It's Palin ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, and by the way. Your "eloquent" candidate does it again.

You can put ... uh ... lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You know, you can ... uh ... you know, you can ... uh ... you, you, you, you can wrap an old fish in a, in a piece of paper called change it's still gonna stink.
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
Yes, they have come out on Liberal blogs and the investigation is still ongoing. Even if it is proven beyond even your wildest imagination that she had nopthing to do with this you will still declare her guilty.
Click to expand...

Nope, they've come out in the MSM Jimbo. I imagine that even if comes out without a doubt that she is guilty you will still declare her innocent.

I see. So her inability to disprove the negative is proof that the accusations are real.
Click to expand...

Nope, the fact is some accusations aren't proven one way or the other yet. You sure did think the Enquirer was on top of things when they accused Edwards. Why the change now Jim?

Made up?
Click to expand...

Yes Jim, you made up a easily disprovable fact when you declared all the scandals debunked when in fact many have been proven true.

That's because I'm no typist.
Click to expand...

You sure do nitpick at others for some reason.

Oh, and by the way. Your "eloquent" candidate does it again.
Click to expand...

Didn't we already discuss this one? Obama makes a good point.
 
Oh, no! Another Palin scandal!

She hasn't had an abortion!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/0...f-qualification-is-she-hasnt-had-an-abortion/

SC Democratic Chair: Palin’s Chief Qualification is She ‘Hasn’t Had an Abortion’
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, September 10, 2008

South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler reportedly lashed out at Sarah Palin Wednesday, saying the Republican vice presidential candidate’s “primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”

[more]
Click to expand...
 
spike said:
Yes Jim, you made up a easily disprovable fact when you declared all the scandals debunked when in fact many have been proven true.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten us with which ones have been proven true.

Didn't we already discuss this one? Obama makes a good point.
Click to expand...

Um ... no ... ah ... he doesn't.
 
By the way, save yourself the embarrassment. Here are more "scandals" which have been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Summary

We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

  • Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
  • She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
  • She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
  • Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesy" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
  • Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

We'll be looking into other charges in an e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Correction: In our original story, we incorrectly said that a few of the claims we examine here were included in the e-mail by Kilkenny. Only one of the claims – about the librarian's firing – was similar to an item in that e-mail. We regret the error.

[more]
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
By the way, save yourself the embarrassment. Here are more "scandals" which have been thoroughly debunked.
Click to expand...

What enbarrassment? You're the one that should be embarrassed that you mistakenly declared all the scandals debunked when there's a fair number that have been confirmed.

By the way, that site debunked your Obama infanticide BS :laugh:
 
spike said:
What enbarrassment? You're the one that should be embarrassed that you mistakenly declared all the scandals debunked when there's a fair number that have been confirmed.

By the way, that site debunked your Obama infanticide BS :laugh:
Click to expand...

Actually, it confirms what the opposition has been saying.

He voted against the first two iterations of the bill (2001 and 2002) because he stated that it lacked certain provisions. He also voted against the third iteration (2003) which did contain what he said the first two lacked that caused him to vote against them.

Obama ststes that he would have voted for the federal bill as it contained the language which he found lacking in the first two iterations. The problem is that the third iteration contained the exact language from the federal bill and he still voted against it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.
Click to expand...

In the first two iterations his explainations hold water. In the third iteration they don't.
 
spike said:
Yep, another one confirmed.
Click to expand...

Ms. Comella said that Ms. Palin’s travel expenses were “80 percent below” those of her predecessor, Frank H. Murkowski, and that she had achieved this savings by selling the state’s plane, flying coach when traveling on the state’s business and driving herself to work.

...

Ms. Leighow, in the governor’s office, said Ms. Palin had not received a per diem since being selected by Mr. McCain as his running mate.
Click to expand...

EIGHTY PERCENT LESS THAN HER PREDECESSOR!

