Last updated 10:29 a.m. PDT
GOP presidential candidate John McCain today announced that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be his running mate in the race against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. McCain's official announcement of his veep pick declares, "Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent."
Here are some quick snapshots of Palin's record on issues related to energy and the environment:
- Opposed a statewide ballot initiative to prohibit or restrict new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state's streams and rivers
- Has pushed to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope
- Got the state legislature to pass a bill to provide each Alaskan $1,200 to help with energy costs
- Sued the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species
- Has proposed eliminating Alaska's gas tax
- Has pushed to open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling
- Has created a committee to forge Alaska's climate-change strategy, and has made Alaska an observer (but not a member) of the Western Climate Initiative
- Opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies
- Was the ethics commissioner of the Alaska Gas and Oil Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004
- Lifelong angler and hunter
- Husband is an oil production operator for BP on Alaska's North Slope
- Started Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, an oversight and maintenance agency for the state's oil and gas equipment, facilities, and infrastructure
- Chairs the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a multistate panel "that promotes the conservation and efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas resources while protecting health, safety and the environment"
- Believes intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in science classes
Quotable quotes from Palin:
When I look every day, the big oil company's building is right out there next to me, and it's quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry.
Alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop.
I believe in protecting Alaska's environment through fair enforcement of our environmental laws. Having a clean record on environmental regulation is critical to getting ANWR open and maintaining our fisheries, mining, timber, and tourism industries.
I am not only a champion for Alaska’s fishing industry, but a part of it. My family is proud to be a Bristol Bay fishing family. That’s why, as Governor I will do what’s right for Alaska’s fishing communities. I know the resource must come first in our management decisions. If we manage for abundance, we should have enough fish for all our needs.
We believe that the ... decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
I am encouraged with [John McCain's] evolved thinking on offshore drilling, and I think he might come along on ANWR if he sees our 2,000 acres for himself.
I get frustrated with folks from outside Alaska who come up and say, "You shouldn't develop your resources."
We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact. We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress -- and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.
I thought when we hit $100 a barrel for oil it would have been a psychological barrier that would have caused Congress to reconsider, but they didn't. Now we are approaching $200 a barrel. It's nonsense not to tap a safe domestic source of oil. I think Americans need to hold Congress accountable on this one.
A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made.
I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.
Reactions to the pick:
Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton:
Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil, and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.
Sierra Club President Carl Pope:
With the pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his running mate, John McCain's race towards the Bush administration's failed energy policy is now complete.
John McCain was once willing to stand up to his own party, but now that he is running for President, he supports the same Bush policies and powerful special interests that put us in the grip of the oil companies. One of the last remaining independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding Big Oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts.
...
Senator McCain has lost any chance of having a balanced or moderate ticket with this choice and has instead opted for the same, business-as-usual reliance on the outdated oil companies that has been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney administration. On the third anniversary of the hurricane that knocked loose oil rigs and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf Coast that is bracing for another hit, McCain is sending a terribly indifferent message by selecting a candidate who only repeats Big Oil's talking points.
Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder:
Sarah Palin's record is not extensive -- just two years ago she was the mayor of a city of less than 10,000 people -- but what her record indicates is troubling. This spring, she opposed the listing of polar bears as a 'threatened' species. She supports the brutal aerial hunting of wolves. And she has been a friend of Big Oil, opposing a windfall profits tax on the oil industry that could fund affordable clean energy for more Americans. Palin's husband works for BP.
League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski:
Unfortunately, with her support for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and off our coasts, Governor Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration and their Big Oil friends -- policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil.
Governor Palin characterizes McCain’s flip-flop on drilling offshore as a positive step in his transformation from maverick to Big Oil's best friend. She has implored McCain to change his position against drilling in the Arctic -- something she will have plenty of opportunities to pursue as his running mate.
In addition to supporting backward-looking energy policies, Governor Palin has also opposed a crucial clean water initiative, sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and opposed other important wildlife protection measures.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Palin’s book spreads falsehoods about clean energy legislation
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 2:01 am
29 Aug 2008
Check the ex-brother-in-law scandal in the family woodpile. Still under investigation by the state.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/8/29/ ...
Can't wait to see Palin debating foreign policy and national security with Joe Biden.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:02 am
29 Aug 2008
The most significant achievement is the natural gas pipeline.
Fuel cells consuming natural gas can eliminate the burning problems of hydrocarbons and replace them with natural reactions leaving just water and needed energy.
Sarah Palin may have already saved the world, and was looking good while doing it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 am
29 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:32 am
29 Aug 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:39 am
29 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 2:42 am
29 Aug 2008
How exactly does natural gas (even if used in a fuel cell) not qualify as a hydrocarbon? What are these "natural reactions" of which you speak (even a fuel cell converts CH4 --> CO2 and H2O, in part through reformation and in part electrolytically). And what mass balance are you using that takes leaves only water and energy from a fuel source that includes carbon?
Natural gas is clearly better than coal from an environmental perspective, but suggesting that it will save the planet is no more accurate than suggesting that giving up hamburgers for bison-burgers makes you a vegetarian.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:47 am
29 Aug 2008
Does nuke..you..ler work better in test audiences? It's got to be some sort of advertising/brainwashing research study.
Oh now you can shatter that glass ceiling women! So she says.
Get two more supreme court justices appointed who want to put your reproductive rights back into the evangelical taliban era?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:01 am
29 Aug 2008
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:10 am
29 Aug 2008
palin = disposable candidate
already our landfills are crowded with symbolism. the world wants to know, is palin plastic or cardboard? is she recyclable?
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:11 am
29 Aug 2008
So if we're going to get linguistically bent out of shape, let's not get too comfterbull in our glass house, even if it is nukular powered.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:35 am
29 Aug 2008
Haaaaahhhhhhahahahahaaaaahahahaa.... McCain... please stop it... you're killing me!
"That's not change we can believe in."
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:37 am
29 Aug 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:45 am
29 Aug 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Russ Posted 4:05 am
29 Aug 2008
And I get frustrated that Alaskans are such a bunch of federally subsidized freeloaders, getting $2-5+ (depending on the measure) for every $1 they pay. (I come from NJ, one of the biggest sap cash-cow states.)
And I get frustrated that all Alaskans get this fat dividend check from fossil fuels drilled mostly on federal land. Those proceeds belong to all of us.
And I get frustrated at all Westerners who have this attitude of an aggressive beggar - GIMMIE MONEY! NOW! BUT DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW TO LIVE! DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Will somebody tell these yahoos once and for all, federal land does not belong to them. It belongs to the country.
Believes intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in science classes
I hadn't known before she was one of these.
This kind of Dark Age flat-earthism is empirical evidence that one is just a cretin.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:50 am
29 Aug 2008
Oh yeah, a native cretin. The error was prouncing it nuclea.. at first. Her programming slipped, stepford wife?
I'm with you wisci, Cheney's brain was implanted in a replica robot stepford wife body.
Well sure ken, of course the CIA got the dictionaries changed. No surprise there. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:00 am
29 Aug 2008
Turns out it's pure sychophantry in her case. Why else would she correct it to the wrong pronounciation? It's obvious she knows how it's really pronounced.
Wouldn't want to make bush look stupid. Same with creationism. If she didn't believe it, that would make nush and maybe her hubby, look stupid?
The emporer might be naked, but she's not going to let on. What a perfect puppet for the neoconmen to manipulate. Maybe better than duuhbya himself, she can read and talk.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ckmotorka Posted 6:01 am
29 Aug 2008
Permalink
RuthB Posted 6:38 am
29 Aug 2008
OBAMA/BIDEN 2008 I can see the poll numbers rising Obama already. :-D
Permalink
Brittanicus Posted 7:00 am
29 Aug 2008
Before the new President even thinks of contemplating any form of guest worker program. He had better realize that their will not be a 'Path to Citizenship' in the package deal. It will be a straight working visa and return home afterwards. If any person wants to apply for legal residents, they had better understand that they must return home first. There must not be any short cuts, because thousands of bona fide immigrants wait patiently for years to enter America.
What do you think as caused the massive budget meltdown and escalating unemployment in California?
Let's face it confronting the huge budget deficit, brought upon the people of California from 'Sanctuary city' policies and allowing illegal aliens access to state, county and city welfare programs has caused a major disaster. Now Arnold and the state morons must look for other means to extract taxes and dollar bills from property owners to keep overcrowded schools running , the free health care (illegal alien) system and make room in the also overburdened prisons.
