# Palin on environment and wildlife and habitat protection



## wade3504 (Sep 19, 2008)

Just passing this on as I just saw it today. If it were about McCain, Obama, or Biden I would have passed it on as well.

Sarah Palin and the Environment

Governor Sarah Palin has an extreme anti-conservation record on issues ranging from global warming, energy and drilling to wildlife and habitat protection.

Aerial hunting of wolves and bears Global Warming Endangered Species Drilling Clean water and Pebble Mine

Aerial hunting of wolves and bearsGovernor Palin is an active promoter of Alaska's aerial hunting program whereby wolves and bears are shot from the air or chased by airplanes to the point of exhaustion before the pilot lands the plane and a gunner shoots the animals point blank.

Palin offered a $150 bounty for wolves to entice hunters to kill more wolves in certain parts of the state, with hunters having to present a wolf's foreleg to collect the bounty.

She actively opposed a ballot measure campaign seeking to end the aerial hunting of wolves by private hunters and approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign aimed at swaying people's votes on the issue.

She also introduced legislation to make it easier to kill wolves and bears and which would have also removed the aerial hunting initiative from the ballot and block the ability of citizens to vote on the issue.

The Board of Game, which she appoints, has approved the killing of black bear sows with cubs as part of the program and expanded the aerial control programs.

The media is currently looking into reports that state officials implementing one of the aerial wolf killing programs illegally killed five-week old wolf pups just outside their dens.

Another Palin Falsehood...

"...this is about feeding Alaskans"

--Palin spokesperson

If that's true Governor Palin...

Why are sport hunter groups the biggest advocates of aerial hunting as opposed to advocates for the poor or hungry?

Why does the Palin administration allow out of state hunters to hunt and directly compete with rural hunters for supposed limited resources in most of the areas where aerial hunting is done?

Why, in most of the areas where aerial hunting is done, are a majority of the moose taken by urban and non-resident hunters instead of true subsistence hunters?

Why does Palin oppose what is called “rural preference” which would give true rural subsistence hunters priority access over sport hunters to the areas where aerial hunting is conducted?

Aerial hunting is done by private citizens flown by private pilots in private planes. They get to keep and sell the skins of the wolves they kill. Some even pose for traditional hunting trophy shots.

That's sport hunting by anyone's definition.

Global WarmingAs recently as August 2008, Governor Palin questioned whether man-made fossil fuel emissions are responsible for global warming, defying worldwide scientific consensus (Newsmax 8/29/08). And her drill-drill-drill approach to energy issues will do nothing to ease the causes of global warming, promote the use of clean, renewable energy sources, or break our addiction to foreign oil.

Endangered SpeciesPalin has repeatedly opposed the listing of endangered animals under the Endangered Species List despite overwhelming scientific evidence that such listings are warranted.

Polar BearThe U.S. Geological Survey predicts that loss of summer sea ice - crucial habitat for polar bears - could lead to the demise of two-thirds of the world's polar bears by mid-century, including all of Alaska's polar bears. The Bush administration has proposed listing the polar bears as threatened under the ESA to help protect polar bear habitat from threats such as oil and gas development.

Governor Palin has actively opposed the listing of the polar bear despite the fact that Alaska's top marine mammal biologists agreed with the federal scientists who believed the bear should be listed. She wrote the Secretary of Interior urging him not to list the bear on the ground it might hurt the state's oil- and gas-dependent economy. After the bear was listed, she recently filed suit seeking to overturn the listing of polar bears.

Beluga WhalesAlaska's Cook Inlet beluga whales are a unique group of white whales whose numbers have dramatically declined in the past two decades due to pressures ranging from pollution to increased ship traffic. Governor Palin opposes the listing of the Cook Inlet beluga whales, citing the listing as a threat to oil and gas development, despite their genetic uniqueness and the fact that their numbers have decreased from 1,300 in the 1980s to about 350 today.

