Palin Takes Protecting Polar Bears "Very Seriously"

For the sake of balance, vis-à-vis Obama’s Taking It Seriously, here’s one for Sarah Palin.

WHO: Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
WHAT: In an op-ed, Palin, who favors opening ANWR to drilling and whose husband got a $46,790 paycheck last year from BP, laid out her reasons for why the Bush administration shouldn’t have added polar bears to the endangered species list.
WHERE: “Bearing Up” [NYT Op-Ed]
THE QUOTE: “The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat…”
BONUS QUOTE: “If you are not for opening ANWR, in the state of Alaska, you couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.” – former Alaska state Rep. Ray Metcalfe in an AP article.

Taking it seriously” is a phrase companies (and politicians) use over and over again to appear contrite or thoughtful without actually saying or doing anything. Our series of posts documenting the phrase’s attempts recurrences are our attempt to question how much seriousness-taking is actually going on.

(Thanks to Michael Belisle!)

(Photo: noromdiam, Wikipedia)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Zeniq says:

    eh?

  2. psuchad says:

    Can we stay out of politics on this site? If that crap starts I will take my no longer coming here “very seriously.”

    • @psuchad: Look to your left. About half of the Gawker media sites have something about Barack or Palin. Deadspin even had the video from Palin’s sportscaster days.

      Get used to it.

      I think Consumerist is being fair by this post.

    • Consumerist-Moderator-Roz says:

      @psuchad: @cmdrsass: The comment code’s still right on the front page; “why is this on the Consumerist” type posts are not allowed. They’re boring and frankly if you have an issue with the choices of the editors, the way to handle them is to email the editor. Threadshitting doesn’t do much but discourage and detract from genuine commentary about the subject of the article.

      • Leiterfluid says:

        @Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: With all due respect to you and the editors, this type of post cannot be responded to without violating the comment code in one way or another. It seems that this post is intended to stir up vitriolic debate rather than to inspire comments that would lend themselves to “suggest[ing] alternate courses of action, or add[ing] important information that might help others or that we missed.”

        But I’m sure the editors are “taking it very seriously.”

        • Trai_Dep says:

          @Leiterfluid, et al: The thing is, politics IS life. How do you think that rules establishing what’s legal or not get made? Via politics. Not tracking it while trying to be a savvy consumer would be like ignoring road maps while trying to be a canny driver.
          And, for what it’s worth, I think what Ben and the crew are doing is placing a relevant story that relates to politics as a way to give Consumerist readers who are aware a chance to civilly discuss the issues, as a catharsis, thus keeping the other threads politics-free.
          You just might want to avoid stories with the words, “obama” “mccain”, “palin” etc in them if the resulting comments might inadvertently cause you thought. In the same way that when my nephew burns his hands playing on the stove, I tell him to stay out of the kitchen. :)

      • @Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: hehe, “threadshitting”… i like that wod

  3. Bladefist says:

    Here is some facts/myths about ANWR
    [www.snopes.com]

    The polar bears wouldn’t really be affected.

  4. quagmire0 says:

    +1 on the staying out of politics on this site. I won’t share my agenda with you, and I’d rather you not share your agenda with me.

    Ok, my agenda is that Palin is a VPILF!

  5. cmdrsass says:

    Please, no more of these thinly-veiled political posts. Stick to consumer issues.

  6. Bladefist says:

    BTW, her husband WORKS for BP. It’s not like they are paying him under the table or something. He is a blue collar worker for them.

  7. lhutz34 says:

    Tigh/Roslin ’08!

  8. lawnmowerdeth says:

    I agree that politics shouldn’t play a part here. And there are more polar bears than there were 50 years ago.

  9. HIV 2 Elway says:

    Nuke the Whales!

  10. Kyattsuai says:

    I guaran-damn-tee you Colbert’s going to be all over this tonight.

    • Trai_Dep says:

      Luckily, Palin’s Abstinence-Only-Raised, underaged children are too busy shacking up and making babies to glance out the window long enough to see if there are any polar bears still alive. So, it’s not as though the Palin family will miss anything. Err, besides the pregnancy status of their daughters.
      Oh wait. Does Palin take Family Planning “Very Seriously” too?

      @Kyattsuai: Colbert (and Stewart) face an embarrassingly target-rich environment with this family. I can’t wait. Although, were I them, I’d almost feel guilty collecting a paycheck when the material so obviously writes itself.

      • TracyHamandEggs says:

        @Trai_Dep: And thats appropriate??

      • Bladefist says:

        @Trai_Dep: Nice. Attacking a 17 year old girl, in order to attack her mother. Good work man. I’m sure you read Obama’s books, so you know when he was 17, he was doing drugs and getting drunk.

        Sorry, continuing attacking children of republicans.

        • Trai_Dep says:

          @Bladefist: Sure. While 17, taking drugs, getting drunk (the same thing) he practiced Safe Sex thus didn’t spread VD and fill the world with dozens of lil’ Baby Obamas. And isn’t trying to make teaching pragmatic family planning efforts illegal while removing the choice from other families with respect to their own bodies. In other words, there’s no hypocrisy there.
          That’s the key difference, one that seems to slip past some.
          Which (bringing this back to topic) keeps populations down, thus creating less pressure for, well, frolicking polar bears, which we take very seriously.

          • Bladefist says:

            @Trai_Dep: No, the key difference is attacks on Obama are okay, he is running for office. Attacks on a 17 year old girl – Not Okay. I’m quite aware of her mothers political policies on the subject, but that has nothing to do with the girl. The Messiah has already asked that you stop talking about this. [www.politico.com]

            • boandmichele says:

              @Bladefist: the mother and her policies have nothing to do with the daughter?

              • Bladefist says:

                @boandmichele: I often did things my mother did not approve of. Look, we both know that people aren’t attacking her because of her mothers policies, and the resulting hypocrisy. People are attacking her simply to get to her mother, and reduce her chances of winning. No part of me believes anyone attacking the little girl is even a bit concerned for her.

                @bria: I understand, it came from how the media treats him. Relax.

                • bria says:

                  @Bladefist:
                  Not necessary in a thread like this.

                • boandmichele says:

                  @Bladefist: but thats the problem. if anyone so much as MENTIONS that her 17 year old daughter is pregnant, then there are cries that everyone is ‘attacking’ the ‘little girl’. i havent seen any actual attacks yet, but it is relevant to her political views. (as a conservative christian)

                • trujunglist says:

                  @Bladefist:

                  The media treats Palin as Alaska’s little darling, but Democrats aren’t being retarded and calling her The One or how about Trailer Princess because that’s attacking someone based on absolutely nothing that they themselves had a part in; you yourself said it’s because of how the media handles their image.
                  On the other hand, Democrats are riled up over her teenage daughter’s pregnancy because it speaks volumes about how she runs her household. She wants to enforce her values upon all of America… and look how well it worked! MOST people would not be happy to have a pregnant daughter at her age, because that means more struggles for the family. Fortunately for the Palin family, they don’t have to worry about any of that because they are very well off. The average American teenager making minimum wage isn’t as lucky! Also, I find it pretty messed up that McCain and herself also knew all about this and STILL made the decision that if the Democrats did find out, then she’d be in the public spotlight, humiliated by her own mother.
                  This is NOT the right example to set for American teenagers or Americans in general, so yeah, it is relevant, and no, no one is attacking her daughter because everyone, including yourself, realize that teens will be teens (hence the need for sex education and birth control availability for teens – man, you’re making this too easy today buddy), they’re attacking Palin, but leave it to a Republican to get that twisted around.

