Alaska may be the largest state -
Posted By: with the fewest people! on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: Article I just read. sm - Tess
Unless they're counting the caribou. Oh wait... maybe she shot 'em all.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
PS; The Alaska State Legislature is
x
Alaska AG: State employees won't honor
By STEVE QUINN
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.
In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.
Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.
"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.
Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor.
French did not immediately return a telephone call Tuesday for comment.
Earlier in the day, Harris, who two months ago supported the "Troopergate" investigation, openly questioned its impartiality and raised the possibility of delaying the findings.
Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation.
In a letter, Harris wrote that what "started as a bipartisan and impartial effort is becoming overshadowed by public comments from individuals at both ends of the political spectrum," and he urged lawmakers to meet quickly to decide on a course.
"What I may be in favor of is having the report delayed, but only if it becomes a blatant partisan issue," he told The Associated Press, while indicating he already believes it has become politically tainted.
Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council, the 14-member panel that authorized the probe, had no immediate comment on Harris' request. Under an unusual power-sharing agreement, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't.
The matter risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests - not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.
Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.
Also Tuesday, five Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit against an investigation they called "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the inquiry. They want it pushed past the election or top Democrats removed from the probe.
Making clear the dispute has ramifications beyond Alaska, Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, was working on the lawsuit. The institute has taken on a variety of cases in defense of conservative Christian positions.
Elton called the lawsuit "a distraction."
"The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the Legislature and the governor's office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics," he said.
Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.
Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.
Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. She has sought through her lawyer to have the matter investigated in a more favorable forum, the state personnel board.
Largest tax increase in HISTORY and you think it
nm
With the largest jobs loss since 1945, your fix would
simply be to evict and starve the unemployed out of existence? Wow. Compassionate conservativism at its finest.
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
Two Border State Governors Declare Illegal Immigration State of Emergency
SIGN THE PETITION!
CLICK HERE!
THANK YOU!
You can have our federal money along with a new state motto: "Michigan - The Slave State". n
NM
Laws vary state-to-state
Many people were confined against their will just because someone wanted them "out of the way." These were normal people with no mental illness - that is why it is so difficult - don't blame the liberals. Blame your state.
CONFINING THE MENTALLY ILL
In the legal space between what a society should and should not do, taking action to restrict the liberty of people who are mentally ill sits in the grayest of gray areas.
Our notions about civil and constitutional rights flow from an assumption of "normalcy." Step beyond the boundaries and arrest and prison may legally follow. Short of that, government's ability to hold people against their will is severely and properly limited. Unusual behavior on the part of someone who is mentally ill is not illegal behavior. Freedom can't be snatched away on a whim, or on the thought that a person is hard to look at, hard to hear, hard to smell.
It was only a few decades ago that the promise of new medications and a change in attitude opened the doors of the mental hospitals and sent many patients into society. There, they would somehow "normalize" and join everyone else, supported by networks of out-patient facilities, job training, special living arrangements and regular, appropriate medication. But the transition has been imperfect, long and difficult.
In some parts of urban America there is little professional support for those with mental health problems. A new generation of drug and alcohol-fueled mental illness has come on the scene. People frequently end up on the street, un-medicated and exhibiting a full range of behaviors that are discomforting at the very least and threatening at their worst.
Red state, blue state?
Written last Thanksgiving: "Some would argue that two different nations actually celebrated: upright, moral, traditional red America and the dissolute, liberal blue states clustered on the periphery of the heartland. The truth, however, is much more complicated and interesting than that.
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.
