The Palin Hoax

[SnakeBoy]

:lmao at the MSM and you retards who believe anything you hear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?em


A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?

“That’s a really good question,” one of the two, Eitan Gorlin, said with a laugh.

(For what it’s worth, another reporter for The New York Times is an acquaintance of Mr. Gorlin and vouches for his identity, and Mr. Gorlin is indeed “Mr. Eisenstadt” in those videos. He and his partner in deception, Dan Mirvish, have entries on the Internet Movie Database, imdb.com. But still. ...)

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he said. “It should not have made air.”

But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.

The hoax began a year ago with short videos of a parking valet character, who Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish said was the original idea for a TV series.

Soon there were videos showing him driving a car while spouting offensive, opinionated nonsense in praise of Rudolph W. Giuliani. Those videos attracted tens of thousands of Internet hits and a bit of news media attention.

When Mr. Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, the character morphed into Eisenstadt, a parody of a blowhard cable news commentator.

Mr. Gorlin said they chose the name because “all the neocons in the Bush administration had Jewish last names and Christian first names.”

Eisenstadt became an adviser to Senator John McCain and got a blog, updated occasionally with comments claiming insider knowledge, and other bloggers began quoting and linking to it. It mixed weird-but-true items with false ones that were plausible, if just barely.

The inventors fabricated the Harding Institute, named for one of the most scorned presidents, and made Eisenstadt a senior fellow.

It didn’t hurt that a man named Michael Eisenstadt is a real expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and is quoted in the mainstream media. The real Mr. Eisenstadt said in an interview that he was only dimly aware of the fake one, and that his main concern was that people understood that “I had nothing to do with this.”

Before long Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish had produced a short documentary on Martin Eisenstadt, supposedly for the BBC, posted in several parts on YouTube.

In June they produced what appeared to be an interview with Eisenstadt on Iraqi television promoting construction of a casino in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Then they sent out a news release in which he apologized. Outraged Iraqi bloggers protested the casino idea.

Among the Americans who took that bait was Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. A few hours later Mr. Stein put up a post on the magazine’s political blog, with the title “Hoax Alert: Bizarre ‘McCain Adviser’ Too Good to Be True,” and explained how he had been fooled.

In July, after the McCain campaign compared Senator Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, the Eisenstadt blog said “the phone was burning off the hook” at McCain headquarters, with angry calls from Ms. Hilton’s grandfather and others. A Los Angeles Times political blog, among others, retold the story, citing Eisenstadt by name and linking to his blog.

Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.

Among those taken in by Monday’s confession about the Palin Africa report was The New Republic’s political blog. Later the magazine posted this atop the entry: “Oy — this would appear to be a hoax. Apologies.”

But the truth was out for all to see long before the big-name take-downs. For months sourcewatch.org has identified Martin Eisenstadt as a hoax. When Mr. Stein was the victim, he blogged that “there was enough info on the Web that I should have sussed this thing out.”

And then there is William K. Wolfrum, a blogger who has played Javert to Eisenstadt’s Valjean, tracking the hoaxster across cyberspace and repeatedly debunking his claims. Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish praised his tenacity, adding that the news media could learn something from him.

“As if there isn’t enough misinformation on this election, it was shocking to see so much time wasted on things that didn’t exist,” Mr. Wolfrum said in an interview.

And how can we know that Mr. Wolfrum is real and not part of the hoax?

Long pause. “Yeah, that’s a tough one.”

[DisAsTerBot]

who cares ...it's over.....they lost...

[ChumpDumper]

This article said nothing about the Palin stories' being false -- just that a fictitious blogger took credit for the leak.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It also didn't say whether Africa is a continent or a country. I need to know for a bet.

[SnakeBoy]

This article said nothing about the Palin stories' being false -- just that a fictitious blogger took credit for the leak.

Dude, you cannot be this stupid. The "source" was a hoax but the stories are true? She was running around shopping at Saks but nobody ever recognized her and the media who was following her every move never saw her shopping?