DrillingPalin is a strong supporter of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a vital wilderness area. It is home to hundreds of thousands of caribou who use the refuge as a calving ground, more than one million migratory birds, and countless other wildlife. It's the most important onshore denning habitat for female polar bears. Senator McCain himself has repeatedly voted to protect this pristine wilderness area. Palin is also a supporter of drilling in Bristol Bay and other offshore sites despite the risks to sensitive marine wildlife in the area, including the endangered polar bear and Beluga whale.

Clean Water and Pebble MineGovernor Palin actively campaigned against a state ballot measure this summer aimed at protecting Alaska's Bristol Bay. The mining industry seeks to develop a gold and copper mine in the area that would pollute the Bay's headwaters and threaten the spawning grounds for the largest remaining wild salmon run. The initiative would have prevented large-scale mining operations from dumping waste materials into salmon watersheds.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Sep 19, 2008)

Mary-Lou, I think the toad comment was uncalled for. I don't approve of aerial hunting like this, but still.

I did find all this, though: http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm#Environment

* Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)

* Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)

* We must encourage timber, mining, drilling, & fishing. (Jan 2008)

* Wolf predator control is important for subsistence hunters. (Sep 2007)

* Feds shouldn't list beluga whales as endangered. (Aug 2007)

* Provide stability in regulations for developers. (Jan 2007)

* Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR. (Jan 2007)

* Fish platform: "Resource First" philosophy. (Nov 2006)

* Rail provides critical link for business development. (Nov 2006)

* Supports "Roads to Resources": subsidized access to mines. (Oct 2006)

* Don't duplicate effort in monitoring cruise ship emissions. (Oct 2006)

* Don't amend AK constitution for rural subsistence fishing. (Oct 2006)


----------



## OhHorsePee (Sep 19, 2008)

Barack Obama recognizes hunting and fishing as family activities. And it also says he wants agencies to encourage young men and women about hunting and fishing opprotunities and wild life management. Obama supports hunting.

Which is what Palin does with the wolves.


----------



## LowriseMinis (Sep 19, 2008)

Obama's stance on the environment is pretty different from Palin's, though. There's a difference between tracking deer in the woods and shooting wolves from airplanes, IMO.

And for the record I am all for responsible hunting. My boyfriend's going to teach me to shoot pretty soon.


----------



## Gini (Sep 19, 2008)

Mary Lou in AZ it is called Gigging......


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Sep 19, 2008)

Where I live we have coyotes, BIG COYOTES, German Shephard size coyotes. The game wardens here basically turn their backs to the rules when it comes to the coyotos because of the damage they do, especially to those of us with live stock.

Coyotes come around, guns come out, period.

One of the old time farmers was telling us not to long ago that someone thought they had spotted a wolf. And if this is true, wolves are worse than coyotes. I'm sorry but I'll shoot a coyote/wolf to protect my herds and will have absolutely no trouble doing it. And if shooting coyotes/wolves from an airplane/helicopter is a way to protect live stock, so be it.


----------



## Laura (Sep 19, 2008)

Mary Lou - LB said:


> Yes LowriseMinis, the toad comment was a bit much... But I laughed at myself while typing it.. so it was all in fun.. really..


I'm still laughing, so is Steve





I will also kill any animal threatening my pets, livestock or kids...but I won't do it hanging out of the side of a helicopter


----------



## wade3504 (Sep 19, 2008)

There is a difference between killing a wolf for protection and killing for sporthunting.

Someone from my riding club just sent me an email about some BLM horses that are being rounded up and either being moved or caught and adopted out. She says they better do this or Palin might start having them hunted down too.


----------



## Marnie (Sep 19, 2008)

I saw on tv the other day where a plane was flying low and they were shooting the wolves from the air. This has nothing to do with shooting wolves/coyotes to keep them from killing live stock. We'd all shoot a coyote that was threatening our animals. This was out in the wilderness, not by peoples farms. To shoot from the air is about the most unsportsman like act a hunter can do, the animal had no chance. And they have done this to wild horses already too, the people tried to stop it but couldn't.


----------



## Jill (Sep 20, 2008)

Mary Lou, I think the world of you truly. I do not understand though what it is with you and Palin. I'm starting to think she snagged your parking space at the mall the Friday before Christmas.