              • Japheaux says:

                Another 300 illegals crossed the border while we read all of these posts and we’re very seriously ranting about polar bears.

            • bria says:

              @Bladefist:
              He’s a Presidential candidate, not the Messiah, and he never asked anyone to call him that, so why don’t you cut it out.

            • BrianDaBrain says:

              @Bladefist: While I agree with Obama’s stance on this issue (and am genuinely pleased by his response), I think we’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves by calling him the Messiah.

              In any case, the spiel about polar bears and her POLITICS is far more relevant to the presidential race that her daughter being pregnant. Who cares about the pregnant daughter… from a political standpoint anyway?

            • Trai_Dep says:

              @Bladefist: “Attacks on a 17 year old girl – Not Okay

              Q: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?”
              A: “Because her father is Janet Reno.”
              – John McCain in 1998, when Chelsea was seventeen years old.

              Again, the issue is rank hypocricy, saying one thing while behaving completely opposite. And, pointing out the abject failure of their policies when they encounter the real world, and expressing disappointment that they don’t rationally adjust their course accordingly as we’d expect from thinking adults. I’ve nothing but sympathy for the girl, but unfortunately it’s bigger than her: it shows how badly her parents (and running-mate) think.

              So, since it’s Not Okay, you’ll be switching allegiance? Being that Obama is the only candidate that hasn’t done this? Or is this another case of not letting stoopid facts change your mind?

              • Bladefist says:

                @Trai_Dep: No thats not okay either. Just because one side does it, doesn’t mean it’s ok for the other. Yes. I’m going to switch allegiance now. Obama08.

                • boandmichele says:

                  @Bladefist: whew its about time!

                  lol

                • pmls says:

                  @Bladefist: I think the difference there is that Senator McCain made the insult himself. It was not random bloggers or a Limbaugh-type of personality, it was Senator McCain. The people on the internet who are discussing Bristol are just following the lead of a man who has a 50/50 shot of being the next President. Please feel free to compare the two instances when Senator Obama or another sitting Senator throws insults at Bristol.

        • ironchef says:

          @Bladefist:
          But kinda undermines the Abstinence platform. LOL.

          • Bladefist says:

            @ironchef: Most parents advocate abstinence.

            @Tux the Penguin: You’ll get 3 debates. But you need to look for specifics right now. If the Republican convention can give you specifics for plans, then I say it’s a successful convention. If they don’t (which seems to be the popular thing to do), then you’ll have to wait for the debates. But it’s all pandering anyway.

        • pmls says:

          @Bladefist: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

          - John McCain, 1998

          Chelsea Clinton was 18 at the time. I am confident Senator Obama will do the mature thing, like Senator McCain did, and wait for Bristol to turn 18 before he starts insulting her.

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @pmls:
            Chelsea Victoria Clinton: born February 27, 1980
            McCain’s calling a child coyote ugly: February 8, 2008

            > Chelsea was seventeen at the time

            >> That said, it’s incredibly sleazy and inappropriate regardless. He went out of his way to insult someone not running for office, and he did it directly, from his own lips, for yucks and to score political points. Says much about his character. Jeezus: picking on a girl – for yucks. (shudder)
            >> That he now turns around, sheds crocodile tears while pleading, “Leave seventeen-year-old girls a-l-o-n-e!” says even more about his hypocrisy.

            @Bladefist: “It doesn’t mean it’s okay for the other side…”
            But Obama didn’t say it. And he can’t be held responsible for what millions of bloggers and reporters say, can he? So bottom line is you said it’s vitally important, and McCain did, yet Obama didn’t. So…

      • ClayS says:

        @Trai_Dep:
        True, but just as the left-leaning TV and radio folks yearn for a shot at McCain/Palin, those that are right-leaning no doubt would relish Obama/Biden.

      • @Trai_Dep: Perhaps you’d care to argue whether or not drilling in ANWR and how it relates to taking the plight of the polar bear seriously?

        Question: Does Palin take the plight of the Polar bear seriously? I say yes because she has promoted efforts to protect the environment in Alaska while balancing the needs of her constituents. But I’m sure she would admit that her constituents needs come before the polar bears needs, which is why she gives the “taking it very seriously”.

        Your answer to the above question appears to be “her kids have babies”.

        • snowburnt says:

          @IamNotToddDavis: She is “taking it seriously” by suing George Bush to remove polar bears from the endagered species list?

          That, my friend is a non sequitor

          • @snowburnt: The “taking it seriously” comment as we all know is double speak for “NOT taking it seriously”. I’m not defending that. What I’m defending is the fact that she does take the protection of Alaska’s environment seriously, as her constituents would agree.

            But the fact is that polar bears are in no danger of extinction, and placing the needs of polar bears in front of her consituents is a non-tenable position for an Alaskan politician.

      • TechnoDestructo says:

        ANWR should be opened exactly in time to keep the existing infrastructure active. Not much sooner, and DEFINITELY no later. The longer they wait, the more it is worth (to Alaska), as long as it doesn’t require the expense of rebuilding the entire oil infrastructure in Alaska.

        OTOH, maybe global warming will make the arctic ocean passable to oil tankers. That would simplify things. (But there go the polar bears)

        @Trai_Dep: @Bladefist:

        Given her mother’s stances, it’s fair. But kind of irrelevant here.

  11. BeeBoo says:

    This would have been a better illustration for this article:

    [en.wikipedia.org]

  12. boandmichele says:

    dear consumerist,

    please keep up the political posts, because whether or not people want to believe it, politics affects us as consumers. people who disagree, get over it. this is a blog, your votes don’t count.

  13. Cupajo says:

    “BTW, her husband WORKS for BP. It’s not like they are paying him under the table or something. He is a blue collar worker for them. “

    Doesn’t matter. Still constitutes a conflict of interest.

  14. Murdermonkey says:

    @WhnyBtchs
    Th pls n pltcs psts, r nly bcs thy vry bvsly rnt yr blfs. Th pnt f th rtcl s t mck th “tkng t vry srsly” ln ll ppl wh bvsly dnt gv sht spt vry fv scnds.

    • Consumerist-Moderator-Roz says:

      @Murdermonkey: Flaming other comments is way out of line.

