I have done a lot of look-ups on Sarah, but I have never found anyone with the comprehensive knowledge of her background as SportingSpecialist:
Yep, I admit it, by your standard of the number of "look-ups" I've done on Sarah I know absolutely nothing about her. I don't do "look-ups" on Sarah. I participate in real life and read facts as opposed to the garbage produced by bloggers paid by Sarah to pander to you.
I'm glad your "look-ups" on Sarah have cemented your view that no one has "the comprehensive knowledge of her background as SportingSpecialist". For all I know he may be the KING of wannabe Sarah Palin panty-sniffers. I'll bet he's done even more "look-ups" on her than you have. Please give him the "Sarah Palin look-up" record if you think he deserves it. It doesn't actually give him information but if it gives him (and you) gratification it's fine with me.
"By your reasoning ,if you don't live in Alaska you can't possibly understand Alaskan politics. LOL. Using your mutated logic one would conclude that because you don't live in Washington D.C you can't possibly understand national politics. LOL."
No, one musn't live in Alaska to have some grasp of Alaska political events. Or in Washingtod, DC to have some grasp of national politics. But, I think even you would understand that Alaskans, particularly those Alaska citizens who are directly involved in Alaska politics, have access to more information about how and why things happen in Alaska politics than say, some idiot doing "look-ups" several years after the fact from several thousand miles away. It works the same in national politics, too. Those involved have access to more information than those not involved.
But...maybe you guys doing "look-ups" will never understand that someone who participated in something might know more about it than you "look-uppers". Let's try anyway. Do you think you would know more about why and how events that you participated in happened in the Ozarks (or wherever you live) than, say someone living in Kotzebue, Alaska who just does "look-ups" about the events several years later? Nah, I guess not.
"Again you've impugned Sarah Palin. Any reasonable person, with a modicum of common sense, cannot possibly believe that a woman who births a special needs child is as selfish as you want members to believe..."
Wow, where to start on this one. I don't care about Sarah Palin's personal life. I'm sorry for her Down syndrome child. But giving birth to a developomentally disabled child really says NOTHING about Sarah's character. It was biology. Sarah didn't seek out an opportunity to give birth to a child with Down syndrome to martyr herself and serve others. If she'd wanted to do that she would have adopted one or more of the many, many developmentally disabled children who are orphans, whose parents have abandoned them, or whose parents have lost their parental rights because they were abusive/neglectful parents.
In case you don't understand it women give birth to developmentally disabled children every day. Some of the women are wonderful people. Some are not. The developmental disability of their children may or may not be due to the mother's character. In some instances it's a roll of the genetic dice. In others it's due to the mother's behavior - e.g. consumption of alcohol during pregnancy may (but not necessarily always will) cause developmental disabilities associated with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (do a "look-up" you'll find it.) This may or may not be a reflection of the mother's "character". Could be ignorance of the risks. Could be addiction. Could be pure malevolence. Each instance is individual.
Down Syndrome is due to genetics. It's more likely to occur when the parents, particularly, the mother is older at the time of the pregnancy. Sarah's experience is like that of other women her age who choose (or let chance choose for them) to become pregnant. The possiblity of giving birth ot a child with Down Syndrome is greater. In my opinion it's irresponsible to do it by chance and selfish to do it purposely because a woman who chooses to roll the genetic dice knowing she puts the child at greater risk does so for her own gratification and sentences the poor child to a life with limited potential. But, it's their lives and wombs and they get to choose.
"Her record of accomplishments speaks for itself. As I stated earlier none of the slander you've proffered here reconciles with her tremendous popularity and her favorable pole ratings."
Her record sure speaks for itself. But maybe you better look a little closer at her "accomplishments" so you'll understand what she's "accomplished" as well as how, and why. And, yes please check out the polls. As I have predicted, the more exposure Sarah gets the lower her poll numbers go. When most Alaskans knew virtually nothing about Sarah she had great poll numbers here. They've been declining every day since she was elected to statewide office. Her national poll numbers have followed the same pattern. It's not my opinion. It's fact. But it's predictable. The more people know about Sarah the less likely they are to vote for her. No matter how much you panty-sniffer wannabes "love" Sarah you can't change the way thinking people view her.
"Your slander of Sarah Palin seems to be more than just anger, it appears to be pathological. Are you the state trooper who threatened to shoot Palin�s father? Are you Andree McCloud ,who filed frivolous ethics complaints that have all been dismissed because they were shown not to have merit? Are one of the Republicans that fell to Palin�s righteous morality ? Are you a whiny liberal hack? Please enlighten us."
