Sarah Palin

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, what I have stated is that both sides do it and it has become mainstream political manuvering. As well as the idea that Obama or McCain can promise things to the electorate that they can't deliver.

True 'dat. You'll have a bigger impact on which way the country goes by voting carefully for your senators and congressmen and communicating with them frequently. They seem to be more honest if they know you're watching.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by dar512

True 'dat. You'll have a bigger impact on which way the country goes by voting carefully for your senators and congressmen and communicating with them frequently. They seem to be more honest if they know you're watching.

THAT is the point. We agree. Now how do we tell the masses that at nearly every lecture by either one of those two clowns (Obama and McCain) that everytime they open their mouths and say, "I am going to get you affordable health care for all the uninsured.", or "I am going to tax the large Corps" or "I am going to get you relief from your mortage foreclosure.", that it is all BS. None of them CAN DO ANYTHING. Only Congress can do it and there are few bills that make it to law that are not filled with pork or have not been significantly altered due to the influence of lobbiests and special interest groups working the elected officials over. Nothing can be done without CONGRESS. Who becomes president is actually not nearly as important as who runs congress.

[HungLikeJesus]

Here's my prediction of the election results.

With some exceptions (e.g. Florida, Kansas), I think it will break down approximately like this:
Confederate states = McCain
Union states = Obama
Union territories = McCain

[Pie]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Stick a turban and beard onto the ones shouting kill him and you gots yerself a jihad!

Doesn't require a turban. These are religious zealots; it's already a holy war to them.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mercy

Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? No.

Of course she didn't. The mayor doesn't bill rape victims for the cost of the forensic evidence collection. What the mayor does do is appoint the police chief, Charlie Fannon, after firing his predecessor. Then Charlie Fannon, chief of police, does this:

Originally Posted by Charlie Fannon

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

Fannon told the Frontiersman that the tests would cost the department up to $14,000 per year. He said he would rather force rapists to pay for the tests, not taxpayers.

Let the record show that this is an example of the rare and precious "executive experience" that Sarah Palin, alone among all four candidates for executive office in this national race, can claim.

Of course, mere Senators can only claim to work on legislation, crafting laws, supporting some, opposing others. Like in 2005 when the Congress passed a law requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims their costs. This is all the Senators running for executive office can claim on the subject:

The Senate version of the legislation that included the rape-exam provision was sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential nominee. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was one of 58 co-sponsors; Republican presidential nominee John McCain was not.

From here.

[classicman]

For what its worth From Here

At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin "charged rape victims for rape kits" performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla. The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy. Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.

As mentioned first up was The Frontiersman story from 2000. In that story Police Chief Fannon was quoted as standing against legislation that would force local municipalities to pick up the costs of rape kits being performed. In the interview Fannon said that, upon conviction, he favored the criminals being charged for the costs.

As usual it all depends upon who's Kool Aid you are drinking.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by mercy

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

I've found the same headlines. This one is less obviously wrong, but more importantly wrong. My objection goes to the proposition that "the evolution question" even has a side that creationism can represent.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just say this: Someone who says the evolution question deserves to include creationism doesn't know what they're talking about. It is a ridiculous mixing of two valid independent subjects of inquiry. But they have no business being compared by the same criteria. You might as well have this. I would add a fifth complaint, that it's impossible to scientifically measure, by weight a person's religious beliefs.

When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

In a subsequent interview with the Daily News, Palin said discussion of alternative views on the origins of life should be allowed in Alaska classrooms. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.

"It's OK to let kids know that there are theories out there. They gain information just by being in a discussion."

Discuss, sure. Gain information, I'm all for it. Treating creationism as a scientific subject, preposterous.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Pie

Doesn't require a turban. These are religious zealots; it's already a holy war to them.

These people look like people I might run into at my gorcery store. Just normal folk.

[Pie]

..And ~50% of the country voted for Dubya the second time around.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by classicman

For what its worth From Here

As usual it all depends upon who's Kool Aid you are drinking.

Ok, let's compare Kool Aid recipies, shall we? I would contend that USA Today is more neutral than NewsBusters.org

From Newsbusters.org 's about us page:

About NewsBusters.org
Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, the creators of RatherBiased.com, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.

This is Rumors and Truth material, not Non Partisan Sanity Check material. Consider the source!

So, let's go to the original document for all these stories, written long before Palin became a shooting star.

Originally Posted by Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.


In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.


According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.


Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.


The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.


Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

Look at the facts presented here. Palin was mayor of Wasilla at the time. The sitting police chief was fired by her and replaced with Charlie Fannon. That's *her* guy making the quotes above. She chose him, using her executive experience. He's implementing her vision of what Wasilla should be. That's not Kool Aid. That's bedrock fact.

Let's look at what he said. He says he's opposed to the new law. And, insultingly, says that the criminal should pay for the cost as part of the sentencing. That's brilliant. Assuming you get a conviction. As the father of a daughter, I **DEFINITELY** don't want her raped, and, god forbid she is raped, that she's billed for the police work to prosecute the criminal. EVEN IF THE F*CKER GETS AWAY WITH IT. Come on, Fannon is ready to bill the criminal upon conviction? What if he's not convicted? The "victim" is billed? gtfoh.

[Shawnee123]

[HungLikeJesus]

I wonder how this compares with evidence collection procedures for other crimes.

[BigV]

Did you get a bill from the state patrol for battery usage on their radar gun?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

I've found the same headlines. This one is less obviously wrong, but more importantly wrong. My objection goes to the proposition that "the evolution question" even has a side that creationism can represent.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just say this: Someone who says the evolution question deserves to include creationism doesn't know what they're talking about. It is a ridiculous mixing of two valid independent subjects of inquiry. But they have no business being compared by the same criteria. You might as well have this. I would add a fifth complaint, that it's impossible to scientifically measure, by weight a person's religious beliefs.

Discuss, sure. Gain information, I'm all for it. Treating creationism as a scientific subject, preposterous.

The point of this is that it matters not about her ability to qualify for the position of VP. People love to make a big deal out of this very hazy quite debatable event. What is the fear? she is going to mandate some change to the Constitution? She is going to mandate teaching of Intelligent Design in our schools? People said the same things about Kennedy and his religious affiliation with the Catholic church. She has no power as VP to do anything. Even as president the wedge issues like gay marriage have no merit. These are all states rights issues. Presidents don't make the law.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

So, let's go to the original document for all these stories, written long before Palin became a shooting star.

Look at the facts presented here. Palin was mayor of Wasilla at the time. The sitting police chief was fired by her and replaced with Charlie Fannon. That's *her* guy making the quotes above. She chose him, using her executive experience. He's implementing her vision of what Wasilla should be. That's not Kool Aid. That's bedrock fact.

Ok what you have done here is what most of the liberal press have done and tried to make a lose association between what her "choosen" chief said and what she actually said or did. That is at least, like most of the press has reported, misleading, actually I think it is total and utter BS. Her chief said it. Not her. Blaming the comments of the chief as if they were her policy is stupid. Hell if every mayor in any major city could control the comments of the police chief they would have them all on a string like a puppet. That isn't going to happen.