Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have to admit, Sarah Palin fascinates me. She makes so many faux pas that I'm sometimes half-convinced that she's putting it on. Then I look at my own country, see Nick Griffin of the BNP ranting about races who aren't the right shade of white and how the Holocaust death-camps were built by Stalin and the super-Jews as a hoax, and privately think:
"At least she isn't a raving racist."


Besides, her claiming North Korea as an ally made me laugh.

I remember seeing a video of Matt Damon talking about Sarah Palin. . . I also remember laughing and calling Matt Damon my hero. . . I am going to go look for this video.

Yeah i saw that video mate.. funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phEa_BNxeLI&feature=fvsr

I think Sarah Palin is given more credence than she otherwise would as a potential republican candidate simply because who else is there in the party now? Certainly no one with the kind of name recognition she has and if you ask a bunch of die hard Republicans, "Palin or Obama," it's not hard to predict how they'll swing.

Do you think that's due to a lack of "talent"/whatever to draw from or people keeping their heads down at the moment, kind of biding their time plan ?

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I have to admit, Sarah Palin fascinates me. She makes so many faux pas that I'm sometimes half-convinced that she's putting it on. Then I look at my own country, see Nick Griffin of the BNP ranting about races who aren't the right shade of white and how the Holocaust death-camps were built by Stalin and the super-Jews as a hoax, and privately think:
"At least she isn't a raving racist."


Besides, her claiming North Korea as an ally made me laugh.

Hee hee, our current VP has the same problem!

Anyway, I think the big draw for Palin is that a lot of conservatives look at her story and hear her speek and become convinced that she shares their values on everything from guns to taxes. This is appealing for people who have elected people to do one thing only to see them do another; the idea apparently being that values are more important than raw intellegence when leading a nation (I'd argue a successful leader needs both). If you believe that the media has no values, the attacks on Palin suddenly becomes a good vs. bad issue. That's a shame, for while I think a lot of the negative sentiment against her is unfounded, I think it's an oversimplification to say that evil liberal media outlets are after an innoncent, hard-working American. Better to point out legitimate shortcomings in experience and knowledge and argue issues IMO. I would also argue that the same process, in reverse, played a big part in President Obama's election.

I think that at this point she has as good a chance as anyone to gain the nomination, but as others pointed out I'm not convinced that she has a wide enough appeal to be competitive in a national election.

Quick query, with regards to this article : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hunter-becomes-the-hunted-as-palin-critics-say-she-cant-shoot-2153973.html

With regards to the comments about

failure to take practice shots, or check the sights of the rifle, which duly turned out to be off-kilter. She failed to carry her own weapon, relying on her elderly father and his companion, Steve, to lug it around. When a beast eventually wandered into range, Ms Palin left Chuck Snr to load the rifle, and discharge spent bullet casings.

Is it really common to take "warm up " shots/similar before hand ? I would have thought these would have scared off any animals in the area. Also do sights need adjusting often then ?

while being passed the firearm, Ms Palin immediately moved her finger inside its trigger guard, a breach of basic safety rules. After missing the caribou several times, she then appeared to panic and shot at the beast while it was still moving, a technique usually avoided by all but the very best marksmen.

..okay.. trigger guard ? I assume this is done so it doesn't go off early/by accident then yes ? Like a "safety" or something ?

And is a moving animal -- of that size -- significantly harder to hit than a still one ?

The trigger guard is the piece linking the grip to the magazine receiver.

reds8n wrote: ..okay.. trigger guard ? I assume this is done so it doesn't go off early/by accident then yes ? Like a "safety" or something ?

Yes a properly trained shooter will not put their finger inside the trigger guard (on the trigger) until ready to fire. Now there are lots of yayhoos however that are not taught properly. I see them at the range all the time. We like to think they are all Damnyankees

Okay.

In the picture Mr. Dogma posted, as long as the safety catch ( yes ?) is switched to safe, then it won't fire even if you pull the trigger right ? I guess some/most/a lot of rifles don't have a safety then ? Hence the don't put your finger on the trigger training Frazz mentions ?

reds8n wrote:Okay.

In the picture Mr. Dogma posted, as long as the safety catch ( yes ?) is switched to safe, then it won't fire even if you pull the trigger right ? I guess some/most/a lot of rifles don't have a safety then ? Hence the don't put your finger on the trigger training Frazz mentions ?

The first part is accurate. The second not. The point is that, unless you're ready to fire, common training is never to put your finger on the trigger. You never know if the safety has been engaged (frankly it shouldn't be cocked if its being passed between people). If you're careful every time as routine, you won't up the one time it matters. It aint tiddly winks and people end up dead.

Yeah, its just procedural redundancy to ensure that the gun won't go off when you don't want it to do so.

reds8n wrote:In the picture Mr. Dogma posted, as long as the safety catch ( yes ?) is switched to safe, then it won't fire even if you pull the trigger right ? I guess some/most/a lot of rifles don't have a safety then ? Hence the don't put your finger on the trigger training Frazz mentions ?

Wrong - a safety is a mechanical device and can fail. It's an extra piece of insurance to prevent an accidental discharge from things like a leaf snagging the trigger as you go through brush. It is not there to replace basic gun safety - you put your finger on the trigger when you are ready to fire, not before. Hollywood usually shows people running around with their finger on the trigger, but if you look at footage of actual soldiers or an actual SWAT team, you'll notice that while they're moving around their index finger goes straight along the side of the gun.

FYI most rifles have a safety like you're thinking (something like an on-off switch), lots of pistols (including almost all revolvers) don't have a safety switch like that at all. Some have a trigger safety (a piece on the trigger that has to be pressed in that somehing snagging won't catch), a grip safety (piece at the back of the grip so that if you're not holding it it won't fire), are double action (very heavy trigger pull unless cocked), or some combination of those. Not pulling the trigger works for all of them