BF2S Forums Sarah Palin is a dirty liar

Last edited by War Man (2008-09-04 22:57:12)

Ender2309 wrote:

War Man wrote:

Will you libs give it up, you're just jealous because Obama is most likely going to be fucked.

Edit: What I mean by that is he is going to lose

probably not, actually. do some research before you spout off.

or this.

Last edited by War Man (2008-09-04 23:07:54)

War Man wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

War Man wrote:

Will you libs give it up, you're just jealous because Obama is most likely going to be fucked.

Edit: What I mean by that is he is going to lose

probably not, actually. do some research before you spout off.

or this.

Did you hear about Obama trying to raise $8,000,000, well he didn't quite get there. And as for Palins fundraiser, the people who worked their can't keep up with the money they are given, and let me assure you it is much much more than $8,000,000

Harmor wrote:

If this is all that they can come up with Sarah Palin, with the 37 million viewers, to O'Bama's 38 million viewers should do well.

Enthusiasm for McCain jumped 20% this week...no doubt because of her.  I mean her speech will be more popular and more remembered than McCain's, a first really.

I also liked how she gave props to the women before her in politics like Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

Now if I could only find a bull-dog with lipstick...

Last edited by Ender2309 (2008-09-04 23:16:19)

At the present time, there has been no crude oil production in the ANWR coastal plain region. This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2018.

The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather “windows” for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window).

The assumption that ANWR oil production would begin 10 years after legislation approves the Federal oil and natural gas leasing in the 1002 Area is based on the following 8-to-12 year timeline:

    * 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.
    * 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs.  Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.
    * 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered.  Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted.  The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.
    * 3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.

The 10-year timeline for developing ANWR petroleum resources assumes that there is no protracted legal battle in approving the BLM’s draft Environmental Impact Statement, the BLM’s approval to collect seismic data, or the BLM’s approval of a specific lease-development proposal.

"In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

Last edited by Ender2309 (2008-09-04 23:39:34)

Harmor wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Her pants are on fire.

Pants...she was wearing a shirt with high-heels.

War Man wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

War Man wrote:

Google is liberal bias. And who are you to call McCain/Palin team to be hypocrites, if the media found out that the democratic female vice presidential candidate's 17 year old daughter was pregnant, they wouldn't mind. As for Palin, she is getting bashed unfairly. So STFU.

How the hell is Google liberal biased? You can search anything you want on Google. They are g'damn
hypocrites, as the raw video shows. How is Palin getting bashed unfairly, she took that risk stepping on the world stage with the big boys. Was Obama bashed unfairly when he was called "Not black enough" etc etc?

I can't read endor's post at the moment until I get some sleep but I thought he was referring to google news. And also you don't bash Palin because her 17 year old did something stupid. And also those were racist black people saying that about Obama.

TrueMusou wrote:

War Man wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

How the hell is Google liberal biased? You can search anything you want on Google. They are g'damn
hypocrites, as the raw video shows. How is Palin getting bashed unfairly, she took that risk stepping on the world stage with the big boys. Was Obama bashed unfairly when he was called "Not black enough" etc etc?

I can't read endor's post at the moment until I get some sleep but I thought he was referring to google news. And also you don't bash Palin because her 17 year old did something stupid. And also those were racist black people saying that about Obama.

There is absolute grounds to question Palin's judgment when it comes to her pregnant daughter. A blind pooch can see why you can "bash" her on those grounds.

FACT: Sarah Palin backed Abstinence ONLY education in schools.
FACT: Bristol Palin pregnant at 17 years old.

Some might question Mrs. Palin's judgment when it comes to backing such a program, and expecting it to work wonders for the teenagers in her great state of Alaska. If it didn't work for her own household, how the hell is it going to work for OTHER people's kiddies? This SHOWS her alienation from reality when it comes to her choice of policies. One might even be crazy enough to allude her past decisions and mistakes to potential future judgments made in Washington.

nukchebi0 wrote:

One thing I never understood was how abstinence only education prevented kids from learning about contraceptives. Or is it just that it works on a subconscious level to make kids less inclined to consider safe sex when they inevitably partake in such activities?

TrueMusou wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

One thing I never understood was how abstinence only education prevented kids from learning about contraceptives. Or is it just that it works on a subconscious level to make kids less inclined to consider safe sex when they inevitably partake in such activities?

Most of us has gone through middle school in some form or another where they make you sit through an awkward 2 hours slipping condoms on bananas and watching the HORRORS of a woman giving birth in VHS. The abstinence only education, from what I understand, basically tells you that sex is BAD and you besta resist teenage hormones/angst. They don't inform the children about contraceptives option if they do choose to have sex. I mean, their children, if they aren't told about contraceptives, they won't give a shit. Just think back to the time when you were around those years, priorities was shoving your shlong into a girl and protection was the last thing on your mind.

JahManRed wrote:

Wore out all the Obama hysterics and moved on to his deputy. Nice.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-09-05 00:32:44)

nukchebi0 wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

One thing I never understood was how abstinence only education prevented kids from learning about contraceptives. Or is it just that it works on a subconscious level to make kids less inclined to consider safe sex when they inevitably partake in such activities?

Most of us has gone through middle school in some form or another where they make you sit through an awkward 2 hours slipping condoms on bananas and watching the HORRORS of a woman giving birth in VHS. The abstinence only education, from what I understand, basically tells you that sex is BAD and you besta resist teenage hormones/angst. They don't inform the children about contraceptives option if they do choose to have sex. I mean, their children, if they aren't told about contraceptives, they won't give a shit. Just think back to the time when you were around those years, priorities was shoving your shlong into a girl and protection was the last thing on your mind.

I was just saying that it is so easy to hear about condoms or the pill, or the day after pill, from other kids during school, not necessarily in a certain sex ed class, that it seems difficult to believe anyone would not know they exist. So I was wondering if a high school sex ed class that stressed not having sex and didn't repeatedly drill in the need to use contraceptives should you choose to do so made kids less inclined to use them when they had sex, regardless of whether they knew about these contraceptives or not.