NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't know if this has been posted yet; if so, my apologies to the mods.

Palin backs controversial Alaskan hunting method (http://www.defendersactionfund.org/releases/090308.html)

Highlights: Palin is an enthusiastic supporter of aerial hunting in Alaska, a method by which people either shoot wolves and bears from airplanes, or chase them with airplanes (no, seriously) to exhaustion and then shoot them point-blank. Not only are scientists, preservationists and animal rights groups against the practice, most hunters are as well, as it pretty much bulldozes any spirit of sportsmanship.

Now, this probably isn't a make-or-break decision for most of you, so instead of asking how it effects your voting and views of the candidates, I just want to know: Exactly how evil is Sarah Palin? On a scale of 1 to puppy-kicking baby-eater?

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

It's unsportsmanlike because the whole fun of hunting is tracking your quarry with your own two feet. I mean, I would assume some may use an ATV or a truck to help if they had some sort of medical reason, or if they were just lazy, but the whole jist of killing something yourself is to do it without the aid of something like a car or the like.

That said, I don't hate her, but that sort of hunting is pretty foolish.

I don't see a problem with it. If that's how she likes to hunt that's her choice. And say what you will about the "majority of hunters" apparently the majority in Alaska find it okay because it is legal there.

The reason for the practice in Alaska has to do with there being a ton of Ice and snow and having to travel hundreds of miles to find something to shoot.

Also you misquoted the article. The article says many hunters. Not Most hunters. Very significant difference.

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

Yeah, that's more evil, but I already posted that one. And anyway, everyone knows that people like cute animals more than women.

Extra fucked up: Unless Alaska is a HUGE anomaly, most of those kits probably weren't analyzed.

While it is a retarded thing to do, I don't really care that she supports this, I don't see a reason why it should be any more illegal than normal hunting.

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

Perhaps it's a way to deter women from falsifying claims of rape (which can cause serious harm).

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

Wow....and I thought I knew bitches. Palin just took "Bitchiness" to a whole new level.

I'm all for putting missile launchers and targeting systems on caribous, wolves and polar bears just to make it more challenging.

:D

Perhaps it's a way to deter women from falsifying claims of rape (which can cause serious harm).

Please tell me you are fucking kidding.

Perhaps it's a way to deter women from falsifying claims of rape (which can cause serious harm).

What about the women who really have been raped though? I mean having them pay for a rape kit is adding insult to injury.

"Well you got raped, but in order to confirm it, we must do a rape kit. That will cost you $30."

Please tell me you are fucking kidding.

What other reason could there possibly be for implementing such a thing?

What about the women who really have been raped though? I mean having them pay for a rape kit is adding insult to injury.

"Well you got raped, but in order to confirm it, we must do a rape kit. That will cost you $30."

I'm not saying I support it, I'm just saying I doubt she's just trying to make people's life hard for the sake of it.

What about the women who really have been raped though? I mean having them pay for a rape kit is adding insult to injury.

"Well you got raped, but in order to confirm it, we must do a rape kit. That will cost you $30."

Actually, we are talking $300 to $1200.

I'm not saying I support it, I'm just saying I doubt she's just trying to make people's life hard for the sake of it.

It's still a kick in the groin, or ovaries.

What other reason could there possibly be for implementing such a thing?

"Budget."

Although, since the question was raised, that would be... intriguing...

Yeah, that's more evil, but I already posted that one. And anyway, everyone knows that people like cute animals more than women.


Well, I would call it "unsportsmanlike" but I really don't see how hunting at all is "sport". More like glorified sadism really

(and this coming from me)

Perhaps it's a way to deter women from falsifying claims of rape (which can cause serious harm).

Or just maybe, a crime that is by all accounts horribly under-reported will be brought to light even less frequently, and the government can stop spending money on silly things like violent crimes.

What about the women who really have been raped though? I mean having them pay for a rape kit is adding insult to injury.

"Well you got raped, but in order to confirm it, we must do a rape kit. That will cost you $30."

try $1000

"Budget."

Although, since the question was raised, that would be... intriguing...

I doubt she would implement such a policy that would probably cost her votes, just for a very very tiny bit of revenue.

What other reason could there possibly be for implementing such a thing?

Man, you are close to going on ignore ....

Setting aside the many moral problems and the fact that false accusations of rape are extremely rare and all the other reasons your answers are driving me insane, how does discouraging the collection of evidence help prevent false rape reports -- especially given that one can make rape charges without having a rape kit done?

AND to the extent it deters FAlSE reports, doesn't it also deter REAL reports?

try $1000

Really?

REALLY?

Please tell me you're fucking kidding me.....

That really is adding insult to injury.

Or just maybe, a crime that is by all accounts horribly under-reported will be brought to light even less frequently, and the government can stop spending money on silly things like violent crimes.

You're saying that Palin cares so little about violent crime, that she would implement an unpopular measure, in order to have the government address it less?

I doubt she would implement such a policy that would probably cost her votes, just for a very very tiny bit of revenue.

...

I don't know where to start. You do know we're talking about politicians, right?

You're saying that Palin cares so little about violent crime, that she would implement an unpopular measure, in order to have the government address it less?

You should stop while you're behind....

You're saying that Palin cares so little about violent crime, that she would implement an unpopular measure, in order to have the government address it less?

Yes.

Really?

REALLY?

Please tell me you're fucking kidding me.....

That really is adding insult to injury.

Some insurance companies cover it, some don't...

This, of course, is assuming that the possible victim actually has insurance to begin with, but yeah.

It would be an intriguing solution to the plausability of a false accusation if it didn't cost so much.

...

I don't know where to start. You do know we're talking about politicians, right?

lol closed govt.

Man, you are close to going on ignore ....


Please understand I'm not trying to defend her, I think it's a fucking stupid idea, but I don't think she's being a bitch for the sake of being a bitch.


Setting aside the many moral problems and the fact that false accusations of rape are extremely rare

I knew they were rare, but not extremely. I thought that they were significant enough to make it an issue that could need addressing.


and all the other reasons your answers are driving me insane, how does discouraging the collection of evidence help prevent false rape reports?

Possibly because if the woman wasn't really raped, she may not care enough to spend $1000 on the possibility of ruining some mans life.

Some insurance companies cover it, some don't...

This, of course, is assuming that the possible victim actually has insurance to begin with, but yeah.

It would be an intriguing solution to the plausability of a false accusation if it didn't cost so much.

It doesn't matter if Insurance will cover it or not. That shouldn't even enter into the equation. Every accusation of rape should be taken seriously.

And tis has to do with being the president.... why?

I'm not saying I support it, I'm just saying I doubt she's just trying to make people's life hard for the sake of it.

Oh, I don't think her thought process was "I want to make rape victims' lives harder for no good reason." I think her thought process was "I don't care if I make rape victims' lives harder for no good reason."

...

I don't know where to start. You do know we're talking about politicians, right?

Yeah, even if you abide by the silly and childish stereotype that ALL politicians care about is themselves and their own power, they wouldn't implement a policy that would lose them considerable votes for no reason at all.

Well, I would call it "unsportsmanlike" but I really don't see how hunting at all is "sport". More like glorified sadism really

(and this coming from me)

Heh.

I don't mind hunting for food - if it happens to make you feel warm and fuzzy to know that you are a macho man who can track a deer for miles before turning it into a month's worth of venison, well, it's not my thing, but I can respect that. But aerial hunting - I just don't get it.

(Also, you can has TG.)

What's sportsmanlike of taking a gun to a paw fight? If hunters were really interested in being "fair" they'd take those wolves on completely naked and unarmed, with only their urine, teeth and fingernails to protect them.
Until "most hunters" adopt that method, Palin can use her helicopter all she wants.

And tis has to do with being the president.... why?

T'isn't to do with the Presidency at all, which you would know had you read the question.

Oh, I don't think her thought process was "I want to make rape victims' lives harder for no good reason." I think her thought process was "I don't care if I make rape victims' lives harder for no good reason."

...as long as the government gets an extremely tiny bit of revenue? Is that what you're saying? (just to be clear)

T'isn't to do with the Presidency at all, which you would know had you read the question.

I think he's asking how does this affect her ability to be VP or President when Mc. Cain dies.

What's sportsmanlike of taking a gun to a paw fight? If hunters were really interested in being "fair" they'd take those wolves on completely naked and unarmed, with only their urine, teeth and fingernails to protect them.
Until "most hunters" adopt that method, Palin can use her helicopter all she wants.

I'd go as far as giving people brass knuckles to take on animals. After all, we adapted to be smarter and able to make tools to compensate for being so weak (or vice-versa). Brass knuckles seem like a good compromise.

You're saying that Palin cares so little about violent crime, that she would implement an unpopular measure, in order to have the government address it less?

I think responsibility for implementation goes to the chief of police. As I understand the situation, Palin was responsible for the budget cuts that led to this situation, but I think it's more likely that she just didn't care than that she deliberately caused it to happen.

Heh.

I don't mind hunting for food - if it happens to make you feel warm and fuzzy to know that you are a macho man who can track a deer for miles before turning it into a month's worth of venison, well, it's not my thing, but I can respect that. But aerial hunting - I just don't get it.

(Also, you can has TG.)

I get the idea - you're able to traverse large expanses of possibly impassible land to hunt for food, which enables you to probe larger expanses of area for quarry.

However, that's not the point of going out for a hunt.

I think responsibility for implementation goes to the chief of police. As I understand the situation, Palin was responsible for the budget cuts that led to this situation, but I think it's more likely that she just didn't care than that she deliberately caused it to happen.

Ah, I think I've misunderstood then. So you're saying that she didn't cause that situation, but can't be bothered to allocate more money to subsidise the rape victims payment?

I'd go as far as giving people brass knuckles to take on animals. After all, we adapted to be smarter and able to make tools to compensate for being so weak (or vice-versa). Brass knuckles seem like a good compromise.

hell, I'll go so far as letting them have a bow and arrow.

Ah, I think I've misunderstood then. So you're saying that she didn't cause that situation, but can't be bothered to allocate more money to subsidise the rape victims payment?

not "she couldn't be bothered". Specifically vetoed the line in the budget that would fund these kits. Deliberately removed its funding.

hell, I'll go so far as letting them have a bow and arrow.

Can I has Catapult?

...as long as the government gets an extremely tiny bit of revenue? Is that what you're saying? (just to be clear)

Pretty much, yes, although I don't know if it was the tiny bit of additional money that motivated her, or the fact that it was her friend who was pushing for this ridiculous plan, or something else altogether. I just think she didn't really care who she was hurting in the process, because the alternatives are pretty much either that she actively wanted to harm rape victims and help rapists get away with their crimes and potentially rape more people, or she was just too utterly stupid to understand the effects of her actions.

not "she couldn't be bothered". Specifically vetoed the line in the budget that would fund these kits. Deliberately removed its funding.

When you say 'removed its funding', are you implying that it actually was previously being funded? Or that it was planning to be funded but then the plan was cancelled?

I'd go as far as giving people brass knuckles to take on animals. After all, we adapted to be smarter and able to make tools to compensate for being so weak (or vice-versa). Brass knuckles seem like a good compromise.
What about heat-seeking missiles? For a bit classier look, you know.

Some links for those that want more info on the rape kit story. No, we aren't kidding:
http://alaskareport.com/news98/x61620_rape_palin.htm
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/?iref=hpmostpop


(I'm going to go cool off for a while.)

When you say 'removed its funding', are you implying that it actually was previously being funded? Or that it was planning to be funded but then the plan was cancelled?

Yes to the first question. No to the second.

either that she actively wanted to harm rape victims and help rapists get away with their crimes and potentially rape more people, or she was just too utterly stupid to understand the effects of her actions.
Alaska isn't the most populous state.

When you say 'removed its funding', are you implying that it actually was previously being funded? Or that it was planning to be funded but then the plan was cancelled?

Um...both. The way town budgets work is, every year, the town legislature proposes an itemized budget for the following year, and the mayor strikes out via line veto the parts he or she doesn't want. Every year the budget has included funding for these kits, until Palin removed it. It HAD been funded each year, it was GOING TO be funded in that year's budget.

Yes to the first question. No to the second.

Then I haven't misunderstood, she decided to take money out, rather than to refuse to put more money in (subtle difference). Did she allocate the funding to something else?

hell, I'll go so far as letting them have a bow and arrow.
That's too much. Maybe brass knuckles, maybe a knife, but anything that lets you kill the animal from outside its own reach is not "fair" in any sense.

Then I haven't misunderstood, she decided to take money out, rather than to refuse to put more money in (subtle difference). Did she allocate the funding to something else?

Ah. I misunderstood. Neo Art is right, the answer was yes to both questions.

After it became law, Wasilla's police chief told the local paper, The Frontiersman, that it would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000 a year -- money that he'd have to find.

Wait, how many women are getting raped in Wasilla? What the heck is going on up there?

Pretty many, but it's not as bad as it seems:

Alaska has the nation’s highest per-capita rate of forcible rape. A disproportionate number of rape and sexual assault victims are Native Alaskan women.

It's not like it's all-American, British-descent white women being raped.

Looking at that news article quote, one sort of gets the impression that the police chief has a very different idea of what police do than, well, anyone else I've ever met. "Man, the police department here has to, like, actually pay people to investigate crimes! What's up with that, huh?"

Um...both. The way town budgets work is, every year, the town legislature proposes an itemized budget for the following year, and the mayor strikes out via line veto the parts he or she doesn't want. Every year the budget has included funding for these kits, until Palin removed it. It HAD been funded each year, it was GOING TO be funded in that year's budget.

But you can conclude that she did not do this to prevent a further raise in taxes for that year, since this was already being paid for in the previous years, right?

Then I haven't misunderstood, she decided to take money out, rather than to refuse to put more money in (subtle difference). Did she allocate the funding to something else?

yes and no. As mayor it's not her job to design the budget, just approve or disapprove of it. If she cut funding to a specific area, she doesn't have the power to allocate it somewhere else, the legislature does that. She can say "you are not spending this money on this, spend it somewhere else", in which case they can either override her veto, create a new budget using that money elsewhere, don't spend it and keep it in the town coffers, or return it to the town citizens via rebates.

But you can conclude that she did not do this to prevent a further raise in taxes for that year, since this was already being paid for in the previous years, right?

the budget proposed to her was to spend money that they already expected to make. It wasn't like she said "we can't pay for this, so let's not raise taxes". It was the legislature going "here's how much money we have, here's how we want to spend it" and she specifically vetoed their attempt to spend that money in that place.

Pretty many, but it's not as bad as it seems:



It's not like it's all-American, British-descent white women being raped.

I know I'm a chauvinist pig and all, but I think I'm going to go in a corner and throw up at the thought of that. Kthxbai.

Looking at that news article quote, one sort of gets the impression that the police chief has a very different idea of what police do than, well, anyone else I've ever met. "Man, the police department here has to, like, actually pay people to investigate crimes! What's up with that, huh?"
"Aww. Can't anybody in this town take the law into their own hands??"
- Police Chief Wiggum

And all this time I thought he was a fictional character.

yes and no. As mayor it's not her job to design the budget, just approve or disapprove of it. If she cut funding to a specific area, she doesn't have the power to allocate it somewhere else, the legislature does that. She can say "you are not spending this money on this, spend it somewhere else", in which case they can either override her veto, create a new budget using that money elsewhere, don't spend it and keep it in the town coffers, or return it to the town citizens via rebates.

the budget proposed to her was to spend money that they already expected to make. It wasn't like she said "we can't pay for this, so let's not raise taxes". It was the legislature going "here's how much money we have, here's how we want to spend it" and she specifically vetoed their attempt to spend that money in that place.