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Sep 20, 2008)

Sorry, killing coyotoes/wolves via whatever means, fine by mean. If that is what takes to control them, then just do it.


----------



## Marnie (Sep 20, 2008)

I know that in a farming community, preditors need to be controlled and here, the DNR turned wolves loose without any vote from the farmer, they protected them until they reached a high number and now we can shoot them, big deal, the damge is done, our calves disappear and this is wrong, I'd shoot them in a heart beat if I have a chance to protect my animals BUT, This thread isn't actually about shooting coyotes or wolves, it's alot of other things too, it's showing what Palin stands for. This is stating the fact that she is allowing hunters to shoot from the air, in the wilderness which in Alaska is thousands of square miles, if someone doesn't feel wolves have a right to live, I feel sorry for you. This was for sport, not for "over crowedness" Isn't it odd the way people just twist things around to justify things, this must just be part of life in whole, not just politics. I never realized this before until now that I think about it, I probably twist things too. I won't be back on these political threads any more, I won't even open them to read them, I think people just reach for straws trying to justify their own partys beliefs and behavior, hoping things are going to be ok. I'll just watch the debates, cast my vote in NOV and hope the best man wins. So I'm bowing out of these threads so no one has to listen to me any more. Amen!


----------



## uwharrie (Sep 20, 2008)

I am sorry but shooting wolves from helicopters and planes is not hunting. It is slaughtering.

And yes I am very pro hunting for sport or food. Aeriel wolf hunts are neither.

My educational background is Fish and Wildlife Management. Palin's views on conservation and management are BAD NEWS for wildlife.



OhHorsePee said:


> Barack Obama recognizes hunting and fishing as family activities. And it also says he wants agencies to encourage young men and women about hunting and fishing opprotunities and wild life management. Obama supports hunting.Which is what Palin does with the wolves.


----------



## Sonya (Sep 20, 2008)

I do not know much about this, but will say this from what I understand. That aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska began to increase the population of huntable moose.

It always seems so cut and dry to non-hunters...it is cruel to hunt.... There are so many factors that come into play when hunting laws/rules are established. There are things that are researched extensively, for years to determine if there is overpopulation, how many animals NEED to be hunted so that others can thrive or starvation doesn't overcome a species.

Do I think aerial hunting of wolves is wrong?...I can't make that determination without seeing the above information, without seeing stats of wolves/moose/and other animals that are affected by aerial hunting or by the banning of aerial hunting of wolves.

There will be people who automatically dislike Palin because she is a hunter...The vast majority of hunters appreciate/honor/and have more respect/contribute for the animal that they hunt than non hunters...go ahead flame away.... Of course, there are always some bad apples, who do not follow the laws, but you have that in everything. Also hunters contribute more $ to conservation via fees/licenses/etc than any one organization.

Again, without seeing the stats on wolves/moose/etc...I can't make a determination if she is correct in her actions. I tried to find this info on line (DNR information, not political hype and emotions) , but could not, perhaps someone else can.

as I said in another thread when hunting got brought up...hunting is certainly not cruel (be it for sport or food) when you look at where our meat comes from in the supermarkets. I'd love to see some regulations put on some of our chicken farmers/cattle farmers. I would like to see all animals that we eat treated with respect. There are a few restaraunts out there following that lead, only getting their meats from local farms, where animals have pastures and more of a natural existance. If you are anti-hunter because you think it's cruel, then I hope you don't eat your meats from a supermarket! You would be totally disgusted if you look up how these animals spend their lives.


----------



## Buckskin gal (Sep 20, 2008)

Marnie, I an so sad that you will no longer be submitting your thoughts on these subjects but I do understand why you no longer want to be a part of this. I feel the same way and to add to it there seems to be a few that have such narrow vision/thought that they can't understand why someone can't have a different point of view. To me, it is a real insult to think that I have to think the same as someone else in order to be understood....I see now that it is a waste of time to have anything to do with these threads.



Mary



Marnie said:


> I won't be back on these political threads any more, I won't even open them to read them, I think people just reach for straws trying to justify their own partys beliefs and behavior, hoping things are going to be ok. I'll just watch the debates, cast my vote in NOV and hope the best man wins. So I'm bowing out of these threads so no one has to listen to me any more. Amen!


