"Anti-Second Amendment Cause"? Sarah, Stop Makin' Things Up!  

Do you have the same anger at the Obamas for flying all the way to New York for a date night? How about those $100 Wagyu steaks that Obama served at a dinner party? I don't think they're sacrificing one tiny bit but he sure tells the American people that we need to!

There's a reason they keep the wolf population down in Alaska. And since I don't live there and I don't have to put up with the predators I don't try to judge what they have to do as a state.

Why are you bringing up crap that has been proved not to be true? You want to dog on Sarah Palin-fine, but try sticking to the truth.

And about wolves, apparently wolves kill more wolves in Alaska than any gun.

http://www.wolfsongnews.o...

Wolves also attack people and kill pets. Especially when they're hungry and there isn't enough food for a bunch of wolves so they have to keep their population down. There are native peoples who live in Alaska and rely on caribou for their survival. The wolves eat the caribou and clean out their herds. Then there isn't anything for people to eat.

*Applause*
Well done, spoken like someone who knows ZERO about wild life management.

Piasabird-I have anger at any government official that spends money on useless crap when there are much more important things that can be done with that money. I agree $100 steaks is ridiculous good grief go to Safeway buy some steak for $1.99 a pound doctor it up real good and nobody will no the difference.
I understand there is a reason to keep the wolf population down, but I also believe there is a more humane way of doing it, and not offering $150 for a severed leg of a wolf. People can be down right mean and will just go cut off a wolves leg for the money while leaving it there to bleed to death.

I never said that nothing needs to be done about the wolf population, I said they are living breathing things that don't have a voice to defend themselves.

isishidid-I was unaware that it has been proven not to be true about Palin's spending ( I said I rarely get into political stuff ) because it gets too heated, however I do thank you both for responding to my comment in a respectful manner. Could you send me in the right direction to get the correct info about Palin's spending? I read a 4 or 5 articles and what I read was the yes indeed those amounts were spent, however some of the items were returned because they didn't fit, and the rest donated to charity. Yes wolves kill wolves, that is their nature that is part of nature. That is not humans killing them in a cruel way.

Piasabird-People kill people and pets does that mean we get to kill them in an inhumane way too? I understand there are natives in Alaska that rely on the wildlife for their food resource. Natives have survived many many years way before "wildlife management" was introduced, and will continue to do so. Again I'm not saying the animals don't need to be "managed" I'm saying there are more humane ways to do it. Where the animal doesn't have to suffer.

xfahctor-Really who do you think your comment helped here? If you don't think I know anything about wildlife management then why not provide me with some information instead of making snide remarks? I believe you misreading my intentions with my post, and thank you assuming I know diddly squat. You could learn a lot from Plasabird and irishidid.

I believe someone here brought up entertaining guests in the White House. I recall seeing Nancy Reagan stating that she and Ronnie loved to put on parties at the White House. I've never heard anyone complaining about the large number of parties they had... and who paid for them. Check out the number of parties they had, you'll be amazed! Sorry GOPers... I guess I wasn't supposed to mention your idol. (sarcasm)

I do in fact happen to know a little about wildlife and preditor managment. It is far beyond the scope of this thread to elaborate though. But suffice it to say, what you see in those feel-goody commercials is not even close to representing facts or the reason why things occure as they do. You reacted with emotion, exactly as the ad was designed to get you to do.
You saw a wolf being shot and reacted to it with out any consideration as to why this might be happening. It was a purely heart felt reaction to a problem of logic.
Why do you supose they do this? Do you believe it is because these people are simply sadistic and enjoy making animals suffer? Or is it at all possible there is a genuine legitimate reason? Could it possibly be because if preditor populations become too large, the population colapses on itself, through disease, lack of food sources, inbreeding, shrinking habitat? Is it possible that large wolf populations are a dnager not only to their own species but to humans as well in the way of livestock threats or even personal safety? Is it possible such a situation also presents a danger to the survival of other indigenous herds such as caribu, deer, and other animals?
I apologize for my quick and quip remark, but I have been responding to this issue since it first started being discussed here on mylot and it is always the same thing, people can't wait to jump on and critisize something they know nothing about and do so based purely on an emotional reaction rather than taking a few moments and looking in to the facts and the rest of the story, especialy when it involves a political figure from a party that isn't their own. It gets tiring. Again, I apologize for the manner in which I adressed this, it was not nessesary and not helpfull.

