eh?

@Zeniq: X2

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

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

The polar bears wouldn't really be affected.

+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!

@Bladefist:
Neither would our price at the pump.

@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.

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

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.

Tigh/Roslin '08!

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

Nuke the Whales!

@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.

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

This would have been a better illustration for this article:

[en.wikipedia.org]

@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."

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.

"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.

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

@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.

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.

@Trai_Dep: And thats appropriate??

@quagmire0: soon you can add GILF to that list!

@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:
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.

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!

@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".

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.

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...

@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.

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.

@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. :)

@Bladefist:
shut up

@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: I think you're supposed to say "SHT P"

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.

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

@sketchy: "no experience"

She is the only one of the four that has any executive experience. The other three have only been legislators.

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.

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.

@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.

@quagmire0: Who cares about her policies and opinions, she's a VPILF

@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.

@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...

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?

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.

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.

@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]

@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.