Last week, the Detroit Free Press's Web site posted "Which books would Palin want to ban?," a column by syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. Pitts begins with a series of possible questions for Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Then he makes his point:
My first question, though, would not be one of those. I'd simply ask which books she wants to ban -- and why.
Yes, there's a list of titles floating around the Internet right now, but it's a fake. It is, however, established fact that our would-be vice president has in the past tried to pull books off library shelves.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
The New York Times reports that as a member of the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin complained to colleagues about a book called "Daddy's Roommate," described in promotional material as being "for and about the children of lesbian and gay parents."
Laura Chase, who ran Palin's campaign for mayor, explained that the book was harmless and suggested Palin read it.
Chase told the New York Times that Palin replied she "didn't need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it."
Later, as mayor, Palin reportedly asked the town's librarian three times whether she would agree to remove controversial books from the shelves. Three times, the librarian refused. Palin fired her, but eventually bowed to public pressure and gave the woman her job back.
Let's examine Pitt's "established fact" that Palin tried "to pull books off library shelves."
An ABC News piece titled "Did Sarah Palin Try to Ban Library Books?: Alaska Librarian Can't Recall Palin Asking to Ban Books," reported earlier this month:
The librarian at the center of a 1996 controversy with then-Wasilla mayor Sarah Palin says she can't recall any effort by Palin to ban specific books from the town library.
In her first public statement since Palin was named the GOP vice-presidential candidate, Mary Ellen Baker said today, "I simply do not recall a conversation with specific titles," Baker told ABCNews.com.
Palin has acknowledged she twice raised the issue in 1996 of how books could be removed from the shelves, but said it was only a "rhetorical question" and that she did not ask for any books to be banned.
Also earlier this month the Anchorage Daily News, a newspaper that's endorsed every Democratic candidate for president going back at least 20 years, stated:
Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons (now Baker) about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time. Books may not have been pulled from library shelves, but there were other repercussions for Emmons.
Repercussions? That sounds ominous, perhaps Palin singled out the librarian for punishment. But then the story goes on:
Four days before the exchange at the City Council, Emmons got a letter from Palin asking for her resignation. Similar letters went to police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton and finance director Duane Dvorak. John Cooper, a fifth director, resigned after Palin eliminated his job overseeing the city museum.
Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job, which she'd won from three-term mayor John Stein in a hard-fought election. Stein had hired many of the department heads. Both Emmons and Stambaugh had publicly supported him against Palin.
Replacing an opponent's political appointees with one's own is pretty typical for elected officials.
Finally, on whether the governor tried to ban books, FactCheck.org points out:
She (Palin) 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.
Pitts doesn't identify the books Palin allegedly tried to pull off library shelves. That's because he can't. Complaining about a book isn't the same as banning it.
Leonard Pitts won a 2004 Pulitzer Prize. His use of left wing Internet chatter as "established fact" suggests he's aiming for another one.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is just an attempt to
September 28, 2008 - 13:54 ET by motherbeltThis is just an attempt to get the words "book-banning" and "Palin" in the same sentence.
Who cares if the banning never really happened. Let's talk about "what if" and which books she would want to ban!
This is just as low as the Obama campaigning making hay and getting air time by predicting that Republicans will use race as a factor to defeat him.
Another shameless smear.
shameless smear
September 28, 2008 - 17:05 ET by Michael M. BatesThis is just an attempt to get the words "book-banning" and "Palin" in the same sentence.
Good observation. Maybe it'll "help" in Google searches.
MMB... That's the exact
September 28, 2008 - 22:42 ET by Clear thinkerMMB...
That's the exact thing I thought of when reading this. The Detroit Free Press should be ashamed of themselves for even publishing this story, but we all know that liberal Editors have NO shame.
OMG - Obamas As The Waltons
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Which books would the Detroit Free Press ban?
September 28, 2008 - 18:36 ET by wdhorningHint:
- "Hand Gun Self-Defense"
- "Why Abortion is Evil"
- "Hunting Techniques"
- "The Bible"
I imagine
September 28, 2008 - 13:57 ET by DEVILDOCMOMany article in the Detroit Free Press (and how "Free" is it really?) is preaching to the choir. Your excerpts prove that point. They only want one side and that is what they have presented.
In addition this quote "Chase told the New York Times that Palin replied she "didn't need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it."" confuses me, it seems as if the quotation marks should end after "stuff" and that Sarah Palin's campaign manager is criticizing her. BTW, there are many things I do not need to read, see, or hear to know they are garbage.
Garbage when I see it
September 28, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Michael M. BatesBTW, there are many things I do not need to read, see, or hear to know they are garbage.
Paging Al Franken, paging Al Franken.
Yes,
September 28, 2008 - 18:42 ET by DEVILDOCMOMand he is just one of many on the left...
Ban The Detroit Free Press
September 28, 2008 - 13:59 ET by flyingmonkeyIt is my opinion that the Detroit Free Press should be banned from the library. Furthermore, the stick that is used by libraries to hold the latest edition of the Detroit Free Press Newspaper, should instead be used to beat Mr. Pitts soundly about the head.
tough medicine
September 28, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Michael M. BatesIt is my opinion that the Detroit Free Press should be banned from the library.
With a declining circulation (#10 in circulation 20 years ago to #20 now), it needs to sell every copy it can.
The Detroit Free Press??
September 28, 2008 - 14:05 ET by RHRobinsonMDI didn't think that my interest in the Detroit Free Press could drop, but I'm proved wrong again. Perhaps Governor Palin could hire the 0bama "Goon Squads" to enforce her will.
Comrades, I beg of you – do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. - Robert Heinlein
Goon Squads
September 28, 2008 - 17:17 ET by Michael M. BatesPerhaps Governor Palin could hire the 0bama "Goon Squads" to enforce her will.
They're previously engaged and much too busy trying to squelch any resistance to The One.
Some Other Reason
September 28, 2008 - 14:10 ET by spiff"Finally, on whether the governor tried to ban books, FactCheck.org points out:
"She (Palin) 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.""
Maybe The Governor was checking out the librarian to see if she would remove book from the shelf if asked to. If she was looking out for the citizens First Amendment Rights this would be a logical step.
Vote NO on Arizona Proposition 202
It's not what they say it is!
http://stoppropositi...
Brilliance...
September 28, 2008 - 14:20 ET by Uberconspiff,
Maybe The Governor was checking out the librarian to see if she would remove book from the shelf if asked to.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
She was testing the librarian...One would only hope this could be considered the truth. Great spin...I'm sure if the McCain Campaign were to be reading this comment, they would run with it.
Ubercon
Great spin?
September 28, 2008 - 14:37 ET by RHRobinsonMDInteresting how you 0bots always think in terms of "spin". I suspect you are projecting.
"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men."
Although I don't recall the
September 28, 2008 - 16:18 ET by dmntd1Although I don't recall the article, I do seem to recall an en masse firing of political officials, or requests for resignations, or something, when she was Mayor, to see which ones were loyal to her or not. I think that was part of the background of her firing, then rehiring, the librarian.
Interesting spin, that she asked to see if the Librarian would.... hmmmm
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill
Other reasons
September 28, 2008 - 17:19 ET by Michael M. BatesMaybe The Governor was checking out the librarian to see if she would remove book from the shelf if asked to.
You have the makings of another James Carville - but on the right side.
Wow
September 28, 2008 - 17:40 ET by spiffWow, very insightful.
Vote NO on Arizona Proposition 202
It's not what they say it is!
http://stoppropositi...
Thanks for link spiff
September 28, 2008 - 18:51 ET by DEVILDOCMOMas you know our employer sanctions law has really helped us in Arizona. There was an article a week or so ago which discussed how crime has dropped in Arizona and crime in Texas ( which has no similar legislation) has risen. The article attributed this to the illegals leaving Arizona and heading to Texas.
In my book (which has never
September 28, 2008 - 14:17 ET by marvlIn my book (which has never been banned), the Detroit Free Press is little more than a whacked out communist rag that serves as an old folks home to a bunch of aging hippies with chemically induced brain impairment. Is there a recorded case in recent memory of anyone actually reading it? I wonder what FactCheck.org has to say.
communist rag
September 28, 2008 - 17:21 ET by Michael M. Bates. . .the Detroit Free Press is little more than a whacked out communist rag that serves as an old folks home to a bunch of aging hippies with chemically induced brain impairment.
I don't think the Free Press has a monopoly on that market.
I know how many books she try to ban.........
September 28, 2008 - 14:26 ET by ConLosRepublicanosNoNone!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is Detroit Free
September 28, 2008 - 14:29 ET by Richard RomanoThis is Detroit Free Press's version of Minority Report --"what if" Sarah had tried? Oh my!
This is just another sick hit-piece...honestly, these people need help, and pronto -- PDS strikes again.
"It is, however,
September 28, 2008 - 14:37 ET by Indiana Joe"It is, however, established fact that our would-be vice president has in the past tried to pull books off library shelves."
Well, then, let's take a look at some other "established facts."
Barack Hussein Obama was born and raised as a Muslim. Under Muslim law, he is Muslim. That's an "established fact."
Obama has yet to produce any proof that he isn't foreign born. Therefore, it's an "established fact" that he is.
