# Palin a patriot?



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

More troubling information is surfacing on McCain's VP pick, Governor Sarah Palin from Alaska. She was evidently a member of the Alaska Independence Party, a group advocating for Alaska to secede from the United States. It sure makes one question how much she loves this country.

Here are some links for more information:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-Palin-was-in-Alaskan-independence-party.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> She (Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP) doesn't know what Palin's position was.


Not sure. She might be more for states rights than I like. Still she is much closer to center than Obama. Much less radical than Obama.

Thanks for digging that up. Evidently she is a true conservative. I would guess that as more and more people get fed up with the democrats and republicans they will put hope in some kind of third party. To bad Perot screwed up the election between Bush and Clinton, but maybe some day a third party will have a chance. 
I would suggest the current democrats become the socialist party, the current republicans become the democrat party, and we have a new true conservative party. Lets face it the current democrats are socialists, with many outright communists on a world scale.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hey BigDaddy

Did you know that until yesterday the homepage of the *AIP* featured this quote from the party's founder:



> "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."


 

And here's Sarah Palin's videotaped message to the AIP convention-_this year's convention_, the AIP convention in *2008*.






Do you think that John McCain would have a problem with Barack Obama sending cuddly messages of support-*"Keep up the good work! And God bless you!"* ...to fringe political parties seeking to break up the United States of America?

A bug cup of hypocrisy for anyone this morning?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Yep, sure sounds like Palin loves this country... so much, in fact, that she doesn't want to be part of t.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Wow, I think we've found a love connection! LOL (sorry couldn't resist)


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

R y a n said:


> Hey BigDaddy
> 
> Did you know that until yesterday the homepage of the *AIP* featured this quote from the party's founder:
> 
> ...


Actually, you can still find that quote here:
http://www.akip.org/introduction.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That was a good message if you listened. It sounded a lot like what our governor says when we have him at opening of society meetings. The mayor of whatever town we meet in shows up also and gives his canned speech, much like Palin's. The old canned, good luck, your a great bunch, yada yada yada. Been there, seen that, a couple dozen times.



> "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."


Was that qoute from Palin? I doubt it. The NRA often ticks me off with statements they make, but I'm still a member. Have any of you found yourself in that situation? More often than not with most organizations I belong to. Maybe the rest of you have had a better experience. Maybe I'm just to darn independent.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

She is a true *PATRIOT*.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

For me what it comes down to is that I trust her and McCain a whole lot more than I trust Obama and Biden. It looks to me like she and McCain want the people to have alot more control and responsibility over their lives than Obama/Biden. You can bring up all this other crap to skew the basic issues but plain and simple I don't trust Obama at all. Guns, taxes, health care, and the stance on the UN are my biggest issues and deal breakers and Obamas on the wrong side of all of them. Nobodies perfect all politicians and people have their downsides and bad points I'm just more inclined to accept McCains and Palins.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Daren, thanks for getting us back to the real issues. 

I completely agree with you. I am not a one issue person, but I have priorities. At the near top of my list (not sure which is the top) is the second amendment. It is without question that Obama does not respect my second amendment rights. 
I think Obama has more respect for the United Nations than he does for the United States. I think the opinion of the rest of the world sways him more than the opinion of the American people.
Taxes will destroy the businesses and in return the economy of this nation if Obama implements his plan. His taxes are a burden that our economy can not stand under and will buckle at the knees. His bill on World Poverty is beyond belief, and you need not read blog sites, go to the congressional record. Much of it is yet to be unveiled, but it would give 835 billion to the United Nations to be redistributed through out the world at their digression. 
I often say the liberals are in fear of Palin. I will admit I am absolutely terrified of Obama. I would like to end my life as a free man, and I don't want to see my descendants or any American children slaves to the United Nations. What else can you call it when they take much of what you earn and give it to those who hate you and have not earned it? Who would Obama please most, Americans, or third world nations?


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Oh Big Daddy and RYAN, you two just crack me up!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> More troubling information is surfacing on McCain's VP pick, Governor Sarah Palin from Alaska. She was evidently a member of the Alaska Independence Party, a group advocating for Alaska to secede from the United States. It sure makes one question how much she loves this country.


Following up on this Big Daddy, since this was your thread and your topic...

The McCain camp has come out trying to quell the firestorm over her involvement with this group.