I guess you just want to cling to your beliefs no matter what. At least FOX News has the courage to own up to their mistake. The headline they are going with is "MSNBC Duped" :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I'm just going by the article. From what i heard the Africa thing was more asking a clarification whether the whole continent was being discussed or just something like South Africa. Fox seemed to distort that into not knowing Africa was a continent.

Where do you see Fox owning up to their mistake?

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you should read the AP story on the Fox site in its entirety.

It says exactly what I did, dumbass.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/msnbc-retracts-false-palin-story-duped/

Seventh paragraph, if you have trouble finding it.

[ChumpDumper]

Finished it yet?

Trying to find a way to deny it?

Thinking up a change of subject to save yourself further embarrassment?

[DarrinS]

LOL at anyone who actually BELIEVED Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. :lol

[boutons_]

As it's a pitbull bitch thread:

Sarah Palin Baffles Reporters By Rehashing Stump Speech At RGA Conference (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/sarah-palin-baffles-repor_n_143620.html)

"Jonathan Capehart told MSNBC's David Shuster, "I watched her entire speech, and I had to remind myself that the election was a week ago, and this was not a McCain/Palin rally." Is that crazy white-haired lady who thought Obama was "an Arab" a Republican Governor? Probably! "Everything you heard at a McCain/Palin rally since she was selected as the Vice Presidential nominee since September, and even down to the same rhetoric was in that speech," said Capehart."

========

She's so weird, I bet she would be tested as mentally deranged to some degree.

[SnakeBoy]

Where do you see Fox owning up to their mistake?

That was sarcasm :lol. Maybe you are that dumb after all.


Finished it yet?


:lol Let's see, I mention an article that you haven't read. You search for it and now try to act like I haven't read it. Fuck you are an idiot. The point of the article is Fox trying to over their ass and take a shot a MSNBC. Oh well, you'll probably wise up to the shoddy media we have in this country over the next 4 years when they turn all of their incompetence loose on your messiah.

[ChumpDumper]

That was sarcasm :lol. Maybe you are that dumb after allAh, changing the subject it is!




:lol Let's see, I mention an article that you haven't read. You search for it and now try to act like I haven't read it. Fuck you are an idiot. The point of the article is Fox trying to over their ass and take a shot a MSNBC. Oh well, you'll probably wise up to the shoddy media we have in this country over the next 4 years when they turn all of their incompetence loose on your messiah.Now flat out denial is the order of the day.

1) It is not a Fox News story. It is a story from the AP.

2) It states quite plainly that the actual charges in the story have nothing to do with the hoax. The hoax has to do with the person claiming to be the source of the information, not the information itself.

Read paragraph seven slowly. Get someone to help you, because you don't understand the words.

[ChumpDumper]

Here is the AP link.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiO_hn-5SfG9hdADHuRZ6hEDqNRAD94DQU5O0

It's still in paragraph seven.

It's still owning you.

[ploto]

Capehart added, "She needs to stop." And, according to David Shuster, 52% of people polled agree that it's time for Sarah Palin to go home.

Does anyone care what she thinks about anything? She showed a lack of knowledge and even basic interest in a lot of issues, and now we are supposed to care what she thinks.

[Bender]

...

[clambake]

just testing my new sig, move along...

i see that if you peel off that black sticker, you get down to the white goodness.

have you ever heard of "discretion"?

[DarrinS]

This just in: Sarah Palin thinks Alaska is a country -- not a state.

Believe it.

[clambake]

This just in: Sarah Palin thinks Alaska is a country -- not a state.

Believe it.

i would absolutely love to see palin win the republican primaries in 2012.

[Wild Cobra]

Great. Not only are the unnamed sources, unnamed... They are also not real!

It doesn't surprise me that people like Dan Mirvish
are the culprits. A former speech writer for Tom Harkin (democrat Ohio.) A partisan attack by an alias of a democrat pundit rather than any internal strife inside the McCain camp.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously. You guys need to learn how to read.

[PixelPusher]

This just in: Sarah Palin thinks Alaska is a country -- not a state.

Believe it.

Actually, her husband was a member of a political party that wants Alaska to be a country -- not a state.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, her husband was a member of a political party that wants Alaska to be a country -- not a state.

Why do liberals like you so easily accept the media's lies and propaganda?

