The First Ten Lies from Going Rogue

[boutons_deux]

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-11-13-goingroguea.jpg

Posted: November 13, 2009 12:08 AM

The First Ten Lies from Going Rogue (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/the-first-ten-lies-from-e_b_356347.html)

Excerpts from Sarah Palin's Going Rogue have been released by several news agencies (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/palin-book-excerpts-relea_n_355983.html) and other sources who have received advanced copies. Here are the first ten lies from Palin's memoirs:

1. The Cover Byline: Palin didn't write the book by herself. Most books with known ghostwriters list their co-author's name on the cover. In this case it was Lynn Vincent. Going Rogue does not.

2. The Subtitle: An American Life. Aside from her infancy, Palin has really spent very little time outside of Alaska, and according to John McCain's campaign advisors, was shockingly unfamiliar with American geography and American history. "Alaska," as John McPhee noted in his resplendent Coming Into the Country, "is a foreign country...Its nature is its own."


3.Going Rogue features Palin's obsession with Katie Couric and chacterizes the CBS anchor as "badgering." Palin refused to prep for the Couric interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml) because she was more concerned about her popularity in Alaska than about what was best for the campaign. Was it really badgering to ask what books or periodicals Palin read? Palin further claims that Couric suffered from low self-esteem. In fact, according to those close to Palin, it's the former governor who suffers from low self-esteem and frequently projects that onto other women.

4. Palin asserts that there was a "jaded aura" around McCain's political advisors once she entered the campaign. In fact, McCain's aides bent over backwards to protect Palin and to try to get her up to speed on international affairs. In addition to not knowing whether or not Africa was a continent, according to sources in the McCain campaign, Palin also didn't understand the difference between England and Great Britain. And much, much more.

5. Palin contends to have been saddled with legal bills of more than $500,000 resulting from what she calls "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her. The lion's share of those bills resulted from the ethics complaint she filed against herself in a legal maneuver to sidestep the Troopergate charges being brought against her by the bipartisan Alaska Legislative Council.

6. Palin rather astonishingly claims that she was saddled with $50,000 in bills for the legal fees associated with her vice-presidential vetting. A) She was not vetted; B) A McCain campaign advisor says this is "categorically untrue."

7. Palin states that she found out only "minutes" before John McCain's concession speech that she would not be allowed to make remarks of her own introducing McCain. In fact, she had been told at least three times that she would not be allowed to give the speech and kept lying about it in the hopes of creating some last-minute chaos that would allow her to assume the dais.

8. Palin asserts that her effort to award a license for a natural gas transmission line was turning a "pipe dream" into a pipeline. Although she claimed otherwise in her speech at the GOP convention, there is no pipeline. It remains a pipe dream (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/pipe-dreams-to-nowhere-an_b_150035.html).

9. Palin implies that the McCain campaign intentionally bungled the release of information regarding her daughter Bristol's pregnancy and refused to let her rewrite it. In fact, the McCain campaign allowed her to rework the draft, but the original version went out accidentally. Palin reportedly accepted the recalcitrant staff member's apology for the mistake, then when she left, ordered her immediately dismissed of her duties.

10. Palin complains that McCain's senior advisors, most notably Steve Schmidt, forced her to "stick with the script" they provided her. In fact, Schmidt & Co. were encumbered with the task of keeping Palin from lying and misleading people throughout the campaign, from her well-documented lies about the "Bridge to Nowhere" to her duplicities (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/politics/main5128672.shtml) about her husband Todd's assocation with the Alaska Independence Party. Palin's lying to those in the McCain campaign was so troubling to them that they cringed every time she went "off script."

And that's just for starters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/the-first-ten-lies-from-e_b_356347.html?view=print

==============

The fun is only beginning. :lol

[DarrinS]

1. The Cover Byline: Palin didn't write the book by herself. Most books with known ghostwriters list their co-author's name on the cover. In this case it was Lynn Vincent. Going Rogue does not.


And Dreams of my Father doesn't list the name of Bill Ayers.



2. The Subtitle: An American Life. Aside from her infancy, Palin has really spent very little time outside of Alaska, and according to John McCain's campaign advisors, was shockingly unfamiliar with American geography and American history. "Alaska," as John McPhee noted in his resplendent Coming Into the Country, "is a foreign country...Its nature is its own."


Is Alaska any less American than Hawaii? Or Jakarta?

[Supergirl]

And Dreams of my Father doesn't list the name of Bill Ayers.



Is Alaska any less American than Hawaii? Or Jakarta?

WTF does the first comment mean? Bill Ayers didn't help Obama write his book, you're just trying to be inflammatory. But Palin is incapable of putting together a coherent sentence, so it's pretty ridiculous and unethical to not credit the person who actually wrote her book.

I suspect Barack Obama in high school had a better knowledge of American history and geography than Palin does TODAY. And he's certainly much more familiar with America and America's problems than Palin is.

[Ignignokt]

WTF does the first comment mean? Bill Ayers didn't help Obama write his book, you're just trying to be inflammatory. But Palin is incapable of putting together a coherent sentence, so it's pretty ridiculous and unethical to not credit the person who actually wrote her book.

I suspect Barack Obama in high school had a better knowledge of American history and geography than Palin does TODAY. And he's certainly much more familiar with America and America's problems than Palin is.




57 States


ROFL:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmaox100000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[DarrinS]

WTF does the first comment mean? Bill Ayers didn't help Obama write his book, you're just trying to be inflammatory. But Palin is incapable of putting together a coherent sentence, so it's pretty ridiculous and unethical to not credit the person who actually wrote her book.


In this book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, author Christopher Anderson notes:

"In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams from My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."




I suspect Barack Obama in high school had a better knowledge of American history and geography than Palin does TODAY. And he's certainly much more familiar with America and America's problems than Palin is.


I'm sure Obama has a higher IQ than Palin.

BTW, why are you so angry?

[ChumpDumper]

In this book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, author Christopher Anderson notes:

"In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams from My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."So, no proof.

[Ignignokt]

So, no proof.

Ayers writing, if true.

[DarrinS]

So, no proof.


How do you prove a particular person wrote a book?

[Ignignokt]

How are any of those lies?

It's only lies if you choose to pick McCain's aide's side of the story. There are no proof of lies, and i find it quite funny a liberal outfit finally finds it fit to side with McCain when it suits them.

[ElNono]

Who cares?

[ChumpDumper]

How do you prove a particular person wrote a book?You're serious?

[DarrinS]

You're serious?


Other than videotaping the person writing the book, how would you prove it? Comparison with other writings?

[ChumpDumper]

Other than videotaping the person writing the book, how would you prove it? Comparison with other writings?Ghost writers are paid, and usually in close contact with the purported author for an extended period of time during the writing process. Is that true of Obama and Ayers?

[ChumpDumper]

And I'm not sure if a couple of similarities in writing would qualify as proof that a certain person wrote a book.