----------



## Danielle_E. (Sep 20, 2008)

OhHorsePee said:


> Barack Obama recognizes hunting and fishing as family activities. And it also says he wants agencies to encourage young men and women about hunting and fishing opprotunities and wild life management. Obama supports hunting.Which is what Palin does with the wolves.


Aerial hunting was banned years ago in Alaska, do a search and you will find it, but Palin thinks she is above the law. On top of one of the latest go aheads from her some wolves were shot and their cubs that remained behind were also shot. Disgusting. I could see if it was caribou or whatever for sustanance but killing the wolves and cubs, pure sport and I am not for that kind of killing. She opposed the "endagered species" to add the polar bear to it because it would stop drilling for oil in that area. Do a search as well to find exactly how much oil is really there and how much it would supply the U.S. It is pretty slim, something like 2% of your needs. I am sorry but it doesn't matter what you say about this woman she is no Hillary Clinton, couldn't come close to touching her intelligence in politics. I saw a wonderful picture of Palin with a gun in her arms, lifiting a caribou's head that she had shot with her daughter next to her. I hope she at least ate the caribou and didn't just want a "trophy". I don't like the woman, I find her patronizing, I find she speaks down to people like they are little children and don't understand and on top of that she has no idea about foreign policy and will cause more harm than good when she opens her mouth without thinking. Heaven help the U.S. if McCain/Palin get in but in the last couple of days and seeing what is going on I have a funny feeling that Obama/Biden will have an easier time of being elected now because of the things coming our of McCain/Palin. Their rhetoric and comments are coming home to haunt them and kick them in the behind. Their lies are also catching up with them and that's a good thing.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Sep 20, 2008)

There has to be a better way....





(warning, may disturb some)


----------



## Jill (Sep 20, 2008)

Mary Lou, No, you're not driving me nuts. It's just something that makes me go "hmmmm....".





I just don't get it, but then I genuinely like Palin and McCain both so much





I'm 100% behind the ticket. _(yeah... about time I let that cat out of the bag!)_


----------



## Sunshine Acres (Sep 21, 2008)

Danielle_E. said:


> On top of one of the latest go aheads from her some wolves were shot and their cubs that remained behind were also shot. Disgusting. I could see if it was caribou or whatever for sustanance but killing the wolves and cubs, pure sport and I am not for that kind of killing.



I find it interesting that this is so bothersome to some, but we will support the killing of an unborn child.


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> Aerial hunting was banned years ago in Alaska, do a search and you will find it, but Palin thinks she is above the law


As did the majority of governers prior to Palin, not like she dreamed this up or something...from the info I found Aerial hunting of wolves has been going on and off in AK since the late 40's and has been an issue. I have yet to find any hard facts/stats regarding it (that aren't fueled by emotion). Yes, the videos you will find are gruesome, as is their intent. Many states have hunting laws that seem gruesome....some may be. In NC, you used to be able to hunt whitetail with coon dogs and hunt from a vehicle (don't know if that's the same anymore)....the dogs would run the deer into the ground and the hunter would follow in a vehicle until the deer would go down due to exhaustion, at which point the deer would be shot.

I'm not saying that she is right in her actions, I don't have enough info, but I will say when I vote for someone I look at the whole picture, and still as a whole, McCain/Palin are the obvious best choice. I didn't get a chance to look up the other issues brought up on this thread, but none would keep me from voting for McCain/Palin.







> I find it interesting that this is so bothersome to some, but we will support the killing of an unborn child.


That is an excellent point!

I also love all animals, but am a firm believer that yes, people do come first!

I for one am for a woman's right to choose in certain situations, so I do not agree with all of McCain/Palin's views, but as I said before, I still feel they are the best choice and will be good for this country.


----------



## Pepipony (Sep 21, 2008)

Sunshine Acres said:


> Danielle_E. said:
> 
> 
> > On top of one of the latest go aheads from her some wolves were shot and their cubs that remained behind were also shot. Disgusting. I could see if it was caribou or whatever for sustanance but killing the wolves and cubs, pure sport and I am not for that kind of killing.
> ...




