Anonymous pwns palin

haha, I saw that. A governor using a yahoo account to conduct business? how dumb do you get? that's just opening the doors to anyone who wants to access your account.
 
a.) People have their work email accounts and their personal email accounts. It would be inappropriate for palin to use a .gov email account to conduct personal business or send out personal emails. So she has to have some other form of email, whether it be yahoo, gmail, or whatever...so i don't think she's a "dumb bitch" as you put it, for having a yahoo account.

b.) However, I think that if she was using the yahoo account to conduct business, that's another story, because yeah, all emails have to be archived. I don't think email messages from friends saying "we're praying for you, don't let the negative press get you down!", count as "conducting business", the other email that was sent is certainly questionable....however, it could also be a personal exchange like the one above. They didn't say that the email had to do with him running for congress, all they said is that there was email exchange between the two, AND he is running for congress.

c.) I think the whole thing is disgusting. Breaking into someone's email account is a felony. What a lowly thing to do.

In conclusion, its pretty normal for someone to have a yahoo account. It's a pretty shitty thing to do to hack into it, and if Palin is really using personal email accounts to conduct business, which has not yet been proven, that should be dealt with accordingly because it is against the law. end.
 
YAHOO though? i mean really...

oh, and you said you don't thinks he's a dumb bitch for having a yahoo account. but you DO think she's a dumb bitch for other reasons, don't you?
 
Why would you assume that I'd refer to any woman as a dumb bitch, ever?

I think Palin has made some questionable statements, has done some questionable things in office, and some of the things that she's said, she would have been better off not saying at all. I think that she might be a little under educated, a little sheltered, and a little simple minded, all of which are poor qualities for someone who is running for a VP position. Do I think that Sarah Palin also has some qualities? yes.
 
ummm, because some women are dumb bitches, that's why the phrase exists...

and i would like to hear some of these qualities that you think she has, if you don't mind?
 
In the phrase "dumb bitches", the word 'dumb' im assuming obviously means unintelligent, I'm wondering what the word "bitch" means in this instance. Because, usually the word Bitch, is a term used to describe a woman who is mean, harsh, and/or unfriendly. None of these describe Sarah Palin, so I'm assuming the word in this case is just referring to a woman as a "bitch"
 
hahah remember when these idiots were supposed to bring down the government over a year ago? they're just a bunch of nerds with too much time on their hands.
 
your an idiot, they never once talked about brining down the government. their main beef has been with scientology.
 
Anon...weren't they supposed to take down Scientology or something? I wonder whatever happened to that? Did they give up after they realized an organization is a little tougher than vandalizing a MySpace page...or a Yahoo account?
 
they have moved up to protesting at scientology gatherings. most of them wear the V for Vendetta masks. i pretty sure i read somewhere that scientology punk'd anon at one of these protests, it said something like 2 scientologists put on the same masks and walked into the anon crowd and somehow found the main anon guy who was also wearing on of those masks. they stood behind him and held up a sign saying "anonymous no more, LOL" with the guys real picture address and phone number on it. i guess they had been following him for a really long time.
 
dude i already knew that...i think you've told me at least three times already, you don't need to tell me again haha
 
I don't either. But my default position on any person without knowing them is that they're normal, nice, and decent. All that I have to go by of her, confirms that she seems nice. I'm not going to call her a bitch for no reason, I think guys have an easier time throwing the "bitch" word around than women. It's degrading to us, and by using it we only assist in degradation.

As far as what qualities I see in her...

1.) I think she is down to earth, and lot of American people can relate to her, that is an important trait for anyone in the white house, considering most Americans feel completely issolated from the white house as it is.

2.) She's appears to have ethics. Now some people might come back and say "but she fired all these people unethically" you don't know that and neither do I. What I do have to go on, is that I respect her pro-life stance. She says that she is pro-life personally, but she is pro-choice for other people. She also confirmed her personal pro-life stance when she found out she was going to have a downs baby and carried it to term.

3.) She has the highest approval rating of any governor and at point had an approval rating of 95%. This means that people find her easy to relate to, she doesn't make empty promises, and she has made decisions that have had a positive effect on her state.

4.) She has taken a large amount of what the state has received for income due to high oil prices. And now, in a time when her own state is having troubles with the price of gas, she has used the money she has saved to enable a suspension on gas tax and to issue checks to alaskan residents to use toward gas expenses for the upcoming winter.

5.) To become the governor of Alaska, she defeated the incumbent republican governor and did so without the support of the republican party.

There are more, but I'll leave it at that. I could make similar lists for all of the candidates running. Some lists longer than others. But I could also make negative lists of all 4 candidates...some lists MUCH longer than others.

Am I jumping up in the air with a Sarah Palin sign? No. Do I think she shows signs of not being ready for the VP position? Yes. But I see merit in all 4 candidates, and I'm not going to deny Sarah Palin's qualities
 
you cant use your government issued email account for private matters.