      • Tux the Penguin says:

        @Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: No, I think the original comment is perfectly valid. Other than the phrase “very seriously” what point does this have to do with ANYTHING related to “Shoppers biting back”?

        This is purely political unless the Consumerist is about to begin a large reporting segment on how ANWR and its associated oil field would affect gas prices, which would be related to what Consumerist is supposed to be about.

        Yes, people use the term “very seriously” as a cop out. WE GET THAT ALREADY.

  15. bobpence says:

    Polar bear populations have been increasing for years, so if it was a supply problem I suspect meat prices would be quite low. But it’s not about a supply problem, polar bears have nothing to do with consumerism.

    Palin/Jindal 2016!

  16. BeeBoo says:

    Taking all of the vowels out of a post draws more attention to it. It’s like “IF U CN RD THS U CN BCM A SCRTY & GT A GD JB”. It takes me at least three times as long to read such a post.

    Something that amuses me about Palin is that she believes in abstinence-only sex education yet her unmarried 17 year old daughter is pregnant by a hunky hockey player, which means she was having unprotected sex.

  17. OldSpinDoc says:

    This doesn’t belong here. It’s simply throwing raw meat out for the political agenda-drivers.

    I have my opinion about what the polar bears represent in this fight, and it ain’t because of their great impact on the Circle of Life.

    Please keep Consumerist limited to consumer issues…

  18. sketchy says:

    Palin is the Best and Worst Choice for VP.

    Best because she might help poach Hilary defectors, balance off McCains’ ‘weak’ views (gun control, pro-anti-abortion), add family values, and hits a younger demo..

    Worst because she hates Polar Bears and the Environment (that’s how it’s being sold), has an immoral family, and no experience (how does one get experience being VP?).

    Love her or Hate her it’s gonna be a fun race.

  19. Trai_Dep says:

    Guys, while we jest about polar bears and cuddly penguins, ecosystems are vastly complicated. The cutest critters make for good copy, but they’re markers for a healthy overall environment.
    Hence, the number of polar bears, while a good shorthand, aren’t germane to a healthy environment, since the whole thing needs to be examined. This, of course, assumes the counting methods are accurate (for instance, is there enough polar ice left for polar bears to hunt, or since it’s shrunken down, have polar bears been forced to concentrate their efforts to areas closer to man, thus appearing to be an increase of numbers, while actually showing the opposite?
    This is tricky, interrelated stuff that doesn’t lend itself to bumper-sticker, simple solutions. Were that it were.

  20. bobpence says:

    Okay, we can’t attack the OP (no matter how self-centered), shouldn’t the candidate’s minor children be off the table?

    • boandmichele says:

      @bobpence: im not sure i’d consider a 17 year old pregnant woman as a “minor child”, especially when her conniving mother has thrust her into the national spotlight without thinking about what it might do to her.

  21. snoop-blog says:

    This woman is a joke. If McCain does die in the next 4 years, and lets face it, he’s old, I’m definately not going to want this woman leading america.

  22. Any voter who is taking the plight of polar bears all that seriously is not taking the upcoming election all that seriously. A VP candidate’s polar bear population policy and family teenage pregnancy history rank at 1,293,345 and 1,346,234 on my list of important issues to be addressed at the ballot in November.

    Side note: Oil dropped another $10 before the weekend.

  23. snoop-blog says:

    @AtomicPlayboy: what else do we have to talk about her? She hasn’t really made it clear to the masses what she has accomplished or stands for. I’m not going to dig research about a candidate. If they can’t come out and tell me any kind of substance about them, I’m going to assume there is none. In that case, all we do know about her is her daughter is pregnant, I wonder who the guy is and how much pressure he’s feeling to marry her now, and we know she likes guns, oil, and money, and hates polar bears…

  24. The_Atomic_Pod says:

    As long has her “taking it seriously” means about the same as when big business says it (meaning, we don’t care and will do nothing) then I’m still on board with her.

    Can we worry about humanity first please?

  25. ndjustin says:

    I’m very disappointed in the consumerist, previous attempts to insert politics at least tried to have a tie with consumer issues, but polar bears?

    Stick with the consumer issues, that’s why we visit this site. Don’t become a jack of all trades and master of none.

  26. bria says:

    She’s also under an ethics investigation, and McCain knew that and that Bristol was pregnant before he picked her.

    Oh, and she told her family she accepted the VP nomination after she had already signed everything and it was final.

  27. seawolf2000 says:

    okay i know i might get banned for this, but this is a stupid post. My reason for saying that is because it is just gonna start an inane political debate in the comments. Polar Bears don’t have much to do with consumerism. I get all the politics I need from sites like Reddit and Digg and DailyKos etc.

    • ndjustin says:

      @seawolf2000: Although I don’t agree with sits like Reddit, Digg, and Dailykos, I agree with you.

      I’d like to add if this is the type of stories we can expect to see in the future, I’d welcome a ban, I can do with out all the comments attacking a 17 year old girl and the substance of a one paragraph hack of an article.

  28. snoop-blog says:

    Well if the media won’t leave brittney and her kids alone, what makes anyone else think this is any different? Apparently gossip sells, and people are not going to stop talking about it. While I’m not going to slam the mom here, I’m more intrigued on weather or not this is an arranged marriage. If the boy is in anyway being forced into this it would most definatly be a violation of his rights, and I have a gut feeling like that this bf, kinda wants to bang other women. What 17 year old wouldn’t?

    anyhow, It just tickles me how the thunder got stole from the republican convention!!!!! LMAO!!!!!

    and to some of you on here, quit posting comments about other peoples comments and actually add something (good or bad) to the discussion. Don’t hate, celebrate. No seriously tho, I’d rather read comments from the most hateful individual than, “why is this/ this doesn’t belong/ blah blah blah….

    • Tux the Penguin says:

      @snoop-blog: Let me break something to you. If the daughter was going to have an abortion, that would steal the thunder from the convention a lot more than this would.

      And honestly, considering that we have members of the media all but declaring they’re in the tank for Obama, I don’t think this will be the last “surprise” to break this week.

      • snoop-blog says:

        @Tux the Penguin: Well I was also refering to Gustav…. Apparently even god is in ‘the tank’ for Obama….weird.

        • Tux the Penguin says:

          @snoop-blog: Gustav was nothing compared to what it was hyped to be. If anything, I was reading some people complaining that the RNC would turn the convention into a “relief” drive and get unfair press out of it.

          It all comes down to it that the Democrats will think the RNC convention is laughable, just like Republicans thought that the DNC convention was laughable.

          Us independents, mostly, don’t give a damn about the conventions. I want to see some plans, I want to see some debates. Unfortunately, in American politics, we rarely see any real plans or debates. Its all prepackaged.

          • snoop-blog says:

            No Gustav in New Oleans was nothing compared to Katrina. It still hit the bahama’s really bad, and other outlying parts. They weren’t hyping Gustav, they just wanted everybody the F- out of NO. You don’t evacuate an entire city just so you can create hype to help out your candidate. That shit was a real threat, and thank god it wasn’t the hype they made it out to be.