Ahhhh isnt that apples and oranges? Maybe that sentiment needs its own thread.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Sep 21, 2008)

Sunshine Acres said:


> Danielle_E. said:
> 
> 
> > On top of one of the latest go aheads from her some wolves were shot and their cubs that remained behind were also shot. Disgusting. I could see if it was caribou or whatever for sustanance but killing the wolves and cubs, pure sport and I am not for that kind of killing.
> ...



I find it interesting that those that keep on saying over and over and over again they want less government in their lives and yet they are willing to back someone who wants to take one of those freedoms away - the right to choose. Instead of going forward in womens right you are going backwards. What about the 12 year old that gets rape by a family member. You are going to make her carry that child to term? Perhaps go through birthing with complications that will render her unable to ever have children again???? What about the child who is 12 or 14 who gets pregnant and the family turns their back on that girl, what then? Do you want a nation of single mothers bringing up their children in poverty? and yet with the mentality of these people it's "your on your own" we aren't going to back any programs (from my taxes) to help you get out of this mess. How hypocritical! My personal believe is it should be the choice of the woman BUT I believe their should be no abortion after 3 months, maximum allowed unless for medical issues (mother's life in danger). I don't want to play God with another person's life.

You have no problem backing a war where MANY children have been killed, innocent children as well, what about that?????




. What is this war about? Not about any threat to the U.S. At least if it was for that reason but it's not. This war was a lie and you still say, Bush did the right thing, he is wonderful. Okay


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> This war was a lie and you still say, Bush did the right thing, he is wonderful. Okay


We are not talking about Bush in this post, we are talking about the current candidates.

And I do not find it ok for women to use abortion as a means of birth control! The instances you mentioned are what I play an exception to. I do not feel that McCain has any intent to try to reverse Roe vs. Wade if that's what you are implying.

I do believe that the majority of abortions due occur as a means of birth control and not the issues you listed above.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Sep 21, 2008)

Sonya said:


> > This war was a lie and you still say, Bush did the right thing, he is wonderful. Okay
> 
> 
> We are not talking about Bush in this post, we are talking about the current candidates.
> ...



Sonya, do you know for a "fact" that the[SIZE=14pt] majority [/SIZE]of abortions are used as birth control? So basically you are saying that women who have abortions have many and use this as a form of birth control? Can you tell me where you get this information?

If this were to go through, where all abortions are illegal you will be sending women back to the point where there will be many deaths when these women seek illegal abortions as what use to happen. Why do you feel you (meaning the the Republicans and those that back them) have the right to dictate to another woman what she does with her body? How does it affect you personally. Then in another breath it's mentioned how important freedom from government intervention is... you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either one way or the other and then the argument aboutg universal health care goes out the door since government intervention shouldn't be a problem now for those that oppose government in your every day life.


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> Sonya, do you know for a "fact" that the majority of abortions are used as birth control


Abortion Statistics

about half way down:



> Why women have abortions1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).


edited to add:

here was another interesting stat on abortion :



> In the study entitled Repeat Abortion in the United States, released this month, researchers found that 48.2 percent of women who had abortions between 2000-2001 were obtaining repeat abortions. That included 29 percent who had one previous abortion, 12 percent who had two previous abortions, and 7 percent who were aborting their fourth or more pregnancy.


Link
Half...that is way to many, majority were older too, that are having repeat abortions. I do not want to tell anyone what to do with their body nor do I want the govt..., but this number is way to high...and proves that abortion is being used as birth control...making a mistake as a teen, young adult.... understandable....but half doing it more than once...that is not a mistake, that is carelessness!

I do not want roe vs. wade overturned as I said in my previous post and I do not believe that will happen if McCain gets in office. Although, I do not agree that abortion should be means of birth control, and by the stats listed on the above link, it clearly is in most cases.

As far as less govt., you are correct I want less govt. That is not the reason I do not want universal healthcare. I do not want universal healthcare because it's rate of failure is significant in other countries.