Gosh, thanks there Dr. Freud. It's pretty clear you're an expert on things "pathological" - like "pathological" mindless panty-sniffer worship that ignores facts and substitutes delusional fantasies. Please, carry on! Enjoy your fantasies. Maybe Sarah will send you some of her dirty panties and you can "fall to Palin's righteous morality" while you fondle them.
Sorry I can't get back here on the Fire to respond to you wannabe Sara Palin panty-sniffers more often. I've been out living life. I can only stop by here intermittently when I don't have actual things to do in real life.
But let's see. I changed my screen name because I wanted to. I like BrownDog better. Hiding from nothing. Happy to own up to anything I've ever said or done.
Politician? Nope. Apparently you poor folks don't understand that citizens can actually be involved in political action - beyond doing "look-ups" and ranting in online forums. But, it happens.
Actual people do actual things in real life. Got that? Here I'll repeat it for you.
Actual people do actual things in real life. And, I'll still put up a lot of money betting against Sarah ever running for president. If she ran she'd lose - wouldn't get past the first few primaries from the looks of the polls showing her trailing other potential Republican candidates in positives and exceeding them in negatives. And, hell that's just among Republicans. She would stand NO CHANCE in a general election with independent voters. Want to put up some actual cash to back up your mouth?
I admit, it can be hard to predict what Sarah's delusional vanity will prompt her do - if she thinks there's a buck or more celebrity in it for her she'll do anything.
But, even Sarah can read polls and her primary goal has nothing to do with public policy and everything to do with money and celebrity. She'll milk the political forum she's got for all the money and celebrity she can get - without actually having to do any work. When it comes down to the real work of running for president she won't do it. If she ran and lost her money-generating capacity and celebrity interest are diminished dramatically. If she dangles out the potential for running she'll keep panty-sniffers like you sending her money in hopes she'll run (or send them a pair of used panties). She won't run in 2012. She'll keep you panty-sniffers hoping beyond 2012 because that keeps the money coming in and allows her to retain some celebrity cachet for a while longer. Lose in the primaries and no one will care about her.
Here, Bowsinger, is some information from a source other than Sarah's paid bloggers regarding the issue of Sarah's centerpiece legislation in Alaska - you know the issues I addressed in an earlier post a few days BEFORE this article was printed. Compare my post with the information presented. Then do a few "look-ups".
You've apparently already found Sarah's paid staff response to the Times article. But, then like your other "look-ups" it's just Sarah's self-serving drivel. Her "response" quotes none of the other of the actors involved in the legislative process in support of her assertions. It simply attacks the NY Times.
The Times just reports the facts as those involved in the issues see them. Sarah reports only "her" facts. You believe Sarah. Keep it up and keep sending her money.
And, please, please, raise enough money to convince her to move to YOUR locality. She's nothing but a distraction in Alaska. She's irrelevant here. Maybe she still has some relevance in your state or community. Take her, please.
Sorry, Bowsinger, et al, I can't stay longer to play with you Sarah worshippers. I've gotta get back to real life. You might want to try it sometime. Turn off the computer. Step outside. You might find you enjoy it. Naaaaaah, guess not.
New York Times
March 17, 2011
Palin�s Successors (Republicans Too) Seek to Dismantle Her Energy LegacyBy WILLIAM YARDLEY
JUNEAU, Alaska � While every online swipe from former Gov. Sarah Palin still draws national attention and stirs fresh speculation about her political ambitions, back home she is no longer quite so imposing.
Even as she casts herself as an energy expert and is quick to attack the Obama administration on oil and gas issues, the two most prominent energy policies she put in place as governor of Alaska face new challenges less than two years after she left office.
Gov. Sean Parnell, Ms. Palin�s fellow Republican and former lieutenant, has announced that it is his top priority to undo parts of major oil tax increases that Ms. Palin made law. He argues that high state taxes, not just federal regulations, are preventing oil companies from exploring new drilling in Alaska and therefore jeopardizing future state revenues.
�Lower taxes means more competitive,� Mr. Parnell said last week. �It means more jobs.�
And the project Ms. Palin once portrayed as her principal legislative triumph, a plan to build a 1,700-mile natural gas pipeline that she said would transform the economy of Alaska and contribute to America�s domestic energy supply, seems an increasingly distant dream, undercut by low gas prices and more practical projects in other states.
�She made it an issue,� said Mike Chenault, the Republican speaker of the State House, who has sponsored a bill that would end Ms. Palin�s pipeline plan if firm evidence of progress is not documented by this summer. �That was the way that Alaska was going to move forward. As of yet, we haven�t, in my opinion, moved one step forward.�
Ms. Palin�s policies may well survive, at least for this legislative session. Mr. Parnell still supports her gas pipeline plan, and even some Republican lawmakers say they are wary of lowering taxes on oil companies without assurances that it will lead to more production.