      • BeeBoo says:

        @Tux the Penguin: It’s not called an “abortion” in a situation like this, it’s call a “miscarriage”. I also question her decision making with her one month premature rupture and birth by flying from Texas to Alaska to have her baby because she didn’t want it born in Texas.

        • Trai_Dep says:

          @BeeBoo: I thought that you couldn’t fly during the third trimester, since it put the child at too much risk. Is that allowed? Is it recommended?

          • BeeBoo says:

            @Trai_Dep: Righty or wrongly most physicians tell their patients not to fly at least the last month of their pregnancy.

            I cannot imagine ANY physician or nurse or intelligent person recommending that a woman fly when her membranes have ruptured a month prematurely.

            The fact that the child had Down’s makes it even riskier.

            At the very least, it shows very poor judgement or, I hate to say it, she subconsciously wanted something to happen to the baby.

    • SinisterMatt says:

      @snoop-blog:

      I would argue that it probably is not so much an “arranged marriage” per se (I assume you mean in the traditional sense of the word) as it is the boy taking responsibility for his raising the child in a traditional family unit, which conservatives advocate. While it isn’t going to happen, I’d be interesting in hearing something from the boy (isn’t his name Levi?) on his take on the whole matter of getting married and so forth.

      That said, I guess the term “taking it seriously” in this context really only has the meaning that it traditionally does in the business world if you take seriously (in the original meaning of the word, not what it means now) the rate of climate change and humanity’s disputed role in speeding it up. The impending doom of the earth by humanity’s bad choices and over-reliance on fossil fuels is something that seems to attract more Democrats and liberals than Republicans and conservatives. The fact that she is a Republican only adds fuel to the fire of distrust that Palin doesn’t mean what she says when talking about Polar Bears, since neither side seems to trust the other to do anything, except the most trivial of things.

      Cheers!

      • snoop-blog says:

        @SinisterMatt: Yeah I was talking about weather or not he is being forced into this by this election. Makes me wonder who (from the McSame camp) sat down with him and told him the not marrying her is NOT an option. I would also like to hear is (and her) stance on abortion. I can just picture McCain telling him “Your marrying that C#$T weather you like or not!”

        you watch, the moment McSame and Palin lose she’ll be telling that boy to stay the hell away from her daughter and to sign away all the rights to his child, if the daughter doesn’t “mis-carry”.

    • SinisterMatt says:

      @snoop-blog:

      I was under the impression that the “thunder” from the Republican Convention was more stolen by Gustav than by this thing with Palin’s kid, but I could be wrong.

      Cheers!

  29. snoop-blog says:

    As a huge coke drinker, she better LAY OFF the polar bears,… just sayin.

  30. dottat1 says:

    Check out the truth on ANWR here

    [blog.heritage.org]

  31. BeeBoo says:

    Actually, I think it was Janet Reno who should have been insulted!

  32. peter_in_paris says:

    Really, maybe the Consumerist needs to post a code on what kinds of articles are acceptable and RELEVANT to consumers. This is becoming a joke.

    And I love how the Moderators can respond to posts that are breaking “the rules,” therefore breaking the rules themselves by adding to the ever-so-eloquently-named off-topic “threadshitting.”

    • Trai_Dep says:

      @peter_in_paris: My take on what Consumerist is doing is that, every week or so, they’ll cover an issue that’s consumer-related that they know might engender political discussion. So they do so to create a sandbox for those interested in such things to *civilly* do so. Overseen by their Editor-in-Chief and their moderator-in-shiny-armor. But only within this sandbox.
      It’s cathartic, informative and delineated, so that, with a good conscience, they can wrist-slap comments that are “too political” in the other 200 stories where it’s inappropriate to bring politics into it.
      I think that, if so, it’s a great solution, since people can easily avoid these stories if they find these discussions aren’t their cup of tea. Yet those that are politically aware can communicate with their Consumerist buddies every so often. Win/Win! :)

      • Consumerist-Moderator-Roz says:

        @Trai_Dep: Thank you for your post. This is exactly what we want to get across with the comment code.

        Partisan political debate is off-topic in general, but allowed in these types of threads because it is relevant, as long as it is done civilly and respectfully.

        “Why is this on Consumerist” or insults to the editor or other posters are inappropriate, and may lead to removal of your posting privileges. We want to avoid comment threads turning into cesspools, and if you can’t behave yourself, do not comment.

        • Dyscord says:

          Eh, I don’t care that political stuff is one here from time to time, but when a fair amount of people complain that political stuff has no business on consumerist, it might be a good idea to listen to them.

          Besides, the “taking it seriously” thing doesn’t seem to hold the same weight with politics as it does with corporations. At least with politics, there’s a chance it’s actually true. With corporations, it’s said when referring to something that, if they took seriously in the first place, wouldn’t be an issue. (Sprint’s website security for one) So it’s almost redundant.

  33. picardia says:

    No need to attack the girl when her mother is eminently attackable on her own — siding with the Alaskan Independence party to argue that the state should secede from the union (seriously? seriously, the same year she records a encouraging message for that, she wants to become VP?) and trying to find ways to ban books from local libraries. This person is not a conservative; she’s a crackpot, and McCain obviously spent about two hours vetting her. Glad to know he makes important decisions with no information or planning. The only way in which I find the girl’s pregnancy relevant is that I can’t believe Palin or any parent (male or female, let me be clear) would accept the VP position knowing their child’s secret would immediately be blown all over the news. Her life already must be traumatic enough — how is this going to help? It’s not.

  34. cmdrsass says:

    @peter_in_paris: I was insulted for being called out for “threadshitting” on this obviously content-less article. Yet look at all the garbage that has been posted since then in violation of the commenters code without a peep from Roz. I’d really like to know what consumer issue we’re supposed to be discussing here that would be on topic. I like reading the Consumerist, but political blogs are a dime a dozen.

  35. lingum says:

    Just shut this stupidity down please. As was said before, I get all the communist propaganda I can take on the TV and digg.

  36. I’m officially going to stop reading The Consumerist. This is pointless political crap that belongs somewhere else.

  37. snoop-blog says:

    Dude your avatar is George Bush, eating a kitty, and yet your whining about the political posts on the consumerist? I mean I’ve only counted about 3 in as many weeks. You guys all know there is a big election coming up, and yes this is the consumerist, but EVERYBODY is talking about this because it’s kinda, you know, only the fate of America for the next 4-8 years were talking about. If you don’t think the who get elected will make an impact on consumers, your are wrong. An election happens every four years, get use to hearing about this crap every 4 years until you die. I’m in college, and every class has found a way to tie in the lesson plans with the election, and I’m not even in a politics class. Guess what class is talking about it the most? Business, which most certainly corresponds with consumerism.