Obama had help from a convicted felon in acquiring his house. It's an "established fact" that he is guilty of graft and corruption in politics.
$100 million vanished on Obama's watch from the Annenberg Challenge. It's an "established fact" that he stole it.
Bill Clinton lied under oath. It is an established fact (no quote-marks) that he is a perjurer and violator of his oath to "defend and uphold the Constitution of these United States of America."
Hillary Clinton made a 10,000% profit trading cattle futures over a months-long period with insider information. It is an "established fact" that she misused her position for personal gain.
John Kerry lied to Congress and the American people about his fellow soldiers, his combat experiences, and whether he threw his medals or ribbons or other medals or ribbons away. It's an "established fact" that he is and was a traitor.
Barney Frank lived in a house that had a prostitution ring run out of it. It's an "established fact" he is either a prostitute or a pimp.
Ted Kennedy drunkenly drove into water, causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. It is an "established fact" that he is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
Well, I could go on and on and on. If the threshold for what's considered an "established fact" is suddenly this low, we have a lot of catching up to do.
And, one more thing; what books would Obama ban? "The Satanic Verses?" Now, there's an interesting mental exercise!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Senator B. Hussein O.
September 28, 2008 - 14:56 ET by RHRobinsonMDI suspect that high on 0's list would be:
'The Case Against Barack Obama' - David Freddoso
'Obamanation' - Jerome Corsi
which his goon (excuse me - "truth") squads have attacked relentlessly. Probably because they expose truth.
"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden." - Robert Heinlein
Established facts
September 28, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Michael M. BatesObama had help from a convicted felon in acquiring his house.
Said felon reportedly getting ready to sing like a birdie for the Feds. Hope it's sooner rather than later.
My e-mail to Pitts:
September 28, 2008 - 14:47 ET by The Distributistlpitts@miamiherald.com
Hey Pitts,
Are you on acid? What else is your excuse for the variable lag between reality and your bias. They'll hand out Pulitzers to any moron, eh?
You Twit!
"Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers." -GKC
Books to Ban: By Sarah Palin
September 28, 2008 - 15:19 ET by ArchConservative1. The Communist Manifesto.
2. My Life by Bill Clinton
3. Any and all autobiographies of Barry Obama.
Any other suggestions?
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
An Inconvenient Truth
September 28, 2008 - 15:24 ET by RHRobinsonMDAn Inconvenient Truth - by the Goreacle
First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I'll buy it. - Robert Heinlein
Detroit - city of black Crooks
September 28, 2008 - 15:33 ET by ChasvsWhat else would you expect of the paper that covers the crooked Democrat black politician city of Detroit?
These folks have ruined a great city and the entire State of Michigan and they have the nerve to talk about someone who is successfully running Alaska?
Obviously they don't know an honestr politician because they have never seen one in good old Detroit!
451F
September 28, 2008 - 16:12 ET by RackieStart with "Journalism for Dummies" and "An Idiot's Guide to Journalism".
Damn, Rackie!
September 28, 2008 - 17:57 ET by Indiana JoeThat's the whole syllabus!
;^D
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Leonard is the Pitts
September 28, 2008 - 16:21 ET by Edward CropperNo one regularly reads Leonard Pitts who isn't already in the liberal tank.
He has absolutely no credibility. He isn't even preaching to the choir, the choir got up and left some time ago.
He is one of the least perceptive columnist syndicated today.
He is actually laughable with his ultra biased disjointed reasoning
SHE SHOULD BAN ONE THING ONLY
September 28, 2008 - 16:27 ET by SgthulkaThe Detroit Free Press.
It's like reading "The Titanic Daily" as the ship is going down. For 50 years it has preached and opined that the key to coivic success is more taxes, unions and welfare.
And today, you can see the result.
Titanic Daily
September 28, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Michael M. BatesFor 50 years it has preached and opined that the key to coivic success is more taxes, unions and welfare.
Almost as long as the Democratic Party's preached that.
Remember his post 9/11 article?
September 28, 2008 - 16:35 ET by AgentAmericanI remember his article that he posted right after 9/11:
http://www.miamihera...
Excerpts:
"You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard."
"Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together."
"So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me
that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If
that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message
in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're
capable of.
You don't know what you just started.
But you're about to learn."
Of course, sometime after that...he went back to his partisan ilk. So much for uniting during a crisis.
Drill ANWAR
AA what
September 28, 2008 - 17:49 ET by I.am.DILLIGAFhappened to the guy that wrote that? Why is he like he is now. What happened to his resolve. That was a great artical and from the looks of it he ment every word, so I wondered what happened between then and now?
Guns and Violence are not the answer but they are one solution to the problem== SARG
It is truly amazing what
September 28, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Indiana JoeIt is truly amazing what BDS can do. The worst terrorist attack in history steeled his resolve, motivated him to "put aside the family squabbles," and take care of business.
Hatred of a philosophy, a party, and a man changed his mind. As my father liked to say, gee, that lasted quick.
I can't help but feel sorry for someone who's guiding principles run so shallow. I wonder what he would say about this article today? Would he be ashamed of himself now?
Or then?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Which book would the Detroit "Free" Press Ban?
September 28, 2008 - 16:46 ET by ScandimanHmm... the Bible perhaps?
Her book banning attempts
September 28, 2008 - 17:16 ET by TheGingermanHer book banning attempts are the least of her worries. Sarah Palin is junior varsity. It's actually painful to watch her speak.
I feel bad for her. Clearly she's not ready for the big leagues, but the chuckleheads at the CNP went for a gimmick instead of substance.
I'll bet they wish they had actually talked to her before selecting her. The Couric interview was an embarassment and the attempts to hide her from the media are ridiculous.
Just get her off the ticket and move on. Pretend it never happened.
Dropping Sarah from the ticket
September 28, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Michael M. BatesJust get her off the ticket and move on. Pretend it never happened.
Now that'd be a sure ticket to success. I like Sarah a lot. Her conservative values and common sense make the GOP ticket much more attractive than it otherwise would have been.
I like her, too. I think
September 28, 2008 - 17:44 ET by SmartypantsI like her, too. I think she is a breath of fresh air for the Republican party, a sorely needed one. John McCain is a weak candidate on his own; Palin has complemented the ticket well. She should do well in the debate against Biden, who is a mouthy idiot.
Mouthy idiot
September 28, 2008 - 17:47 ET by Michael M. BatesShe should do well in the debate against Biden, who is a mouthy idiot.
Only a guess, but I doubt Joe will be asking anyone in the audience to "just stand up."
LOL. What a clown.
September 28, 2008 - 17:54 ET by SmartypantsLOL. What a clown.
Michael, she can't even
September 28, 2008 - 18:14 ET by TheGingermanMichael, she can't even answer a simple question. She is clearly not ready to be in the public eye.
She couldn't name one thing McCain did to fight against deregulation in 26 years?
Two of her Couric answers didn't even make sense at all. Completely inane.
The problem is, you can always try to say, well, it was just one interview, but when she's only done 3 and is hidden from the media by her handlers due to her clear ineptitude, it carries a lot weight.
That was an embarassment. Plain and simple. Anyone who could watch that and come away not believing that Palin is a joke and a liability for the party had the volume on their tv off.
Michael, she can't even
September 28, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Dan The Man 2Michael, she can't even answer a simple question - Sometimes the questions are too simple because they need clarification. Leading questions are not good either. She seemed to do very well with Hanity's questions.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Sarah's not ready?
September 28, 2008 - 18:37 ET by Michael M. BatesMichael, she can't even answer a simple question. She is clearly not ready to be in the public eye.
I don't see why fumbling a question automatically disqualifies her. Certainly she's bright enough despite not hitting the high rhetorical bar established by The One:
Yeah, with those kind of
September 28, 2008 - 19:17 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, with those kind of soaring oratorical skills, how can you not vote for the man?
Must be racism.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Michael, she didn't fumble
September 28, 2008 - 19:46 ET by TheGingermanMichael, she didn't fumble the question, she missed it entirely. She never even got her hands on the ball.
We are in the midst of a financial crisis. John McCain has been touting his fight against deregulation for 2 weeks. She gets asked a simple question about what HER running mate has done to fight against deregulation and she has no answer. That is absurd.
She is clearly not ready. Her approval rating in Alaska dropped 14 points after her embarassing appearance with Couric.
What is the plan with her? Hide her until the election? No more interviews?
She's going to have to speak at some point and, invariably, she's not going to come off well because she is clearly not ready. To try to pretend that her recent interviews haven't been disasterous is bizarre to me.
You know it isn't true. Palin was a bad pick and she's making the McCain camp pay for their hasty decision-making.
Missing it entirely
September 28, 2008 - 19:53 ET by Michael M. BatesMichael, she didn't fumble the question, she missed it entirely.
What, did she claim FDR addressed the Nation on TV in 1929?
You obviously have an ax to grind. That's fine, but I don't think your arguments will persuade many folks around here. Have you considered a different forum?
No Michael, I like this
September 28, 2008 - 20:00 ET by TheGingermanNo Michael, I like this forum.
You actually believe that Sarah Palin is a good candidate? You can keep a straight face and say that without laughing?
I simply don't believe it. You're just carrying water at this point.
The Palin stunt was a bust. Before last week it was just speculation, now it's official.