So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt - and many clearly don't have the maturity to know what they're getting into. There's some correlation too between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging a highly educated state like Massachusetts. But the irony still holds. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that these socially troubled communities cling onto absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
But doesn't being born again help bring down divorce rates? Jesus, after all, was mum on the subject of homosexuality, but was very clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study, however, found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not. 29 percent of Baptists have been divorced, compared to 21 percent of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23 percent of married born-agains have been divorced twice or more. Teen births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state like Texas, where the religious right is extremely strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, the teen births as a percentage of all births is 16.1 percent. In liberal, secular, gay-friendly Massachusetts, it's 7.4, almost half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas, the percent of people unmarried is 32.4 percent; in Massachusetts, it's 26.8 percent. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts manages a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Or take abortion. America is one of the few Western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It's a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc, and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it to a country like Holland, perhaps the epitome of socially liberal, relativist liberalism. So which country has the highest rate of abortion? It's not even close. America has an abortion rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
Even a cursory look at the leading members of the forces of social conservatism in America reveals the same pattern. The top conservative talk-radio host, Rush Limbaugh, has had three divorces and an addiction to pain-killers. The most popular conservative television personality, Bill O'Reilly, just settled a sex harassment suit that indicated a highly active adulterous sex life. Bill Bennett, the guru of the social right, was for many years a gambling addict. Karl Rove's chief outreach manager to conservative Catholics for the last four years, Deal Hudson, also turned out to be a man with a history of sexual harassment. Bob Barr, the conservative Georgian congressman who wrote the "Defense of Marriage Act," has had three wives so far. The states which register the highest ratings for the hot new television show, "Desperate Housewives," are all Bush-states.
The complicated truth is that America truly is a divided and conflicted country. But it's a grotesque exaggeration to say that the split is geographical, or correlated with blue and red states. Many of America's biggest "sinners" are those most intent on upholding virtue. In fact, it may be partly because they know sin so close-up that they want to prevent its occurrence among others. And some of those states which have the most liberal legal climate - the Northeast and parts of the upper MidWest - are also, in practice, among the most socially conservative. To ascribe all this to "hypocrisy" seems to me too crude an explanation. America is simply a far more complicated and diverse place than crude red and blue divisions can explain.
I don't know what state you live in but in my state
they are adding police and only in the big cities do they have paid firemen. The rest are volunteers.
I look at it this way: If a state can't stay in the black, then they have to cut spending some place that wouldn't jeopardize the safety of the citizens. Threats of cutting essential services like Barney Fife stated today are unjustified. Cut the non-essential services first.
Our governor talks about cutting back on services, laying off government workers, which I think is a good idea because government is too big anyway, but then he turns around and spends more money on non-essential items. Doesn't make sense.
80% x 683,478(Alaska) = 546,782 / 300,000,000(US) =
Obviously, in the grand scheme of things, maybe there are a lot of Americans who do agree.
Alaska..
Incumbent republican Senator Stevens. Convicted of 7 counts. He hasn't won yet, but the last I heard had about a 2-3 point lead. Below is a link for the whole story. Pretty much all news stations are saying the same thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06alaska.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The really bad thing about this is that they are waiting for counts from early voting and absentee votes, both of which may have been cast before his conviction. We may yet see another first in history.
Drilling in Alaska?
Whats up with liberals making a huge deal about Bush going to Iraq for oil and then they complain about Bush wanting to drill in Alaska.
Doesn't that controdict itself??!!
drilling in Alaska
They just want to argue with everything. Doesn't matter if nothing gets done, in fact, that is probably what they are trying to do, so they can say the Bush Whitehouse didn't do a thing. They (liberals) block everything, or try to, just because.
Truth about oil in Alaska
The facts below have been corroborated in many studies:
1. Will drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge do anything to solve our current gasoline and heating oil supply problems and reduce prices?
No. Most experts predict that oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could not begin for 7 - 12 years and the Congressional Research Service estimates it would take at least 15 years. A new study by the US Energy Information Agency (March 2004) entitled Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shows that even if oil were being pumped today, it would only reduce our oil imports from about 70% to about 66%, having no real effect on overall prices or supply.
2. Are estimated oil supplies in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge expected to significantly change our long term energy prospects?
No. It is estimated that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains no more than a six month supply of oil at our current consumption rates.
3. Given the current war against terrorism, shouldn’t we do absolutely everything we can to maximize our oil supply to be self sufficient?
No, it's not possible to be self sufficient given the amount of oil we consume as a nation. We use more oil than we could ever find domestically, even if we were to drill on all public lands, in all of our national parks and monuments, national forests, etc. The United States uses 25% to 30% of all of the oil produced in the world, yet we only have less than 3% of known oil reserves. These numbers are well known. The amount we could recover from the Arctic Refuge is literally a drop in the bucket by comparison. Also, any oil that is produced, regardless of its source, is bought and sold on the world market. That's how major commodities like this work. Even now, oil from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, often is exported to Asia. The only way to really enhance national security is to develop alternatives that reduce oil consuption. Our current usage as well as archaic public policy that encourages more oil development and consumption is actually what puts our nation at risk. And why destroy a unique treasure for something that will make no difference in our reliance on foreign oil?
is cindy from alaska?
x
Residents of Alaska
last night on CNN said she was absolutely vicious to those who opposed her or believed differently and was very vindicative. Come on Joe, bring this personality trait to light in the debates.