This was her private email account.
 
as an alaskan i will say, yes she has done some great things for our state but i dont think, by any means, she is ready to take on the responsibility of being VP.

2. are you sure that the DS baby is even hers? alot of alaskans are wondering that. one example, when she was supposedly 7 months pregnant she was up here giving a speech and looked just as she does now, while around the same time her daughter was getting bumped up to first class as not to be disturbed on a bunch of random flights down to the states and back...

4. we already get money from the state every year. the permanent fund dividend. all she did was tack on an extra 1200 and called it gas help. its alot like bush's economy stimulus package. i'm not complaining seeing as our gas is still at 4.14 for some reason, but i'm sure we would have seen the money later anyways.
 
so by ethics do you mean Sarah Palin opposing protection for salmon from mining contamination, sueing the us government to stop listing the polar bear as endangered, shooting wolves from airplanes, urging the National Marine Fisheries Service to not list the Beluga whale as endangered, opposing sex education, and plans to fix an energy crisis by subsidizing polluters?

 
fair enough, but i wouldn't recommend assuming the position that people are nice without knowing them first. i personally do not think that Palin is "normal" in the general sense of the word, nor do i have any proof showing me that she is a nice person. i have seen that she has the ability to change her view of the world on a dime, to suit the views of those around her. whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing has yet to be shown.

i'm not going to argue about her qualities, because i don't care. have you decided who you're voting for yet? if so, did Palin play a part in your choice?

 
No, I have not decided who I am voting for as of yet, if I'm voting at all. I have always been one to advocate voting, and it sort of goes against my principals to not vote at all, so I'm going to try my damndest to make a decision. I am really looking forward to debates.
 
let me reply:

1: She is NOT down to Earth. Her support of creatonism in all schools and complete destruction of all Sex Ed in schools completely refutes this idea. Remember, she may SEEM down to earth, but that doesn't mean she is. Remember, Hitler related to people as well (not comparing, just an example)

2: As stated above, ethics is not part of her repertoire. She also sponsors $150 rewards for killing endangered wolves and bears + Offshore drilling in Alaska.

3: Approval ratings mean nothing. Just because people like her, doesn't mean she's doing a good job. Bush had a 63% approval rating before the war. Look how that turned out.

4: I approve. But, I still don't like the idea that she opposes research for new energy resources - Furthering Bush's policy on that. It is Alaska though. Can't do much about that.

5: I don't get this one at all. It's not a rational argument without context.

I do like the way you argue, though. You didnt' even mention the bible, which is a good first!!!!
 
I think that her environmental stance, or lack there of, doesn't show questionable ethics or morals, I think it shows ignorance.

As for the wolves, as much as we hate seeing animals shot, there is a reason that they do that, it's important to keep the wolf populations in check if they're getting unbalanced. You may say that "people shouldn't interfere, and should let nature run its course", but it's way too late for that now. Humans have affected pretty much every species.

The following is her stance on the polar bear topic.

"We’re not against protecting plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska has supported listings of other species, like the Aleutian Canada goose. The law worked as it should — under its protection the population of the geese rebounded so much that they were taken off the list of endangered and threatened species in 2001.

Listing the goose — then taking it off — was based on science. The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.

What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.

Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions.

Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments. But listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer."

My opinion on the Salmon and Beluga topics are that she's ignorant and in the wrong.

Sex education, she's naive.

And as far as "subsidizing polluters"...as a governor it is in her best interest to do what she thinks is best for her states people and their economy. I think that's exactly what she's doing.
 
She supports both the teaching of creationism and evolution. AND, does not think that either should be mandatory...so in other words, creationism would be offered as an elective, and students could choose whether they wanted to learn about it or not. That argument doesn't hold very much ground in my own opinion. I see no problem with offering creationism as an elective.

and she is not shooting endangered wolves. The grey wolf is endangered in the lower 48, but in alaska it is not endangered, in fact, grey wolves thrive in alaska. I liked how you said "wolves and bears" as if she offers $150.00 rewards for killing polar bears...not true.

It's just interesting how wording is used to make people look bad, rather than just straight up facts.

Offshore drilling I am on the fence on.
 
Oh man. This rumor, is the whole reason that Palin and her daughter came out with the fact that she is 5 months pregnant. The baby not being Palin's started as a rumor...that the baby was really her daughter Bristols. That rumor was squashed, when they announced and doctors confirmed that Bristol is currently 5 months pregnant, and so that math wouldnt have worked out.
 
this is where people dont quite understand alaskans. alot of us including my family shoot our food. we dont get out meat from the supermarket or the drive through, we get it from the land. its not that we "hate seeing animals shot" as subsistence hunters we eat what we kill. flying in a plane shooting wolves is a different story and generally done because wolves are encroaching on peoples land or just for sport/$. dog meat is not very good at all and wolves, other then the pelt, will not feed you for very long. shooting from a plane gives you such an advantage its pretty much a joke. you talk about keeping the wolf populations in check, well they are far below normal. they have been wiped out in some places.
 