Ok, although she can't tell the legislator where to re-allocate the cash, do you know what her preference would have been for where that cash should have gone, or if she can predict what the legislator is most likely to do with the cash?

Ok, although she can't tell the legislator where to re-allocate the cash, do you know what her preference would have been for where that cash should have gone, or if she can predict what the legislator is most likely to do with the cash?

as a raving loon republican? Her preference would probably be to not spend it at all, and return it to the people of the town.

I doubt she would implement such a policy that would probably cost her votes, just for a very very tiny bit of revenue.

It wasn't a city policy it was the police Chiefs policy while she was mayor. though it existed before she was mayor as well. Also it is being misrepresented they only billed people who had insurance and the police covered the CO-pay.

the practice was ended in 2000 by state law. It was not a city ordinance but the policy of the Police Chief Charlie Fannon.

A review of state records show only one person in Alaskan history was billed for their rape kit and they were from Jeaneau. The two rape kits used during Palins time as mayor were paid for by the City. the mayor apparently used her powers to get around the Police Chiefs policy of billing the insurance for the Rape kit.

as a raving loon republican? Her preference would probably be to not spend it at all, and return it to the people of the town.

So do you think that was also what her incentive was, to lower taxes?

I know I'm a chauvinist pig and all, but I think I'm going to go in a corner and throw up at the thought of that. Kthxbai.
Always look at the bright side of life.

Think of it: most rape cases are among Native Alaskans, and they are also the ones who can't afford these kits and medical abortions. Thus, it can be seen as an initiative to preserve the Native Alaskan population and culture, by keeping it from jumping on that white peoples' consensual sex fad.

Always look at the bright side of life.

Think of it: most rape cases are among Native Alaskans, and they are also the ones who can't afford these kits and medical abortions. Thus, it can be seen as an initiative to preserve the Native Alaskan population and culture, by keeping it from jumping on that white peoples' consensual sex fad.

You white people are going to have a lot to answer for at Judgement Day. :p:(

Always look at the bright side of life.

Think of it: most rape cases are among Native Alaskans, and they are also the ones who can't afford these kits and medical abortions. Thus, it can be seen as an initiative to preserve the Native Alaskan population and culture, by keeping it from jumping on that white peoples' consensual sex fad.

Hey, give them enough time, they may be large enough of a population to start taking back their land.

Wow...we just completely screwed ourselves. Free Rape Kit and Abortions for all!

I knew they were rare, but not extremely. I thought that they were significant enough to make it an issue that could need addressing.

Common misconception. FBI files report rape cases are false accusations in less then 2% of all instances. Thats less then the false accusation for all other crimes.

So do you think that was also what her incentive was, to lower taxes?

No, because she raised taxes to build a Hockey Stadium. Let that sink in. Building a fucking sports stadium is more important then catching rapists.

This should suprise no one, because, based on her policies, what party she is a part of, what her religion is, her comments and actions, and just in general who she is, she probably subscribes to the school of thought that rape victims arent really victims, theyre dirty whores who were asking for it.

Why help those sluts who had dirty, flithy sex and offended gawd?

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

Not only abusive to women by adding further insult to injury, but detrimental to public safety by ensuring that as long as you rape a poor person, you have a better chance of getting off scot free.

What's next, having corpses pay for their murder trial?

What's next, having corpses pay for their murder trial?
Remember Jennifer Government.

Ok, although she can't tell the legislator where to re-allocate the cash, do you know what her preference would have been for where that cash should have gone, or if she can predict what the legislator is most likely to do with the cash?

Yeah, she struck the funding for rape kits because she knew that it was desperately needed by and would be given to homeless children who lost two or more limbs in snowmobile accidents.

How much longer are you going to speculate about this? We know what she did. We know the effect it had. We can only judge her on that, and what she did was not right.

Yeah, she struck the funding for rape kits because she knew that it was desperately needed by and would be given to homeless children who lost two or more limbs in snowmobile accidents.

How much longer are you going to speculate about this? We know what she did. We know the effect it had. We can only judge her on that, and what she did was not right.

And then she raised taxes to build a hockey stadium. I dont understand why this doesnt piss more people off! Seriously, this woman cut the budget for rape kits, but raised taxes to build a god damn sports stadium. She cant claim it was in the interest of lower taxes, because she raised them!


But thats ok, because it was for a sports stadium, which is a much worthier cause then helping out some dumb slut who probably had it coming, those dirty godless whores.

And then she raised taxes to build a hockey stadium. I dont understand why this doesnt piss more people off! Seriously, this woman cut the budget for rape kits, but raised taxes to build a god damn sports stadium. She cant claim it was in the interest of lower taxes, because she raised them!


But thats ok, because it was for a sports stadium, which is a much worthier cause then helping out some dumb slut who probably had it coming, those dirty godless whores.

:(

...I really like hockey. Can't we have both?

:(

...I really like hockey. Can't we have both?

Apperantly not. Either you get a hockey stadium, or I get to rape you and you have to pay a grand to have evidence collected.

Apperantly not. Either you get a hockey stadium, or I get to rape you and you have to pay a grand to have evidence collected.

What if they sold over-the-counter rape kits at the stadium with the team's logo on them?

Now just because she is a horrible leader and an awful person now doesn't mean she will be when she becomes President. Look at George W. Bush. He was a horrible leader and an awful person before he became President and look how he turned out!

...

You know, it's almost too easy sometimes. :p

What if they sold over-the-counter rape kits at the stadium with the team's logo on them?

Well, if you get raped during a Hockey game your covered.

Well, if you get raped during a Hockey game your covered.

Does this coverage extend to the teams as well?

Does this coverage extend to the teams as well?

No, because we all know that men dont get raped only dirty filthy whorey women.

No, because we all know that men dont get raped only dirty filthy whorey women.

But what if a team gets raped 5-0?

It wasn't a city policy it was the police Chiefs policy while she was mayor. though it existed before she was mayor as well. Also it is being misrepresented they only billed people who had insurance and the police covered the CO-pay.

the practice was ended in 2000 by state law. It was not a city ordinance but the policy of the Police Chief Charlie Fannon.

A review of state records show only one person in Alaskan history was billed for their rape kit and they were from Jeaneau. The two rape kits used during Palins time as mayor were paid for by the City. the mayor apparently used her powers to get around the Police Chiefs policy of billing the insurance for the Rape kit.

From where are you getting these alleged facts. Most of your statements are, to my knowledge, either completely false or very misleading. All of the bolded statements are untrue (to my knowledge), flatly contradict articles I've seen including town records, and I'd very much like to see evidence of them.

You also conveniently ignore that Mayor Palin fired the incumbent police chief whose policy had been to pay for rape kits and replaced him with Fannon, her hand-picked police chief.

Also, the "policy" was part of the budget of the city, not simply a police policy.

Further, the Palin Administration (namely Fannon) was among the only vocal opponents of the state law that came to the rescue.

EDIT: BTW, the federal law that required states to stop rape victims from being charged for rape kits was the Violence Against Women Act, which Joe Biden wrote. John McCain opposed it and it's more recent reauthorization.

You also conveniently ignore that Mayor Palin fired the incumbent police chief whose policy had been to pay for rape kits and replaced him with Fannon, her hand-picked police chief.

Well the sluts deserved it.

EDIT: BTW, the federal law that required states to stop rape victims from being charged for rape kits was the Violence Against Women Act, which Joe Biden wrote. John McCain opposed it and it's more recent reauthorization.

Haven't you heard of state's rights? DUH. :p

Actually, flying by a bear in a plane could make the shot harder. When using a rifle I have a hard time hitting dead center on really fast moving targets which is why I use a punt gun for ducks and geese or annoying children at the lake park. Making a low pass at over 100 mph could be a tricky headshot.

But if you're really serious about aerial hunting you'll need something like the Hs-132. Forget guns, Yogi'll never know what hit him when you drop that 1,000 lb bomb.

What other reason could there possibly be for implementing such a thing?

To make money?

To make money?

I was thinking being a misogynist, but that works too.

Actually, flying by a bear in a plane could make the shot harder. When using a rifle I have a hard time hitting dead center on really fast moving targets which is why I use a punt gun for ducks and geese or annoying children at the lake park. Making a low pass at over 100 mph could be a tricky headshot.

But if you're really serious about aerial hunting you'll need something like the Hs-132. Forget guns, Yogi'll never know what hit him when you drop that 1,000 lb bomb.

You don't need to go 100 knots... there are quite a few Cessna-type planes that can fly incredibly slow without stalling.

/aircraft knowledge

You don't need to go 100 knots... there are quite a few Cessna-type planes that can fly incredibly slow without stalling.

/aircraft knowledge
Well where's the challenge in that? If you're going to hunt from a plane then you should be going really fast. Or use bombs.

And the nautical mile sucks. Besides, 1 kt is almost the same as 1 mph.

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped

No, let the truth sink in for a minute:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

No, let the truth sink in for a minute:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

Except there is an abundence of evidence that shows this guys, well, fucking wrong.

So your claims of "truth" are bull.

Except there is an abundence of evidence that shows this guys, well, fucking wrong.

So your claims of "truth" are bull.

"This guy" is only cataloguing the coverage of the rumor. Pursue either of the links in the article at your convenience.

On the actual topic of aerial hunting, it's probably worth noting that Gov. Palin supported the practice as a means of culling animals in a state too large to patrol on foot, rather than as a method of hunting for sport. Hunting by plane is still illegal in Alaska without a permit issued by the state.

"This guy" is only cataloguing the coverage of the rumor. Pursue either of the links in the article at your convenience.

But he claims its been debunked and is just a rumor. Which is false. There is documented evidence that shows these accusations are true.

From where are you getting these alleged facts. Most of your statements are, to my knowledge, either completely false or very misleading. All of the bolded statements are untrue (to my knowledge), flatly contradict articles I've seen including town records, and I'd very much like to see evidence of them.

You also conveniently ignore that Mayor Palin fired the incumbent police chief whose policy had been to pay for rape kits and replaced him with Fannon, her hand-picked police chief.

Also, the "policy" was part of the budget of the city, not simply a police policy.

Further, the Palin Administration (namely Fannon) was among the only vocal opponents of the state law that came to the rescue.

EDIT: BTW, the federal law that required states to stop rape victims from being charged for rape kits was the Violence Against Women Act, which Joe Biden wrote. John McCain opposed it and it's more recent reauthorization.
well glad you asked for source.

On to no one paid for Rape kits during Palin's term as mayor. From the Mayor's office 2002.
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544
Yes the letter only mentions 2000,2001,2002 specifically. But it also was written in 2002 and notes that records as far 6 years back show no one being billed for rape kits during her term as mayor. Its a small town they had 15 reported sexual assaults in their worst year. The letter was not written to defend Palin simply to show city compliance with state law in 2000. which is why earlier years were not mentioned.

only willing to put in a 5 min Google search right now got a article review to work on. but http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm seems to point out that this was something that happened scattered through out rural places in the US until 2005 when congress passed a bill banning the practice. well likely still does in some parts.

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were rapedThis.
:(

On the actual topic of aerial hunting, it's probably worth noting that Gov. Palin supported the practice as a means of culling animals in a state too large to patrol on foot, rather than as a method of hunting for sport. Hunting by plane is still illegal in Alaska without a permit issued by the state.

The wolves don't need to be "culled".

But he claims its been debunked and is just a rumor. Which is false. There is documented evidence that shows these accusations are true.

He claims it's been debunked based on statements from the last two chiefs of police of the town, and from the state's victim compensation bureau.

Hunting by plane is still illegal in Alaska without a permit issued by the state.

How is that any different than a normal hunting license?

How is that any different than a normal hunting license?

You don't have a right to one. The licenses are considered individually on the basis of whether a cull is needed, rather than granted to any resident or visitor who pays for one on the basis that tourism is good. That's how I understand it, at least.

Here's a bit on it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/

(Yes, Slate again. Google likes them.)

Heh.

I don't mind hunting for food - if it happens to make you feel warm and fuzzy to know that you are a macho man who can track a deer for miles before turning it into a month's worth of venison, well, it's not my thing, but I can respect that. But aerial hunting - I just don't get it.

Are there still hunters like that? I thought hunting these days meant sitting in a fucking tree waiting for something to walk by so so you can shoot it with no effort on your part (bait optional).

You don't have a right to one. The licenses are considered individually on the basis of whether a cull is needed, rather than granted to any resident or visitor who pays for one on the basis that tourism is good. That's how I understand it, at least.

Here's a bit on it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2199140/

(Yes, Slate again. Google likes them.)

Ah right, we have similar things (culling permits, not aircraft permits).

Are there still hunters like that? I thought hunting these days meant sitting in a fucking tree waiting for something to walk by so so you can shoot it with no effort on your part (bait optional).

A know quite a few guys who stalk but generally only during muzzleloader or bow season. Of course, stalking on public land is an easy way to get shot by the legions of retards out there who spot something while dozing off and take a shot at it. Luckily, such people generally can't shoot worth a damn.

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped
Entirely false. http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/274003.php

Entirely false. http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/274003.php

"Entirely false" from a piece of shit site like that?
Pathetic.
Why don't you talk to some of the locals and educate yourself first before making wildly erroneous and typically republican assertions like that?

So do you think that was also what her incentive was, to lower taxes?
Obviously her reasons for the decision will remain unclear, since Palin is unlikely to want to draw attention to and discuss refusing to allocate money to the forensic investigation of rape cases. In any case, I think the grim effects of her decision should be far more relevant than her motivations.

If you want to speculate, my opinion is that you’ll find the basis for her opposition to forensic rape kits rooted at the intersection of the Republican Party’s cherished pillars of antifeminism and heartless budget-slashing. Palin certainly did not want to allocate taxpayer money towards drawing attention to and helping address the underreporting of an issue that patriarchy doesn’t take seriously and has never had an interest in combating.

You don't have a right to one.

To my knowledge you don't have the right to a regular hunting license either.

"Entirely false" from a piece of shit site like that?
Pathetic.
Why don't you talk to some of the locals and educate yourself first before making wildly erroneous and typically republican assertions like that?
Please feel free to refute with facts rather than ad hominen attacks.

as noted in the article The City of Wasilla can find no evidence that anyone was ever billed for the cost of these examinations, a point reiterated in a second statement by Wasilla Police Chief Angela Long this afternoon:

I found no documents within the police department showing sexual assault victims were billed for forensic exams. Nor have I been able to find any documentation regarding a decision to bill those victims. Case reports don't contain financial billing information.

Financial records are retained by the Finance Department, and the Finance Director was unable to find any records of billing within records still being held.

You might also want to check out http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/ which reports: Although Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor, there is no evidence that she explicitly endorsed the policy. But nor have we found any evidence that she opposed it.

The policy sought to have rape victims’ health insurance companies reimburse the city for the $500 to $1,200 cost of a forensic exam that is conducted after a sexual assault. Presumably, some of the cost might have been passed along to the victim through requirements for deductibles or co-payments, although victim advocates say they don’t know of anyone in the small town who had to pay such a fee. and finds the claim is a best "a half truth."

Got anything to refute it or just gonna play the name game again?

Oh, and btw, I'm NOT a republican.

Well where's the challenge in that? If you're going to hunt from a plane then you should be going really fast. Or use bombs.

And the nautical mile sucks. Besides, 1 kt is almost the same as 1 mph.

There isn't supposed to be an additional challenge to hunt by plane. People hunt by ATV and truck all the time. The plane offers more range, similar payload, and altitude capabilites above and beyond that of the ATV or the truck.