Also, just want to point out. I don't see how Biden's ignorance in anyway excuses Palin's complete lack of coherence and grasp on basic facts.
Unbelievable
September 28, 2008 - 20:06 ET by Michael M. BatesI simply don't believe it.
That says more about you than me. Not much use in pursuing this. Good luck.
In closing: Enjoy
September 28, 2008 - 20:12 ET by TheGingermanIn closing: Enjoy
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... Good
September 28, 2008 - 20:56 ET by JerryYeah, yeah, yeah.... Good thing she didn't ask her the REALLLLYYYY tough questions that she saves for democrats.... "What's your favorite color?" .... "How are you holding up to the awful, republican, smear campaign of lies and awful smears by those awful, smearing, lying, republicans?"... "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?"
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Yeah, Jerry....or
September 28, 2008 - 21:14 ET by BlondeWould you like a pillow?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
should McCain drop Palin? Maybe Palin should drop out.
September 28, 2008 - 23:44 ET by nicholas nicklebyThere have been a few articles from pundits on the left (NYTimes), center (Newsweek), and right (National Review) that have made the case that Palin is clearly not ready to be VP, and that by keeping her on the ticket McCain is undermining his own "Country First" slogan.
I think it would be a bad move in terms of the election for McCain to drop Palin, but following Palin's generally poor showing in all her interviews (even the interview with Hannity, which has been compared to an infomercial in terms of its seriousness, was not stellar), more people seem to be considering this as the best option for the country.
(Notably, Kathleen Parker at the National Review ( http://article.natio...) writes "If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself." Parker is particularly interesting because she raises the possibility that Palin could drop out of her own accord, thereby trying to assuage the religious right base that was excited by her. Though that would probably not assuage the right that was prepared to elect McCain and then direct imprecatory prayers towards him for a speedy death in the hope that Palin would become president.)
What do you think?
You know you have convinced
September 28, 2008 - 23:56 ET by Dan The Man 2You know you have convinced me, perhaps we should just abolish any election and let the pundits choose who they believe should be President and VP. I don't know what I would do without your sagely advice.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
always with the arguing and the fighting
September 29, 2008 - 01:10 ET by nicholas nicklebyI wasn't arguing that, Dan--in fact, I wasn't arguing any point! I just wanted to bring up an interesting opinion piece in a right-wing journal and see what people here thought of it. I expected some people to repudiate the opinion, the author, or maybe even the journal, but I've been surprised to see a number of conservatives go the other way, and repudiate Palin.
I assume from your response that Parker's opinion has no sway with you, and that you're happy with Palin.
NN, you miss the forest for
September 29, 2008 - 01:23 ET by Dan The Man 2NN, you miss the forest for the trees. The people will decide if it passes the smell test, they will determine who is qualified and elect them into office. I go by the idea that there are only two qualifiers for President or VP and that is specified in the Constitution of the USA. It also details the powers of the branches and what powers the federal government and state governments have.
Read it sometime and you might be enlightened.
Yes Palin is more qualified than any Senator including McCain. As senators they have the power to pass the laws and they have not. But as President they do not have any ability to write or pass laws other than a signature to those already written and decided. So IMO that is why more governors are selected as Presidents.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
bwah?
September 29, 2008 - 01:35 ET by nicholas nicklebyonce again, Dan, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me (re: assuming I don't know the constitution--when, in fact, I never mentioned the constitution nor said anything that could be refuted by the constitution).
All I asked was how people felt about Palin in the light of her recent less-than-stellar interviews. Some people on the right are thinking twice about her and deciding they don't like what they're being sold.
You, however, feel differently--if I'm reading you right, you feel that the role of Governor is better training/more alike the role of President, and that is why you feel comfortable supporting Palin. Thanks for your input.
Nope again, grasshopper.
September 29, 2008 - 23:56 ET by Indiana JoeNope again, grasshopper. You didn't mention the Constitution, he did. You talked about being "qualified," and he said his only qualification, indeed the only real "qualification," is spelled out in the Constitution (we like to capitalize ours).
See, Nicky, just because it was brought up by someone other than you doesn't make it irrelevant. But I understand your confusion, since you can't even tell when you're making an argument, engaging in debate, or even expressing an opinion that can be disagreed with. You're just agreeable little Nicky, working your line through the water in that charming, Huck Finn kind of way.
"Thanks for your input?" Aw, man, that's a nice touch!
I'm just having too much fun with this troll tonight!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
"I wasn't arguing that,
September 29, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Indiana Joe"I wasn't arguing that, Dan--in fact, I wasn't arguing any point!"
Yeah... you were. Posting a link is "bringing up." You posted commentary.
Drop the mask, dude. You're "outed."
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
This one is easy... If I
September 28, 2008 - 23:56 ET by Clear thinkerThis one is easy...
If I was anyone important in the McCain camp, I would suggest they just let Sarah be Sarah. It's obvious to me that the McCain camp has been trying to control, unfortunately, everything Sarah says and does. For her to resonate with the voters she needs to be given a free hand at what she says and give up on this control crap that McCain has hung around her neck.
So nick nickleby, you may kiss my shiny rear-end!
OMG - Obamas As The Waltons
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
that's a good idea about giving Palin more room
September 29, 2008 - 00:11 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey clear, i think that's actually an interesting idea about giving Palin more room, though, unfortunately, it looks like the McCain campaign is going even further in the other direction--he just retracted something she said in an interview, saying, in effect, that she doesn't always speak for their campaign: http://politicaltick....
Isn't it sexist to keep her under wraps?
September 29, 2008 - 01:01 ET by UberconFREE SARAH!
She should be allowed to speak her mind. She's intelligent and has the intuition to answer correctly to each question posed to her. Allow the Woman to speak!
Übercon
RIght back at 'ya
October 1, 2008 - 00:02 ET by AFCloneFREE JOE!
He should be allowed to speak his mind. He's intelligent and has the intuition to answer correctly to each question posted to him. Allow the Man to speak! (it's more amusing that way)
I'm in total agreement with ya'...
October 1, 2008 - 15:37 ET by UberconAFc,
That wasn't too hard...I agree about the intelligence. The intuition part is a female thing better to let Sarah handle that. Joey the Shark does speak quite a bit and is more than capable of talking to anyone even the ones who use "Gotcha!" journalism!!!
Free Sarah!
Ubercon
Unless
October 2, 2008 - 00:08 ET by AFClonethey have the muzzle him. Have you ever had to have a conversation with someone while trying to remember all the social rules..."don't tilt your head this way, it could look threatening" "don't frown when you talk, it could look like you're looking down at a woman" etc.
Actually, I feel sorry for Sen Biden. Gov Palin is being encouraged to be herself and Sen Biden has to downplay his natural tendency to put his foot in his mouth.
LOL...
October 2, 2008 - 10:03 ET by UberconAFc,
I'm withya' on that line a thought!
Ubercon
nicholas
September 29, 2008 - 01:18 ET by MrShyCan the less-ready Obama join her out the door? And that Washington retread, Plugs O'Biden? And, yeah, McCain is pretty long in the tooth now...
Maybe we can scrap the whole thing and rewind back to 2007.
Oh, and this:
"center (Newsweek)"
Very funny. :)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
now you've got something!
September 29, 2008 - 01:28 ET by nicholas nicklebyas long as we're doing rewinds, let's go all out and redo the 2000 election with the new, less boring Gore--if he was running, I think he would probably have won, and then he would probably (though not definitely) have kept funding for some Clinton-era terrorist task-forces which would have perhaps been able to stop the disaster of 9/11.
nicholas,
September 29, 2008 - 01:50 ET by R D Helm...have kept funding for some Clinton-era terrorist task-forces which would have perhaps been able to stop the disaster of 9/11.
You mean like the "task-force" that failed to stop the five attacks Osama's camel-washers pulled off against this country while Billy Jeff was in the White House?
Dayem, your funny!
(BTW-When the WTC was attacked the first time in 1993, Billy Jeff couldn't even bring himself to go to NYC to even visit the site)
We were attacked on 9/11 because of the Clinton admistration's incompetence. Clinton did nothing at all about the five attacks that AQ carried out against this country on his watch. The camel-scrubbers were emboldened by Clinton's repeated inaction.
If Billy Jeff couldn't prevent Osama from attacking us while he was POTUS (and he apparently couldn't) then what the hell makes you think anything he would have put into place would have prevented us from being attacked after his worthless butt left office?
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them - Rick Roberts
My troll fuse length today: 0.003mm
it was a hypothetical
September 29, 2008 - 11:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Dave,
As I said, it was a hypothetical situation, but I'd rather see what Gore could do since we've already seen what Bush failed to do. (I'd put money on Gore not continuing to read to the children; and since some of those reports--"Bin Laden Determined to Strike"--were generated by Clinton/Gore task forces, maybe Gore would have paid more attention to them.)
As for the multiple Al Qaeda attacks--well, first, you know the 1992 WTC bomber did train in Afghanistan, but otherwise did not have links to Al Qaeda/Osama bin Laden. (Also, only 6 people died in that attack, so it's not so surprising that a President would not visit the site. (Sure, terrorism is terrible, but 6 people die pretty frequently and we don't freak out--life doesn't stop, we just have to take some precautions. Basically, it's like living in London during the Blitz: you take some precautions, but you have to go on with your life.) On the other hand, the President did visit the site of the worst terrorist bombing on US soil up to that point--Oklahoma City, 168 killed.)
As for the claim that Clinton did nothing in response to the embassy and Cole bombings, let's not forget the retaliation on an Al Qaeda outpost in Khost, Afghanistan (which probably didn't do anything substantial--but there's a difference between saying "X didn't act" and "X didn't act correctly"), and, as I was arguing, those bombings may have spurred a President Gore into taking seriously the report that bin Laden was determined to strike within the U.S.
You can disagree on that; sure, it's a hypothetical situation, one we'll never know for sure, but I think it's a possibility worth thinking about.
Oh, the hypothetical
September 29, 2008 - 23:35 ET by Indiana JoeYou mean hypocritical, don't you? After all that talk about how you and Gman don't like attacks on your guys by people changing the subject, you offer this.
You've moved from bashing Palin to praising Gore to bashing Bush. You use this thread to re-write history for Clinton, further down you ignore history about McCain, you're firmly amongst our leftist "friends" in helping us cure our "Palin problem." I mean, Nicky, the list just keeps growing.
I guess "hypothetical" for you really means "let's pretend that things that don't exist and never existed do exist," such as that Clinton task-force you mentioned somewhere among your smarmy bloviating. And claiming it's a "fact" that McCain never warned anyone about the housing problem. Why? Because he's on record as saying that banking de-regulation is a good thing, and that "doesn't sound like" someone who would say that the FMs are in trouble, to you. See how easy it is? Instant "fact."
You're a troll, pure and simple. You manage to make your insults sound like "kidding," and your writing style is not too shabby, I'll give you that. But the twisting of threads, the veiled insults, the constant repetition of known falsehoods. The final proof? If history is brought up, make sure to mention 2000. It's a great segue to Bush-bashing. Yep, just another troll when you get down to it.
And you can't say I didn't give you a chance, either. More the fool am I.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Pelosi should take lessons from you guys in giving mean speeches
September 30, 2008 - 22:52 ET by nicholas nicklebyJoe,
A conservative pundit says one thing--I came here to see what real, normal conservatives would say about it. (By "normal," I mean, people who don't get paid for their opinions, but who have them anyway.) That's not a "stealth argument" but a question.
(I'll be honest--heck, I thought I was being honest--the fact that even some conservatives are turning against Palin makes me feel hopeful for a responsible conservative party since I think she's not prepared to be VP. But I know not everyone is going to think that way, so I wanted to see what people said.)
As for being a troll, except for once calling a fellow commenter a moron for making a moronic statement, I've always been polite; and as for being unmasked, I've never hidden my political leanings. From my very first post here I made it clear that I was not a conservative, just someone interested in what regular conservatives would say.
In fact, in my first post I pointed out that Bush has been a bad president--and I don't know how anyone who really cares about freedom and the Constitution can disagree with that after the illegal wiretapping scandal. So, this is the sort of question I would want to bring up with conservatives--if you do support Bush (and some conservatives don't), how can you forgive such an egregious invasion of personal rights?
That's the sort of question I would want to ask around here. This is the sort of response I get.
But don't worry, I don't take it personally.
Nick
September 30, 2008 - 23:03 ET by BlondeI must take exception to the ever present liberal whine of "illegal wiretapping". Kindly cite the statute that makes what you are referring to "illegal", within the confines of FISA.
Secondly, would you kindly cite one example of an egregious invasion of personal rights for one U.S. citizen? That was a result of the FISA finding?
That would be a nice start.
Thanks.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
really?
September 30, 2008 - 23:38 ET by nicholas nicklebyBlonde,
Thanks for reminding me not to take things for granted--I had thought we all had accepted that Bush/Gonzales had illegal (warrantless) wiretaps. (Just to be clear, the wiretaps were what I was referring to as an "invasion of personal rights"--it's a Fourth Amendment issue as per Katz v. US (1967).)
Okay, so, it's my understanding that Bush issued an executive order for wiretaps without a warrant from FISC as stipulated by FISA. That would be (mostly) legal under FISA if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire
the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a
party." Except no "substantial likelihood" was established. (I also think there's some controversy over what constitutes a "United States person" in terms of a Foreign Intelligence law.)
But I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. But the American Bar Association--that bastion of Socialist atheist homosexual abortionist--was pretty clear when they denounced the warrantless wiretaps as exceeding the President's authority.
Judging from some of your previous posts, Blonde, I don't think that't going to convince you.
You would be correct nicholas, about my reaction
October 1, 2008 - 00:04 ET by BlondeThe ABA is not the Supreme Court. The Bar Association's opionion as to warrantless wiretaps is irrelevant.
So, the "illegal wiretaps" you've alleged are not so illegal, correct?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
you're right about that
October 1, 2008 - 00:29 ET by nicholas nicklebythe illegality of the wiretaps has not been tested in the Supreme Court yet, I think, but the lawyerly consensus is that the practice was illegal. (The ABA is 400,000 to 410,000 lawyers.)
(Given the nature of the information in these cases--the Bush administration claims that some of the info is classified--this issue probably won't come to the Supreme Court for a while.)
But, just so I read you right, Blonde, you have no problem with warrantless wiretaps?
Ah, nice try nicholas
October 1, 2008 - 00:37 ET by BlondeNo, no...you can't turn your refusal to adequately respond into a question to me....and thereby change the debate.
I don't care if the ABA has 700 Billion lawyers (to grab a nice, topical number).....lawyers & their opinions, are like, well, you know, everyone has one.
So the "lawyerly consensus" as you so quaintly put it, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. They, and their opinions, have precisely nothing to do with the legality of the FISA wiretaps.
Care to try again?
I'll pose it to you again, exactly how has anyone's personal freedom (citing a specific example) been taken away?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
always read subject headings, blonde
October 1, 2008 - 01:04 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi blonde,
I think you misunderstood my last post. I conceded the main point (in the subject-heading: "you're right about that")--as it stands now, the illegality/legality of the wiretaps has not been proven, so you're right about that.
I'll say it again: as far as I know, the legality of the warrantless wiretaps has not been proven, so you're right about that.
I'll say it a third time: you're right about the warrantless wiretaps not being proven illegal.
(Now, I suspect that, in the future, the warrantless wiretaps may be declared illegal--and I suspect that because most lawyers have argued that they are illegal, and most lawyers, alas, know more about the law than I do. That, however, does not make my case that the wiretaps were illegal, so I'll say it again: you're right, they haven't been declared illegal yet.)
Now that we've got that out of the way, I hope you'll see that I wasn't trying to distract you by asking about wireless wiretaps, I was moving to a different, related question, since the first question has been settled (in your favor).
So, agreed: the wiretaps have not been declared illegal.
Now, what do you think about the practice of warrantless wiretaps?
Or let me ask a broader question, since this is really my interest: Bush has a very low approval rating, but I suspect some people here still like him--but there are many issues on which he has taken stands that are not necessarily conservative: warrantless wiretapping is one issue, and the large deficits that he's run is another issue (especially for old school, fiscal conservatives).
So I guess it's really two questions: a) do you (still) support Pres. Bush? and b) is there anything that he's done which you think has been a bad decision?
(Of course, you don't owe me an explanation, but I am curious, and I do appreciate knowing how some conservatives feel.)
Fair enough, nicholas
October 1, 2008 - 01:37 ET by BlondeSorry...I've been having a little unplugged Clapton fun over on YouTube. Great stuff, BTW.
First, on your broader question. Yes, I still support President Bush. I believe his absolute dedication to keeping us safe has been his greatest accomplishment. When I say that, it includes the GWOT, including all of its subsidiary side shows (Gitmo included) with our allies, both large and small, the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. I truly believe that twenty years down the road, taking down the jihadis will be seen as a brilliant and visionary decision.
The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to the largest expansion this economy has ever seen. It was a bold and decisive move, and one which Obama will undo to our great sorrow, if he's elected.
As to bad decisions, there have been plenty. First and foremost, not reigning in and bowing to his will the Republican Congress for the first four years of his administration. He, and the Congress, tried to be dem lite. It was pathetic. Rampant spending on everything and anything...all for the "common good". A good deal of the blame for our current "crisis" is due to the fact that President Bush didn't beat the dem Congress about the FM's when he had the club with which to do it.
Secondly, his absolute refusal to engage his critics. Had he been more articulate in defending and explaining his actions, he could have lead. Instead, he chose to let his actions speak, and to let his critics define his actions, instead of defining them himself.
Okay...that's about it. I'm out in about ten.
Catch you on the boards tomorrow.
<edit> Clapton.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
heh
October 1, 2008 - 12:50 ET by nicholas nicklebyI just read this Onion article that made me think of my conversations here: http://www.theonion.... -- "60 Million People You'd Never Talk to Voting for Other Guy." (Which is why I'm here--to talk to people who plan on voting for the other guy.)
I may disagree with you, Blonde, but I'm glad to know more about what you think.
Now, I'm off to watch some Clapton.
Nicholass... Thank you
September 30, 2008 - 23:08 ET by Clear thinkerNicholass...
Thank you for the compliments! At least some of us Republicans are still willing to fight Socialism.