Gee, it doesn't take much to get off-topic here...lol! I know everyone has an opinion on Sarah campaign clothes and Obama's NYC date night but that's not what I was curious about. Of course, those two items aren't much further removed from the Second Amendment than the ad in question.
Annie

xfahctor-Thank you for the apology, and your input. Yes my reaction was of emotions heck I'm a woman and well I do get emotional LOL. As for the is it possible questions I already said, I can completely understand that there is a need for "wildlife management" I just wish it were done in a more human way. While most won't go and kill the wolves from being sadistic etc etc.. there are those that just because a bounty "might" be involved won't think twice about doing it in any manner possible. So there needs to be a balance somewhere. I can completely understand about how it gets tiring responding to the same thing over and over. Ya know sometimes it just does no good because people when it comes to politics believe what they want to believe, hear only what they want to hear, and they couldn't give a rats hoo haa what anyone else has to say. Sorry you got frustrated and I hope you have better mylotting days.

anniepa- I apologize for going "off subject" but my original comment was all in response to the subject and comments that Sarah Palin mentioned about the organization trying to get money from us poor folk etc.. so it all kind of fell in with the subject, well at least I thought it did? Anyhow as for what you were curious about I believe was if the ad had anything to do with second amendment rights. In my opinion no it did not. It had to deal with the fact that in Ashley's words "They die a brutal death." There was nothing mentioned in there about taking guns away etc.. It's not even about "Anti hunting" so either Sarah was talking about a different organization or different organizations all together, or she needs to watch that ad again so she can see what it truly is about.

P.S.- xfahctor I apologize for reacting rudely to your first comment as well. I could have found a better way to express my thoughts there.

No, you didn't react rudely, I was an asss and you acted accordingly.
Annie, I could use that shoe now.

I'm trying to find you something that isn't a blog on the issue of the clothes. I do know that the clothes were bought without the Palins present and several sizes of each were bought.
The Palins returned the clothes to the RNC. There's no indication that they were ever given to charity but that isn't Palin's fault.

The media hasn't exactly been honest when it comes to Sarah Palin.

LOL irish the media isn't exactly honest when it comes to anyone, not just Sarah Palin.

Spalladino I don't think she will lose her chances with the media. There was so much controversy about her during the campaign I'm sure for years to come some talk show, or reporter will want to do a story on her. Granted she won't be in the lime light so to speak but I'm sure she'll have her future 15 minutes of fame.

You won't get an argument from me about that, oly.

I don't think anyone from any "party or side" would argue there. I mean with the media reporting 20 different things on the same exact subject, one says one thing, the other something totally different, and never 100% truth they always have to add or subtract a little bit here and a little bit there you know.
It's hard to tell who to believe anymore.

Of course she meant Ashley Judd, what other person would Palin be referring to??? And I would like to ask you how being concerned with animal rights is a "anti-second amendment" sort of thing...Annie put no words or thoughts in Palins mouth, watch the speech, Palin states it all herself.

Well she could have easily been referring to any, or all of the other Hollywood starlets opposing predator control and second ammendment rights. I provided a short list below with a link to a much larger list if you'd like to see.

You may also notice that she used the word "starlets". Now, I'm no English major, but that appears to be plural. Ashley Judd is only one person so don't you think she may be referring to "several people" rather than just the one that YOU saw in a commercial?

Unless Sarah Palin mentioned Ashley Judd specifically, you're making assumptions. As far as animal rights go, do you think wolfs should be so over populated that they kill off all the other wild life? I suppose you think it's more humane to let them all starve to death, because that is what happens when there is overpopulation. Alaska is just keeping their wildlife under control. Judd's ad made it appear they were just shooting the wolfs for sport. The Judd ad was deceptive. Annie should have asked Hollywood to be honest.

LOL...You can take this any way you please but if anyone tried to put MY words or thoughts into Sarah Palin's mouth I don't think they'd be too successful!