And you're somewhat right - 1 kt does equal 1 mph. However, when you factor windspeed and a whole bevy of different variables and corrections, a 60 kt indicated speed may only equate to a 30 mph ground speed.

Eh well since I believe that this kind of thing is really done by the state government when it needs to very safely cull animals, where's the problem?

They're not doing it for the thrill of the hunt, they're doing it as an ecological preservation measure.

This thread hasn't been posted before, but the issue's been mentioned quite a few times.

Don't know if this has been posted yet; if so, my apologies to the mods.

Palin backs controversial Alaskan hunting method (http://www.defendersactionfund.org/releases/090308.html)

Highlights: Palin is an enthusiastic supporter of aerial hunting in Alaska, a method by which people either shoot wolves and bears from airplanes, or chase them with airplanes (no, seriously) to exhaustion and then shoot them point-blank. Not only are scientists, preservationists and animal rights groups against the practice, most hunters are as well, as it pretty much bulldozes any spirit of sportsmanship.

Now, this probably isn't a make-or-break decision for most of you, so instead of asking how it effects your voting and views of the candidates, I just want to know: Exactly how evil is Sarah Palin? On a scale of 1 to puppy-kicking baby-eater?

Well, their only stupid excuse was that hunting was a sport and they need airplanes now so they can make their asses bigger?

If hunters were really interested in being "fair" they'd take those wolves on completely naked and unarmed, with only their urine, teeth and fingernails to protect them.

I'd go as far as giving people brass knuckles to take on animals.

I'll be nice...

...they can hunt from airplanes, but only if they first provide proof that they have killed a predator without a projectile weapon.

I'll allow them a spear, but they have to make it themselves. :tongue:

Perhaps it's a way to deter women from falsifying claims of rape (which can cause serious harm).

No, it's to deter women from reporting rape. Period.

Eh well since I believe that this kind of thing is really done by the state government when it needs to very safely cull animals, where's the problem?

They're not doing it for the thrill of the hunt, they're doing it as an ecological preservation measure.If that were the only reason for it being done, then yeah, but why would you need to set a bounty in a culling program?

Seems about the equivalent of dynamite fishing - for people who are so stupid they cannot outwit a fish.

What next legalising hunting with landmines?

Seems about the equivalent of dynamite fishing - for people who are so stupid they cannot outwit a fish.

What next legalising hunting with landmines?

Don't give them any ideas.

she charged women for rape kits.

No, really, let that sink in for a second. These rape kits have no medical purpose. They don't test for pregnancy or disease, nor do they treat any STDs. They don't address any physical damage from the rape. They are only for the purpose of fluid collection so that it can be analyzed. They are in no way medical treatment and exist only to collect evidence for potential prosecution

She made women pay for the police to collect evidence after they were raped
Yes, the areal hunting is just the cold cruel icing on the evil cake of pure Lovecraftian horror that is Sarah Palin.

If that were the only reason for it being done, then yeah, but why would you need to set a bounty in a culling program?
Because otherwise people wouldn't do it to the same extent, and you'd have too many wolves/bears/caribou.

Because otherwise people wouldn't do it to the same extent, and you'd have too many wolves/bears/caribou.See, I'm entirely sure whether private persons should be engaging in the culling in that extent. It's difficult to hold them all accountable. So, this is fine for the government agents doing the culling, but for the average hunter that's doing it for sport and/or profit? Take a hike.

As far as I understand it culling is generally something that is done when the animals begin to make serious incursions on human settlements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a great portion of Alaska basically wilderness? I mean it is by far the largest state in the Union and it's population is about a fifth of that of my town!

How much 'culling' could you possibly need? Why bring helicopters and airplanes into it?

As far as I understand it culling is generally something that is done when the animals begin to make serious incursions on human settlements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a great portion of Alaska basically wilderness? I mean it is by far the largest state in the Union and it's population is about a fifth of that of my town!

How much 'culling' could you possibly need? Why bring helicopters and airplanes into it?
Culling is mainly done when a population gets too big and can do serious harm to its environment. It's mainly necessary in areas where natural predators of herd animals have become extinct.

Wait- natural predators of wolves and bears? What are those exactly?

Wait- natural predators of wolves and bears? What are those exactly?Other wolves and bears. Culling of predators is generally not as necessary as for herd animals due to the latter's propensity for reproduction.

If there are too many herd animals, then why are they shooting their natural predators from helicopters?:confused:

I'd go as far as giving people brass knuckles to take on animals. After all, we adapted to be smarter and able to make tools to compensate for being so weak (or vice-versa). Brass knuckles seem like a good compromise.

Maybe, maybe not. I think this (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/Hnetu/WowMeleeVGCats.jpg) is quite an apt depiction of the scenario. :p

If there are too many herd animals, then why are they shooting their natural predators from helicopters?:confused:I don't know. It's possible that there is a sound ecological reason behind it or human safety. It could also be that Palin cares jackshit about the environment as her stance on polar bears seems to indicate.

No, because she raised taxes to build a Hockey Stadium. Let that sink in. Building a fucking sports stadium is more important then catching rapists.

This should suprise no one, because, based on her policies, what party she is a part of, what her religion is, her comments and actions, and just in general who she is, she probably subscribes to the school of thought that rape victims arent really victims, theyre dirty whores who were asking for it.

Why help those sluts who had dirty, flithy sex and offended gawd?

So it wasn't even a monetary incentive. I don't see any good reason to believe she did it purely to punish rape victims, that sounds like an absurdly flippant thing to say.

How much longer are you going to speculate about this? We know what she did. We know the effect it had. We can only judge her on that, and what she did was not right.

We can only judge the action on what the action is. If you were to judge the person however, you should take her intentions into account.

Except there is an abundence of evidence that shows this guys, well, fucking wrong.


Such as..?

I don't see any good reason to believe she did it purely to punish rape victimsSo then you think that she just found a vulnerable target for some 'spending cuts' to puff up her 'fiscal conservative' portfolio, so she decided that screwing over rape victims was well worth it? I'm not sure that this is any better.

So then you think that she just found a vulnerable target for some 'spending cuts' to puff up her 'fiscal conservative' portfolio, so she decided that screwing over rape victims was well worth it? I'm not sure that this is any better.

No, I'm sceptical that she's actually really doing this at all. Also we know it isn't for fiscal purposes since she's actually raising taxes for other things.

I didn't say that she did it for fiscal purposes, but simply for the sake of cutting anything that eventually looks like a 'wasteful' social welfare program so that she can appear to be a proper 'fiscal conservative'. Or maybe she thinks the kits are oppressive to the rapists' semen.

I didn't say that she did it for fiscal purposes, but simply for the sake of cutting anything that eventually looks like a 'wasteful' social welfare program so that she can appear to be a proper 'fiscal conservative'. Or maybe she thinks the kits are oppressive to the rapists' semen.

She may be an obnoxious right winger, but I don't think she's fucking insane.

All the available evidence is against you:D

All the available evidence is against you:D

Well if you can provide evidence that she's insane enough to do this I would like to see it.

She may be an obnoxious right winger, but I don't think she's fucking insane.
I think you're misunderestimating her.

Well if you can provide evidence that she's insane enough to do this I would like to see it.

Here you go (http://www.thelangreport.com/religion-or-lack-of/sarah-palin-wants-creationism-taught-in-school/).

No, let the truth sink in for a minute:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

You should learn how to do propaganda, komrade.

Your source says:
First off, the Wasilla police chief, Charlie Fannon, is on record as having tried to bill victims' insurance companies (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt), not the victims themselves, for the rape kits. In other towns in Alaska, hospitals were trying to bill victims, prompting an Alaska state law forbidding the practice. If this practice still seems creepy or exclusive to macho, rough-and-tumble Alaska, well, it happens to be the practice in other states, too, like North Carolina (until recently) and ... Illinois.
Linking to this article (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt) that expressely says:
While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.
In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

As far as I understand it culling is generally something that is done when the animals begin to make serious incursions on human settlements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a great portion of Alaska basically wilderness? I mean it is by far the largest state in the Union and it's population is about a fifth of that of my town!

How much 'culling' could you possibly need? Why bring helicopters and airplanes into it?

Culling is also used to prevent animal disease, and animal suffering due to starvation.

You should learn how to do propaganda, komrade.

Your source says:

Linking to this article (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt) that expressely says:

This.


Im going to sum up the rape kit debate:

Liberals, moderates, and sane people: Here is all this obvious evidence that Palin charged victims for their rape kits. *various links and evidence that shows its true*
Conservative Loons: NOZ DAT IS NOT TRUE!!! *posts various conservative blogs and articles that actually disagree with them* AAAAH LIBERAL LIEZ AND SMEARZ! LETS GO BACK TO TALKIN BOUT HOW OBAMA IS A EBIL COMMUNIST MOSLEM!!!!!!111!

This.


Im going to sum up the rape kit debate:

Liberals, moderates, and sane people: Here is all this obvious evidence that Palin charged victims for their rape kits. *various links and evidence that shows its true*
Conservative Loons: NOZ DAT IS NOT TRUE!!! *posts various conservative blogs and articles that actually disagree with them* AAAAH LIBERAL LIEZ AND SMEARZ! LETS GO BACK TO TALKIN BOUT HOW OBAMA IS A EBIL COMMUNIST MOSLEM!!!!!!111!

Are you serious? Firstly, Thumbless isn't a conservative IRRC. Secondly, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence for anything you yourself have actually said, you've merely said "no it's fucking wrong". Thirdly, evidence was first provided in defence of Palin, with you responding wit "NOZ DAT IS NOT TRUE". Fourthly, when the evidence was finally provided on your side it did not address all the valid points from the blog. I haven't seen anyone acting erratically and irrationally, I don't understand why you insist on dismissing and placing people questioning your claims into ridiculous categories. Nobody has complained about the LIBERAL MEDIA or any of that other crap, huge strawman there.

Are we still on the incredibly lame-ass rape kit thing? Do you know, in the entire time the women might have had to pay for their own rape kits...there was one rape reported. One. And she didn't have to pay for her rape kit. Sarah Palin didn't personally go down to the hospital and strong-arm the woman into handing money over. It's entirely likely she didn't even realize that the woman might be charged for her rape kit...cause, you know, it never had come up, there never was any public outcry about it in Wasilla, and as far as anyone knows, nobody ever complained or even mentioned the matter to Palin.

In my city, there are literally thousands of laws, ordinances, regulations, restrictions, etc. I don't expect my mayor or council to know every single one of them. If an issue comes up, I expect them to deal with it - and if the issue of the rape kit had come up, and Palin had said the woman needed to pay for it on her own, I might agree with you that she was wrong. But the issue never came up. Palin never made that statement.

Frankly, it gets a little tiring watching you all hysterically claiming Palin is evil personified. Like everyone else, including your beloved Obama, she's human - she makes mistakes, she occasionally might cross off a line item that might, in some distant, future time cause problems. All I expect is when those problems arise, she do something about it. In this case, the problem didn't arise.

As for the ariel hunting of wolves...1) It's legal in Alaska - she broke no laws doing this. 2) The wolf population in Alaska often gets excessive, if not culled regularly...getting to the wolves and hunting them down proves to be a teensy bit of a problem in the landscapes Alaska provides. However, they have to be culled - both for the endangered species sake, and to keep the caribou herds vigorous - which many Alaskans, to this day, shoot and eat.

Are you serious? Firstly, Thumbless isn't a conservative IRRC. Secondly, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence for anything you yourself have actually said, you've merely said "no it's fucking wrong". Thirdly, evidence was first provided in defence of Palin, with you responding wit "NOZ DAT IS NOT TRUE". Fourthly, when the evidence was finally provided on your side it did not address all the valid points from the blog. I haven't seen anyone acting erratically and irrationally, I don't understand why you insist on dismissing and placing people questioning your claims into ridiculous categories. Nobody has complained about the LIBERAL MEDIA or any of that other crap, huge strawman there.

Let me tell you why. Because this has been done before. Many, many times. Most of the people questioning this, well, I know their history.


EDIT: Allow me to humor you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html

So, for four years - from 1996, when Palin took office to 2000 when this law was passed - Palin didn't seem to have a problem with charging rape victims to solve their own crime. And if she did, she certainly didn't communicate that to her hand-picked Police Chief, who didn't have a problem with it.


http://opedna.com/2008/09/08/wasilla-police-billed-sexual-assault-victims-for-rape-kits/

have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/?iref=hpmostpop

"It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.

In this case, the problem didn't arise.


Except it did.

This.


Conservative Loons: NOZ DAT IS NOT TRUE!!! *posts various conservative blogs and articles that actually disagree with them* AAAAH LIBERAL LIEZ AND SMEARZ! LETS GO BACK TO TALKIN BOUT HOW OBAMA IS A EBIL COMMUNIST MOSLEM!!!!!!111!

Your forgetting I linked a letter from the 2002 mayor of Wasilla (dont know if he still is)that's stated No on had been billed in past 6 years (letter was 2002) as far as city records go. which means from 1996 when Palin was mayor NO one was billed.

Furthermore YOU ARE committing a logical fallacy. You are demanding that we prove a negative. If what you say is true simply NAME A SINGLE CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS BILLED FOR THEIR RAPE KIT in the city of Wasilla from 1996 to 2000. If you can not do that then no one was billed for their rape kit and you sound like just another wacko demanding that I prove that god does not exit.

I've already given several links related to this story and I will deal with the "opposition" posts and links cited below, but first it is worth setting out some important facts (with links):


Sarah Palin was on the Wasilla City Council from 1992-1996. She was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002.


Irl Stambaugh was Chief of Police from the creation of the Wasilla Police Department in 1993 until Jan. 30, 1997 when he was fired by Sarah Palin and replaced by Charlie Fannon, whom Palin hand-picked.


Under Stambaugh, sexual assault victims in Wasilla were NOT billed for the cost of rape exams. As Chief, Sambaugh had included a line item in the Wasilla budget to pay for the cost of such exams. E.g., link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html)


Looking at the FY1994 budget (July 1, 1993-June 30, 1994), there is a police department line item for "contractual services" described on page G-26 of that budget (page 42 of this PDF (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=591)) as covering "costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers & medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assault."


New Chief Fannon instituted a new policy under which victims and/or their insurance would be billed for rape kits. E.g., link (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt), link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html)


This line item was cut by 75% in the FY2000 (July 1, 1999 - June 30th, 2000) budget, which was submitted to the city council by and then signed into effect by Mayor Sarah Palin. E.g., link (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=577), link (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=599), link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html)


In 2000, the Alaska legislature passed HB 270 (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?bill=HB%20270&session=21) to ban the practice of billing sexual assault victims for forensic testing. This became State law AS 18.68.040, which was effective 8/14/2000. See, e.g., link (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544)


During testimony from experts during hearings on that bill, it was explained that, unless police departments had an arrangement with hospitals to pay for forensic testing like the rape kits (such as Wasilla had under Chief Stambaugh), hospitals would send bills to the victims and/or their insurance companies. Thus, police departments would not have records of these bills, as they were generated by the hospitals, not the law enforcement agencies. See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0603&end_line=0887&time=1503&date=20000323&comm=HES&house=H).


During the hearings, Lauree Hugonin, Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, testified that she had personal knowledge of hospitals billing rape victims for evidence collection. "It has happened in the Mat-Su Valley, on the Kenai Peninsula, and in Southeast, and that is why the bill is being brought forward." See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0603&end_line=0887&time=1503&date=20000323&comm=HES&house=H). Note: Wasilla is in the Mat-Su Valley of Alaska. At the time, only Wasilla and Palmer had police departments in thw Mat-Su Valley and contemporary reports confirm that the billing of rape victims did not occur in Palmer.


