Palin's a liar
  • NunesNunes September 2008
    Sarah Palin
    “I did tell Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” — if we wanted a bridge up there we were going to build it ourselves.” [Rally in Golden, CO, 9/15/08]
    “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere.” [Rally in Carson City, NV, 9/13/08]
    “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” [Rally in Fairfax, VA, 9/10/08]
    “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” [Rally in Lancaster, PA, 9/9/08]
    “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ for that bridge to nowhere.” [Rally in Lebanon, OH, 9/9/08]

    You'll note that on the 11th and 12th she didn't say that. She was IN Alaska where people know the truth:
    "The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines."

    discuss. image/tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

    (in fact this misrepresentation of the truth has been retold in the GOP narrative over 30 times by the campaign and Palin herself)

    Of particular interest is that she GOT the money, then spent it on other shit, after promising Ketchikan residents that she was fighting for them.
  • JeddHamptonJeddHampton September 2008
    Colbert said it best:

    Thanks as she excepted the money. She said "no" to congress when she said she'd get Alaska to fund it alone. The final thanks was for letting her keep the money.
  • NunesNunes September 2008
    Or you could just call her a liar.

    It's pretty sad when Colbert's gotta spin THAT hard to appear to be satire at all. And he's trying to be subtle about it.
  • xemplarxemplar September 2008
    Aren't all humans liars at one point in their lives?
  • ScabdatesScabdates September 2008
    QUOTE (xemplar @ Sep 16 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Aren't all humans liars at one point in their lives?

    You make a good point.
  • coffeecoffee September 2008
    I like your other topics better
  • MagicMagic September 2008
    What's the over/under on anti-McCain/Palin threads the next few months?
  • WedgeWedge September 2008
    QUOTE (Magic @ Sep 16 2008, 07:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    What's the over/under on anti-McCain/Palin threads the next few months?

    and a bonus for how many will be started by ANunes
  • ScabdatesScabdates September 2008
    QUOTE (Wedge @ Sep 16 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    and a bonus for how many will be started by ANunes

    It's not important who starts them image/wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
  • GovernorGovernor September 2008
    So Palin claims her principles lie somewhere but pursues a different route in action? Obama has done the exact same thing on more than one occasion.

    I'm not saying that I condone this sort of behavior, but I'm not the one that is pointing out a flaw in one candidate while completely ignoring the same flaw in another.
  • NunesNunes September 2008
    So Palin's main draw point is being fiscally conservative and a maverick &#153; who fights corruption and reform.

    When you can shoot down her fiscal conservatism with this, her corruption fighting with the trooper thing, it's hard to draw a straight comparison with Obama, as you're trying to do.

    I'm sorry, this time around the teams aren't just the same. One is clearly more on the up and up, or at least less on the down and down.

    Also you're downplaying this as being less than a baldfaced lie in order to characterize her actions as even remotely comparable to those of Obama. Furthermore, I don't recall Obama repeating the same lie over and over and over once he's been called on it.
  • GovernorGovernor September 2008
    So, by your standard, we can "shoot down" a candidate's self-classification with a single incident to the contrary:

    Palin can not claim to be conservative because she supported and accepted money from the federal government, and she is corrupt because she is under investigation (read: accused, but not convicted).

    Obama's entire campaign hinges on his promise to not be the traditional politician. He claims to be an agent of change. But he voted in support of telecom immunity -- a vote that was 100% political to pass a law that was both unconstitutional and belittling of the people he claims to be fighting for. Clearly, by your own standard, he can no longer claim to be an agent of change despite any of his other actions in his career.

    I'm not defending Palin. I think she is an insult to conservatives everwhere, and I think she would be an awful president (I'm making a prediction that John McCain will be dead before he turns 80). But if you're going to hate on her, do so for all of her awful opinions and views on domestic, social, and foreign policies. There's no need to alienate anymore independents by ranting about any and all huffingtonpost/dailykos talking points we can find.
  • NunesNunes September 2008
    Go ahead and be outraged by that. That's your perogative. He could have either voted against it (IMO THAT would have been the politically expedient route as it would have meshed with his message and not done ANYTHING) or he could have pushed for what little compromise he could have reached while he was on the campaign trail getting railed by the Hillary camp for shit like Rev Wright. He didn't get much of what he (or we) wanted.

    She's been a governor for 2 years.
    She's under investigation for abuse of power in that case, and is accused in another. In BOTH cases she's denying access to over 1000 emails, citing executive priviledge. Sound familiar? (Dickless Cheney anyone?)

    Meanwhile the McCain camp has adopted Obama's narrative of change...

    All of these "huffpo/kos" points are important not because of what they say about Palin but what they say about McCain's campaign's priorities. Win over everything.

    Additionally, I tend to post this nonsense after watching a McCain ad saying Obama wants to teach your 5 year olds how to fuck properly, or saying he's going to raise YOUR taxes. It's one thing to go negative, it's another to lie completely. And the McCain camp has shown a willingness to lie not just as they go negative, but to make positive points on us.

    That's the point.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership