Rolling Stone presents 11 myths about Sarah Palin
1. THE MYTH: "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay. And made a profit!" — John McCain, at a campaign stop in WisconsinThe Truth About Sarah PalinTHE FACTS: No one bought the jet online. It was eventually sold through an aircraft broker — at a loss to taxpayers of nearly $600,000.
2. THE MYTH: "I told the Congress 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere." — Sarah Palin, convention speech
THE FACTS: Supported the infamous pork project in her 2006 run for governor, even after Congress had killed the bridge; derided its opponents as "spinmeisters." Reversed her stance a year later — but kept the money, doling out the $223 million in federal funds to other pork projects throughout the state.
3. THE MYTH: "We ... championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress." — Sarah Palin, convention speech
THE FACTS: As mayor, employed a lobbyist who also worked for Jack Abramoff to secure $27 million in pork spending for Wasilla — more than $4,000 per resident. In her two years as governor, requested $453 million in earmarks. Alaska ranks first in the nation for pork, raking in seven times the national average.
the latest
latest episodes
Sounds a bit more like prevarication to me.
In related news Politco.com Swing State Map shows that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide...
http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html
You can't deny that having a President Palin would be wonderfully entertaining. It would lighten the spirits of the people as the world crumbles around them.
se7a7n7@2: "Politco.com Swing State Map shows that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide..."
This will make it a lot harder for the Republicans to cheat like they did the last two times. They might have to resort to nastier things to get their way.
Yy! Mr n-sdd Srh Pln bshng frm BB. Whn wll BB pst th lsts f dbnkd Srh Pln ls bng sprd by th lft?
wn't hld my brth.
s lm s stmpnk gdgts r, 'd rthr rd bt ths n BB thn pltcs.
Here's the BBC's take on her debate chances. Apparently, 'perky' is the new 'intelligent'. I guess that's not exactly news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7643879.stm
Hey BrunoThePug, why don't you find that list and post it here. Or even suggest it as a link to BB.
@ #5 Brunothepug
I don't really think this is the place for Palin apologists.
I'm sure you can find that elsewhere.
I'm off to watch an episode of Dino-Riders...
I for one look forward to the bipartisan double-jeopardy flub-a-thon tomorrow night.
Myth: Palin is a woman from alaska
Truth: Palin is a cross dressing dude in San Francisco
http://flickr.com/photos/77702530@N00/2903082009/
sorry, i posted this in another palin thread. but i love this ladydude.
Hang on, I'm going to fix something:
Yy! Mr n-sdd Srh Pln bshng frm BB. Whn wll BB pst th lsts f dbnkd Srh Plin ls bng sprd by th lft?
wn't hld my brth.
s lm s stmpnk gdgts r, I'd rthr rd bt ths n BB thn pltcs.
There.
Doh! Missed one.
i get the point, but that is a very poorly written "article."
Knowing the above facts,I guess she is really
qualified to be President ,as she is full of it.
I wish she had told her pregnant about the dangers
of unprotected sex.I guess the kid wanted a baby
just like Mom.
Bruno the Pig: Is pointing out Palin's lies considered "bashing" in your parts?
BrunoThePug! Here ya go:
http://tennesseefree.com/2008/09/08/lies-about-sarah-palin-debunked/
If that's a little too truthy here's the response to my response to your response to Rolling Stone:
http://tennesseefree.com/2008/09/08/palin-and-mccains-lies-verified/
--Charlie
I just hate talking and/or reading about her, because when I do, I feel as though I'm buying into an elaborate publicity stunt.
the problem with print media: this is all old news already.
Bruno,
Funnily enough, some commenters have linked to legitimate news organizations who actually have debunked some Palin myths. You are totally free to do that. Hissing and spitting, not so much.
As much as McSame trumpeted over and over how much he has "cracked down" on earmarking and pork barrel spending in the debate, you'd think he would have researched his running mate's record a little more carefully. -Oh yeah, the facts have little to do with his campaign platform. I wonder what the "neutral" sites getting fatchecks from the GOP are going to say about this.
"Reality has a strong liberal bias." -- Stephen J. Colbert
Looks like someone at Rolling Stone has been reading FactCheck http://factcheck.org/ .
FactCheck is a
They have an educational site as well: http://FactCheckEd.org is
@ #20 Phikus
Since you asked, Factcheck agrees with much of what the Rolling Stone article says. Not all of it, but much of it. I hope that does not surprise you too much.
Luxury Jet:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_sell_the_alaska_governors.html
Bridge to Nowhere:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html
Earmarks:
Nothing found - however, I suspect the story is true.
nd s n. vryn cn d thr wn rsrch, f thy wsh. trd t tll y tht Fctchck skwrs th lft nd th rght bt qlly, bt y sm t dbt t - whch s fn, bt snc y thght t tss smr ('ftchcks' n, flt n hnst rply wld b ccptbl.
"Reality has a strong liberal bias." -- Stephen J. Colbert
I'm pretty sure reality is in the mind of the beholder. Liberal brains are different from conservative brains.
As much as I personally like Colbert's idea.
sorry to threadjack, but i read the most amazing e-mail today about Obama being the biblical antichrist as foretold in the book of revelation. man, talk about reaching! but i suppose the desperation is beginning to set in...
WIGWAM: Just because you keep repeating the same mantra "Factcheck skewers the left and the right about equally" across several threads doesn't make it true. They may claim to have the facts and "to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics" but that does not make it so. I have shown you previously where they were in error and actually helped to spread disinformation, according to reputable news organizations (NYT, Washington Post) which you continue to refuse to acknowledge. The facts cannot be owned by a single source. If you want to continue to appear objective, you are going to have to do better than that.
I made an honest assessment that their pretense may not be as they state and made the supposition that they may actually be getting money from the GOP clandestinely for refuting the facts that they don't like. You may not like it, but that does not make it any more dishonest than your claim may be.
Just to add something that Rolling Stone missed:
The luxury jet was sold to someone who contributed to her campaign. Different accounts state that the jet sale was brokered by an aviation firm and also by the speaker of the house ( also a R ).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722.html
In terms of the 600k "loss", thats a tough thing to analyze. Items depreciate after usage. I couldn't find any going rates for newer Westwind II jets - just ones that are 10+years old (this one was 2 years old). The 600k loss over sticker price could have been market depreciation - though it could also not be.
No one did a cost-analysis on whether getting rid of the jet was fiscially responsible or not either. The jet cost $100 more an hour to operate than the other planes in the fleet - however no statistics on actual usage hours and men transported are out there. So it could have been a more responsible thing to sell it - even at a certain loss - or it could have been a giant mistake.
@ #26 Phikus
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Annenberg_Public_Policy_Center
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/About.aspx
"When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993, its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication, the Policy Center’s home. It was their hope that the APPC would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being of those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, APPC research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and AIDS, media content analysis and political civility.
Funding for APPC comes through an endowment established by the Annenberg Foundation, as well as the generous support of federal agencies and foundations."
Don't you ever hear those references to the Annenberg Foundation on NPR when they mention the grants they get to fund their programming?
Not Republicans secretly funding it, I am pretty sure.
Their director, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, has a book out called "Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment," which again, I am going to doubt that Republicans paid for.
But it's a funny thought. I wonder if they are paying for it and are too stupid to know that what they're paying for it biting them in the butts?
And seriously, I read your links when you posted them, I just disagree with your assessment that NYT and Washington Post are without bias in every case. I kept that to myself because I didn't want to get on a sidebar discussion at the time. I read NYT and Washington Post stories, as well as everything else I can get my hands on, including Factcheck and Sourcewatch and VoteSmart and so on, even BBC and other overseas sources - then I consider and make up my own mind. Sometimes I just don't know. Sometimes the conclusion I reach is something that makes me unhappy. Such is life.
@ #27 Jonathan V
Interestingly, the most accurate news source in the world, the NYT, had a slightly more interesting story on it - before it became fodder for a campaign...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Yes, she sold it at a loss. Such things are sold at a profit? I'm guessing not, but I've never bought a used plane. The point at the time, according to the NYT, was that she sold it, as promised.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2898783091_8709b0a604_o.jpg
wwj #30, i saw that pic about 20 years ago, only the caption read" say something nice about detroit, or the dog gets it!"
WIGWAM: Good for you. I never said everything coming from those sources is without bias. What I did say is that I trust their reporting on those two articles I cited, and that I trust their reputations for fact-checking in general. I said that they are the only two mainstream media outlets in America that are at least attempting to fulfill their obligation to being the 4th estate, a check on the other 3 houses of government, as envisioned by the founding fathers of our country.
I am glad that your favorite source to cite reported on the above myths Rolling Stone did correctly, although I wonder why they have declined to comment on the earmarking as of yet. Perhaps they'll get around to it, like Palin said she'd eventually send Couric examples of McCain being a maverick. However, just because you do not find it on factcheck does not make it untrue.
Whatever the plane was sold for, it certainly was not at a profit, from any source, which makes it one more big fat lie from McCain.
G, mr nt-Pln stff n hr?
The picture for the earmarks fact has her sporting a Canadian flag pin, apparently.
Johnny Cat, that's not a Canadian flag pin. This is a Canadian flag pin:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:EyxbgjtmhFn2kM:http://www.betterfinish.com.cn/images/flag%2520lapel%2520pins/17.jpg
(Sorry for the massive URL.) The pin that Bible Spice is wearing has bars on the top and bottom, not the sides, and appears to have some navy blue graphic in the centre, not a maple leaf.
It's not an Alaskan flag, either.
Close...but no. Not the Canadian flag...
bible spice...effin priceless!
@36, i unfortunately can't claim to have coined it. I saw it on Pharyngula and fell off my chair.
Does anyone else think Sarah Palin looks like Peggy Hill? Only not as funny.
*climbs back on chair*
KAY: Nice! =D
Apologies to Canadians for that horizontal/vertical switcheroo! I feel like an idiot. May b I can has veap.
Anyone notice the byline:
TIM DICKINSON Posted Oct 02, 2008 9:30 AM
That's some nice time machine that Rolling Stone has there!
Just doing my part to keep the meme propagating.
Here's a single-page version of the feature:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23140513/the_truth_about_sarah_palin/print
(They call it the "printer-friendly" version, but it certainly isn't that.
worst website ever.
One fact per PAGE?
It's a Blue Star Service Flag pin.
I am going to stick to the conservative New Republic where they stick up for Palin. Wait a minute, did liberals take over Buckley's child, his legacy? What is going on here?
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/01/analogy-watch-palin-edition.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/02/the-palin-chronicles-continued.aspx
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fe01f7d3-9091-4b19-b293-274db6527245
@ #46 Mikelotus
"I am going to stick to the conservative New Republic where they stick up for Palin. Wait a minute, did liberals take over Buckley's child, his legacy? What is going on here?"
Buckley's magazine was National Review, not New Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
So, no. Buckley's 'child' has not been taken over by liberals.
Quoting PNH on the subject of FactCheck.org:
What I'll add is that if FactCheck.org wants to have leverage, it first has to have general credibility, which means it has to fact-check the Right as well as the Left. My worry isn't so much its routine small-scale fact-checking as what it occasionally does with that leverage.Does it not do that? I'm a frequent poster on a military-veteran discussion forum, which is almost entirely right-wing, and they accuse FactCheck.org of being left-wing oriented (they accuse me of being a left-winger as well, which is amusing).
I can understand anyone having doubts, but a simple review of their articles shows them tearing McCain/Palin apart for misstatements as well as Obama/Biden. From my point of view, it actually looks like McCain's team is getting the worst of it - more lies, more gaffes.
I have to confess, I find the 'proof' of the head of the Annenberg Foundation's political leanings a bit odd, considering that the head of the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes books about the 'Echo Chamber' effect of Rush Limbaugh, a bit of a skewering of the talk radio generation.
http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195366824
I also look a bit askance at the apparent inference that FactCheck.org is biased BECAUSE they appear not to be. Huh?
I confess I am a bit unclear on that statement. Can you elucidate?
In any case, I continue to read any and all information I can get my hands on, from extreme right-wing so-called 'news' blogs to uber-left blogs and all the newspapers I can find online. I use and recommend FactCheck.org, SourceWatch.org, VoteSmart.org, and of course, Wikipedia (for basic background).
BLH BLH BLH 'm rgng lbrl nd bsh rpblcns fr blvng wht thy rd nd hr n th nws tht thy chs t wtch, s whr gt my nf frm my frnds nd th nws chs t wtch s m RGHT!! blh blh blh
As far as factcheck.org is concerned, I note their use of (and linking to) primary sources. Take this article for instance:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/not_coming_clean_on_coal.html
The question? Does Obama oppose clean coal? They cite the radio ad where McCain makes that claim, and then reference the Obama website where his position is clear: I support clean coal. Where is the bias problem? Credibility is not really important if you provide all your sources, alls a sceptical reader has to do is follow the links and decide what she thinks of the sources cited.
Same thing with all this Palin nonsense, they dont claim to be providing anyone with new information, just providing references supporting or denying is allready been claimed. Again, if you dont believe them, then you have to either refute their logic or their sources, just declairing them to be biased is the equivalent to sticking your fingers in you ears and screaming "I CANT HEAR YOU"
I note in passing that Michelle Malkin (a true right wing reactionary if there ever was one) thinks that factcheck is "pure garbage" for not hating Obama enough vis-a-vie the NRA.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/23/tell-all-your-friends-factcheckorg-is-useless/
Like so many here on this thread, she is a partisan first and formost and, to the partisan *everything* is about the D's and R's.
I somehow think that when McCain loses, it'll be somewhat sad to see Palin fade away into obscurity... She IS such a character!
More on her lies, in comic form-
http://superbarracuda.com/
@#50: Fine and dandy, as long as I can freely interject "liberal" and "conservative," mm-kay?
Wigwam @49, Mushroom @51, I didn't allege bias in any specific case. I said I don't entirely trust them, which is a different thing.
Wigwam, your right-wing veterans group has probably been getting some of their information feed from systematically corrupted sources, so fact-checked information is going to look disturbingly anomalous to them. When I have to deal with people like that, I try to remember that they've been lied to, and thus are in a sense victims.
Mushroom, can we just agree that Michelle Malkin doesn't belong in a discussion of facts? Her job is to tell hateful, actionable lies so that higher-ranking pundits and politicians don't have to tell them and thus potentially expose themselves to retaliation. (Ever notice how good right-wingers are at setting up women to do the dirty work?)
Zandar, please don't do that unless it improves the conversation.
I can't speak for Mushroom, but speaking for myself, I was trying to gently point out that when a single organization is accused of bias towards the opposite side by both the left and the right, the thought occurs to one that perhaps the organization in question is not biased at all.
Of course my right-wing friends have been getting their data from a tainted well. So have my left-wing friends. Both sides would tell me I'm nuts, that their data is pure clear truth and nothing but that. I hope it does not fash you, but I see no difference, and I think you're both victims in that sense.
Is FactCheck.org worthy of trusting implicitly? No, I would not say that. Who is? But worthy of being added to the stack of inputs from which to filter and make up one's own mind? I'd argue that it is.
I read both clearly-left-wing-biased and clearly-right-wing-biased news sources, which I do not trust, but they are still inputs. When they do not offer links to their own sources, I try to find them on my own, if I am sufficiently interested in the story in question. Then I make up my own mind. The only 'trust' I employ is in my own ability to filter data, make decisions, and be willing to change them if it turns out that I am wrong.
I wonder just how much death and destruction the Bush/McCain bunch have to wreak before their true nature is made indisputably evident to those needing "fact checking"? What do they need?
@ #56 Takuan
As I presume you mean me, let me just say that if I agreed with you about their 'true nature' then I would be foolish indeed to continue to explore and learn and make decisions. I don't share your beliefs, so the question "what do they need" is not a valid one for me.
One problem that both the left and the right tend to share - they assume that the 'other side' knows that they are wrong and just stubbornly refuse to admit it. Each side thinks the other is not only wrong, but willfully so. It is generally not the case.
I bring up MM to illustrate a point, that she hates factcheck.org not for the information it provides, but what the information itself says. People on this thread should ask themselves if they are doing the same thing, shooting the messenger because they dislike the message.
@53 thats fine by me
#54 TNH: [Michelle Malkin] doesn't belong in a discussion of facts[.] Her job is to tell hateful, actionable lies so that higher-ranking pundits and politicians don't have to tell them and thus potentially expose themselves to retaliation. (Ever notice how good right-wingers are at setting up women to do the dirty work?)
Honestly, I think Randi Rhodes fits your description just as well. Both sides willfully distort the truth--but their audiences (and sources of incomes) are extremists who largely don't want objective information.
deviant, you're leaving out the fact that he was Ozzie's greatest guitar player, since he went solo. RIP randi! rock on dude!