Todd Palin was a member of the party that this is attributed to. However, that is not part of the parties beliefs. Some of the members advocated such a belief. Not the party as a whole.

Please keep up with the facts.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, it's called the Alaska Independence Party because they don't want to be independent!

Fools!


The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

[Findog]

Seriously. You guys need to learn how to read.

Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative.

- John Stuart Mill

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, it's called the Alaska Independence Party because they don't want to be independent!

Fools!

The statement you quote, I was aware of. It has the option of being a state without saying they prefer otherwise. You see, the natives of Alaska were not part of the voting process to be a state. They simply want a valid statewide vote. Dig a little deeper, on what the members say:

AIP Platform (http://www.akip.org/2008Platform.pdf):


Platform and Goal of the Alaskan Independence Party

Preamble:

We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.
Platform.

We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

2. To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

3. To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.

4. To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.

5. To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.

6. To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.

7. To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.

8. To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.

9. To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.

10. To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.

11. To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.

12. To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.

13. To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

14. To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.

15. To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.

16. To support the privatization of government services.

17. To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.

18. To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.

19. To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.

20. To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"

Confirmed by Statewide Convention
Fairbanks, Alaska 2008
All other copies are void

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, I forgot. You have a simple mind. You can read the 20 items, and not realize they are sopprting Independance as "States Rights." Not necessarily as in succession.

They just want that valid vote. Do you think they think the vote would go otherwise than to be part of the USA? If so. Think again. I see it as a matter of principle.

[Nbadan]

The Palin Hoax

Redundancy

[ChumpDumper]

So the Alaska Independence Party's goal is to be able to vote for independence.

I can see your confusion. :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

So the Alaska Independence Party's goal is to be able to vote for independence.

I can see your confusion. :lmao

And I see yours. You don't know what 'principles' are.

[ChumpDumper]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

Q: Aren't most Alaskan Independence Party members a bunch of radicals and Kooks?

A: The party has its share of individualists, in the grand Alaskan tradition. No longer a fringe party, the A.I.P. is a viable third party with a serious mission and qualified candidates for elected offices.

Q: If Alaska became independent, wouldn't we lose a lot of federal money?

A: No. If Alaska returned to territorial status, most federal money would still be available. If Alaska were to attain complete independence, its revenues from oil and other natural resources would far exceed the amounts currently received from the federal government, at our current level of resource utilization.

Q: If Alaska were independent, what would happen to my social security check, federal pension, or military retirement?

A: People receive these checks around the world, regardless of their place of residence. In most cases eligibility for such checks would not be affected by Alaskan independence.

Q: If Alaska became independent, would U.S. military bases leave?

A: The strategic location of Alaska would indicate that it would serve U.S. interests to maintain a presence in Alaska. The military are good neighbors. There would be no compelling reason for the military to leave Alaska.

Q: Didn't we vote for statehood already?

A: The vote for statehood was invalid because the people were not presented with the range of options available to them. Further, the federal government has since breached the contract for statehood on numerous occasions in over a dozen serious and substantial instances.

Q: Under independence, what would happen to all the federal controls and regulations?

A: We believe that controls should be exerted by the lowest possible governmental unit. The people of Alaska can better decide what controls need to be in place than can bureaucrats in Washington. Specific local regulation might be either more or less restrictive than current federal regulation. The point is that it will be our regulation, not Washington's.

Q: Would I lose my U.S. citizenship?

A: Depending on the form of independence, several forms of citizenship would be possible, including the retention of U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. However, considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline.

Q: What will happen to major U.S. stores such as Sears, Safeway, and McDonald's?

A: Any company which found it profitable to sell in Alaska would remain. Without the constraints of the deteriorating U.S. economy, and with the enormous wealth of Alaska, international as well as local companies will prosper.

http://www.akip.org/faqs.html

Yeah, they don't believe in Alaskan independence at all. :rollin

[Wild Cobra]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.
----
http://www.akip.org/faqs.html

Yeah, they don't believe in Alaskan independence at all. :rollin


An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

You fool. You even quote something that states members think differently, yet stick to a single point? They do not advocate separation as a group. They include it is a fix. All the themes they propose are to increase STATES RIGHTS!