Interesting find on her husband's alliance with the group though:
*
TPM:*




> The McCain camp today disputed rumors that presumptive vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was ever registered with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party by releasing years of voter registration history &#8230; but it looks like that doesn't apply to her husband.
> 
> This afternoon, the director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, told TPMmuckraker that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States.
> 
> Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.


Imagine the shiat storm if Michelle Obama was found to be registered to blah blah blah.

Interesting how we haven't heard a storm of anger over this recent news about her. Guess when the shoe is on the other foot it fits differently.

Anyone need some recipe for crow yet?

:roll:

I could really care less who this is about. I just think those who were here a few weeks back spouting anti-Obama rhetoric, putting down his wife for off the cuff comments, etc, now are suddenly nowhere to be found. I would expect equal outrage and condemnation when similar scandal now finds the Republicans. The hypocrisy here is sad and deep.

I just find it amazing now that we find dirt on the other side, now the equation has changed, and others are now saying "Well in totality blah blah blah" ... sorta sounds alot like spin to me.

Take a look within yourself to ask if you need to become a little more objective of every person irrespective of who they are. Deep down, the Obama's are alot like the Palin's. They both surely do love their country, are both surely passionate about their beliefs, and believe they are doing what is best for the country.

All of my posts of late, have a bit of of a deep edge to them because I'm simply sick and tired of those who would seek to demonize Obama, and use various (earlier discussed) stories to do it. Now when we use similar logic and stories to impune this VP candidate, now all of a sudden we are being unfair and partisan. Interesting how the view looks depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on. Some of the very political positions this VP candidate is basing her worthiness to be the VP candidate on are now coming back to bite her in the azz, or bite those Republican pundits (some here too), for the hypocrisy and foolishness of their earlier rants.

You simply have to admit that we do indeed have a point. I could care less your politics or mine, but the double standard has to stop.

McCain was foolish to choose her. You know it and so do I. She wasn't fully vetted. This has caused the McCain camp to go back on its' heels and have to deal with this story.

The ironic thing about it all?

John *at Americablog makes an excellent point:
*



> I'm watching McCain surrogate Gary Bauer, a religious leader who had a fall from grace a few years ago, lecture MSNBC about how dare they cover the Bristol Palin unwed pregnancy story. McCain supporter Bill Bennett tried this tactic on CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday too. Someone needs to remind the McCain campaign, when they whine to journalists about how terrible it is that the media is reporting on the pregnancy, that* none of us knew about Bristol Palin's unwed pregnancy until yesterday morning when John McCain's campaign leaked the story to Reuters*.


Consider that for a moment. McCain had to release the news ASAP, for fear that if discovered 2 or 3 days later would destroy the Republican Convention and throw the whole thing off message at the exact wrong moment.

Ohh... and one more thing... for those of you who were joyously crowing about ratings, and how Obama hasn't had any change...

You might want to consider this little poll that Gallup just put out..

Obama just *climbed above 50%* for the first time...










Anyone have odds it has to do with Palin and her views?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

R Y A N said:


> ............I'm simply sick and tired of those who would seek to demonize Obama, ...............


I guess I don't recall trying to demonize him, but then maybe I have. There are some issues that are very important to me, such as gun rights, and the fact that I don't believe that the illegal aliens in this country deserve anything but deportation, and most particularily don't deserve welfare, medicare, social security, and other benefits reserved for citizens. Obama believes that they do deserve these things and is decidedly anti gun, anti concealed carry.

I don't agree with his views and don't believe that he will make a good leader for this country.

For me the jury is still out on McCain, BUT he looks a hell of alot better to me than Obama.

huntin1


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Ryan;

You are correct. The hypocracy of conservatives is amazing. Where are the folks who labeled Michelle Obama as un-American for one quote that she made about being proud of her country? Where are the folks who labeled Barack Obama as un-American for stating that he would defend Muslims if they were singled out and oppressed like the Japanese in WWII?

Hello? It is suddenly very, very quiet when their Republican VP-wannabe openly takes an overtly anti-American stance.

This hypocrisy is exactly why I have lost so much respect for conservatives in general, and why I have lost respect for some specific folks on this board.

Jack Cafferty sums it up best (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/cafferty.republicans/index.html) when he states:



> For four days, they will labor under the illusion their party is still relevant. It's not.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Big Daddy, you want to talk about hypocracy? How can you, or anyone on an outdoor forum, who supposedly loves hunting and shooting, identify with the liberal Democratic Party of today. Do you care so little about hunting and shooting that you are ready to give up your guns? Do you care so little about your country that you are prepared to extend to illegal aliens the same rights and benefits that are granted to legal citizens?