I don't know id I would say naive, maybe more fixed in her views or something. I'm sure she's well informed on the subject but her ideological beliefs mean she sticks to her plan.

But what do I know, I don't have an interest in US politics other than to hope that McCain/Palin are not elected.
 
I thought the way that it worked was like...the wolves eat the caribou, until there caribou population runs low, then due to low caribou population the wolf population begins to die off from starvation, bringing the caribou population back up...and so on, and so on.

I thought the reason for the aerial shooting, was to keep wolf population in check, because there got to be a point where the caribou popluation was down, and the wolf population was rising, which was throwing the above cycle off. Thus bringing the caribou population back to thriving numbers so that alaskans would have ample food supply.

I should probably read up on it a little more if that is not the case. I am against killing wolves for sport.
 
what i meant by naive, is she thinks that sex education promotes sex, and that without it, kids would be less exposed to sex, and therefore would be having less of it. Which I think kids will be having sex either way, that's what i meant by naive.
 
Fair Enough, I did not know that about Alaska, but I didn't say Polar bears. Palin is using taxes to fund workshops and courses educating people how to kill wolves AND bears(misc. brown, black, grizzly) in the most efficient way possible, which i do not approve of.

On creationism, everywhere I've read, including Fox and CNN, have all stated that she wants equal teachings of Evolution and Creationism, not as an elective, but as course study. I believe Creationism has no place in school - if it were taught as an elective it'd be fine, but that's not what she is saying.

As for offshore drilling, its up to you. I think the faster we lay off the oil the better. Offshore drilling will not prolong our addictions forever.

Also, she wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, completely criminalizing abortion, even in rape victims. Its fucked up. Read more into it. If you get raped you're fucked in her eyes.

Furthermore, why isn't experience an issue with her to Republicans? She's only been a governor for Alaska for 2 years! It was such a problem with Obama, but not Palin? Obama served in the Senate of Illinois for 8 years, and the U.S. Senate for 2, and that was enough for them to bitch about his experience. At least he knew what he was getting into when he ran for prez. Palin doesn't even know what VPs do.
 
i don't understand this "teaching of creationism" thing. i've gone to catholic schools my whole life and as of yet the "teaching of creationism" has been to simply read the stories in the old testament. seeing as how there is no evidence, science, or sources to back it up, there is not a lot to teach. is this what they mean when people speak of the "teaching of creationism?"
 
yeah that works best describing lynx/fox populations with the rabbit/grouse pop.

when the caribou migrate there are hundreds of thousands whereas the wolf packs are nowhere near that large, i dont even think there are close to 10,000 wolves left in this state... and a couple caribou can feed a whole pack so they really dont affect the caribou population much... what affects them is the natives who think its fun to go out and start blasting away every caribou that they see.
 
I think the teaching of evolution SHOULD be mandatory.. creationism as an elective I have no problem with, in much the same way as I would have no problem in an elective studying Harry Potter.. the fact remains that evolution is a certainty.. to AGAIN allow someone in to a seat of power who does not accept this would be insanity. This alone to me shows that she is not a 'grounded' person and she refuses to accept some basic facts of the world such as:
- The world is billions of years old
- Human beings evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees
- Iraq is (was) a sovereign state and should be free from international interference (sorry wrong republican (sort of))
 
I think there has been talk about sarah's lack of experience, I think the reason there is more talk about obama's lack of experience is because he's running for president, where she is running for VP.

I think Barack and Sarah have comparable experience, and they should both be running for VP, if anything.
 
If there are legitimate reasons, for the killing of animals, whether it be to keep people fed, or to balance the ecosystem, whatever, then it can be rationalized. I am completely against killing for sport, and I think it's terrible when animals are killed needlessly.

I think environmental groups, would protest it no matter what the reasoning. If Palin is using tax payer money to hold "lets go shoot animals for the fun of it" courses, then obviously I don't approve. It's hard to believe that's the case, but I'm going to look into it more. I'm willing to admit when I'm not completely sure of something.

However, I do know of a lot of circumstances, where animals have needed to be killed for population control.

Now, you say "she wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, completely criminalizing abortion"...from what I've heard, Sarah Palin is very pro-life for herself, but understands other peoples views on the subject, and the goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade, was to make it so that it would become a statewide issue, and then be decided by each state, rather than a nationwide judicial decision. That's what I remember reading on the Mccain website.

 
here's the quote from the mccain site:

"Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat."
 
I don't think under any circumstance it should be overturned.

Even if it is just a statewide issue, Roe vs. Wade is one thing, abortion is anothing. Roe vs. Wade stipulates that any woman has the right to abort a fetus up until the point where it is able to live outside the womb.

Most arguments for abortion argue the time at which a fetus is "viable".

Palin, as an Evangelical Protestant, has taken the stance that ALL abortions are illegal and unconstitutional. Even if it's just a state decision, the idea that she supports is just cruel. No special clause for rape victims, or victims of child molestation. All of it is illegal. And THAT is why I don't support her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top