For example, John McCain and/or his collaborator on his autobiographies, Mark Slater, simply plagiarized the text of a speech made by Jeane Kirkpatrick.


It was his faith, in the United States and in the world, in the human capacity, that Scoop Jackson centrally placed in the major debates of American political life for forty years... Some people trace the origins of that faith in the quiet dignity of his Norwegian immigrant parents. Some people see the solidification of the faith they gave their son when, as a young Congressman from the State of Washington, he witnessed the inhumanity of the Third Reich at a Nazi concentration camp and reflected the rest of his life on that terrible experience. At Buchenwald, he saw the measure of evil in human nature and the terrible power that intolerance and hate wields when it is sanctioned in a political system. For the rest of his life, he sought to establish realistic means by which the dread effects of governments that lend legitimacy to the worst impulses of mankind can be restrained.


Scoop had faith. He had faith in his country, faith in the rightness of her causes. He had faith that our founding ideals were universal... Until the day he died, he never wavered in his faith, not once. Henry Martin Jackson was the son of Norwegian immigrants... In his third term in Congress, he traveled to Germany at the end of the war. He visited Buchenwald eleven days after the concentration camp had been liberated. There he saw the measure of evil in human nature and the terrible power hate and intolerance wield when sanctioned by a political system. He left Buchenwald having gained a great moral clarity... He became an unyielding opponent to governments that gave legitimacy to the worst impulses of man.

http://mccain.voterfactcheck.com/facts/11/mccain_autobiography_plagiarizes_kirkpatrick_34791 2.shtml

Does that mean that it was actually Kirkpatrick that wrote Worth Fighting For?

No.

[DarrinS]

Ghost writers are paid, and usually in close contact with the purported author for an extended period of time during the writing process. Is that true of Obama and Ayers?

Jack Cashill, a PhD in American Studies at Purdue, suspects Ayers has written Dreams from my Father. He has some pretty compelling blogs about it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/andersen_book_blows_ayers_cove.html

[ChumpDumper]

Jack Cashill, a PhD in American Studies at Purdue, suspects Ayers has written Dreams from my Father. He has some pretty compelling blogs about it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/andersen_book_blows_ayers_cove.htmlHe seems pretty bitter that no one agrees with him or really cares for that matter.

[jack sommerset]

I love how people beat this woman down anytime she has anything to say or anyone has anything good to say about her. I remember when they called her a "Rockstar". Some idiot actually wrote this article about her. So obvious the left is scared to death of this girl.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-rock-star/

[Supergirl]

Jack Cashill, a PhD in American Studies at Purdue, suspects Ayers has written Dreams from my Father. He has some pretty compelling blogs about it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/andersen_book_blows_ayers_cove.html

He makes a really good case for Ayers mentoring Obama in the writing process, but even goes on to say quite explicitly the ways in which Ayers' writing is very different from Obama's.

It's not cleae to me how what Ayers did (if in fact he did it) is any different from a thesis advisor working with a thesis student. Writers frequently have mentors to help them craft their narrative along the way. A ghost writer is someone who writes the thing for you. Even this guy's own blog doesn't make much a case for that, other than saying that was his "first thought" when he was reading Obama and Ayers. But his associations are so loose I could imagine a lot of his "first thoughts" are not all that grounded in reality...

[Wild Cobra]

WTF does the first comment mean? Bill Ayers didn't help Obama write his book, you're just trying to be inflammatory.
There is very strong evidence that he did!

[Wild Cobra]

The very most stupid think I find about this thread is that it relies on the words of a Huffington Post article.

They don't have a very good accuracy you know. They are far left in their bias.

[ChumpDumper]

The very most stupid think I find about this thread is that it relies on the words of a Huffington Post article.

They don't have a very good accuracy you know. They are far left in their bias.Do you think Cashill might have a bias?

[TheProfessor]

Who cares?
Evidently, quite a few people.

[boutons_deux]

"beat this woman down anytime she has anything to say or anyone has anything good to say about her"

Because she very little to say of any value, and there's really nothing to say good about her as a politician.

The right wing gave an ignorant, incompetent, superficial, trashy asshole with dubya, who gaves us two permanent wars, one mismanged, the other bogus. That's why McLiar coudn't and didn't run the Repug record.

A large majority of America doesn't want another ignorant, incompetent, superficial, trashy asshole.

[DarrinS]

"beat this woman down anytime she has anything to say or anyone has anything good to say about her"

Because she very little to say of any value, and there's really nothing to say good about her as a politician.

The right wing gave an ignorant, incompetent, superficial, trashy asshole with dubya, who gaves us two permanent wars, one mismanged, the other bogus. That's why McLiar coudn't and didn't run the Repug record.

A large majority of America doesn't want another ignorant, incompetent, superficial, trashy asshole.



Why are you so angry?

[Crookshanks]

Why are you so angry?
I've been asking him that question for at least a year now. Something really bad must've happened to him to make him such a mean, hateful and angry person. Anything having anything to do with God, conservatives, George W. Bush, the war, or the Republican party just sends him into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

[DarrinS]

I've been asking him that question for at least a year now. Something really bad must've happened to him to make him such a mean, hateful and angry person. Anything having anything to do with God, conservatives, George W. Bush, the war, or the Republican party just sends him into a foaming-at-the-mouth rage.


Botched circumcision?

[FromWayDowntown]

The very most stupid think I find about this thread is that it relies on the words of a Huffington Post article.

They don't have a very good accuracy you know. They are far left in their bias.

What we should really do is look for a far right counterpoint to prove that the Huffington Post article is nothing but lies about lies!

[Wild Cobra]

What we should really do is look for a far right counterpoint to prove that the Huffington Post article is nothing but lies about lies!
Not at all. Just verify anything said. Full context used also. Not just snippets.

[Winehole23]

Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.

[Wild Cobra]

Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.
Well, my experience with articles from the likes of the Huffington Post, Common Dreams, and a few other organizations is that they are seldom ever accurate in the viewpoint they present.

Are you saying otherwise?

[ChumpDumper]

Not at all. Just verify anything said. Full context used also. Not just snippets.You'll just move the goalposts again.

[spursncowboys]

Winehole is arguing out of pure partisanship. This list is a far stretch and just shows the elitist views from both parties. The Political class of America are scared of Palin.

[clambake]

:lol
Winehole is arguing out of pure partisanship. This list is a far stretch and just shows the elitist views from both parties. The Political class of America are scared of Palin.

[ChumpDumper]

I welcome Palin and her worshipers. She is obviously their messiah.

[Winehole23]

Well, my experience with articles from the likes of the Huffington Post, Common Dreams, and a few other organizations is that they are seldom ever accurate in the viewpoint they present.

Are you saying otherwise?If you're talking about "accuracy" of "viewpoint" HuffPo is self-consciously progressive and liberal. They don't bother to hide it, and you obviously dislike it. I strongly suspect this may be your main beef with them, WC.

If you're talking about factual veracity, IMO they're not noticeably worse than any other news aggregator.