Anyway, if you read my OP in this discussion you'd know this isn't about whether you agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed in the Ashley Judd ad. And, no, she wasn't mentioned by name but it seems that everyone who heard it seemed to get the same impression about to whom Sarah was referring. My point was that Sarah accused "Hollywood" of coming to Alaska to threaten their Second Amendment rights, telling them, "We eat, therefore we hunt"...one of the dumbest lines from her yet, in my opinion. The ad in question had nothing to do with gun rights or hunting for food.
Annie

"The ad in question had nothing to do with gun rights or hunting for food."

Annie, how do you know that "the ad in question" you're referring to is the only ad run in Alaska? As I've already pointed out, she used the word "starlets". That's plural. It's common knowledge that many in Hollywood oppose gun rights and many of them have advertised for anti-2nd amendment groups.

You seem obsessed with this belief that Ashley Judd is the only female celebrity to have spoken out against Sarah Palin to raise money for organizations. She's not. Sheryl Crow, Madonna, and others have as well. I remember one of those teen stars, maybe it was Hayden Panettiere even made a stupid commercial insulting Sarah Palin.

It's not "obsession" at all, it is actually very logical, there was a lot of controversy and hoop la over Ashley Judd's ads against the Aerial Wolf hunting, she is a hollywood starlet, and you might be on the other side of things, but people who oppose Palin and are also pro animal rights, really remember the Ashley Judd ad because Palin spoke out against the Defenders of Wild Life, here is a link : http://politicalticker.bl...

So I say it is more of an "obsession" to try and like all Palin lovers, make it out to be a list of all of the stars that pick on her, and dodge any and every opposition of her or issue that is negative about her. Obama supporters are called kool aid drinkers (which is actually really wrong and mean when one realizes the reference that includes children dying at the hands of a cult) but I wish there was some term for certain Palin supporters to counteract that, but without the really horrible and misplaced reference. There is no comparison between the two because one is not important and the other is the president....but there still are so many overly pro Palin mylotters that will ALWAYS make it out to be the Poor Sarah Palin Show, and that gets old

Spicy, I'm guessing this latest response from you is for Taskr, but I would like to say something about it. Those who speak in favor of Sarah Palin aren't dodging any negative issues. On the contrary, we respond to them. What we find fascinating is how Annie takes most everything Palin does and tries to turn it into a political firestorm of negativity. The woman is obsessed with Sarah Palin. I can only think of one reason, she's scared to death of her because she knows the influence Palin has on so many people. If she wants to make Sarah Palin look bad politically (and we know she does), she's going to have to rely more on political issues and less on Palin's relationship with Hollywood. Who among us really takes the political views of Hollywood starlets seriously?

Bestbuy, How is she obsessed with Sarah Palin, just because she posts a lot of discussions about her? Like I have said in another comment, Palin is an easy target to discuss, it has nothing to do with being scared of her, what really is there to be scared of? But just a note, if you think someone has an "obsession" over a political figure because they post all the news about them, then wouldn't there be just as many mylotters who have an obsession over Obama?

I feel as if I should be selling electronics.

I agree there are many mylotters who are obsessed with Obama. The difference is that Obama has the ability, with the help of the democrat congress, to affect our lives. Sarah Palin does not. Therefore, I don't see the reason for Annie's being so obsessed with her, unless it is as I've said.

I see your point bestboy, I still don't think Annie is "obsessed" with Palin, but I think just in the spirit of things, I will agree to disagree....on a funny note though, like you feel like you are selling electronics, I have always had a chuckle when I think about successful politicians, even those that I really like, could have great careers as used car salesmen

That's a good way to end it. Thanks for the debate. It was fun.

Nobody said it was. They are two separate causes that are both championed by some Hollywood starlets just like she said. I gave a short list of Hollywood starlets that oppose 2nd ammendment rights below.

FYI, unless you're a vegetarian you're supporting the wholesale slaughter of animals everytime you eat meat.

Taskr, if I or many others who also seemed pretty sure it was the Ashley Judd ad she was referring to happened to miss something, please refresh our memories. Have any of those others gone to Alaska or made an ad about Alaska or Sarah Palin?
Annie

Well Sheryl Crow wrote an entire article bashing Palin for the Huffington Post. Madonna has even gone on profanity laced tirades bashing Palin at her concerts. Gina Gershon did an ad insulting and mocking Palin as well even wearing a flag bikini like in the fake picture that the morons on MSNBC thought was real. Trust me, Ashley Judd was just one of several and frankly, she wasn't even the worst.