WIGGY: You're sounding like a broken record. I only wish that you were this interested in fairness and balance over at FOX NEWS.
Here's something to chew on (with detailed citations.)
And here's the chaser.
MINTY: I was thinkin' the same thing! =D
And check out the Couric interview, SNL style, if you haven't seen it already. Tina Fey has Bambi Spice nailed.
Mark Frauenfelder @4, if you're interested, Making Light has undertaken to host Bruce Schneier's realtime Election Day tracking project. The thread(s) will be discussing numbers and returns, not ideology, and will be watching for anomalies like Ohio's reported results in 2004.
Cpt. Tim @10, that's a beautiful thing.
Alisong @11, drop me a note and I'll fix it.
PStarr @13, it's well within normal journalistic standards. What's your beef with it?
Anonymous Charlie @16: why don't you register an account and stick around?
Guy Jin @18, you can always go hang out on the Twitter feed that aggregates mentions of the candidates.
Wigwam @23, that was an obvious typo.
Yer Maw @44, it's a device to increase page view stats so they can impress advertisers.
Mike Lotus @46, I've been known to confuse my NRs too.
Wigwam @55:
Logically speaking, it's a possible but by no means a necessary conclusion. Your statement of the proposition establishes no connection between accusations of bias and actual bias. The source could be biased in either direction, or biased a small amount in one direction and a large amount in another, or wildly biased in both directions, or biased in a randomly chosen direction for the first six hours of every day.Undoubtedly; but the right-wing sources will be far more adulterated. This is verifiable. The left has nothing to match the far right wing's decades-long well-funded disinformation campaigns on subjects like "tort reform", the imminent bankruptcy of Social Security, or the mass media's liberal bias. It certainly has nothing to match the constant supply of bizarre but professionally written stories about the supposed misdeeds of liberals. A lot of commenters have a sloppy habit of assuming there's parity in these matters, but in fact there isn't.It's a common assertion. Absent other information, there's nothing to be said about its validity in a specific case.I'm not fashed in the slightest. I was raised in this here debaterly briar patch.I don't think I quite believe that. No one who argues this much, especially about the reliability of sources, is going to take such a passive attitude toward data. I think you're using it as a dodge.I think that's funnier than you probably intended.Takuan @56, it's a wilderness of stones, and each person works out their own path to their own conclusions.
Wigwam @57, acquit us. We do not all think the other side is willfully wrong.
Mmm. You have strong ties and frequent interactions with people who don't have your facility with abstract intelligence.
Mushroom @58, it would be remarkable if this were the only known gathering of humans that didn't do that sometimes.
Deviant @60: Actually, no. This is how that automatic assumption of parity gets you into trouble. The right has far more public figures who willfully distort the truth, and there's nothing subtle about the way they do it. I mean, James Baker himself, a man with a distinguished career behind him, stood up in Texas in 2000 and asserted that of course, everyone knows that computer ballot counts are more accurate than hand counts. Everybody did not know that. In fact, anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that hand counts are more accurate. That's why it's standard procedure to use them to check results when there's a dispute.
If this isn't clear to you, think about all the times a change machine has rejected your dollar bill. Did you throw the dollar bill away? Of course not. You took it to a human being, who was capable of making much finer judgements about what is and is not a legit dollar bill. It's the same deal when you're counting ballots.
The biggest example so far is George Bush, of course, fibbing us into war in Iraq with his false claims that there were WMDs, and that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Don't even try to claim there are matching misdeeds on the other side. I'm not sure there are other lies that big in American history.
I'm not saying this as a partisan thing. If I were a dispassionate Martian observer who didn't care one way or the other, I'd still be telling you that the right has developed a massive habit of lying that's unmatched by anything on the left. The Republicans have become the party of Lee Atwater, Grover Norquist, and Karl Rove, dirty tricksters who have no honor, and who put party before country. They're backed up by the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, and they've got the entire Fox News empire to help spew trash.
If you want another instance, there was that whole Swift Boat thing with Kerry. The guy was a genuine hero under fire, saved a bunch of lives, never any questions about any of that being true -- until he ran against George Bush. Then the whole Swift Boat operation got underway. They thoroughly falsified the account, and smeared Kerry six ways from Sunday. It was an ugly episode.