Palin Is Caught And Her Career Is Over!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
And you still haven't shown
September 30, 2008 - 23:12 ET by RESTLESS 1And you still haven't shown to anyone's satisfaction how it was moronic. You asked a question, I gave an answer, then, another, and another. Then you moved the goalposts, and I still scored. You are a troll, you just think you are too clever to found out. You are wrong.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
that was a fun argument
September 30, 2008 - 23:54 ET by nicholas nicklebyRestless, you made the claim that people were "shoving" hatred of religion down your throat. You gave me several examples of people who hate religion, like Bill Maher. We don't disagree about that--there are people who hate religion.
What we disagree about is whether or not people are "shoving" it down your throat. You gave the example of Bill Maher--who has one show on a premium cable channel. I pointed out that you could simply not watch that one show, thereby avoiding Bill Maher's hatred of religion. (Well, and now you have to avoid his movie, "Religulous," as well.)
Now, I think I've made a simple case for why you can't consider Bill Maher as "shoving" his viewpoint down your throat--it's not like anyone is forcing you to watch his show. If Bill Maher shows up on one of your favorite late-night talk shows, change the station. In fact, I'm betting the only place you ever hear about Bill Maher is when you come to Newsbusters to see what outrageous things he said--in which case, if it offends you so much, I'd advise you to skip those few posts. (Trust me, this won't cut into your reading material at NB--there are a lot of other posts to read.)
Or maybe I should ask you a different question: why does it offend you so much that Bill Maher hates religion?
Seriously, if you're that offended by people having other views, my only advice is to man up.
(Also, in that previous argument thread, I apologized for calling you a moron; I still think your argument is moronic, but I try to take a hate-the-sin/love-the-sinner attitude. But in that argument I clearly failed, and wanted to make sure you knew I regretted throwing names.)
You haven't made a case about anything
October 1, 2008 - 00:09 ET by RESTLESS 1You just keep blowing smoke, and bill was far from the only example.
Oh, and if it makes you feel any better, I don't care what bill hates or doesn't hate. His problems are his and no skin off my nose.
Now, on to "shoving". If you want to define it as govt. sponsored shoving, then perhaps you could point me to examples of federal thugs coming to your home and forcing you to pray or believe? This should be interesting.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
no switcheroo, stick to the point
October 1, 2008 - 00:22 ET by nicholas nicklebyno, no, R1, I never claimed that people were shoving religion down my throat, so I don't see that I have to prove that. (That's a different argument we can have some other time.) All we're arguing now is your claim, that liberals shove hatred of religion down your throat.
I keep repeating myself (it's true) because you haven't given me a straight answer: why don't you just turn off the tv when Bill Maher comes on?
(And yes, he's not your only example, but he was probably your best; for instance, Margaret Cho wasn't hating on religion, she was hating on people who declare themselves to be Christian and then do nothing to act Christ-like--you know, hypocrites. But that's not the issue here, the issue is who is shoving hatred of religion down your throat, and how are they shoving it? Or are you just sitting there with your mouth open?)
(And I never limited "shoving" to government spending, but I thought you might have an easier time proving that.)
Okay, one last time: you don't mind Bill Maher's anti-religion opinions, but you feel that when he expresses those opinions on his show, he's shoving his anti-religion bias down your throat. Again: why don't you change the channel?
You're twisting in the wind nicky,
October 1, 2008 - 00:29 ET by RESTLESS 1I have showed you twice now. You keep limiting the discussion to maher, when I have given multiple examples. One of them even received money from the National Endowment of the Arts, (pisschrist), and while not a lot of money, it is the principle. So turn off the T.V., don't got to movies, stay away from art museums, don't go to concerts, what else shouldn't we do make sure that we are not accosted by the anti-religious crowd?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
tidal wave or tidal pool of examples?
October 1, 2008 - 01:16 ET by nicholas nicklebyYou've hardly presented evidence that the world is full of anti-religious media that you just can't get away from: one tv show, one photograph at one art museum, one website (Cho) that you had to take an active role in navigating to. You're hardly presenting a watertight case that you're being swamped by anti-religious media--cry me a river, restless.
Boo hoo, the atheists and heathens are being mean to me. I must have missed the part where Jesus said that on the cross.
When somebody burns a cross on your lawn or turns you down for a job because of your religion, then we can talk. Until then, man up, and don't be such a crybaby.
Nicky
October 1, 2008 - 01:31 ET by MrShyIn large swaths of the country, like here in the Northeast, people all around me preach -- albeit, not ferociously, but I feel it a lot -- anti-religion.
Bill Maher is another one who injects his real disdain for religion on every one of his stupid shows, on his interviews with Larry King, etc.. He's given a huge platform to vent all of this.
My own brother has tried to get into heated arguments with me about the evils of "all" religions, but I can almost sense that he has some grotesque sympathy for Islam.
And there are so many like my brother more and more, it seems. All the people he works with are the same.
I'm atheist/agnostic, so really, what do I give a f- ??? I respect anyone, anywhere, who believes whatever they want to believe, so long as they're not killing people over it or believing that killing to uphold their beliefs is okay. (See: basically one religion these days.)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
interesting case
October 1, 2008 - 12:34 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Shy,
First, I also respect people's beliefs, even if they believe in nothing or believe they don't know the answers. I don't want my argument here to be taken as an attack on religion. When somebody points out that religion has been the cause of a lot of bloodshed and hardship (which is true), I think you can counter with all the good things that religion has helped with--all the art it has helped produce and all the lives that it has helped to save through charity and through pure hope.
Now, you're right that you can't turn off your brother the same way you can turn off Bill Maher, but there are several ways to deal with private matters when they come up in public places, like telling your interlocutor that you're not interested or not comfortable with that topic--only jerks and boors persist after that. But if you do like an argument (and hey, who doesn't?), then you can compete on a level playing field, one person to another.
I mean, what's so bad about having to defend your beliefs/faith? That's kind of a tradition in many religions, where you're supposed to know answers to questions, supposed to have answers to give to doubters and the unconverted. Now, you'll notice that this is a slightly different argument than I made above, where I argued that there are very few instances of people really "shoving" anti-religion.
Above, I'm arguing that there are few instances of people "shoving" anti-religion in a format that cannot be avoided (i.e., if someone is on one tv show, saying something you don't like, change the channel); but here, I'm arguing that in many instances, when debates over religion can't be avoided, it isn't really "shoving" since people are playing on a fair field. (I.e., neither your brother nor you have a tv show to make your views known more widely.)
I mean, I used to work in an office with a lot of people of one faith that I did not share--we didn't talk about religion, except sometimes when it was to ask questions about each others' beliefs. When holidays came around, if someone said "merry Christmas" to someone who wasn't Christian, it wasn't the end of the world--in many cases, it was the thought that counted there. (Now, if A Christian said "I pray for your soul" to a non-Christian, that I would consider to be crossing the line--but again, I don't think it's the end of the world, and if people are bothered by that, they should say something. It's not that hard: "I respect your belief, but you should know that I don't share it, and that it makes me uncomfortable when you do that. I'd like our working/family environment to remain as pleasant as possible, so I'd like you to stop saying that." Alternately, if you wanted an argument, you could engage that person in a debate over religion--but again, that would be a fair fight, without any "shoving.")
nicky,
October 1, 2008 - 11:16 ET by RESTLESS 1I have neither the time nor inclination to post the slew of examples of anti-religious bigots inundating the populace with their bigotry. You asked for, and received examples.
The fact of the matter is, I shouldn't have to be as discerning as you would like to avoid offense at these things, not in a country that has "freedom of religion" in it's Constitution.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
you don't owe me examples, but they would help your case
October 1, 2008 - 12:36 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Restless1,
We've continued this debate over two threads now, and, heck, it may come up again, but for now I'm happy to end it by saying, yes, there are people out there who don't like religion (by which I mean both people who don't like all religions, and people who don't like some religions), but other people's opinions are not necessarily an attack on freedom of religion.
(As an example of an attack on "freedom of religion," some unknown men sprayed a chemical irritant into a house of worship during a service in Dayton, Ohio. http://www.daytondai... Now that's an anti-religion attack! The kicker, of course, is that the house of worship in question was a monsque.)
[Edit: by pointing out that it was a mosque that was attacked, I don't mean to excuse any terrorist attacks by radical Islamists--I do, however, mean to point out how anti-religion attacks can take a variety of targets.]
nicholas' "logic"
September 29, 2008 - 02:04 ET by MrShyAaaah, I see.
So what you're saying is, the "new, less boring Gore" is now "less boring" becaaaauuuussse?
Oh, that's right, because he built his own scam franchise promoting global warming, employing fear-mongering and pimping of just one side of scientific speculation as fact, touring the world, setting up fund-raising concerts, writing books, doing TV appearances, etc, etc..
I see. So now, he's a whole lot less boring.
Well, maybe Bush should have also tossed himself into a big scam, too, before 2000. That way, it wouldn't have been so close -- or, he wouldn't have had to "steal it" (yes, joke there.)
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
teach the controversy? what controversy?
September 29, 2008 - 11:11 ET by nicholas nicklebyhey Shy,
actually, the new, less boring Gore is not because of anything he says, but the way he says it--he has been more personable, funnier, angrier. If he had been that way in 2000, the "who would you rather have a beer with?" voters might not have swung for Bush.