[Winehole23]

Winehole is arguing out of pure partisanship. This list is a far stretch and just shows the elitist views from both parties. The Political class of America are scared of Palin.I have never registered as a Democrat.

I have never voted for a Democrat to be POTUS.

Had there been no Ron Paul, Sarah Palin would've made voting for McCain impossible for me. It was already pretty distasteful, but I probably would've held my nose and pulled the lever, assuming no RP and no Sarah.

Me voting for Obama was never, ever in the cards.





Mere disagreement on a given topic apparently causes you to jump to the conclusion that the poster must be of the other political persuasion.

It's a boorish way to respond to adversity, SnC, and it's pretty irritating too. Please cut it out. I'll be happy to respond to any question you might have about my political persuasion you put directly to me. Assuming that you know it because I happen to disagree with you is, well, very irritating. Hmm?

[Wild Cobra]

If you're talking about factual veracity, IMO they're not noticeably worse than any other news aggregator.
Hmm...

How much worse does a lie have to be before you call it a lie?

[boutons_deux]

Wait, there's more!

============



"Going Rogue" Fact Check: Palin's Book Goes Rogue On Some Facts, AP Says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/palins-book-goes-rogue-on_n_357682.html)

CALVIN WOODWARD (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/palins-book-goes-rogue-on_n_357682.html?view=print#) | 11/13/09 09:09 PM | http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/ap_wire.png

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin's new book reprises familiar claims from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven't become any truer over time.

Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer's dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.

Palin goes adrift, at times, on more contemporary issues, too. She criticizes President Barack Obama for pushing through a bailout package that actually was achieved by his Republican predecessor George W. Bush – a package she seemed to support at the time.

A look at some of her statements in "Going Rogue," obtained by The Associated Press in advance of its release Tuesday:
___

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.

THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) overlooking New York City's Central Park for a five-hour women's leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official business.
___
PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.

THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.
Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.

She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife in the weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were raided by the FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield services company. After AP reported those donations during the presidential campaign, she said she would give a comparative sum to charity after the general election in 2010, a date set by state election laws.

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus plan – a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts – and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street." A week later, she said "ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy."

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in."
___

PALIN: Says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one that appears to be ending now, and "showed us how to get out of one. If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax once and for all."
THE FACTS: The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.

Economists overwhelmingly say the current recession is far worse. The recession Reagan faced lasted for 16 months; this one is in its 23rd month. The recession of the early 1980s did not have a financial meltdown. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, worse than the October 2009 high of 10.2 percent, but the jobless rate is still expected to climb.
___

PALIN: She says her team overseeing the development of a natural gas pipeline set up an open, competitive bidding process that allowed any company to compete for the right to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48.

THE FACTS: Palin characterized the pipeline deal the same way before an AP investigation found her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited a company with ties to her administration, TransCanada Corp. Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders during the process, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.
___

PALIN: Criticizes an aide to her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, for a conflict of interest because the aide represented the state in negotiations over a gas pipeline and then left to work as a handsomely paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Palin asserts her administration ended all such arrangements, shoving a wedge in the revolving door between special interests and the state capital.

THE FACTS: Palin ignores her own "revolving door" issue in office; the leader of her own pipeline team was a former lobbyist for a subsidiary of TransCanada, the company that ended up winning the rights to build the pipeline.
___

PALIN: Writes about a city councilman in Wasilla, Alaska, who owned a garbage truck company and tried to push through an ordinance requiring residents of new subdivisions to pay for trash removal instead of taking it to the dump for free – this to illustrate conflicts of interest she stood against as a public servant.

THE FACTS: As Wasilla mayor, Palin pressed for a special zoning exception so she could sell her family's $327,000 house, then did not keep a promise to remove a potential fire hazard on the property.

She asked the city council to loosen rules for snow machine races when she and her husband owned a snow machine store, and cast a tie-breaking vote to exempt taxes on aircraft when her father-in-law owned one. But she stepped away from the table in 1997 when the council considered a grant for the Iron Dog snow machine race in which her husband competes.
___

PALIN: Says Obama has admitted that the climate change policy he seeks will cause people's electricity bills to "skyrocket."

THE FACTS: She correctly quotes a comment attributed to Obama in January 2008, when he told San Francisco Chronicle editors that under his cap-and-trade climate proposal, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" as utilities are forced to retrofit coal burning power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama has argued since then that climate legislation can blunt the cost to consumers. Democratic legislation now before Congress calls for a variety of measures aimed at mitigating consumer costs. Several studies predict average household costs probably would be $100 to $145 a year.
___

PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people." Finally, she writes, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Environmentalists and plaintiffs' lawyers decried the ruling as a slap at the victims and Palin herself said she was "extremely disappointed." She said the justices had gutted a jury decision favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported. "It's tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision," she said, noting many had died "while waiting for justice."
___

PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don't want "help" from government busybodies.

THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington.
___

PALIN: Says she tried to talk about national security and energy independence in her interview with Vogue magazine but the interviewer wanted her to pivot from hydropower to high fashion.

THE FACTS are somewhat in dispute. Vogue contributing editor Rebecca Johnson said Palin did not go on about hydropower. "She just kept talking about drilling for oil."
___

PALIN: "Was it ambition? I didn't think so. Ambition drives; purpose beckons." Throughout the book, Palin cites altruistic reasons for running for office, and for leaving early as Alaska governor.

THE FACTS: Few politicians own up to wanting high office for the power and prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional mold. But "Going Rogue" has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto, the requisite autobiography of the future candidate.
___
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.

==========

Crooky, Whott, WC need to make a version of this about their beloved pitbull bitch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc&feature=fvw

[Winehole23]

Hmm...

How much worse does a lie have to be before you call it a lie?What lies, please? What are you talking about, WC?

[FromWayDowntown]

Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.

This could well be the motto of the Spurs Talk political forum.

[Ignignokt]

If you're talking about "accuracy" of "viewpoint" HuffPo is self-consciously progressive and liberal. They don't bother to hide it, and you obviously dislike it. I strongly suspect this may be your main beef with them, WC.

If you're talking about factual veracity, IMO they're not noticeably worse than any other news aggregator.

It's not only that they're liberal, its basically what huffington considers "facts" are just the account of the McCain campaign. Would they have taken McCain's campaigh staff's word as truth throughout the 2008 campaign? No they wouldn't, and we all know that this is too convenient for them. It's as if NRO wrote a hit piece on BHO and took the statements of the ardent Hillary campaigners as fact.

But I think you already know this, and your tendency to take this at full value makes you seem like the big partisan hack you really try not to be.

[Ignignokt]

This could well be the motto of the Spurs Talk political forum.

I doubt you evaluated any value of the claims made.

Infact, you being a lawyer i would suspect you to be more skeptical of taking the opposing side's account at full value.