We still call it swiftboating, as in Saxby Chambliss, who sat out the Vietnam War with a trick knee, swiftboating Max Cleland in a 2002 senate election. Cleland did serve in Vietnam. He'd been promoted to Captain, and awarded a Silver Star and Bronze Star for valor, before he had a bad, bad day, and lost two legs and an arm to a grenade. You'd think a guy like that would be proof against slimeballs questioning his patriotism. You'd be wrong. Chambliss ran ads showing Cleland between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and suggested that his votes against various homeland security measures meant he was "soft on terrorism".
Everyone does not do it, and both sides don't do it equally. There's a big segment of the right wing that's given itself over to lying and deceit. You're not part of that.
As for the low-level garden-variety lying, there was a near-perfect example of it just the other day ...
Found it! It's a Fox News reporter taking an informal plebiscite in a Pennsylvania diner. Watch how many hands go up, and how he calls the vote.
Going back to Randi Rhodes vs. Michelle Malkin. The simple fact is, they aren't comparable. Rhodes is partisan, says she's not a journalist, is nevertheless a stickler for facts, and is an activist for accountability and standards in the media.
It's insufficient to say that Michelle Malkin has no respect for truth. She has no respect for reality. If you google on "michelle malkin lies", you get an unmanageable number of hits. The argument that should be sufficient is that she uses Dafydd ab Hugh as a fill-in when she's busy; but you probably don't know Dafydd, so it won't mean as much as it should.
So how about this one: the woman's a brown-skinned child of immigrants, and her single biggest issue has been the imminent danger to America from brown-skinned immigrants. Little bit crazy, eh?
This is the woman who contradicted an AP dispatch quoting Iraqi police Captain Jamil Hussein, on the grounds that Jamil Hussein didn't exist (he did). Who claimed that a California proposition to teach LGBT history in the schools would keep teachers from saying bad things about Jeffrey Dahmer, because he was a gay cannibal. Who called Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante "Latino supremacists", characterized peaceful mass demonstrations against the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act as "militant racism" marked by "virulent anti-American hatred," and said that "the intellectual underpinnings of reconquista (the idea that the Southwest belongs to Mexico) are embraced by the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians," and that "reconquista is 'mainstream' among immigrants." Who falsely alleged that a shrapnel wound John Kerry received during the Vietnam War was a self-inflicted injury. Who deliberately misrepresented a poll of American Muslims so that she could claim they're a bigger danger than they are. Who
took a story about a shooting -- a tragic piece of random violence by a man with severe mental problems -- and reworked it into a piece of pure fabrication about a deranged anti-war activist who shot a military airman on the Fourth of July to make a political statement. Who has extensively defended the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII -- an episode the government and all concerned now agree was wrong. Whose attempts to report on the war from Iraq were flatly ludicrous.
And that's just scratching the surface.
So, no. She's not comparable with Randi Rhodes. She's not comparable with anyone, except maybe Ann Coulter.
MinTphresh @61, they're different but related. Randi Rhodes named herself after Randy Rhoads, whom she admires.
it was a bad joke, t. glad to have ya back!
@ #64 Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Fair enough. I also took note of and accept your response to my statements. Don't agree with all of them, but I respect your even tone I'll desist, given that I think impasse has been reached.
This is actually the reason I replied once again - because I puzzled over this statement and am not sure what it means. A compliment? I can't actually tell. And who are these people I have 'strong ties' with? I promise I'm playing coy, I'm genuinely curious!
Hehe, I meant of course, I promise I'm NOT playing coy. Sigh. Late night at the dojo, my hands hurt.
ah Teresa, your strength waxes. We will make sacrifice tonight.
Randi vs. Randy: Ironically, they both serve Satan. =D
(facepalm)
I should have known it was an intentional joke.
It's good to be back. I'm slow and logy, but that's supposed to fade over the next month or so.
there is a strength in the slowness of recovery. Unfaltering clarity granted by the perspective of mortality. The cleaving power of the unstoppable broadsword, rapier laid aside anon. Your instincts unfailing.
Really? Is that true if there is, like, a million votes? Or 10 million? I mean, if I asked you exactly how many people were registered posters at BB, wouldn't you just ask the computer to tell you? What if you and the computer disagreed? Who would we believe?
Teresa: Indeed, we are glad to have you back. =D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3lQEfrCF_0
as he plays, close your eyes and cup your hands over the monitor