I think happened. We also think they chose a woman with no experience cause they think she'll be easier to boss around or something. (Not that I necessarily think theirs a coloration, but that does remind me of how Hitler rose to power - the powers that be thought they could control him.)

All in all, K and I are probably going to vote on an independent ticket this time.

 

[JMohegan]

She got my vote when she said she was a life time NRA member.

You are wrong to think hunters think the Dems want to take away our rights.
I hunt with some Dems, but Obama sure wants to take them away look at his voting record what little there is.

Please give specific examples, with links to reputable sources, to support your claim that Obama's voting record demonstrates opposition to the rights of hunters.

 

[WriterDom]

Please give specific examples, with links to reputable sources, to support your claim that Obama's voting record demonstrates opposition to the rights of hunters.

http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/Obama_Brochure.pdf

Are we talking about the same Obama that the NRA says would be the most anti-gun President in American history?

 

[graceanne]

Obama on the issues:

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 8:
Death Penalty
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(0 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(+2 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the armed forces
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
US out of Iraq
(+2 points on Social scale)

Why the issues aren't in chronological order, I don't know.

 

[graceanne]

http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/Obama_Brochure.pdf

Are we talking about the same Obama that the NRA says would be the most anti-gun President in American history?

As much as I'm pro-nra, a liberal is not going to consider the NRA a reputable source.

 

[Homburg]

Pesky logical girl that I am, I watched the ad and wanted to know if there was a reason for offering a bounty on wolves... coming from someone not feeling all that impressed with the candidate, BTW

Apparently air hunting of wolves has a long (often controversial) history in Alaska. (I only spent about 5 minutes Googling this, and wasn't able to find current regulations/statutes) As I suspected, air hunting (which I agree, doesn't seem very sporting) has been used to manage wolf populations, which impact moose/caribou/yadayadayada populations. On the surface, it does indeed look like a bad episode of redneck gone wild, and I haven't completely sorted out my feelings on the whole thing, but I tend to take all political ads with a grain of salt.

Moose and caribou hunting is big business in Alaska, and they run safari style vacations for hunters akin to those you read about in Africa. Hunting tourism is serious coin for those areas. That said, it's remarkable how competent nature is at balancing the predator/prey population. When there are too many wolves, the herds thin, food gets scarce, and the wolf population drops as a result. The oppsite is true where the caribou overpopulate due to lack of wolves. The you have sickly caribou, disease, overgrazing (which is highly damaging to the environment), an dcaribou moving outside their normal ranges. This results in hunters taking more caribou, but they're sickly, crappy bou. Who wants that? Oh, yeah, weak hunters that spend their coin and want a head for the wall and a story for their squash buddies.

Alaska has a LONG history of wolf abuse. It's cheap to put a bounty on wolves, and it appears to have an impact on herd populations. But most conscientous hunters consider it a bad thing for the reasons mentioned above.

And, yes, I am biased. I want predators in the wild. I consider wolves to be a good thing, same with bears, cougars, etc. Fucking factory hunters and video-game style flyover slaughterers piss me off. At least have the balls and respect to go out and hunt for real. Take your chances. Be a hunter, not a killer.

--

Palin calls this "predator control," and claims it's positive for the state because fewer wolves mean more moose and caribou for Alaskan "sportsmen" to shoot.

Biologists disagree with Palin, asserting that the herds are plentiful and the slaughter totally unnecessary. They are fiercely pissed off too.

But, you know those elitist scientists. Such pussies! Always getting in the way of "real toughness and grit."

Sportsmen are uptight assholes. Hunters are better.

--

Ful disclosure: I do not hunt. I am not against the concept, but I don't take part. Has something to do with my aversion to getting up at 330am, going out in the cold, and sitting in a tree stand all day. Not my idea of fun. I do respect it, and love it when the folks I know that do hunt decide to get generous with the game meat.

 

[00Syd]

As much as I'm pro-nra, a liberal is not going to consider the NRA a reputable source.

True that. Biased much?

 

[WriterDom]

As much as I'm pro-nra, a liberal is not going to consider the NRA a reputable source.

He gets graded on how he votes. Lifetime F. Of course McCain isn't much better.

I'm far more interested in how someone has voted in the past rather than what they or their website says.

 

[graceanne]

He gets graded on how he votes. Lifetime F. Of course McCain isn't much better.

I'm far more interested in how someone has voted in the past rather than what they or their website says.

I agree. I won't be voting for either, but when a liberal asks for a specific examples, from reputable sources, citing the NRA isn't going to win you the argument.