Trihsa Gentle, Excutive Director of the Alaska Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, confirmed Ms. Hugonin's testimony, adding the billing of victims "is a problem that has come up sporadically around the state" and that she had worked with victims of sexual assault that had been billed. See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0603&end_line=0887&time=1503&date=20000323&comm=HES&house=H).


In another hearing on the bill, similar testimony was introduced and Representative Eric Croft confrimed that he had heard of victims being asked to pay for the forensic exam, although this was not the policy of most police agencies. See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&time=0820&date=20000309&comm=STA&house=H)


Del Smith, Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety testified in support of the proposed law, saying that it was generally the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal prosecution. "Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever thought it appropriate to bill a victim or, even by extension, bill the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not think a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual assault wether it is on their insurance form or not." When asked, Deputy Commissioner Smith confirmed that, when billings of victims have occurred it has been the hospitals or some other entity that billed victims and not law enforcement directly. See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&time=0820&date=20000309&comm=STA&house=H)


Ms. Hougonin also testified at this hearing and said, "Just as Mr. Smith had testified, billings have not come from police agencies, but have come from hospitals." Ms. Gentle also testified at this hearing, giving similar testimony as noted above. See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&time=0820&date=20000309&comm=STA&house=H)


Ms. Gentle was asked by one of the Alaskao Representatives (Rep. Ogan) "why hospitals are sending bills to victims when the exam was obviously been ordered by the local police department." Ms. Gentle explained that, in the absence of a police departments policy to pay for sexual assault exams, it was an internal decision on the part of hospitals as to who pays the bill for the sexual assault exams. "She indicated that there is an issue of insensitivity." See link (http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_single_minute.asp?session=21&beg_line=0317&end_line=0714&time=0820&date=20000309&comm=STA&house=H)


The local paper in Wasilla, The Frontiersman, ran an article on May 23, 2000 (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt) about then Gov. Tony Knowles signing into law the legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, "but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers":

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.


Other press reports have confirmed that Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon's "opposition to [HB 270, the bill protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for rape kits,] ... was memorable." link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html)


Since this controversy arose, the City of Wasilla has placed a recent document (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544) on its website saying there are no records of billings to or collections by the City or the police department from rape victims or their insurance companies from the beginning FY2000. Of course, this ignores the fact that it would be the hospitals that would have done the billings and collections. Nor has anyone explained why, if Wasilla was not billing victims for rape kits, Chief Fannon was opposed to the new legislation and thought it would cost the Wasilla Police Department $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.


Now, on to debunking the "opposition" posts and links below.

No, let the truth sink in for a minute:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

This is a short Slate blog that relies entirely on the "debunking" by two other blogs (which I will get to in turn). Regardless, it says next to nothing that rebuts the story as reported in this thread. It's only contention (which is factually dubious) is that Fannon was only "on record as having tried to bill victim's insurance companies." That isn't true and is contradicted by facts listed above. It also still makes for a disgusting policy and leaves victims with paperwork, co-pays, and deductibles if they have insurance that covers the exams.

As for the two blogs, the Slate blog relies on: the first is a blog by Charlie Martin of Explorations (http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/23/72-palin-required-rape-victims-to-pay-for-their-own-rape-kits/) and the second is a blog by Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/274003.php). Mr. Martin is a computer program whose blog is clearly right-wing. Mr. Owen's resume (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/105427.php) is found here on his clearly right-wing site.

Regardless, what is notable about Mr. Martin's blog is that it relies entirely on Mr. Owen's Confederate Yankee blog and a blog from the (you guessed it, right-wing) National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=&w=MA==).

As to the NRO blog, it relies on conclusions its author has drawn from the hearings I linked above (but doesn't provide any links to those hearings.) Regardless, the NRO blog reaches three conclusions: one of which is misleading and two of which are irrelevant.

The first conclusion is that Wasilla was not mentioned by name in the hearings as charging victims for rape kits. Beyond a "so what," this ignores that the Mat-Su valley WAS specfically named, there were only two police departments in the Mat-Su Valley at the time, the other city denies having a policy for charging rape victims, and Wasilla's Police Chief has admitted having such a policy. Do the frickin' math.

The second conclusion is that "The deputy commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Public Safety told the State Affairs Committee that he has never found a police agency that has billed a victim" and the third conclusion is that "Three times, witnesses told the committees that hospitals were responsible for passing the bill on to victims, not police agencies." I've already explained above the relevant testimony and how it actually doesn't help Palin's cause.

As for the Confederate Yankee blog, I'll deal with that below as it is relied upon directly by another poster.

"This guy" is only cataloguing the coverage of the rumor. Pursue either of the links in the article at your convenience.

Done. You are wrong.

well glad you asked for source.

On to no one paid for Rape kits during Palin's term as mayor. From the Mayor's office 2002.
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=544
Yes the letter only mentions 2000,2001,2002 specifically. But it also was written in 2002 and notes that records as far 6 years back show no one being billed for rape kits during her term as mayor. Its a small town they had 15 reported sexual assaults in their worst year. The letter was not written to defend Palin simply to show city compliance with state law in 2000. which is why earlier years were not mentioned.

only willing to put in a 5 min Google search right now got a article review to work on. but http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm seems to point out that this was something that happened scattered through out rural places in the US until 2005 when congress passed a bill banning the practice. well likely still does in some parts.

First, your two sources DO NOT support the allegations you made. They were flatly untrue, as I opined.

Second, your first source is the 2008 document from Wasilla that I referenced above that merely says a search of records did not show any direct billings from the City to any rape victims.

Third, your second source is a USA today article that (1) contradicts most of what you said and (2) is only cited by you for the proposition that this was a problem throughout some parts of the U.S. until a federal law intervended. I'm not sure how the insensitivity of other rural areas justifies the Palin Administration's horrible decision. I also note that the federal law in question is the Violence Against Women Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act) which was written by Joe Biden and opposed by John McCain (originally and on re-authorization).
He claims it's been debunked based on statements from the last two chiefs of police of the town, and from the state's victim compensation bureau.

Entirely false. http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/274003.php

This is the Confederate Yankee blog I mentioned earlier. It relies primarily on the fact that Wasilla finds no record of billings of rape victims by the city, which I've already explained away.

It also cites the testimony of Deputy Commissioner Del Smith and Lauree Hugonin about police agencies not billing directly, but that hospitals do unless police departments have a different arrangement. As I've shown above, this testimony hurts, rather than helps, Palin's cause.

Please feel free to refute with facts rather than ad hominen attacks.

Already done. Thanks.

as noted in the article

Already dealt with above.

You might also want to check out http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/ which reports: and finds the claim is a best "a half truth."

This article hurts more than it helps Palin. It is also incorrect about some of the alleged "facts" it says call the story into question.

Got anything to refute it or just gonna play the name game again?

Consider it refuted ad naseum.

Oh, and btw, I'm NOT a republican.

Goody for you. You are still wrong.

More reasons to hate Sarah Palin.

#141-Bills rape victims for rape kits
#142-Supports aerial hunting of anything
#143-Wants creationism taught in schools

Come on Cat, let's make 200.

Let me tell you why. Because this has been done before. Many, many times. Most of the people questioning this, well, I know their history.


EDIT: Allow me to humor you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html



http://opedna.com/2008/09/08/wasilla-police-billed-sexual-assault-victims-for-rape-kits/



I can play this game too! Watch!

Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. (The Matanuska-Susitna Valley, the surrounding region — the most densely populated region of the state, and roughly the size of West Virginia — is mentioned in passing.) Croft testified at the hearing where Phillips read the Juneau woman’s statement, so he must have known that it was a problem well beyond Palin’s jurisdiction, even if he chose not to tell USA Today about it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODA1YWM5ZjM2ZTU5ODliZTY2NTczMGUwZWYwNTVlMTQ=


According to Knecht, reports from the field indicated recently that caseworkers in Georgia, Arkansas, and -- wait for it -- Illinois are running into the same policy as the one in Wasilla.




And I'm still waiting for one person, just one actual person (with actual proof, please) that had to pay for a rape kit in Wasilla while Palin was mayor. All we see are the same tired stories insinuating her compliance with no actual facts behind them.

Highlights: Palin is an enthusiastic supporter of aerial hunting in Alaska, a method by which people either shoot wolves and bears from airplanes, or chase them with airplanes (no, seriously) to exhaustion and then shoot them point-blank.

That's like playing rugby against disabled children.

More reasons to hate Sarah Palin.

#141-Bills rape victims for rape kits
#142-Supports aerial hunting of anything
#143-Wants creationism taught in schools

Come on Cat, let's make 200.

HAHAHAHA. Oh, wow, I did need that laugh, thank you. :)


Okay, now that the joke corner is closed, how about some actual facts? I mean, if I went around saying Obama advocated converting everyone in the US to Islam, you would all (rightly so) slam me and demand proof, even though this is a persistent rumor floating around the internet.

Let's check some actual facts though:

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Oh noes! Wrong on this one. Shame she's not a slavering, bible thumping witch who believes in burning infidels on the stake, eh?


# The program is limited to just 9 percent of the state's land mass, or five of 26 Department of Fish and Game districts.
Far from being endangered, as they are in the Lower 48 states, gray wolves number between 7,000 and 11,000 in Alaska.

Palin also proposed legislation in 2007 that would have allowed aerial shooting, under a "predator control" program, of wolverines as well as brown bears and wolves, and would have eased some of the requirements the state had to meet before approving airborne predator control in a given sector.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/call_of_the_wild.html

Oops - doesn't quite cover "all wildlife", does it? Of course, it sounds so much better when you're accusing her of slaughtering cute, cuddly seals from an airplane, rather than culling predator herds that not only destroy other endangered wildlife, but are a threat to people living in the state as well.

As for the rape kit...well, that's been covered.

HAHAHAHA. Oh, wow, I did need that laugh, thank you. :)


But I still hate her. For at least 140 reasons.

But I still hate her. For at least 140 reasons.

Hate her all you like I'm not a wild fan of Obama. Insinuating slimy, untrue attacks about anyone, however, is really absurd and dishonest to yourself.

Are we still on the incredibly lame-ass rape kit thing? Do you know, in the entire time the women might have had to pay for their own rape kits...there was one rape reported. One. And she didn't have to pay for her rape kit. Sarah Palin didn't personally go down to the hospital and strong-arm the woman into handing money over. It's entirely likely she didn't even realize that the woman might be charged for her rape kit...cause, you know, it never had come up, there never was any public outcry about it in Wasilla, and as far as anyone knows, nobody ever complained or even mentioned the matter to Palin.

In my city, there are literally thousands of laws, ordinances, regulations, restrictions, etc. I don't expect my mayor or council to know every single one of them. If an issue comes up, I expect them to deal with it - and if the issue of the rape kit had come up, and Palin had said the woman needed to pay for it on her own, I might agree with you that she was wrong. But the issue never came up. Palin never made that statement.


1. Your claim that only one sexual assault occurred in Wasilla during the relevant period is disputed by Wasilla's own official statistics (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=103).

2. From where do you get your assertion there was only one rape kit done during the relevant period and that it wasn't paid for by the victim? You offer no proof and I have seen no such proof.

3. The evidence laid out in my earlier posts stands unrefuted. Keep pretending it doesn't exist.

4. Is the city you live in bigger than 7,000 people? Then it doesn't compare to Wasilla. Regardless, Palin and her cronies have bragged that she went over the city budget line-by-line. Are you now saying that is a lie?
And I've cited contemporary evidence that there was a controversy over this at the time and the Palin Administration took the "bill the victim" line.

Hate her all you like I'm not a wild fan of Obama. Insinuating slimy, untrue attacks about anyone, however, is really absurd and dishonest to yourself.I still hold it against her for the aerial hunting. Predator control is bullshit. Predators rarely need outside help to control their populations. Predator control means killing predators so human hunters have more game to kill. And it's bullshit.

Anyone who considers it necessary to include creationism in any discussion in a public school needs to explain to me who's creation stories. I'm sure Palin didn't mean the Hindu, Norse or Hopi creation stories.

So sorry, you're not making much headway with me.

1. Your claim that only one sexual assault occurred in Wasilla during the relevant period is disputed by Wasilla's own official statistics (http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=103).



Not all Sexual assaults are rapes. In fact most are not. Kinda weird to stick a tube in a woman's vag and take a seman sample when she had her breast grouped isn't it ?

Name one case where a woman in Palin's Town was billed for a rape kit while she was Mayor.

Not all Sexual assaults are rapes. In fact most are not. Kinda weird to stick a tube in a woman's vag and take a seman sample when she had her breast grouped isn't it ?

1. "Rape kit" is another name for a sexual assault evidence collection kit. There is more to it than just checking for semen and they are not only used in cases of full-blown rape. They are used in cases of sexual assault.

2. You not-so-cleverly avoid the question of what evidence there is to support the "there was only one rape and the victim didn't have to pay for the rape kit allegation."

3. It is not my fault that Wasilla hasn't generated documents on the number of rape kits performed each year.

Name one case where a woman in Palin's Town was billed for a rape kit while she was Mayor.

Have you sunk so low? Have you no decency?

Rape is a very personal invasion. How many rape victims are likely to announce themselves to national media scrutiny over this? And, if one were to appear, do you really expect us to believe that would change your opinion of the matter -- especially given your willingness to ignore the evidence already presented?

You ignore the ample evidence already cited that there were victims charged for rape kits in Alaska and specifically in Wasilla during the time in question.

You ignore Palin's hand-picked Police Chief's statement that prohibiting Wasilla from charging victims for rape kits would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000. How do you explain that statement if no victims were being charged for any rape kits?

Finally, even if no rape victim was actually further victimized by this abhorrent policy (which would be a relief to learn), the policy itself was changed and defended by the Palin Administration and it is indefensible.

But I still hate her. For at least 140 reasons.

From a quick list from another thread of just some of the reasons I don't like Sarah Palin that have nothing to do with quibbling about her record as a small-town mayor:

1. Palin is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. Imagine forcing a 14-year old incest victim to carry her rapists baby to term even though it may endanger her health and leave her sterile.

2. Palin supports the teaching of creationism in schools.

3. Palin opposes gay rights, including same-sex marriage and benefits to same-sex couples.

4. Palin opposes hate-crime laws – using the ridiculous and tired excuse that all heinous crime is hate-based.

5. Strongly supports home-schools.

6. Strongly supports keeping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – stupidly claiming that it was “good enough for our Founding Fathers.”

7. Believes global warming exists, but is not man-made.

8. Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination.

9. Supports oil drilling practically everywhere, including off-shore and in ANWR.

10. Sued the Bush Administration to stop the listing of polar bears as endangered.

11. Opposes protections for beluga whales.

12. “Resource First” philosophy: encourage timber, mining, drilling, and commercial fishing.

13. Supports subsidized roads for mining.

14. Opposes effective sex-education programs.

15. Opposes needed health-care reform, supports “free market” solution

16. Cozied up to Senator Ted Stevens, right up to when he was indicted

17. Believes the Iraq War is “God’s Will”

And, yes, Aardweasel, I'll get back with more evidence on number 2. There is more to the story than you report.