So thanks for indicting yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

What lies, please? What are you talking about, WC?
I made the remark that two particular sources are not to be trusted. To verify. You turn around and say "they're not noticeably worse than any other news aggregator." Therefor, I ask, how much worse does a lie have to be before you call it a lie?

I'm not talking about any particular lie. I am saying as a matter of statistics, those two sites lie. I didn't read any of it because I do, outright ignore, the Huffington post. I have not yet seen an article reported about a conservative by them that could be considered factual. I don't expect to either.

So. The M$M's twist the truth and often outright lie. Again, how much worse do they have to lie before you are willing to call it a lie?

[Winehole23]

It's not only that they're liberal, its basically what huffington considers "facts" are just the account of the McCain campaign. Would they have taken McCain's campaigh staff's word as truth throughout the 2008 campaign? No they wouldn't, and we all know that this is too convenient for them. It's as if NRO wrote a hit piece on BHO and took the statements of the ardent Hillary campaigners as fact.What the McCain campaign had to say about Palin is admittedly a partisan source -- a Republican one. This reporting is part of the tale. Obviously it bugs you that this reporting reinforces the impression Palin created herself of playing fast and loose with the facts.

It's not HuffPo's fault that Sarah Palin is a serial prevaricator, starting with her embarrassing fibs about the bridge to nowhere.

[Winehole23]

I made the remark that two particular sources are not to be trusted. To verify. You turn around and say "they're not noticeably worse than any other news aggregator." Therefor, I ask, how much worse does a lie have to be before you call it a lie?HuffPo relies on other newspapers and newswires for about 90% of their content, like Drudge.

[Ignignokt]

What the McCain campaign had to say about Palin is admittedly a partisan source -- a Republican one. This reporting is part of the tale. Obviously it bugs you that this reporting reinforces the impression Palin created herself of playing fast and loose with the facts.

It's not HuffPo's fault that Sarah Palin is a serial prevaricator, starting with her embarrassing fibs about the bridge to nowhere.

thanks for proving my point.

You take one account over another as fact.

[FromWayDowntown]

I doubt you evaluated any value of the claims made.

Infact, you being a lawyer i would suspect you to be more skeptical of taking the opposing side's account at full value.

So thanks for indicting yourself.

I've said nothing about the claims made -- nothing at all.

Frankly, the list of things posted at the top of this thread strikes me as both uninteresting and inherently disputable.

My sole point -- the post that you've responded to -- is that it's pretty common around here to immediately discredit the things said by some, based on the perceived viewpoint of the speaker and not the substance of what that person has said. That's true of posters and its true of the sources that posters rely upon.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Ignignokt]

And again, my point is not wether one side vs the other is republican or not. But there's some bad blood between both sides in this one and to take one's word over the other is not "examining the facts" like you would say.

Winehole, can you tell me how you've researched this, fact checked and asked the sources directly to research the facts. After all you're the one that brought this " you must review the facts.", so why don't you be the example.

[Winehole23]

thanks for proving my point.

You take one account over another as fact.I didn't weigh in except to say that that the list of supposed lies fits a pattern. I agree with FWD that the list is disputable.

[FromWayDowntown]

And again, my point is not wether one side vs the other is republican or not. But there's some bad blood between both sides in this one and to take one's word over the other is not "examining the facts" like you would say.

Oh, I agree with you; that was the point of my first post and it's still my point. I'm not sure why you were so intent upon assuming otherwise previously, but you can be certain that I agree with you. I think that would be a wise thing for everyone here to do -- whatever the result of the examination might be -- and it would be a wise thing for everyone to do in the real world.

[Ignignokt]

I've said nothing about the claims made -- nothing at all.

Frankly, the list of things posted at the top of this thread strikes me as both uninteresting and inherently disputable.

My sole point -- the post that you've responded to -- is that it's pretty common around here to immediately discredit the things said by some, based on the perceived viewpoint of the speaker and not the substance of what that person has said. That's true of posters and its true of the sources that posters rely upon.

Thanks for proving my point.

this must be the source of which you claimed to have made your point in this thread.


Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.

evaluating claims, which requires fact checking is different than evaluating the substance, which requires just taking into consideration.

So don't congratulate yourself for a point not yet made till after the fact.

And the same thing could be said about the huffington post, they never would ever evaluate the substance of anything Sarah Palin would say, nor anybody that is conservative, and you're asking us to be openminded towards them.. okay! lol!

[Ignignokt]

Oh, I agree with you; that was the point of my first post and it's still my point. I'm not sure why you were so intent upon assuming otherwise previously, but you can be certain that I agree with you. I think that would be a wise thing for everyone here to do -- whatever the result of the examination might be -- and it would be a wise thing for everyone to do in the real world.

point taken, my apologies. I just assumed you agreed with Wineholes premise with your first post, but you meant an entirely different thing.

[Ignignokt]

I didn't weigh in except to say that that the list of supposed lies fits a pattern. I agree with FWD that the list is disputable.

So what is the substance of this article? where is the red meat?

[FromWayDowntown]

Again, point me to any place in this thread where I've agreed with the Huffington Post or evaluated the substance of the assertions made therein.

I'm really curious how it is that I've taken any side in this discussion.

[Winehole23]

And again, my point is not wether one side vs the other is republican or not. But there's some bad blood between both sides in this one and to take one's word over the other is not "examining the facts" like you would say.Sure. You seem to assume others have done this on the basis of what you assume they believe. You assume a lot. I wish you read better.


Winehole, can you tell me how you've researched this, fact checked and asked the sources directly to research the facts. After all you're the one that brought this " you must review the facts.", so why don't you be the example.I'm not carrying water for the OP, I don't agree with everything said there, so I don't see why I should have to defend it, or why it's somehow out of bounds for me to express my opinion about other posters opinion of it. Do your own goddam homework, gtown.

[Ignignokt]

Again, point me to any place in this thread where I've agreed with the Huffington Post or evaluated the substance of the assertions made therein.

I'm really curious how it is that I've taken any side in this discussion.

To be specific, i was pointing to you agreeing with Winehole that the conservatives on this board need to evaluate the claims made. That's my whole argument. That we shouldn't have to evaluate the claims since there are no facts, and it is one word over the other, and it's from a partisan source.

[Ignignokt]

I'm not carrying water for the OP, I don't agree with everything said there, so I don't see why I should have to defend it, or why it's somehow out of bounds for me to express my opinion about other posters opinion of it. Do your own goddam homework, gtown.

Who said you agreed with all the points of the OP?

All i said is that you can't take the original source srsly because of its faults, so i saw it lame that you're lecturing forum cons to do so.

Actually you're right that was one of my first initial points, because you provided an excuse to take McCains word over Palins.

So.. take that.

[FromWayDowntown]

To be specific, i was pointing to you agreeing with Winehole that the conservatives on this board need to evaluate the claims made. That's my whole argument. That we shouldn't have to evaluate the claims since there are no facts, and it is one word over the other, and it's from a partisan source.

Oh, I don't think that's something that only runs to Republicans or conservatives. I think everyone would benefit from evaluating claims rather than just assuming validity/invalidity based on who makes the claims.