 

[CutieMouse]

Taking political ads with a grain of salt is a very good thing. If you can find a study from reputable scientists claiming that the sustainability of the moose & caribou herds in Alaska is threatened, and that the slaughter of wolves is necessary to prevent their demise, I would be happy to read it and consider altering my view.

As an aside, though, please keep in mind that this ad was not funded by the Obama campaign. There are people who actually vote Republican because they believe the absurd notion that the Democrats want to take away their right to hunt and fish in places like Nowhere, Montana. That's asinine, but the NRA has been very successful at distorting the issue and influencing votes. For this reason, the Obama campaign would never run an ad like the one to which I linked. That ad was put up by the Defender's of Wildlife group.

I never even looked at who was behind the ad; although if I were to seriously study it, I'd be following the money trail before making any decisions... old old old habit from my [L]activist days.

From the brief skim of the document I linked, it appears that wolf relocation programs have been very successful in maintaining the balance of nature, which makes me wonder why air hunting was brought back. I also don't think an ad needs to be produced by one campaign or another to count as a "political ad" - there are a zillion and one special interest groups wanting to sway the public's opinion one way or the other, which [unfortunately] means jacking up the skepticism-meter.

 

[Homburg]

Thats why I'm a fan of Teddy Roosevelt. He was ALL toughness and grit, loved few things more than hunting, but he still understood the need to preserve the wildlife that he so admired and enjoyed so that future generations could enjoy it too.

TR was a Progressive first and foremost, and split far from the republican party of the day. To say that he would not be a republican today is the understatement of the decade. He'd probably wind up in fisticuffs with some of them.

--

But if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would not be a Republican. He would be apalled at the way his party has thrown out so many of it's former core values to become a wholly owned subsidiary of big buisness.

Ain't this the truth!!

--

Yes, that's likely. Same with Lincoln. Its very irritating that the Republicans can claim these greats when their ideals are so opposite to them.

Well, take a gander at the democrats of the past and see the opposite effect. There are quite a few dems of old that the party would like to sweep under the rug. Both parties have swung from their roots.

--

She got my vote when she said she was a life time NRA member.

You are wrong to think hunters think the Dems want to take away our rights.
I hunt with some Dems, but Obama sure wants to take them away look at his voting record what little there is.

You're kidding, right? Tell me that you're kidding. I'm an NRA Life member. Would you vote for me?

--

http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/Obama_Brochure.pdf

Are we talking about the same Obama that the NRA says would be the most anti-gun President in American history?

C'mon, WD, the NRA has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the republicans these days. The repubs aren't aggressively pursuing gun rights, they're just sitting around leaving them be, and the NRA still touts them as champions. When Brady came around, the repubs still rolled over and passed it. Oh, yeah, they made a valourous stand when the dems were tepidly grandstanding over the brady bill dying. The dems weren't even serious about that, and the repubs had to put up a token defense, for which the NRA positively creamed. Weak.

The pendulum has swung, and most intelligent democrat candidates know to at least keep their mouth shut on guns. If Obama has a brain in his head he'll leave that issue alone, and keep from pissing off the democrat hunters and gun-owners, swing voters, and moderate repubs he's courting. Messing with guns is politically untenable.

 

[WriterDom]

I'm still waiting for the mandatory democrat hunting trip. Think Obama has ever fired a gun before? Maybe Cheney will take him quail hunting.

 

[JMohegan]

http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/Obama_Brochure.pdf

Are we talking about the same Obama that the NRA says would be the most anti-gun President in American history?

WD, I asked about Obama's record regarding the rights of hunters. Obama's record on concealed carry, handguns, and so on, relate to his efforts to reduce the deaths of human beings in densely populated urban areas such as Chicago. It has nothing to do with an attempt to deprive you of your right to head out and shoot game for supper.

Graceanne is right. I do not consider the NRA to be a reputable source. Here's an example of the distortions and scare tactics they use.

The NRA pamphlet to which you've linked proclaims: "Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. United States Senate, S.397, vote 217, 7/29/05." Yet, as you can see here, that was actually a vote on "Kennedy Amdt. No. 1615; To expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and for other purposes."

The full text of that amendment was as follows:

SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.

(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.

``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.

``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm still waiting for the mandatory democrat hunting trip. Think Obama has ever fired a gun before? Maybe Cheney will take him quail hunting.

He grew up in Hawaii, remember?

Spearfishing is what he liked to do.