Drilling in Alaska

[SkinBasket]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count.

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.

They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

[mraynrand]

now that i've seen Sarah Palin, I know I'd like to do some drilling in Alaska. know what i mean? huh? huh?

See page 9 in "VP raffle, GOP edition"

[Maxie the Taxi]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

LOL

Care to illuminate?

Well....just as an example..the "Bridge to nowhere" money. Did the State of AK give it back? Fuck no...it was just spent on other construction projects. The State of AK would never "build it ourselves"....we would use money from Uncle Don Young or Uncle Ted just like she has in the past.

"Lie" is a strong accusation. I don't believe in mind-reading, so I'm not inclined to believe those who profess to know what is in the heart and mind of another person.

A "lie" is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to decieve, or at least that's my dictionary's definition.

Those who accuse someone of lying must first prove the alleged liar's statements are false. The accuser must then prove the alleged liar's false statements were made in order to delibertately deceive.

People with an ax to grind, most especially politicians, are often accused nowadays of being liars. However, sometimes these people are just stupid, i.e., they don't know their statements are false (e.g., Nancy Pelosi). Sometimes their own personal perspective on things is so out of touch with reality, they actually believe their false statements are true (e.g., Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes what people say is technically true, but only half of the whole story. Does this make them liars? Maybe, if they intentionally refuse to be truthful about the other half.

The media has been so busy slandering Palin's family and mindlessly repeating outlandish internet rumors, they have for the most part failed to investigate the other half of the "Bridge to Nowhere" story. This proves to me the press is more interested in slinging mud than than in digging up the truth.

Before Palin's selection as the Republican VP nominee, what stories did appear in the media about the Bridge to Nowhere were still only half stories that concentrated on the corruption of Alaskan politicians, mostly Republicans. In these stories Palin was painted as a reformer. If you don't believe me, read the following Wall Street Journal article by John Fund posted in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/alaskas-gop-congressmen-a_b_119574.html

The article's slight mention of Palin includes this:

But voters are voicing dissent. Gov. Sarah Palin swept into office in 2006 by winning a GOP primary over incumbent Frank Murkowski, a former colleague of Stevens and Young in Congress. "I want Alaska to be known for more than FBI sting operations," she has declared. Palin openly encouraged Sean Parnell, her lieutenant governor, to mount a primary challenge to Young and has not endorsed Mr. Stevens against his primary challenger, Anchorage banker David Cuddy.

Now, however, after Palin's nomination as the Republican VP, articles like the one which follows appear in the same Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-top-alaska-newspapers-q_b_122625.html

This article by Greg Mitchell tells us that "2 top Alaskan newspapers question Palin's fitness." The article quotes editorials from these two newspapers and then reports this:

A reporter for the Anchorage daily, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post, in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80%, but 65% and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president.... I expect her to stick with simple truths. When asked about continued American troop presence in Iraq, she said she knows only one thing about that (I paraphrase): no one has attacked the American homeland since George Bush took the war to Iraq."

His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Another top Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

So before Palin's nomination Alaskan Republicans were corrupt conservatives slurping at the trough of public earmarks (making statements like "Those who bite me will be bitten back."). Now, after Palin's nomination, top Alaskan Republicans are trusted sources with regard to Palin's alleged incompetence.

Were the newspapers quoted in this article Democratic mouthpieces like the NY Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? What axes do the quoted Alaskan Republicans have to grind? Are they liars?

I would like the whole unvarnished truth to come out on the Bridge to Nowhere. I would like the media to ask Palin tough followup questions. But I would also like to see the media ask equally tough followup questions of Barrack Obama and Joe Biden. For instance, what is the full story with regard to Obama's connection to Mayor Daley and the Chicago political machine? What is the full story with regard to Biden and his lobbyist son?

We are all smart enough to become informed citizens and judge for ourselves, after listening to the candidates, what is truth and what isn't and, perhaps, if there is evidence enough, what is a lie.

But simply labeling a person a liar, without proof of intent, without the full story being told in all it's many colors, details and prospectives, amounts to nothing more than slander.

We should all take it for what it is.