  38. modenastradale says:

    Oh, c’mon now! Everybody knows this article was just an excuse to get Palin’s A+ mug on Consumerist. :-)

  39. snoop-blog says:

    You know the McLame camp has a tail on the boyfriend at all times. He’s probably already been threatened with what he can and cannot say about it…

    • Bladefist says:

      @snoop-blog: Can you stop with the nicknames? I got plenty for Obama that I ceased. I think the name ‘McSame’ is kind of ironic, considering Bush beat Kerry in a land slide. And considering Kerry has more on his resume then Obama, maybe being the same couldn’t hurt?

      Is Obama not the same as everyone else? I mean, what has he said that is different then any democrat in the last 20 years?

      Does Obama bring hope and change, with his 35 years status-quo vp pick? All too often people forget their history. You basically have two senators (thats scary) in a who can pander the most contest, turning this election into a status quo election, offering us the same failed policies that made our grandparents swoon.

      • snoop-blog says:

        @Bladefist: okay, I’ll quit with all the nicknames.

        But how dare Obama speak of change, Hasn’t anyone told him it’s been done already? I mean the nerve. He can’t even be original, I mean does anyone even want change? Oh wait, they do? Well still doesn’t he know he’s a copy cat?

        You get the idea…

        just because others tried and failed, doesn’t mean give up. You know, it’s okay for an idea to be repeated every now and then, especially if it’s a good one. Have you ever wore the same shirt more than once? I mean seriously it’s about as good of an argument that your trying to make. So since one, or every candidate has wanted to change the way things are done makes it a bad idea, or nobody else is allowed to want change? Give me a break.

        • Bladefist says:

          @snoop-blog: Look, I’m just saying, change is status quo, and those fancy words are just marketing, and trying to get you to vote for them. They’re career politicians, and if you believe all their nonsense, then you’re always going to be disappointed. Even if you had a guy, who had some follow through, the president, just, isn’t that powerful to make all your hopes and dreams come alive. I just wish candidates would cut through all the BS, and tell me what they’re going to do, then do it. But that doesn’t buy votes. Reality doesn’t buy votes.

          • snoop-blog says:

            @Bladefist: Picking palin was purely a move to attract dis-enchanted clinton supporters, everyone can see that. Otherwise why else pick her? Bad move on my part as no-one would elect her president if she were the front runner in this election, and McCain’s old, there’s a very good chance he may not live another 4 years, and she would be left running the country. McCain is not going to be a “slam dunk” by any means. The republicans can campaign their asses off, don’t get me wrong.

            • Bladefist says:

              @snoop-blog: Several reasons to pick her, I’m sure the one you provided was in top 3. And no, I’m not really a McCain supporter. I am much too conservative to stand behind him. If I did use gas to go vote for him, it would be only for 2 reasons:

              1) Republican tax values (lower taxes)
              2) Conservatives supreme court judges (uphold constitution)

              • trujunglist says:

                @Bladefist:

                1) You must have a lot of money.
                2) Word for word? The original? Really? Or are you talking about the interpreted constitution that now exists largely due to a Republican stranglehold on the court?

      • RandomHookup says:

        @Bladefist: Gee, I didn’t know a 3% difference in voter count and a 35 vote difference in the Electoral College was a landslide. Compared to 2000, sure, but what do you call the 1984 Reagan-Mondale result – a tsunami?

      • Trai_Dep says:

        @Bladefist: Wait, wait, wait. You haven’t replied to my previous questions. Are you FOR or AGAINST attacking minor girls for political gain? And if the latter, then are you going to support the only Presidential candidate that DOESN’T attack little girls for yucks?
        You raised the issue, and ranked it highly. So we’re interested in seeing how you play this out. Being that McCain took such obvious relish when he did so.
        Or if, y’know, facts don’t enter your decision-making equations.

        • Bladefist says:

          @Trai_Dep: Yea, Facts don’t enter my decision-making equations. I am against attacking the kids in the families. The quote you presented from McCain, against Chelsey, I said was wrong. It’s hard to respond to you, you bounce all over the place.

          I am not a McCain supporter, and his statements about Chelsey Clinton has not made me rethink if I want to be taxed higher, have national health insurance, or suspend drilling for oil so I can run my car on dreams.

          @trujunglist: Word for Word. IE: the decision on the gun banning that happened a while ago, would be a 3 second decision. “hmmm, thats unconstitutional, next”

          And I wouldn’t have members of the ACLU be justices either.

  40. AI says:

    As a Canadian consumer, what does this post mean for me? Will the price of polar bear meat increase or decrease?

  41. Anah says:

    The Consumerist is supposed to be alerts about various product and company issues not venturing into politics.
    Please get back to the main topic at hand or you can consider myself and all I recommend to this website gone.

    I have never seen anything as utterly disgusting and disgraceful as attacking a candidates children and her pregnancy. It has no place in politics in any country and makes the USA look pathetic in the international eye. For this to be on consumerist is highly disappointing.

    Bringing politics to the Consumerist is going to bring cesspools of threads like this. Stick to issues that pertain to consumers only and not politics.

    Thank you.

    • snoop-blog says:

      @Anah: How do politics NOT affect consumers? And the moderator has already banned plenty of folks today on this thread alone for the same kind of comments you just made. And btw- Ben Popkin, the editor, doesn’t like to be told how to run his site, and you threats probably mean nothing to him and the rest of us. Go start your picket if you like…

    • Norislolz says:

      @Anah: I know, it’s as crazy as bringing up someone’s sexuality, race, or religion as a political argument!!! NUTS!!!

      PS – When a candidate is promoting abstinence and is pretty much the anti-feminist, you better believe left wingers are going to attack her and show that ABSTINENCE SEX ED DOESN’T WORK LOL

  42. Norislolz says:

    Pretty sure that italicized addition at the end of the blog is not necessary. While this is a socialist blog, your readers have spoken- they don’t want politics on this blog.

  43. HooFoot says:

    Can we at least keep the political posts related to consumers? Polar bears? Implying that the husband who has a lower middle class job at best is some paid shill for Big Oil? C’mon Consumerist, you’re better than this.

  44. snoop-blog says:

    @Bladefist: lets get serious for a moment (scary I know). Both candidates are going to have to say things they don’t mean, and make promises they can’t keep, it’s the only way to convince the less intelligent masses to vote for them. But that doesn’t make them bad for doing what it takes to get elected. For me, I know the ideals behind both candidates, and I like Obama. Am I going to like every single thing he says and does? NO. He’s campaigning same as McCain, but I know he’ll stick to his core beliefs once in the white house, the same way you probably feel about McCain.

  45. urban_ninjya says:

    that’s her picture?

    Nice! looks like that milf I’ve always wanted to bang behind my girlfriend’s back.

  46. 4ster says:

    I was kind of hoping for McCain to choose Harriet Meyers for his running mate.

  47. SoundSystem says:

    @ Bladefist: I would hardly consider the 2004 Presidential election to be a landslide. It was a mere 3 million votes.