The assembly is overrun with Latino radicals who reserve the right, to allow the influx of as many illegal third world country cheap labor force that can spirit into the border states. Arnold seems to have lost his way, or been intimidated by the Democratic-Liberal-Socialist makeup in Sacramento's assembly.
Get rid of the open-borders criminals, including the Governors, Mayors , city Administrators and all those who out to appease the illegal immigrant advocates.
80 percent of the American population are NOT easily going to be swayed, by either Obama, McCain to give the 13 to 20 million illegal aliens any kind of Amnesty.? By any name they want to call it? It has to be voted by house, Senate, and THE PEOPLE and that will have major hurdles, if not impossible?
Everybody who doesn't have the right papers, know they are intentionally breaking the law. Their is no malice by the agents; just a duty to the American people and those who came here legally.
The 'Rule of Law" must be observed by every person in the United States. LAUREL, Miss, a manufacturing plant where 600 illegal aliens were arrested this week, shows the abnormality of the problem? The federal agents declined how many agents were involved in the raid, but said they acted on a tip provided by a union worker.
You cannot tell me for one minute, that the CEO, Directors on mahogany row didn't know about the illegal workers? Ice has a Tipline: 1-866-DHS-2ICE for intelligence to locate illegal aliens, or predatory businesses that employ them. If we can only pass the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) that Democrats are trying to keep away from the public eye.
Its funding will build a massive force of interior ICE agents, including 20.000 border patrol enforcement to root out the culprits. The E-verify data base that is 90.5 percent effective. NUMBERSUSA, CAPSWEB
Permalink
margi Posted 7:01 am
29 Aug 2008
This comment is absolutely horrifying to me. There will be no hope of dealing with global climate change if McCain and Palin take over the white house. I don't want to even imagine...
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 7:34 am
29 Aug 2008
This obvious pandering to the Clinton camp voters and trying to win over voters with a woman candidate should only fool people with one brain cell.
And he picked someone with no experience or knowledge because he feels threatened with an experienced running mate that people would probably prefer over him.
"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 7:50 am
29 Aug 2008
This is a person with a B.A. degree. In journalism. Her primary executive-leadership experience is being mayor of a small town in our least-populated state.
Please tell me this is a joke. Has Palin ever traveled outside of the USA? Does she know where Macau is located? Does she understand U.S. Constitutional law? Does she understand U.S. history?
Man, this will be interesting seeing her go head-to-head with VP candidate Biden.
Permalink
solarwind Posted 7:53 am
29 Aug 2008
At this stage, I would hope that saying a comment like this would be political suicide and that both the right and the left would jump all over it. Hell, even the Bush administration had finally conceded that the 6-point-whatever-billion of us on the planet burning fossil-fuels at an unprecedented rate has accelerated global warming. Geez...
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 8:01 am
29 Aug 2008
(yes, I am a word nerd and I heart the On Language column.)
Stephanie
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:54 am
29 Aug 2008
Particularly the pic on the right
Permalink
racc Posted 9:55 am
29 Aug 2008
High taxes is merely a marketing strategy created by right wingers to create some kind of relevance for themselves to invent a reason for people to vote for them. Radio talk show hosts are making millions off people like you.
Creating pain, discomfort and anger in people who really have everything they need and then some seems to have worked out rather well for neo cons.
And Brittanicus, for all your "rule of law" bluster, how many times have you driven over the speed limit or broken a traffic law potentially endangering yourself.
I suggest you look inwards for solutions to whatever your anger is and stop blaming hardworking people without much money. Or at least take up a hobby or drinking or whatever does it for you.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:19 am
29 Aug 2008
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47446064@N00/2810047856/
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:33 am
29 Aug 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:36 am
29 Aug 2008
Anti Gay
Pro NRA
Doesn't acknowledge that global warming exists
Huge ties to Oil companies
I swear, it's like she's James Inhofe with Breasts.
http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/8/inhofe.jpg
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:38 am
29 Aug 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:45 pm
29 Aug 2008
She is beauty, and strength and being a girl, a leader, woman, and a parent. She is the real aching and striving of the American Female, not the false anti-septic or masculinized version of said concocted by Betty Friedan and Camille Paglia and Andrea Dworkin -- but the real thing, the one that misses really want to be: Governor, homemaker, Cosmo Girl, Loyal Wife and Lover, Madonna rock star, minvan driver and light of the community and so much more...
She is growth, fecundity. She that real Goddess that you Lefto-Greenoes are always going on about in "Myths and Literature" class 201 in the Religion department. But then, all you wizened, dried up old hippies don't like growth. If you could you'd get every pine tree to line up perfectly, and never reproduce, never mess up your "Nature" with pine cones and little saplings. You'd fix the population of polar bears at 54,321. If one extra was born, you'd sacrifice another for the sake of "sustainability".
But that's not how Nature operates.
Obama receives news about McCain VP pic
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:13 pm
29 Aug 2008
she's all the more pretty for her power, no, jabailo?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:04 pm
29 Aug 2008
Permalink
randino Posted 12:04 am
30 Aug 2008
(1) Don't be so ready to take postings off the front page of the site. Not everything you replace them with is all that earth shattering or valuable. Sometimes I think Grist has the attention span of a 2 year old.
(2) When you see a posting is getting lots of action, keep it on for a while.
Do just these two things and you will really have a forum for people to use, and you will have much happier Grist supporters.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:04 am
30 Aug 2008
"She that real Goddess that you Lefto-Greenoes are always going on about in "Myths and Literature" class 201 in the Religion department."
My version of a Green Goddess would also display wisdom, care about and for ALL of creation, expect us to live withut abusing nature, actually deserve respect, and not hunt wolves (from a helicopter or on the ground).
jabalio wrote...
"But then, all you wizened, dried up old hippies don't like growth."
Who are you calling a wizend hippie?! I'm not a hippie! Not saying that there's anything wrong with wizend hippies... just don't call me one. ; )
So only dirty hippies view Palin as absolutley not qualified for the job? She admitted during an interview that she doesn't even know what a vp does!
Permalink
Jonas Posted 1:54 am
30 Aug 2008
You now face the simplest choice of any voter on the planet.
-A clean and secure energy future vs. the guaranteed destruction of America because of a continued dependence on hydrocarbons
-Leadership in the world vs. remaining the pariah you became under Bushco
-Economic progress and justice vs. economic downfall and injustice
-Social progress and equality vs. social sclerosis and exclusion, and ever more privileges for the very wealthy few
-Policy creation based on reason and science vs. policy creation based on religion and special interests
-Tapping into the creativity and dynamism of the American spirit vs. declining because of fear of change
It's fantastic to have such a dead-simple choice.
On the other hand, this simple choice is very important to all non-Americans too. Because in November we will know whether we have to prepare ourselves for the historic, definitive downfall of America or not.
It's really that simple: either you go down and America will have proven to be nothing more than an interesting European offshore experiment. Or you go up, and prove that even when in big trouble, America is a resilient nation that dares to step into the future, once again.
It's a thriller!
Permalink
Russ Posted 2:49 am
30 Aug 2008
Odd, my whole adult life I've wished the exact opposite.
Not just because I've always felt myself a continental European at heart, but because here if you don't fit into one of two cookie-cutter molds (and often just one), you're effectively disenfranchised.
Permalink
hapa Posted 3:12 am
30 Aug 2008
europe looks much less smart when it patiently waits for america to sink the boat.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 5:17 am
30 Aug 2008
That's simply Dark-Ages thinking on par with some of the poorer muslim theocracies of the Middle East. Nothing more, nothing less.
We're better than that. Much better than that. That kind of leadership turns us into the laughingstock of the rest of the world, which is starting to move past us in science and engineering.
I'm not sure whether Palin has detailed exactly whose concept of the creation story should be taught. I assume she means the fundamentalist Christian version. However, if we allow that to be taught we must logically also allow the Hindu version to be taught, the Pagan version to be taught, the Sioux Indian version to be taught, and my favorite the Flying Spaghetti Monster version to be taught. Let the kids decide for themselves!
Permalink
Gia Posted 5:23 am
30 Aug 2008
Pride has been the downfall of many individuals, organizations, and civilizations alike.
Al Gore's "false" science is not political; it did not just begin; and it is not "his", nor does it belong to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control) http://www.ipcc.ch/. It belongs to all of us. Whether we have the intellect, heart, and soul to accept these facts--and, therefore, our share of responsibility--is entirely based on our individual "abilities to respond"; to rise above the subliminal messages and rhetoric of billionaires and slicksters.
