Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
She is not a conservative. Conservatives want smaller government, balanced budgets, they care about the environment and civil liberties. They believe in the rule of law.
I used to be a conservative. I used to be a Republican.
Now, I find the Democrats, though far from perfect, at least have a platform that is more in line with my views.
Clinton cut welfare and the government bureaucracy in half. He balanced the budget. Dems promise to help in rebuilding our infrastructure and encourage small startup businesses. They will offer a college education to a person so long as he or she agrees to be employed in service for a time afterwards. They promise lower taxes for most Americans.
The Republicans are no longer conservatives. They are CORPORATISTS. .
Our girl Sarah is a self-serving opportunist. She is uncaring of others and the economy and how the middle class is suffering.
I do not think she is stupid. I think her beauty pagent personna and lack of ivy league schools, etc, may be deceptive and it is false to assume she is not a seasoned manipulator and deft at deflecting criticisms from herself.
Sarah is just an opportunist:
She found that to get ahead in Alaska you have to be Republican, preferably a radial one, so that's what she became.
Seeing how she went back to work three days after having a special needs child who requires even more attention, tells me that she just does not want the responsibility of having such a child and went through with the pregnancy to merely serve her political aspirations.
It worked, didn't it?
Her sister got a divorce. Our little Sarah instructed an underling to fire her ex-brother in law. The underling refused, finding no reason to, so she fires him in revenge. She obviously has totalitarian attitudes, which fit in nicely with the current batch of Republicans. Oh, she is under investigation for this.
Boy, did McCain EVER pick someone who would support the energy establishment:
Alaska has the lowest individual tax burden in the United States and is one of only five states with no state sales tax and one of seven states that do not levy an individual income tax. To finance state government operations, Alaska depends primarily on petrol revenues. Nice, that all the sacrifices we make just to be able to drive to work are helping to pay for her little empire and allowing her to placate her public with an 'oil dividend'.
She may be even more unfeeling and unthinking than ratface in the oval office, the guy McCain voted with 95% of the time:
She is adamantly opposed to reproductive rights for women.
She believes global warming is a farce.
She believes creationism should be taught in public schools.
She is pro-war.
She strongly supports big oil (her husband works for oil company BP).
She supports aerial shooting of bears and wolves in Alaska.
|
While I find your view of opportunist interesting and even thought provoking your supporting arguments are either lacking in some important facts or un-researched showing lack of knowledge on each subject. So let me help clarify some of your supporting arguments.
Lets start with her special needs child, yes she did go back to work after having a baby an in only three days. Maybe not everyone needs to lay in bed after having one. Did you know the baby is at work with her? To me this shows the opposite of a means to an end but a caring mother who can run a house or government while meeting the needs of a newborn child. Maybe your from a small family that doesn't appreciate the advantages of a larger family and the help and support given to each child. Attention will not be lacking here.
Her sister did get a divorce and if the news accounts of the EX is any where accurate he should of been terminated from the State Troopers for abuse and violence. These are not qualities condoned in our police force. The person she terminated serves at her prerogative so he has no grounds for termination. The truth of this investigation is said to take till after the elections so I expect everyone will just have to wait and see.
Another fact one should understand that all subsurface rights belong to the state below a certain depth Oil being one of those. Thus the oil belongs to the people of Alaska, not an individual or corporation. ANILCA may affect some land the Native corporations own. That being said the oil belonging to each resident of the state should receive their fair share of the wealth and profits. In a round about way we do, though if one did all the math we probably actually would pay more in tax than most other states per capita. The state taxes the oil and receives a share in royalty oil that it sells and takes profits on. Some of this money runs state government, some goes to the PFD fund, this fund has two purposes. One is to pay for government when the oil runs out and the other is, when the conditions are proper pays out a dividend to each Alaskan Resident. This is a very generalized explanation. I would suggest one look at
State of Alaska Home Page for more accurate and detailed information.
Yes her husband worked for big oil, it is not like he was a VP or something, just a normal guy trying to earn a living and provide for his family.
While Ariel shooting of bears and wolves seems appalling to some. The reality is Alaska law requires the management off all fish and game for the benefit of all Alaskans. Ariel shooting is a method of last resort to control a population of predator that is decimating another population, normally moose. Moose are a staple food source in many villages and small communities. Even for some in the cities. Moose feeds the families and help keep the high cost of living to a reasonable level. By law the Governor must support managing fish and game for the people and this is a last choice method.
On a side note several years ago there was outrage by groups against hunting and trapping of wolves in Alaska. They even threatened to advertise against tourism in Alaska if we didn't conform to their views. Our response was then and will most likely be the same.
One of the airlines offered to ship wolves for free and the state offered to provide said wolves free to any group that would like them reintroduced back into their city, town, state. We had no takers. So this is another of those situations that mean not in my back yard.
So before one spouts off on something they don't have enough information on maybe they should ask the farmers and ranchers in Wyoming and Montana how the new wolf population is doing and how many wolves are there now compared to when introduced.
Oh how many wolves and bears would you like? I think 70 or so would be a good start.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oppertunist and truth