80% x 683,424 (Alaska) = 54,7892 / 300,000,000 (US) =
nm
I have family in Alaska and they
think very highly of S. Palin. FYI, people don't like her JUST because she is likeable. She's smart, courageous, well-grounded with good morals for starters. She doesn't flip-flop to appease the public (like Obama/now for drilling), and she is NOT self-serving (gave up her plane, personal chef, etc etc that came with the job). She is and has been SERVING THE PEOPLE, not playing politics; McCain has the same history, and together they ARE the party of change. p.s. when was the last time Obama had any part in giving money BACK TO THE PEOPLE like Palin did in Alaska? Look at the facts. You have 2 track records of standing up for the people on the McCain/Palin ticket and pretty talk along with old party politics on the Obama/Biden side. It really scares me to think of Obama winning, with his demonstrated lack of judgment and lack of record, poor associations, etc. p.s., if there is a revolution/take-over of the USA it could only be under Obama. notice too, that now his future position in the white house is challenged, he keeps changing his tune to sound more middle-ground. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing; beware.
Blacks in Alaska.......
Well, I have several long-time very close friends who have lived in Alaska for 28+ years. My best friend married a native Alaskan. That conversation did come up one time and you know what her husband told me (this is a man who worked on the north slope for dozens of years). He said the blacks in Alaska are some of the most hard working people he has ever met. Blacks and whites work alongside one another on the slope and other hard jobs. He said many blacks came to Alaska to get higher paying jobs. The comments he would hear would be how they detested their black relatives/friends who sat on their butts and took government (taxpayer)handouts and used their color as an excuse not to better themselves. Their children all went to school together, played together, and helped one another. He also told us that a close friend of his who was from black/Alaskan heritage had told him he couldn't understand with all the advantages his generation and those still to come have, why they don't take advantage of them and why they continue to kill one another in gangs and spend so much time hating one another and "whites", blaming whites for all their problems. Now, this comes from a black man in Alaska. He said many of his friends came up after he suggested they could find higher paying jobs. They were hard working people who just wanted a better life and they refused to raise their children thinking they had to have handouts and they didn't want them "around" other blacks who were drug pushing and calling each other the "n" word in their schools. It wasn't the Republican whites they were trying to get away from. By the way, he thought social programs were a joke!! He felt social programs were one of the biggest problems in black society and that they encouraged handouts and free rides without offering a solution.
I have several black neighbors and we are in the south, that will not hesitate to tell you they "hate" social programs, they are sick and tired of paying for them, and suggest those that like them so much be the only ones who pay for them. They are hard working people like us who want to actually keep their money. One couple put two of their daughters through medical school without a single social program in their lives. They detest being taxed to pay for all these social programs when we can see in our own communities they are just unjustified, just throwing more money into a big pit.
Now, I'm not sure where you get your info from, but all republicans are not white...matter of fact the above mentioned blacks vote republican and think the democrats are the problem for the plight of the black man. Keep giving them handouts and making them believe they "need" help, can't do without the government, can't make their own decisions, and you will have nothing but a welfare state before long.
Rich republicans don't pay taxes? Who in the h*ll do you think pay for all those social programs now.....you? The 1% of rich republicans as you put it are the ones in the highest tax brackets, pay the most taxes, and fund the greatest majority of your social programs. Taxation is relevant to your income, not your political party. You make more, you pay more in taxes. How do you think they made more money....it fell from the skies? Yes, there are those who inherit a lot of money and have done nothing to deserve it (even though those they inherited it from worked their butts off for it), but in a free country, they are free to inherit it if it is given to them. I don't feel negative towards them for that. And there are those who have made fortunes from hard work, not coming home at 5, and have pretty much given up any life of their own to succeed to the level they feel they want to be. You say rich like it's a bad word. Should we fault people for being hard working and succeeding financially in life and making more than us? I know people who have lots of money and they have sacrificed a LOT to get there.
