Sarah Palin: If you fact-check my book, then the terrorists have already won
In a note she posted to her Facebook page today, Sarah Palin mocked the AP's use of 11 fact-checkers of her not-yet-released book, Going Rogue, writing: "We've heard 11 writers are engaged in this opposition research, er, "fact checking" research!" Hmm, do I hear echoes of Mark Steyn here? Palin -- who stated that she "dedicated" the book to "Patriots" who "love the U.S.A. as much as I do" -- continued:
Imagine that -- 11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to "fact check" what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing.
So Palin is suggesting that the AP's effort to fact-check her book -- something a news organization has a journalistic duty to do if it's going to report on it -- means that it is somehow ignoring the stories of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's trial and Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan's associations? Sorry, but... where's the link?
In her post, Palin proclaims that she'll "keep setting the record straight." Let's do that: The AP has in fact used its "time and resources" to report on KSM's trial (here, here, and here) and on Hasan's alleged associations to terrorism (here, here, here).
But if the news media dare criticize any of her statements, will they be lumped in as "palling around with terrorists?"
Really? Shouldn't she be looking for a job, raising her children, spending time with her husband? Flying around the country , shaking hands and thanking people for loving America? How is that fighting terrorism?
Just kidding. I bet even Simple Sarah can grasp the concept of performing multiple tasks in life.
I think every minute this bimbo gets in the spotlight shrinks her cult down a little. She may add 5 fringe paranoid Bible-thumpers, but 10 relatively reasonable conservatives are probably driven off.
FIXED
{don't worry, faculty members -- she'll quit mid-school year . . .}
Personally, I prefer competency over entertainment in my presidential candidates, or even presumed presidential candidates.
But, hey, bruce -- whatever floats your boat . . .
Be interesting to see what that number is in another six hours, considering her 'fans' probably hit the post soon after it was put up.
Hours 1-6: 608 people/hour (rounded upward)
Hours 6-10: 327 people/hour (rounded upward)
7,388 people like this.
Not being a Facebook fan, can people vote multiple times?
BTW, I'm not going to bother with this again....
Anyone who tells you that they're a patriot, probably isn't. And someone who loves America, has to love the idea that is America, that all are welcome, all are worthy of respect and all are entitled to have an opinion.
Actually doing the hard work of understanding issues and solving problems... why that's no fun. Better to create some home spun image for yourself that is hard to argue against. All American patriot mom who guts her own game, trying to raise a family in the virtuous outback when not attending church...
I suspect that if so many of us weren't so scared ditless last year with the economy, Palin's lack of coherent answers in interviews would have made her a folk hero. At least thats what they were betting on. Very very sad.
"Why would she write a book...there's no way she could compete with leftists."
But "gubmn't?" What are you trying to say there, brutus?
Probably sitting in a trailer deep in some red state, only waking up to cash his disability check and whine about leftist losers on the internets.
You righties don't get it that we are facing a corporatocracy vs a democracy...we win with democratic socialism...we lose with an aristocratic corporatocracy.
This is the price for Freedom.
Don't you pay attention?
When the Bush Administration argued that the Constitution and Habeas Corpus does not apply to an American Citizen in their custody that they captured in America conspiring to commit a crime in America should be very chilling. We should all be glad the Bush Administration was thwarted in their plans.
Well -- that must mean you aren't one of those wingnut radio screamers who believe KSM being brought to trial in NY Federal Court is an "erosion" of our freedoms, right?
Good to know.
Do you have any sense of society at all? Do you think that intelligent but poor students should just go work at McDonald's instead of getting a grant to go to college, or what?
Funny you should say that, Brabantio. I was one of those poor students who got a job at McDonald's and put my self through college. It wasn't that hard.
I did get a $350 grant one time, though. I spent most of it on beer and girls and just wasted the rest.
that explains a lot...!
Not sure which federal grants you're talking about, openmind. Most of them are a complete waste of money, but every governor will try to get back what they can - if there aren't too many strings attached.
(hint - it's controlling the means of production).
You mean like GM?
Socialism is the stage after capitalism on the way to communism. It doesn't always happen over night. We are proceeding down the road.
No, not like GM. GM would be socialist if the government took over the car industry and nationalized it. Then both profits and/or losses would be the governments. The employees would work for and be paid by the government. Once again, socialism is when the government controls the means of production. Like the VA, or National Parks, or the FBI, the FDA. See the difference? Again, most of us learned this difference in 7th grade civics. I am sorry you still have not learned it. Stop getting your civics lessons from Fox News and hate radio. It is truly embarrassing.
They sure go together better than education and neoconservatism.
Jeez, lazy freeloading wingnuts, always expecting the libruls to take care of them.
All you good little socialists are always welcome to add as much as you want to your tax bill every year.
What a bunch of leftist gobledy-goook. Of course there's no mention of how the U.S. is the primary funder of all these idiotic "reports". Or did I just miss that part?
You wanted to talk about how countries work, and focus on standard of living, but people developing potential and lives that fulfill their needs and interest is "leftist"?
In this country if you want to spend your time developing a more "creative" life, you are free to do so. It becomes "leftist" when you expect someone else to pay for it.
Both are figments of your hate radio fueled imagination.
There is nothing stopping our government from becoming socialist - not that it would likely happen anytime soon - if that is what the people really wanted.
No there isn't anything stopping them - but they would have to go through the amendment process to do it legally.
