Breaking news in the Anchorage paper: The FBI has come out and said that Palin is NOT under investigation. So there goes that speculation. I continue to believe it’s about money.
So everything we remember seeeing on tv 20 years ago probably never happened? Damn. I reconstructed the Niners slaughtering the Broncos? Oh God the A’s sweeping the Giants in 4 was probably an internet constructed memory as well 
Looks like I’m really taking my memories in the butt here.
Just because the FBI isn’t investigating her currently doesn’t mean that no one is investigating … ABI or some other state/local entity could be.
“Broke” here oh about 16 hours ago. Do keep up. 
THERE IS A RECORD OF IT HAPPENING. Molly Ivins saying it did, Sam Stone saying it did, and Starving Artist saying it did is evidence. Rush’s tv show, if I remember correctly, was a flop. Few people watched it. I will believe Stone and Artist did.
“No discussion on Usenet” :rolleyes:
In the early 90s, not everone was recording everything and uploading shit to the youtube (I think I was a complete tard with a unix shell account then).
The first time the SDMB ever burned me, but caused me to truly discover occam’s razor, was when a few brave soles here swore they saw that famous newlywed game clip, and were vilified, raked over the coals, accused of having invented memories. And lo and behold look what happened.
Why would they lie about it? Sam has been around here a long time, and while I think he makes a few too many excuses for and gets too attached to a few political figures, I’ve never, ever seen him make something up out of whole cloth. If he says he saw it, I will believe it, especially if it’s backed up by SOMEONE ELSE who also claims to have seen it. Oh, and Molly Ivins.
The lawyer’s language is pretty funny too:
So he’s absolutely sure he doesn’t know of an investigation. Which is nice.
They did sound fishy, though. 
That’s hearsay. Show me a tape. Show me an original transcript. Show me a record from the time it happened.
We’ve had folks of the highest honesty and character on the SDMB swear nineteen ways from Sunday that the movie Star Wars was subtitled “Episode IV” in its first theatrical run and admit to amazement when it was conclusively proven it wasn’t. My best friend already completely misremembers how he heard about the events of 9/11 (I know his account is wrong because I still have the E-mails from the time) and I haven’t the heart to correct him because he’s not being dishonest; his memory’s just flubbed it. He’s a smart, honest man. Every study done on human memories shows this sort of shit’s very, very common and happens to everyone; you can convince people they saw things they did not see through the most conventional suggestion. Given that the story has all the elements of a misremembered story - it’s vaguely similar to another event, there is no evidence of it being reported anywhere at the time it happened, nobody can say when it actually took place, and there is no surviving primary evidence - I’m going to maintain a skeptical stance until it’s proven true.
Note that GIGObuster has already provided a cite of the event - which, as mhendo immediately found out through an L/N search, was wrong. It claims the event took place on the day that the Millie picture incident, which we do know for sure happened, took place. GIGO’s source is simply quoting Molly Ivins’s column and then confusing it with the incident that actually did take place, as in fact *every single cite of the event *does. Things repeated as fact over and over, as this has, can often become memories. But that doesn’t mean they happened. Don’t you find it curious that there’s no primary evidence?
I do not doubt your sincerity, SA, or yours, Sam. I’m still skeptical the event happened. I think it’s been conflated with the Millie picture thing (and possibly salted with the flavour of John McCain’s incredibly cruel joke.) But I’m happily willing to accept it happened once someone comes up with actual evidence.
I have very, very clearly stated that I honestly don’t think anyone (on the SDMB, anyway) is lying. I cannot stress that enough; I am accusing no poster here of any dishonesty.
Nor am I supporting Limbaugh, who says more than enough stupid things that one more or less won’t make a lot of difference.
It’s pretty obvious that the government is now beyond all hope. How, how to get that message across without telling people to not bother voting?
Tune in tomorrow when the EIB network can tell everyone what they should think.
-Joe
Oh hell.
Anymore. 
She just held up her end of the deal, now they’re holding up theirs.