[sheepshead]

i would post more in this thread if it was titled "drilling miss alaska"

A few keepers in here...

http://www.missalaskapageant.com/2008misscontestants.html

[texaspackerbacker]

"pandering to the religious right"--Hoosier's words--is actually code for appealing to good old American NORMALCY--the wonderful views and values that are prevalent with the vast majority of decent family oriented generally apolitical, but staunchly America-loving Americans.

Choosing somebody like Palin who so typifies this kind of NORMALCY really highlights how out of touch and downright evil the Dem/lib leadership is, along with the sick collection of weirdo groups and agendas that were flaunted at the DNC.

The beauty of our convention system is that practically all Americans--except maybe those so disinterested that they probably won't vote anyway--get to see and here exactly what the two parties choose to emphasize, exactly what the candidates and other party leaders are for and against, etc.--all of it UNFILTERED by the God damned leftist mainstream media.

Of course, like in 2000 and 2004, when that happens the hopes and chances of the Democrats go right in the toilet.

A lot of people on TV and elsewhere are writing off Republican chances in Congressional elections. Maybe, but I certainly don't see that as quite so clear cut. Logically, there too the evil media influence lessens as the election approaches, and the views and positions of the candidates become known.

That sounds great, but unfortunately experience has long taught us that behind the shrillest voices for what you call "normalcy" there lurks a foot-tapping pervert waiting to get out.

Hegel once wrote that the gaze that finds evil everywhere in the world is the true source of evil. I propose that the same logic holds for those who can't stop talking about the corruption of "normalcy".

Although your overall response is typically--for leftists--weak and flaccid, you do bring up one mildly valid point, the several instance of faguery among Republicans--Larry Craig and the Florida guy--I forgot his name. Of course, you Dem/libs had at least two similar instances--one of which is Barney Franks--probably the most blatant fag in politics, who instead of being roundly condemned, has been praised and made an icon of the Democrat Party.

As I would think even you would admit, Hoosier, homosexuality, along with the various other sick perversions out there, may be rare exceptions lurking below the surface with normal Americans i.e. Republicans, but they are matters of shame and disgust. With the Democrats, on the other hand, the same sick perversions are encouraged/promoted/made matters of party policy to push those evil agendas.

[Freak Out]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

LOL

Care to illuminate?

Well....just as an example..the "Bridge to nowhere" money. Did the State of AK give it back? Fuck no...it was just spent on other construction projects. The State of AK would never "build it ourselves"....we would use money from Uncle Don Young or Uncle Ted just like she has in the past.

"Lie" is a strong accusation. I don't believe in mind-reading, so I'm not inclined to believe those who profess to know what is in the heart and mind of another person.

A "lie" is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to decieve, or at least that's my dictionary's definition.

Those who accuse someone of lying must first prove the alleged liar's statements are false. The accuser must then prove the alleged liar's false statements were made in order to delibertately deceive.

People with an ax to grind, most especially politicians, are often accused nowadays of being liars. However, sometimes these people are just stupid, i.e., they don't know their statements are false (e.g., Nancy Pelosi). Sometimes their own personal perspective on things is so out of touch with reality, they actually believe their false statements are true (e.g., Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes what people say is technically true, but only half of the whole story. Does this make them liars? Maybe, if they intentionally refuse to be truthful about the other half.

The media has been so busy slandering Palin's family and mindlessly repeating outlandish internet rumors, they have for the most part failed to investigate the other half of the "Bridge to Nowhere" story. This proves to me the press is more interested in slinging mud than than in digging up the truth.

Before Palin's selection as the Republican VP nominee, what stories did appear in the media about the Bridge to Nowhere were still only half stories that concentrated on the corruption of Alaskan politicians, mostly Republicans. In these stories Palin was painted as a reformer. If you don't believe me, read the following Wall Street Journal article by John Fund posted in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/alaskas-gop-congressmen-a_b_119574.html

The article's slight mention of Palin includes this:

But voters are voicing dissent. Gov. Sarah Palin swept into office in 2006 by winning a GOP primary over incumbent Frank Murkowski, a former colleague of Stevens and Young in Congress. "I want Alaska to be known for more than FBI sting operations," she has declared. Palin openly encouraged Sean Parnell, her lieutenant governor, to mount a primary challenge to Young and has not endorsed Mr. Stevens against his primary challenger, Anchorage banker David Cuddy.