----------



## Danielle_E. (Sep 21, 2008)

First the rate of failure of universal healthcare that you mention is a fairy tale. Please tell me one country where they had universal healthcare and it has been abandoned or totally collapsed. I know of none. What I do know is Americans are losing their homes when unable to pay the ridiculous cost of healthcare in your country, what I know is that many have to forgo taking their children to doctors when they need to be seen, what I know is that many don't have healthcare in the U.S. because of the highcost of premiums and the fact they aren't covered by their employer. What I know is that the system you have just make the insurance companies richer, look at their profit, it's unreal. We aren't talking car insurance here, we are talking human beings that without their health, they don't have anything. Why is it that most countries have some kind of universal type of system and the U.S. does not. Itseems to me that it all has to do with the "American Dream" and the pursuit of $$$$ taking precedence over the people of the U.S and that $$$ is equal to success in life? I am truly trying to understand why you would not prefer to lets say pay extra in taxes (not more than what you are paying in premiums for your health care) and not have to deal with having claims denied by your health insurance provider. All you are doing is making the health insurance provider rich with the exhorbitant cost of premiums. We complain about big business making overwhelming profits at the expense of the tax payer often to the point of the detriment of the public. Look at what happen just befoe hurricane Ike. Some of your gas station in the areas were charing over $5.00 a gallon!!!!! That is pure highway robbery. So with absolutely no regulations (government) they can do as they please. The non-regulation is what got the U.S. in the mess right now (mortgages). I understand it's going to cost 700 billion dollar intervention in order to keep your financial markets afloat.

It would be interesting to see in the abortion issue how many of these women who seek repeat abortions if they live in poverty, etc. Sarah Palin wants to remove sex education in the schools



. If she thinks that this will bring down the numbers of pregnancies in the U.S. she is dreaming in technic color and preaching abstinence won't bring it down either. The answer is MORE education, not less. Removing abortion rights isn't going to chance the picture, it will just mean you will either have desperate women going to "butchers" to have the procedure done, you will have more single mothers living on social assistance, you will have more living in utter proverty, you will have more child abuse, etc.

I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body, period. It does not affect you personally in the least except in you feel that morally you have that right over another human being. Then if you feel that way I would expect that you would be against any kind of war as well because that is a moral issue when innocent children and adults are killed.

I guess I am naive as I would have thought that most important things in your election to the U.S. public would be the economy (first and foremost) as it touches directly each person, health care and foreign policy. Foreign policy in the sense of the huge amounts that have been spent on war. Those are your tax $$ that were spent on fictitious weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> I guess I am naive as I would have thought that most important things in your election to the U.S. public would be the economy (first and foremost) as it touches directly each person, health care and foreign policy


Who said it wasn't? Only you

All the issues above have been hashed out in other threads, it just seems when someone proves you wrong, you get defensive and immediately pick up on another topic.

As far as healthcare, yes the U.S. does need somekind of healthcare reform, I never denied that. Lets take a look at England's system...I'm sure our UK members have some very nice things to say about their healthcare. Canada did make it work better than most countries. About a week ago there was a thread regarding Canadian healthcare system...I and you as well posted on that thread...I got 4 pm's from Canadian members saying there are major issues with the healthcare they receive, so obviously not everyone has been as lucky as you, for some reason they were afraid to speak up though.



> It would be interesting to see in the abortion issue how many of these women who seek repeat abortions if they live in poverty


What does that have to do with the tea in China???? If you can't afford kids, then I suppose you shouldn't be having unprotected sex. I would assume a trojan is cheaper than an abortion! You asked for stats and I gave them to you, so don't be angry with me.



> we are talking human beings


That's an odd statement being you are so pro-choice....which for the 3rd time...I never said I wasn't! It is a grey area for me which I explained in detail.


----------



## bingo (Sep 21, 2008)

Just my 2 cents here for what it is worth. I do strongly believe the abortion issue is not one to be hashed out on a public Miniature Hose forum. Everyone has a right to opinions no doubt but this is a very sensitive issue and we have no idea who among us reading that is now or has had to deal with their own issues when it comes to abortion.