Yeah, talk about hypocracy.

And Ryan, I've been trying to give you the benefit of doubt here cause I haven't talked to you face to face in quite awhile. But, knowing your love of hunting and shooting I cannot believe that you are buying into the liberal agenda, but it certainly looks that way. I guess you too are ready to turn in your guns.

My job is made easier when the Dems are in control, there are far more law enforcement grants with the Dems in control than with the Republicans. But the Democratic agenda is so far off base that I don't see myself voting for any of them.

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> R Y A N said:
> 
> 
> > ............I'm simply sick and tired of those who would seek to demonize Obama, ...............
> ...


Hey Bob

My comments were not directed at you.

Heck I never said that McCain wouldn't be the better choice if one is only looking at the issue based on that one criteria.

There is no doubt that Obama has the worse record on guns.

Might issue is more with those who grandstand on here and blindly support anyone that the Republican platform puts up as a leader.



huntin1 said:


> And Ryan, I've been trying to give you the benefit of doubt here cause I haven't talked to you face to face in quite awhile. But, knowing your love of hunting and shooting I cannot believe that you are buying into the liberal agenda, but it certainly looks that way. I guess you too are ready to turn in your guns.
> 
> huntin1


I am not buying into any liberal agenda. I'm not convinced that voting for Obama is the automatic "turn in your gun" sentence that so many believe it to be. I think that is a scare tactic perpetuated by fear mongering Conservatives who insist on defining exactly how they perceive an Obama administration to be. I'm certain Obama will try enacting some legislation that effects gun ownership if elected. However he now has limits in what he can do based on the latest SCOTUS rulings. Those rulings are now precedent and cemented in stone as an individual Constitutionally guaranteed right.

I have other political views that I won't go any further into detail about....

take care.

Ryan


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

R y a n said:


> Heck I never said that McCain wouldn't be the better choice if one is only looking at the issue based on that one criteria.
> 
> There is no doubt that Obama has the worse record on guns.
> 
> Might issue is more with those who grandstand on here and blindly support anyone that the Republican platform puts up as a leader.


With that logic you must still be sobbing that Hillary failed to make the grade. She has 10 times the stature on every issue and most certainly a larger pair of nads than Obama.

Fear is what drives vitriolic hate when it comes to liberal politics. 8)


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

In this day and age I don't think anything is cemented in stone. There's a way around everything. Obama and the UN will find it one way or the other.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

OK Ryan, I can accept that. But I was not just talking about Obama, it is the liberal Democratic agenda that has me worried. And if you look at that agenda you will see that it is the private ownership of firearms that they ultimately want to do away with. It is not a scare tactic, and it is not just an Obama administration issue, it is a liberal Democrat issue.

huntin1


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ryan how can you say its "cemented in stone " when as we type the DC politicians continue to dismiss it and are still putting limits on ownership. I do not believe it to be set in stone. Politicians will always find ways around most anything. Obama is too much a fan of the UN and that is one view point I feel is un-American and one of his views I dislike the most. Do you believe the UN to be a governing power that should be above that of the US? I'm not trying to attack you, I would just like to know where you stand on that. Are you in line with Obama on this?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> Might issue is more with those who grandstand on here and blindly support anyone that the Republican platform puts up as a leader.


I for one have yet to see one person on this forum "blindly" support the republican nominee. I HAVE heard alot of "lesser of two evils", "more closely aligns with my beliefs and issues", "not a big fan but better than Obama", and that sort.

Democrats have given MUCH more evidence of "blindly" following their candidate than ANY republican.

Ok, so Palin (A VP candidate) may or may not support a group that wants Alaska to succeed from the union. Big deal! Its still better than a PRESIDENTIAL candidate who may or may not sell out the ENTIRE COUNTRY to the UN or any other group that wants us (read as muslim group-thats right, I went there, call the PC police).


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

The 2nd amendment issue will resurface at the federal level. Do any of us here want people appointed by Obama making those decisions?

Remember that 4 of them are already backwards on the issue.

The Constitution is the single biggest issue to me when considering a candidate.

Obama and his liberal buddies want to change it...they think it's old fashioned and out dated. And they want the UN to supercede it.

Can it get any more "un-American" than that? 

I wish some of the loud-mouthed liberals would spend less time talking about Mrs. Palin and more time explaining to me why that is OK with them ?????????

And I've said it several times before, but I echo huntin1's dismay as to how we can find so much of this level of liberalism on a hunting site ????????????????????