Now, however, after Palin's nomination as the Republican VP, articles like the one which follows appear in the same Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-top-alaska-newspapers-q_b_122625.html

This article by Greg Mitchell tells us that "2 top Alaskan newspapers question Palin's fitness." The article quotes editorials from these two newspapers and then reports this:

A reporter for the Anchorage daily, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post, in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80%, but 65% and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president.... I expect her to stick with simple truths. When asked about continued American troop presence in Iraq, she said she knows only one thing about that (I paraphrase): no one has attacked the American homeland since George Bush took the war to Iraq."

His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Another top Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

So before Palin's nomination Alaskan Republicans were corrupt conservatives slurping at the trough of public earmarks (making statements like "Those who bite me will be bitten back."). Now, after Palin's nomination, top Alaskan Republicans are trusted sources with regard to Palin's alleged incompetence.

Were the newspapers quoted in this article Democratic mouthpieces like the NY Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? What axes do the quoted Alaskan Republicans have to grind? Are they liars?

I would like the whole unvarnished truth to come out on the Bridge to Nowhere. I would like the media to ask Palin tough followup questions. But I would also like to see the media ask equally tough followup questions of Barrack Obama and Joe Biden. For instance, what is the full story with regard to Obama's connection to Mayor Daley and the Chicago political machine? What is the full story with regard to Biden and his lobbyist son?

We are all smart enough to become informed citizens and judge for ourselves, after listening to the candidates, what is truth and what isn't and, perhaps, if there is evidence enough, what is a lie.

But simply labeling a person a liar, without proof of intent, without the full story being told in all it's many colors, details and prospectives, amounts to nothing more than slander.

We should all take it for what it is.

The truth is out there for smart people like you to find. The earmark for the bridge was removed before she ever became Governor. The State still got the money and could spend it where they wanted for road construction and transportation related projects. Palin campaigned in Ketchikan while running for Governor saying she was for the bridge and that the people of Ketchikan were getting a bad rap.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Freak Out wrote:

The truth is out there for smart people like you to find. The earmark for the bridge was removed before she ever became Governor. The State still got the money and could spend it where they wanted for road construction and transportation related projects. Palin campaigned in Ketchikan while running for Governor saying she was for the bridge and that the people of Ketchikan were getting a bad rap.

In researching this I've come across the website of Andrew Halcro (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/). He's probably Alaska's biggest critic of Sarah Palin. I understand he ran against her for Governor. He posted the following after Palin's speech last night:

from http://www.andrewhalcro.com/grading_palins_speech_a

Grading Palin's Speech: A

It was a great night for Alaskans as Governor Sarah Palin hit all of the high notes and delivered a well rounded speech that touched all of the bases.

She introduced her family, talked about her experience, talked about Alaska and how we could help the country with our energy sources and even took swipes at the media and the Obama camp in true Sarah fashion. I gave the speech an A and probably would have given it an A+, except for the fact that I know her actual record as governor too intimately.

In describing some of her accomplishments as governor she not only stretched on some, but down right fabricated others.

[Palin statements from speech are in bold type]

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

Yes but some of that money was put back during the following budget cycle.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

The legislature had a hand in suspending the state fuel tax and saying she championed reform to end the abuses of earmarks means the state only asked for 31 earmarks this year totaling $190 million dollars.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

She did cancel the funding for the bridge after campaigning strongly for it a year earlier, but the state kept the money. What we really said was thanks but no thanks but thanks for the cash anyway. Governor Palin's press release on September 21, 2007:

“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.

Yes but the only reason the state had the cash in the treasury was because she raised oil & gas taxes to one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

No she did not. With the exception of the major tax hike in November of 2007, nothing has changed any facet of the competitive landscape on the North Slope. In fact last month when BP announced a new development on federal lease lands, their president said the development would have never happened on state lands because Alaska's taxes are too high.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

No she did not. What passed was legislation to give $500 million to a Canadian company to do the permitting paperwork. TransCanada's CEO has already stated that they can't afford to build the gas pipeline without the oil companies paying for it.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

Blatantly false. There is no deal to build any pipeline. It is a deal to have a Canadian company spend $500 million of taxpayer money to try and get permits for a pipeline they can't afford to build on their own. Meanwhile, the oil companies who have the legal leases to develop the gas and are the only ones who can financially backstop the pipeline are still waiting to be invited to the table.