[Ignignokt]

Oh, I don't think that's something that only runs to Republicans or conservatives. I think everyone would benefit from evaluating claims rather than just assuming validity/invalidity based on who makes the claims.

:lobt2:

[Winehole23]

So what is the substance of this article? where is the red meat?Best I recall, the OP points out various inconsistencies between SP and other sources. Gossip raised to an issue of veracity. It's a journalistic commonplace. Your point?

[Ignignokt]

Best I recall, the OP points out various inconsistencies between SP and other sources. Gossip raised to an issue of veracity. It's a journalistic commonplace. Your point?

Those other sources are hostile.

Now you're just making excuses.

The Article is titled "The first ten LIES.." not "Hearsay".

So you want us to take gossip srsly, thanks alot Winehole.

[Winehole23]

All i said is that you can't take the original source srsly because of its faults, so i saw it lame that you're lecturing forum cons to do so.I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking to board cons. I was talking to WC, who has a bad habit of refusing to consider the report based purely on the source.


Actually you're right that was one of my first initial points, because you provided an excuse to take McCains word over Palins. It's not impossible that McCain staffers are more credible than SP, and concluding this is the case isn't necessarily evidence of partisan bias...unless believing one Republican is more believable than another is evidence of prejudice.

So.. take that.

[Ignignokt]

I wasn't talking to you. I wasn't talking to board cons. I was talking to WC, who has a bad habit of refusing to consider the report based purely on the source.

It's not impossible that McCain staffers are more credible than SP, and concluding this is the case isn't necessarily evidence of partisan bias...unless believing one Republican is more believable than another is evidence of prejudice.

So.. take that.

I wasn't accusing the McCain campaign staff of being partisan, just you and the Huffington post.

[Winehole23]

So you want us to take gossip srsly, thanks alot Winehole.You just love a strawman. I was talking to WC.

[Winehole23]

I wasn't accusing the McCain campaign staff of being partisan, just you and the Huffington post.I started off by saying the HuffPo has an ideological axe to grind, so we're in basic agreement there. What you think about me is just your opinion. You're welcome to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's been around that you habitually turn minor disagreements into partisan beefs.

Maybe other posters would take you a little more seriously if you could get through a thread without mischaracterizing and demonizing your opponents so hastily.

[Ignignokt]

You just love a strawman. I was talking to WC.

i was directly responding to your post, how can that be strawman? And plus whether WC has a history here of being closed minded, he has a good reason to be here in this instance.

Unless you want him to be open minded to gossip.

Had Huffington post used "facts" and not hostile accounts, then yes you are right in telling WC he needs to evaluate the "facts".

[Ignignokt]

I started off by saying the HuffPo has an ideological axe to grind, so we're in basic agreement there. What you think about me is just your opinion. You're welcome to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's been around that you habitually turn minor disagreements into partisan beefs.

Maybe other posters would take you a little more seriously if you could get through a thread without mischaracterizing and demonizing your opponents in so hastily.



this is the post that got me to put in my two cents.


Rather than evaluate the claims made, it serves expedience -- and intellectual laziness -- to disqualify the sources peremptorily.

I have done nothing but debate the validity of this post. I disagree with it, and that's why i'm arguing against it in this particular case, whether it was intended towards Cobra, (which you didn't mention in this post, and you made it as a general statement which can be applied to anyone who doesn't take the HuffPo srsly in this article.) I will disagree with it.


That's what message boards are for.

[Winehole23]

whether WC has a history here of being closed minded, he has a good reason to be here in this instance.That's your opinion. I wish WC were more willing to make his own case and less reliant on the credibility of the source in general.


Had Huffington post used "facts" and not hostile accounts, then yes you are right in telling WC he needs to evaluate the "facts".The word I used was *claims*, not *facts*. Shift the goal posts much?

[Wild Cobra]

That's your opinion. I wish WC were more willing to make his own case and less reliant on the credibility of the source in general.

I haven't read the book, and haven't done any research on the topic. There very well may be lies in her book. Personal experience, however, has me never trusting publications like the Huffington Post without verifying.

Really now, with all the hatred and proven slander and lies people used against Palin, how can anyone in their right mind believe this shit?

How about buying the book, then scan the pages that are claimed lies. Does the Huffington Post even provide enough source material to support their contention?

[Winehole23]

I have done nothing but debate the validity of this post. It's like you think people can't read. You tried to paint me as a defender of the OP, as a partisan hack carrying water for HuffPo, as a liar and imposter based on nothing but your own hostile inferences...

....in other words, for exactly what you take the OP to task for.

[Winehole23]

How about buying the book, then scan the pages that are claimed lies. Does the Huffington Post even provide enough source material to support their contention?Honestly, I barely care about this, and I haven't bothered to read the HuffPo reporting on it. Maybe gtown can tell you.

[Winehole23]

Or, you can do your own homework WC. You can figure out all on your own if HuffPo crossed "i"s and dotted "t"s.

[Ignignokt]

It's like you think people can't read. You tried to paint me as a defender of the OP, as a partisan hack carrying water for HuffPo, as a liar and imposter based on nothing but your own hostile inferences...

....in other words, for exactly what you take the OP to task for.

:rollin , don't lose sight of what this is truly about, you wanted WC to research a gossip article while taking the high road.

[Winehole23]

:rollin , don't lose sight of what this is truly about, you wanted WC to research a gossip article while taking the high road.What you missed was that I was passing comment on the poster, not the OP, which is little more than a partisan tackling dummy, as you pointed out, and I will readily agree. You hostile inferences about what I intended are just that: hostile inferences.

Everybody can decide for himself just how credible and entertaining your twistified and highly wrought insults are. They obviously amuse you.

[Ignignokt]

What you missed was that I was passing comment on the poster, not the OP, which is little more than a partisan tackling dummy, as you pointed out, and I will readily agree. You hostile inferences about what I intended are just that: hostile inferences.

Everybody can decide for himself just how credible and entertaining your twistified and highly wrought insults are. They obviously amuse you.

So the moral of the story is... " I wanted WC to not dismiss a gossip article just because it's also highly biased against the subject, move out of my wAY! I got some forum policing to do!".

[jman3000]

ha... well this thread is certainly going as scheduled.

[Winehole23]

So the moral of the story is... " I wanted WC to not dismiss a gossip article just because it's also highly biased against the subject, move out of my wAY! I got some forum policing to do!".:blah

lather. rinse. repeat.

[Ignignokt]

:blah

lather. rinse. repeat.

When are you gonna start talking about how important gossip articles are to american society?

[Winehole23]

I never did. You the one who can't shut up about it.

[boutons_deux]

The article isn't gossip.

It lists things pitbull bitch's ghost writer wrote and then refutes them.

No pitbull bitch lovers here have refuted any of the refutations.

[Ignignokt]

I never did. You the one who can't shut up about it.

So what did you tell WC? ANd how did it pertain to this thread?