RickJay, more than enough cites have been provided to you already. Admit your error graciously and move on.
It does constitute evidence, of a sort. But it is NOT a “record” of the incident. Those people’s recollections can be weighed, and their value as evidence debated, but their recollections are not the same as a record of the occurrence.
And yet, if my perusal of Lexis/Nexis is any indication, Limbaugh’s show was transcribed by Burrelle’s Transcripts, and those transcripts are now available and searchable on the Lexis/Nexis database. And a search, using appropriate search terms like chelsea clinton limbaugh dog, in the period from the beginning of 1992 to the end of 1995, reveals no incident in which Limbaugh said “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” while showing a picture of Chelsea Clinton.
Limbaugh DID make a reference to Chelsea Clinton, implying she was a dog, but it was NOT done in the way that some people in this thread have asserted. I reproduced the transcript of the incident back in a previous post. I also found this transcript, from a subsequent show:
Again, while this is further, compelling evidence that Limbaugh did compare Chelsea to a dog, it again suggests that it was not a case of him asking “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” and then showing her picture.
A further search on Lexis/Nexis, looking specifically for the term “white house dog,” finds numerous references, but they are all in newspaper articles from 1995 or later, referring back to an alleged 1992 incident. Don’t you think that, if Limbaugh had specifically said “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” and shown a picture of Chelsea, it just might have made the news when it happened?
Show me where RickJay, or anyone else, accused them of lying. In fact, he specifically made a point of noting that people can, with perfectly honesty and sincere belief, “remember” an event that they never actually witnessed. Scholars who study human memory have known this for a long time, and have argued that it is not the same as lying, because the person takes a story told to them by someone else and internalizes it as their own memory. Or, the person witnesses a particular event, but remembers it differently from the way in which it actually occurred.
I love Molly Ivins. She’s one of my favorite authors, and i think the country and the world are a poorer place for her passing. But she was not necessarily any more immune from the vagaries of memory than anyone else. It could be that she saw the incident in the transcript that i provided, but simply remembered or recounted it in a different way.
ETA: Well, that all took so long that RickJay beat me to the punch.
zuma, mhendo, and RickJay, allow me to junior mod here for a moment. Please see tomndebb’s moderating post at 415 and start your own damn thread if you want to get to the bottom of this Rush Limabugh business. It is not appropriate here.
Is it just me, or does that transcript sound like Limbaugh frantically covering his ass, like his non-apology when people proved that he was full of shit when he accused Michael J. Fox of faking?
I guess a pundit is sort of like a governor, except you don’t have actual responsibilities.
Ok, so we have “compelling evidence that Limbaugh did compare Chelsea to a dog”
But he never said it **just **like Molly Ivins say he did.
I think this does not help Rush. IMHO I can say that it was like the transcripts are reporting, but the backpedaling shows that we did properly remember the reaction of the crowd and Rush and that made us realize that Rush did screw up.
Anyway, back to subject.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/this-fatal-attraction-has-boiled-her-own-bunny/article1205967/
This Fatal Attraction has boiled her own bunny
Like others mentioned, with her resignation Palin just gave a huge club to other Republican contenders to use against her for 2012, I do not think that she will overcome that.
TWEEEEEEET!!!
What part of
do you folks not understand?
The next post on that topic in this thread gets a Warning .
[ /Moderating ]
perhaps it’s time to consider switching from
Tweeeeeeet!! to AAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOGGGAAAHHH!!!
the better to grab their attention with?
just a suggestion 
Why blame hormonal instability when you have ample ammunition for “batshit crazy?”
I read that article, while I did mentally note the female-specific comments, overall, I think it showed that the creature Sarah Palin is a complete whack-a-do, not necessarily Sarah “A Woman” Palin.
I’m dying to call my mother who has become a RabidRepublican to see what her take on this is. I don’t think my logic synapses could take it however, as much as I’d like to take one for the team.
Aww, come on, I’m really curious! I thought about asking my dad, but that will probably ruin my mood for the rest of my day.