[Wild Cobra]

Chump, you have to take the party as a whole. Not one snippet to define it in your biggoted image of them.

[ChumpDumper]

GOAL

Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

http://www.akip.org/goal.html

This is their ultimate goal, spelled out so even the stupidest escalating whiny internets tough guy could understand it.

[ChumpDumper]

Really, this party worked with the terrorist government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to try to raise a stink at the UN about Alaskan independence.

What is your defense for that, WC?

[PixelPusher]

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.


"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

"... the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag..."

- Joe Vogler

[Wild Cobra]

Really, this party worked with the terrorist government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to try to raise a stink at the UN about Alaskan independence.

What is your defense for that, WC?

Source?

Link?

Credibility?

[Wild Cobra]

GOAL

Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

http://www.akip.org/goal.html

This is their ultimate goal, spelled out so even the stupidest escalating whiny internets tough guy could understand it.

Please take off those lenses of biggoty from once. They do not say the goal is separation.

"Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives."

They also want a proper vote if to be a state that was not given to them in 1958. So what. Demading the choice is not the same as demanding a specific coice of the four options.

[ChumpDumper]

Source?

Link?

Credibility?Why should I have to reveal my methodology to such an obvious idiot such as yourself? I said it, now your job is to suck on it.

[ChumpDumper]

Please take off those lenses of biggoty from once. They do not say the goal is separation.

"Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.":lmao

Nice selective bolding.

How about just bolding without skipping around?

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.



That's their GOAL.

They say it's their GOAL.

It's on a web page named GOAL.

You say it isn't their GOAL after reading and posting their GOAL.

Is this some kind of an act?

[Wild Cobra]

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

[/B]

That's their GOAL.

They say it's their GOAL.

It's on a web page named GOAL.

You say it isn't their GOAL after reading and posting their GOAL.

Is this some kind of an act?

Yep, they want to reaffirm statehood status because they never had a proper vote in 1958.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, here's the text of a ballot initiative some folks tried to put before Alaskan voters last year:


AN INITIATIVE REQUIRING THE STATE OF ALASKA TO VOTE ON
SEEKING CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS TO AUTHORIZE ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
(1) At the next regular election, the following question shall be presented to the voters of
the State of Alaska for approval or rejection:
Shall the State of Alaska seek changes in existing law and Constitutional provisions to
authorize it to obtain independence from the United States of America?
(2) If this question is not answered affirmatively when this question is presented to the
voters, then this question shall be placed before the voters of Alaska every ten years thereafter.
(3) The provisions of this Act are independent and severable, and if any provision of this
Act, or the applicability of any provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Act shall not be affected and
shall be given effect to the fullest extent practicable.

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/07akin.pdf

Certainly the AIP wouldn't bother with something like this, because Wild Cobra said it wasn't their goal.

I have no idea why the current chair of the AIP would have put her name as a sponsor of the petition for the initiative. It must be some kind of typo, or more likely a liberal scheme to go back in time and indirectly impugn Palin over the time-space continuum.

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions/status.php

My God man! It's a vast left-wing conspiracy.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, they want to reaffirm statehood status because they never had a proper vote in 1958.Yes, that is why they named themselves the Alaska Reaffirmation of Existing Statehood Status That We Have Already Had For Fifty Years Party (AROESSTWHAHFFYP). The liberals who control the internets always change it to Independence to keep them down!

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, that is why they named themselves the Alaska Reaffirmation of Existing Statehood Status That We Have Already Had For Fifty Years Party (AROESSTWHAHFFYP). The liberals who control the internets always change it to Independence to keep them down!

So by your reasoning, all political parties that have "Independant" in their name wants to sucede. Right?

[ChumpDumper]

So by your reasoning, all political parties that have "Independant" in their name wants to sucede. Right?Just the ones with leaders and websites that refer to an independent Alaska nonstop and attempt to pass legislation to that end. Ones that have leaders that say they do not consider themselves Americans. Ones that sought out the help of Iran to further their cause in the General Assembly of the UN.

