And she wants to be one of our "national leaders" :rolleyes:
As much as I want to believe in a wise non-biased organization that can rule authoritatively on the truth of political statements, I’m starting to think that FactCheck is not it.
The last two times I’ve consulted them I’ve encountered questionable contentions.
I used FactCheck was to get some info on the estate tax:
http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/estate_tax_malarkey.html
I thought the use of the word “malarkey” (in the article title) smacked of “sexiness” or trying to punch up a story, rather than just presenting facts. And in the story I was struck by this paragraph.
Quote:
Contrary to the ad’s claim that “your family” might be crippled, the vast majority of families actually are not affected by the estate tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of deceased adults in 2002 had estates subject to the tax, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and figures from the IRS.
To me that seemed like spin. A surviving spouse doesn’t pay estate tax on what he/she inherits from a spouse. So changing the focus of the story from the number of families affected to the number of “deceased adults” affected was a bit deceitful.
Last week I looked at their fact check of Obama’s convention speech and noticed this:
Quote:
Obama said: “I will cut taxes … for 95 percent of all working families.” And he said McCain proposes “not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans,”
Obama is right about his plan’s effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.
Obama said 100 million Americans, and then the article says nope it’s 65.8 million households, not 100 million. They changed the unit from “Americans” to “households.” That is sloppy, sloppy writing and fact-checking.
In the OP I think the FactCheck summaries of the Alaska Independence Party issue, and the library issue are too glib, and don’t deal with the complexities of those situations.
As either VP or President, none of that would remotely be in her power. Doubly so as long as Congress and the Senate don’t have huge Republican majorities.
Sarah Palin obviously holds views far to the right of the mainstream Dopers … but she’s hardly a dangerous figure.
Becuase she wanted to make sure the Librarian would oppose book banning?
Emmons wasn’t fired- all senior staffers were given a letter of intent. There was no "overwhelming opposition " becuase the very next day before and opposition had time to organize or even hear of it, Palin had already met with Emmons and Emmons agreed to compromise and merge the Library and Museum depts. Whereupon the threaten firing did not take place. The firing had nothing whatsoever to do with book bannings.
That’s kind of like making sure that a police chief would oppose crime.
Visiting Alaska recently (during the run-up to the state’s primary election) I was struck by the facile way in which politicians like Palin grub for lots of pork spending from Washington while simultaneously promoting fear and suspicion of non-Alaskans (even the Anchorage newspaper, which seems to trend center-left, uses the term Outsider (capitalized, no less) to refer to other Americans.
"Vote for (generic Alaska politician, whom we’ll call Ted Stevens). He’ll keep that cash coming from Washington so that Alaskans can remain independent and proud!! :dubious:
More like a gang leader coming up to a police chief in private and asking if he’d be willing to take money to look the other way, if he offered it. Not asking him to do it mind you, not offering it, just asking a what if.
Maybe she’d be open to teaching sex ed if the schools also included some alternative theories, such as the Stork, for the students to debate.
When Reagan was elected in 1980, I doubt anybody thought his views on homosexuals would ever be an issue. Then AIDS came along, and regardless of what you think Reagan did (or didn’t do) about it, you can’t say his opinions didn’t matter.
I can’t imagine why her views on these things would come up, but the president has to face unimaginable situations sometimes.
What the fuck was this about? No one here said any of this; in fact, this has been one of the better GD threads I’ve read this past month.
Wanting to fuck things up (as I consider teaching creationism to be) without actually being able to hardly gains her any points, though.
Loyalty tests? You kidding me? No shit, I’m the only one freaked by this? Whata we got here, a two-bit, boondock Mussolini? Il Douche?
From the OP:
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.”
This is scary.
Only fundamentalists think that creationism is the other side of evolution.
Of course Creationism opposes abiogenesis, but religious fanatics don’t even know that.
These people want to eventually stop evolution being taught in schools. Creationism, of course, can be taught every Sunday (without any ‘silly’ opposition from the evidence).
The loyalty tests are just another way in which McCain-Palin promises to be Bush plus. You do remeber the whole district attorny issue don’t you?
As President, she would be able to nominate new SC justices, threatening abortion, which she wants outlawed. She’d also be able to veto any same sex rights legislation (or sign rights denials) that comes across her desk, either as Pres or as VP, with a tie breaking senate vote. She can put pressure on federal funding for libraries and schools, if they don’t line up with her vision.
Oh get over it. Turned out it was just Flavor-Aide.
But what flavor are the aides?
I’m with you. I think the idea that she administered loyalty tests *to the town’s librarian *to be even scarier than banning books.
What loyalty tests are you talking about?
There were no such things.:dubious:
When she was first elected Mayor, she went around demanding that longtime public servants give her their resignations as tests of “loyalty.” That was also when she fired the librarian for saying she wouldn’t cooperate wih book banning.
Well, sure, there were “tests” of “loyalty”. But where are you getting this lunatic idea of “loyalty tests”?
Christ, if she was running this sleepy little town like an angry despot, just you wait until she gets to Washington and “drains the swamp”.