Believe it or not, but the 10th Amendment still leaves plenty of room for interpretation. It depends on your philosophy as to how literally you read the government powers in the other sections. If you think the 10th Amendment encourages strict constructionism, I suggest you then argue that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional (as Jefferson even conceded it was - should be an easy win for you) and that the government has no right to print paper money among seemingly countless other blatant violations of strict constructionism (if you believe in it - that is). Let me know how that works out for ya.
'Federalist Papers', there would be no reason to give specific, enumerated powers to the federal government and then expect it to be viewed as a general guideline.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And they 9th is very applicable in any debate about overreaching federal powers.
Jefferson was one of the staunchest proponents of specific, enumerated powers. Jefferson also did not hesitate to throw aside those very principles in order to ratify the Louisiana Treaty - thus demonstrating that adhering to strict constructionism is much more easily said than done. Most Americans would agree that Jefferson did the right thing in the end by using the implied Elastic Clause powers to justify his actions in the end.
The 9th is better applicable in debate regarding over-reaching federal powers in some instances. I can grant you that. Just not the current conversation we are having as the 16th Amendment clarified (if not established) the governments power to levy income taxes - so there obviously is no non-enumerated right to be free from taxation and the 9th is not applicable. It is the job of elected representatives to set the rates of taxation. If you do not like those rates, you are free to vote for somebody else.
They care so much about others that they want the government to take my money to fund all of their idiotic programs.
No, actually it belongs to the person who earned it - the person who actually created the income and wealth. Just because it is later confiscated by the federal government for redistribution doesn't mean any of belongs to you.
Your representaives can argue for or against the merits of any particular project, however, and maybe that one would be deemed unnecessary.
There a LOTS of wasteful military projects, but that's still not the wealth redistribution that liberals wrongly think the government has a right to.
I'm taking my best guess, since you aren't really big on specifics, that you're referring to things like social security, medicare, welfare, etc. What strikes me as odd is that if you really believe in the free market, then you should recognize that such a system does tend to marginalize people for the sake of profits. If they can get away with shipping jobs overseas, for example, then they will do that because it saves them money at the expense of the American worker. Bearing this dynamic in mind, there's justification for all sorts of social programs.
Unless you simply believe that there is no such thing as greed, or that the poor are universally deserving of their situation, of course.
Secondly, assuming the government takes money from citizens and then pays large corporations to build military equipment at a profit (much of which will go to people who do not physically work for that profit), how is that not a "redistribution of wealth" on some level?
If the answer is no, then welcome aboard, comrade!
No, they should not be zero. Taxes should be sufficient to fund the legitimate functions of government - which does not inlude redistributionist programs like "free" health care.
And when I say 'government' I'm talking about the fed.
Even at the time of ratification, it was controversial as to whether the enumerated powers were to be strictly interpreted or not. That debate has continued throughout our history. I see that as purely a philosophical reading of the Constitution and one to be decided at the ballot box.
You're talking about all those Wall St. firms that Dumbya bailed out last year -- right, gluteusmaximus?
Wow. That is a real shot at Alaskans out of nowhere.
I don't care what letter is in the () behind this person's name. She is a trainwreck. Your support of her shows how little you really care for this country. Your loyalty is to the letter in the ().
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0
When did she say that?
Quit pretending you dont understand.
We beg you. Please choose her to be your Presidential candidate. It would be such a slaughter, President Obama would concede by Halloween 2012.
(Did he buy it? Did he go run and tell his friends to run her? Sweet!)
Just goes to show ya, things can always be worse. And they are.
Welfare reform - Clinton's greatest!
I actually hope the Republicans win the mid-term. It will make Obama an even better president, just like it did for Bill Clinton. You are right. Clinton was "the greatest!" Quite a stunning admission on your part.
Do you know how many of the initiatives in the Contract On America were adopted?
(hint - the answer is between zero and zero)
On the other hand, the Democratic majority in the House picked up two more seats, one of which came from a district which had not elected a Democrat to Congress for over 130 years.
You are listening to talking points, brut, not news.
Because he knows that Palin's allegation is baseless and insulting.
He's already succeeded, so keep on keeping on if you want, the damage has already been done. But know that this is why he's doing it, and he's winning so long as you cooperate with his efforts, on this thread or others.
And just for the record, most AP reporters "can't walk and chew gum at the same time."
Secondly, the Topic is Palin and her idiotic statements and you are pointing out (in error) that the thread is not being followed? Lol.
Your lack of knowledge and intelligence is frightening.
Why buy it when Newsmaximus is giving it away for peanuts when you subscribe to be an arse.
One of the founding principles of our nation is tolerance . we can tolerate people we disagree with without calling them unpatriotic or not "real" Americans. Palin's campaign would be better called "Palin's Pageant" since that is her mindset
Earth to Simple Sarah:
1. Not sure of the exact number, but I'm certain an organization as large as the Associated Press has a sufficient number of reporters that dedicating 11 of them {or however many they did} will not hinder their ability to cover other newsworthy events.
2. There's nothing to "fact-check" on the trial of KSM, for the simple reason that it [the trial itself} HAS. YET. TO. OCCUR.
3. Sarah, I suspect there'd be less of a need for the AP to fact-check your book -- not to mention for you to go out on tour to "set the record straight" -- if you had written TRUTHFULLY in the first place. Just my opinion . . .