  48. SoundSystem says:

    @ RandomHookUp : You beat me to it! Thanks.

  49. Anah says:

    There are numerous political blogs. Sticking to the consumer based issues would raise this website above the mudslinging and maintain a quality website. If this is too much to ask for then please ban me. This round of politics in the USA is no different than that of 3rd world countries. So much for the vaunted civility of America.

    Thank you.

  50. The McCain joke about Chelsea Clinton was as hilarious as it was inappropriate, but I hardly think it’s comparable to the Bristol Palin “issue”. McCain was sideswiping Chelsea because she was unattractive, not attacking her father’s policies on personal attractiveness (of course, we later found these policies wanting). With Palin, we see not simply a critical assessment of an irresponsible teenager, but also an extrapolation from this to some judgment about Sarah Palin’s competency as a VP candidate, predicated on the idea that her inability to rein in her daughter’s sexual behavior somehow makes her unfit to advocate a pubic policy of “abstinence-only” sex education. Were Briston Palin to get an abortion, then I can absolutely see a huge and damaging contradiction, as Sarah Palin is on the record supporting the repeal of a woman’s legal choice to obtain an abortion. This is not the same thing as advocacy of a particular approach to sex education, however, and as such this line of attack is weak.

    • Trai_Dep says:

      @AtomicPlayboy: Although her press release on the matter said, “My daughter has chosen” to carry the fetus to term and marry the father.
      In other words, choice for her and her daughter, but everyone else: not so choice-y. LOVE these guys: they’re so… Consistent!

    • trujunglist says:

      @AtomicPlayboy:

      I enjoyed your line about Bill, but you’re wrong… about Palin. Not about Lewinsky. Very few are attacking the daughter for being irresponsible. Actually, the attacks are completely focused on her mother’s lack of responsibility and/or parenting skills. It is entirely possible (read: probable) that Bristol’s policies (no abortion, no contraceptives, getting married at 17) are actually her mother’s policies and that she has NO choice (or was ignorant to her choices, i.e. contraception). It is entirely possible (again, probable) that this could have been avoided with a slightly less conservative religious-fueled dictatorship of the Palin household. It’s entirely probable that Bristol, being force-fed policy by her mother, is brainwashed into thinking that what she’s doing is right, but deep down is tearing herself apart with doubt, guilt, questions, etc.
      Finally, if Palin’s abstinence only policy failed in her own home – a population of what, 7? – then jesus, I can’t imagine the results when it’s unleashed upon every household in the country. You conservatives talk about a welfare state now, but just wait until the abstinence-only sex ed replaces REAL sex ed! Conservatives are such control freaks that it hurts ‘em bad when things get out of order like this.

      • @trujunglist: Palin is not against contraception.

        That her daughter decided to act like thousands of other teenagers across the country despite theuir parents best intentions should not be an indictment of the parent.

        Teenagers are teenagers, end of story. My parents had nothing to do with the stupid crap I did when I was 17, and no one in their right mind should blame them for it.

        Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she’s a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.

        In another crazy attempt to stay on topic, does anyone believe that Palin would be good for the environment?

        • SinisterMatt says:

          I can’t recall if someone’s said it, but in regards to Palin’s daughter, it seems like a darned if she does, darned if she doesn’t kind of thing.

          Her daughter is pregnant. She says that she is going to get married to the father. Palin gets fire for the event, saying she is being a bad parent and/or a hypocrite for advocating abstinence only education (which works, given the right cultural conditions) instead of turning her loose on the world with birth control.

          -OR-

          If her daughter didn’t marry her boyfriend or had an abortion, Palin still gets fire for being a hypocrite and not teaching her children correctly.

          The whole debate to me seems like an attempt to just smear her. There is no satisfactory solution to the problem that gets her out of hot water. It’s a catch 22.

          Anyway, now for something completely different.

          As for ANWR and offshore drilling, let’s drill now and research alternative fuel sources while we’re at it. That seems like a good compromise, rather than bickering while the oil we do have spirals up and up anytime someone in the Middle East blows their nose.

          However, let’s really research it, not just any of these feel-good attempts to appease whoever. I say we create something like the X-Prize for the first person/team to create a viable fuel system that can compete with a gas-powered electric engine in ALL automotive sizes (sedan, SUV, van, Truck, etc.).

          Cheers!

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @SinisterMatt: Unfortunately, the Paris Hilton solution is a giveaway to Exxon that won’t impact gas prices at real levels, and even then not for a decade. But the environment they’re eager to raze will be ruined forever. It’s a red-meat issue for the Pave the Earth crowd, and that’s about it.
            A more interesting debate would come about if there were sizable reserves at ANWAR, but in our world, as it is, it’d be a hypothetical one. Shame.
            Another interesting one would be for Big Oil to use the thousands of unused oil leases they have rights to but choose not to exploit. But they prefer squatting on them, unused and con their way into stealing more.

  51. Thanatos says:

    Another for keeping politics out of the Consumerist.

  52. Trai_Dep says:

    Well, she’s a creature of the mining/oil industry, being strongly in favor of ANWAR drilling in spite of the fact that it’s in an environmentally sensitive area, won’t be online for ten years, won’t impact gas prices more than a dime/gal even under the most optimistic situation, whose output will most likely be shipped out to China rather than being used by the US. Big Oil already has thousands of oil leases they could drill, but instead let lie fallow.
    The big picture is that the total amount available in the US, were we to drill everywhere, is only 3% of the global reserves. It SOUNDS like she’s doing something about the problem, but not really, in other words. At the cost of despoiling a national preserve to benefit Exxon.
    Regards non-oil sectors, she fought very hard to kill a modest proposal to make mining companies clean up after themselves, so sensitive salmon spawning grounds might recover. She’s credited with killing it.

    So, about as bad/worse than Cheney, Bush and the rest: 4 more years of the last eight years? Doesn’t sound very smart. But it fits great on a bumper sticker. :)

    • @Trai_Dep: Yay! On topic!

      Well, she’s a creature of the mining/oil industry, being strongly in favor of ANWAR drilling in spite of the fact that it’s in an environmentally sensitive area,

      Everyone who lives in Alaska, or at least one hell of a majority are all in favor of “despoiling this environmentally sensitive area”. So basically you’re indicting the entire state for holding this position. That she represents the majority opinion of her state should say enough.

      won’t be online for ten years,

      All the more reason to get going on it now, as far as I’m concerned. Had we done this ten years ago, maybe we wouldn’t be having this debate.

      won’t impact gas prices more than a dime/gal even under the most optimistic situation

      Supply won’t affect demand in our own country? This would appear to go against the laws of the market place.

      The big picture is that the total amount available in the US, were we to drill everywhere, is only 3% of the global reserves.

      So we only have 3% (that we have confirmed). Does that mean we shouldn’t use it? I don’t follow your logic.

      It SOUNDS like she’s doing something about the problem, but not really, in other words. At the cost of despoiling a national preserve to benefit Exxon.