There is an equal and opposite reaction to every action. Taking into account the physical realities of nature and the universe, you'd have to be completely self-absorbed with self-serving interests to believe we have not, are not having, and will not have an impact on this earth--one way or another.
"Mother Nature in all her fury" also rests more often than not (so far) and gives us days like the one I'm enjoying--far away from my birthplace in New Orleans and those I love who are at this moment preparing to leave and lose everything they own (and bought into) all over again. They could all flee and abandon the city (and ALL coastal areas), but then I ask, "Who would 'man' all of those oil rigs you've become so dependent upon?"
Productivity and Sexuality have their place. We know this due to countless rapes, incest, pornography, children giving birth to children, the Joseph Duncan's of this world, infertility drugs administered while millions of children are abandoned, hungry, and left without healthy parental guidance and love.
"'Beauty' is skin-deep." Look into the eyes of a burn victim, an amputee, the aging, those ailing from lack of adequate medical attention all while the pharmaceutical companies grow richer and bombard our minds with advertisements of "excessive bleeding" (of the eyes) as one of the side-effects to having a "beautiful life".
"Strength" is better recognized and enjoyed through respect, patience, and honor.
"Being a girl". We come in all shapes and sizes, capabilities, interests, and purpose.
Leaders are only great when they consider the best possible outcome for all of God's creatures great and small as well as those generations who'll follow (hopefully).
There are countless things we all want to be AND ARE within our community and in our lives. We are all a light in this life whose value is only "diminished" by those who lack an appreciation for the real beauty of the countless stars which comprise and encourage wonder, conversation, and in some cases a sweet and lasting romance from which children are born of love--from which our compassion for all of life grows.
Define "music". Define "growth". Define "wise". Define "health". Define "our future". Define "the only home that matters to all of us". Define life outside of your car, your house, your latest movie--which I'd venture to guess has never included "An Inconvenient Truth".
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:51 am
30 Aug 2008
Surely, Sarah Palin is not the most qualified Republican woman out there! The consensus among potenial running mates must have been that McCain doesn't have a chance. Or no one wants to inherit the legacy of the current Republican Party. It was bad enough that Republicans couldn't find a decent candidate for President. Sad... they can't even find a decent candidate for Vice President.
I'm going to consider this a positive development...if only to help me throught the next two months... there isn't a single intelligent Republican interested in accepting ownership of the results of eight years of Republican leadership.
If they win, however, welcome to the new Dark Age. I suppose we really do have to hit bottom before we start on the road to recovery. I thought that was G. W. Bush. Yikes... never imagine the bottom was still beyond our view.
Even Condi Rice must have turned down the opportunity. I mean... she has some experience now. And her speciality is Russia, which might be important now. And she seems more interested in diplomacy than saber rattling. She seems downright perfect compared to Sarah Palin.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:57 am
30 Aug 2008
Mother Nature Is.
She "rewards" those who respect the natural order.
She "punishes" those who try to create their own reality.
Thank you, Gia, for the post.
Permalink
reasonable cynic Posted 2:27 pm
30 Aug 2008
^^
Obama McCain
I find it hard to believe that so many seemingly intellectual people really think that the fate of the world can be altered by these fictitious stage acts we call "elections". I know that the sound bites and name-calling seem passionate and legitimate at times, but neo-cons and neo-libs are two sides of the same coin. How can we expect "change" or whatever this season's linguistic flavor may be when philosophically near-identical candidates pander to the masses and debate frivolous issues. Wake up and quit voting us down the shitter.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:47 pm
30 Aug 2008
Ask yourself whether the current Suprem Court is upholding the U.S. Constitution.
Are their decisions protecting the environment, threatened species, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, our right to vote, several EQUAL branches of government, et cetera?
Ask yourself how each candidate would fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. There will be vacancies.
Will the court shift to the left or to the right on your political spectrum?
Remember, the next President might set the tone of the Supreme Court for the next several decades.
I believe a vote against Obama is a vote for right-wing domination of our government.
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 2:11 am
31 Aug 2008
As much as I would love to see a radical revisionist sweep into the White House and make everything all better, as much as I would like to express my disdain for the status quo by electing a Kucinich or a Nader, it simply ain't gonna happen in 2008.
Are there still folks who think it "really didn't matter" who got elected in 2000 -- Gore or Bush -- because they were "indistinguishable from each other"? Please.
Like it or not, change in this country is gonna have to happen incrementally. IF Obama is elected, and IF people like Reasonable Cynic and wiscidea and myself continue working on the necessary supporting infrastructure to push people like Obama in the right direction (cleaner elections, stronger local environmental interest groups, stronger independent media, public rather than corporate financing of elections), change can happen. In fact I don't see any other way that it will.
Neocons and big oil and the evangelical flat-earthers that make up today's Republican Party would like nothing better than to watch the left shoot itself in a circular firing squad. Thanks, but I'll stay out of that circle.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:59 am
31 Aug 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:20 am
31 Aug 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:58 pm
31 Aug 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:01 am
01 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:07 am
01 Sep 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 12:38 am
01 Sep 2008
Well, while we're at it, I insist that the concept that the sun revolves around the Earth, rather than the other way around, be taught in our schools.
After all, the former has a Biblical basis, the latter does not. And any fool can go outside and see for herself that the former is the truth.
'Nuff said.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:42 am
01 Sep 2008
Not accumulating wealth.
Non-violence... i.e., turn the other cheek.
Giving clothing, food, and shelter to strangers who are less fortunate.
Not praying public.
Not imposing dealth penalty... i.e., only God can do so.
There are, of course, a whole bunch of Christian values, that no one -- Christian or non-Christian -- would want taught in the public schools. No need to mention them here.
Anyway...
Why do Christian Fundamentalist focus so much on a few insignificant Christian values and ignore some of the most important values, policies that a majority of people might benefit from and fully support?
and what's with the obsession with guns? Would Jesus have supported the NRA?
Permalink
kwkslvr Posted 4:21 am
01 Sep 2008
What are the chances she's been chosen because her sex will divert attention from the fact that her belief system coincides with such people as P. R***tson, J*y F***ll and that bunch?
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 8:10 am
01 Sep 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 9:53 am
01 Sep 2008
Just ask Palin's high-school daughter.
Permalink
Savanna Posted 3:04 am
02 Sep 2008
It is not only women who are capable of understanding and advocating for women. I have more faith in Obama to support women's rights and promote women's status in this country than Palin, especially when it comes to the selection of justices.
The sexism still so prevalent in this country has played a sad and divisive role in the media and the campaigns for the presidency. My greatest fear is that disappointment over Clinton's defeat--and what I have heard veterans of the feminist movement describe as her pandering willingness to accept it--will poison this election. As a woman, I am not about to cut off my nose to spite my face by staying away from the polls in November or--worse yet--voting for McCain. The struggle for women's rights will be set back by decades if we allow the McCain/Palin ticket to secure the White House.
Anti-choice?
For Creationism?
For drilling in ANWR?
Doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change?
Lifelong NRA member?
A friend to Big Oil?
Women's rights are human rights: the right to lives, families, bodies, homes, educations, and careers of our choosing with equal respect and equal pay for equal work, and the liberty to pursue our happiness in a safe and healthy environment without fear of violence or oppression.
I don't even think Palin and I are looking at the same glass ceiling.
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:30 pm
04 Sep 2008
Let's take the accusations against Palin about teaching creationism.
"In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said."
"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."
"Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members."
"Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them."
"Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l ...
Obviously Palin takes the approach that she can have opinions without pushing them down everyone's gullet - unlike the eco fascists that occupy this forum.
There is a good reason that Palin enjoys an 80% approval rating in Alaska while our Democrat congress is languishing in the teens.
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:41 pm
04 Sep 2008
No, her desire to limit government is in keeping with maximizing freedom and choice for everyone. But murder is not a choice because the murdered infant would never choose it. Murdering of the unborn is simply proof of the inhumanity and hypocrisy of the left. Killing viable babies minutes before birth while crying about the pain felt by a fish that is caught by a fisherman shows what true monsters the eco cultists are.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:06 am
05 Sep 2008
"Killing viable babies minutes before birth while crying about the pain felt by a fish that is caught by a fisherman shows what true monsters the eco cultists are."
How many women have undergone this procedure -- killing a viable child minutes before birth -- in the United States simply because they did not want the child and not because birth of the child would harm the mother?
I do not support the muder of viable children minutes before birth. I doubt any environmentalists do. This is a straw man created by the far right.
But when two lives are threaten, that of the mother and the unborn child, I fail to understand why anti-abortion advocates believe the mother should die.