Again, it has nothing to do with the content of what he's saying, only the tone. However, if you must know, the "scam" of global warming is hardly scientific speculation:
"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ...
In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the
consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being
affected by human activities ... IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements" (http://www.sciencema...).
So, when people say that people should "teach the controversy," you should correct them--there isn't really a controversy over global warming.
"there isn't really a
September 29, 2008 - 23:45 ET by Indiana Joe"there isn't really a controversy over global warming." If the IPCC says it, it must be true.
Another believer in "science by consensus!" Just like the Pope and Gallileo.
You know, Nicky, I used to think you were just misguided. Then I realized you had thrown your compass overboard.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
..there isn't really a controversy over global warming.
September 30, 2008 - 20:46 ET by R D HelmNicholas,
You are correct. There is no controversy about glo-bull warming, at least not around here, as the entire theory of AGW has been thouroughly dissected, de-bunked and destroyed right here on this very site, thanks mainly to the herculean efforts of Noel Sheppard, our more than capable Associate Editor, and many others here at NB.
The man-made computer models used to support the theory of AGW have been PROVEN beyond any doubt to have been flawed, and in some cases, damn near fraudulent.
The only people left who still buy into this BS are anti-capitalist, freedom-hating Marxists such as yourself, who are still hoping to use AGW as a means of forcing the world to live under your socialist "paradise."
Sorry, pal, but you are more than a day late and a dollar short peddling that AGW bullsh*t around here.
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
I for one can't wait for
September 30, 2008 - 20:51 ET by Clear thinkerI for one can't wait for the election to be over, then I can go back to making fun of Climate Alarmists.
Palin Is Caught And Her Career Is Over!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Nicky, nicky, nicky,
October 1, 2008 - 00:18 ET by RESTLESS 1You obviously have not been here long enough to know that this has already been discussed.
(Sorry, Free Stinker, but I had to link to your forum post to teach Nicky here a thing or two, and no way was I doing that much work.) :)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I did not see the Couric
September 28, 2008 - 17:40 ET by SmartypantsI did not see the Couric interview of Palin, but I'm sure it was just as fair and objective as the Charlie Gibson interview, which was nothing more than a direct attempt to discredit Palin or catch her in a "gotcha" moment. ABC was not successful in this regard, so they chose to edit some significant portions of Palin's responses out of the final aired interview. Would Couric do anything less? If only the media would apply this same standard to Obama and Biden.
Watch the interview before
September 28, 2008 - 18:16 ET by TheGingermanWatch the interview before commenting.
Asking her to name one thing McCain has done to fight against deregulation in his 26 years in the Senate after she said that McCain fought against deregulation is not a 'gotcha' moment. It was a soft ball and Palin missed entirely.
Seriously watch the interview. It's disturbing. She rambled like a loon and it was painfully obvious that she is frighteningly clueless.
So, when is she going to
September 28, 2008 - 20:59 ET by JerrySo, when is she going to ask any democrat who says that Obama is experienced, to name ONE SINGLE THING that Obama has accomplished in the Senate? How about tossing some of those "softballs" to dems?????????
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
You said, at one point,
September 29, 2008 - 00:04 ET by SchnikeysYou said, at one point, that you were a conservative.
If you are, then why do you invest so much time here on Newsbusters ripping conservatives, rather than the liberals? I mean, seriously? Certainly there's got to be something that piques your supposedly conservative interests. And if there isn't, there's always the forum.
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
"Just get her off the
September 28, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Indiana Joe"Just get her off the ticket and move on. Pretend it never happened."
I don't know much about this poster's politics. But I have noticed that the left has been falling all over itself offerring this same advice ever since Palin was named.
"Please don't throw me in the briar-patch!"
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Same old, same old
September 28, 2008 - 18:16 ET by Michael M. BatesBut I have noticed that the left has been falling all over itself offerring this same advice ever since Palin was named.
And I'm sure their intent is to bolster the GOP. Some of the same folks were probably urging the party to drop Reagan off the 1980 ticket.
The democrats have been trying to get
September 28, 2008 - 18:43 ET by IamTinmanSarah Palin since John McCain shocked them with her selection for the VP slot.
Far left 5th columnists like Gingerman have been on the conservative blogs every day spreading this kind of BS and it would concern me if it wasn't so easy to spot.
To answer The Gmans gripe however, Sarah Palin until recently was sort of busy being Governor of the largest state in the country I'm not surprised that she may not be up on the latest Washington trivia or the day to day history of everyone else in the known world. The important thing is that she is smart, and has good reasoning skills both of which which Governor Palin has in abundance. It also doesn't hurt that she has a better than 80% approval rating among the folks of Alaska who know her best.
You're not winning any converts on this blog GMan, go back to the Daily Kos and your twisted friends.
TinMan, I'm anti-Palin but
September 28, 2008 - 19:50 ET by TheGingermanTinMan, I'm anti-Palin but I fail to see how that makes me far left.
Up to speed on the latest washington trivia? She's not up to speed on anything apparently.
Day to day history of everyone else in the known world? She wasn't asked about everyone else, she was asked about her partner, John McCain.
Clearly she is not that smart and doesn't have great reasoning skills. Did you hear her interview? Please, if you haven't then listen to it.
I have trouble believing that anyone could believe she is ready to be VP after her performances last week.
On a side note, since the Couric interview her approval rating in Alaska has dropped 14 points. She's in the 60s now. You clearly have no idea how devastating it is any time she opens her mouth in a forum that is not pre-planned.
wrong Ginger
September 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Dee BunkObama has never been asked to cite Biden's 30 yr history and what he did to solve the problem and if asked to name anything. That was a completely rediculous question. The major thing McCain did was taken off the table by Couric to make what he actually did try to do about the problem seem irrelevant. Palin did know about that. What he did 20 yrs ago isn't very relevant.
Everyone knows you are far left here so don't try to deny it.
Far left? Dubious
September 28, 2008 - 20:17 ET by TheGingermanFar left? Dubious charge.
The attempts around here to label anyone that disagrees with anything the Republicans do as far left is getting silly.
McCain's major claim is that he fought Wall Street. You don't think she might want to have an answer as to HOW he fought Wall Street?
Furthermore, her answers about lack of travel and Alaska's proximity to Alaska were not even coherent. Just a collection of random talking points strung together in a bizarre fashion.
First George Will points out the truth surrounding McCain. Now Kathleen Parker points out the truth about Palin. This will just continue as rational people wake up to the mess that is the Republican ticket.
If you want to cheerlead regardless of the score, then feel free, but most of us aren't going to sit back and watch this disgrace unfold.
Obama's claim to fame was
September 28, 2008 - 21:02 ET by JerryObama's claim to fame was that he was a "community organizer". How many times has Biden been asked to recount Obama's wonderful accomplishments within the Chicago community?
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
"Furthermore, her answers
September 28, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Indiana Joe"Furthermore, her answers about lack of travel and Alaska's proximity to Alaska were not even coherent. Just a collection of random talking points strung together in a bizarre fashion."
From one who knows "talking points," and what's not "coherent."
So, Ginger, you're not a leftist, you're a McCain guy, right? So, you should know... exactly how did McCain fight Wall Street? What did he do? What laws did he propose? What laws did he get passed? When were they passed, and what, if anything, did they accomplish? I mean, you're a smart fella, right? You're no dummy, like Palin, right?
And just btw, what is the annual income from tourism in Alaska? What is the annual state budget? What's the sales tax rate? How many towns over 10,000 are there in Alaska? If an idiot like Sarah Palin knows these things, I'm sure a smart, sophisticated person like you does.
Oh, wait, that's different you say? That's not relevant, you protest. Ah, I see. So you claim that it's possible to lead an interview away from someone's area of knowledge in order to paint them as a buffoon? Why would someone do that?
Oh, yes. Because some other buffoon will always believe it.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Crickets...
September 28, 2008 - 23:50 ET by Indiana JoeHello? Is this thing on?
Yeah. That's what I thought.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
trick question, right?
September 28, 2008 - 23:52 ET by nicholas nicklebyIJ, I don't think most people could answer what McCain did to fight Wall Street's deregulation because McCain has always been for deregulation. Now, some people have been making some noise recently about how McCain warned about the market meltdown 2 years ago, and yet, in an article that was published just this September, he wrote:
"Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide
competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would
provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst
excesses of state-based regulation." (http://www.washingto...)
That doesn't sound like a man who was warning about the market meltdown two years ago.
(P.S. This post--because I'm talking about something that is only tangentially related to what others are talking about--is a little trollish, I'll admit. But this is something I thought the people here should know: if people continue to buy the line that McCain warned about the market's problems years ago, that's their business--but I thought they should have some more facts on the matter.)
He did
September 29, 2008 - 23:11 ET by Indiana JoeThat's the fact. He tried to pass a bill in 2006. If your contention is that, since he believes in de-regulation yet doesn't condemn every single aspect of all de-regulation of banking, he never "warned" about the housing market "meltdown," you are more than "a little trollish."
You are wrong. I don't care what it sounds like to you. Do some research, it's easy! While you're at it, discover the fact that Bush made the same warning a couple years earlier. It's called "google," give it a try.
