The Defenders of Wildlife, who today came out in support of Obama/Biden, needs $100,000 to air television ads on Sarah Palin's support, advocacy and participation in the inhumane, aerial wolf slaughter. It reveals the true blood-lust nature of this very dangerous woman.

I believe this video was already posted here recently. But seeing it here is preaching to the choir. This brutality - which in no way, shape or form could possibly pass as "hunting" - must be seen by more people than those who populate DU. It must be seen by the people who turn their heads and hide their eyes when such subjects are even hinted at. These are the people who must have their nightly t.v. doses of reality programs interrupted with True Reality. Especially if they are McCain/Palin supporters, let this interrupt and jar their t.v. viewing with their children in the comfort of their living rooms and then have to explain to their kids why they want this woman to be our next Vice President. Or the next time they rent "Balto", let them envision and explain again to their kids how the animated wolf is any different from the real-life wolf being butchered from the air compliments of Mrs. Palin and the Good Ole Boys she claims to disavow.

In her recent Gibson inerview, when Palin was asked about gun possession, one of the words she used as justification was "ethical". As in: as long as guns are used ethically. How anyone in their right mind, with any semblance of a conscience, (which would describe Palin) could condone this aerial savagery as "ethical" is beyond the realm of my comprehension.

I also wonder how many who may already be aware of this inhumane practice and for some God-awful reason have no problem with it, are not aware, however, that she rewards these alleged "hunters" if they present the severed forelegs of the poor defenseless creatures, who are run to the ground, harassed by small planes and then repeatedly shot in their backs till they drop from exhaustion.

A minimum of $20 would be very helpful. $40 even better. I made my $40 via their 800# just this afternoon. I wish it could have been more. You'll find their plea and instructions as to how you can help here: http://www.defendersactionfund.org /
Thanks, organic

 
Sorry, but the last thing Obama/Biden need is this kind of allusion and comparison to a deity and the governor who ordered that deity's crucifixion. Remember all the trouble John Lennon got into for making an innocent and much misconstrued statement that he was more popular than Jesus? Anyone w/any brains knew that he was making a social commentary as to how ridiculous it was for people to be so obsessed with a singing group and elevate them to such importance so as to make them more significant in the scheme of things than a respected, much-believed and honored deity. Lennon would have loved Jon Stewart.

Seriously, anyone w/a voice to be heard by more than a handful of people, and who happens to support Obama, should chose their words carefully. After all, didn't Obama just make a statement this afternoon about how words can be misconstrued, misunderstood, taken out of context or plain twisted and played ad infinitum by the conservative talking heads? **See "lipstick on a pig", a reference tossed around Washington for years. Uh..."Hello"...even McCain used it towards Hillary. **

Along comes this guy and hands a statement to those pinheads that even they don't have to misinterpret. He should leave the metaphors, analogies and sarcasm to those who can do it better. Did I mention Jon Stewart???

According to this article in the WSJ http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1217458405511... affluent McMansioners in the Middle Atlantic states are using their chump change (which can amount to 1/3 of some people's annual salaries) to dig incredibly deep private wells for private use solely to water their manicured acres and circumvent drought restrictions placed upon use of municipal water for such petty purposes. Just because you may have rights to that water under your property, doesn't mean you have the moral or ethical right to squander a precious natural resource (especially in times of drought) to maintain a few little green meatball-foundation plants, a pot of petunias or a lawn, which will just go dormant and bounce back when some rains and cooler weather return.

The fact that the continued practice of tapping into these aquifers may destroy the bedrock and surrounding ground structure; the fact that this could impact water supplies of those less well off and dependent on more shallow wells; the fact that even municipalities ultimately depend on underground water supplies; the fact that imposition of drought restrictions are increasing as more and more parts of this nation become parched; and the fact that using a precious, natural resource necessary for human viability for such (pardon the pun) 'shallow', fatuous purposes is beyond frivolous. It's shameful. In a world where water will also become as scarce and coveted as oil, it's shameful and provides yet another reasons for foreign nations to hate us.

The rich get richer and greener lawns, too. As if the later matters.

There is no such thing as an "ex-gay". Except in the pathetically delusional minds of some homosexuals who refuse to acknowledge their own true sexuality due to fear & intimidation from a narrow-minded, ostracizing prejudiced society.

So, what is it called when a person or a group promises (and in some cases takes money for those promises) to do something or provide a service that they can't possibly accomplish?

Hmmmmm? Oh, yeah. Criminal. Yeah, that's it: Criminal. "Taking money under fall pretenses", "Ponzi scheme", etc. I'm sure any 3rd grade lawyer could have a field day w/that one.

McCain's handlers would have chosen any woman on their short list of substitute-Romneys. Reason? To catch the overflow from the former, now-disenfranchised Hillary supporters who let it be known even during the Dem convention that they'd jump ship and swim over to the Republican's yacht simply because they wanted a woman to continue hacking away at that glass ceiling. When the handlers scrolled down the list, they just happened to stop at "P".

I want to see a woman in the white house before I leave this mortal coil, but not on those terms. Not just because she's female. (I am one, btw and been a feminist since the late 60's). It's pandering at it's most obvious. If those former Hillary supporters - or any other women - are too blind to see this for what it is, then it makes me ashamed of my own gender.

This is my virgin post here, so I hope it's alright if I just jump right into the fray.

I agree on point, but disagree w/the ignore factor. Palin is the elephant in the room. Ignoring her won't fly. However, I do agree that attacks or even subliminal jabs at her personal life is playing the Republican's card. That's their style. One of their largest voter bases are the gullible masses (who wouldn't know satire or nuance if it hit them upside the head) but will respond positively & loudly to dirty politic tactics (i.e. name-calling, below-the-belt tactics, etc.) as long as it comes from their beloved Republican talking heads. BUT, they'll lock and load and come out swinging if the same cheap jabs emanate from the so-called "bleeding heart, Lefty liberal Democrats. **Watch - if you can stand it - any O'Reilly show to see the magic of the double standard in action**

Additionally, focusing on Palin's creationist theories, her anti-choice stance, her "God's will in Iraq" bull, her need for Cliff Notes On How To Be A Vice-President and her penchant to rape the natural resources of her own state because...again..."it's God's will".....will only make the knuckle-draggers dig in their bare heels and intensify their support.

Rather, project that focus on her issues' stance to the hearts & minds of those straddling the fence and especially to those disenfranchised Hillary supporters who seem willing to abandon the ideologies of their former candidate and the Democratic Party entirely simply because Palin has a vagina (**thanks Samantha Bee**), that's where such focus would produce the most positive results in debunking Palin. (BTW: I can say that because I have one, too. )