For the time being it is a right every women here has and I am sure it is not an easy decision for over 99.99 percent of women that make that choice. I would hate to hurt anyone in a debate on politics that is simply not going to change minds. When the issue is one that is deeply personal and private for many. Again just my humble opinion.


----------



## Jill (Sep 21, 2008)

Sonya, just remember, you and I actually get to VOTE in this election, unlike Danielle, who will, I assume, be casting political votes only in Canada. It's the people who actually live here and vote here who decide, and who are most able to know what's best for the USA. Not outside observers and "commentators".


----------



## tagalong (Sep 21, 2008)

*Jill*, just remember



... this is a FORUM. Anyone can take part in a thread and all opinions are pertinent to a discussion. Any American who shows disdain for how others feel about and/or view this election has blinkers on, IMO. Contrary to what you imply - it _is_ of interest and concern for those from other countries as it affects all of us. Not just the US. Not just Americans.


----------



## Jill (Sep 21, 2008)

Yep, anyone can say anything they choose on this internet forum. Personally I'm not putting any stock or time into these long winded posts by people who are not qualified to actually cast a vote in our upcoming election. It puzzles me though, because I myself have zero interest in Canadian politics.

I do not care what other nations think of our President or our Politics. Citizens of other nations do not know what it's like to be an American at this time. Foreign media is even more biased than our own. Most of their leaders would prefer our Nation not to be the world power that it is. Lots of ulterior motives from the leaders in other nations, and also from many of their citizens as well (immigration comes to mind).

Just how I feel on it and what I think when I see the Canadian members taking the US members to task over issues that are for us to decide.


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

Jill I agree with you 100%. It may be of interest to other countries, but I don't put much stock into their skewed opinions of how/what America/Americans are about. I do wonder what they are watching on tv to derive such opinions. American media is biased enough, I can only imagine what they are seeing.


----------



## tagalong (Sep 21, 2008)

> Foreign media is even more biased than our own.


I could not disagree more. They do not have a Blue or Red agenda... they look at things from outside The Box.... which is something many Americans simply refuse to do. Also, unlike many Americans - they realize that this is important beyond the US borders.



> I do wonder what they are watching on tv to derive such opinions. American media is biased enough, I can only imagine what they are seeing.


Maybe more than what the networks in the US show you. Flag-draped coffins come to mind. But as all the US networks are on satellite or cable - and thus accessible far beyond American borders, many get their info from the same sources you do - but also have outside input to add to it. Deciding that others are simply ignorant of the issues is... well, _skewed_ - to use your words.


----------



## McBunz (Sep 21, 2008)

I have stayed out of this until now.. As a Canadian I find your remarks completely insulting considering Canadian Soldiers are dying in Yep, anyone can say anything they choose on this internet forum. Personally I'm not putting any stock or time into these long winded posts by people who are not qualified to actually cast a vote in our upcoming election. It puzzles me though, because I myself have zero interest in Canadian politics.

I do not care what other nations think of our President or our Politics. Citizens of other nations do not know what it's like to be an American at this time. Foreign media is even more biased than our own. Most of their leaders would prefer our Nation not to be the world power that it is. Lots of ulterior motives from the leaders in other nations, and also from many of their citizens as well (immigration comes to mind).

Just how I feel on it and what I think when I see the Canadian members taking the US members to task over issues that are for us to decide.

--------------------

Whinny For Me Farm

As a Canadian I find you comments most insulting as Canadian soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Why.......Because we seem to be joined at the hip.. We were a peace keeping nation

until we were dragged into this.. American politics affects the world not just Americans. If I thought for a moment that all Americans were as narrow minded as you seem to be I would

be anti American along with a good part of the globe..


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> As a Canadian I find you comments most insulting as Canadian soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Why.......Because we seem to be joined at the hip.. We were a peace keeping nation until we were dragged into this..


This is bringing up a whole different issue, the abortion issue was off topic from the original posters intent as it is, and I admit I had a part in that. No offense, but your own leaders put your soldiers there...not ours..Our adminstration did not decide to send your soldiers there, yours did! You can blame the U.S. all you want, but who you should be blaming, if you are unhappy, is your own administration!