Perhaps the woman is quite young, the father has abandoned her, and there will be no one there to care for the new child if she dies. Perhaps the woman has three children who depend on her. Isn't it important to keep her alive to care for her first three children rather than allow her to die, leaving four children without a mother?
Please explain why you do not place greater or equal value on the life of the mother, who is also a human being.
And rape and incest?! Do you really think it is morally superior to force a 15-year-old who was raped, perhaps by her father, give birth to and raise the child?! How could this be justified when the fertilized egg could be aborted before there is even a nervous system, a process that naturally occurs roughly 50% of the time?
It might be easier to accept anti-abortion advocates' extreme view if they at least supported adequate sex education in the schools and access to familiy planning options, but they object to that as well.
I agree there is a need to reduce abortion... it should be accomplished by raising the standard of living so people can care for their children and ensuring adequate access to educational and family planning resources so there are fewer unwanted pregnancies. There should be better health care so mothers get adequate nutritional advice. There should be stricter controls on pollution and testing of pharmaceuticals so children are not harmed in the womb. There should be minimum wage laws, so parents can earn enough to care for the children they have and are not tempted to resort to abortion. But conservatives are not interested in this.
Permalink
earthmama Posted 12:15 am
05 Sep 2008
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:59 am
05 Sep 2008
"How many women have undergone this procedure -- killing a viable child minutes before birth -- in the United States simply because they did not want the child and not because birth of the child would harm the mother?"
Well, we only have the statistics for the women that participate in voluntary reporting. There are about 1000 partial birth abortions performed per year in America alone. This is more Americans being killed by partial birth abortions than by the Iraqi war. There are more than 13,000 babies killed after 4.5 month each year, and these are definitely viable. There are 164,000 killed after 3 month each year and the viability of these is debatable but some of them definitely are.
"But when two lives are threaten, that of the mother and the unborn child, I fail to understand why anti-abortion advocates believe the mother should die."
Now you are throwing out the straw man. Probably less than 2% of abortions involve the life of the woman. And no one believes that it is the mother that should die. If abortion of viable babies was only done to save mothers lives we wouldn't be having this debate in this country.
"Isn't it important to keep her alive to care for her first three children rather than allow her to die, leaving four children without a mother?"
Again you are basing your argument on only the extreme cases rather than on the norm. I repeat, no one is advocating that women should die in the birth process.
"And rape and incest?! Do you really think it is morally superior to force a 15-year-old who was raped, perhaps by her father, give birth to and raise the child?! How could this be justified when the fertilized egg could be aborted before there is even a nervous system, a process that naturally occurs roughly 50% of the time?"
Rape an incest are indeed an unfortunate circumstance. But when it comes to a choice of hardship on the one hand and loss of life on the other we have to pick hardship.
"How could this be justified when the fertilized egg could be aborted before there is even a nervous system, a process that naturally occurs roughly 50% of the time?""
I don't have a problem with abortion before there is any nervous system. But the reality is that we are still doing hundreds of thousands of abortions long after there is a nervous system.
"There should be minimum wage laws, so parents can earn enough to care for the children they have and are not tempted to resort to abortion. But conservatives are not interested in this."
This is a blatant attempt to remove all responsibility for sexual behavior from those who engage in it. It is not up to anyone to pay someone a salary that is greater than what they are worth. Rather it is up to the individual to make themselves worth the salary that they want to be paid. I have worked for minimum wage at the same time that I was working to educate myself and increasing my worth in the job market. It's not that hard. And if some employer would have had to pay me more than I was worth at that time I might not have had a job at all.
In any case the whole issue is irrelevant. If the child is too much of a burden for the mother, there are millions of competent and financially solvent people that are willing to adopt it.
Permalink
saluki Posted 1:22 am
05 Sep 2008
"I don't know of any who have killed a fetus minutes before birth nor any that cry over fish. I fish myself."
You don't have to look far on this board to find people who cry over the pain felt by the fish. Just look at some of the recent ones. I saw such posts after reading less than a couple of dozen posts here. And I don't care if you are a nurse or who you know. The statistics on partial birth abortions are available.
"all upsetting the God given balance of the planet's living systems,"
There is no god given balance of the planet's living systems. Species have become extinct for the entire history of the planet - or at least that portion where there has been life. Populations crash and replenish without any interference from man. I remember reading a doctoral dissertation about jack rabbits when I was in college. The writer found that jack rabbit populations habitually varied by a factor of 10 to 1. Rabbit populations would be beset by disease, parasites and predators when their density was very high. Then they would crash, making disease and parasites more difficult to transmit, and starving out a large part of the coyote population. Coyotes would also reduce their reproduction rates when food was scarce. Then the rabbit population would begin to build and the cycle would start all over. Eco nuts seem to have this overly romaticised gaia notion of how benign nature is. But the natural life of most species on the earth can be cruel, harsh, and short - without any interference from man. You can live your delusions in order to make yourself feel morally superior and in order to make yourself feel that you have purpose in life, but you are no more in touch with reality than any creationist.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:22 am
05 Sep 2008
"I repeat, no one is advocating that women should die in the birth process."
Then perhaps there is not a problem. But the Christian Fundamentalist supporters of the current Republican Party, John McCain, and Sarah Palin... as well as Sarah Palin herself ... want to see a Supreme Court that will uphold bans on abortion even in the event of threats to the life of the mother.
I thought you were defending Palin's views, the topic of this thread, not your own. So you really don't want to see someone as extreme as Palin in a position to assume the power of appointing new Supreme Court justices?
saluki wrote...
"Rape an incest are indeed an unfortunate circumstance. But when it comes to a choice of hardship on the one hand and loss of life on the other we have to pick hardship."
Why do we have to pick hardship? Why is this morally superior than aborting a fertilized egg that has not yet developed a nervous system?
And...
"This is a blatant attempt to remove all responsibility for sexual behavior from those who engage in it. "
No. Not all responsibility. A person currently has the option of having an abortion. I agree there should be limits. But, again, the Christian Fundamentalist supporters of the current Republican Party would like to see and end to birth control, an end to abortion just days after conception, and an end to abortion even in the event of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother.
If Christian Fundamentalists wish to stand in the way of some of the means people have for assuming responsibility for sexual behavior -- by simply using birth control or a morning after pill -- then it is up to them to find ways of helping people prevent unwanted pregnancy or helping families find the resources to raise those children. No one is trying to avoid responsibility. They are doing what they can to cope.
It would be better to work together to ensure women never feel there is a need for an abortion than to ban the procedure. Bans have not worked in the past. They only create more suffering. Bans will not stop abortion. The only way to stop it is to make sure no one ever sees it as a necessity.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:32 am
05 Sep 2008
"But the natural life of most species on the earth can be cruel, harsh, and short - without any interference from man."
Does this mean we cannot use our naturally evolved brain to reduce the amount of "cruelty"? I really view nature as neutral. It is up to us to create the world we want to live in. I believe the net suffering is minimized when a victim of rape and/or incest as the option of an abortion.
Perhaps you are passive and wish to be carried along by whatever "cruelty" nature throws at us. But this in certainly not natural behavior and living in harmony with the world. We have brains. We ought to try to use them to reduce suffering instead of just adding to it.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:34 am
05 Sep 2008
"But the natural life of most species on the earth can be cruel, harsh, and short - without any interference from man."
Does this mean we cannot use our naturally evolved brain to reduce the amount of "cruelty"? I really view nature as neutral. It is up to us to create the world we want to live in. I believe the net suffering is minimized when a victim of rape and/or incest as the option of an abortion.
Perhaps you are passive and wish to be carried along by whatever "cruelty" nature throws at us. But this in certainly not natural behavior and living in harmony with the world. We have brains. We ought to try to use them to reduce suffering instead of just adding to it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:47 am
05 Sep 2008
Is that too much liberty for you? Evidently so.
Does the state own the reproductive organs of every woman within it's borders, or not?
Nature preserves the life of mothers for a reason, so they can give birth again in case there is a life threatening problem during pregnancy and birth.
Those life and death decisions ought not be litigated as murder trials for mothers and doctors by the state, at a later date in hindsight. Your extremist theology ignore the basic realities of life.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:24 pm
05 Sep 2008
"John McCain, and Sarah Palin... as well as Sarah Palin herself ... want to see a Supreme Court that will uphold bans on abortion even in the event of threats to the life of the mother."
Do you have a link showing that McCain and Palin would rather have a mother die than have an abortion. I mean a credible link of course. Not the assertion of some left winger.