      But what about the fact that this is exactly the same position as the vast majority of Alaskans? Aren’t politicians supposed to represent their constituents?

      Regards non-oil sectors, she fought very hard to kill a modest proposal to make mining companies clean up after themselves, so sensitive salmon spawning grounds might recover. She’s credited with killing it.

      Citation needed, please.

      4 more years of the last eight years? Doesn’t sound very smart.

      Nor does “handing the keys of our economy over to the government” sound very smart, which is what Obama is selling.

      No thanks.

  53. Trai_Dep says:

    “Had we done this ten years ago, maybe we wouldn’t be having this debate.”
    Unfortunately, the amounts that even the most optimistic projections predict for ANWAR means that, had we done it *twelve* years ago, we also wouldn’t be having this conversation, since ANWAR reserves would have been sucked dry and shipped to China in anywhere from several months to two years.
    There just ain’t that much there. Or down here. It’s over there –>
    (pointing to the Middle East and a fingerjab at Venezuela)

    Google “palin salmon mining” and you’ll get many hits, including a solid NYT article.
    The “priceless headwaters of one of the world’s last great runs of Pacific salmon” was opened up to vast strip-mining, mainly for foreign companies, with few safeguards. It’s where much of our wild salmon come from these days. Irreplaceable, soon to be a parking lot, basically. And of course, it’s much more than salmon, but they’re a marker.

    And, y’know, even in the FDR days, Dems weren’t that socialist, let alone now. You want REAL gov’t interference in the markets? Vote Republican. Gov’t is always larger under them (Bush, WAY over, and McCain promises more of the same). Gov’t spending is always up. Google it. Let alone with keeping the gov’t out of our bedrooms, homes and doctor’s offices.

    • jstonemo says:

      @Trai_Dep: Did you just say “solid NYT article”? With a straight face? Just checking!

    • @Trai_Dep:
      we also wouldn’t be having this conversation, since ANWAR reserves would have been sucked dry and shipped to China in anywhere from several months to two years.

      So we would send all of our oil to China? You logic eludes me yet again. It makes no sense for anyone to say we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because “it isn’t enough”. More supply will help the issues we have related to demand. And I don’t think you fully inderstand the dynamics of the market if you think that this wouldn’t help.

      By the way, we get most of our oil from Canada. It’s “up there” —->

      Your NYT article didn’t mention Palin once. Try again.

      iAnd, y’know, even in the FDR days, Dems weren’t that socialist, let alone now

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!…….Jimmy Carter? HAHAHAHAHAHA!@!!!

      I might agree with you that Bush hasn’t done a very good job with slowing the growth of government, but to make the argument that the democrats are for smaller government is absurd. Obama’s economic proposals will create one of the largest wealth transfers in history.

      From todays WSJ-

      According to the Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama’s tax plan is a welfare giveaway costing more than $648 billion over 10 years. He would authorize refundable tax credits covering everything from education, mortgage payments, child care and other items for people who do not pay income taxes now.

      About 38% of U.S. households pay no income tax today. Under a President Obama (whose policies would shave 15.3 million households off the tax rolls) that share would grow to nearly half of all American households.

      “Google it” indeed.

      • Bladefist says:

        @IamNotToddDavis: You weren’t supposed to google it, you were supposed to just give up and concede.

        In addition to what you said, the taxing would fall heavier on businesses and investors, and would ease consumers. Unless, of course, you are a consumer who buys from businesses, or, work for a business, but other then that, you should be good to go. Obama’s tax policies don’t make sense, because he has no idea how economics work, or how historically tax fluctuations have effected the economy. It’s almost cute that he thinks he can tax the rich more, and it somehow, won’t affect the rest of us.

        So ya, while most of our income taxes could go down, as a democrat, he will still increase government, which will require more tax revenue, which means somehow, I’lm going to NET in the end LESS. If you don’t understand this, or agree with me on this, you should just stop commenting. If you understand/agree, but further believe expanding government is good, then we have something to debate atleast.

  54. jstonemo says:

    Everyone is talking about Sarah Palin’s daughter being young, pregnant and unmarried, but correct me if I am wrong, isn’t Barack Obama a bastard child as well?

    For those of you from public schools, look up the real meaning of bastard in a dictionary.

    • Trai_Dep says:

      @jstonemo: Oh, yeah, that’s right: “libural media”. Check.

      @jstonemo: Again, it’s context: only the Repubs, Palin in particular, is suggesting we ONLY teach abstinence, we remove EVERYONE’S choice in reproductive matters (except her daughter, who according to Palin’s press release, chose to carry the fetus to term, etc.) Because in the real world, things happen differently than they do on bumper stickers. And because, in this country, we trust individuals to make informed, personal choices, not the state. The Dems recognize this and their policies reflect it. Hence out-of-wedlock births don’t raise the hypocrisy issue as they do for Republicans.

      On a different tack, here’s a fun hypothetical. What would you think of a woman who… Oh wait, medical backgrounder first, for you non-OB/GYNs:

      You are an expectant woman who began labor a month early and you have a Downs Syndrome child. 50% of Downs babies have heart problems, often needing surgery immediately and premies are notorious for having undeveloped lungs. The chances of needing some ICU care are pretty high.
      Your water has broken or is leaking, labor of 1-2 contractons per hour has begun. This is your 5th child – generally labor is shorter for children after the first one. The major risk after the water breaks is infection.
      Assuming all goes well with your travel you could be in Anchorage in 12 hours or so at the proper facility and any needed medical specialist. In 13-14 hours time is a regional hospital with no ICU attended by your family practitioner.

      You shouldn’t be traveling (actually, your doctor would probably be sued for malpractice for recommending it and harm later happened), but you did. Your water breaks, but you have a speech scheduled. There are many (better than your own states, really) hospitals nearby, rather than flying 2/3 the globe where you live. This, beyond the layovers and transportation to and from the airport(s).
      What kind of (supposedly) child-loving, pregnant woman would risk a special-needs baby who’s already in labor? What does it say about that woman’s judgement, her values? What does it say about her competence to accept the proverbial 3am call and lead a nation such as ours in such a complex time as today?
      There was a decision tree on Sean Hannity’s site before he flipflopped and it was taken down that laid it out graphically. Worth a look.
      > Her judgement and values are abysmal. Repulsive, even.

  55. snoop-blog says:

    Actually I learned in business class that almost all of the oil we drill is exported because we make more money doing so, and in return take the money and profit and buy our oil supply from middle east.

  56. Trai_Dep says:

    If you’re going to cite, can you cite the article? Makes it hard to get the context (let alone if it’s from the certifiably insane WSJ Editorial pages). I’m assuming it’s not behind their pay wall? Thx.
    The reason I cited Google, btw, is, like most environmental issues, it’s complex. The NYT article gives a foundation (e.g., what’s a “headwater” and who cares? Everyone downstream AND the entire ecosytem). The other links err link Palin to playing a large role in allowing Canadian mining companies to nuke one of the few of these things that Alaska has. Goodbye commercial fisheries, tourism, photogenic critters and anyone living downstream. But the mining companies? VERY well taken care of. YAY!
    (That’s the thing: we Progs are for development, but balanced against other industries, and sustainable. Y’know, for the kids (well, and us).