Little things like that tip me off.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, they want to reaffirm statehood status because they never had a proper vote in 1958.And as a strict interpreter of the US Constitution, you of course know that there is no such thing as a proper vote for statehood except by Congress -- which happened in 1958.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, here's the text of a ballot initiative some folks tried to put before Alaskan voters last year:


Since when is "Some Folks" the AIP?

Do you ever do proper research?

First of all, where does it say that state initiative was sponsored by the Alaska Independent Pary. It’s sponsor was Scott A. Kohlhaas, who is a member of the Alaska Libertarian Party. You can verify this by doing a reverse phone number search through 411.com. The petition contact number is his. If you look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004) you will see he ran as a libertarian in the 2004 Alaska senate race. One of the opponents were Jerry Sanders, from the Alaska Independent Party.

[ChumpDumper]

Since when is "Some Folks" the AIP?

Do you ever do proper research?

First of all, where does it say that state initiative was sponsored by the Alaska Independent Pary. It’s sponsor was Scott A. Kohlhaas, who is a member of the Alaska Libertarian Party. You can verify this by doing a reverse phone number search through 411.com. The petition contact number is his. If you look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004) you will see he ran as a libertarian in the 2004 Alaska senate race. One of the opponents were [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sanders]Jerry Sanders, from the Alaska Independent Party.Nice of you to completely ignore the name right after Kohlhaas.

Lynette

Clark

Chair

of

the

Alaskan

Independence

Party

I put each word on its own line so you might be able to comprehend them.

Why didn't you look her up?

Could it be because you're an idiot or a liar?

Which is it?

More than likely you are both.

[ChumpDumper]

"I don't identify myself as an American."

-- Wild Cobra's new hero, Lynette Clark

[chode_regulator]

It also didn't say whether Africa is a continent or a country. I need to know for a bet.
:lmao its a country...no wait...a continent....wait, i thought a country was a continent

LOL at anyone who actually BELIEVED Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. :lol

wasnt there a news agency or maybe obama camp that attacked here for not explaining in detail what the VP deos to a classroom of like 8 year olds? claimed she didnt even know what the VP does. cheney probably still doesnt even know what he is supposed to do.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, Wild Cobra, just in case you neglect to research the third sponsor Linda Winkelman is a former chair and treasurer of the AIP.

You're welcome.

[Wild Cobra]

And as a strict interpreter of the US Constitution, you of course know that there is no such thing as a proper vote for statehood except by Congress -- which happened in 1958.

I could be wrong on that one, but I think a territory had to wish to join as well as congress approving it. Are you saying congress can deprive the vote of the people if it is a territory?

I know. How about we go one step farther, and vote on Alberta, Canada becoming a state!

[ChumpDumper]

I could be wrong on that one, but I think a territory had to wish to join as well as congress approving it. Are you saying congress can deprive the vote of the people if it is a territory?I'm saying the admission of new states is totally up to Congress.


I know. How about we go one step farther, and vote on Alberta, Canada becoming a state!If we invade and conquer it, there is nothing stopping Congress from doing so. Now there are plenty of treaties that would have to be broken, but that's just paperwork.

Read the constitution and tell me where it gives any rights for determining statehood to the residents of a territory.

I'm waiting.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, Wild Cobra, just in case you neglect to research the third sponsor Linda Winkelman is a former chair and treasurer of the AIP.

You're welcome.

I didn't neglect that at all. In fact, Lynette Clark is the Chairman of the party. The chief petitioner is a LIBERTARIAN! This is not an AIP petition. Will you admit that?

My point is, is that it is not an AIP petition. Some members want separation. That does not make it a party position.

I will go another step and suggest that the four options are there on the goals to keep all party members happy. There is obvious disagreement among the idea. That's why they have the range of ideas. No matter how you slice it, they are for states right.

[kwhitegocubs]

Not Alberta! The asses who voted 27 of 28 seats for the Conservatives?

We don't need anymore right-wing, evangelical states.

Why not BC or even the Prairie Provinces?

[Wild Cobra]

Not Alberta! The asses who voted 27 of 28 seats for the Conservatives?

We don't need anymore right-wing, evangelical states.

Why not BC or even the Prairie Provinces?