[Ignignokt]

The article isn't gossip.

It lists things pitbull bitch's ghost writer wrote and then refutes them.

No pitbull bitch lovers here have refuted any of the refutations.

Refutes them with what?

[Winehole23]

So what did you tell WC? ANd how did it pertain to this thread?It was off topic. Are you policing topicality now, gtown? :lol

[Ignignokt]

It was off topic. Are you policing topicality now, gtown? :lol

Nah, You got to question authority every once in a while.

[Wild Cobra]

ha... well this thread is certainly going as scheduled.
They all seem to end up like this.

I have stated my disbelief of the Huffington Post making an accurate claim. The books not out yet. As far as I care, the content that started this thread is no better than the tabloids that print articles like alien babies. I think such a thread is too premature to waste much time on.

[mouse]

The very most stupid think I find about this thread is that it relies on the words of a Huffington Post article.

They don't have a very good accuracy .

And yet you and Chump Dumper have no problem believing this book?

The Irony!



http://www.defensetech.org/archives/911com.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"disbelief of the Huffington Post making an accurate claim"

They have a copy of the book, as do many reviewers and media insiders, and which is the case for any pre-publication book, but for you that's not fair or acceptable or believable.

They read the book "critically", which you haven't done and, among many others to come, certainly, have pointed out self-serving spin, falsehoods, and lies. There seems to be lots of score-evening vs the McLiar crowd, esp Schmidt.

So you think HuffPo, NYTimes, and others are deliberately misquoting from her book?

It sure looks likes pitbull bitch's ghost writer's book is gonna get ripped, aka "picked on", because it's full of documentable shit.

[Wild Cobra]

They read the book "critically", which you haven't done and, among many others to come, certainly, have pointed out self-serving spin, falsehoods, and lies. There seems to be lots of score-evening vs the McLiar crowd, esp Schmidt.

LOL...

Yep, they get critical about anything they can spin!

[FromWayDowntown]

Liberals just can't be trusted to tell the truth or be objective.

[boutons_deux]

"they get critical about anything they can spin"

HuffPo isn't the only one. warhero/songbird McLiar's people are calling her a liar, too, and there will be plenty of others.

Her credibility will be even lower.

[ElNono]

Evidently, quite a few people.

I would argue that the vast majority of the discussion in this thread so far has centered around the source of the article, and not the content.
Which really says a lot about the actual content.

[ElNono]

Libtards just can't be trusted to tell the truth or be objective.

fify

[boutons_deux]

The righties refuse to verify,validate the direct quotes from the book and refuse to refute how HuffPo et al are ripping the book's falsehoods.

The book will probably not drag her disapproval rating higher, since it's already something like a fatal/non-electable 75%, even in Alaska.

[Wild Cobra]

I would argue that the vast majority of the discussion in this thread so far has centered around the source of the article, and not the content.
Which really says a lot about the actual content.
I think it's stupid to discuss the content until we read the book.

[boutons_deux]

I think it's stupid to ignore refutation of direct quotes from the book because one blindly supports a loser pitbull bitch.

Do you think the book will change between now and Tuesday? Probably so, since Magical Thinking is the basis of right-wing/conservative "principles".

or copies to reviewers were seeded with dirty-tricks lies to make the reviewers look bad?

[DMX7]

Those other sources are hostile.

Now you're just making excuses.

The Article is titled "The first ten LIES.." not "Hearsay".

So you want us to take gossip srsly, thanks alot Winehole.

Yeah, I suppose her account is much more authentic. :lol

Thanks a lot. :lmao

[Shastafarian]

I think it's stupid to discuss the content until we read the book.


It's not free speech when you have an unwilling captive audience. If he says anything partisan, or of an agenda type item, Millions of parents will be outraged.

Schools are a place of learning. Not for political indoctrination. Do you liberals really believe that's not his intent?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I love how people beat this woman down anytime she has anything to say or anyone has anything good to say about her. I remember when they called her a "Rockstar". Some idiot actually wrote this article about her. So obvious the left is scared to death of this girl.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/09/12/sarah-palin-rock-star/

well jack she is a liar so are you going to crucify her?

[EmptyMan]

This woman has the right people hating her. I respect that.

[balli]

The righties refuse to verify,validate the direct quotes from the book and refuse to refute how HuffPo et al are ripping the book's falsehoods.

The book will probably not drag her disapproval rating higher, since it's already something like a fatal/non-electable 75%, even in Alaska.
They have developed a case of mass delusion. Logic and reason matter not. They are nihilistic drones who purposefully subvert reality as if they were figures from an Orwellian dystopia. It's frightening and disgusting that people could allow themselves to become so manipulated.

[exstatic]

I think you also have to look at motivations. What motivations would drive the former McCain campaign to lie at this point? It's a dead organization that lost an election, and there is no phoenix-like resurrection in the cards. Palin, on the other hand, still harbors ambitions, and lying to present her best image would server her well.

[Ignignokt]

I think you also have to look at motivations. What motivations would drive the former McCain campaign to lie at this point? It's a dead organization that lost an election, and there is no phoenix-like resurrection in the cards. Palin, on the other hand, still harbors ambitions, and lying to present her best image would server her well.

Are u stupid? Those people have jobs, and they want to be employed by other campaigns in the near future, they would most certainly defend their own credibility, and it's not like they haven't leaked damaging things about Sarah Palin in the past after the election aftermath.

Infact, nm. I'm speaking to a fat Star Wars larper looking idiot.

[Ignignokt]

Yeah, I suppose her account is much more authentic. :lol

Thanks a lot. :lmao

So i still want facts pointing that she lied..

[exstatic]

So i still want facts pointing that she lied..

Still waiting on facts that the McCain camp lied...

[Wild Cobra]

This woman has the right people hating her. I respect that.
So do I.

Liberals and RiNOs hate her.

Gotta love that!

[Ignignokt]

Still waiting on facts that the McCain camp lied...

Thanks for agreeing with me that this article has no facts to it. :toast

[mouse]

who knew the power of pussy was so strong?

[boutons_deux]

Another huge lie from pitbull bitch:



Palin's Oily Lies Drip from the Pages of Going Rogue...
I know facts aren't going to matter to many people buying Sarah Palin's, Going Rogue. Facts certainly didn't matter to folks who voted for her.

According to the "fact checkers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/ap_on_el_pr/us_palin_book_fact_check_8)":
PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people." Finally, she writes, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Environmentalists and plaintiffs' lawyers decried the ruling as a slap at the victims and Palin herself said she was "extremely disappointed." She said the justices had gutted a jury decision favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported. "It's tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision," she said, noting many had died "while waiting for justice."
When Sarah Palin was asked by Katie Couric what Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v Wade she disagreed with, she couldn't think of one. NOT ONE! Sarah squandered an opportunity-the perfect chance to tell America our story...an Alaskan story...dozens of suicides...thousands sick from clean up...tens of thousands bankrupt from a dead fishery.
http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/files/2009/11/exxonvaldez-disaster1.jpg?w=275
Sarah Palin is to Alaska what Velveeta is to cheese; sadly unsatisfying and empty of nutrition. She had the national stage to plead Alaska's case to citizens who had long forgotten the images of a once pristine Prince William Sound turned into a thick, black, rolling sea; the oiled sea otters and birds; unrecognizable seals and whales; an initially deformed and diseased herring run that became extinct-costing Cordova $100 million a year. Exxon exploited Alaska and turned pain into profit.