Let's check some actual facts though:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

From http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm:

Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools
Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear teaching creationism alongside evolution. "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information.... Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher."
Source: Boston Globe, "A valentine to evangelical base", p. A12 Aug 30, 2008

Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools
Palin is a conservative Protestant and has also been a member since 2006 of Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion group. She has supported the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, alongside evolution. She is a member of the National Rifle Association, and has said Alaska's economic future depends on aggressively extracting its vast natural resources, from oil to natural gas and minerals.
Source: New York Times, pp. A1 & A10, "An Outsider Who Charms" Aug 29, 2008

....

Don't push school boards on creationism but allow discussion

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms. Palin was answering a question from the moderator when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

In an interview, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. "I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Source: Alaska 2006 Governor Debate: Anchorage Daily News follow-up Oct 27, 2006

I believe we have a creator; and many theories of evolution
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives. "It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there," she said in an interview following the debate. "They gain information just by being in a discussion."
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher. "My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution," she said. "He would show us fossils and say, 'How old do you think these are?' "

Asked for her personal views on evolution, Palin said, "I believe we have a creator." She would not say whether her belief also allowed her to accept the theory of evolution as fact. "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she said.

Knowles was asked Thursday if he believed in a creator and, if so, how he reconciled that with evolution. A campaign spokeswoman responded, "Tony wants to stick by what he said last night -- creationism has no place in public school classrooms as an 'alternative' to evolution."

Source: Alaska 2006 Governor Debate: Anchorage Daily News follow-up[/URL] Oct 27, 2006

Oh noes! Wrong on this one. Shame she's not a slavering, bible thumping witch who believes in burning infidels on the stake, eh?


You might want to read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

And this:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."

In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it "God's will."

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

Palin told graduating students of the church's School of Ministry, "What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys." As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she'd work to implement God's will from the governor's office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.

"I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."



link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VH49G0)

EDIT: This (http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palin-once-blessed-against-witchcraft/187797?icid=200100397x1209794705x1200614698) is fun too.

And this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13994599&highlight=God%27s#post13994599).

She is clearly a slightly-wacky hard-core fundamentalist with little appreciation of or support for the separation of Church and State.

I am so against the concept of aerial hunting (fucking pansies). But, if Palin (or anyone who practices this deplorable activity) would be willing to hunt and kill a wolf or another large predator with, oh, say, a spork, or their bare hands, or even a freaking Swiss army knife, then by all means, have at it. (actually, I still hate the concept, but it would make me feel they deserved it...a bit...before being sporked to death themselves)

Hate her all you like I'm not a wild fan of Obama. Insinuating slimy, untrue attacks about anyone, however, is really absurd and dishonest to yourself.

Cute coming frm you.


EDIT: I would like to point out to everyone reading that most of these "defenses" of Palin, among others, have been thoroughly crushed by myself and many others in the General Election thread, yet they have spilled over because many of St. Palin's defenders have taken to posting outside of the GE thread, because they were so soundy beaten/discredited in said thread they took their ball and went home, some of them publically (one poster called it a "circle jerk" in his typed hissy fit when he was proven wrong for the 100th time). That is why I have a total lack of links in this thread. Ive already done it once on these issues, to these same people, Im not wasting my time doing it again.

I envy Cat Tribe's patience, because hes been doing really well thought out posts in every thread, many of which are essentially repeats of what he said in prior posts.

Cat Tribe:

Thank you for using fact and not ad hominen in your reply to me. I do not have time to review all the material you cite and link to atm, but I do appreciate your keeping it civil and responding in the "proper" manner instead of the manner in which far too many people on your side of the issue seem to take.

Cat Tribe:

Thank you for using fact and not ad hominen in your reply to me. I do not have time to review all the material you cite and link to atm, but I do appreciate your keeping it civil and responding in the "proper" manner instead of the manner in which far too many people on your side of the issue seem to take.

Excuse us for being outraged that the woman who may be (God forbid) a heartbeat away from the presidency is a misogynist who charged rape victims for evidence collection in their own rape cases, all the while claiming to be a feminist.

And the problem with her supporting aerial hunting is? Bear are a big problem in Alaska.

Excuse us for being outraged that the woman who may be (God forbid) a heartbeat away from the presidency is a misogynist who charged rape victims for evidence collection in their own rape cases, all the while claiming to be a feminist.Excuse me for not taking seriously a person who defends their position with ad hominen attacks and frothing at the mouth raving instead of calm, reasoned reference to the facts. Cat Tribe gave me that. Far too many of those who oppose Palin are merely seething with hatred and frothing at the mouth. That doesn't prove anything, a dog with rabies can do as much. Giving a calm, rational explanation with references to verifiable facts helps prove a point and possibly convince me that I am in error. Ranting and raving does nothing but lead me to believe you have nothing worthwhile to say and/or that you are unable to support you claims so you have resorted to name calling.

By the way, she did not personally charge anyone for anything. At best, there was a police department policy that she was aware of and did not question, challenge or seek to alter. I will concede that if this is the case, its pretty bad. But there is NO evidence I've seen to indicate she did anything more than acquiesce to the policy. Nothing indicates she came up with it or sat around and one day "evilly" decided "Hey, we need to make rape victims pay for their own exams."

I think it more likely the police chief said "Hey, you know we can make insurance companies pay for this stuff and save a bit of money in the budget" and she said, "Ok, if they'll pay, fine with me." Maybe a bit simplistic, but hopefully you get the idea. There was no conscious decision to fuck over rape victims, just a conscious decision to save the city some cash by making someone else pay without any thought as to the fact that, that someone could turn out to be the victim him/herself. Irresponsible? yah, probably. Evil? No.

I have not finished looking at all that Cat Tribe linked though.

1. "Rape kit" is another name for a sexual assault evidence collection kit. There is more to it than just checking for semen and they are not only used in cases of full-blown rape. They are used in cases of sexual assault.

yes I am aware rape kits also gather evidence form under the finger nails and so on. Still many sexual assault do not have rape kits.
A the crime does not fit with leaving evidence of that sort. aka an over the clothes molester and the victim did not scratch/fight back.
B the victim took several showers and waited a few days.
C the victim feeling violated can not be talked into having a rape kit done.
It is very possible there have been 20 or more sexual assaults but only 1 or 2 rape kits performed.

3. It is not my fault that Wasilla hasn't generated documents on the number of rape kits performed each year.

A bill is a piece of paper work. transactions of money are well documented.
If there isn't a City bill, hospital bill, credit card bill, or an insurance statement out there paying for a rape kit, then there is a very low likely hood of someone being forced to pay for their rape kit.
[/quote]

Have you sunk so low? Have you no decency?

Rape is a very personal invasion. How many rape victims are likely to announce themselves to national media scrutiny over this? And, if one were to appear, do you really expect us to believe that would change your opinion of the matter -- especially given your willingness to ignore the evidence already presented?
[/quote]
why would anyone do that. Go to the city billing department look at their publicly available records, see if they billed anyone for a rape kit, block out their name make photo copy.
Go to the hospital repeat process for City. Medical workers would likely be willing do this for as they tend to detest having to bill for such things.
Go to an insurance agency with a lot of customers in the Area ask for any times they were billed for rape kits.
except for the city you will like need to be a reporter to get access to these records. they will let a reporter because they can be more assured they will protect the victims identity.
these sorts of things are called "hard evidence"


You ignore the ample evidence already cited that there were victims charged for rape kits in Alaska and specifically in Wasilla during the time in question.

I have yet to see hard evidence i've see that the law was on city books. Ive seen no evidence of enforcement other then some expert on CNN who has likely never set foot in Alaska. but here http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136
every city budget from 1992. I looked through them for about 2 hours(my poli sci prof is letting me write a paper). Show me where she budgeted money from billing people for rape kits.


You ignore Palin's hand-picked Police Chief's hand-picked statement that prohibiting Wasilla from charging victims for rape kits would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000. How do you explain that statement if no victims were being charged for any rape kits?
A redneck cop talking shit. I bet he was hoping to to make this an issue and get famous and move on to elected office. didn't seem to work out for him though. something Ive noticed about small hick towns. Either the DA or the Police chief cant stop talking shit.


Finally, even if no rape victim was actually further victimized by this abhorrent policy (which would be a relief to learn), the policy itself was changed and defended by the Palin Administration and it is indefensible.
unless the policy was meant to be symbolic against government spending.
Still trying to find it. as I read it the police budget was pretty vague. only 3 items. Salary, material, and capital( I am guessing discretionary). really hard to say she had a direct hand in it.

1. Palin is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. Imagine forcing a 14-year old incest victim to carry her rapists baby to term even though it may endanger her health and leave her sterile.
Palin opposes the murder of unborn children.

2. Palin supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
Palin does not accept evolution as conclusive enough to require indoctrination.

3. Palin opposes gay rights, including same-sex marriage and benefits to same-sex couples.
Palin supports the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only.

4. Palin opposes hate-crime laws – using the ridiculous and tired excuse that all heinous crime is hate-based.
Palin recognizes that hate-crime laws are unnecessary and emotion-based legislation.

5. Strongly supports home-schools.
Palin recognizes the failures of the substandard public schools.

6. Strongly supports keeping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – stupidly claiming that it was “good enough for our Founding Fathers.”
Palin recognizes the insuperable connection to Juedo-Christian culture inherent in American culture.

7. Believes global warming exists, but is not man-made.
Palin does not buy into the envirocultist hype that humans are destroying the planet.

8. Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination.
Palin does not buy into the people-last philosophy prevalent on the left.

9. Supports oil drilling practically everywhere, including off-shore and in ANWR.
Palin recognizes the necessity of American oil-drilling in order for America to buy enough time to arrive at a workable solution to our energy needs.

10. Sued the Bush Administration to stop the listing of polar bears as endangered.
Palin recognizes that it is not the government's business to protect animals from human activity.

11. Opposes protections for beluga whales.
Palin recognizes that it should not be the government's position to inhibit people's hunting rights in regards to animals.

12. “Resource First” philosophy: encourage timber, mining, drilling, and commercial fishing.
Palin cares for people's needs above those of the environment.

13. Supports subsidized roads for mining.
Palin supports additional mining.

14. Opposes effective sex-education programs.
Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.

15. Opposes needed health-care reform, supports “free market” solution
Palin opposes government interference where it does not belong, preferring instead to allow the free market work as it should.

16. Cozied up to Senator Ted Stevens, right up to when he was indicted
Palin works with other members of her government and party, rather than focusing on "reaching across the aisle" to insinuate herself with the opposition.

17. Believes the Iraq War is “God’s Will”"
Palin believes the Iraq War is just and noble, and believes that America is still in God's favour.

Amazing. These are much the same reasons I support Palin.

She is an evil ****.

Edit: What the hell? Swearing isn't allowed anymore?

6. Strongly supports keeping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – stupidly claiming that it was “good enough for our Founding Fathers.”
Palin recognizes the insuperable connection to Juedo-Christian culture inherent in American culture.
.

Even you must admit that she was stupid for saying such a thing whether you want "Under God" in there or not.

Even you must admit that she was stupid for saying such a thing whether you want "Under God" in there or not.

I'll rather say that Gov. Palin makes an occasional error in chronology. Let's just say that this error would cancel out Mr. Biden's own, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.' " gaffe.

I'll rather say that Gov. Palin makes an occasional error in chronology. Let's just say that this error would cancel out Mr. Biden's own, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.' " gaffe.

Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt were one and the same. And you obviously did not know about the super secret Presidential television made of logs by the hands of President Lincoln.

Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt were one and the same. And you obviously did not know about the super secret Presidential television made of logs by the hands of President Lincoln.

Oh, yeah, how could I have forgotten? 30' big, powered by steam, yes?

Oh, yeah, how could I have forgotten? 30' big, powered by steam, yes?

People of presidential stock are crafty little bastards.

Yes, the areal hunting is just the cold cruel icing on the evil cake of pure Lovecraftian horror that is Sarah Palin.

I might have to sig this. If you want to know, it was "Lovecraftian" that did it.

Yet another reason to support her: she appears to annoy the opposition to no end.

I might have to sig this. If you want to know, it was "Lovecraftian" that did it.

it's aptly fitting. If you look closely at some of the photo ops...you can see the tentacles.

Oh cry me a river. Bears and wolves are a problem and need to be killed off. And besides, I would support it further if they marked the bodies and ate the meat. There's a lotta meat on a bear you know.

1. Palin is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. Imagine forcing a 14-year old incest victim to carry her rapists baby to term even though it may endanger her health and leave her sterile.
Palin opposes the murder of unborn children.


Which is a perverse position, considering she doesn't similarly support removing death penalties, going to war, or access to firearms.

Claiming that the 'right to life' is important, but ONLY for foetuses, is hypocritical.


2. Palin supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
Palin does not accept evolution as conclusive enough to require indoctrination.


Which is irrelevent, and not what she has said. I don't see her arguing for the creation myths of any other religions, and I don't see her arguing that evolution should be taught in church - so this is just more hypocrisy.


3. Palin opposes gay rights, including same-sex marriage and benefits to same-sex couples.
Palin supports the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only.


Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you try to excuse it.

Slavery was 'traditional', too. Tradition isn't a good enough reason.


4. Palin opposes hate-crime laws – using the ridiculous and tired excuse that all heinous crime is hate-based.
Palin recognizes that hate-crime laws are unnecessary and emotion-based legislation.


Actually, the benefit is more logistical - the addition of the 'hatecrime' to the lexicon makes it less likely that people will act on motivations of inflamed passions against someone that might occur due to cultural, racial, sexual friction.


5. Strongly supports home-schools.
Palin recognizes the failures of the substandard public schools.


Which is irrelevent, unless the home-schooling system is held to AT LEAST the same regulatory standards.


6. Strongly supports keeping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – stupidly claiming that it was “good enough for our Founding Fathers.”
Palin recognizes the insuperable connection to Juedo-Christian culture inherent in American culture.


Horseshit. The "Under God" clause has nothing to do with Founding, and everything to do with "Red Menace" mantality.

Further, Judeo-Christian 'culture' is a nonsense phrase. The Judeo-Christian connection to the American culture is mainly in terms of legal systems... and it's input is hardly unique.


7. Believes global warming exists, but is not man-made.
Palin does not buy into the envirocultist hype that humans are destroying the planet.


Envirocultist? You assume that, because you are clueless about something, it must be mysticism?


8. Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination.
Palin does not buy into the people-last philosophy prevalent on the left.


Which is both horseshit AND irrelevent. Mining contamination of salmon enters our foodstream. Opposing protections for that IS putting people last.


9. Supports oil drilling practically everywhere, including off-shore and in ANWR.
Palin recognizes the necessity of American oil-drilling in order for America to buy enough time to arrive at a workable solution to our energy needs.


More fossilfuels isn't the answer. Diverting the money to finding alternate technology NOW is the answer.


10. Sued the Bush Administration to stop the listing of polar bears as endangered.
Palin recognizes that it is not the government's business to protect animals from human activity.


Why not? If human societies can't regulate their OWN impact, then it MUST be imposed externally.


11. Opposes protections for beluga whales.
Palin recognizes that it should not be the government's position to inhibit people's hunting rights in regards to animals.


Again, more baseless demagoguery. Look back over your US history. We've seen what happens when the American hunter is left to regulate himself.


12. “Resource First” philosophy: encourage timber, mining, drilling, and commercial fishing.
Palin cares for people's needs above those of the environment.


Which - if true - would make her a moron. Unless she believes that our next generations will be breathing something other than oxygen, drinking something other than water, and eating something other than food.


13. Supports subsidized roads for mining.
Palin supports additional mining.


Which is irrelevent to the point.


14. Opposes effective sex-education programs.
Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.


Which is irrelevent to the point. Children educated in abstinence-only programs are statistically MORE likely to have sexual encounters, and are less equipped to deal with the event or it's result.