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

huntin1 wrote:


> Big Daddy, you want to talk about hypocracy? How can you, or anyone on an outdoor forum, who supposedly loves hunting and shooting, identify with the liberal Democratic Party of today. Do you care so little about hunting and shooting that you are ready to give up your guns? Do you care so little about your country that you are prepared to extend to illegal aliens the same rights and benefits that are granted to legal citizens?


and Csquared wrote:


> And I've said it several times before, but I echo huntin1's dismay as to how we can find so much of this level of liberalism on a hunting site ????????????????????


I'll answer your questions.

I am a sportsman and an avid hunter. You will not find me in my office in October, but in a duck blind sitting next to a wet lab and drinking black coffee. I am not some suburbanite tree-hugger than sits in a Starbucks.

As a sportsman, I look at a candidate's (and a party's) stances on more issues than the 2nd amendment. I look at their positions on conservation and the environment because I realize that all my hunting rifles and shotguns do me no good if I can simply look at them hanging on a wall.

Therefore, I will ask you:

Which president set aside 58.5 million acres of lands as roadless areas during his presidency? Answer: Clinton. What party was he a member of?

Which president reversed Clinton's ruling to put those 58.5 million acres in the control of local interests like mining and logging to decide whether or not they could remain roadless? Answer: Bush. What party was he a member of?

Which party routinely sides with interests to keep areas like ANWR pristine and preserved for future generations? At the same time, which party looks at those pristine areas as potentially bountiful areas for mining, timber production, and other forms of economic development?

Which party takes climate change seriously and is trying to move us to a non-fossil fuel energy strategy to protect our world for future generations? Which party has a strategy of more drilling, regardless of whether those areas are pristine areas of wilderness or sensitive costal marine habitats?

As a sportsman, I realize the importance of letting state agencies like NDGF regulate game in the interests of its citizens. Which Senator introduced S.339 in 2005 to give an exemption to the Commerce Clause so that states could regulate hunting and fishing based on local needs? This bill also gave states authority to set different seasons and restrictions for residents and non-residents. Which Senator was that? Answer: Harry Reid of Nevada. What party might he be a member of?

I also realize that my freelance access to private lands goes hand in hand with the agricultural economy. When farmers make profits, they don't need hunter access fees to get by. Which party routinely favors agricultural subsidy programs, agricultural trade protection, price supports, and other measures to keep farmers and ranchers on their land? That would be the Dems.

I realize that the critters that I hunt need cover. I love CRP and the habitat that it provides for all sorts of species. Therefore, I ask you.. Which party fought tooth and nail to put CRP in the farm bill? Which party fought to take it out?

I believe in strong regulation to protect public resources. Which administration has gutted enforcement authority of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and has proposed widescale changes to the Endangered Species Act to make it less restrictive? Which president has seen widespread resignations from EPA staff because he won't let them do what they need to do? A hint... He's from Texas.

So, which party do you think is more a supporter of wildlife conservation, keeping wild areas wild, keeping farmers and ranchers on their land, and providing ample regulation of public resources? These are liberal ideals.

You keep clinging to the 2nd amendment as though that is the only driving force for sportsmen to decide who to vote for. However, excuse me if I open my eyes a little more and look further than the end of my nose.

As a sportsman, I will counter your concerns with mine. How can you call yourself a sportsman and be a conservative?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> OK Ryan, I can accept that. But I was not just talking about Obama, it is the liberal Democratic agenda that has me worried. And if you look at that agenda you will see that it is the private ownership of firearms that they ultimately want to do away with. It is not a scare tactic, and it is not just an Obama administration issue, it is a liberal Democrat issue.
> 
> huntin1


Fair thoughts one and all.

I too am troubled by the liberal Democratic Agenda. But in different ways. Just as there is a contingent of Republicans who take the Republican flag and run to the end of the political spectrum with it, so is there an equal number of people who take the Democratic one and run way far left.

There are liberal folks who no doubt would love to ban all firearms. Those folks are fringe players just as PETA and ELF are. Yes they exist.

But not all liberals want to ban all firearms. Take a look at those of us here on this board alone. Just because I support certain liberal stances regarding social issues, doesn't mean I drink all the rotten kool aid across the board.

There are plenty of folks who aren't nearly as radical as you'd believe. In fact they tend to make up alot of the party.