I feel pretty certain if you had lots of money you would certainly lavish it on your children. That would be your right. And you probably wouldn't want it taken from you to give to everyone else when you can make the decision to donate/give as you see fit.
Our government, however, feels they have the right to have death taxes, which by the way, Whoopie Goldberg, detests and thinks that is wrong (she's black and rich)and why does she think that's wrong? Because she wants to give her wealth to her family when she dies and that's how it should be, without government interference. They have no right to take it....they didn't make it. I don't hear her jumping on the bandwagon saying TAKE MY MONEY, PLEASE, and give it to anyone you want and pay for hundreds of social programs with it. After all, she made it and should give to those as she sees fit, not as our government sees fit. Matter of fact, I don't hear any rich blacks screaming take my money. I hear some of them backing Obama and say they believe in what he wants for this country, but they just don't want to pay for what he wants. Make up your mind...can't have it both ways!
You sure are an expert on Alaska!
()
Please see the post below from the Alaska...
Fish and Game site. No one is shooting wolves for the fun of it, and I have seen nothing to indicate that she personally participates on a regular basis. As to giving a hoot for the peoples' well being, 85% of Alaskans disagree with you, as do I.
If Alaska ceceded from the US, and
I know what Sarah would say: 'I saw the Russian tanks approaching from my house!'
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Then why is she hated in Alaska?
.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska...
to me that indicates that the voters who put her there are very happy they put her there. THat includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
The man was corrupt. She got rid of corruption. Most Presidents when they go into the job, as well as most governors, "clean house" when they go into office, whether they are corrupt or not. You act like that is something that is "not done." Good grief.
My bias is showing? Now THAT is rich. LOL.
Okay...first, what an elitist comment. A tiny Alaska community? Those people don't count? Well you certainly relegated them to the back back back burner didn't you? Tell me again how important the "little" people are! She has 12 months of actual executive experience. Obama has none. She is going to be second chair, not first. She has an 80% approval rating...Obama never HAS had that, except from NARAL, who gave him 100%. I would say that her constituents are happier with her than Obama's were with him.
I think she is ready for the "big boys." Let's see how she does in the debates with Biden.
Why is it that Democrats laud democratic whistleblowers and diss Republican ones??
Unless McCain dies or incapacitated, she won't be getting that 3:00 call. But since you brought it up...this little person has a question about that 3:00 call. Is Obama going to call Joe Biden on the other line???
She is governor of Alaska. Oil and Gas is a big part of...
that state's economy. She said the science presented that the polar bears were in danger was faulty. I cannot say, because I have not seen the study. The only things about this I have seen is on environmental sites. I would like to see something less slanted. She is also for alternative forms of energy, but she is a realist. It is going to take a long time for that to be a viable option. Yes, we should work on it. But in the mean time, we need to drill here and drill now. That is the road to getting off foreign oil. I think anyone's energy plan has to include that.
Yes, she is pro life. And she believes that abortion in any case is wrong. I believe that also. We are entitled to that opinion. Yes, the morning after pill is issued to all women who report a rape. Women who do not report a rape can obtain it a health departments, hospitals, and from a physician. As far as incest...I still believe abortion is wrong; however, an abortion law with those exclusions, and add the exclusion to save the life of the mother, would save many thousands of babies every year. This country aborts in excess of 1.2 million babies every year. We could save over 80% of those babies if we had a law like that, instead of an abortion on demand oops law. Just because she is pro life in all cases does not mean she would not be a good VP...and the law will never be changed unless the supreme court overturns its decision on Roe v. Wade. As VP she would have no input into that...even McCain as pres has no input other than appointing judges, and those judges have to get past the Congress.
Just my opinion...so you know where conservative persons stand on it.
You post something like that and call Alaska
skanky? Hmmm.
She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska...
so obviously "most" of the people in Alaska do not agree.
lol....you act like Alaska is at the ends of the earth....
and they are "poor Alaskans." I think they have all incomes levels. Hey...a few thousand dollars is a lot of money to ME. lol.
Anyway...the amount of land drilled on in Alaska is extremely small in contrast to the size of the state. Proposed drilling in ANWR encompasses about 2000 acres at the most far north part of Alaska. ANWR in total is 19 MILLION acres.