And you claim you're just providing "more facts on the matter?" What "facts?" Your opinion that someone who is for "competition" among banks and health insurance providers could not possibly have had a clue or uttered a word about the housing problem? Because it "doesn't sound like" it?
I've avoided this, but if that's your idea of a "fact," then I have to say it. You're not "a little trollish."
You're a little troll.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
backing up IJ here
September 29, 2008 - 00:07 ET by nicholas nicklebyIJ, Gingerman could respond to your argument that McCain should not be outside of Palin's area of knowledge--that she should know things about him because he's her running mate.
Your counter-argument to that could be that Biden also misstates things--like when he made that comment about clean coal, which was a reflection of his policy, but not the Obama-Biden platform.
(Gingerman doesn't like the way people deflect criticism of their guy by criticizing the other guy, and in a way I agree--it's a sad state of affairs when people are voting against someone whose policies they don't like rather than for someone whose policies they life, but it seems to be a fact of life or at least politics: you either vote for the lesser evil, or as Mae West did, for the evil that you never tried before.)
That said, did you hear that Palin, in an interview, basically agreed with Obama's position in the debate re: using force in Pakistan? But now McCain is repudiating her comments, saying, basically, that what she says does not represent the ticket that she's on. (http://politicaltick...)
Nick
September 29, 2008 - 23:01 ET by Indiana JoeYou continue to flail. Not going to bother with it all, Gman had enough, why haven't you? You don't need to "help" me make my points. Maybe Gman, but I'll handle myself here.
But this: "Gingerman doesn't like the way people deflect criticism of their guy by criticizing the other guy, and in a way I agree" That's just too hypocritical to let slide. If you don't see the trolls, Gman included in spades, around here do that all the time, then you're blind. You've done it, but will probably deny it. And don't bother asking for links, if I saved every link to that kind of stuff, I'd need another HD.
He says not knowing everything about McCain and his history makes one stupid. In response, I asked him what he knew about McCain. He seems to have gotten the point, and realized when to quit.
'Nuff said.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Indiana, did you miss the
September 28, 2008 - 18:19 ET by TheGingermanIndiana, did you miss the interview? Have you seen her speak off the cuff at all?
Biden's a moron but he's a career politician. He's going to shred her to pieces in the debate. It's going to be brutal. He won't even have to say anything when she won't be able to answer a single question coherently.
Palin was a CNP pick. Nothing more. She has no substance and is clearly not ready for a higher level of government.
So Biden's a career moron?
September 28, 2008 - 19:07 ET by BlondeYou don't like Sarah Palin? Fine.
But you've got someone on your ticket you just called a moron.
So let me see if I have this leaping liberal illogic straight:
It's totally uncool to have a Governor, someone with executive experience, (like oh say, Clinton, Carter) a heartbeat away from the Presidency. But it's just ginger peachy to have a moron (your words) understudy for B. Hussein Obama?
Got it. Thanks for the liberal lesson.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Career moron, Blonde
September 28, 2008 - 19:15 ET by Michael M. BatesBiden's a moron but he's a career politician.
Biden's a moron and he's a career politician.
There. It's fixed.
Thanks, Mike
September 28, 2008 - 19:20 ET by BlondeThe Gingerman is another one of those liberals with the leaping illogic.....even though they hate and denigrate Sarah Palin, for whatever reason, they're perfectly happy with a "moron and a career politician".
Actually, we could say the same about Obama.
Go figure.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Let's be fair, Blonde
September 28, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Michael M. Bates. . . for whatever reason, they're perfectly happy with a "moron and a career politician". Actually, we could say the same about Obama.
Can't forget that BO also did a tour of duty as a "community organizer." Most impressive.
Organized crime
September 28, 2008 - 19:56 ET by acumenYet the community continues to bury the results of Obama's organizational skills. Go figure...
Blonde, didn't your mother
September 28, 2008 - 19:57 ET by TheGingermanBlonde, didn't your mother teach you about assumptions.
Your entire post was a complete waste of time since your fundamental assumptions about me are wrong.
So you think Palin is legit? Your blind dedication to a train wreck of a candidate is, frankly, frightening.
Scary
September 28, 2008 - 20:01 ET by Michael M. BatesYour blind dedication to a train wreck of a candidate is, frankly, frightening.
Where have we heard that before?
Blonde, my ticket is
September 28, 2008 - 19:55 ET by TheGingermanBlonde, my ticket is Republican. I'm not voting for Obama. That would be insane. Why make assumptions?
Sadly, I don't feel like I can vote for John McCain either. His campaign is a mess and his VP pick is a joke.
Again, I don't support Obama and I agree that he has no experience. However, I don't see how that somehow justifies Palin's complete lack of experience.
Palin is second rate and was clearly not vetted. The hype was fun for a week, but now it's getting serious. They can't simply hide her away, but they also can't let her out in public b/c she's a disaster.
I mean, just this weekend, she contradicted McCain on his Pakistan invasion stance. She's a liability, she's completely unprepared for the world stage, and she clearly can't even grasp the fundamental positions of her own campaign. It's a shame.
Part of me feels like this is all intentional. The Republicans are tanking the election on purpose. That's the only possible explanation.
Nice Cover story, Gingerman
September 28, 2008 - 20:02 ET by BlondeNot buying it for a minute, of course.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Not another one!
September 28, 2008 - 21:39 ET by Indiana JoeYet another "straight-ticket Republican" who just can't bring himself to vote for the top of the ticket!
Yeah, die-hard through and through, man, but not quite dedicated enough to help prevent the election of the closest thing to a full-blown socialist we've yet seen get this close to being President. Yep, makes sense to me. He doesn't "support" Obama, but can't bring himself to vote for McCain... because of Palin!
I'd be insulted if I wasn't laughing so hard!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Interesting answer
September 29, 2008 - 00:23 ET by gordongman,
I don't doubt your sincerity and I enjoy your calm answers to some of the more "excitable" posters. That being said, I do wonder how not voting for the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President squares with your ticket being Republican. Might it not be better to wait until after the Vice-Presidential debate to decide whether or not to support her? For my part, I feel I cannot support Senator Obama because I believe him to be a Socialist who is surrounded by all manner of distasteful advisors. That is my opinion based on hours of research into his background. In any event, I hope you will continue to post here and I will await those posts with interest.
Ah, well
September 28, 2008 - 19:19 ET by Indiana JoeSee, as I said, our friends on the left just want to help us out, don't they?
Awful decent of them, isn't it? ;^D
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I am humbled
September 28, 2008 - 19:48 ET by acumen"...help us out..."
Remember back before political correctness was thrust upon us we were still allowed to call that runnin' scared Indiana?
I'm so moved I'm going to flush my toilet one less time today to memoralize Ginger's generous gift to the cause.
Ginger, Her book
September 28, 2008 - 18:42 ET by hydrodynDMGinger,
So... you do think that Palin tried to get books banned? I ask since that was, well, you know, relevant to Mr. Bates' post.
And if that is your contention, maybe you could explain - specifically - where Mr. Bates' analysis is flawed.
Or, instead, you can keep going off on a tangent about how unqualified you think Palin is to be VP since you obviously are all excited about what you think is a winning argument about that topic.
Let's See the Dems Do That To Obama!
September 28, 2008 - 18:45 ET by ChasvsDon't you think th eEmpty Black Suit name Barry should be taken off the Demofacist Ticket?
He's even LESS qualified than Govenor Palin so if you are so damn certain she shold be taken off the ticket, I think Barry dumb shit Obama should go as well!
Liberals are the EVIL in our Country and Obama is their messiah!
MIA
September 28, 2008 - 17:21 ET by acumenAnybody find anything in the Detroit Free Press about Obama using thuggish Chicago political tactics to silence a 527 group supporting John Edwards, muzzle another 527 supporting Hillary Clinton, harrass television stations running the 527 Ayers ad while demandng the Justice Dempartment invesigate? And of course more lately Obama attempting to shut down liberal Chicago radio station WGN 720 not once but twice?
MIA, acumen
September 28, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Michael M. BatesLet's not be hasty. The Free Press intends to investigate all those items. Just as soon as they're done finding out who the baby's mother really is. It could be a while, but they're trying. . .
My bad Mike
September 28, 2008 - 19:34 ET by acumenNo doubt the Free Press will have the Obama vetting process on the calender very soon. What has it been, only a couple of years now -- What possible difference could waiting another 5 weeks make? And look how difficult it was for media types to even obtain a forged copy of Obama's birth certificate. Praise allah for those those creative kos kids and their fancy photo-shop software...serenity now, serinity now.
acumen... Great links, we
September 28, 2008 - 19:51 ET by bigtimeracumen...
Great links, we may as well wait til hell freezes over before the press/msm reports about any of this...
Fox has also surprised me with the silence for most part..it has been disappointing indeed...
We all know if this was the other way around we would never ever hear the end of it 24/7 from those in the msm let alone Capitol Hill creatures..... they would be screaming at the top of their lungs...and by the way, I was very happy Beck has done reporting on this on his radio show, had one of the authors on his show for a full hour that the radio station/Obama tried to silence ect...
For Obama to go to the justice dept. was beyond belief for me...people had better wake up..thank god for the internet, and the radio air-waves...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hey BT
September 28, 2008 - 20:09 ET by acumenHowdy sweetheart, always a pleasure to see ya' here. I hope you are feeling better. Send me an email and let me know how things are going when you feel up to it.