As I've stated before, I don't like alot of Barack's policies. I never said I would vote for him. I never said I wouldn't vote for McCain. Heck I even alluded to the fact it doesn't matter out here who I vote for. My state isn't a battleground.

I just like to know where both tickets stand. I'm just as harsh on the Dems in certain cases, and have posted just as many threads to that effect here in the past. But I take both parties to task for their posturing and pandering to win favor with the electorate.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Fair enough.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Longshot said:


> Ryan how can you say its "cemented in stone " when as we type the DC politicians continue to dismiss it and are still putting limits on ownership. I do not believe it to be set in stone. Politicians will always find ways around most anything. Obama is too much a fan of the UN and that is one view point I feel is un-American and one of his views I dislike the most. Do you believe the UN to be a governing power that should be above that of the US? I'm not trying to attack you, I would just like to know where you stand on that. Are you in line with Obama on this?


Longshot there can be no doubt that the DC politicians are breaking the law by ignoring the Court. That will be rectified soon enough if you believe that the law is the highest law of the land. We both know that what they are doing is illegal and will be challenged and won.

It was precedent and was a HUGE victory for gun rights.

In regards to the UN... I believe Obama is off his rocker if he thinks the UN is above the US Constitution, and in any way could or should be able to govern US Citizens. IMO the UN has outlived it's usefulness, and is a puppet of the US's whims. I'm not sure if that is good or bad frankly, because we justify alot of our military actions, and foreign policy thru it. We also pay upwards of 80% of the UN bill, so we should have a major say in how things are run. But so far the formula has worked to this point.

But if Obama seeks to increase its scope within US law there will be a huge uprising. There is simply no way the States individually or collectively thru their citizenry will allow for that to happen.

That is perhaps Obama's most foolish statement in regards to the U.N. If you notice we haven't heard boo about it since? Whatever happened to it? Why haven't the R's pressed him on it? It would seem like prime political fodder for McCain to score some points on?

Curious? Do you know? I guess that has fallen off my radar too...


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Wouldn't some of you guys actually LIKE to see some gun owners that lean left? Wouldn't they help to balance out the gun grabbing whack jobs of the extreme left? Do all right-wingers want to bomb abortion clinics? I highly doubt it. Each side has their extremes. Hopefully the moderates can cancel them out and both sides can realize they have common ground.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Bigdaddy, let me be the first to thank you for your explanation. I appreciate it anytime someone, whether we agree or not, takes the time to explain WHY they believe, instead of just what they think.

You're obviously a very smart man, although I doubt there is any common ground you and I could find even on the most duck-less of days in a blind together.

We obviously have to weigh issues at the voting booth, but with the Constitution being the most important to me, as stated, I also never lose sight of the fact we are voting for our representatives when we cast our vote. I am not there to reward someone for giving me access to more land or buying into the global warming issue, but to put a man (or woman) in office who I believe will use sound judgement to do what's best for this country and ALL it's citizens. And for the sake of brevity, it can be summed up with 2 issues for me.

I personally can not trust the judgement of anyone who is afraid of an armed citizenry or who thinks it is perfectly OK to suck the brains out of an unborn infant.

Call me simplistic if you wish, but I'm afraid I need some more convincing.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks for the reply Ryan. I would say we very much agree when it comes to the UN. I would even like to go as far as withdrawing from the UN. I really don't see it being productive anymore. The last comment by Obama I recall was overseas talking about "world citizenry". He has stayed away from this subject as of late as it is in the best interest of his campaign in my opinion, but it is still his opinion. I find very little that I can agree with him. Also as others have stated I don't want him to be the one appointing any Supreme Justice. The SCOTUS rulings were far too close.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Also as others have stated I don't want him to be the one appointing any Supreme Justice. The SCOTUS rulings were far too close.


Exactly, the last decision is not written in stone, but easily erased ink. One more liberal supreme court judge, one less conservative judge, or should I say one more activist judge, one less constitutional judge, combined with a anti gun congress and the victory just won will be gone perhaps never to be recovered again.

Like all the rest of you I am not a single issue voter. However, I have priorities to each of the issues that are important to me.

I would like to also thank you for your post BigDaddy. I see the things your talking about, but with a different aspect. I see democrats as anti gun, I see conservatives as to pro business rather than anti environmental as many paint the picture. After all who in their right mind would want dirty water, dirty air etc. The unfortunate thing is the anti gun crowd appears to have control within the democratic party. I am fully aware that they are not all gun grabbers, but even our North Dakota people have voted along with who ever is pulling the strings.