Then you must consider the predecessor's "scandal" five times worse than this. I'm sure that that decision will be based upon the party with which the various participants are registered.
 
paul_valaru said:
Did you know that Palin wants to charge rape victims for "rape kits" while in Illinois Obama sponsered a bill to ban that practice.
Click to expand...

Has there been one victim in the year 2000 who has come forward to say she had to shell out the bucks to see the man who raped her be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
 
spike said:
Yep, another one confirmed.
Click to expand...

You have already proven your disability with math so let me take you through this so that maybe even you will understand it.

Posting the same story twice does not create two disparate stories. It is simply the same story posted twice.

Just because you post the same story from two different sources does not create two disparate stories. It is simply the same story from two different sources.

I know that this news will be hard to take but I'm sure that you will buck up under the strain of it all.
 
jimpeel said:
Actually, it confirms what the opposition has been saying.
Click to expand...

Nope, actually it confirmed that he doesn't support infanticide.

"But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden."
 
jimpeel said:
EIGHTY PERCENT LESS THAN HER PREDECESSOR

Then you must consider the predecessor's "scandal" five times worse than this. I'm sure that that decision will be based upon the party with which the various participants are registered.
Click to expand...

No that decision would be based on whether the predecessor's spending was on legitimate expense or non-legitimate ones like Palin's.

It's also a pointless argument. When you bust a thief do you let them off easier if they shout "Hey, they stole more than I did!"?
 
This from the radical right wing ultra conservative Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/07/AR2008090701984_pf.html

Ms. Palin's Pipeline
Her attempt to deliver natural gas from Alaska is revealing about her governing style.

Monday, September 8, 2008; A16

PEOPLE ARE still buzzing about Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech. But while her style has been minutely analyzed, very little commentary has focused on one of the few substantive claims she made about her brief tenure as governor of Alaska: that she "fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history . . . a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence." Is Ms. Palin right about the importance of the pipeline and her role in moving it forward?

Ms. Palin is indeed correct about the need to tap the 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under Alaska's North Slope, the same region whose oil made the state wealthy but which has begun to run dry. Natural gas demand is growing rapidly in North America, and low-carbon natural gas is better for the environment than coal or petroleum. This means that the outlook for gas prices is relatively bullish, making the economics of an Alaska pipeline more favorable than ever before. Yet for decades the idea has been deadlocked by federal and state politics -- and unless the United States can install a pipeline to transport Alaska's gas soon, companies may commit to foreign sources of liquefied natural gas, thus locking in long-term dependency on imports.

Congress passed legislation to expedite a pipeline in 2004. Ms. Palin's predecessor as governor, Republican Frank H. Murkowski, attempted to negotiate a deal with the three oil companies that control the North Slope gas, Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips. His plan would have awarded the companies a long-term tax freeze in return for relatively weak commitments to actually build the pipeline. But even though Vice President Cheney and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) lobbied hard for Mr. Murkowski's approach, Alaska's public and legislature balked, viewing the proposal as stacked in favor of the Big Three oil companies. Ms. Palin rode criticism of Mr. Murkowski's deal to victory over him in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary and then to the governor's office later that year. She reversed Mr. Murkowski's strategy, asking the legislature to pass a law setting criteria for a deal, then throwing the project open to companies other than the Big Three. The result was a commitment by an experienced pipeline company, TransCanada, to build the project, which may take 10 years, in return for $500 million in state seed money derived from Alaska's recent oil windfall.

The oil companies still control the gas. So, if TransCanada actually gets all the necessary permits, assembles financing and builds the pipeline, the Big Three will have to be persuaded, years from now, to ship their gas through it on reasonable terms. Meanwhile, BP and Conoco Phillips have announced plans to build a pipeline of their own without the state's backing -- a sign that the political and economic wrangling over this immense and risky project is far from over. But it is also a sign that Ms. Palin's outflanking of the oil companies injected some competition and urgency into a process that was previously stalled. Perhaps her Democratic opponent for the governorship in 2006, who campaigned on similar ideas, would have achieved these results. Nevertheless, Ms. Palin actually did.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top