15. Opposes needed health-care reform, supports “free market” solution
Palin opposes government interference where it does not belong, preferring instead to allow the free market work as it should.


Which is irrelevent, because 'the free market' doesn't 'work as it should' when you have a service that is ESSENTIAL. Healthcare is always a virtual monopoly.


16. Cozied up to Senator Ted Stevens, right up to when he was indicted
Palin works with other members of her government and party, rather than focusing on "reaching across the aisle" to insinuate herself with the opposition.


That's right. She'll choose corruption over bipartisan government.


17. Believes the Iraq War is “God’s Will”"
Palin believes the Iraq War is just and noble, and believes that America is still in God's favour.


Which opposes her OWN answer to that question.


Amazing. These are much the same reasons I support Palin.

Doesn't amaze me. Anyone that would support the kind of destructive theocracy Palin envisions for the US probably WILL support Palin, after all.

14. Opposes effective sex-education programs.
Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.


So you admit that abstinence only programs are ineffective?

Oh cry me a river. Bears and wolves are a problem and need to be killed off. And besides, I would support it further if they marked the bodies and ate the meat. There's a lotta meat on a bear you know.

In what way are they 'a problem'? Palin's big complaint about wolves has been - not any worry about predation on people... but that they eat Moose, and that leaves less Moose available for hunters to hit.

The problem with aerial hunting is that it's a really bad way to hunt, even on predators - since it has such a low kill ratio, which is why other (non-predatory) species have to be hunted on a 'land-and-hunt' basis. Aerial hunting leaves a lot of animals wounded, but not dead. Often - not even wounded.

Controlling bear and wolf numbers NEAR human habitations? Maybe justifiable. Maybe. Tracking out to find them simply because you think they're a threat to your hunting game? Not such a good excuse.

So you admit that abstinence only programs are ineffective?

No. The phrases in bold are translations from liberalspeak, wherein abstinence-only sex education programs are presumed to be ineffective. The translation, into ordinary English, makes no such presumption.

*snip*

I frickin' wrote your paper already in post 147 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14039088&postcount=147). You clearly didn't read what I wrote or the evidence I supported it with or you wouldn't be making some of the statements you are making.

It is not the city that directly bills rape victims for the evidence collection kits. It is hospitals that, unless they are paid by the city, bills the victim.

I specified with links to the documents where there was money in the budget to pay hospitals to do the sexual assault evidence kits and where that money was taken out of the budget by Mayor Palin.

As for your statement that the policy could be justified as "symbolic against government spending," you make me sick.

I'm logging off before I say something that'll get me in trouble.

No. The phrases in bold are translations from liberalspeak, wherein abstinence-only sex education programs are presumed to be ineffective. The translation, into ordinary English, makes no such presumption.

You're right, no presumption needed. It's pretty much been proven.

The translation, into ordinary English, makes no such presumption.

It is similarly stripped of being related to reality.

1. Palin is opposed to abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. Imagine forcing a 14-year old incest victim to carry her rapists baby to term even though it may endanger her health and leave her sterile.
Palin opposes the murder of unborn children.

2. Palin supports the teaching of creationism in schools.
Palin does not accept evolution as conclusive enough to require indoctrination.

3. Palin opposes gay rights, including same-sex marriage and benefits to same-sex couples.
Palin supports the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only.

4. Palin opposes hate-crime laws – using the ridiculous and tired excuse that all heinous crime is hate-based.
Palin recognizes that hate-crime laws are unnecessary and emotion-based legislation.

5. Strongly supports home-schools.
Palin recognizes the failures of the substandard public schools.

6. Strongly supports keeping “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance – stupidly claiming that it was “good enough for our Founding Fathers.”
Palin recognizes the insuperable connection to Juedo-Christian culture inherent in American culture.

7. Believes global warming exists, but is not man-made.
Palin does not buy into the envirocultist hype that humans are destroying the planet.

8. Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination.
Palin does not buy into the people-last philosophy prevalent on the left.

9. Supports oil drilling practically everywhere, including off-shore and in ANWR.
Palin recognizes the necessity of American oil-drilling in order for America to buy enough time to arrive at a workable solution to our energy needs.

10. Sued the Bush Administration to stop the listing of polar bears as endangered.
Palin recognizes that it is not the government's business to protect animals from human activity.

11. Opposes protections for beluga whales.
Palin recognizes that it should not be the government's position to inhibit people's hunting rights in regards to animals.

12. “Resource First” philosophy: encourage timber, mining, drilling, and commercial fishing.
Palin cares for people's needs above those of the environment.

13. Supports subsidized roads for mining.
Palin supports additional mining.

14. Opposes effective sex-education programs.
Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.

15. Opposes needed health-care reform, supports “free market” solution
Palin opposes government interference where it does not belong, preferring instead to allow the free market work as it should.

16. Cozied up to Senator Ted Stevens, right up to when he was indicted
Palin works with other members of her government and party, rather than focusing on "reaching across the aisle" to insinuate herself with the opposition.

17. Believes the Iraq War is “God’s Will”"
Palin believes the Iraq War is just and noble, and believes that America is still in God's favour.

Amazing. These are much the same reasons I support Palin.

Thank you for so eloquent explaining why you and Sarah Palin are wrong for America.

It is similarly stripped of being related to reality.

Really? So you disagree with the translated statment:

Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.

I find that odd. Seems to adhere to reality fairly closely to me.

Really? So you disagree with the translated statment:

Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.

I find that odd. Seems to adhere to reality fairly closely to me.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Are you a male?

And do you plan on having sex before marriage?

If you say yes to the first and no to the second, you are a liar.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Are you a male?

And do you plan on having sex before marriage?

If you say yes to the first and no to the second, you are a liar.

I am male, and married.

I did not have sex before marriage. Neither did my wife. Each of us lost our virginity, to the other, on 4 July 2007, our wedding night.

I am male, and married.

I did not have sex before marriage. Neither did my wife. Each of us lost our virginity, to the other, on 4 July 2007, our wedding night.

Did you try to? Did you want to, but couldn't get any?

Did you try to? Did you want to, but couldn't get any?

No. Both of us refrained, intentionally, until marriage.

No. Both of us refrained, intentionally, until marriage.

I'm gunna call bullshit.

I'm gunna call bullshit.

As is your right.

As is mine to ignore you.

As is your right.

As is mine to ignore you.

Well, it will be your right but if McCain wins, that's out the window.

No. The phrases in bold are translations from liberalspeak, wherein abstinence-only sex education programs are presumed to be ineffective. The translation, into ordinary English, makes no such presumption.

*sigh*

I grow weary of repeating the same arguments in different threads against people that are allergic to reality.

McCain and Palin oppose comprehensive sex education and support abstinence-only education. There are many, many studies showing the superiority of comprehensive sex education by almost any measure (including the Bush Administration's own evaluations of abstinence-only programs). link (http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf), link (http://www.sexedlibrary.org/programefficacy.html).

And it's not just nutty Palin, to illustrate just how inane McCain's position on sex education is, we have this: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13541479&postcount=2213)

*sigh*

I grow weary of repeating the same arguments in different threads against people that are allergic to reality.

McCain and Palin oppose comprehensive sex education and support abstinence-only education. There are many, many studies showing the superiority of comprehensive sex education by almost any measure (including the Bush Administration's own evaluations of abstinence-only programs). link (http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf), link (http://www.sexedlibrary.org/programefficacy.html).

And it's not just nutty Palin, to illustrate just how inane McCain's position on sex education is, we have this: link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13541479&postcount=2213)

Then you should have no problems whatsoever with my translation.

No. The phrases in bold are translations from liberalspeak, wherein abstinence-only sex education programs are presumed to be ineffective.

Not presumed, proven. But facts tend to have a liberal bias. The rest of your tripe has been dealt with already, and I have already stated how weary I am of repeating myself.

Not presumed, proven. But facts tend to have a liberal bias. The rest of your tripe has been dealt with already, and I have already stated how weary I am of repeating myself.

No, those things that are claimed to be facts have a liberal bias, precisely because liberals claim as facts, and therefore indubitable, those positions they support.

No, those things that are claimed to be facts have a liberal bias, precisely because liberals claim as facts, and therefore indubitable, those positions they support.

Yes, and evolution is "just a theory." Same as gravity. And the Earth orbiting the sun. You shouldn't listen to these facts because they have "liberal bias."

You're delusional, please get some help. NSG is not a great place to get it.

On the other hand, if you're just a troll, you're not nearly as good as Jesussaves, sorry.

Yes, and evolution is "just a theory." Same as gravity. And the Earth orbiting the sun. You shouldn't listen to these facts because they have "liberal bias."

You're delusional, please get some help. NSG is not a great place to get it.

On the other hand, if you're just a troll, you're not nearly as good as Jesussaves, sorry.

Yes, evolution is a theory. A theory I deny, for reasons stated elsewhere.
Actually, gravity is a fact, directly experienced by individuals every day. The explanation of gravitation, the description of how it acts and under what circumstances is the theory.
That the Earth orbits the sun is a theory with a great deal of substantiation and no liberal bias. It is a theory I accept, as I have no compelling reason to deny it.

And you are dangerously close to both personal attacks and to hijacking this thread.

Yes, evolution is a theory. A theory I deny, for reasons stated elsewhere.
Actually, gravity is a fact, directly experienced by individuals every day. The explanation of gravitation, the description of how it acts and under what circumstances is the theory.
That the Earth orbits the sun is a theory with a great deal of substantiation and no liberal bias. It is a theory I accept, as I have no compelling reason to deny it.

And you are dangerously close to both personal attacks and to hijacking this thread.

You're the one who's hijacked it.

I have stated my honest opinions. Why is evolution "liberally biased" and gravity and the Earth orbiting the sun not? In the Scientific community, evolution is accepted on an equal level with the other two theories. Also, in science, there is not this big wall between theory and fact that you delude yourself with.

Really, get help.

Really? So you disagree with the translated statment:

Palin supports abstinence-only sex-education programs.

I find that odd. Seems to adhere to reality fairly closely to me.

And abstinence-only education has been proved to be less effective, more likely to result in sexual congress, and - when that congress takes place - FAR more likely to leave the particiapnts unprepared for details like sexually transmitted disease, and pregnancy.

Your 'translation' actually remove the burden of reality from the sentence it translates. The important (some might say, 'vital') operator is that Palin is pushing INEFFECTIVE sex education. It doesn't matter if that sex education is abstinence-only, cabbage-patch-babies, or blowing snowmen, it's NOT effective.

Bottom line.

No, those things that are claimed to be facts have a liberal bias, precisely because liberals claim as facts, and therefore indubitable, those positions they support.

So - the stuff that TCT produced from the Bush Administration's own research... is tainted by the... liberal? bias of the Bush Regime?

And abstinence-only education has been proved to be less effective, more likely to result in sexual congress, and - when that congress takes place - FAR more likely to leave the particiapnts unprepared for details like sexually transmitted disease, and pregnancy.

Your 'translation' actually remove the burden of reality from the sentence it translates. The important (some might say, 'vital') operator is that Palin is pushing INEFFECTIVE sex education. It doesn't matter if that sex education is abstinence-only, cabbage-patch-babies, or blowing snowmen, it's NOT effective.

Bottom line.

Wrong, the bottom line is that abstinence-only education teaches the precise means by which any and all diseases may be prevented from being transmitted sexually. Since the purpose is to inform children as to the means by which to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, abstinence-only education is the best choice.
If abstinence-only sex education is less effective than other forms of education, this is the result of the choices made by the children in question. The results are the fault of the individuals, not of the method. If one wishes additional instruction, assuming one's child will act in a dangerous sexual manner, he or she can provide that instruction him- or herself.
Only through sexual abstinence can children be guaranteed of escaping sexually transmitted diseases, and thus, this is the one favoured by Gov. Palin.
That is the bottom line.

Wrong, the bottom line is that abstinence-only education teaches the precise means by which any and all diseases may be prevented from being transmitted sexually. Since the purpose is to inform children as to the means by which to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, abstinence-only education is the best choice.
If abstinence-only sex education is less effective than other forms of education, this is the result of the choices made by the children in question. The results are the fault of the individuals, not of the method. If one wishes additional instruction, assuming one's child will act in a dangerous sexual manner, he or she can provide that instruction him- or herself.
Only through sexual abstinence can children be guaranteed of escaping sexually transmitted diseases, and thus, this is the one favoured by Gov. Palin.
That is the bottom line.

Horseshit.

The purpose of sex education is to educate. Choosing to avoid educating should be term sex MIS-education.

The simple fact - that even you admit to - is that abstinence-only fails to produce results. It causes MORE pre-marital sex. It causes more unwanted pregnancy. It causes MORE sexually transmitted disease.

As such - it fails as an education program. It is 'ineffective' for the purpose for which it is intended.

If Palin endorses it, she is endorsing it DESPITE it's established failure, which makes her a hypocrite.

Horseshit.

The purpose of sex education is to educate. Choosing to avoid educating should be term sex MIS-education.

The simple fact - that even you admit to - is that abstinence-only fails to produce results. It causes MORE pre-marital sex. It causes more unwanted pregnancy. It causes MORE sexually transmitted disease.

As such - it fails as an education program. It is 'ineffective' for the purpose for which it is intended.

If Palin endorses it, she is endorsing it DESPITE it's established failure, which makes her a hypocrite.

Wrong, education is intended to educate, not to bring about action. Only abstinence-only education provides real education on how to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases.
It provides information, it does not seek to affect action. Whether people use what education they have received is their problem. Abstinence-only education does not cause any sex whatsoever, nor does it prevent it. Having and refraining from sex are solely decisions of individuals.
It succeeds as an education program, moreso than do other programs, because it provides real education as to how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Palin endorses it because of its success as an education program. The results are irrelevant, as this stems from people choosing not to use the education they have received. Far from a failure, she is an intelligent politician who understands the purpose of education programs.

That the Earth orbits the sun is a theory with a great deal of substantiation and no liberal bias. It is a theory I accept, as I have no compelling reason to deny it.

Tell that to the Catholic Church some years ago. Galileo anyone?

Tell that to the Catholic Church some years ago. Galileo anyone?

I believe you mean the Roman Catholic Church.
And the Roman Church did not reject Galileo's theories because of any liberal bias, but because it believed his theories to be biblically in error.

Wrong, education is intended to educate, not to bring about action. Only abstinence-only education provides real education on how to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases.
It provides information, it does not seek to affect action. Whether people use what education they have received is their problem. Abstinence-only education does not cause any sex whatsoever, nor does it prevent it. Having and refraining from sex are solely decisions of individuals.
It succeeds as an education program, moreso than do other programs, because it provides real education as to how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Palin endorses it because of its success as an education program. The results are irrelevant, as this stems from people choosing not to use the education they have received. Far from a failure, she is an intelligent politician who understands the purpose of education programs.

You're silly. I like that.

Comprehensive sex-education can and does teach students to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy and STDs. It just also teaches students about sex (without encouraging it) and how to have sex safely (without encouraging it). Thus you get the "success" you want of teaching abstinence, plus the bonus of actual results of reduced sexual activity, reduced pregnancies, and reduced STDs.

Abstinence-only programs teach only abstinence -- and that rather poorly. As the studies show and you seem to admit, these programs fail to convince students to abstain from sex, actually seems to increase sexual activity, and, because the students haven't been taught about safe sex, causes them to engage in more dangerous sex -- increasing unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases.