Hoping she gets to go back to Alaska
Nov. 4 so that she can keep getting her tans....or therapy for depression, whichever.
Women of Alaska - another view.
http://bigshow.bigfolio.com/?s=000011662&t=0e6a8ae03101be65098418ccb735e4a1
Definitely worth the watch
Well, there are liberal women in Alaska....
no kiddin! Geez. They borrowed the signs from the lower 48; heck, they may BE from the lower 48. Did anybody really think there were not liberal Democratic women in Alaska? This is news?
I too have close friends in Alaska and they
@@
Did you see the big rally against Palin in Alaska? sm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNlcYaEOLRM
Regarding Alaska...I would suggest you read up on....sm
The Alaska Permanent Fund
http://www.apfc.org/home/Content/permFund/aboutPermFund.cfm
Are you taking about Stevens in Alaska?
Their thought is if he's voted in and goes to prison, they'll be able to hold a special election and put someone else in or something like that.
I thought it was ridiculous.
So, the 2 million dollars went back to Alaska.
nm
Gonna go to Alaska if McPain wins and
let a polar bear have me as his last meal.....
From Alaska fish and game website....
Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska's Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future.
The Alaska Board of Game approves wildlife regulations through a public participation process. When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren't enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests.
Currently, five wolf control programs are underway that comprises about 9.4% of Alaska's land area. The programs use a closely controlled permit system allowing aerial or same day airborne methods to remove wolves in designated areas. In these areas, wolf numbers will be temporarily reduced, but wolves will not be permanently eliminated from any area. Successful programs allow humans to take more moose, and healthy populations of wolves to continue to thrive in Alaska.
Click on links below to learn more about wolves and predator-prey relationships.
Shouldn't the citizens of Alaska take care of that
-
There was a big protest in Alaska against Palin. I can get the link.
nm
Of course there are people in Alaska that do not support Palin
just as there are people in Illinois that do not support Obama--come on. A rally does not mean that all of Alaska hates Palin--as a matter of fact, have you seen her approval rating?
Does shed some light on how things work in Alaska. sm
It is interesting that she is against more taxes on the oil companies overall but has a 75% tax on oil profits in Alaska.
How do you think Palin travels back and forth from Alaska...by bus also??? Not this time...nm
1
Here is the link to "WASILLA", Alaska's meth capital but sm
http://tribes.tribe.net/politicaljunkies/thread/0b308226-ffc2-47bc-ad09-e7be906a8188
Wasilla - Meth Capitol Of Alaskatopic posted Mon, September 15, 2008 - 7:57 AM by Joe
Sarah Palin's all American Small Town turns out to be ground zero for meth production in Alaska.
Make one wonder about firing all those Police Officials.
"WASILLA - The Matanuska-Susitna area is the methamphetamine capital of Alaska, according to Alaska State Troopers.
In 2003, authorities uncovered nine meth labs in the area. Last year, the number increased to 42, said Kyle Young, an investigator with the troopers who works with the Mat-Su narcotics team.
Officials with the Office of Children's Services in Wasilla said the problem affects children. The office receives about 40 calls a month from people reporting abuse or neglect involving some aspect of the highly addictive drug."
Country first/Palin support of Alaska succession=topic.
nm
I have a very intelligent friend from Alaska who thinks Palin will do a great job. nm
x
We care because it's Alaska taxpayer money for her kids to travel, even though uninvited nm
what a joke palin is... she's had it now
hotel room, like the guy said, the Alaska plane is not a famil station wagon. Sounds like fat cat to
no message
good grief, forget the clothes, the woman charges everthing to Alaska, plane tickets, hotel rooms, l
x
Alaska funded Palin kids' travel...lot of travel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/palin_family_travel
Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.
The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel.
The 21-grand figure does not include the hotel expense, either. Poor, beleaguered can't cath-a-break Sarah may owe back taxes on her per diem expenses, Troopergate, wardrobe malfunctions and now this. Is is just me, or is there a pattern of widening gaps between the hockey mom and the privileged, dare I say elite, power-abusing, fibbing governor persona?
I'm from that state and...
He paid for his Senate campaign with the earnings from one malpractice suit.
|