OK, I'll go along with British Columbia. That way, Alaska would be part of the 'contigiuous' United States!

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't neglect that at all. In fact, Lynette Clark is the Chairman of the party. The chief petitioner is a LIBERTARIAN! This is not an AIP petition. Will you admit that?:lol It's the position of the chair and former chair of the party. These are the people who lead the AIP.


My point is, is that it is not an AIP petition. Some members want separation. That does not make it a party position.It's their stated ultimate goal.


I will go another step and suggest that the four options are there on the goals to keep all party members happy. There is obvious disagreement among the idea. That's why they have the range of ideas. No matter how you slice it, they are for states right.They are for independence, they feign inclusiveness to pad their numbers and money. I don't blame them for doing that -- but only an idiot like you would try to pretend the leaders of this party from the start want anything other than an independent Alaska.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm saying the admission of new states is totally up to Congress.

Agreed. Admission. But when you go to the theatre, you cannot be adnitted without waiting to be there.



Read the constitution and tell me where it gives any rights for determining statehood to the residents of a territory.

I'm waiting.

I'm not sure it's there. Never podered that one until today. However, like I pointed out, I though the terretory had to also request to be part of the states.

I could be wrong on that one.

[ChumpDumper]

Agreed. Admission. But when you go to the theatre, you cannot be adnitted without waiting to be there.Damn you are an idiot.



I'm not sure it's there. Never podered that one until today. However, like I pointed out, I though the terretory had to also request to be part of the states.

I could be wrong on that one.For a self-proclaimed constitutional expert, you don't know much.

Read the constitution and tell me where it says that. Quit making shit up and read one sentence.

I'm waiting.

[DarrinS]

Actually, her husband was a member of a political party that wants Alaska to be a country -- not a state.


<gasp> :wow :sleep

Actually, I wish the same thing for Texas.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do liberals like you so easily accept the media's lies and propaganda?

Todd Palin was a member of the party that this is attributed to. However, that is not part of the parties beliefs. Some of the members advocated such a belief. Not the party as a whole.

Please keep up with the facts.

Yeah you evil liberals! How dare you scorn Sarah Palin, just because her husband was part of an Alaskan Independence Party! Just because the founder said that he hated America! You should know it's not fair to judge people by the company they keep!

[ChumpDumper]

I bet they had dinner at each others homes!

[RandomGuy]

http://www.alaskareport.com/images/sarah-palin2.jpg

=

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4b/Jjportrait.jpg/200px-Jjportrait.jpg




Sarah Palin is the Jar Jar Binks of the Republican party.

[Oh, Gee!!]

maybe WC is confusing "secede" with "succeed." Maybe that's why he can't understand what's happening here. He's probably like "damned libtards don't want Alaska to succeed."

[ChumpDumper]

If Wild Cobra ever read the Constitution, he would know that Congress has the sole power to admit a new state and the people of a territory really don't have much of a say in the matter.

If Wild Cobra ever familiarized himself with Supreme Court decisions like Texas v. White, he would know that there is no recognized secession by plebiscite.

[Wild Cobra]

So, with a vote and a stroke of the pen, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands can all be states without the consent or their people?

So be it. That's not very friendly, is it?

[ChumpDumper]

Have you read it yet?

[Wild Cobra]

Have you read it yet?

Read what? Which posting are you referring to a source in?

Don't bother. It doesn't matter. I have acknowledged I can be wrong about the requirements to become a state. That was not the purpose of my responses here. I find it laughable with all the clear language and facts, you take a position of some, and make it the position of all.

The Palin Hoax started as a thread of lies regarding the Palin's. We started discussing one particular lie. My major point is that it is not the parties platform to separate. Your evidence is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence, but even the goals do not clearly say they with to separate. I have acknowledged that some members of the party want to separate, and you do nothing but twist that fact into making it a party platform. There are several questions I could ask, but your methods of answering end up avoiding the real questions. I'll ask just one:

If the parties goal is to separate from the union, why didn't the party, as a whole, support the measure you brought up?

You have proven I don't know enough of the facts regarding making a territory a state. Be happy with that. At the end of the day, you still have evidence to show separation as a party goal.