> American politics affects the world not just Americans. If I thought for a moment that all Americans were as narrow minded as you seem to be I would be anti American along with a good part of the globe..


No one said our politics does not effect the rest of the world...however, we do have the right to dismiss your opinions/comments if we like....(just as you do ours)....and frankly the one at the top of this post is one that I will definately be dismissing simply because of the ridiculous content.


----------



## Jill (Sep 21, 2008)

Tag and Bunz -- It's fine if you disagree. You're very free to do so but I sincerely feel as I stated. Doesn't mean you have to agree with my opinion, but it is for sure my well thought out opinion.

Mary Lou -- good for you. All this time, I didn't realize you were also a US citizen





Sonya -- exactly correct


----------



## McBunz (Sep 21, 2008)

Jill and Sonya... It must be nice to be so young that you see nothing but the Waving American Flag... There really is more to the world than the USA.. Where would you be without the support

of the other nations... Even the USA can only spread their soldiers so far.. What about England , Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the rest? Or is it just Canadians you have no use for.??


----------



## Jill (Sep 21, 2008)

Please do not act like I said or feel things I do not, McBunz. What I said is that I do not care what people who are not US citizens think of our upcoming political election... I don't care who they think should win the election (no matter how many posts about it they may make on LB).


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> Jill and Sonya... It must be nice to be so young that you see nothing but the Waving American Flag... There really is more to the world than the USA.. Where would you be without the supportof the other nations... Even the USA can only spread their soldiers so far.. What about England , Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the rest? Or is it just Canadians you have no use for.??


I really have no clue where this came from????

especially this part:



> Or is it just Canadians you have no use for.??


SinceI've said absolutely nothing negative regarding Canada or Canada's citizens...nor has Jill that I've seen...or any country for that matter! I have absolutely no clue to what you are talking about!

If you have anger about where your soldiers are, it is definatley misdirected...you need to look at your own govt. not ours.


----------



## McBunz (Sep 21, 2008)

Where it came from is your idea that Canadians and other nations should not have an opinion..or if they do it doesn't matter.. I really don't care who you girls vote for..

What I am saying is your lack or reguard for the opinion of others is very annoying.. It is a small world after all..


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

> Where it came from is your idea that Canadians and other nations should not have an opinion..


you can have an opinion, no one said you could not, however I can decide if that opinion is of worth to what MY decisions are when "I" go into the voting booth...and I'm sorry, your opinions do not effect my decisions as I'm sure mine do not affect yours..



> It must be nice to be so young that you see nothing but the Waving American Flag... There really is more to the world than the USA..


well according to you, there isn't more to the world than the US since the US decides were everyones troops go....come on!


----------



## McBunz (Sep 21, 2008)

I can see this will go nowhere...Reason is beyond ... Insulting other nations is just wrong...

If you can't understand that ... there is no hope..Pakistan is now under attack from the

terrorists for helping the USA.. England took a hit for helping as well as other countries..

Their opinions don't matter because they are not American. I am not saying you have

to agree with them... I am saying they have earned to right to an opinion...


----------



## Sonya (Sep 21, 2008)

I



> can see this will go nowhere...Reason is beyond ... Insulting other nations is just wrong...


yes, you are right...it is. I can sleeply soundly tonight knowing that I haven't.


----------



## Jill (Sep 22, 2008)

McBunz, I'm sorry if you find it insulting that I don't care who the citizens of other Nations say they feel the US should elect as the next President. If my opinion on this is offensive to you, you really shouldn't give it any more weight than I give to the outside opinions on who should be our next President. I wouldn't expect my opinions on your country's political situation to really matter to you or your fellow voters, either.


----------



## whitney (Sep 22, 2008)

My 2 cents.....................

It is NOT our place to judge others.

I believe in the right to chose.

GOD is our judge not government.

Hunting for population control is a NECESSITY. I believe it should be carried out humanely.

Jill has already stated her "Feelings" re other countries it's one of those cases where you have to agree to disagree and MOVE ON.


----------