Well, you understand better than most the ways of the impartial demedia. They have a hockey mom to take down. Ha. I wouldn't want any part of that task...
Sarah drew a line in the sand at the Convention with her comment about not going to DC to serve at the pleasure of the media but to serve the people. I looked over at Sheila and said; "that's going to be trouble." Reminded me of Dubya's major league a$$hole remark. Thin-skinned, vindictive bunch this demedia...
Edit -- Got to go throw some cakes on the griddle. Be back later.
The Detroit Free Press is
September 28, 2008 - 17:42 ET by SmartypantsThe Detroit Free Press is another one of those media outlets, like MSNBC, which no longer even pretends to be objective, at least for those who are paying attention. The problem is there are still large numbers of the public that are not paying all that much attention, and so they are still easily influenced by the likes of the Free Press. Without these liberal stalwarts, the Dem party might be in trouble.
Leonard Pitts is a pulitzer winning columnist
September 28, 2008 - 19:01 ET by IamTinmanWhose Column is Printed in a number of newspapers nationwide not just the Detroit Free Press. I'm no liberal but I read him often if for no other reason than to find out what the liberal side is thinking. Quite often he has points worth thinking about, but this time he has stepped in doo-doo with both feet. There are simply no facts to back up his accusation and he has lost credibility with his readers who have not already drunk the Obama flavored Kool-aid.
Which books would the Detroit Free Press ban?
September 28, 2008 - 18:35 ET by wdhorningHint:
- "Hand Gun Self-Defense"
- "Why Abortion is Evil"
- "Hunting Techniques"
- "The Bible"
Speaking of Banned
September 28, 2008 - 20:26 ET by jjkThe free press are the same left slanted libs that refused to sell the movie "Obsession" in their pages.
And even as they
did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over
to a reprobate mind,
Then they will be
called liberals!
Comments needed! Yahoo HIGHLIGTED story rips Palin
September 28, 2008 - 21:54 ET by MaximusBraveheartSomeone needs to start a thread on this & investigate what BS they came up with now. Unreal.
AP Investigation: Palin got zoning aid, gifts :
http://news.yahoo.co...
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 28, 11:58 AM ET
WASILLA, Alaska - Though Sarah Palin depicts herself as a pit bull fighting good-old-boy politics, in her years as mayor she and her friends received special benefits more typical of small-town politics as usual, an Associated Press investigation shows.
When Palin needed to sell her house during her last year as Wasilla mayor, she got the city to sign off on a special zoning exception — and did so without keeping a promise to remove a potential fire hazard.
She gladly accepted gifts from merchants: A free "awesome facial" she raved about in a thank-you note to a spa. The "absolutely gorgeous flowers" she received from a welding supply store. Even fresh salmon to take home.
She also stepped in to help friends or neighbors with City Hall dealings. She asked the City Council to add a friend to the list of speakers at a 2002 meeting — and then the friend got up and asked them to give his radio station advertising business.
That year, records show, she tried to help a neighbor and political contributor fighting City Hall over his small lakeside development. Palin wanted the city to refund some of the man's fees, but the city attorney told the mayor she didn't have the authority.
Palin claims she has more executive experience than her opponent and the two presidential candidates, but most of those years were spent running a city with a population of less than 7,000.
Some of her first actions after being elected mayor in 1996 raised possible ethical red flags: She cast the tie-breaking vote to propose a tax exemption on aircraft when her father-in-law owned one, and backed the city's repeal of all taxes a year later on planes, snow machines and other personal property. She also asked the council to consider looser rules for snow machine races. Palin and her husband, Todd, a champion racer, co-owned a snow machine store at the time.
Palin often told the City Council of her personal involvement in such issues, but that didn't stop her from pressing them, according to minutes of council meetings.
She sometimes followed a cautious path in the face of real or potential conflicts — for example, stepping away from the table in 1997 when the council considered a grant for the Iron Dog snow machine race in which her husband competes.
But mostly, like other Wasilla elected officials at the time, she took an active role on issues that directly affected and sometimes benefited her. Her efforts to clear the way for the $327,000 sale of the Palin family home on Lake Wasilla is an example.
Two months before Palin's tenure as mayor ended in 2002, she asked city planning officials to forgive zoning violations so she could sell her house. Palin had a buyer, but he wouldn't close the deal unless she persuaded the city to waive the violations with a code variance.
The Palins, who were finishing work on a new waterfront house on Lake Lucille about two miles away, asked the city for the variance. The request was opposed by one planning official and some neighbors.
"I would ask that the Wasilla Planning Commission apply the exact same rules in this situation that it would apply to other similar requests so that our community can see that being a public figure does not give anyone special benefits," urged neighbor Clyde Boyer Jr. in a 2002 note to the city.
The Palins' house was built by the original owner too close to the shoreline and too close to adjacent properties on each side, including a carport that stretched so far over it nearly connected the two houses.
The Palins didn't create the zoning problems, but they should have known about them when they bought the house, wrote Susan Lee, a code compliance officer with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, in response to the Palins' request. The borough, similar to a county government, makes recommendations to the city, which has final say.
Lee, in recommending the city reject the request, noted that the exception was needed to resolve an "inconvenience" the Palins experienced while trying to sell their house. In 1989, another borough planner told a previous owner that a variance for the carport couldn't be approved because it didn't meet required conditions and was a potential fire hazard.
But in August 2002, Wasilla Planner Tim Krug approved a "shoreline setback exception" for the Palins' house being built too closely to the water. He sent an e-mail to the mayor saying he was drafting another variance for the side of the house built too close to the property line, but that he understood from her that the other side "will be corrected and the carport will be removed."
Krug asked Palin to let him know if he was wrong in his impression that the carport would be removed.
A few minutes later, the mayor e-mailed back: "Sounds good."
On Sept. 10, 2002, the seven-member Wasilla Planning Commission unanimously approved a variance for both sides of the property, with language covering "all existing structures." Less than a week later, the Palins signed a deed to sell the house to Henry Nosek.
The carport was never removed.
Nosek said Sarah Palin didn't do anything more than any other citizen would have done.
"I sincerely don't feel that Sarah used her position as mayor at the time to get that accomplished," said Nosek, who no longer lives in the home.
James Svara, professor of public affairs at Arizona State University and author of "The Ethics Primer for Public Administrators in Government and Nonprofit Organizations," suggested such behavior is part of small-town politics.
"Small towns are first-person politics, and if people are close, it's hard to separate one's own personal interest and one's own personal property from the work of the city," Svara said. The key questions from an ethics standpoint include whether the politician makes a potential conflict of interest known and removes himself or herself from actions related to it, he added.
"I think in a small town there is a greater likelihood that people will accept that you will pay careful attention to friends and neighbors," he said, adding that there may be some local gossip about it, but not a lot of public scrutiny. "At the national level, there will be far more people watching, there will be far more pressures to come forward to try to influence the outcome."
___
Associated Press writer Sharon Theimer in Washington contributed to this report.
MaxB... this is
September 28, 2008 - 22:24 ET by bigtimerMaxB...
this is hilarious...
If the msm thinks they are going to get anywhere with this trivial BS they are pissing on the wrong trees...
What fools, if I were them, I would be careful to even think this wouldn't backfire on other people in congress namely Obama for now and his property dealing with his home including Michelle and the ties with the Rezkos'...they are nuttier than I thought they were...
Plus, just as an aside...I don't even wan to go into Reid and sons property/city zoning adventures...
Not a wise move...
I do realize they will try..believe me, but it would not be wise.
To top it off, the big city lefties in the msm do not really realize how people are in small pop. towns...they never will.
This will backfire if they even try run with something so piddling for long.
Thanks so much for the alert about Yahoo and the info...I am going to be watching for this attempt to be inserted by Obama talking head aides in the msm like CNN/msnbc before the debates, I also rated the story too on the site...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
This is so bush league,
September 29, 2008 - 00:19 ET by Dan The Man 2This is so bush league, this development stuff happens as a matter of course in my job with the City of Dallas all the time. Setbacks, zoning are just development issues and are granted if they do not interfere with city business. In fact what is written is so minuscule I cant believe it was local or national. Grasping at straws.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Did someone say books?
September 28, 2008 - 22:34 ET by GregEDid someone say books? LOL
http://littledemocra...
Libs Huck Finn v. Sarah Palin
September 29, 2008 - 03:25 ET by harry flashman"Alinksky's Rules for Radicals?" "Das Kapital?" "The Communist Manifesto?' "Catcher in the Rye?' "The Story of O?" "Holy Blood, Holy Grail?" "The Tropic of Cancer?" "The DaVinci Code?"
The Roman Church has banned more books simply by refusing their Imperial "imprimatur" than any entity in history.
Sarah Palin would not ban any books because of her adherence to the 1st Amendment and the Constitution in general - unlike the Liberlaites that would ban "Huckleberry Finn" for it's politically incorrect contempoary coloquialisms.
I'm sure that the Liberals, if they could, would ban "Fahrenheit 451" if they were able. To close to home.
Don't forget
October 1, 2008 - 00:05 ET by AFCloneLiberals would also ban "Unfit for Command", "The Case Against Barack Obama" and "The Obama Nation" for starters.