So, you can have:
(1) both abstinence & good results (less sex, fewer pregnancies, less disease)
or
(2) neither abstinence nor good results -- in fact, more teen sex, more unwanted pregnancies, and more sexually-transmitted diseases

Only religious fanaticism explains anyone deliberately choosing option 2.

Wrong, education is intended to educate, not to bring about action.


So - studying French shouldn't be judged on how many people can speak French... Math shouldn't be measured on how effective it is in producing mathematicians. Science should be considered in other ways than whether or not the work it produces is scientific.

Monkeynuts.


Only abstinence-only education provides real education on how to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases.


Wrong on two counts.

1) Abstinence is covered in more inclusive sex education. So your 'ONLY abstinence-only' gambit is immediately shown to be rubbish.

2) Abstinence-only 'education' only deals with ONE method of avoiding sexually transmitted disease.


It provides information, it does not seek to affect action. Whether people use what education they have received is their problem.


No - it's ALL of our problem. It's the problem of the children that will be born from illicit relationships, and that are MORE likely to be born with disease, because of this generation's failure to educate.


Abstinence-only education does not cause any sex whatsoever, nor does it prevent it.


Statistically, it does. Abstinence-only 'education' as a policy has a direct causative link.


Having and refraining from sex are solely decisions of individuals.


Too ridiculous to even be worthy of an answer.


It succeeds as an education program, moreso than do other programs, because it provides real education as to how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.


It fails because it doesn't allow for the fact that abstinence is more than just one person's choice.


Palin endorses it because of its success as an education program.


It doesn't have any.

Education is successful if it provides advantage. Abstinence-only 'education' is inferior.


The results are irrelevant, as this stems from people choosing not to use the education they have received.


WHich has nothing to do with the education, according to you... and which is even more likely WITH abstinence-only 'education', according to reality.


Far from a failure, she is an intelligent politician who understands the purpose of education programs.

It took me this long to realise this was a parody account.

Good show.

You're silly. I like that.

Comprehensive sex-education can and does teach students to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy and STDs. It just also teaches students about sex (without encouraging it) and how to have sex safely (without encouraging it). Thus you get the "success" you want of teaching abstinence, plus the bonus of actual results of reduced sexual activity, reduced pregnancies, and reduced STDs.

Abstinence-only programs teach only abstinence -- and that rather poorly. As the studies show and you seem to admit, these programs fail to convince students to abstain from sex and, because they haven't been taught about safe sex, causes them to engage in more dangerous sex -- increasing unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted disease.

So, you can have:
(1) abstinence & good results or
(2) neither abstinence nor good results.

Only religious fanaticism explains anyone deliberately choosing option 2.

Reducing the rates of sexual activity and STDs are not a bonus to any education option; they are irrelevant. A bonus to society, perhaps, but education's purpose is to educate. In this instance, it is to educate on how to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Only abstinence-only education programs accomplish this. So-called comprehensive sexual education programs add it unnecessary information on how to reduce the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant. This is irrelevant material, as it does not teach on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy.
Further, abstinence-only programs do not intend to convince students to refrain from sex, nor should they. They merely educate students on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Since only abstinence qualifies, abstinence-only education is the only logical choice for these education programs.

Reducing the rates of sexual activity and STDs are not a bonus to any education option; they are irrelevant. A bonus to society, perhaps, but education's purpose is to educate. In this instance, it is to educate on how to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Only abstinence-only education programs accomplish this. So-called comprehensive sexual education programs add it unnecessary information on how to reduce the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant. This is irrelevant material, as it does not teach on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy.
Further, abstinence-only programs do not intend to convince students to refrain from sex, nor should they. They merely educate students on how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Since only abstinence qualifies, abstinence-only education is the only logical choice for these education programs.

I'm wondering... do you think crap gets less 'crappy', and more true, the more times you post it?

Two words: Bristol Palin.

Unless you think God wants to give the Immaculate Conception a second try.

:D

That is all.

So - studying French shouldn't be judged on how many people can speak French... Math shouldn't be measured on how effective it is in producing mathematicians. Science should be considered in other ways than whether or not the work it produces is scientific.
Monkeynuts.

Wrong on two counts.
1) Abstinence is covered in more inclusive sex education. So your 'ONLY abstinence-only' gambit is immediately shown to be rubbish.
2) Abstinence-only 'education' only deals with ONE method of avoiding sexually transmitted disease.

No - it's ALL of our problem. It's the problem of the children that will be born from illicit relationships, and that are MORE likely to be born with disease, because of this generation's failure to educate.

Statistically, it does. Abstinence-only 'education' as a policy has a direct causative link.

Too ridiculous to even be worthy of an answer.

It fails because it doesn't allow for the fact that abstinence is more than just one person's choice.

It doesn't have any.

Education is successful if it provides advantage. Abstinence-only 'education' is inferior.

WHich has nothing to do with the education, according to you... and which is even more likely WITH abstinence-only 'education', according to reality.

It took me this long to realise this was a parody account.

Good show.

French classes should be judged on how much of the French language the student has learned. If they never speak another word of French in their lives, that is no failure on the part of the class.
Math classes should be judged on how much of the body of mathematics the student has learned. If they never perform another quadratic equation in their lives, that is no failure on the part of the class.
Sex education classes should be judged on how much of the methods of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy the student has learned. As there is only one such method, this translates to how much of the abstinence policy the student has learned. If those students never practice abstinence again in their lives, it is no failure on the part of the class.
As shown in the previous post, since abstinence is the only method by which sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy may be prevented, only abstinence is relevant to teach in these classes. There is no other method of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy; other methods merely reduce likelihood of contracting those diseases or becoming pregnant.
Education's purpose is to educate, to provide information, not to bring about behaviour.
No, people's own free decisions are the cause.
Abstinence is the result of the freely-chosen actions of two individuals.
Education is successful if it provides information. It is the choice of the individual whether or not to use that information as an advantage or to ignore it.

Two words: Bristol Palin.

Unless you think God wants to give the Immaculate Conception a second try.

:D

That is all.

Bristol Palin is a perfect example. No doubt she was taught abstinence-only method, and therefore knew that abstinence was the only means of preventing pregnancy. She then chose, of her own free will, not to use this information, and thus her condition is solely her responsibility, and no failing of the method.

You're silly. I like that.

Comprehensive sex-education can and does teach students to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy and STDs. It just also teaches students about sex (without encouraging it) and how to have sex safely (without encouraging it). Thus you get the "success" you want of teaching abstinence, plus the bonus of actual results of reduced sexual activity, reduced pregnancies, and reduced STDs.

Abstinence-only programs teach only abstinence -- and that rather poorly. As the studies show and you seem to admit, these programs fail to convince students to abstain from sex, actually seems to increase sexual activity, and, because the students haven't been taught about safe sex, causes them to engage in more dangerous sex -- increasing unwanted pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases.

What the hell does "Abstinence only education" consist of in the classroom anyway?

Teacher: "Don't fuck. Ok, class over."

Sex education classes should be judged on how much of the methods of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy the student has learned. As there is only one such method,

Were condoms not invented in the universe you're from?

Were condoms not invented in the universe you're from?

Condoms do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy. They reduce the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and becoming pregnant.

Bristol Palin is a perfect example. No doubt she was taught abstinence-only method, and therefore knew that abstinence was the only means of preventing pregnancy. She then chose, of her own free will, not to use this information, and thus her condition is solely her responsibility, and no failing of the method.

Or her and her boyfriend could have learned about proper condom use and she could have been taking the pill. Voila, no baby.

Wrong. Bristol Palin obviously chose not to put her abstinence education to use; there is no guarantee that she would have put her so-called comprehensive education to use either. And whether she would have or not, this is her choice, not a failing of the method.

Condoms do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy. They reduce the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and becoming pregnant.

So they can prevent pregnancy and STD's, just not in all cases. Just because the lit cigarette Bob threw out his car window didn't start a forest fire this time doesn't mean lit cigarettes thrown out car windows do not start forest fires.

So they can prevent pregnancy and STD's, just not in all cases. Just because the lit cigarette Bob threw out his car window didn't start a forest fire this time doesn't mean lit cigarettes thrown out car windows do not start forest fires.

They do not prevent anything, they reduce the likelihood. For every given sexual instance, if a condom is used, it reduces the likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant down to, say, .1 percent. Given these odds, the vast amount of people who engage in sexual conduct with condoms do not contract sexually transmitted diseases or become pregnant, but this is due to the nature of the odds. The condom modifies the odds; abstinence eliminates the odds altogether. No condom has ever prevented any sexually transmitted disease transmissal, it has only made it unlikely enough such that the odds were against such transmissal. Abstinence on the other hand, does prevent sexually transmitted disease transmissal.

.

As you disregard the evidence I've presented and waive your hands about needing "hard evidence," I wonder if you could finally get around to substantiating the allegations you made earlier in the thread (and/or admit those allegations were wrong).

It wasn't a city policy it was the police Chiefs policy while she was mayor.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true. It was the policy of Palin's hand-picked Chief of Police in a small-town and it was part of the city budget.

though it existed before she was mayor as well.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true. Prior to Palin's being Mayor and replacing the Chief of Police, Wasilla's policy had been to pay for rape kits and money to be so used was in the city budget.

Also it is being misrepresented they only billed people who had insurance

1. Evidence?

2. Not true.

and the police covered the CO-pay.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true.

the practice was ended in 2000 by state law.

YEAH! Something true! Of course, the Palin Administration opposed the passage of that law.

It was not a city ordinance but the policy of the Police Chief Charlie Fannon.

This is a repeat of your first allegation.

A review of state records show only one person in Alaskan history was billed for their rape kit and they were from Jeaneau.

1. Evidence? What state records? What review?

2. Not true. Alaskan experts on law enforcement and sexual assault testified during the legislative hearings on the state law on rape kits indicated that to personal knowledge of uncounted multiple instances of victims being billed for rape kits.

The two rape kits used during Palins time as mayor were paid for by the City.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true/misleading. Palin was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002. Wasilla city records indicate there were 84 sexual assaults during that time period. Prior to the firing of Police Chief Irl Stambaugh on Jan. 30, 1997, rape exams were paid for by the city. After the passage of State law AS 18.68.040, effective 8/14/2000, victims could no longer be billed for rape kits. How many victims were charged for rape kits between January 1997 and August 2000 is unknown.

the mayor apparently used her powers to get around the Police Chiefs policy of billing the insurance for the Rape kit.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true.

They do not prevent anything, they reduce the likelihood. For every given sexual instance, if a condom is used, it reduces the likelihood of contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant down to, say, .1 percent. Given these odds, the vast amount of people who engage in sexual conduct with condoms do not contract sexually transmitted diseases or become pregnant, but this is due to the nature of the odds. The condom modifies the odds; abstinence eliminates the odds altogether. No condom has ever prevented any sexually transmitted disease transmissal, it has only made it unlikely enough such that the odds were against such transmissal. Abstinence on the other hand, does prevent sexually transmitted disease transmissal.

Or to put it more honestly it prevents 99.9% of STD's and pregnancies (using your own numbers).

Or to put it more honestly it prevents 99.9% of STD's and pregnancies (using your own numbers).

No, as stated, it does not prevent anything. A condom is an odds modifier; it makes it unlikely that the sexually transmitted disease will be transmitted. It's not the case that in 999 out of a thousand cases, the condom blocked the sexually transmitted disease, and in 1 case it allowed it to pass. The condom is an inanimate object, which acts simply to modify the odds of transmissal. It is the likelihood which causes the disease not to be transmitted, not the condom.

No, as stated, it does not prevent anything. A condom is an odds modifier; it makes it unlikely that the sexually transmitted disease will be transmitted. It's not the case that in 999 out of a thousand cases, the condom blocked the sexually transmitted disease, and in 1 case it allowed it to pass. The condom is an inanimate object, which acts simply to modify the odds of transmissal. It is the likelihood which causes the disease not to be transmitted, not the condom.

Okay, if you wish to be difficult, proper condom usage prevents the STDs.

Okay, if you wish to be difficult, proper condom usage prevents the STDs.

No condom usage of any kind prevents STDs. It lowers the likelihood of contracting an STD.

No, as stated, it does not prevent anything. A condom is an odds modifier; it makes it unlikely that the sexually transmitted disease will be transmitted. It's not the case that in 999 out of a thousand cases, the condom blocked the sexually transmitted disease, and in 1 case it allowed it to pass. The condom is an inanimate object, which acts simply to modify the odds of transmissal. It is the likelihood which causes the disease not to be transmitted, not the condom.

Dividing the light from the darkness was nothing! Come see Nicea Sancta perform the miracle of dividing the hair from itself! Watch as it gets split right down the middle!

Dividing the light from the darkness was nothing! Come see Nicea Sancta perform the miracle of dividing the hair from itself! Watch as it gets split right down the middle!

That post contained no non-attack content.

No it's not Ockham's razor we're discussing here; it's cockem's rubber!

No condom usage of any kind prevents STDs. It lowers the likelihood of contracting an STD.

Condoms do prevent the spreading STDs. They are not 100% effective because they occasionally tear, or are not used properly (mainly by people who have been denied access to proper sex education). Abstinence education might claim that it is 100% but that is not true either as it is possible to contract STDs other than by sexual contact. Abstinence programmes also have the downside of not actually working.

French classes should be judged on how much of the French language the student has learned. If they never speak another word of French in their lives, that is no failure on the part of the class.
Math classes should be judged on how much of the body of mathematics the student has learned. If they never perform another quadratic equation in their lives, that is no failure on the part of the class.
Sex education classes should be judged on how much of the methods of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy the student has learned. As there is only one such method, this translates to how much of the abstinence policy the student has learned. If those students never practice abstinence again in their lives, it is no failure on the part of the class.
As shown in the previous post, since abstinence is the only method by which sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy may be prevented, only abstinence is relevant to teach in these classes. There is no other method of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy; other methods merely reduce likelihood of contracting those diseases or becoming pregnant.
Education's purpose is to educate, to provide information, not to bring about behaviour.
No, people's own free decisions are the cause.
Abstinence is the result of the freely-chosen actions of two individuals.
Education is successful if it provides information. It is the choice of the individual whether or not to use that information as an advantage or to ignore it.

So - you think education is successful PURELY in terms of information (allegedly) imparted...

So - those who are taught abstinence-only education and then go ahead and ignore that (lack of) education, are blameless?

After all - by your logic, there's no way they could have done otherwise - no matter what values you try to instill in them, it's still just 'education' and you don't BELIEVE in education that yields actual results.

Condoms do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy. They reduce the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and becoming pregnant.

Abstinence doesn't prevent sexually transmitted diseases, either.

No method does.

What abstinence does is reduce the risks. Just like actual contraception.

Perhaps it's a way to deter women from falsifying claims of rape (which can cause serious harm).

if anything having the kits given out would deter women from falsifying those claims as fluid collection will definitively prove both the the women was raped and probably who exactly raped her.

No, as stated, it does not prevent anything. A condom is an odds modifier; it makes it unlikely that the sexually transmitted disease will be transmitted. It's not the case that in 999 out of a thousand cases, the condom blocked the sexually transmitted disease, and in 1 case it allowed it to pass. The condom is an inanimate object, which acts simply to modify the odds of transmissal. It is the likelihood which causes the disease not to be transmitted, not the condom.

You couldn't be more wrong.

A condom is a barrier - inanimate or otherwise. The idea you rubbished, that in 999 of a thousand cases it blocked the disease, is actually pretty appropriate. As a barrier method, it literally obstructs the transmission of a contaminant - in this case, sexual fluids.