"Why do we have to pick hardship? Why is this morally superior than aborting a fertilized egg that has not yet developed a nervous system?"
I think we've been over this ground before. I have no problem with abortion before any nervous system is developed - for any reason. Unfortunately that still leave tens of thousands of abortions of viable human beings that are not a threat to the life of their mother. So if a rape victim allows their pregnacy to get to a certain point of develpment, then the right thing to do is have the baby.
"But, again, the Christian Fundamentalist supporters of the current Republican Party would like to see and end to birth control, an end to abortion just days after conception, and an end to abortion even in the event of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother."
Yes, there is that, and there is the other side of the coin of left wing extremists that demand abortion at any time after viability including seconds before birth even when there is no threat to the mother. The Christian Fundamentalists will never get everything they want. But apparently the left wing extremists have. And this is the kind of extremism that is supported by Obama and Biden.
"If Christian Fundamentalists wish to stand in the way of some of the means people have for assuming responsibility for sexual behavior -- by simply using birth control or a morning after pill"
When it comes to birth control you are talking about a tiny minority, even among Christians, that are against it. It's a waste of time pretending that such people are some kind of threat.
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:30 pm
05 Sep 2008
"All we are asking Is that women be allowed to make their own decisions on their own, without government interference, concerning their own bodies and reproduction."
The answer would seem to be all to obvious. Why can't I make my own decision, without government interference to kill you.
I could care less what you do with your own body. That baby is not your body. It is an independent human being and the only possible exuse to kill another human being is to save the life of the mother. Unfortunately 98% of abortions of viable human beings are not to save the life of the mother.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:06 pm
05 Sep 2008
It's a shotgun politically correct wedding.
The Baby is part of the Mother until it is born.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:16 pm
05 Sep 2008
"The Baby is part of the Mother until it is born."
Now there is a convenient way to rationalize murder. As though it's location determines it's humanity. The babies DNA is completely different from that of the mother.
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:48 pm
05 Sep 2008
"Does this mean we cannot use our naturally evolved brain to reduce the amount of "cruelty"? "
Well, you can start by stopping wolves from killing deer, elk, moose and caribou. Especially those cute and lovable little caribou babies that they are so fond of. I suppose you could feed the wolves dog kibble. Then you can work on getting those polar bears to stop killing those aborable seal pups. The PB's can probably make it on kibble also. The problem you will have is with cats and members of the weasle family. They kind of need meat. Good luck with that.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:57 pm
05 Sep 2008
I'll believe that the fundies believe that abortion kills babies when they start having full community funerals for miscarriages and menstruations of all married women. After all the majority of fertilized eggs do not implant or spontaneously abort in the first trimester.
If that was a baby you just lost, a person, it deserves the full attention of the parents community. That means that all the people that would show up for the funeral of a five year old show up. They don't do that because they are full of moose apples.
The true concern is that the powerful be allowed to control the sexuality of those less powerful. Bristol Palin gets pregnant and daddy-to-be meets a presidential candidate. A black or hispanic teen gets pregnant and the girl is called a lazy welfare cheat and daddy-to-be is labeled a deadbeat dad because seventeen year old hispanic boys can't make an income that will support a family.
It's NEVER an honest debate.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:34 pm
05 Sep 2008
No need to debate this stuff at all.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 9:16 pm
05 Sep 2008
This debate you and others are having with Saluki is an excellent example of how people's personal agenda's makes it impossible to fully consider the viability of an opinion quite different from their own.
Saluki and many, many others are actually incapable (at this point in their lives) of accepting a different viewpoint on the subject of abortion. To do so would require a complete re-wiring of their inner world and belief systems. The only personal security they have right now is their reliance on a limited, out-dated set of beliefs created by others who need followers like Saluki.
Saluki prefers to focus on making wrong the choices of others she doesn't even know personally, rather than taking full responsibility for the disasters resulting from her own choices. She simply can't handle the pain of the latter.
I'm willing to bet Saluki voted for Mr. Bush the last two times around. A significant degree of responsibility for the deaths of some 4,000 US soldiers in Iraq and the maiming of tens of thousands of others there rests squarely on her shoulders for the votes she made twice, but you'll never hear her take responsibility for this. Too painful to do that. There is a long list of other disasters resulting from Saluki's personal choice to put Mr. Bush in power, but rather than take responsibility for this and look deeply inside at her decision making process, she'd rather turn to a woman she doesn't even know and tell that person what is right and what is wrong.
I have no doubt Saluki's heart is in the right place. But she and millions of others with the same belief system are compelled by insecurities and fears that drive the choices they make. It is from that place that people like George Bush get put into power.
But she can't possibly understand what I'm talking about... no easier than she can understand why the "pro-life" position should really be called the "anti-choice" platform.
As Pangolin said, debates like this with folks like Saluki cannot possibly result in a change of position. The breakthroughs she seeks will come in their own perfect time.
Richard
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:59 am
06 Sep 2008
Are you willing to go with experimental biofuel projects? It's interesting to see compromise work.
A compromise on abortion would be to fully fund women's choices either way. The right seems to be opposed to caring for mothers and children with public funds, which would truly give them a reasonable choice. Safe, legal, quick adoption would also be necessary to facilitate real choice.
The religious right accepts no compromise. No abortion, no government social safety net. Period. Indifent, underage mothers arwe left to fend for themselves. Would the right then allow a "free" market in babies to take over?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:00 am
06 Sep 2008
Allowing an egg or sperm to pass out of a body unfertilized isn't murder. It becomes murder once a sperm fertilizes an egg because while you were laying there smoking a cigarette, a little tiny invisible Deity in the shape of a male hominid, or possibly an angel, sneaked into your uterus and put a soul into that developing cell mass making it different from all others.
You must now allow this cell mass to develop into a human baby regardless of your circumstances in life.
Once born, this baby must then ingratiate herself to same Deity for her entire life, continuously asking for forgiveness of her various sins if she wants to gain access to heaven upon her inevitable death instead of burn in hell for all of eternity along with me and most other human beings...
The abortion debate, which is entirely religious in origin, has wrecked American politics. It is a glaring example of why the separation of church and state is so important.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:25 am
06 Sep 2008
"That means that all the people that would show up for the funeral of a five year old show up."
Humanity determined by who shows up at the funeral! Now we are really getting crazy.
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:48 am
06 Sep 2008
Richard prefers to focus on making wrong the choices of others he doesn't even know personally, rather than taking full responsibility for the disasters resulting from his own choices. He simply can't handle the pain of the latter.
I have no doubt Richard's heart is in the right place. But he and millions of others with the same belief system are compelled by insecurities and fears that drive the choices they make. It is from that place that people like John Kerry get put into power.
I'm willing to bet Richard voted for Mr. Kerry the last time around. A significant degree of responsibility for the deaths of some 300,000 Iraqis killed by Sadam and another 1,000,000 that would undoubtedly be killed as a result of 50 more years of rule by Sadam and his insane sons rests squarely on his shoulders for the votes he made twice, but you'll never hear him take responsibility for this. Instead of having the freedom to elect their own leaders, the Iraqis would continue to suffer under their tyrants indefinitely. Tens of thousands of terrorists that were killed in Iraq would have been able to direct their forces to other places - including the US. He forgets that Sadam intended to resume his nuclear plans after sanctions were removed. No Richard will not take responsibility for his disasterous decisions. Too painful to do that. There is a long list of other disasters resulting from Richard's personal choice to put Democrats in power. For example his choice of Bill Clinton taught Bin Laden that Americans would run at the first sign of trouble, causing Bin Laden to conclude that he could attack America and kill 3000 innocent Americans. But rather than take responsibility for this and look deeply inside at his decision making process, he'd rather turn to babies he doesn't even know and try to rationalize that their murder is right.
But he can't possibly understand what I'm talking about... no easier than he can understand why the "pro-choice" position should really be called the "pro-murder" platform.
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:03 am
06 Sep 2008
"A compromise on abortion would be to fully fund women's choices either way."
Typical left wing looney. Considers a compromise as doing things exactly his way.
"No abortion, no government social safety net. Period."
How does society become responsible for the sexual choices made by it's individuals. Under your scenario, where is there any motivation at all for people to be responsible for themselves. Just the reverse will be true. You will encourage pregnancy so that the mother can get a free ride from society.
There is no shortage of people willing to adopt children now. That means that there is no excuse for murdering unborn babies, despite your effort to invent them.