AND NOW, Palin is claiming to be part of a victory for the people of Alaska? Reality Deficit Disorder...now in book form.

The Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Supreme Court decision in June 2008 all but pardoned Exxon's negligence. The highest court in the land condoned the half-assed cleanup. (my radio interview on the day of the ruling with Greg Palast). (http://ia311306.us.archive.org/3/items/OilyLiesTheExxonSettlement/ExxonValdezKUDO6-25-08.mp3) Exxon, the company that set and broke planet earth's quarterly profit record three quarters in a row, was let off the hook. Because of this unprecedented landmark decision, future corporate punitive damages are now forever minimally capped at literally pennies on the dollar!

The Roberts Court based its activist ruling on 19th century maritime law. Really! 21st century corporations can now view punitive damages as the small cost of doing business. Due to Exxon's negligence and the corporate sympathy of the Supreme Court, one the largest acts of environmental terrorism in history was treated like an accidental littering. The RATS-Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, (Alito recused himself, confident that Souter and Kennedy would fill the business-friendly void) winked at their corporate masters as the Judas Court betrayed Justice.

http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/files/2008/10/exxon-not-done.jpg?w=300

Exxon doesn't have marked offices in Alaska. There are some pretty hard feelings even 20 years later...for some pretty good reasons. When Palin was pointing fingers at Letterman in July of this year, she did it from Houston, Texas. She was there to sign a deal with Exxon on behalf of Alaska. The state's willingness to do business with Exxon was like having your parents rent the basement to the guy who date raped you on prom night. Am I clear?

So Sarah was against the decision before she couldn't remember it before she was for it. And now, courtesy of Going Rogue, Sarah Palin manages to insult and injure Alaskans who will never be made whole with yet another one of her documented lies.

The jury originally punished Exxon with $5 billion in punitive damages-a year's profit at the time. In 2008, nearly 20 years later, Exxon reported the largest annual profit in US history (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm) at $45.22 billion. The company shattered its own record set the previous year. Would the original $5 billion in punitive damages been punishment enough? The answer is now slowly dripping onto victims at 10 cents on the dollar.

Opening your mailbox to an Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement check is like getting a royalty payment for the snuff film your kid brother was in. Hey, you're getting paid...but he's still dead and you got to watch.

===========

For you pitbull bitch sniffers and lickers, there are incriminating videos of pitbull pitch spinning her lies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/palins-oily-lies-drip-fro_b_358756.html

It's so easy kicking pitbull bitch while she's down, but it's still as much fun as watching her, Kristol, Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox Political Channel rip apart the Repug party into even deeper insignificance.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

She only unhappy with the decision because the award is not high enough. So when she says she's happy that people do get money, you guys make fun of her?

What a stretch.

If she said she was unhappy with the decision itself, then the Huff Poo would have spun it differently, still making her look bad to people with a low enough IQ to believe that rag.

[boutons_deux]

"According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, a majority of Americans don't like her that much, and very few would vote for her if she absurdly ran for President.

The poll reveals that 52 percent see the former governor in unfavorable terms.

Only 9 percent say they would definitely vote for her if she were a candidate for President in 2012.

53 percent said they would definitely not vote for her.

According to the Washington-Post/ABC analysis of the poll, about half as many Americans said they would definitely not vote for John McCain in Spring 2006.

There's a lesson in this for Palin and the GOP; that lesson is obviously that only 9 percent of Americans really love America."

9% ? that's about the right size for the astroturf/tea-bag/losers fringe.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I thought this women was a non factor. Errr-right.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I thought this women was a non factor. Errr-right.

Your right, we HOPE she gets the nomination in 2012.

[Ignignokt]

Your right, we HOPE she gets the nomination in 2012.

your avatar is ironic.

[George Gervin's Afro]

your avatar is ironic.

why? because you fall under the category?

[boutons_deux]

what, there's more! :lol




http://www.alternet.org/images/site/logo.gif
Top 4 Energy and Environmental Lies in Sarah Palin's 'Going Rogue'

By Brian Merchant, TreeHugger
Posted on November 16, 2009, Printed on November 16, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144001/


Well, that didn't take long. Sarah Palin's (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/sarah-palin-record-environment.php) hotly anticipated memoir, Going Rogue (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS274&resnum=0&q=going+rogue&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=n60BS8-LCcLZlAearcWRCw&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB0QsQQwAA), is hardly out the gates, and it's already facing a torrent of criticism from mainstream news sources for including various untruths and flat out lies. It appears that everyone's favorite vice presidential candidate has gone rogue with some of the facts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check). Naturally, a great deal of these focus on energy and the environment--the former subject of which she is allegedly an expert on, and the other on which she's got some highly controversial views. Here are the top whoppers Palin tries to sneak by her readers.


1. The poor will be hit hardest by clean energy legislation.

In her book, Palin falsely charges once again (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/sarah-palin-cap-and-trade.php) that people in low income groups will suffer at the hands of the climate bill. From Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911150011):
Palin: Obama "admitted" cap and trade will cause "electricity bills to 'skyrocket' " and "those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet." Palin falsely suggests that "those hit hardest [by cap and trade] will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet" and that " She added: "So much for the campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. This is a tax on everyone." [Going Rogue, Pages 390-391]Not. Much of the revenue from a cap and trade will go towards providing a buffer for the poor in the form of tax rebates. The CBO has found that by as soon as 2020, low income families will actually besaving $125 a month on electricity bills.

2. Obama has "admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.'"

Wrong again--Obama has never "admitted" any such thing. As noted by MM, "Obama was talking about a different plan causing energy costs to "skyrocket." As the Associated Press noted in fact-checking Palin's book, Obama was not talking about the cap-and-trade legislation that has since passed in the House when he referred to energy costs "necessarily skyrocket[ting]." He was actually talking about a hypothetical version of any cap and trade system that would auction off 100% of the emissions permits (the version that passed the house gives nearly all of them away for free), and was discussing no particular piece of legislation.