Very well written Rollo and informative. You're right "most" people that don't live there in Alaska probably don't know the to's and fro's of wild life management. While aerial hunting is more human than trapping, why not tranquilize the wolves first so they are asleep and don't have to suffer if the first gun shot doesn't kill them. Being from the air I can imagine many of the wolves aren't killed from the first shot or even the second in which case they feel the pain and try to get at their wounds etc.

All of that is well and good but it's not what I was getting at. I'd posted about the wolf hunts months ago and I admitted then than I may not know all there is to know about it but I still find it cruel. The part that confused me the most then was how the claim is that it's necessary to thin the wolf population because they're dangerous to other animals such as livestock and even people. However, it supposedly has to be from the air because they're in such a remote area that's the only way to get to them. IF they're where nobody can get to them how are they going to pose a danger to livestock or people?

That's all neither here nor there because it has nothing to do with wanting to take away anyone's gun rights, does it?
Annie

As I explained, part of wildlife control is done by citizen hunters who keep the predator populations in their area under control. These hunters use guns. The second amendment gives them the right to bear arms. A threat to second amendment rights means a threat to hunters that they could lose that right.

Now, all of that has to do with wolf population and Ashley Judd. But it is speculation only that she was jabbing at Judd. There are lots of other celebrities who are vocal on the gun control issue as was pointed out in another response.

And as little as we know about the problem with wildlife management, it's likely that Judd and other starlets (plural, as pointed out) know even less.

If no one takes her seriously why do the people like Annie spend so much time trying to find new ways to attack her? If no one takes her seriously why do people on the left have to make up stories attacking her every day? Obama and his attack dogs sure took her seriously during the campaign and set out on a mission to destroy her and her children. The left waged the most hateful and shameless campaign I've ever seen in my life. They don't do that to people they don't take seriously.

Taskr, maybe because she is an easy target. Palin put herself on the map by making this rambling speech in which she just just repeats herself a lot...bottom line, Palin puts the bulls eye on her forehead, which just cannot and should not be ignored because she calls herself a politician

The people who adore her don't understand it when I say this but, to me, it set women back rather than move them forward when she became the first female GOP V.P. nominee in history. I mean, she was chosen, at least according to some, simply because of her gender because someone had the silly notion that Hillary's millions of supporters would move over to McCain/Palin based on her gender. To me that shows women in general aren't being taken too seriously! Then in the V.P. debate - arguably her most crucial assignment - she resorts to winking and cutesy exchanges that could be seen as flirting with both the audience and her opponent. Throughout the campaign and in the time since she's wanted to be seen as tough as a pitbull on one hand but the innocent victim of the nasty media and the evil liberals on the other. SHE and nobody else put her kids in the limelight then she complained that they'd been "attacked".

The bottom line is, Sarah seems to want things both ways and it seems that no matter what her future holds she'll have to deal with the media. If she becomes a radio or TV talk show host, which has been reported as a possibility, she'll become part of the media she hates and if she has any thoughts of continuing in politics she's going to need some support from the media.
Annie

Well considering fully automatic rifles are ilegal already anyways...
Anyway, so what did the writers of the bill of rights intend with the second amendment? It isn't too hard to determine actually, just look at their words:
Jefferson uses a quote from Cesare Beccaria in arguing for it....
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." ~Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria.
He also felt it was the last line of defense againt our own government:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
As to both the intent AND degree of this armament, Noah Webster has a passage which is quite relevent:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive"

Do you not understand what life was like during the time of Thomas Jefferson, there were no automatic weapons around at that time. The guns were single shot ball and powder rifles. And since it is against the law to own automatic weapons, why are they being sold at gun shows and elswhere? You don't just turn over a rock and there it is, all ready loaded and ready to kill citizens of our country.

Any more bla, bla, bla by the NRA and weapon lovers, just doesn't wash, if it is against the law to own them like you say, then let's lock up those who have them in their possession and those that illegally sell illegal guns.

Sorry Annie... I don't know how I got off subject.