"The abortion debate, which is entirely religious in origin"
This, of course, is the way that the left reframes the argument so as to avoid dealing with the glaring monstrosity of their position. I have no religion. I haven't been in a church since I was 15. The fact that abortion is murder takes no religion at all to recognize.
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:10 am
06 Sep 2008
"It is part of a religious doctrine."
Same old nutty argument. I never cease to be amazed at how you people are able to blind yourselves to the central issues and replace it with some straw man so that you won't have to deal with reality. As I said previously, I have absolutely no religion. But if you think that murder is a purely religious concept, then I guess you better take it off the law books.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 4:54 am
06 Sep 2008
This is so typical of the way inflexible thinkers debate. You never asked for my opinions or positions. You simply assumed you knew my beliefs.
Turns out, virtually every one of your assumptions was incorrect.
Of course, it's so much more comfortable for you to try and fit me into some kind of box you understand. As I said, thinking outside the box is just not something you are prepared to do.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 5:14 am
06 Sep 2008
You probably won't be satisfied with this answer, but I really don't have an opinion on the GOP effort to kill the ethanol mandate. As I've said before, corn ethanol isn't something I have much interest in. Intensive farming with monocrops, pesticides and fertilizers isn't something I can get behind.
My interest is in seeing a dramatic increase in forest cover, with these forests being as bio-diverse and productive as possible. If cellulosic ethanol can help this become a reality, I say do everything we can to make it so.
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:00 am
06 Sep 2008
"This is so typical of the way inflexible thinkers debate. "
More psychobabble. What I tried to demonstrate to you in my previous post was that anyone could attack anyone else with psychobabble. All you need to do is change the name. The teqnique of running down other peoples motives, psychology and comprehension because they disagree with you is as old as Moses. But your attempts at such are even worse. They are simple assertions with no connections, no reason, no evidence and no rational. Of course you can get away with such nonsense on a forum like this because the people want to believe it and because the forum is fairly homogeneous in their opinions. So when someone like me comes along it's much easier to attack them in a way that allows you to avoid dealing with the heart of the issue - especially since it has become quickly apparent that the heart of the issue is a looser for you.
Now, Richard, try refocusing on the issue. Abortion of a viable fetus is murder in cases where the woman's life is not at stake. It's very simple and no amount of diversion is going to allow you to avoid it.
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:17 am
06 Sep 2008
Ah, yes, no one can argue against trees - even evil conservatives like me. Shade, wood, oxygen, beauty, building materials - what's not to like. I'm for planting more of them anywhere and everywhere.
And since the increase of CO2 fertilization in the atmosphere the biomass of the earth, primarily trees, has increased. Isn't that nice.
With ethanol it's an easy answer. The eco cultists were wrong to support it. First, the use of the farmland has increased the price of food all over the world. There have even been some shortages. Second, the dominance of ethanol as a fuel in Brazil has resulted in cutting down more and more of the rain forests. It's a net loss since the rainforests are like a huge filter for cleaning the atmosphere.
The health problems to man and beast caused by wind power generation are just starting to come in. Stay tuned.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 6:34 am
06 Sep 2008
I have no interest in debating with you. I've made my opinion clear: given where you are coming from, I see no possibility you can openly consider my position on the issue of abortion (even though I have not yet shared what that position is). Having recognized this, there's nothing to be gained from further discussion with you.
I will tell you this, though... the power once held by folks who have opinions like yours is dwindling quickly. It has dominated for a very long time, but those days are now numbered. What is coming in now cannot be stopped. Tolerance is key.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:42 am
06 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:48 am
06 Sep 2008
"Exceptions always exist but are never used to prove a rule."
The rule is simple: murder is not a religious issue.
Permalink
saluki Posted 6:55 am
06 Sep 2008
"I will tell you this, though... the power once held by folks who have opinions like yours is dwindling quickly."
I don't see opposition to abortion dwindling.
"Tolerance is key."
Tolerance of murder and intolerace of people with SUVs. I can't wait.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:58 am
06 Sep 2008
...as were the ignorant red necks. You voted twice for Yosemite Sam, and he is the biggest supporter of them all. Your argument is nonsensical.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:03 am
06 Sep 2008
Again, I won't debate the issues with you, but I will state facts.
To state that opposition to abortion is as strong as ever simply ignores all polls and facts of the past 50 years. But like I said, you'll lie to yourself even on the most basic of facts to sustain your belief system.
"... intolerance of people with SUVs"... would you please point out where I stated that? Once again, all you can do to defend yourself is create lies about my beliefs.
Keep it up. You're validating everything I said earlier.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:12 am
06 Sep 2008
Just double checked my thesaurus. Abortion is not a synonym of murder or infanticide (as Newt seems to think). Does your murdering of rational thought make you an abortionist of intellectual discourse? Hmmm. Pesky word definitions.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 7:20 am
06 Sep 2008
Here is a definition:
"5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously."
Fits abortion exactly.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:18 am
06 Sep 2008
Below is a graph representing the abortion debate. On the the extreme right we have people who want to ban all contraception. On the left end we have people who want to legalize abortion clear to the very end of the third trimester (a hypothetical group). I didn't create a hypothetical group in support of infanticide or one that makes it illegal not to get pregnant. In the middle we have people who are OK with laws that allow a woman to choose to end a pregnancy in the first three months of conception, which is the law as it stands today.
I've put tick marks for where you and I fall on that continuum.
.........................^............^...
I didn't put you clear to the end because you accept abortion, or murder as you call it, in the case of rape and I suspect you are OK with contraception.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Russ Posted 8:32 am
06 Sep 2008
I think I saw an electric bicycle the other morning while I was out running. It was dark, but I'm pretty sure the guy wasn't pedalling, and it had a high-pitched (not loud) sound.
I guess that's the first time I've ever seen one.
Murder, n. - A gathering of crows.
I think that says it all.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:13 am
06 Sep 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
saluki Posted 2:01 pm
06 Sep 2008
Eh, no you don't have me quite right. I do support the use of contraceptives. And I think the amount of people who don't are so small that making them part of the debate is just a strawman issue. But after a fetus has a nervous system and becomes viable, I don't support abortion even if the abortion was caused by rape. If a girl is raped she needs to check and have her abortion early enough to avoid the nervous system period. After viability I support abortion only in the case where the mothers life is at risk.
"In the middle we have people who are OK with laws that allow a woman to choose to end a pregnancy in the first three months of conception, which is the law as it stands today."
I'm afraid that is not the law as it stands today. Most states allow abortion in the first and second trimester, and only some disallow it in the third trimester. It was a huge fight just to be able to allow states to outlaw partial birth abortion. Let me give you the definition of that proceedure.
"An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)"
Bill Clinton vetoed legislation that would have allowed states to outlaw such a proceedure. The law allowing states to outlaw it finally passed in 2003. But many of the left wing loonies are still fighting to make it legal. And many of the states have not made it illegal.
Now, let's look at where I stand. Here is a chart of abortions and when they are done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
I support abortion for the first group, which is 8 weeks or less and which comprise almost 60% of the total. I may support the second group which goes from 9 to 10 weeks, depending on a sound medical argument about where the level of development of the nervous system is. Beyond that, it's probably a no for me. I think that if you get to the point where there is brain wave activity, that's too far.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:46 pm
06 Sep 2008
A local little old lady uses a tricycle with an electric front wheel to get around. I haven't caught her riding but I see the bike all over town.
Re: Trolls- Debating trolls is like using a map on a merry-go-round. You can refer to the map and pull the reins when the horse is headed in the right direction but the only way to make progress is to get off the ride and walk. Anyone who stays on those horses goes nowhere.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:10 am
08 Sep 2008
After having equated abortion to murder literally a dozen times in the above thread, you now tell me you support upwards of 78% of abortions:
"....support abortion for the first group ... which comprise almost 60% of the total ... I may support the second group which goes from 9 to 10 weeks"
I had conversation with a physician today. He said the terminology "partial birth abortion" is used for propaganda purposes. The term he learned in medical school is "intact dilation and extraction" or IDE. Lay persons understandably get queasy when they read a description of this rarely used procedure and the bible thumpers have capitalized on this fact to attack abortion in general. He said historically, that procedure has only been used in about a tenth of one percent of abortions and limiting its use to cases where other procedures might put the mother's life in jeopardy just means the anti-choice crowd can't use it for propaganda anymore. He thinks the pro-choice crowd is probably laughing up their collective sleeves.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Virginia B Trail Posted 4:47 am
08 Sep 2008
Sarah Palin is just one more corrupt Republican in bed with Big Oil. I expected better from McCain, but maybe when you are 72, you will compromise any and all principles just to get elected.