3. She vetoed Alaska stimulus funds for energy efficiency because they mandated building codes.

This one has already been proven false, yet she repeats the debunked logic in her book. Once again, MM:
Palin claims that she vetoed a $25 million "earmark for energy conservation" available through the stimulus (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/palin-no-thanks-energy-efficiency.php) because Alaska would have needed to adopt "universal energy building codes" to be eligible for the funds. "Universal building codes -- in Alaska! A practical, libertarian haven full of independent Americans who did not desire 'help' from government busybodies. A state full of hardy pioneers who did not like taking orders from the feds telling us to change our laws. A state so geographically diverse that one-size-fits-all codes simply wouldn't work." [Going Rogue, Pages 361-362]Of course it wouldn't work--made-up rules tend not to. The rebuttal, via PoliFact: "municipalities are not forced to accept the specific standards and, given that local governments set their own codes, the feds would be satisfied if Alaska merely promoted such building codes." Woops. And PolitiFact also notes that a Department of Energy official "wrote that the provision 'provides flexibility with regard to building codes' and 'expressly includes standards other than those cited so long as the standards achieve equivalent energy savings.' " Sigh.

4. She never supported aerial wolf hunting

This is another one that's just patently false. On page 327 of her book, Palin says that aerial wolf hunting is something that "Alaskan's don't do." And yet, she actually signed a bill validating aerial hunting (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/sarah-palin-record-environment.php). MM says: "In 2007, Palin introduced a bill to "simplify and clarify Alaska's intensive management law for big game and the state's 'same day airborne hunting' law." Enough said.

[EmptyMan]

This obsession is quite impressive.

[sook]

57 States


ROFL:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmaox100000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

When someone says something like that once, like you have 12 fingers on your hand. Its called a slip of the tongue. But when you repeatedly show stupidity about general knowledge and try to sound smart at the same time...

[Wild Cobra]

Don't forget that 500 million Americans will lose their jobs...

Are they counting the illegal aliens?

x8hMJVXt09E

CgE1i-4e3Zo

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Your right, we HOPE she gets the nomination in 2012.
my right? hmm. nothing's there.

[Fabbs]

Wow...

She only unhappy with the decision because the award is not high enough.
Oh is that all? Well as long as the money is the only thing to be unhappy with.
:lol

[Ignignokt]

why? because you fall under the category?

No, becuase it's your avatar and you're a dumbfudge. And that's why it would be ironic.

I'm glad i could help.:toast

[jack sommerset]

Don't forget that 500 million Americans will lose their jobs...

Are they counting the illegal aliens?

x8hMJVXt09E

CgE1i-4e3Zo

San Frans contribution to our country.:lol And those idiots in DC made her The Speaker. 2010 is just around the bend. THANK GOD (if there is one)

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, becuase it's your avatar and you're a dumbfudge. And that's why it would be ironic.

I'm glad i could help.:toast

you are exactly the type of person i thought about when i chose my avatar.

[George Gervin's Afro]

San Frans contribution to our country.:lol And those idiots in DC made her The Speaker. 2010 is just around the bend. THANK GOD (if there is one)

if it makes you feel better jack i think she's an idiot and is a terrible speaker of the house...

[rjv]

i just want to know why the hell anyone would even read this book..unless it was the only thing you could grab on the way to the crapper

[da_suns_fan]

And Dreams of my Father doesn't list the name of Bill Ayers.



Is Alaska any less American than Hawaii? Or Jakarta?

:lol

Nice. I read the first two and thought "Oh Brother. Yeah, those are really LIES!"

Give me a break.

[boutons_deux]

The Hits Keep Comin'

============



TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2009


Sarah Palin Makes Another Fraudulent Claim About Alaska

Tuesday 17 November 2009
by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report
(http://www.truthout.org/1117092?print)

As former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin launches her national book tour, a former consultant questions more specifics from her record as governor.

Palin, the former running mate to Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential elections, continues to claim that she effectively protected Alaska's environment, but a national academies peer review panel has blasted her oil and gas risk assessment plan, calling her environmental credentials into question.

"A blistering critique of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's game plan for assessing the safety of the state's oil and gas facilities and operations by a national panel of experts calls into question Palin's claim that, as governor, she made safeguarding of Alaska's resources a priority," veteran Alaska oil and gas analyst Richard Fineberg, who consulted to the Palin administration in 2007 and early 2008 wrote on November 15.

"The public would be well served by examination of Palin's executive style and performance as governor," Fineberg added, speaking to Truthout in Fairbanks, "It's important for people to know she simply wasn't there to do work, particularly at this time when she is once again in the public eye claiming to be a hard working Alaskan who cares for people in her state."

Fineberg, who lives in Ester, a small town near Fairbanks, won state and national press awards as a reporter during the 1970s and has observed Alaska petroleum development for four decades, including a stint as a senior adviser to the governor of Alaska on oil and gas policy during the 1980s.
The critical review by the Transportation Research Board (an arm of the National Research Council and the National Academies) released October 15 concluded that Palin's program probably would not have worked.

"When she announced the Alaska oil and gas infrastructure risk assessment project on May 1, 2007, it (the project) was supposed to take three years to complete," Fineberg continued, "But it took the Palin administration nearly two years just to come up with its plan, only to have its proposal soundly rejected by both the industry and the environmental community. At two to two and a half years, the project Palin launched is on hold and her successor looks for a new plan - and a new contractor to carry it out."

"This peer review panel told then Governor Palin that her plan would simply not work," Fineberg told Truthout in Fairbanks, "She claimed to be protecting the environment, but her whole plan was BS and never got off the ground."
Ignoring this failed plan, Palin praised her state's environmental performance in a National Review article released October 16.

In that article, "DRILL: Petroleum is a major part of America's energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?" Palin said the US produced only 4.95 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) in 2008, while consuming 19.5 million bpd, creating the impression that the US imported over 14 million bpd, or 75 percent of its total oil needs.

But the same US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data show that the US imported about 11 million bpd in 2008 (less than 60 percent of total oil consumption). More importantly, imports are declining and EIA anticipates dramatic long-term import reduction, to 41 percent of total consumption by 2030.

In her plea for more drilling, Palin - billed by her admirers as an energy expert - also overlooked, or ignored, this key fact.
Despite the intense media focus on the release of her book, little attention has been paid to these developments, or to her record as governor of Alaska.

"Despite intense public criticism of the proposal, there is no indication that she ever lifted a finger to make appropriate changes to rectify this situation," Fineberg added. "And this was a hallmark of her administration while she was governor here. She simply wasn’t there."

"Her energy claims just never made any sense," Fineberg continued, "The implication is that her theme is that we need to drill, because imports are so huge, but EIA is stating the opposite-that imports were actually declining. She is still up to her old tricks, and she has never mastered the energy numbers, as she leads people to believe she has."

Fineberg told Truthout that while he worked for Palin as a consultant, "I never spoke with her directly. And as far as I know, she seldom spoke directly with any of her consultants."

Fineberg added, "We never had any contact with her. She wasn't there. She would delegate and vanish. I think that’s what happened on the risk assessment, too. As far as I can tell, she never did anything to follow up."

[Wild Cobra]

i just want to know why the hell anyone would even read this book..unless it was the only thing you could grab on the way to the crapper
The same people like you who join in threads like this.

[Jacob1983]

Did Sarah Palin get tips on how to write this book from Stephen Frey and Stephen Glass?