Is Palin a liar? I honestly can't say. Halcro's allegations are certainly damning. On the other hand, I haven't been able to confirm his statements.

For the outsider, researching Palin via the internet is difficult and time-consuming. Alaskan politics are rough and tumble. Every Alaskan seems to have an ax to grind and seems to grind it with glee. (I didn't realize Alaska was such a bastion of progressive thinking.)

After digesting all the research the most believable description of Palin I've found is that she's a "redneck conservative," which means, I imagine, that she is a populist more than a doctrinaire conservative, especially in matters of taxing and spending.

I'll leave the rest of the research to the media. However, giving Palin the benefit of the doubt, I'll be watching Palin closely over the next couple months and listening closely to her statements as she is grilled by the mainstream media.

[LL2]

Of course Halcro is going to be critical as he lost to her in the election. As with every politician though, they all fudge the truth a little bit. I don't who they are. The most important thing to me is selecting a candidate based on the positions they take on issues, what they stand for, and their principles, while realizing that no one is perfect.

[Freak Out]

Listen Maxi...I understand what is going on here and know it's all about politics especially at the conventions. I am pretty sure Palin is a good person and her populist activities in Alaska are a big part of who she is and has not all been thrown out the window because she was made an offer from Mac that she really could not refuse. I'm a proud Alaskan and am proud that an Alaskan has a chance to reach that high an office (who would have said that about the VP 20 years ago!) and may even vote for Mac just because of that. Alaska will go Mac/Palin no matter how I vote but it's not all Palin love up here. Alaska is easy to lead when the coffers are overflowing but there are still huge issues here that Palin has done little to take care of...but that's why we have a legislature as far as I'm concerned.

I do worry about a Palin Presidency though if something were to happen to Mac.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Listen Maxi...I understand what is going on here and know it's all about politics especially at the conventions. I am pretty sure Palin is a good person and her populist activities in Alaska are a big part of who she is and has not all been thrown out the window because she was made an offer from Mac that she really could not refuse. I'm a proud Alaskan and am proud that an Alaskan has a chance to reach that high an office (who would have said that about the VP 20 years ago!) and may even vote for Mac just because of that. Alaska will go Mac/Palin no matter how I vote but it's not all Palin love up here. Alaska is easy to lead when the coffers are overflowing but there are still huge issues here that Palin has done little to take care of...but that's why we have a legislature as far as I'm concerned.

I do worry about a Palin Presidency though if something were to happen to Mac.

I appreciate where you're coming from. There's not a lot of McCain love down here either, at least from where I sit. I am extremely mistrustful of the Republicans. What they promise and what they actually do are too often very, very different. If I thought McCain/Palin were serious about "reforming" Washington, I'd send them a big contribution. But I've heard all the promises of reform before. I'm willing to bet that if the Republicans are elected, four years later taxes will be higher, spending will be higher and the country's economy will be hanging by a thread.

Earlier this year I considered voting for Obama, thinking his brand of progressivism along with a clear majority in Congress would create a backlash once and for all against progressivism. But I just can't imagine being able to pull the lever for the man.

[Maxie the Taxi]

P.S. As far as worrying about a Palin presidency if Mac dies, my advice is sit back and enjoy the show. That's what I'm planning if Obama gets it. Besides, from what I've learned, whatever Palin has or hasn't accomplished in Alaska, at least it hasn't been boring with her as Governor!

[SkinBasket]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count.

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.

They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count.

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.

They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself.

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

[mraynrand]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count.

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.

They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself.

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

This from the same guy who wanted Edward's affair left alone. You're such a transparent fool. The PRESS, not Palin did this to her child.

[SkinBasket]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count.

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.

They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself.

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

You still haven't established your "premise." You insulted me and others as hypocrites. I'm waiting to hear why I'm a hypocrite. Illuminate me.