    So long as we’re talking parties and growth, the former vice-chair of the Fed (hardly a commie) did an interesting study [www.nytimes.com] – a statistically rigorous one, with cited sources) – comparing income equality and growth. He also charts [graphics8.nytimes.com] it.
    Unsurprisingly, those at the lower 80th percentile do better under Dems, by far. Income distribution is, by far, fairer. What may surprise you is that overall, the overall growth under Dem leadership is huge. And that “the 1.14-point [GNP] difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.” Even more surprising is that even the wealthy do only nominally better under GOP rule: a couple tenths of a percent.
    These figure are of the entire Post-War period until present, so it’s beyond one President or two: it’s the approach the two parties take and which results in more – and more fair – growth.
    Of course, by “fair”, that’s the lower 80th percentile: GOP policies are equally hostile to mid/upper mid classes as they are to the poor.
    And, since Reagan, most of the inequality has been because of changing tax codes, not the dynamism and innovation of entrepreneurs. It’s a bureaucratic money-grab, in other words.

    There’s enough material there, sourced [www.amazon.com] to convince any rational, independent-thinking person. It won’t convince the faith-based thinkers, but what will? :P

    The simple fact is that our economy is in trouble, and it’s been that way over the last eight years. McCain & Palin promise more of it, while history shows their policies won’t correct things as they need to.

    If you have credibly-sourced, equally rigorous cites to contrast this (I’m betting: nope!), we’ll talk. Otherwise, I’m tired retreading whatever talking points AM radio guys are emphasizing today. Let’s leave those circular conversations to RedStateGreenFootballs or whatever, not Consumerist.

    Argh: embedded urls are broken, so no coolly-formatted cites. Sorry!

  57. Trai_Dep says:

    snoop: so when the GOP says we need to drill our way out of the problem by extracting OUR oil to drop OUR gas prices, it isn’t really true? I’m shocked!

  58. snoop-blog says:

    No, and we wouldn’t even benefit from the drilling until 4 years after it started. In four years, I’d rather be closer to alternative sources for fuel. And FUCK drilling, there I said it. We need to quit raping this planet and respect it if the human race intends to survive for another 2000 years. You can only drill so much, when that shit is dry and done what do you have? Nothing.

  59. snoop-blog says:

    I’m thinking about going amish. Seems to be the only group not affected by all the bull-shit these days. In fact the amish are thriving while our economy tanks. A simple life outside of all the tech advances, sounds better everyday.

  60. @Trai_Dep: Here is the link to todays “certifiably insane”(?) WSJ article I referred to. The same “certifiably insane” paper that is actually turning a profit, as opposed to your “certifiably NOT insane” NYT.

    [online.wsj.com]

    (Not sure if it is pay-to-view, but I’ll email you the text if you want.)

    The NYT article gives a foundation (e.g., what’s a “headwater” and who cares? Everyone downstream AND the entire ecosytem).

    And doesn’t mention Palin once. So why did you link it? I “googled” the issue you refer to and I find that most Alaskans appear pretty divided equally on the issue. But what I do find hilarious is that you expect me to believe that Palin is going to work to destroy commercial fishing at the behest of the mining industry in the region WHEN HER HUSBAND IS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN.

    That’s some powerful stupid right there.

    we Progs are for development, but balanced against other industries, and sustainable.

    What a load of crap. If that’s true, why are most progs anti-nuke?

    Your NYT economic artilce was ridiculous. I don’t care who the guy is – this statement is wrong on its face- “Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class.”

    The majority of “poor” folks in Obamas economic plans DON’T pay any income taxes to begin with. How do you “lower their taxes”?

    And as far as the rest of it goes, he uses some suspicious timing when using his statistics. I’ll let Donald Luskin explain further-
    [www.poorandstupid.com]

    These results, presented as open-and-shut by Blinder — who would flunk any of his Princeton students who dared to turn in research this superficial — are in fact highly sensitive to some of the issues I just raised. For instance, if you lag the per capita GDP results by two years — not a bad guess of how long it takes policy to show up in output — the difference between Democratic and Republican presidencies vanishes (both are 2.2%). And if we look at it terms of government control — that is, party control of both the presidency and both houses of congress — then the Democrats do worse than the Republicans (2.0% versus 2.1%). But wait! Divided government, when no party controls both the presidency and the congress, does even better: 2.3%!Reader Jim Allen weighs in:

    This item raises a couple of more questions than you probably had time to consider.
    First, why did they start at 1948 and not at 1932 when FDR began the federal government’s massive intrusion into the economy? The probable reason is that despite the massive increase in fiscal policy, the economy remained in horrible condition throughout his first two terms. Despite a momentary gain prior to the 1936 election (unemployment still in high double-digits), the economy fell into a deeper depression afterward partly because of Roosevelt’s assault on business and partly as a consequence of his capricious dollar policy (see Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man). It wasn’t until the increased efforts first to help Britain with Lend-Lease, and than the full onsalaught of WWI that the economy started to recover.

    Second, why didn’t they start the comparison in 1960 or 1964? It is probably because coming out of WWII, we were the uncontested global economic champion. We spent much of the next five to 10 years trying to rebuild our old enemies and allies, which certainly made growth in that period look pretty good.

    Either way, it’s rather selective timing on their part to start in 1948 (the post-war period) rather than something more like the post-Marshall Plan period when we actually had to compete in the world.

    The simple fact is that our economy is in trouble, and it’s been that way over the last eight years.

    This is also ridiculous. Unemployment has been lower under Bush than Clinton. Here’s some more statistics from todays “certifiably insane” WSJ-

    [online.wsj.com]
    Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

    Your arguments are lacking in logic and merit. It is simply absurd to make the case that the Democrats are the party of smaller government. I will admit that Bush has not lived up to many conservative ideals of smaller government but to argue that the democrats would shrink the size of government goes against all logic and data.

    But please, go ahead and throw some more NYT’s articles at me.

  61. Bladefist says:

    Even though I am guilty of this, providing known biased newspapers as sources is laughable.

  62. cubsd says:

    I’m pretty liberal, and think that Palin is one of the worst choices McCain could have made…yet after reading this post, I would prefer that we leave politics off this site. Yes, politics can affect everything in our lives, but this site is about consumer rights and protections. There are MORE than enough political sites.

  63. cubsd says:

    Sorry, I missed the post by the moderator.

  64. quagmire0 says:

    mOhr Sir@ p@l1n pix plz!

  65. *word
    damnit, i want an edit button!

  66. Mindless Mink says:

    She’ll be shooting them bears and chilling out in a local Alaska Fishing Lodge