John Stuart Mill: Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservatives.
Permalink
saluki Posted 12:15 pm
08 Sep 2008
"The Alaska Gas Pipe Line, financing guaranteed by US taxes, and partially financed by earmarks, will pipe Alaskan gas to Alberta, Canada, to be used to convert tar sand petroleum to oil to benefit Canada, and which can be sold anywhere, not necessarily the lower 48."
Seems like people on this forum would rather lie than breath. I have never seen so many lies told by so many people to serve their own political agenda.
First, there are no plans to sell any of the gas to China. This is the same lie that people on this blog tell about the oil from the Trans Alaskan pipeline. They claim that we are shipping it to the far east, when in fact 100% of it is shipped to refineries on the west coast.
Second, the bill for the pipeline is not going to be paid by American tax payers. A portion of it, about 15% will be subsidized by the state of Alaska using tax money collected from oil companies.
Third, it is only speculation that the gas will be used for producing Alberta tar sand. The plans at this point are still to send it to Chicago. If some of it is used by Alberta they will have to pay for it.
Fourth, Obama has this same project as a part of his own energy proposal.
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
"Congress passed legislation to expedite a pipeline in 2004. Ms. Palin's predecessor as governor, Republican Frank H. Murkowski, attempted to negotiate a deal with the three oil companies that control the North Slope gas, Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips. His plan would have awarded the companies a long-term tax freeze in return for relatively weak commitments to actually build the pipeline. But even though Vice President Cheney and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) lobbied hard for Mr. Murkowski's approach, Alaska's public and legislature balked, viewing the proposal as stacked in favor of the Big Three oil companies. Ms. Palin rode criticism of Mr. Murkowski's deal to victory over him in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary and then to the governor's office later that year. She reversed Mr. Murkowski's strategy, asking the legislature to pass a law setting criteria for a deal, then throwing the project open to companies other than the Big Three. The result was a commitment by an experienced pipeline company, TransCanada, to build the project, which may take 10 years, in return for $500 million in state seed money derived from Alaska's recent oil windfall."
"The oil companies still control the gas. So, if TransCanada actually gets all the necessary permits, assembles financing and builds the pipeline, the Big Three will have to be persuaded, years from now, to ship their gas through it on reasonable terms. Meanwhile, BP and Conoco Phillips have announced plans to build a pipeline of their own without the state's backing -- a sign that the political and economic wrangling over this immense and risky project is far from over. But it is also a sign that Ms. Palin's outflanking of the oil companies injected some competition and urgency into a process that was previously stalled. "
Obama's support of the project:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/260/story/46706.html
The big three oil companies wanted to get special tax breaks in order to build the pipeline. They were holding up doing any work before they would begin. But Palin outflanked them. Now they want to build the pipeline without any tax breaks and without any money from the state.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/06/alaskan-gas-pipel ...
"At the same time, BP and ConocoPhillips recently announced that they are embarking on their own $30 billion project to pump Alaska's gas reserves through a 2,000-mile-long pipeline. They say they don't need the state's $500 million and will proceed regardless if the state throws its support behind TransCanada.
The TransCanada proposal is born out of an attempt by Palin to force the hand of the big oil companies--BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil Corp.--to execute their gas leases, from which the state hopes to raise tens of billions in tax revenue. Uncertainties over natural-gas prices and state taxes have long left the companies skittish about committing to a project.
Alaska owns the natural gas; BP and Conoco, along with Exxon, hold most of the leases to develop it. The companies have long talked of tapping the reserves, but have consistently deemed the pipeline too financially risky without the state first agreeing to favorable terms on gas production taxes. Unlike Palin's predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, who wanted to give the companies generous tax breaks, she has refused to budge."
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:40 pm
08 Sep 2008
I suspect the majority of people discussing the matter here agree...
(1) That contraception and "morning after" pills are acceptable.
(2) Educating people to avoid unwanted pregnancy is good idea.
(3) It is reasonable to permit someone to have an abortion shortly after incest or rape.
(4) There is a point where abortion of the developing fetus, having a functioning nervous system, should not be permitted except to save the life of the mother.
So what exactly is the argument about?
Here's where I apparently disagree with Saluki... I believe that Sarah Palin was chosen by Christian Fundamentalists because Ms. Palin says thing like this...
"I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life."
(http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126139.html)
This where my interest in this topic started. I have no desire to argue with Saluki over the basic premise that abortion is a bad idea and we should do what we can to minimize it. But in the end, I think it is up to the woman to decide what is best for her and her family.
As far as I can tell from the behavior of Christian Fundamentalists, they support candidates at every level who: wish to limit access to birth control; oppose sex education; and oppose abortion restrictions that include exceptions for incest, rape, and life of mother.
There have been efforts to restrict abortion to the extent Saluki might sincerely and correctly wish it to be restricted, but conservatives generally scuttle the legislation because it does not go far enough for them. The "left" is willing to compromise; the "right" is not.
Sarah Palin could clear up this entire controversy by simply appearing in public and declaring that she believes the "morning after" pill should be available at all clinics, there should not be a ban on early abortions, and that she wants to do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions in this country short of restricting a woman's access to abortion in the event of incest, rape, or a threat to the life of the mother.
That's all Ms. Palin has to do if Saluki's description of her views is correct.
Why doesn't she? Because it would alienate Christian Fundamentalists interested in seeing appointment of another conservative Supreme Court Justice and necessary for the election of John McCain.
It is up to Sarah Palin to clearly state her view, not for the voters to sort out which quote represents her current position and try to predict, based on conflicting report, what Sarah Palin might do if she becomes President.
Who is the REAL Sarah Palin? And why won't the Republicans allow her to share HER views?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:02 pm
08 Sep 2008
At this point in our evolutionary history, we now have the option of determing, to some extent, the circumstances under which we want to live and minimize what we consider harsh or cruel. A woman who becomes pregnant but does not have the resources to raise another child can terminate the pregancy and minimize suffering.
But Saluki wrote...
"Well, you can start by stopping wolves from killing deer, elk, moose and caribou. Especially those cute and lovable little caribou babies that they are so fond of. I suppose you could feed the wolves dog kibble."
This is absurd and doesn nothing to reduce suffering, even if nature was not neutral. Why are the wolves less important than the caribou? They evolved along side each other and control one another's populations. Too many wolves... the caribou population collapses and the wolf population collapses. Kill the wolves to "protect" caribou and the caribou starve to death... after they browes or graze vegetation required by inumerable other species to the edge of existence. Other species that feed off of the wolves' kills also decline. Preventing wolves from killing their prey does not minimize cruelty or suffering.
And Saluki wrote...
"Then you can work on getting those polar bears to stop killing those aborable seal pups. The PB's can probably make it on kibble also."
Same problems.
And...
"The problem you will have is with cats and members of the weasle family. They kind of need meat. Good luck with that."
What on Earth takes us from permitting a woman to have an abortion to contemplating means of separating predators from their natural prey?!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:18 pm
08 Sep 2008
Why go nowhere? Because of the logging. Are the logs now being sold to China or Japan?
So trust Palin on the pipeline? As duuhbya says, "Fool me once..er..fool me twice..uhh..we won't get fooled again."
Oh yeah and she didn't sell that Governor's plane on ebay, it was sold by an aircraft broker. She didn't fire the chef, she hired her on in two different positions, but she kept on cooking. It was a fake firing.
Is everything Palin says a lie? the burden of proof is on the Palin side now. She's been proven to be a habitual liar. Whoops forgot one commandment sarah?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 11:12 am
11 Sep 2008
"I suggested nature is neutral"
Does that mean that a caribou doesn't feel any pain as a wolf is ripping it's guts out.
I thought your objective was to reduce pain and suffering. Are you sure that your objective is not simply to heap guilt on mankind.
"A woman who becomes pregnant but does not have the resources to raise another child can terminate the pregancy and minimize suffering."
How is murdering a human being minimizing suffering?
"Why are the wolves less important than the caribou?"
You can feed the wolves kibble instead of caribou if you want to minimize cruelty. If a caribou being torn up by a wolf is not cruely, then why should I care about your silly definition of cruelty. It becomes nothing more than an artificial, baseless, human guilt concept.
"Kill the wolves to "protect" caribou and the caribou starve to death... "
So you are approving an endless cycle of pain and cruelty in order to maintain a balanced population. But then why can't people be in the loop of balancing that population.
"What on Earth takes us from permitting a woman to have an abortion to contemplating means of separating predators from their natural prey?!"