Most pregnancy or disease transmission despite condom use CAN be laid directly at the feet of fault in the barrier.

yes I am aware rape kits also gather evidence form under the finger nails and so on. Still many sexual assault do not have rape kits.
A the crime does not fit with leaving evidence of that sort. aka an over the clothes molester and the victim did not scratch/fight back.
B the victim took several showers and waited a few days.
C the victim feeling violated can not be talked into having a rape kit done.
It is very possible there have been 20 or more sexual assaults but only 1 or 2 rape kits performed.

3. It is not my fault that Wasilla hasn't generated documents on the number of rape kits performed each year.

A bill is a piece of paper work. transactions of money are well documented.
If there isn't a City bill, hospital bill, credit card bill, or an insurance statement out there paying for a rape kit, then there is a very low likely hood of someone being forced to pay for their rape kit.

Have you sunk so low? Have you no decency?

Rape is a very personal invasion. How many rape victims are likely to announce themselves to national media scrutiny over this? And, if one were to appear, do you really expect us to believe that would change your opinion of the matter -- especially given your willingness to ignore the evidence already presented?

why would anyone do that. Go to the city billing department look at their publicly available records, see if they billed anyone for a rape kit, block out their name make photo copy.
Go to the hospital repeat process for City. Medical workers would likely be willing do this for as they tend to detest having to bill for such things.
Go to an insurance agency with a lot of customers in the Area ask for any times they were billed for rape kits.
except for the city you will like need to be a reporter to get access to these records. they will let a reporter because they can be more assured they will protect the victims identity.
these sorts of things are called "hard evidence"

I have yet to see hard evidence i've see that the law was on city books. Ive seen no evidence of enforcement other then some expert on CNN who has likely never set foot in Alaska. but here http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136
every city budget from 1992. I looked through them for about 2 hours(my poli sci prof is letting me write a paper). Show me where she budgeted money from billing people for rape kits.

A redneck cop talking shit. I bet he was hoping to to make this an issue and get famous and move on to elected office. didn't seem to work out for him though. something Ive noticed about small hick towns. Either the DA or the Police chief cant stop talking shit.

unless the policy was meant to be symbolic against government spending.
Still trying to find it. as I read it the police budget was pretty vague. only 3 items. Salary, material, and capital( I am guessing discretionary). really hard to say she had a direct hand in it.

BTW, the "hard evidence" you claim to want involves the federally-protected privacy of confidential medical records of alleged RAPE VICTIMS!!! In addition to violating the privacy of rape victims, obtaining such documents would violate numerous federal, state, and local laws. Think about that a little. :headbang:

I frickin' wrote your paper already in post 147 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14039088&postcount=147). You clearly didn't read what I wrote or the evidence I supported it with or you wouldn't be making some of the statements you are making.

It is not the city that directly bills rape victims for the evidence collection kits. It is hospitals that, unless they are paid by the city, bills the victim.

I specified with links to the documents where there was money in the budget to pay hospitals to do the sexual assault evidence kits and where that money was taken out of the budget by Mayor Palin.

As for your statement that the policy could be justified as "symbolic against government spending," you make me sick.

I'm logging off before I say something that'll get me in trouble.

It wasn't a city policy it was the police Chiefs policy while she was mayor. though it existed before she was mayor as well. Also it is being misrepresented they only billed people who had insurance and the police covered the CO-pay.

the practice was ended in 2000 by state law. It was not a city ordinance but the policy of the Police Chief Charlie Fannon.

A review of state records show only one person in Alaskan history was billed for their rape kit and they were from Jeaneau. The two rape kits used during Palins time as mayor were paid for by the City. the mayor apparently used her powers to get around the Police Chiefs policy of billing the insurance for the Rape kit.

As you disregard the evidence I've presented and waive your hands about needing "hard evidence," I wonder if you could finally get around to substantiating the allegations you made earlier in the thread (and/or admit those allegations were wrong).

A. It wasn't a city policy it was the police Chiefs policy while she was mayor.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true. It was the policy of Palin's hand-picked Chief of Police in a small-town and it was part of the city budget.

B. though it existed before she was mayor as well.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true. Prior to Palin's being Mayor and replacing the Chief of Police, Wasilla's policy had been to pay for rape kits and money to be so used was in the city budget.

C. Also it is being misrepresented they only billed people who had insurance

1. Evidence?

2. Not true.

D. and the police covered the CO-pay

1. Evidence?

2. Not true.

E. the practice was ended in 2000 by state law.

YEAH! Something true! Of course, the Palin Administration opposed the passage of that law.

F. It was not a city ordinance but the policy of the Police Chief Charlie Fannon.

This is a repeat of your first allegation.

G. A review of state records show only one person in Alaskan history was billed for their rape kit and they were from Jeaneau.

1. Evidence? What state records? What review?

2. Not true. Alaskan experts on law enforcement and sexual assault testified during the legislative hearings on the state law on rape kits that they had personal knowledge of uncounted multiple instances of victims being billed for rape kits.

H. The two rape kits used during Palins time as mayor were paid for by the City.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true/misleading. Palin was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002. Wasilla city records indicate there were 84 sexual assaults during that time period. Prior to the firing of Police Chief Irl Stambaugh on Jan. 30, 1997, rape exams were paid for by the city. After the passage of State law AS 18.68.040, effective 8/14/2000, victims could no longer be billed for rape kits. How many victims were charged for rape kits between January 1997 and August 2000 is unknown.

I. the mayor apparently used her powers to get around the Police Chiefs policy of billing the insurance for the Rape kit.

1. Evidence?

2. Not true.

.....still waiting for response ....:soap:

Condoms do prevent the spreading STDs. They are not 100% effective because they occasionally tear, or are not used properly (mainly by people who have been denied access to proper sex education). Abstinence education might claim that it is 100% but that is not true either as it is possible to contract STDs other than by sexual contact. Abstinence programmes also have the downside of not actually working.

Condoms do not prevent the contraction of STDs.
Abstinence, when practiced, will prevent 100 percent of all sexually transmitted diseases from being transmitted sexually.

Condoms do not prevent the contraction of STDs.
Abstinence, when practiced, will prevent 100 percent of all sexually transmitted diseases from being transmitted sexually.

Too bad abstinence has a higher failure rate then condoms.

So - you think education is successful PURELY in terms of information (allegedly) imparted...

So - those who are taught abstinence-only education and then go ahead and ignore that (lack of) education, are blameless?

After all - by your logic, there's no way they could have done otherwise - no matter what values you try to instill in them, it's still just 'education' and you don't BELIEVE in education that yields actual results.

Yes.

No, the classes are blameless. The individuals have sole responsibility for their actions, for they have willfully ignored the information provided them.

Too bad abstinence has a higher failure rate then condoms.

Indeed, it is too bad that more people do not use what information they have been given. However, since the purpose of education is to pass on information, not to bring about behaviour, this has no bearing on the abstinence-only education program itself.

Indeed, it is too bad that more people do not use what information they have been given. However, since the purpose of education is to pass on information, not to bring about behaviour, this has no bearing on the abstinence-only education program itself.

If only drug users would use the information they were given.
If only alcholoics would use the information they were given.
If only, etc., etc.

It shows abstinence-only education does not work.

If only drug users would use the information they were given.
If only alcholoics would use the information they were given.
If only, etc., etc.

It shows abstinence-only education does not work.
I say "no!"

Uhh, did I do it right?

If only drug users would use the information they were given.
If only alcholoics would use the information they were given.
If only, etc., etc.

It shows abstinence-only education does not work.

Hardly. It is not the case that a person will use the information he has been given. This is dependent upon his free decision, on whether or not to internalize the information and allow it to affect his life. Classes cannot do this, and should not be expected to. Classes give information, they provide it for the students to learn. The choice is then upon them as to whether they will use this information or not. If they choose to do so, this is no success of the class: it is a success of the student. Similarly, if they choose not to do so, this is no failure of the class: it is a failure of the student.
Abstinence-only education works, in that it fulfills its goal of providing information to students as to how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Whether those students apply that information is irrelevant to the class: that is a matter of their personal, free decisions.

Hardly. It is not the case that a person will use the information he has been given. This is dependent upon his free decision, on whether or not to internalize the information and allow it to affect his life. Classes cannot do this, and should not be expected to. Classes give information, they provide it for the students to learn. The choice is then upon them as to whether they will use this information or not. If they choose to do so, this is no success of the class: it is a success of the student. Similarly, if they choose not to do so, this is no failure of the class: it is a failure of the student.
Abstinence-only education works, in that it fulfills its goal of providing information to students as to how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Whether those students apply that information is irrelevant to the class: that is a matter of their personal, free decisions.

Abstinence-only education has failed where ever it's taught.

For example, in Africa, AO education increased STDs while condom use reduced it.

Abstinence-only education has failed where ever it's taught.

For example, in Africa, AO education increased STDs while condom use reduced it.

You misunderstand me. Abstinence-only education has not failed, because the purpose of education is to impart information, not to bring about behaviour. The means of judging the success of abstinence-only education is to test the students as to their knowledge of the items taught in abstinence-only education programs, not to look into the actions of those students. Those actions are the results of their freely-chosen decisions, and have no bearing on the education program itself. When a person chooses not to use the information they have been given, this is not the fault of the class, but a fault of the person.

You misunderstand me. Abstinence-only education has not failed, because the purpose of education is to impart information, not to bring about behaviour. The means of judging the success of abstinence-only education is to test the students as to their knowledge of the items taught in abstinence-only education programs, not to look into the actions of those students. Those actions are the results of their freely-chosen decisions, and have no bearing on the education program itself. When a person chooses not to use the information they have been given, this is not the fault of the class, but a fault of the person.

The problem is the fact that it's not working shows it's a waste of time to teach it and in fact causes problems in areas with major problems like Africa.

Hardly. It is not the case that a person will use the information he has been given. This is dependent upon his free decision, on whether or not to internalize the information and allow it to affect his life. Classes cannot do this, and should not be expected to. Classes give information, they provide it for the students to learn. The choice is then upon them as to whether they will use this information or not. If they choose to do so, this is no success of the class: it is a success of the student. Similarly, if they choose not to do so, this is no failure of the class: it is a failure of the student.
Abstinence-only education works, in that it fulfills its goal of providing information to students as to how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Whether those students apply that information is irrelevant to the class: that is a matter of their personal, free decisions.

So, if a class were to misinform me about the dangers of certain substances, it is not a failure of the class, am I correct? In most high schools in the US, we have what is called D.A.R.E., which is just a big acronym for drug education. Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but telling me that alcohol is a poison to my body when most researchers agree that a glass of wine now and then is excellent for your body and mild doses of alcohol increase mental potential for short periods of time is what one would call blatant misrepresentation of fact. Instead of educating the student about the dangers of alcohol abuse and the benefits of moderation, the course clearly states that alcohol is a dangerous and illegal drug until the age of 21. This clearly sounds like a failure of the class and not the student.

What you have in the abstinence-only schools is a bit of the same. You tell kids about the dangers of sex, STDs, pregnancy, so on and so forth, and then you neglect to tell kids that their urges for people of the opposite sex are normal and fairly uncontrollable at their age. Sure, abstinence is great - it's the best method of preventing STD transfer and unwanted pregnancy. But humans are of an obsessively sexual nature. By teaching abstinence-only, you essentially tell kids that what they are feeling is wrong and immoral and shouldn't be thought of, instead of the wonderful transformation into mature human beings that it is. Blatant misrepresentation of facts like this is why abstinence-only education is a failure of the class and not the student.

If one were to teach that abstinence is the best method of preventing pregnancies and STD spread, but, if one were to get the urges to have sex, a condom, spermicide, BCP, IUD, etc. etc. etc. is the best way to practice sex safely, then one would be presenting a fair view of the world to the student and it would then be a failure of the student and not the class.

The problem is the fact that it's not working shows it's a waste of time to teach it and in fact causes problems in areas with major problems like Africa.
Sorry, while I think aOe (emphasis on "only") is not good educational policy, I also believe, due to the extreme differences in the socio-economic structures of the various nations of Africa as well as the extreme differences in the philosophies of past leaders of each nation as they have been handed down over the years, that comparing the success or lack thereof of an AoE policy in Africa to the same or a similar policy in the U.S. a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

The problem is the fact that it's not working shows it's a waste of time to teach it and in fact causes problems in areas with major problems like Africa.Not really. It causes problems to retarded first-world bitches. However, the population explosion on half the planet, most commonly in the developing world, exists because it's necessary for these people - additional labour force for the family, additional warriors for the tribe, and so on.

Once the need for these things is reduced, be it through greater labour efficiency or a more pacifist mindset, population growth effectively regulates itself, be it through remarkably liberal attitudes towards abortion (Japan, a fair number of pre-columbian people in the Americas, etc), or through imposing moral codes (Often linked to the economic system present) benefiting a reduced breeding rate.

The worst thing you can expect from 'Abstinence only' combined with 'No abortions' is a lot of illegal abortions, whether the church(es) like it or not. But on the large scale, eh... No real difference.

Sorry, while I think aOe (emphasis on "only") is not good educational policy, I also believe, due to the extreme differences in the socio-economic structures of the various nations of Africa as well as the extreme differences in the philosophies of past leaders of each nation as they have been handed down over the years, that comparing the success or lack thereof of an AoE policy in Africa to the same or a similar policy in the U.S. a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

If we were keeping AoE in the US borders, you would be correct. However, people are trying to take it to other counties like in Africa.

You can't go into those areas and say "just don't have sex and you won't have HIV, etc."

I have a friend over there working with AIDS programs and it drives her nuts when a new batch of missionaries appear and start yabber on about abstinence-only solutions.

So, if a class were to misinform me about the dangers of certain substances, it is not a failure of the class, am I correct? In most high schools in the US, we have what is called D.A.R.E., which is just a big acronym for drug education. Now, excuse me if I'm wrong, but telling me that alcohol is a poison to my body when most researchers agree that a glass of wine now and then is excellent for your body and mild doses of alcohol increase mental potential for short periods of time is what one would call blatant misrepresentation of fact. Instead of educating the student about the dangers of alcohol abuse and the benefits of moderation, the course clearly states that alcohol is a dangerous and illegal drug until the age of 21. This clearly sounds like a failure of the class and not the student.

What you have in the abstinence-only schools is a bit of the same. You tell kids about the dangers of sex, STDs, pregnancy, so on and so forth, and then you neglect to tell kids that their urges for people of the opposite sex are normal and fairly uncontrollable at their age. Sure, abstinence is great - it's the best method of preventing STD transfer and unwanted pregnancy. But humans are of an obsessively sexual nature. By teaching abstinence-only, you essentially tell kids that what they are feeling is wrong and immoral and shouldn't be thought of, instead of the wonderful transformation into mature human beings that it is. Blatant misrepresentation of facts like this is why abstinence-only education is a failure of the class and not the student.

If one were to teach that abstinence is the best method of preventing pregnancies and STD spread, but, if one were to get the urges to have sex, a condom, spermicide, BCP, IUD, etc. etc. etc. is the best way to practice sex safely, then one would be presenting a fair view of the world to the student and it would then be a failure of the student and not the class.

If a class misrepresents the facts, then it is a failure of the class. Classes must provide information, and misrepresenting the facts is a failure to provide information.
Abstinence-only education programs teach that the only means by which one may prevent STDs from being contracted sexually or prevent pregnancy is abstinence, which is fact. The purpose of this education program is to teach the means by which STDs and pregnancies may be prevented, and only abstinence qualifies. Condoms, etc. merely lower the likelihood of contracting STDs or becoming pregnant, they do not prevent either. Thus, these have no place in sex education. Hence, abstinence-only education.