You mentioned CRP. I honestly forget who controlled congress during the first CRP program and who was president. I don't remember the first year of CRP. If you want to talk naturalist it is hard to beat Teddy Roosevelt and he was Republican. If you look through history the credit has to go to both sides. Likewise with the blame.


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

Obama, because of poles has backed off of the key issues that keep me personally from even considering voting for him. But, those issues are still there, and even if the people shoot those issues down do we need him spending his time as president trying to get that crap run thru? Is he going to spend his time trying to unite the US and the UN under one umbrella? Is he going to spend his time trying to change the 2nd amendment? Are we going to waste 4 years on him trying to change all this? What will be accomplished? We all know this is what he thinks he's just smart enough not to admit it anymore.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Robert A. Langager said:


> Wouldn't some of you guys actually LIKE to see some gun owners that lean left? Wouldn't they help to balance out the gun grabbing whack jobs of the extreme left? Do all right-wingers want to bomb abortion clinics? I highly doubt it. Each side has their extremes. Hopefully the moderates can cancel them out and both sides can realize they have common ground.


IMO much of the problem is that at this point in history the democrat party is controlled by the far left.

The last two republican presidents and the current nominee are not conservatives but moderates, which is why McCain had to nominate a very conservative VP in an atttempt to try and get the right wing of the republican party back on board.

In contrast look at how the Democrat party treats Liberman arguably a moderate but definitely a liberal, they went nuts an tried to drum him out of congress soley on his support of the war. He is a patriot and hes areal guy.

Gore "global warming inventer of the internet" a phony jet setting loon.

Next, kerry a far left elitetist who said horrible things about our soldiers both in vietnam and Irag, and there plenty of "centrist" blue collar gun carrying patriot "reagan Dems" that didn't think much of him.

and Now

Obama a guy whos only history is associations with the terrroist Willam Ayers, and who's admitted role models in his own autobiography are marxists. 20 years asscociating with the racist pastor?? travels and supports Farrakan.

His writings and history are full of socialist marxist influence, something that probably will not fly in this election also.

Pelosi wont allow drilling when the whole country understands its our only current option for the short term next 10 years.

George Soros ???? I'm sure he needs no comment.

Robert do you see any of that as mainstream?

Its suprising to me that the Dems dont see this weakness.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

it is the new democratic platform......socialism.......might as well call them the socialist party....same as in France.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Big Daddy said:


> Which president set aside 58.5 million acres of lands as roadless areas during his presidency? Answer: Clinton. What party was he a member of?


Another prespective:



> President Clinton's proposal to preserve 40 million acres of roadless
> lands from roading and development is obviously timed to boost Vice
> President Al Gore's presidential campaign.
> 
> ...


Read the entire article here: http://forests.org/archive/america/cloffris.htm
it is enlightening.



Big Daddy said:


> I also realize that my freelance access to private lands goes hand in hand with the agricultural economy. When farmers make profits, they don't need hunter access fees to get by. Which party routinely favors agricultural subsidy programs, agricultural trade protection, price supports, and other measures to keep farmers and ranchers on their land? That would be the Dems.


Do we really want to go here. I believe, and so do many farmers that I personally know, that government should get the hell out of agriculture and let the American farmer stand on his own two feet. I know many farmers and landowner who view these subsidy programs and price supports as nothing but gilded welfare. Hey! You're right, they are Democratic programs.



Big Daddy said:


> So, which party do you think is more a supporter of wildlife conservation, keeping wild areas wild, keeping farmers and ranchers on their land, and providing ample regulation of public resources? These are liberal ideals.


As has already been stated, there are people in both parties who are good for the environment, and both have those who are not so good. These are not liberal ideals. Also stated before, the most environmentally friendly President this country has seen was a what? That's right, a Republican.



Big Daddy said:


> You keep clinging to the 2nd amendment as though that is the only driving force for sportsmen to decide who to vote for. However, excuse me if I open my eyes a little more and look further than the end of my nose.


The 2nd amendment is not the only driving force, but is a very important one to be sure. I believe I have stated some of the other reasons that Obama would be a bad choice for this country.

huntin1


----------



## Two Dogs (Nov 1, 2006)

> *So, which party do you think is more a supporter of *wildlife conservation, keeping wild areas wild, *keeping farmers and ranchers on their land, and providing ample regulation of public resources? These are liberal ideals.*




Which President was in office when the most farmers lost their land? Jimmy Carter. You're right, those are liberal ideals.


----------

