A Palin thread from an Alaskan

[ch33kym0use]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom

Originally posted by: sierrita
Uh, Yes; and that's exactly what I'm doing here: calling out a Pro-Palin Troll.

Why am I a troll? Just because I am Pro-Palin? Please give an example where I am trolling. Do you know the definition of trolling?

Please, grow up. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else and was coming here to answer questions of those who may be on the fence or who are saying "What? This doesn't make sense."

I came in here trying to help. I have gotten some good arguments andposts from people I don't necessarily agree with.

I don't want to argue with you, or talk about why Palin is the Messiah and Obama is the Anti-Christ.

Please leave, you immature little partisan hack.

Right...you came in here trying to help.....trying to help your Evangelical she-hog pull the wool over America's eyes.

So sorry to rain on your little Sarah-Parade!

Shall I call for the Waaambulance?


:disgust:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
As a last post...

I work in healthcare. I know about rape kits and their use. Regardless of opinion, the examination is a billable medical service.

Thanks, everyone. Hopefully, for those of you with level heads, you can take what I say with a grain of salt and realize that those of us in Alaska have seen her actions and can say she has been great to the state.

Sigh. The purpose of a rape kit is not "treatment". It is not "preventative care." It is not to protect the victim's "health." It contains no "pain killers", "medicine", or "prescription drugs." It is not for the benefit of the "patient." It is a tool for evidence gathering, as its many other names suggest. To wit:

Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit
Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence (SAFE) Kit
Sexual Offense Evidence Collection (SOEC) Kit

The sole purpose is to collect and store evidence for future prosecution. There are no other evidence collection techniques for which the victim of a crime is charged. You have to really think women are sluts who deserve to be raped in order to think they should pay for this themselves.

The Alaska legislature felt forced to pass legislation banning charging the rape victim for a rape kit. When the law was passed, Palin's appointed police chief objected to the burden being passed to tax payers. Which makes sense, I mean, why would tax payers want rapists prosecuted and convicted with evidence? Much better to have them run around raping I say, give the police more calls to respond to.

According to USA Today, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Well, there you go, Palin was against charging the victim for rape kits.

But um, why then, as mayor, didn't she try to change the city's practice of charging rape victims for rape kits? "Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. The campaign cited the governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for shelters."

Two more interesting tid bits. As I posted earlier, there is now a federal mandate that anonymous rape kits be distributed to rape victims free of charge. Sponsored in the US Senate by whom? Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

And Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was one of 58 co-sponsors. Republican presidential nominee John McCain was not. Shocker.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It really matters little who SP is. She is not qualified to be President. She is a nobody from Nome.

McCain is 71 I think and could die any day. It was a profound example of egotistical judgment to put her on the ticket. The American people did not have any opportunity to vet her or to even know who she is. That was a profoundly irresponsible thing for McCain to do.

It doesn't matter if she can come up to speed, the point is that she may have to and may fail. She is nothing more or less than a pig, with lipstick, in a poke.

She was chosen not because she has known qualifications to be the next President, but because the party decided she could help win the election, and fuck America if McCain dies.

Who gives a shit about the country, so long as you win. The Republican party again shows us again that they are swine.

If you had just landed from Mars and were rational and caring, would you vote for Biden or Palin? Only fools with partisan blinders can't see this.

You are one bitter woman Moonie.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

Yes, and wouldn't that be great for the country?

You just revealed why its worth it for the blue states to pay welfare to Alaska, and for it to be a state: Because if it wasn't, it would be owned by Russia, which would have been a strategic disaster for us and Canada for the past century!

AND they provide 25% of our oil! Sounds like quite a deal to me.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
I don't care what you pay for oil. The bottom line is that we control it. It is America's oil. And isn't weening ourselves off of foreign oil dependence the point?

Yes, I would much rather make another American rich than keep sending billions to people on the other side of the world that want me, my family, and my entire way of life, dead.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

Yes, and wouldn't that be great for the country?

You just revealed why its worth it for the blue states to pay welfare to Alaska, and for it to be a state: Because if it wasn't, it would be owned by Russia, which would have been a strategic disaster for us and Canada for the past century!

AND they provide 25% of our oil! Sounds like quite a deal to me.

Sigh... seems to me the Alaska people got a good deal out of that too. That is unless you think they would have liked being Russians.
And FFS, we buy that oil at global market rates. It's not like they cut us a deal or anything.

BTW, and this is in regards to a different post, but I missed it where anyone insulted the State of Alaska.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

Yes, and wouldn't that be great for the country?