You know what, I don't even care if whey wish to separate. They continually, as a state, get fucked by congress. Maybe it should be a goal. I know this much, from what I read and learned recently about the AIP, I would probable join them if I lived in Alaska. I am not a member of any political party. Never have been, and even though I thought I would for my version of operation chaos against Gordon Smith, I an still registered as "Not Affiliated." I consider myself a conservative libertarian. The libertarian party has isn't conservative enough for me, but the AIP seems to be a great mix of both ideals.

Funny now how people vilify others for their desire to be free from federal tyranny. Liberals like yourself, should be a champion of such ideals. Not a pundit against. I guess that just proves once again the hypocrisy of liberal ideals.

[ChumpDumper]

Read what?Th Constitution of the United States of America.


Don't bother. It doesn't matter. I have acknowledged I can be wrong about the requirements to become a state. That was not the purpose of my responses here. I find it laughable with all the clear language and facts, you take a position of some, and make it the position of all.I took the stated goal of the party and made it the stated goal of the party.


The Palin Hoax started as a thread of lies regarding the Palin's. We started discussing one particular lie.Yeah, you couldn't even understand that. You probably still haven't figured it out.


[long winded bullshit]If an independent Alaska isn't their goal, they should say it isn't their goal. They say it is their goal.

[Wild Cobra]

If Wild Cobra ever read the Constitution, he would know that Congress has the sole power to admit a new state and the people of a territory really don't have much of a say in the matter.


If you ever read definitions of words in legal documents like the constitution you would understand the word "admit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/admit)" better:


to admit (third-person singular simple present admits, present participle admitting, simple past and past participle admitted)

(transitive) To allow to enter; to grant entrance, whether into a place, or into the mind, or consideration; to receive; to take; as, they were into his house; to admit a serious thought into the mind; to admit evidence in the trial of a cause.
(transitive) To give a right of entrance; as, a ticket admits one into a playhouse.
(transitive) To allow (one) to enter on an office or to enjoy a privilege; to recognize as qualified for a franchise; as, to admit an attorney to practice law; the prisoner was admitted to bail.
(transitive) To concede as true; to acknowledge or assent to, as an allegation which it is impossible to deny; to own or confess; as, the argument or fact is admitted; he admitted his guilt.
(transitive) To be capable of; to permit; as, the words do not admit such a construction. In this sense, of may be used after the verb, or may be omitted.

To allow a territory to be a state means they wqant to be one in the first place. The question I see the AIP trying to resolve is if the people ever wanted to be admitted!

We see this differently. I do understand the constitution far better than most. I take words as what they do mean rather than that I want them to mean. Beyond that, when some words definitions change over time, I take what the words and phrases meant at the time.

Again, to allow someone enterance, like to a movie, means they have to want to go in first. You don't just drag someone from the home and make them go to the theatre.

[Wild Cobra]

If Wild Cobra ever familiarized himself with Supreme Court decisions like Texas v. White, he would know that there is no recognized secession by plebiscite.

It depends on the legal question trying to be resolved. If someone does make the case that Alaska was never properly admitted to the states, secession is not required.

[Anti.Hero]

I like my sig.

[ChumpDumper]

It depends on the legal question trying to be resolved. If someone does make the case that Alaska was never properly admitted to the states, secession is not required.So you haven't read the United States Constitution.

That explains your complete ignorance.

[ChumpDumper]

If you ever read definitions of words in legal documents like the constitution you would understand the word "admit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/admit)" better:



To allow a territory to be a state means they wqant to be one in the first place. The question I see the AIP trying to resolve is if the people ever wanted to be admitted!

We see this differently. I do understand the constitution far better than most. I take words as what they do mean rather than that I want them to mean. Beyond that, when some words definitions change over time, I take what the words and phrases meant at the time.

Again, to allow someone enterance, like to a movie, means they have to want to go in first. You don't just drag someone from the home and make them go to the theatre.So, you haven't read the constitution.

[samikeyp]

Wait....Africa's a continent too? :wtf

Right...the next thing you will tell me is that Australia is a country too. Hah!

I am not falling for that propaganda!



:lol