The artificial and nosensical concept of cruelty that you want to impose on human hunting.
Permalink
saluki Posted 11:18 am
11 Sep 2008
"Because of the logging. Are the logs now being sold to China or Japan? "
I don't know. Are they? You seem to have a deep resentment of Alaskans making a living.
"So trust Palin on the pipeline?"
Can't think of a single reason why not. You trusted the original Mr. "I was for it before I was against it" and probably voted for him.
Permalink
saluki Posted 11:27 am
11 Sep 2008
I doubt that she can touch Biden who told 5 lies about his education in about 30 seconds. And at least she didn't plagerize her way through school like Biden did.
Of course Obama is the biggest liar of all. "This preacher is my mentor, but I had no idea that he was an American hating racist". Right Obama.
Permalink
HWilkes Posted 11:57 am
11 Sep 2008
saluki wrote:
"A woman who becomes pregnant but does not have the resources to raise another child can terminate the pregancy and minimize suffering."
How is murdering a human being minimizing suffering
You haven't proved that abortion is murder yet, though. In fact, you keep trying to dodge the issue and hoping that everyone you're arguing with will overlook this when you try and equate abortion with murder.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:23 pm
11 Sep 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaMJ-xTcGxI
I'm working on a dynamite Palin imitation though. All her favorite phrases with her special church lady rapture intonation.
I'm gonna pull this on my fellow Obama volunteers over the phone.
"Hello, this is Governor Sarah Palin speaking to you from my home in Wasilla Alaska, where I saved the city thousands of dollars by firing the police chief who refused to charge rape victims for rape investigation kits."
"After appointing a police chief from the Alaska Independence party who attends my church, the state legislature passed a special law requiring the government to pay for rape kits, specifically targeted at Wasilla, since my city was the only one in Alaska that cut this wasteful government spending."
"The police chief refused to obey that law and Wasilla seceded from the union. Another big win for our side! Take that you corrupt, sinfull rape victims"
"If you want to see government waste cut at the federal level in a similar way, please vote Palin/McCain! I am Sarah Palin (isn't that special) and I approved this message!"
The Obama troops need cheering up. This'll get some laughs, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:40 pm
11 Sep 2008
What is there to prove. You take a living human being and kill them - it's murder. Where is the mystery? What is it that needs to be proven. You want to claim it's self defense?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:44 pm
11 Sep 2008
The wolf feels pain when it starves to death. The wolf feels pain when it is run to exhaustion and someone puts a bullet in it. The caribous feels pain when it is killed by the wolf. The caribou feels pain when it's calf is killed. The caribou feels pain when someone puts a bullet in it. If it snows too muh there is suffering. If it snows to little there is suffering. If the climate warms there will be suffering. If the climate cools there will be suffering. It is not up to me to determine what is best for the wolf and the caribou... the simplest answer is to preserve the natural order.
suffering
I'm interested in reducing suffering where it is fairly clear what actions will reduce suffering. However, I don't think we are wise enough to start meddling with natural cycles and ecological webs.
And, no, my goal is not to "heap guilt on mankind". Why do you accuse me of this?
Saluki asks, how is murdering a human being minimizing suffering?
You said it is okay to abort a human consisting of only a few cells, as long as there is no nervous system. I said it is not okay to abort a viable child just before birth... except to save the life of the mother. Exactly where do we disagree? Please define "murdering a human being". Your defintion seems to change with the wind and creates pointless argument. To answer your question, killing a human being who is a serial rapist and cannot be captured would probably reduce suffering. Killing a captured criminal would not. Aborting an embryo resulting from rape or incest and consisting of just a few cells would probably reduce suffering if the mother decides to do so. Killing a viable child moments before birth though the life of the mother is not threatened would not reduce suffering.
cruelty
Saluki wrote...
"If a caribou being torn up by a wolf is not cruely, then why should I care about your silly definition of cruelty. It becomes nothing more than an artificial, baseless, human guilt concept."
Perhaps cruelty IS an artificial concept. But I would not say it is baseless or a means of heaping guilt on human beings. It is a means for human beings to define what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Define something as cruel and we communicate that it is not acceptable for intelligent human beings to behave that way. It is a code word for... don't do this, it creates pointless suffering, and really isn't good for anyone in the long run. As I suggest above... if cruelty is an absolute, how do we decide what is better... wolves starving or caribou being killed by the wolves?
loops
Saluki wrote...
"So you are approving an endless cycle of pain and cruelty in order to maintain a balanced population. But then why can't people be in the loop of balancing that population."
Yes and no. There is pain, but I don't necessarily view it as cruelty. And why would it be up to me to approve or disapprove of it?! It just IS. It is the natural world we live in.
What about people? Saluki, please stop assuming more than I actually write. I never said I opposed hunting. We are predators. We're part of the loop you are referring to. I don't hunt, but I don't want to stop others from hunting. The moral issue, as far as I'm concerned, is the hunting, torturing, killing of an animal for entertainment, a trophy, or genocide. Hunting for food makes sense. But how many people eat wolves? They are fellow predators, not prey. A close relative, the domestic dog, evolved along side us and might have helped our species move across the globe.
nonsense
Refering to my question...
"What on Earth takes us from permitting a woman to have an abortion to contemplating means of separating predators from their natural prey?!"
Saluki wrote...
"The artificial and nosensical concept of cruelty that you want to impose on human hunting."
I did not impose such a concept on hunting. I imposed the concept of cruelty on the concept of killing for pleasure.
I would counter that you've imposed an artificial and nonsensical concept of cruelty on a clump of a few cells that do not even have a nervous system -- though it is difficult to determine what you really believe -- and that natural forces, excluding human beings, abort the majority of the time due to defects or other problems.
Permalink
saluki Posted 3:49 pm
11 Sep 2008
"Hello, this is Governor Sarah Palin speaking to you from my home in Wasilla Alaska, where I saved the city thousands of dollars by firing the police chief who refused to charge rape victims for rape investigation kits."
As usual, amazingdrx is lying. It seems that he would rather lie than breath. First, the firing of the Wasilla Police chief had no connection of any kind to rape kits.
Second, the person who wanted to do the charging was the Wasilla police chief, Fannon. And what he said was that he tried to charge the woman's insurance company in order to save the tax payers money. He also said that his real preference was to charge the rapist for the kit as a part of the compensation that the rapist must pay. There is no evidence that any rape victim ever had to pay for any rape kit with their own money.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:03 pm
11 Sep 2008
Hehehey, it'll ammuse the beleaguered volunteers though. Verbally assaulted as we are by vicious republicans.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:06 pm
11 Sep 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:19 pm
11 Sep 2008
"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said."
"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said."
"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said."
"Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminal's sentencing."
From the information available we don't know what the state policy was before the new law. We don't know what the Wasilla policy was before Palin. In fact, we don't even know if Palin gave direction of any kind to the police department on this issue. And lastly, we don't know if any rape victim actually ever paid for such a kit with their own money.
But we do know that amazingdrx is in need of a brain cell transfusion. Hopefully at the expense of the state.
Permalink
saluki Posted 4:34 pm
11 Sep 2008
After the recent polls, they probably need it. But to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not sure I want McCain to win. I've never been a big supporter of his. But I do like Palin. My concern is that with McCain in the White House, we will never get the Senate and the House back. I don't see that his leadership will be particularly inspirational. McCain doesn't have a real political philosopy. His philosopy is, "Let's compromise and try to make everybody happy". The legislation that he passes is likely to alienate more conservatives from the Republican party. On the other hand, if Obama wins, there will be nothing but Democrats in control of everything. We will see them at their finest. It will be similar to when Clinton first took office. Republicans will be energized. Most of the country will be horrified by Obama's socialism once they really see it, and they will try to put a brake on all of the legislation that they hate by electing Republicans to the House and the Senate.
I'm certain that Omama/Biden can get the House and Senate back for Republicans. And I'm just as certain that McCain won't. Makes me wish that Palin was on the ticket for the 2012 elections instead.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:36 pm
11 Sep 2008
Ok, as long as you provide the stem cells.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:40 pm
11 Sep 2008
Mwhahaha, all part of my subtle strategy, you will end up voting for Obama. And convince yourself it was your idea.
For I am... An..agent of chaos!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:47 pm
11 Sep 2008
I say saluki is a program; not a people. ;)
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:10 am
12 Sep 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
kmcfarland Posted 8:30 am
14 Sep 2008
will be cast overboard; just like the first wife. John McCain would do anything, risk anything, to be president. I don't think his quest is in my best interest...
Permalink