You just revealed why its worth it for the blue states to pay welfare to Alaska, and for it to be a state: Because if it wasn't, it would be owned by Russia, which would have been a strategic disaster for us and Canada for the past century!

AND they provide 25% of our oil! Sounds like quite a deal to me.

Hold on a minute. It's not like Alaska wouldn't be a state if we didn't pay welfare to its citizens. It's a state because two imperial powers made a money for land deal. We don't owe Alaska for their oil any more than the country owes us here in California for the food we grow, etc.

 

[TheVrolok]

I'll just do one here, since I've already done others in other threads. The OP claims that Sarah Palin fired her chef, displaying her cost saving and selfless act. Oh wait, no she didn't, she transferred her to the Republican state legislature to cook gourmet meals in their legislative lounge. Oops.

 

[Pens1566]

Again, the oil pumped out of the ground in Alaska isn't US oil. It belongs to Exxon, BP, etc.. It goes on the global market.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Apple Of Sodom
No one can truly be this daft.

If it were not for Alaska, then our domestic oil production would decline by 25% and we would be that much more dependent on foreign oil.

So, you may say Alaska is the welfare queen. Big deal. We contribute in many, many ways other than just giving federal taxes.

If it weren't for the US, Alaska would still be part of Russia.

Yes, and wouldn't that be great for the country?

You just revealed why its worth it for the blue states to pay welfare to Alaska, and for it to be a state: Because if it wasn't, it would be owned by Russia, which would have been a strategic disaster for us and Canada for the past century!

AND they provide 25% of our oil! Sounds like quite a deal to me.

Hold on a minute. It's not like Alaska wouldn't be a state if we didn't pay welfare to its citizens. It's a state because two imperial powers made a money for land deal.

No, it was a territory because two imperial powers made a deal. It became a state because we found oil there.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here is a better letter from a Wasilla resident:

<snip for brevity purposes>

Amazingly, even after all the incidents in Anne Kilkenny's E-mail, Palin was re-elected with over 75% of the vote. That alone makes me very suspicious of Kilkenny's claims, and when one adds in the fact that Kilkenny is a lifelong Democrat and opposed Palin from the beginning we begin to see that her E-mail is incredibly far from anything resembling an honest appraisal of Palin's history. There are many kernels of truth, but always bent to show them in as negative a light as possible.

There are also times where she talks out of both sides of her mouth, for example, she criticizes Palin for firing the city administrator and for taking him on in the first place. She claims that the administrator was forced on Palin, but then describes that same administrator as "fiercely loyal" to Palin. There are many things that just don't quite add up.

I'm not saying that Kilkenny is wrong, it's possible that Palin has hoodwinked over 75% of the voters, and I even suppose that it's technically possible for someone like Kilkenny, who describes herself as "just a housewife" to be privy to the internal workings of city and state government. However, I find the letter to be more than a little bit slanted.

There are so many valid reasons to dislike Palin, many of those are quite similar to reasons to dislike Obama (lack of experience, highly partisan voting records, etc), but they are at least valid.

ZV

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here is a better letter from a Wasilla resident:

<snip for brevity purposes>

Amazingly, even after all the incidents in Anne Kilkenny's E-mail, Palin was re-elected with over 75% of the vote. That alone makes me very suspicious of Kilkenny's claims, and when one adds in the fact that Kilkenny is a lifelong Democrat...

Amazingly, even after all the incidents the media reported, Nixon was re-elected with the largest electoral victory in history in 1972. That alone makes me suspicious of the alleged 'Watergate' and other abuses of power the meida claimed, and when one adds in how Woodward and Bernstein are liberal...

Yes, election results *clearly* are the way to tell whether allegations of wrongdoing are correct. And the 'sink or float' test is the best one for finding whether someone is a witch.

I'm not saying that Kilkenny is wrong, it's possible that Palin has hoodwinked over 75% of the voters, and I even suppose that it's technically possible for someone like Kilkenny, who describes herself as "just a housewife" to be privy to the internal workings of city and state government.

A lot of people know a lot about what goes on in a town of 5,000.

I've often noted how the smaller the town, the more everyone seems to know about everyone else. Most big city people I know barely know their neighbors at all, but most small town people I talt to can tell you all kinds of thiings about what seems like most of the other residents.

My impression: both of the letters appeared to try to be honest and offered some valuable info on Palin, some good and some bad.

Each letter had some coloring of the tone that comes from when a candidate you like or don't like is being described, but that's not dishonest at all.