Strikingly, some of the lawmakers most dedicated to preserving Ms. Palin�s signature achievements come from a constituency she rarely courts nationally but one that was crucial to her in Alaska: Democrats.
�She hasn�t said boo to help us protect this thing since it�s come under assault,� said State Representative Les Gara, a Democrat from Anchorage, referring to the oil taxes Governor Parnell wants to alter.
That is not to say that lawmakers are clamoring for her return. Elected by a wide margin in 2006, Ms. Palin was wildly popular among voters and held sway in the Legislature. By the time she abruptly resigned, in July 2009, her approval rating among voters was in decline and both Democratic and Republican legislators accused her of being detached and imperious.
Ms. Palin was never fond of Juneau, the capital � her husband once encouraged the House speaker to pursue moving the seat of government closer to Anchorage � and it feels as if she has been long gone, preserved in an official photograph and in what remains of her legislation.
Mr. Parnell replaced most of her closest aides, including many of her advisers on oil and gas issues. He said that he had not consulted with Ms. Palin about his plan to revise oil taxes. �We need to be nimble with changing times and history,� he said.
Compared with many states, Alaska is in fine shape in the short run. It is sitting on a $12 billion revenue surplus, a sum driven directly by the high price of oil. Taxes on oil production provide nearly 90 percent of state revenue. Some of the surplus comes from the increased tax on oil production, tied to the price of oil, that Ms. Palin supported in 2007. But not everyone is willing to give her credit for helping to create a nest egg for Alaska.
�We�re probably the most fiscally sound state in the union,� said Bert Stedman, a Republican who is co-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the Legislature�s most influential members. �I�d say she had little to nothing to do with it.�
Even Ms. Palin, who did not respond to a request for comment, does not boast these days about raising taxes on oil companies.
�It�s this fundamental achievement that�s at odds with the political persona to which it�s attached,� said State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who worked with Ms. Palin on oil and gas issues.
Democrats say that the oil tax increase was their idea to begin with, and that Ms. Palin rallied to their cause amid a wave of populism after a scandal linking lawmakers to the oil industry. (At least two guilty verdicts in a federal investigation have since been thrown out based on questions over prosecutorial misconduct.)
Mr. Stedman, meanwhile, said the state was in good shape in part because lawmakers in both parties � armed with the surplus � pushed through major spending projects that have limited the recession�s impact.
Still others, like Governor Parnell, say that while high oil taxes have lifted revenues, they are causing oil companies to hesitate before investing in new wells on the North Slope, where production has been declining steadily since 1988.
Mr. Parnell noted that Alaska, which ranks second in domestic oil production, after Texas, is projected to fall to fourth within a decade. �We�ve got jobs leaving Alaska going to North Dakota,� he said.
The proposed natural gas pipeline is supposed to help the state shift from relying on oil to relying on a different, cleaner fuel, which the state has in abundance. That was at the center of Ms. Palin�s campaign when she ran for governor in 2006; her slogan was �New Energy for Alaska.� Two years later, in September 2008, when she spoke as a vice-presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention, she made the project sound as if it was under construction.
�We began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,� she said at the convention.
Yet the pipeline was only in the planning stages. The Legislature, prodded by Ms. Palin, had just agreed to provide $500 million to a Canadian company to secure gas suppliers and apply for federal permits. Now, two and a half years later, the state is scheduled to reimburse the company, TransCanada, $185 million in the current fiscal year and $160 million in the next.
Some lawmakers are frustrated. TransCanada missed a self-imposed deadline for securing agreements with companies to ship gas from the North Slope. In December, the United States Energy Information Administration projected that the pipeline would still not be in service by as late as 2035.
�There�s frustration because a lot of people thought in �07 and �08, if we do this we�ll get it,� Larry Persily, the federal coordinator for the Alaska Pipeline Project, said of Ms. Palin�s plan.
Mr. Persily, who once worked for Governor Palin, was named to his position by President Obama. He said the pipeline could still become reality, particularly if the nation moved away from coal and the demand for gas rose � and if the state modified Ms. Palin�s plan to assure gas providers of a predictable tax structure.
�Certainly it helped, but it was oversold as the global solution,� he said of Ms. Palin�s plan. �Not that Palin was the first politician to oversell something � she just did a good job of it.�
miles
![[Linked Image]](http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a37/sportingspecialist/funny_780.jpg)
